Slashdot Log In
iPhone Gaming Continues To Grow
Posted by
Soulskill
on Wednesday November 19, @11:31PM
from the hope-they-still-fit dept.
from the hope-they-still-fit dept.
1Up reports that the popularity of gaming on smartphones is growing, particularly on the iPhone. In fact, gaming on portable devices is growing even at home, where users presumably have access to more powerful platforms. CNN points out that the developer for Trism, one of the first popular games, has raked in over $250,000 in profits through the App Store. Apple exec Bob Borchers and various game developers recently discussed the future of games on the iPhone. "Patrick Gunn, director of marketing for EA Mobile, showcased Need for Speed Undercover, which will be available next month. Gunn says that EA has 'taken full advantage of all of the unique elements ... like touch, flick, accelerometer, and motion sensitivity' — and graphically, the game appears to be roughly on par with a PSP title."
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sorry Apple (Score:3, Funny)
Reply to This
I'm not suprised its "growing" faster (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not suprised its "growing" faster ...because at the home gaming has been around for years and is highly saturated, popular, and is now just pushing out slowly after its major strides.
Smartphone gaming is new, and has everywhere to go now, being pretty darn new.
If phone gaming can approach at home gaming, then that will be news.
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Last gen you had the PS2 alone rack up over 140 Million units, then the Gamecube and Xbox racking about 24 Million each plus Gameboy Advance.
The N-Gage had alot of potential but was held back by design issues like taco looking side talking, game slot underneath the battery and screen taller than it was wide. Otherwise if you had a phone more like shaped more like Ga
Re:I'm not suprised its "growing" faster (Score:5, Insightful)
The iphone doesn't have hardware buttons.
It sucks for most games as a result.
Tactile feedback is a must for most games.
Actually, it doesn't suck and it's not a must when you are talking about games on the iPhone.
You need tactile feedback when you are looking at a screen and your hands are not in view. If you are playing on an Xbox, computer, or a similar device then tactile feedback is important because it's incredibly difficult to watch both the screen and your hands at the same time.
Playing a game on an iPhone is very different since your input device and the screen is the same object. You can easily see exactly where you are putting your fingers and still follow the game action. Not only that but since a lot of games involve tilting and moving the iPhone you do get tactile feedback, albeit a different kind of feedback from how a button would feel. Many games are also taking advantage of the vibrate feature of the iPhone to provide tactile feedback.
There are tons of cool, fun, and definitely viable games that thrive on the iPhone despite the lack of physical buttons. It's a completely different gaming experience and the old saw of tactile feedback being necessary for games just doesn't apply.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:I'm not suprised its "growing" faster (Score:4, Insightful)
The iPhone comes out, and suddenly everyone forgets that touch-screen devices of the exact same form factor have been around for over a decade. All of this has been hashed and rehashed. I ported Wolfenstein 3D, Quake 1 & 2, and a Gameboy emulator to Pocket PC, as well as doing extensive game development on new projects. For analog input, touchscreens are okay. However for binary input, aka fire / jump buttons, d-pad, etc, it sucks tremendously. I think you're confusing "tactile feedback" for "knowing where the virtual button is". It's not just about knowing where to hold your thumbs, but knowing that you've pressed the button hard enough to trigger it. The very first ARM Pocket PC, the Compaq iPaq, which had the horsepower and RAM to do some serious gaming (like run Quake), had a terrible design flaw. The D-Pad and 4 hardware buttons all resided on a daughterboard with its own microcontroller. Some bone-headed engineer had a serious lack of foresight, and the hardware was designed such that only one switch could register at a time. Thus if you were holding the D-Pad in a direction, then none of the 4 hardware buttons would register.
So the only solution to make things like Gameboy emulators playable was to throw virtual A and B buttons up on the screen. These were of course huge, so finding them wasn't a problem. However I can tell you that playing games like that, without real tactile response, sucks, sucks, sucks.
There's a reason that the Timex Sinclair's membrane keyboard didn't catch on back in the 80s, and why to this day people like the big IBM keyboards that you can hear click half way across the room when a button is pressed.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The iPhone comes out, and suddenly everyone forgets that touch-screen devices of the exact same form factor have been around for over a decade. All of this has been hashed and rehashed. I ported Wolfenstein 3D, Quake 1 & 2, and a Gameboy emulator to Pocket PC, as well as doing extensive game development on new projects. For analog input, touchscreens are okay. However for binary input, aka fire / jump buttons, d-pad, etc, it sucks tremendously. I think you're confusing "tactile feedback" for "knowing where the virtual button is". It's not just about knowing where to hold your thumbs, but knowing that you've pressed the button hard enough to trigger it.
First of all, the iPhone uses a capacitive touchscreen. This means that next to no pressure is needed to press a virtual button so there is very little need for feedback when you press a virtual button. The iPhone's screen is also multi-touch and has a high touch resolution and it can accurately measure the size and shape of the areas pressed.
Secondly, the algorithms that the iPhone uses to measure where you pressed are very advanced. The iPhone puts all this additional data to good use and it can accura
It's more convenient (Score:2, Informative)
Sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do people want to do things with a PHONE that will make it so that they can't use it as a PHONE?
Hang on, I was playing a game and my batteries dying.
How often have we all heard that one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do people want to do things with a PHONE that will make it so that they can't use it as a PHONE?
You've seriously never had a situation where you were idling, wishing you brought a book? Say, waiting at a dentist's office or during a 45min break between classes because of scheduling issues?
Having entertainment on-hand can be pretty damn useful, even if it comes at the cost of limiting the phone's usefulness before the next charge. Pre-smartphone I did my best to keep a book on my person 24/7, but now I can just pull out my blackberry and browse slashdot et al, even though that eats into my battery
BTW... (Score:2)
Trism is done by the same guy who translated and did romhacking for the NES and SNES.
God ol Neo Demiforce still at it, after all these years.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you suggest he be compensated? He wrote the software with the expectation of at least some financial reward, and he hit the jackpot. What's fair, in your opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
A business model which doesn't depend on artificial scarcity. Many iPhone applications are free and use advertising as a business model. Another option is subscription services (this works well for games) in which you pay a recurring fee for the service of receiving a steady stream of new content (think MMORPGs). Merchandising is another opt
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair enough. But in the meantime, hats off to him for making a bundle.
Come to think of it, the "alternative business model" could simply be the App Store itself. It's convenient and easy for any non-technical person to buy stuff there very cheaply. Maybe it's simply worth paying the five bucks for the sheer convenience of it all. I mean really, five dollars? It's just not worth it to look for the app elsewhere. It's not like he's charging $100 for the thing.
Anyway, it's here to stay until market forces say
Crazy talk man... (Score:2)
A business model which doesn't depend on artificial scarcity. Many iPhone applications are free and use advertising as a business model.
You are the first person I have ever seen that proclaims an advertising model beats advertisement free work, both from the producer and consumer side.
My hat is off to you for having let go of reality with both hands and then giving it a good kick to send you further away as fast as you can go.
Once you have a culture that embraces p2p and rejects artificial scarcity, making
Re:CNN's article reads like Apple propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with free software zealots, such as yourself, is that you have no concept of business. The only thing you're accounting for is the download distribution cost. What about the equipment that Demeter used, the opportunity cost, the training and experience. None of those things are free.
You also don't understand the concept of risk. Demeter's application could have never been approved for sale, his concept could have proven to be boring, or he may not have been able to promote it. If any of those things happened, Demeter wouldn't make any money. If I'm going to invest $10,000 in a project that has only a 10% chance of succeeding, if it does succeed I need to be able to generate revenues of at least $100k just to cover the cost. There is no way that I would give an iPhone app even a 10% risk assessment, that's way too generous, considering all the potential risk factors.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:CNN's article reads like Apple propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
So a company spends 4 years and $100M to hire a team of 1,000, provide them with office space, equipment, and resources, and you believe that all they should be able to charge for the game is the cost to press the disks. You're either a troll or hilariously naive. And do tell where you can higher people to mow lawns for $5 an hour, the companies here cost much closer to $25 to cover the cost of the equipment, trucks, staff, profit, and management. Perhaps you'll understand the real world a little better when you have some bills to pay and are on your own.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:CNN's article reads like Apple propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, compared to the ludicrousness of consoles. But how about PCs? Or even Mac OS X on anything other than an iPhone? The barrier to entry on any of those platforms is zero.
On the PC or Mac there are costs for any practical, commercial venture. You need to pay for hosting the downloads, processing payments, and marketing the product. All of these can be done on the cheap, but you're not going to pull in $250K in a couple of months that way. The iPhone cost a hundred bucks to put an application up, but then it is in front of all the users and the download costs and payment processing is taken care of. It's a decent cost proposition in comparison to shareware on the Web, for example, and easier for many developers than trying to manage all those admin and marketing details.
I continue to be astonished by how people consider getting rich off of digital downloads to be at all a good thing. I respectfully submit that anyone who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few months of work "in their spare time" is being grossly overpaid.
That's capitalism. You don't honestly think most CEOs making a thousand times what their median employee does works that much harder to earn that money do you? The difference here that catches people's attention is the opportunity for the little guy to make it big, something becoming more and more scarce in our current economy.
And when you really think about it, paying any price for a digital download is simply price gouging anyway, since the cost of reproduction is zero.
But the development cost is not. Some of us have heard of this newfangled idea called "copyright" that allows people to create novel works without being paid in advance and profit from a (theoretically) limited monopoly on distribution of that work.
That means at $5, Trism is marked up 500 times.
Umm, interesting math.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So 0 times 1 is $0.01, times 500 is $5, ergo there is a 500x markup. You really are a moron. It's not about the cost to duplicate, it's about the cost to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
I've addressed that argument here [slashdot.org]. And ad hominems are immature.
Re: (Score:2)
No you didn't. You just said that $0 x 1 = $0.01, such that to go from nothing to $5 is a 500x markup. Kind of hard not to call a spade, a spade.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've addressed that argument here [slashdot.org]. And ad hominems are immature.
So is repeating the same stupid argument over and over again.
An idiot two ways over (Score:2)
I was wondering how you arrived at your odd conclusion that there was a 500% markup on what you maintain is a cost of zero. In that case of course, the markup was infinite. So then I figured you were just an idiot.
But then you decided to try and justify your lunacy, and show that not only are you bad at math, but that you have no ability to research things:
because $5 is 500 times one cent, the minimum price he could have set without making it free.
The minimum price you can set (without making it free) is
Re: (Score:2)
No, 500% markup would be 5 cents.
Let's walk through it. 100% of 1 cent is 1 cent. 200% of 1 cent is 2 cents. 500% of 1 cent is 5 cents. 1,000% of 1 cent is 10 cents. 10,000% of 1 cent is 100 cents, or $1. 50,000% of 1 cent is 500 cents, or $5.
Actually, I like your percent approach better. 50,000%
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are blissfully ignoring all of those things in your own argument - Trism didn't just 'appear' out of thin air, just as the burger didn't appear out of thin air.
Production costs are a lot more than the very last step of actual distribution.