iPhone and iPod Touch Revolutionary Gaming Devices?

[dale1v]

No one argued over whether or not the PSP, Gameboy, DS, PS3, XBOX360 and Wii were consoles. It goes without saying.
Now, if Apple actually have to say this to the public, and if you actually have to debate and prove whether or not the phone is a gaming device, your argument is already on shaky ground.

When you can pull it out of your pocket, and someone says, "oh he's playing a games console", then we can talk gaming. At the moment, it's "oh an iPhone, and he's playing games on it."

And this cannot compare with the PSP or DS, because, unlike the iPhone, you don't have to sign a two year contract to use the darn things

[alek]

Ok, so you say that you shouldn't compare the iPhone to a phone, and yet in the same sentence you do that exact same thing??? You also say the "revolutionary thing only applies if you look at it as a phone (which it is not)". So is it revolutionary or not???

The iPhone is a smartphone with gaming capabilities. The games that can be considered "revolutionary" are racing games and games that use the accelerometer. All other games need buttons, and therefore are definetely not revolutionary.

im saying i dont view the iphone as a "phone" (i use it to call people rarely, 10-20 a week, txting is a whole nother thing but many non phones can send sms) I view my iphone ahone as my computer in my pocket that as well has a phone option. On the other hand the iphone is officially a phone so if you compare it to another phone like a black berry then it's way better. But is you compare it to the computer it is then the gaming is really undeveloped (mainly because there has not been enough time to make a "blockbuster" game and the fact people dont buy the iphone as a exculisvly for gaming)

so in summary im saying that the iphone dose not use it's full potential as the device it is but it is revolutinary compared to a normal phone.


and i dont realy agree with you buttons help games but if a game is made specially for the iphone (like BIA or Hero of Sparta) then it dosent really need buttons. (they sure would help)

No one argued over whether or not the PSP, Gameboy, DS, PS3, XBOX360 and Wii were consoles. It goes without saying.
Now, if Apple actually have to say this to the public, and if you actually have to debate and prove whether or not the phone is a gaming device, your argument is already on shaky ground.

When you can pull it out of your pocket, and someone says, "oh he's playing a games console", then we can talk gaming. At the moment, it's "oh an iPhone, and he's playing games on it."

And this cannot compare with the PSP or DS, because, unlike the iPhone, you don't have to sign a two year contract to use the darn things

i almost agree with you, the iphone is not a gaming console but it is revolutionary for gaming on a non-gaming device. The iphone is worse then the psp but it is comming close to the DS even though its not a sole gamming device (kinda sad for nintendo)

[AKA_Ben]

These devices are indeed revolutionary but not in the gaming sense. Sure Tetris and Monkey Ball are fun but after the novelty of touch and acceler. control wear off you soon realize these games are more fun and easier to play on a computer or console.

Maybe the iPhone devs will make a truely unique IP that works only on iPhone - when that happens I'll be proven wrong.

[reyza]

I am an iPhone user but I still consider it more of an entertainment device than a productivity device. It’s an iPod as it always has been so its media capabilities are great and taking the gaming path takes full advantage of the media hardware. It was mentioned Blackberries are built for 9-5pm while iPhone’s were built for 5-9pm. I fully agree. Apple knows their place and is trying to dominate that place. That said, I stick with the iPhone because no other phone has made me say “holy sh*t, unreal” so many times.

[nmejunkie]

These devices are indeed revolutionary but not in the gaming sense. Sure Tetris and Monkey Ball are fun but after the novelty of touch and acceler. control wear off you soon realize these games are more fun and easier to play on a computer or console.

Maybe the iPhone devs will make a truely unique IP that works only on iPhone - when that happens I'll be proven wrong.

really have you ever seen a multi touch interface device that incorporates a mobile phone that has such a strong development input.... I'm sorry but when i pull out my iphone and start playing brothers in arms NO ONe's rzr or ever HTC can compare SO maybe not revolutionary compared to Gaming platforms but certainly a revolutionary way to play highly developed games on a phone that has 1 button.

[Alperovich]

i say yes. sure its not a complete stand alone gaming device but it has alot of potential. just look at how far iphone games have come in this VERY short time its been out.

[sziklassy]

im saying i dont view the iphone as a "phone" (i use it to call people rarely, 10-20 a week, txting is a whole nother thing but many non phones can send sms) I view my iphone ahone as my computer in my pocket that as well has a phone option. On the other hand the iphone is officially a phone so if you compare it to another phone like a black berry then it's way better. But is you compare it to the computer it is then the gaming is really undeveloped (mainly because there has not been enough time to make a "blockbuster" game and the fact people dont buy the iphone as a exculisvly for gaming)

so in summary im saying that the iphone dose not use it's full potential as the device it is but it is revolutinary compared to a normal phone.


and i dont realy agree with you buttons help games but if a game is made specially for the iphone (like BIA or Hero of Sparta) then it dosent really need buttons. (they sure would help)




i almost agree with you, the iphone is not a gaming console but it is revolutionary for gaming on a non-gaming device. The iphone is worse then the psp but it is comming close to the DS even though its not a sole gamming device (kinda sad for nintendo)

You are playing with words here, and so is Apple... this is the same argument they would give if they were questioned directly. "We didn't mean it is a revolutionary GAMING device. Oh, no no no... we meant it was a revolutionary phone because it is ALSO a gaming device."

Bunch of bull... they are trying to get even more people onto the iPhone bandwaggon nad make it appealing to an even wider audience by saying half-truths! Would adding a phone, fax modem, and printer to your Xbox 360 make it revolutionary? No, it would make it stupid...

And to the "about as good as a DS" statement... this is all relevant. If you mean graphics, yes maybe. But it is odd that the DS still outsells other handhelds such as the PSP (which has been around longer I might add). "Good" and "Better" or relative terms. If you think it is better than or equal to a DS that is fine. I would say the general consensus is that it is not.

[MacBam]

If Apple releases something like iControlPad, and all future games will support it, then I think the iphone could be compared to the DS and the PSP.
But at the moment, no..

[BenzoHartt]

i'm not a fan of it as a gaming console at all. :-(

[Kevin87]

Yes, the reason I say yes is because it is pushing developers to make something new. Games are starting to look alike. I think apple is really pushing to make people do something different. Just look at games like Touchgrind. This is a totally new concept that works great. Yes there are skating games and things of that sort, but there is no gameplay like that. I really think that people are going to come up with some very interesting things that will be "revolutionary"

[sziklassy]

Yes, the reason I say yes is because it is pushing developers to make something new. Games are starting to look alike. I think apple is really pushing to make people do something different. Just look at games like Touchgrind. This is a totally new concept that works great. Yes there are skating games and things of that sort, but there is no gameplay like that. I really think that people are going to come up with some very interesting things that will be "revolutionary"

Yet they try and do something different and 90% of the time it gets declined by Apple (referring to all apps here not just games)

[noggin123450]

Yet they try and do something different and 90% of the time it gets declined by Apple (referring to all apps here not just games)

Either it gets declined or nobody buys it because it is $5. I mean, if this is a revolutionary gaming device, why aren't people willing to pay $5 for a game on the iPhone when they buy a game for $60 for the Xbox 360? Because it's not revolutionary. It's not a gaming device. It's a smartphone that happens to be able to play games. Like the person a couple replies before me said: when you take out your iPhone, you're not taking out a gaming device. You are taking out a phone that can play games.

I want to know what exactly is revolutionary about the iPhone as a gaming device. It's certainly not the games. It's not the controls. You might say it's the accelerometer, but how is that different from a racing wheel? It's not. The iPhone is in no way a revolutionary gaming device. It is a revolutionary phone. Isn't that enough for Apple?

im saying i dont view the iphone as a "phone" (i use it to call people rarely, 10-20 a week, txting is a whole nother thing but many non phones can send sms) I view my iphone ahone as my computer in my pocket that as well has a phone option. On the other hand the iphone is officially a phone so if you compare it to another phone like a black berry then it's way better. But is you compare it to the computer it is then the gaming is really undeveloped (mainly because there has not been enough time to make a "blockbuster" game and the fact people dont buy the iphone as a exculisvly for gaming)

so in summary im saying that the iphone dose not use it's full potential as the device it is but it is revolutinary compared to a normal phone.


and i dont realy agree with you buttons help games but if a game is made specially for the iphone (like BIA or Hero of Sparta) then it dosent really need buttons. (they sure would help)

So it is a computer, but it changes back into a phone when you try to prove your point?

[one1]

The Touch actually runs 20% faster due to a bump in processor speed FOR GAMING, so they do appear serious about attempting to make the Touch a gaming platform at least more so than the phone.

[rdwalsh]

I try to avoid stiring up stuff when I come on here, but I do have to say, everyone from both sides of the issue have valid points. So I am going to through in my two cents.

First thing, a gaming device, is by definition, a device that plays games. Regardless of its nature, ie a phone, a console, a media player, etc.

The fact that the majority of this debate is over the termonolgy "revolutionary", kind of makes me laugh. I think we as users and non users are reading too much into this statement, and well this is exactly what Apple's media and marketing team is paid to do, make us talk about the product, and in turn we up sell it for them. They shell out less money, and make more money.

The device itself is revolutionary, regardless of its use in genres. How many phones when from their standard flip or button pad technology after the iPhones release. Almost every company has some sort of touch device now because of this. iPhone, or iPod Touch it doesn't matter, the devices are revolutionary, on the basis that they are spurting off so many new concepts from other distributors. As for being a revolutionary device, it is, how many devices out there, from the normal pc can any person develop a game for, and distribute it to the masses of the population? Therefore, it is a revolutionary device.

I agree with both sides of this discussion on some points, but like I said, I had to put in my two cents.

[noggin123450]

I try to avoid stiring up stuff when I come on here, but I do have to say, everyone from both sides of the issue have valid points. So I am going to through in my two cents.

First thing, a gaming device, is by definition, a device that plays games. Regardless of its nature, ie a phone, a console, a media player, etc.

The fact that the majority of this debate is over the termonolgy "revolutionary", kind of makes me laugh. I think we as users and non users are reading too much into this statement, and well this is exactly what Apple's media and marketing team is paid to do, make us talk about the product, and in turn we up sell it for them. They shell out less money, and make more money.

The device itself is revolutionary, regardless of its use in genres. How many phones when from their standard flip or button pad technology after the iPhones release. Almost every company has some sort of touch device now because of this. iPhone, or iPod Touch it doesn't matter, the devices are revolutionary, on the basis that they are spurting off so many new concepts from other distributors. As for being a revolutionary device, it is, how many devices out there, from the normal pc can any person develop a game for, and distribute it to the masses of the population? Therefore, it is a revolutionary device.

I agree with both sides of this discussion on some points, but like I said, I had to put in my two cents.

I agree with you 100% that the iPhone is a revolutionary device. I think that even after all the other companies made their own touchscreen phones, the iPhone is the best phone out there.

But, saying that the iPhone is a revolutionary device and saying that it is a revolutionary gaming device are two completely different things.

[rdwalsh]

But, saying that the iPhone is a revolutionary device and saying that it is a revolutionary gaming device are two completely different things.

I agree with your point as well, but I have only ever seen the device advertised as a revolutionary device, versus its counter part. Maybe I didn't take not of the actual ad did it say gaming device? If so my post was a bit mistaken, but I think it still needed to be addressed.