[sziklassy]

Originally Posted by 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"

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]

Originally Posted by sziklassy

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?

Originally Posted by alek

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by noggin123450

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.