The Drama Inside iPod Games

[JGowan]

I don't see Nintendo getting involved in development for another company's hardware. They did it in the old Atari days, and they've had a few things like the CD-i that haven't turned out well.

Not quite the same thing, actually. CDi was made by Phillips and Nintendo simply licensed them their characters... Nintendo did not make the games. The 3 Zelda games were an abomination. And Atari signed on to build the Famicon hardware for Nintendo. As most know, originally Sony was signed on to create a CD based console for Nintendo (which later became the PlayStation when the deal fell through)...

You actually help my point,... with Atari, Phillips and Sony, we see that Nintendo is more than willing to work with other companies.

That said, I would love it if the Nintendo/Apple rumors actually came to fruition and Nintendo and Apple worked together. I love both of those companies!

Ditto.

 

[JGowan]

Maybe if Apple opened up the amount of devs making games and kept them under Apple's scrutiny, there will be better offerings. While I like Bejeweled a lot, three-in-a-row games are a plague upon humanity. Most of the game offerings don't appear to be worth $5 to me. If history is any indication and Apple supports iPod games with all the fervor they support Mac games, this section of the iTunes store will be bulldozed before too long 😉

KLAX is the ultimate "in-a-row" game ever!!!

 

[Babasyzygy]

I'm sorry, but this is a bizarre reaction. Platforms are there for software. You NEED a range of software to make a platform successful.

Demonstrably false: the iPod has certainly already succeeded without a range of software for it. Any other conclusion would require circular reasoning.

That said, I'm sure that people will figure out how to make games for the iPod independent of Apple.

Once they do, I'm eager to play Tempest.

 

[sunfast]

I would like to see some third party development for the iPod games. Adds a bit of price competition and somebody is bound to write the odd free/open-sourced one too.

 

[Hattig]

A few of the current games look quite interesting and suited to the iPod's input controller, I wouldn't mind trying them, but I only have a nano, and my gadget funds just got spent on installing a new shower 🙁

However the iPod's wheel isn't conducive to directional controls with one thumb, so a lot of traditional games will be difficult to play.

I could see a 3D game working - Doom or Heretic say, using the wheel to turn around.

 

[JeffDM]

I know that, but games are all linked to Apple's treatment of developers. I remember when I was younger (14?) I sent a letter to Apple asking if they would support Fallout 2 for the Mac. It came out years later, years! Apple called me (a lady, can't remember her name) to speak to me about it. Great, but nothing happened and it was years later when it came out.

I really don't see the connection. Apple doesn't make games for any platform. The Mac "supports" any game that developers will make for it. Apple isn't hiding any of the Mac API that is necessary to do this. The biggest detriment to games support is the abysmal market share.

I don't think this instance really applies yet because it's too new, uncharted waters. I don't think any other media player device also plays third party games like this does, so they needed to test out the waters first. PSP doesn't count, that's a game player that also works as a media player.

 

[JeffDM]

Demonstrably false: the iPod has certainly already succeeded without a range of software for it. Any other conclusion would require circular reasoning.

I think the question would be whether the hardware would be more successful if there was a good amount of software for it too.

 

[PlaceofDis]

And we've seen how many leaks from products for which there was an NDA.🙄 If I remember correctly, wasn't that what started the whole ThinkSecret mess?

which is why i think Apple are leery of giving devs too much information. some of them actually need it, yes, but some of them abuse things too and spoil everything.

 

[kingtj]

Apple vs. developers

Somewhat true, but you also have to remember that Apple is a software company just as much as it's a hardware company. They'd be stuck with a bunch of cosmetically interesting but rather pricy PCs running Windows if they weren't.

Expecting Apple to be completely "loyal" to you as a 3rd. party developer on their platform isn't realistic. You're, at best, potential competition. (Depends on if you happen to develop something Apple is interested in writing too.) Think of the recent fuss over Apple's introducing Dashboard widgets and Confabulator, for example.

Apple is a company that managed to hang on where almost all the other "non PC compatibles" failed (Atari, Commodore, T/I, Timex/Sinclair, etc.) - and they did it while keeping tight control of the "whole experience"; hardware, operating system, and software.

Right or wrong, they tend to have a mentality of "If you're such a good developer, come work for us. Otherwise, eh... we'd like to keep selling you our computers so we'll give you the basic tools you need to do your thing. But don't cross our path with your software creations or we'll stomp you!"

Actually they bring up some very good points. Apple doesn't feel it needs to be loyal to developers, and quite frequently to customers themselves. However, loyalty to Apple by few developers is one of the only reasons Apple is still around, period.

 

[mmmcheese]

I'm thinking that maybe Apple just isn't ready to make games a big thing on the iPod and maybe these games are just a test for the rumoured upcoming "iPhone." Once this device is released, then maybe they will open up an SDK for developers to make games.

 

[harveypooka]

I'm thinking that maybe Apple just isn't ready to make games a big thing on the iPod and maybe these games are just a test for the rumoured upcoming "iPhone." Once this device is released, then maybe they will open up an SDK for developers to make games.

Hmmm, maybe. A short selection maybe? Doesn't really make sense though since the iPod is huge - why would they 'test' something on the iPod for a smaller, likely to be less popular item? Maybe you are onto something though...😕

 

[mmmcheese]

Hmmm, maybe. A short selection maybe? Doesn't really make sense though since the iPod is huge - why would they 'test' something on the iPod for a smaller, likely to be less popular item? Maybe you are onto something though...😕

What I meant was test the development process on the iPod and see how well conventional games work with the iPod control scheme. They may not even have an SDK finalized, so rather than tell people to have at it with very little documentation, they just picked a few people to work with and later on will release the SDK when it is complete.

 

[inkhead]

For the frustrated developers out there don't be. Apple just sees this as a stop gap until January.

Then iPods, and "iTV" will be out that have completely different UIs. Apple will release SDKs for all of them. iTV will have widgets and stuff and so will the long rumored "real" video ipod. It's going to have all sorts of features along with the iPod phone.

There will be plenty of room for developers to sell applications on these platforms.

 

[aafuss1]

Ive got Tetris and its pretty good. In a way, I think Apple should of let developers try their hands at it, but, at the end of the day, only certain developers would do well as these are games. OR, Apple may have another use for the developers for the iPod, not for games.

Pac-Man works suprisingly well with the click-and very colorful graphics. My favorite game at this stage.

 

[aafuss1]

I bet Apple won't release a public program for developing games-unlike MS XNA.