racketboy.com

If the iTouch was not designed to be a gaming device, it's not really in the race, at least not yet.

The PSP was designed as a game system, with MP3 players added. The iTouch was designed as an MP3 player with game players added.

Even when the iTouch gets really good, in depth exclusives, it still can't be in the console race because it probably won't be beating out Nintendo at all. What I'm trying to say is, they're not competing much. This is because, most people that want a game system will buy a DS/PSP, people that want an MP3 player will buy an iTouch. Then, they'll use the extra features for what they are, extra features.

Like, if the TI-84 (graphing calculator) sold more than the DS, would it be the number 1 selling game system? It does have puzzle games built in, along with a respectable homebrew scene online.

Game Boy Pocket > iPod Touch/ iPhone
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!


But seriously, I have nothing against apple (long time mac user until recently) and I have tried iPod games. I just can't get into them without tangible controls. I tried Sonic 2 and just couldn't do it with the touch controls. Apple can claim whatever they want, but I'd carry a Game Gear for portable games before I carry any touch-only device.

kingmohd84 wrote:I think a lot of people are upset by this because you hate Apple.

Ipod is an mp3 player that plays games, its a bad platform for gaming.

PS3 is a console but plays bluray, its a bad bluray player.

I love Apple computers and have an iPod, I call bull on this just like I would hearing Sony say "the PS3 is the #1 selling bluray player in the world" or "the PS2 is the best selling DVD player in the world." My comment was how can it be be the 1# selling portable gaming device if you can't prove that people bought it for the portable gaming.

Put it this way, I have a CD clock radio, I never use the CD part but maybe a few time at the most. I purchased it because it is a clock, but I chose it over other ones because it happen to also play CDs. To me it is a clock that can play cds not a CD player. I never would call my PS2 a DVD player even though it can function as one. I can watch TV on my computer but I don't call it a TV.

pepharytheworm wrote:

kingmohd84 wrote:I think a lot of people are upset by this because you hate Apple.

Ipod is an mp3 player that plays games, its a bad platform for gaming.

PS3 is a console but plays bluray, its a bad bluray player.

I love Apple computers and have an iPod, I call bull on this just like I would hearing Sony say "the PS3 is the #1 selling bluray player in the world" or "the PS2 is the best selling DVD player in the world." My comment was how can it be be the 1# selling portable gaming device if you can't prove that people bought it for the portable gaming.

Put it this was, I have a CD clock radio, I never use the CD part but maybe a few time at the most. I purchased it because it is a clock, but I chose it over other ones because it happen to also play CDs. To me it is a clock that can play cds not a CD player. I never would call my PS2 a DVD player even though it can function as one. I can watch TV on my computer but I don't call it a TV.

This. 100%

kingmohd84 wrote:I think a lot of people are upset by this because you hate Apple.

Ipod is an mp3 player that plays games, its a bad platform for gaming.

PS3 is a console but plays bluray, its a bad bluray player.

See that doesn't make sense because, if you can do MORE why is it counted as less?

if ipod is an mp3, but can run games just as good as ds or psp, why are you upset by this? Its portable and it plays games.
Some of you will be saying but those are simple games, well I didn't see people talking the same way about tetris for example. Plus I think most people were upset about defining games as "hardcore" and "casual"

I think you are upset for two reasons:

1) Because the ipod does not have physical controls, I understand that, but I think you can add a d-pad and buttons to it?

2) Apple is not a gaming company, it might take the place of your Nintendo as the best portable device. And Nintendo will not be able to beat Apple as #1.

I think we shouldn't be upset about this, life is about change, and thats the way it is. People are still upset that Sega lost the console war, and Microsoft took their place. Although I am one of those people, but this is life!

Your Reply came right after mine so I guess an answer or several are in order.

I'm not upset at Apple, I am blogging on an iMac right now. However, I think the iPhone does have the fanboy clout. The running joke is if a new one could get released every six months and there will be a line of people waiting at the Apple store. The same people who were camped out there six months prior.

Any portable is a great platform for the short diversion games. Great that current phones and portables have the power to run intensely immersive games and movies, but for me the movie and intense game more enjoyable to watch and play on a HD. Not upset that cell phone taking a chunk of gaming market, just pointing out a reality. Cell phone is always conveniently with you ready to game anytime. Direction pad and fire buttons is the main wall that keeps the portables in competition.

I wrote a guide a while ago concerning this:
Cell Phone and Portable Retro Gaming

As for the PS3, yes it supports BluRay. But too expensive unnecessary runtime and wear, when a dedicated BluRay player is cheaper. Same analogy of DVD, PS2 and PS1 games. Support is there but the dedicated machine is smarter way to save your expensive console for the long run. I won't even run a DVD or PS1 game in my PS2s.

kingmohd84 wrote:PS3 is a console but plays bluray, its a bad bluray player.

(This isn't a direct response to you)

I would consider the PS3 as a bluray player, and I think it is fair to compare it to other BluRay players in terms of sales. Here's why:

I know quite a few people who bought a PS3 to use as a bluray player, with the gaming aspect as extra. I've actually given this as advice to people looking to purchase a bluray player.

c0r33 wrote:

Jrecee wrote:No, the laptop computer is the #1 portable gaming device.

Oh wait, the human hand is the #1 portable gaming device. It plays thumb war.

Just marketing spin. The ipod touch is an mp3 player. Yes it plays games. Yes it plays good games. But it's a multi-functioning device versus a device that only plays games. I could say the holy bible is the best selling doorstop of all time.

So we agree the PSP is not a gaming console more of a machine that does stuff ?

My point has since been made by other people. Sony calls the PSP a portable entertainment device. It can do a bunch of stuff. It's primarily marketed as a gaming system. Few people probably bought it as an mp3 player.

The Nintendo DS has a chat function. Few people probably bought it only for that.

How many people with an ipod touch actually use it for games? 50%? I would wager that 99.9% of people with a nintendo ds use it for games.

As more features are shoved into tech and they can perform all sorts of different tasks, these lines will be blurred. But because of this blurring, my point still stands. The best selling portable gaming device of all time is probably a texas instruments graphing calculator that every high schooler gets for math. So apple is still twisting the definition of "portable gaming device" to suit their needs. And by doing that, they're probably widening the definition of gaming device so much that they widen themselves right out of the #1 spot.

Kingmohd, I don't think anyone is upset about anything.

slowslow325 wrote:If the iTouch was not designed to be a gaming device, it's not really in the race, at least not yet.

Even when the iTouch gets really good, in depth exclusives, it still can't be in the console race because it probably won't be beating out Nintendo at all. What I'm trying to say is, they're not competing much. This is because, most people that want a game system will buy a DS/PSP, people that want an MP3 player will buy an iTouch.

Nintendo wrote:Nintendo now considers Apple its "enemy of the future."

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/10/nintendo ... he-future/

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the PS2 having a dvd player responsible for DVD media becoming the giant it is/was?

Are they basing their claim on units sold or the sales of games downloaded? It seems software tells more of the tale here...

kingmohd84 wrote:Some of you will be saying but those are simple games, well I didn't see people talking the same way about tetris for example.

Um dude. Can you actually play Tetris on the iphone? And I'm not asking if it has been released on the iphone. I'm asking if you can play a game of so much precision with a touch screen. The controls suck for most games.

And the fact that there have been a bunch of iphone games based on high profile ips doesn't say much. I had a splinter cell game for my Nokia 6600. Was it good? kind of. was it good enough to play that instead of a GBA game? nope.


I'm not saying the iphone isn't the best gaming phone ever. Cause it is. But that hardly makes it the best handheld platform ever.

The DS can play both touch screen games AND hardcore games, thaks to its buttons.

Oh and the DS doesn't cost 660€, I think that is also a factor. And the ipod touch costs 300€ I think?

iphone is a bastion for bedroom coders. But if you want to go bigger I don't think it is possible on the iphone.

Can't see games with 1 million $ budgets making back their money with a 1$ price point.