You talk as if the game industry is some sort of Risk game board. In the game industry, publishers are console agnostic. They go where the installed base is. It snowballs over the cycle. Wii has no problems with third party support, and it is the console with the most exclusives.

Sony and Microsoft are the anomalies in the game industry’s long history. First party game companies crafted the hardware, molded it, and the first party games always led the direction for that console. This tradition goes all the way back to Atari. But Sony has been more interested in turning the game console into an entertainment computer which enraged Microsoft which is why they entered the market to stop Sony. (Even as Wii long surpasses in sales, Microsoft’s sights is still at stopping Sony in their entertainment computer quest.)

You say the superiority of the hardware of iPhone makes it better for games than the DS and PSP. Considering that both the DS and PSP are almost half a decade old already, the biggest fallacy in the gaming industry is that hardware defines sales or software. Every generational cycle has the weaker hardware ‘winning’ in sales. As for software, the larger library wins (which follows the hardware with the largest sales).

No one really buys game consoles. They simply buy the hardware to get to the software. Except for the recent quirky Sony consoles with their pushing of Blu-Ray and all, it is guaranteed that 100% of game console buyers are… gamers. However, this cannot be said about the iPhone or iPod Touch. I’m not saying this to knock them. But they would be better defined as handheld computers rather than handheld game systems. Yes, you can play games on handheld computers. But the iPhone compares to the DS / PSP in the same way as PC gaming compares to the tv connected game consoles.

The most accurate way to describe iPhone gaming would be as ‘handheld PC Gaming’ as that is what the iPhone is, a handheld PC. It is a totally different league than dedicated handheld game machines. The latter’s hardware is molded specifically toward gaming while the handheld PCs are not.

I enjoy PC gaming and console gaming as both offer different experiences. The same will be true of handheld PCs and handheld game machines.

@greendave

You said: “Also, Cataclysm lost the plot when he classed the iPhone/iPod Touch games as “Cell Phone Gaming”. Difficult to read further when someone undermines their own credibility.”

Apple is aiming the iPhone to compete against opposing smartphones and other cell phones. Look at the 3G’s ads where they declare how much faster and better the 3G is to the competition. Apple is using gaming as part of that battle over competing smartphones and handheld PCs.

Apple has framed the iPhone into what is called a ‘red ocean’. It simply does what other smartphones do but much, much better. Another ‘red ocean’ would be the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Sony and Microsoft are fighting each other to death.

Nintendo made a very interesting move of non-competition. The DS and Wii were designed to not compete but actively try to expand who plays video games. Iwata refers to this as competing against ‘non-interest’. This is why the new DSi has odd capabilities such as the AAC music meddling and the two cameras. DSi does not seek to compete against other devices that have cameras and music playback. DSi tries to give it a ‘Nintendo effect’ and turn those things into digital amusement (rather than a ‘game’ though games could result from such features).

In order for Apple to compete against Nintendo, it would have to mold hardware around the expressed purposes of gaming. Instead, Apple molds their hardware for the expressed purposes of PC use, be it desktop, laptop, or handheld (which is what the iPhone is). Apple is also busy fighting off other smartphones and handheld PCs.

This is why the game market that iPhone will cannibalize is cell phone gaming and other handheld pc gaming variants.

Daniel makes the mistake of citing ‘casual games’ for suggesting iPhone game success to eat into the DS or PSP. ‘Casual games’ is a slang that emerged from the gaming media and publishers as they had no genre or term to describe these unique games that were appealing to the new markets such as older people and women. Nintendo does not use the language of ‘casual games’, only ‘expanded audience’. Many game executives, from Peter Moore to Nintendo vice presidents, have come out against the word ‘casual games’ because it is extremely misleading.

And besides, what else can a handheld game be BUT ‘casual’ and ‘pick up and play’? One of the reasons DS won over the PSP, and why Nintendo has controlled the handheld gaming market for so long, is that handhelds demand a pick-up-and-play style of gaming. There is no such thing as ‘non-casual’ handheld gaming. It’s a freaking handheld. You’re not going to have huge cinematic type games on it. PSP tried this and it failed because it doesn’t match users’ behavior concerning a gaming handheld.

@Scott

“Will you pease re-read Daniel’s piece and then read you comment. Then please tell me who is “a swimmer who is happily paddling in the shallow end but goes too far and begins drowning. “”

I might come across as mean, but I only do so because I am a fan of Daniel’s site and his work on Apple. The game industry is not the tech industry. Gaming is in the entertainment business, not the technology business. The vast graveyard of consoles attests to that.

Daniel doesn’t respond because he knows the game market isn’t where he has focused his attention. That’s OK. The PC markets isn’t where I focus my attention. We all have our areas of knowledge where we are more knowledgeable.

@Johannes

It is true that the vast majority of PC gaming revenue is going to online. Not meaning WoW but to online portals and other digital distribution. Interestingly, the demographics of such users is mostly female. It is likely because of that audience existing is why Nintendo confidently could make something like the DS and Wii to tap into that type of audience.

@everyone

What iPhone and iPod Touch bring that is new is the beginning formations of the Handheld PC.

While gaming on these systems may seem novel, it is still PC gaming. What is novel is that it is HANDHELD PC gaming.

Comparing handheld pc gaming to handheld dedicated game consoles is like comparing desktop pc gaming to TV dedicated game consoles. They don’t encroach on one another’s market.

No one argues that PC gaming is competing against console gaming (as it has lived side by side with it for decades.) Yet, everyone is making the mistake of comparing handheld PC gaming to handheld consoles.

In order to compete with games consoles, you have to make a dedicated game console. We have seen Microsoft do this. And in order to compete with handheld game consoles, you have to make a dedicated handheld game console. Apple has not done this and has zero intentions to do so.

I think Daniel already covered part of that with a concept he called iPhone Remote, if I recall. Basically he predicted the iTunes Remote control app months before it came out, and extrapolated it to a whole host of standards compliant household items.

As for iPhone / touch as controller for an AppleTV console: I’m not sure if players would want to be looking at their controller when there’s also a big TV screen. If the touches are just being used for accelerometer control like Wii controllers, they’re being wasted. If however they’re being used for private information: like say a player’s hand at a poker game such that players can actually have private information in a party environment at all … I guess that could work. The whole thing just seems a bit inelegant to me. The iTunes Remote is sweet because it’s all about disposing of the big screen, and giving you a home-wide walk-around control.

I am sorry Brau but I find this statement confusing, I think my confusion comes about because RDM is a tech analysis blog and I am not a tech. It seems all commentators here are heavily involved in the tech/programming side of life. I am purely a consumer with a slightly better than average understanding of technology (but not much). I have asked a number of average consumers (friends and relatives) who have an iPhone how they like it and not one has ever mentioned Apples percieved control of the device. In fact I would be suprised if the average consumer gives a tinkers cuss or a rats arse about that issue.

“I have to agree though because I would have wanted Podcaster, Netshare, and yes my 3yr old nephew and I would have had a grand time playing Pull-My-Finger.”

Again, I doubt the average consumer knows what a podcaster, netshare or pull my finger is! Would have, could have, should have are not definates. I would have purchased a Zune if it yadayada…

It is amazing to watch somebody pick up an iPhone/Touch and use it for the first time, at first there is a look of mild frustration because it is not what they are used to, followed by a “oh I get it” expression, then there is a look of awe and they can’t put it down. You can actually see them contemplating how they can fit the purchase of one into their budget and as they walk off they look around again and take a last look before they leave the store. That is Apples magic. No considerations of gee I want one but Apple controls the device too much for my liking and golly I wish it was truly FOSS friendly.

It will be the entertainment value (music, video, photos) and the user interface to those features that will be the primary driver of iPhone/Touch sales.