[scrame]

I recognize it is not a great list. Disclaimer: I do not have an iOS device. I actually have an old blackberry, and will likely get an android whenever that gives up the ghost. I have a handful of games that I play on it (none of them very good) when waiting for a train, or similar smaller diversions.

I have used them, and I work around people who use them and play games. I am aware that the list was not great, a similarly thrown together list of the "best" NDS games would be better.

I would love to see a current top 25 with the actual best iOS games. I would like to see how many of those are exclusives (which nixes plants vs zombies and angry birds). And yeah, "good" and "great" are subjective, but the crowd of people buying "the oregon trail" are most likely buying it because they played it in 3rd grade and its a nostalgia trip, not because of its "gameplay", and I would wager most of those install just get a few runs until people realize how dull and tedious it is.

Now, all that being said, I do have a DS, Wii, PS3 and 360, a haphazard steam collection. On top of that I am at level 21 on kongregate, so I have played a _lot_ of casual and flash based games, and I still play them. The wii gets the least amount of play of any of those (basically just a dedicated netflix streamer at this point). My points are not to come across as a nintendo fanboy (though thats not an unfair thing to say), but as a gaming platform, the DS offers quite a lot that is not obvious. It is a dedicated gaming platform, and people who are looking for that will still want it even _if_ they already have an ipod. It will be the only place where you can get mario, and pokemon, zelda, and layton, and phoenix wright, for a long while.

The online stores for the various consoles (and steam) are packed with games for under $5, that doesn't stop people from lining up at midnight to plunk down $60 for the next call of duty.

The reason? The games are _that_ much better, and the people who care and play those games know the difference.

> I now I've sat there and played Angry Birds for an hour. Me too. Angry birds is decent (have it for ps3 -- bug screen w00+!), with a lot of levels (i'm about 65% through the levels, though not trying to get 3 stars). Its still a really basic game, the production values are low and is decidedly "casual".

That, and it seems that it is your example for a good game, and seems to have taken the throne from plants vs zombies. Cool, so as a gamer, if I want a portable system, what do I get after that?

It literally took me a couple _years_ to get through the whole phoenix wright series (5 games). Thats playing regularly, but not daily, and many sessions of more than an hour. This is for a largely text/dialogue based game with point-and-click adventure elements. There were other things I played as well, and there are a lot of options after that.

Maybe my opinions show that I don't have a complete understanding of "mobile gaming", but you seem to not really understand "gaming" in general. And I am not even a hardcore gamer.

>> ... with a better attitude towards their customers > I think your bias is showing here.

Here is a real simple example: When the wii came out there were some problems: the straps were too weak, and the gyro at the tip of the wii-mote was fragile. Nintendo came out, acknowledged it, fixed it with future production and sent out free replacements and cases for all their current models without question.

Apple released a new iPhone with a known reception problem, Jobs said "just don't hold it that way". Eventually, they grudgingly offered a refund on a case, never admitting there was a problem and blaming the users.

Or maybe look at the huge amount of fan remakes, hacks, fan-art, and dedications to nintendo and their cultural impact. Then consider that apple was suing its fans for using the term 'podcast', when the term itself is in reverence to the ipod itself.

Not to mention that they supported and would service replace ALL of their hardware until ~2007 (with the wii virtual console, they finally EOL'd support for the NES/SNES).

Anecdotally, when I was in high school they replaced a 10 year old controller with a brand new one for free when I took it in for repair. Also, I don't know any 10 year olds, and I don't know anyone who owns an iPod touch (but quite a few with iPhones). I know lots of people with DS's, even the ones that aren't serious gamers. I have one friend that has two, just to play mario kart, and the second so a friend can play along.

> True but, in the phone market as one example, I'd rather be Apple than, say, Nokia or RIM.

I agree, and I'd rather be Nintendo than THQ or Sega.

An install base of 135 million is nothing to sneeze at, and people have been second guessing and trying to bury nintendo for 25 years, ever since they reinvented the console and proved there was a market there in the early 80s.

Apple will have its share of success, but nintendo knows how to make and sell games better than _anyone_, and they know how to do it while widening its audience and making a profit on every piece of hardware sold.

In the end, I'm really just pointing out that Apple is entering a market where they have been traditionally weak (games), with a competitor that is traditionally very strong, with a long track record of success, and a phenomenally large install base, yet the prevailing HN attitude is that they should be shaking in their boots.

Games make the system, not processing power, or hardware specs, or "retina vision", or whatever else. This has been proven time and time again. iOS has a few fun casual games that are popular, but they are in a race to the bottom with prices that for the most part have not pulled in support for major studios or flagship games. That is not to say that they never will, but the mobile market as it is is decidedly casual and geared toward small studios.