With most media, there comes a time when people kind of stop dead, refusing to consider anything past a certain point ‘proper’. This is particularly common in music, where every generation loves the music it grows up with and then, once adult, considers contemporary music inane, tuneless drivel.

Videogaming’s much younger than music, but similar issues are becoming commonplace. I once thought I’d already hit one such bump, with the move to seemingly enforced 3D during the era of the PSX, although I’d argue that wasn’t just my then-nostalgic inclinations, but also the argument by game developers that everything had to be in 3D—an idea handhelds like the GBA, DS and iOS devices have since consigned to oblivion. However, I’ve now definitely hit one ‘I don’t get it’ bump, and I’m not alone.

Citing a Flurry report that claims a stunning 68 per cent of iOS game revenue is now from ‘consumable’ rather than ‘durable’ purchases, Ben Brooks says:

This is astonishing to me and being that I am not in the group that plays these types of games, I just can’t see the motivation to buy in-app currency to use — especially knowing that I will have to buy it again at some point.

Again, no judgment — I just don’t “get” it.

Same here. I get sequels and unlockable content. I get ‘demo’ freemium games where you play a few levels and then pay for the rest. But I don’t get the appeal of grind-oriented games were you pay for currency to spend on things, run out of virtual cash, and then pay for more currency to spend on things. It’s not about challenge or skill—it’s about how deep your pockets are. It’s the videogaming equivalent of bling, and I don’t understand the appeal at all.

Ste Pickford, basking in the glow of his new game’s slew of great ratings on the App Store:

It was while basking the warmth of a positive critical response, and wondering how exactly to turn ratings into dollars, that my good mood was punctured by an email from somebody offering their services to “improve our visibility” on the App Store.
I was suspicious, but curious.

Curious because I’ve been asking pretty much every iOS developer I know for tips and advice (and every one of them, to a man, has been brilliantly forthcoming and helpful), so I’m always ready to listen to anyone who might be able to help us reach a wider audience for our game.

Suspicious because since releasing the game and firing out press releases to every review site I can find, I’ve soon learned that pretty much the only review sites who ever reply to emails are the ones who come back with a price list for the different reviews they offer. (Yes, really! I’d pay for straight advertising for a game, but I’d never pay for a review.)

Well, the “App Store visibility” guy emailed me straight back with his price list:

$100 for 100 App Store ratings and 20 written reviews

$200 for 200 App Store ratings and 45 written reviews

$300 for 300 App Store ratings and 70 written reviews

Woah!

Indeed. This isn’t something that’s restricted to the App Store, of course. Amazon’s been plagued by this problem for years. But in a store where devs are clamouring for attention, fighting to be heard above the noise, I suspect some might get tempted. Here’s hoping Apple’s slapping down anyone who goes for this.

It’s also reprehensible for sites to still be charging to review products. I don’t really care whether you state as much in your terms or your ‘hidden’ about-us page, this is utter bullshit. If you need revenue, get it from advertising—don’t have devs pay you for an ‘expedited’ review on some random iOS website that hardly anyone knows about, enabling said dev to excitedly add that they got 4/5 from WeGetPaidToReviewiOSApps.com.

*CALMFACE*

Anyway, Pickford again:

Yikes, I hope our phenomenal critical response doesn’t mean that people think we paid for those ratings!

Likewise. Magnetic Billiards: Blueprint is a very good game, and anyone who thinks the ratings came from paying some dodgy geezer for ’70 written reviews’ clearly hasn’t played the game. And given that I’m not reviewing this one for Tap! (someone else is), I can say this having actually paid for this game myself.

Tim Langdell claims in an document sent to Eurogamer that he’s not, in fact, a trademark troll. Oh really? (Note: if you’ve missed previous episodes of Tim Langdell Is Clearly Delusional, check out ChaosEdge for the full and exciting story.)

What’s that, Tim? We’re all wrong? You want to defend yourself? OK, fair enough. Go for it!

Previously Edge Games and Tim Langdell

Oooh. Bad start, Tim, given that you are Edge Games.

have made virtually no public statements about the various Edge disputes over the past two years since it seemed clear any statement they made would not be reported fairly

Translation: because ChaosEdge and others showcased how blatantly we bullshitted the USPTO, I realised the game was up and finally learned to keep my mouth shut. But now I figure enough time has passed and I have lots of EDGEWOOL™ to pull over people’s EDGEEYES™.

However, they believe the time has come to try to set the record straight on a sizable number of misconceptions and falsehoods that have been circulating on the internet.

Sounds great.

Eurogamer then says Langdell claims it was, in fact, Edge magazine publisher Future Publishing that demanded Langdell take action to protect the Edge trademark, following agreements between the two in 1996 and 2004 to share ownership of the name. Langdell claims Future

required Edge to challenge rival attempts to register or use the Edge mark or face severe penalties from Future for failing to do so. Edge would never have taken the action [against EA] if Future had not required it under the agreement between Future and Edge

This would be the, by that point, non-existent agreement between Future and Edge, presumably. And that would also be the Edge magazine whose logo Langell duly ripped off. And the Edge magazine he kept banging on about ‘spawning’. And the Edge magazine he mocked up a non-existent US cover of, in order to fool the USPTO. OK, got it.

Eurogamer then says Langdell argues he/Edge has

never sought to extract payment from other companies for game licenses, “other than very rarely taking a token payment when the other party was happy to offer it.”

That sound you just heard was David Papazian of Mobigame quite literally exploding. We’re so sorry, David. (Apart from Langdell, who’s sorry you managed to get the press and, later, EA on your side.)

The suggestion that Edge or Tim Langdell acted as ‘trademark trolls’ by bullying people or taking legal action to force companies to pay license fees is an entirely false allegation. They have never done that.

Apart from, obviously, when they did precisely that. And, yes, I’ve seen the documentation to back this up.

Edge and Langdell have always acted ethically and with integrity.

That sound you just heard was me quite literally exploding. This blog will now be written by Zombie Craig.

Edge does not make a habit of taking legal action over the Edge mark: in the past 20 years Edge has only ever taken only two legal actions: one against Future Publishing (in 1994) and a second against EA (in 2010) – and the latter was because Future required them to do so.

Hrrrggnngnnzzzz! Whrrzz ahnn lohhhzd ovvvv blllcckkzzzz. Brrraaainnzzzzzz!

Edge has released new games on a regular basis at all times in the past 20 years, albeit at a lower rate than it did in the 1980s.

Hllrrkk! Gmmzzzz ohnnn duh-vzz-dzzz dnttz cnnnnnzzzttt. BRRRAIIIINNNZZZZ!

At this point, the blog police swoop in. This zombie joke has gone on too long and isn’t funny enough, they say. We are therefore going to turn your life into a videogame and award you an extra life, at the expense of 10,000 points. Also, as further punishment, we will double the number of people on your Twitter feed who joke each day that you look just like Seth MacFarlane. No, don’t complain, it’s your own fault.

Onwards!

Despite the false reports, Edge has released a number of games since the mid 1990s, continuously selling and releasing new games at all times from 1984 right through to Bobby Bearing 2 in 2011.

As ChaosEdge noted, Langdell’s games for the past decade have largely involved the odd Java remake or buying dead properties and ‘releasing’ them on DVDR. His beef with Mobigame was that its Edge (essentially a time-attack platform game that was like a cube-based Marble Madness) was passing off on Edge’s ‘famous’ brand. And this was because one of its games from 1986, the Q-Bert! and Knight Lore inspired Bobby Bearing, had a similar viewpoint. This, note, also being the Bobby Bearing that its creators, Robert Figgins and Trevor Figgins, are pretty sure Langdell no longer has any rights to whatsoever.

Still, Bobby Bearing 2, eh? That seems like a sensible name for a sequel to the original Edge game, so presumably it’s just an error that it’s called EDGEBobby2 on the App Store; also, I suspect that game wasn’t at all created to try and win the court case against EA, but sadly wasn’t ready in time.

Sidebar. Best review of EDGEBobby2 on the App Store:

This is a direct rip off of Edge by Mobigames and Future Publishing’s iconic logo. Don’t buy this, buy the Mobigames original!

Langdell finishes off by saying he’s appealing against Future kicking its arse and is

confident of prevailing

This being the court case where, according to a report by John Walker, Langdell had a dubious grip on truth and reality. And, to add a wee cherry on top, he’s now asserting he’s filed a counter-claim on the grounds Future

damaged the reputation of Edge and Tim Langdell by forcing Edge to take action against French developer Mobigame and EA.

Yes, you read that right. If it wasn’t for nasty old Future Publishing, none of this would have ever happened, because Tim Langdell is a gaming saint. If we ignore the threatening emails he sent developers, obviously. And his successful attempts to mislead the USPTO with doctored documentation, obviously. And I’d say just about the only way he could have damaged his reputation in this industry any worse is by somehow breaking into Nintendo’s manufacturing plant and changing all their game masters to Watch Tim Pooing, a 30-second loop of Langdell on the toilet.

Amusing update: Pocket Gamer reports that Mobigame has just slapped Langdell with a DMCA notice to his web host, along with sending a cease and desist to Apple over EDGEBobby2, which “infringes Robert Figgins’s copyright [and] also infringes Future Publishing logo, our trademark EDGE, and confuses our fans”.

One of the disadvantages of going on holiday, to a place without web access, is that you miss slices of pure crazy. This one involves everyone’s favourite games industry celeb Tim Langdell.

If you don’t know the story, Langdell ran a couple of software companies in the 1980s that released games for home computers. One of the most fondly remembered is Bobby Bearing, an isometric adventure game created by Robert Figgins and Trevor Figgins. Little was heard of Langdell during the 1990s and beyond, but he rose to infamy when he started suing the pants off of iOS developers (and others) who had the audacity to use the word ‘Edge’ in their videogame titles and other products. (The full story can be found at ChaosEdge.) Indie game developer Mobigame got hit particularly hard, with Langdell claiming its Edge game was somehow ripping off both his brand and Bobby Bearing, arguing that it had been named to capitalise on Langdell’s ‘famous’ trademark. This was, of course, total bollocks.

Langdell came unstuck when he decided to sue EA over Mirror’s Edge. The software giant used its powers for good, assisted indie developers being attacked by Langdell, and pretty much smashed him into the ground, culminating in his marks being removed. And with Langdell using all kinds of bizarre material in his ‘defence’, including a fake cover of a non-existent US version of Edge magazine, along with using a variant on the magazine’s logo for his company, he awoke the sleeping beast that is Future Publishing’s legal department. John Walker at Rock, Paper, Shotgun, offers a fantastic report into how Langdell fared there. (Spoiler: not well.)

Amazingly, though, on June 30, Edge did actually release a new game, which is supposedly a sequel to Bobby Bearing. Presumably, it’s called Bobby Bearing 2, you’d think, but you’d be wrong. Sort of. While the game is called Bobby Bearing 2 – “ReRolled” on its title screen, it has a subtly different name on the App Store: EDGEBobby2. Yeah, that sounds like an obvious, intuitive name for the game, and not at all some kind of attempt to ‘prove’ to courts that Langdell was making games that utilised his ‘famous’ mark (that, note, he no longer holds). I only hope he won’t use this to launch yet more crazy attacks on iOS developers.

Oh, and the game not only looks like crap but also plays poorly and isn’t a patch on its 25-year-old prequel-of-sorts.

Regular readers of Revert to Saved may remember that I’m Contributing Editor to Future Publishing’s rather fab Tap! magazine. The title is dedicated to iPhone, iPad and the iPod touch, and I’m responsible for its games section. For issue 5, editor Christopher Phin tasked me with writing a cover feature about iOS gaming, covering the best available games, what games designers think about the platform, exploring kit, and offering the odd nod to retro-gaming. Designer Chris Hedley then created one of the best covers I’ve seen on a consumer tech mag, featuring a ton of iOS gaming characters.

The magazine of course also includes all the usual iOS news, reviews, tutorials, features and columns. If you’re a UK subscriber, you should get your copy within the next couple of days (if it’s not already arrived). Alternatively, the magazine should be on newsstands (WHSmith, Tesco and other stores) some time during the next week.