An amusing post on the icon update for Magnetic Billiards: Blueprint, a superb iOS physics puzzler. The previous version had a fairly abstract take on the game itself, but now we have one of the beardy programmers staring wild-eyed at those who might buy the game. The slightly less beardy of the two says:

We’ve already seen it described as frightening, terrifying, and the scariest icon on the App Store. Oh well, that’s what happens when I try to draw ‘cute’.

In which case, I look forward to whatever horrors emerge from the Pickford Bros if they ever attempt to craft a loveable and sweet platform game.

I last month covered Atari’s spat with the people behind Vector Tanks. In short, an indie makes a Battlezone tribute, which, to be fair, was pretty damn close to Battlezone, and tries to licence the original property but Atari remains silent. The dev then devises a sequel, which is to Battlezone what Galaga is to Space Invaders: a superficially similar game but one that actually feels very different. Atari finally notices Vector Tanks and has both games removed from the App Store, citing IP infringement. At the same time, it rampages about the place, forcing devs to change the names of games with ‘pong’ in the title. The company had previously, during its first (and brief) foray into iOS, also attempted to get bat-and-ball games (i.e. Breakout derivatives) removed from the store, albeit with less success.

Sites all over the web are now saying that Atari’s being the good guy regarding indies, through its Pong Indie Developer Challenge¹. It’s a great opportunity for indies to rework a classic game, and get up to $100,000 for their efforts, they say! Well, right until you bother to read the terms and conditions, which were expertly covered by Brian Robbins on Gamasutra yesterday.

It’s spec work, pure and simple. This isn’t so much an opportunity for indie devs as exploitation—a way for Atari to potentially get dozens of game ideas and not have to pay for them (since all submissions become Atari’s property, regardless of whether the submitter wins the competition). Despite its aggressive stance on the App Store, Atari has supported indies in the past—the recent remakes of Breakout and Asteroids were both farmed out to small developers rather than being done in-house. Had that been the same here, great. It would have been a way for Atari to again say: “Look! We do care about indies.” However, spec work is something I cannot celebrate, and so I find it difficult to see the Pong Indie Developer Challenge as anything more than a cynical attempt by a major publisher to get videogame ideas on the cheap.

¹ And the choice of game also presumably explains Atari’s blitz of App Store games with ‘pong’ in their names. Although since Pong is an Atari trademark, that’s not something I consider bad form from Atari.

Slide to Play reviews the PlayStation Vita:

The battery lasts about four hours, which isn’t great.

[The] overall interface is cluttered and somewhat unintuitive.

The touchscreen also feels occasionally unresponsive on both the home screen and in games.

The main cameras are definitely not up to par with the quality of the iPhone’s

The Vita is also rather bulky—especially next to an iPhone

It’s like a shopping list of ‘gnh’, and it feels as if Sony’s living in a little bubble where Apple and Android devices don’t exist, and where no-one’s switching to iOS and Android devices for all-in-one entertainment. Note that the review shows Vita does have some good points—it’s powerful, has a great screen, provides some innovation in the form of a rear touch panel, offers GPS, Wi-Fi, 3G and Bluetooth, has cloud sync for progress, and you can also control a PS3 with the handheld; but this next bit makes me slam my head into the desk with such force that it breaks in half and the sides fly up and hit me in the ears:

Probably the biggest complaint is Sony’s insistence on using a new and completely proprietary memory card format. The 16 GB card is about $60 and the 32 GB is $100, and unlike the standard Micro SD card that virtually every other device uses, these tiny cards are only for the Vita.

Really, Sony? Really? Did you not learn your lesson with UMD? Good grief. Still, at least the system is, according to Slide to Play, “very focused on online commerce thanks to Sony’s beefy online store”. Although whether people will be happy paying out for “$10–$50 Vita games” when iOS and Android equivalents are a fraction of that remains to be seen.

I suspect a core number of gamers will inevitably flock to the Vita, but I do wonder if the day of the dedicated gaming handheld is coming to a close. Even with Sony’s admission that apps beyond games are necessary on its console, adults and children alike enjoy the scope more ambitious devices bring them. It wouldn’t shock me to see a situation in a few years where PlayStation becomes a brand on Android devices and Nintendo becomes a Mario-flavoured version of Sega, releasing games for a range of devices that it didn’t create itself.

Late last year, I wrote about the increasingly absurd nature of IAP (in-app purchase) on iOS. The subject was Hipstamatic Disposable, which offered a bizarre pricing model that made you buy new and shiny virtual digital film for your new and shiny virtual digital film camera. I joked that we’d soon see driving games were you had to fill up your car with fuel, matching prices to the real world, just to enhance the realism. Several devs responded on Twitter, with at least some degree of seriousness, that I shouldn’t be giving certain publishers ideas.

The thing is, I’m not against IAP entirely, since it can be used for good. For example, it’s a great way to offer new content, or a ‘demo’ of a game that can be unlocked once you complete a few levels; it’s also a means to enable gamers to skip ahead through buying extras (i.e. cheats), which is fair enough if your difficulty curve is well-defined. The problem is that too many companies are now using IAP to gouge customers; they look at the top-grossing charts and see grind games performing well and therefore implement grind-or-pay mechanisms of their own. The vicious cycle continues, even infecting classic games like Tetris.

If you’ve not yet played it, the new Tetris for iPhone and iPod has the most astonishingly bat-shit crazy IAP possible. The sad thing is the game itself is, in my opinion, really good. You get a standard sub-optimal swipe mode, but also a new one-touch version that retains the game’s strategy but works well with the touchscreen. Additionally, there’s a compelling level-based puzzle mode that has you blast your way to the bottom of piles of junk. I’ve not had so much fun with a Tetris game since the version released for the original Game Boy.

But EA had to weld IAP to the game and ruin things. The puzzle mode has power-ups and these are paid for using T-Coins. You can either get T-Coins by grinding away scoring in the main mode, or by paying cold, hard cash. 200,000 T-Coins? A snip at $99.99! That’s a $99.99 IAP. For Tetris. Or you could ‘just’ pay $29.99 for a 12-month T-Club subscription, which earns you 15 per cent more T-Coins with every game! That’s right: for just 43 times more than the game itself costs, you can get a slight speed bump to how fast you acquire coins to spend elsewhere in the game. Of course, you don’t have to pay, but without doing so, you’re effectively screwed in the puzzle mode when it comes to decent scores and ratings (which is essentially what any iOS puzzler is about).

This is hateful, but it’s becoming all too common in the iOS gaming world. We now see freemium sports games that demand you pay for more ‘energy’ that is otherwise replenished at a painfully slow rate. And similar mechanics are evident in other genres, too. To my mind, this is the greatest threat to iOS gaming, which could become known not for great games, but for the fact it costs tens of dollars to buy yourself a right to play a bit of a game, but only for a set (and short) period of time, regardless of your level of skill and investment to that point.

I’m really not sure what the solution is. I’d started off thinking about 1980s arcades, which rewarded skill, in the sense that you still paid per play, but the better you got, the longer you stayed on the machine. The thing is, such ‘hardcore’ mechanics would alienate many contemporary gamers, who don’t expect to be booted off a game for not having perfect reflexes. But ‘pay for a slice of time’ in a more general sense feels even more like a corruption of gaming’s purity. Perhaps it’s a sign of the times and of my age. Music continues a move towards a subscription model, with you paying monthly for as much music as you can take in, rather than owning a more limited number of albums forever; television and movies, too, increasingly drift towards such models. But I still fear for gaming when instead of you paying a sum of money upfront for a finite slice of entertainment, you’re instead presented with absurd difficulty curves or arbitrary limitations that can only be overcome by delving into your wallet. And even then, you’ll be expected to delve at regular intervals.

I hope this is just a blip. I hope that the efforts of indies such as Zach Gage and Jeff Minter, both of which offer fantastic iOS games for set prices, encourage other developers to take this path, rather than gouging. But every month I see more developers dipping a toe into the freemium waters, under the guise of ‘social gaming’ or ‘value’, when what they’re really doing is hoping our wallets will chunder coin vomits into their banking toilets.

I last week wrote about Atari and Zynga showcasing imbalance in the iOS games industry. The main thrust of the argument was that in cases of a developer being inspired by an existing product, they were leaving themselves open to attack if small, but would be unaffected by the opposition (bar, possibly, some negative PR) if big. The two examples were:

• Atari forcing Vector Tanks games off of the App Store, due to the indie games borrowing fairly heavily from Atari’s Battlezone.
• Zynga’s Dream Heights looking perilously close to indie dev NimbleBit’s Tiny Towers.

GamesBeat now has a response from Zynga CEO Mark Pincus about the second of those spats:

We think there is a massive body of work in the video game industry that is going to be reimagined for decades to come in a way that is free, accessible and social. That’s what we’re doing. I don’t think anyone should be surprised when they see us come out with games that they’ve seen before, a decade or more ago. I don’t think there are a lot of totally new games that are invented. We always try. But to us, they are like the crew mechanic in our games. They give you a new way to interact with your friends.

To be fair to Pincus, I don’t have a problem with this argument. Even many of the games you think were amazingly original when they appeared at the dawn of the industry were effectively clones, or at least based heavily on existing games. Defender? Space Invaders, flipped on its side, with scrolling and a dash of Asteroids—and that’s a compressed version of the description I got directly from the game’s creator during a phone interview for Retro Gamer, not my own take on things.

However, what Pincus doesn’t address (and nor would I expect him to) is that this approach is only fine today if you are a company like Zynga, backed by an army of lawyers and a pile of cash. He’s essentially using the same excuse as the Vector Tanks devs—that it’s fine to take an existing gaming idea and put your own spin on it to add further value. But it isn’t nearly a level playing field, and indies are the ones hit by the fallout, whether they’re the ones providing inspiration (and cannot afford to battle huge companies inspired by their games) or drawing from existing gaming properties (and cannot afford to defend when a large company has their game removed from sale).

Hat-tip: The Appside.

Further reading: NimbleBit responds on TouchArcade regarding just how close Tiny Towers and Dream Heights are—clearly in the same ballpark as Battlezone and the original Vector Tanks.