Xbox creator: games have defeated Apple

By Fred Dutton Published 2 August, 2011

Gaming is "highest calling" of any device.

Apple hasn't conquered the established console gaming industry, as some might have you believe, rather it's gaming itself that has defeated the iPhone pioneer, according to Xbox co-creator Seamus Blackley.

Speaking in an interview with Edge, Blackley argued that Apple never intended its devices to be used for games, and that their current success as gaming platforms is testament to how unstoppable the medium is.

"They hated videogames," he claimed. "The victory of games is utterly complete with Apple. It's a total victory.

"They tried real hard to make the iPad about word processing and music, and the audience just doesn't want it. It's beautiful. You don't need to have a games strategy anymore."

"You need to have a strategy so that your platform isn't disadvantaged in playing games, because gaming is going to be the number one activity on any platform.

"The highest calling of any digital device is to play a game," he added.

According to Blackley, the audience for gaming is bigger now that its has ever been and consoles, albeit loosely defined, have reached near ubiquity.

"All kinds of people are releasing consoles," he insisted. "They're called iPads, and Facebook. What's happened is not that the console business has died, it's that it has won."

Being capable of playing games is now any hardware's basic litmus test for commercial viability, he argued, whether it be a phone, an e-reader or a laptop.

"You can't release a device that's not a console now, and if you release one that can't be a good console, it will fail. It's just true."

Blackley co-wrote the initial proposal for the Xbox proposal and put together the team that eventually built Microsoft's first home console. He left the company in 2002 and has recently been working at a Hollywood talent agency representing game developers.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (65) Latest comment 10 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Subdominator #1 10 months ago

    If they hated games, why was Steve Jobs so angry when Microsoft nought Bungie and robbed them of the ability to become an important games platform? Why did Apple choose to present Halo at MacWorld?

  • paulf #2 10 months ago

    [link url=http://mashable.com/2011/07/07/smartphone-mobile-games/
    ]http://mashable.com/2011/07/07/smartphon...[/link]

    this backs up his point

  • CaptainQuint #3 10 months ago

    Blackley is dead right. An excellent observation indeed.

  • Gearskin #4 10 months ago

    Is he right? I don't believe people purchase iPhones or iPads to play games. They buy those because they are fashionable. They just happen to have cheap games on them.

  • lucky_jim #5 10 months ago

    Kindle says hi.

    But yeah, I agree with the "games beat Apple" part.

  • utterdrivel #6 10 months ago

    Gearskin, games were a massive reason for me getting an iPhone. Same with a few mates.

  • hazzatori #7 10 months ago

    Its just a matter of time, before Apple caves and a dedicated console or at least a games focused hardware is released... question stands can Apple provide the games gamers want, angry birds just doesn't cut the rope anymore...
    Edited by hazzatori at 02/08/11 @ 20:24

  • ComradePete #8 10 months ago

    @lucky_jim

    Kindle does games too - the obvious word-based ones but also poker & minesweeper

  • TheNinkyNonk #9 10 months ago

    Download, mobile, motion, social and casual gaming have added breadth to the gaming ecosystem but little in the way of depth.

  • Gearskin #10 10 months ago

    @Drivel

    You like Angry Birds that much?

    Something has got to give. The only reason games sell on iDevices is because they are cheap. Square just announced that Final Fantasy Tactics will cost £15.

    Suddenly I don't think people will buy it.

  • metalangel #11 10 months ago

    Just by having proper control pads and buttons, he wins. PLaying all but the simplest games on a touchscreen is horrific.

  • butler` #12 10 months ago

    Stop writing stupid titles. He didn't use the word 'defeated'.

    (and yes, congratulations etc, you got my click-through and got me to 'engage' by leaving a comment, so mission accomplished eh?)

  • butler` #13 10 months ago

    While it's a fairly accute observation, it's worth keeping the following in mind:

    They've created a platform that allows people to produce content for them. They've also kept that platform closed, and monitised it. They've also got 60bn in the bank.

  • suicidal_penguins #14 10 months ago

    Load of nonsense, "gaming" defeats product by making it sell more and become universally popular? Are Apple now switching off all browsing capacity, music making capacity, productive capacity through this "defeat"? Obviously not. Silly hyperbole that could have been levelled at stuff like the ZX Spectrum back in the day.

  • Sanxo #15 10 months ago

    What utter nonsense.

    If they were so against gaming why did they put in accelerometers in, which have virtually no use for word-processing, except if you are using an etch-a-sketch?

    Nice try microsoft shill, go back to your cave.

  • immateriaux #16 10 months ago

    Possibly not being reported very well but certainly reads like complete bollocks altogether, for one thing Apple had a gaming division before the iPhone was released, nevermind the iPad but they've always been trying to get gaming going. The iPod had a game store even

  • FogHeart #17 10 months ago

    When I read the words 'games have defeated Apple' my immediate interpretation is 'Apple tried to do games but it was beyond them', as in "I wanted to fix my car by myself but it defeated me".

    But I haven't heard of Apple trying to create games, so this is not the right interpretation. The second possible interpretation is 'Apple didn't want their platform to do games but the sheer impetus of the gaming genre overwhelmed them", as implied by the article. But I don't think that's true either. It doesn't look like Apple tried to make their products 'do' games, but they didn't try to make them game-unfriendly either. It seems to me gaming on Apple is more a case of developers looking at what the products can do - graphics, sound, processing, input - and using them to make games as best they could. And it turned out the specs of the Apple products lent themselves to gaming quite well.

    Most 'core' gamers prefer to use buttons for input, which is why we like our dedicated portable platforms, and see touchscreens as a retrograde step. But with the Vita including two touchscreens in its design, who knows what will happen in future.

  • RodHull #18 10 months ago

    I think the claim that games beat Apple is somewhat misleading and cheeky. A more accurate description would be that games took Apple by surprise and gave their shareholders at the very least a semi.

  • Max_Powers #19 10 months ago

    If you guys read up on 'The Pixar Story' you would learn that Steve Jobs indeed had absolutely no interest in games. The fact that games on the iOs devices became the most popular activity wasn't foreseen by him or particularly wanted.

  • gjgjg #20 10 months ago

    Apple only recently decided to support game development - once they saw the figures he's talking about, they realised the cash they could make from the 'commonor form of entertainment'

  • KopparbergDave #21 10 months ago

    Funny thing is, with $48 billion in reserve Apple, if willing, could be the biggest player on the gaming scene within 3-4 years. If they were willing. Many of the Wii U features can already be achieved with an iPad and look at how popular their 'accidental' gaming devices have become. With a bit of dedication Apple could fit a stunning gaming device amidst their line up. So he may be eating his words one day. Just saying. Apple have big plans and all the money they need to make anything possible. The 'one' console some gamers have been dreaming of, others fearing, could bear an Apple logo some day.

  • Spong #22 10 months ago

    "According to Blackley, the audience for gaming is bigger now that its has ever been..."

    Did he actually say it like that? Was he pissed or something?

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #23 10 months ago

    Kindle says hi.

    Kindle games say hi :)

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #24 10 months ago

    Maybe when Jobs finally carks it someone will get Jonathan Ive to design a magical joypad.

  • vizzini #25 10 months ago

    KopparbergDave: Funny thing is, with $48 billion in reserve Apple, if willing, could be the biggest player on the gaming scene within 3-4 years. If they were willing.

    Well Microsoft ploughed an awful lot of money in to try and create AAA IPs for Xbox 1 & 360 and have struggled; largely relying on bought IP like halo, or 3rd party exclusives like Gears and Sega output, or multi platform games. Viva, Fable and Forza are probably their best internally funded output.

    Money can help an IP rich company sell a console and games; but companies like Nintendo and Sega, and now 15years later Sony, need more than just money to make their own great IP games. Even acquiring IP like Microsoft did with Rare and others doesn't always translate into longer term critically acclaimed and commercially successful software.

    Apple have a phone/pad product limited controls, and no track record of producing games internally or IP of their own. They are a store front at best and still a million miles away from being a console platform holder.

  • BigBearScot #26 10 months ago

    I think the iOS SDK proves that this guy is talking out of his arse.

    Why allow access to hardware accelerated Graphics via OpenGL ES if you are not going to support games? After all you could use Quatrz for custom drawing.

    Why allow access to low level audio processing via OpenAL if you are going to support games? After all audio services allow you to play audio files.

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSocv1Xvd7w
    ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSocv1Xvd7w
    [/link]

    From 2001 Doom3 on iMac 4:20. Even back then Apple were trying to support gaming.

  • Averice #27 10 months ago

    If Apple made a true console, every tool in college with an apple laptop would buy it. And that's about 90% of the people in US colleges.

  • Gambit1977 #28 10 months ago

    Yes, they hate it, they hate the millions of products they've sold to the public. They have failed.

    Good old MS :D must...try...harder!

    Funny thing is, does that mean Kinect is a failure? Because it's got fuck all games!

  • immateriaux #29 10 months ago

    @gjgjg "Apple only recently decided to support game development - once they saw the figures he's talking about, they realised the cash they could make from the 'commonor form of entertainment'"

    As I said earlier, this is nonsense: how come they added games to the iTunes store (for iPods) well before the advent of the iPhone or iPad if it's only a recent phenomena? How come they have since around 1990, several times as far as I recall, set up in house divisions to work on gaming and getting games onto the Mac platform. How come Steve Jobs (via Wozniak) helped create the first ever version of Breakout in 1975? It's possible Steve Jobs may not like to play games personally but it is obvious he knows where markets lie and has done for quite some time now.

  • The-Jack-Burton #30 10 months ago

    MS can never congratulate itself enough. The epitome of the American arrogant, fat, lazy, self-entitled stereotype.

  • drumbaby #31 10 months ago

    Still yet to buy a game for my iPad, so I wouldn't know. No matter how cheap they are they seem too expensive to play without buttons.

  • niteninja #32 10 months ago

    It is only a matter of time before apple releases a super console its going to happen.
    Devs would jump at the chance to make big budjet and indie games for apple, they already have the connections in the movie and music industry to create an xbox live killer.
    Apple will at some point in the future make a games console its a fact.
    Edited by niteninja at 02/08/11 @ 23:56

  • arcam #33 10 months ago

    By the time Apple make a games console, the definition of a 'games console' will be so different it won't really mean anything any more.

    Apple will never make a device that just plays games, but they might make a device that connects to an screen and plays games, collates all your media, browses the web, makes video calls and 37 other functions. But then what's so different about that and a computer? Apple already make computers.

  • niteninja #34 10 months ago

    The next gen consoles what ever they may be will be far more than just games machines that is what I think apple are waiting for.
    Future consoles will be everything rolled into one.

  • superdelphinus #35 10 months ago

    I hardly ever play games on my iPad. I download shitloads of them, just never play them more than once. I wonder if a lot of people are like this really.

    Only exceptions were the broken sword games and monkey island 2

  • bratmandu #36 10 months ago

    Well Apple have certainly solved the age old of problem of what to do with one's self whilst pinching out a long slow loaf. Steve Jobs, king of the toilet game!

  • KopparbergDave #37 10 months ago

    @vizzini

    I don't see why Apple would need to become a game developer or 'buy in' exclusive IP's. I can see them changing the entire console scene with an open device using the same strategy they have taken on with their iOS App Store and Mac App Store, letting anyone make games or creativity apps and so on and just taking a cut, making it download only and offering a multi-player service which all games can tap into.

    Why do Apple need to make games or bring in IP's..? If they offer the best service, if they come out with an Apple TV style device with proper wireless controllers and the ability to play games using your other iOS devices... there could be a lot of gaming possibilities, and as we see on the iPhone big 3rd party companies are happy to make games for Apple since they have a huge base of customers to take advantage of. With more sophisticated graphics built into some kind of Apple gaming device they can easily compete with whatever Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo can offer, and ultimately they'll do it in a completely different way with much better price points but ultimately greater sales and profits for all involved.

    I just don't get why many people feel that the current Sony/MS/Nintendo bubble cannot be broken apart and out-competed. The iPhone ripped apart Nokia and the like who up until then were the biggest players on the market. I can imagine the big gaming companies getting caught napping like Nokia were and all their hard work undone very quickly. If anyone could do it, Apple very much could, they're in a unique and supremely comfortable position to be able to do whatever they wanted.

  • layleeloo #38 10 months ago

    @Gearskin - Bollocks. £500 for something fashionable hey? Unless you are fresh from Towie or something, you're talking crap.



  • aphex187 #39 10 months ago

    If people think the future of gaming requires you to partially cover the screen with your grubby fingers attempting to smash birds into blocks then they can go fking do one....

  • miseryguts #40 10 months ago

    I have generally listened when Blackley has said something, he's a kind of game industry Yoda, there's something of an aura of sagacity surrounding him..

  • vizzini #41 10 months ago

    @KopparbergDave

    Apple have the problem of not making an "all consumer focused device", the iPod itself was/is still an expensive style over substance device that would never be bought by the low cost end of the mp3 player market, or the high-end audiophile (wanting lossless audio like ATRAC).

    The success of Nintendo and Sony is that they inevitable aim their consoles/handhelds and software prices lower and lower in the product's life for mass market sales.

    Apple can't artificially keep new product prices high (£500) in the same generation and still sell older same gen products for £30 to take every consumer's money.

    A perpetual high product price means smaller market size and faster saturation, and publishers need consoles with long lifecycles, and good attachment rates, volume sales(at cost effective prices) to justify high development investment.

    You typically need bleeding edge hardware at launch to last just five years in the console market and exclusive titles to drive hardware sales for publishers; development for bleeding edge hardware is initially expensive for publishers and console maker, and you need five years to have a good market size for everyone to make big money, which in turn justifies the platform holder's revenue cut.

    Apple would need to change their current success formula to compete, which would be a big risk that could easily backfire; destroying both their existing phone market and leaving them with Microsoft's double or quits dilemma after xbox1.

  • arcam #42 10 months ago

    ...happy to make games for Apple since they have a huge base of customers to take advantage of.With more sophisticated graphics built into some kind of Apple gaming device they can easily compete with whatever Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo can offer

    Easily? If Apple made a games console, there's no guarantee it well sell millions more than an Xbox or PlayStation. Why would it? Certainly not the price. Certainly not the gaming pedigree? Marketing it as a must-buy lifestyle device will be much harder than with an iPhone or iPad.

    Why would you personally buy an Apple console over a Xbox 720 or a PS4?

    People seem to assume that if you put an Apple badge on it it will instantly sell more than anyone could imagine, but the games console market is totally different to the ones Apple have succeeded in so far. It's totally the wrong business for Apple, and I doubt hugely you will ever see an Apple console.

    *edit: Or yeah, exactly what vizzini just said. Producing top-of-the-range hardware, making a very small margin on it and not updating it for 5 years is the exact opposite of the MO that has brought them such success.
    Edited by arcam at 03/08/11 @ 01:19

  • Bander #43 10 months ago

    "Silly hyperbole that could have been levelled at stuff like the ZX Spectrum back in the day."

    "Clive Sinclair the man who brought you Jet Set fucking Willy!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3l_NV9oQ1c

  • curryking3 #44 10 months ago

    Is this surprise like how Microsoft is going to defeat PC gaming?

    Kind of ironic that is, sort of.

  • GamesConnoisseur #45 10 months ago

    Misleading headline yes, but as attention grabbing it's does the job.

    Sure never in wildest dream, Apple expected how much of the business thrived due to the games and how it's has grown.
    Apple got huge reserves, but where's their Game Studios to equal Sony's or Microsoft? Nintendo even?

    I hope that Apple would then invest far more back into the games industry rather than just hosting and taking monies.

  • septimus #46 10 months ago

    A BS commentary that is obviously going to go down well with the majority of commentors at this site.

    If that was the case Apple would not have led with SEGA when they launched iOS 2.

  • JensonJet #47 10 months ago

    WRONG! Apple don't hate games. Steve Jobs just doesn't care that much about them. But infamously Apple changed their hardware under the advice of John Carmack once.

    Blackley doesn't know what he's talking about. He should stick to talking about stuff he knows about rather than speculating on stuff he clearly doesn't understand.

    If or when Apple decides to enter the gaming market it'll do as it did with it's other consumer products and start a new trend. Maybe it'll create the first download only system.

    Why are people giving Subdominator a minus rating? What he says is correct. People are so strangely ignorant... must be a Microsoft fanboy problem.
    Edited by JensonJet at 03/08/11 @ 08:10

  • Caimbeul #48 10 months ago

    "Its just a matter of time, before Apple caves and a dedicated console or at least a games focused hardware is released... question stands can Apple provide the games gamers want, angry birds just doesn't cut the rope anymore..."

    They would all be shit because Apple are such control freaks that they would not allow anything they didnt like.

  • suicidal_penguins #49 10 months ago

    People who think that Angry Birds is the pinnacle of iOS gaming might as well claim Solitaire is what Windows gaming is all about, probably the most played game on that platform.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #50 10 months ago

    "Download, mobile, motion, social and casual gaming have added breadth to the gaming ecosystem but little in the way of depth."

    HINT: "Depth" does not, in fact, mean "complicated games that only nerds can play". The gaming types you mention have in fact added massively to the depth of the gaming ecosystem, because it now caters to a far more comprehensive demographic than adolescent boys (NB adolescence is not a function of age).

  • Murton #51 10 months ago

    For some devices this is true, but not for all. Smartphones have portable gaming covered for now so things like the Kindle and mini MP3 players can be sold for their actual purpose and leave proper gaming to the devices that are capable.

    I also don't agree with this assumption that if Apple were to enter the console race they'd have a major success story, I think the more likely scenario would be that they'd lose billions in R&D and marketing in their first generation, receive a dozen lawsuits for patent infringements as they rip off current console tech and fail to capture adequate third party support owing to an overly restrictive set of TRCs to ensure that they maintain content control on their platform. In essence, their arrogance would destroy their chances in such a competitive market so I doubt they'd even try.

  • KopparbergDave #52 10 months ago

    @arcam I'm pretty sure 10 years ago no one would be saying that selling music players and operating a download only music store was Apple's business and where they would dominate. They walked in and cleaned up. I hear what you're saying and realistically I don't expect Apple to assault the games industry, but then stranger things have happened. Tablet computers in one form or another have existed for at least a decade but until Apple they failed miserably (basically by completely missing the point, Windows XP on a touch screen and not adapted properly for a touchscreen being the main downfall).... Anything is possible and us gamers shouldn't think the current business strategies normally involved in the games industry cannot be shattered.

    You say you need bleeding edge graphics. Well, Nintendo's success with the Wii for example quashes that. The current iPhone features graphics capabilities not too far off the PSP so Apple aren't lagging that far behind and keep catching up at a quicker rate of knots. The big guns MS and Sony have a cycle based optimistically on their bleeding edge technology lasting for 10 years, and so far they've done a good job with it. Apple could lose money on a device in the short run knowing that in a couple of years they'll be making a profit and have a huge installed base. Again I don't see Apple actually getting into the games industry like this but to think it might not happen ever are misguided. And I think if they did they'd come up with a strategy and a device that worked well for them and anyone wanting to make games so ultimately the consumer benefits, no matter how many people love to convince themselves that Apple are all style and no substance or just for yuppies...

  • mr2ange #53 10 months ago

    @suicidal_penguins Solitaire is free

    People actually pay money for Angry Birds.

  • Weezer #54 10 months ago

    Heh heh. Nothing raises gamer hackles faster than a story with Apple in it. Personally, I just think the guy wanted somehow to knock Apple down a peg or two, and this was about the only way he could think of. He's basically suggesting that Apple isn't a genius for making the world's most popular gaming platform, but that it crept up on them. And whether it planned it or not, and whether it wants it or not, gaming is now a core part of Apple's business. A grain of truth and a lot of sour grapes, Probably.

    I wish something would come and defeat me so I became a multiple-billionaire.

  • RodHull #55 10 months ago

    "Well Microsoft ploughed an awful lot of money in to try and create AAA IPs for Xbox 1 & 360 and have struggled; largely relying on bought IP like halo, or 3rd party exclusives like Gears and Sega output, or multi platform games. Viva, Fable and Forza are probably their best internally funded output. "

    To be fair on Microsoft, Sony have employed the same principle of IP development but tend to purchase developers based on success (eg Psygnosis, Media Molecule) so they own more of the games they release. This means theyre less likely to lose exclusivity status on a game series like MS did with Mass Effect for instance. Nintendo have the most rich history of developing successful first party IP.
    Edited by RodHull at 03/08/11 @ 09:31

  • TruSmiles #56 10 months ago

    @mr2ange You can play Angry Birds for free as well.

    I never understand why gamers dismiss the iOS as a gaming platform. There are a lot of games on the iPhone which are ports of handheld games or have the same level of graphics and quality as many traditional games. Infinity Blade is just the tip of the ice burg. There is more to iOS gaming than just Angry Birds and casual games. There are many RPG's (including 3D and MMO's), 3D racing games the likes of Ridge Racer (including Ridge Racer itself), beat 'em ups, RTS's, all sorts really. Basically, there are many games which have the potential to give handheld consoles a run for their money.

    In relation to the actual topic, whilst I can understand his point, I wouldn't want all of my digital devices to be able to play games. It's great to have lots of competition but if I could buy games everywhere, then I feel like the market would become pretty diluted. Not only that, but it would feel like I had to keep multiple devices just for one or two great classics or exclusives. I think we are turning into a society that wants everything on the same device as I certainly wouldn't want to carry around three or four different things, but I would sooner have three or four different things if they are done well.

    I want my phone to be a phone, I have a separate MP3 player because I wouldn't want to drain my phone battery just because I listen to music all the time, and I certainly don't need to play games on my tiny MP3 player screen. If I had a Kindle or some other kind of eBook reader then I would use it for reading: I wouldn't use it for games.

  • ShiroBen #57 10 months ago

    Reminds me of Uncle Clive raging against the fact that people saw the Sinclair as a gaming machine. But anyway, why haven't I ever heard of this guy before? He talks sense and there's little of the sulphurous stench of marketing about him.

  • TechnicPuppet #58 10 months ago

    It seems that everyone here has forgotten that iOS has already been taken over by Android. Apple's mobile market share will diminish from here on out and they have survived with such a large share so far because of MS, Nokia and RIM messing up.

  • vizzini #59 10 months ago

    KopparbergDave: I'm pretty sure 10 years ago no one would be saying that selling music players and operating a download only music store was Apple's business and where they would dominate

    I think it was quite logical that the first company to offer a piracy friendly DRM free player was going gain all the market share. Sony's walkman hardware was DRM hamstrung for many years in a futile attempt to protect sister company Sony Music from piracy losses.

    Ironically Apple's music player is now quite restrictive for music transfer outside of use with iTunes; which is terrible software on a PC (imo) and not the convenience of a standard mp3/phone connecting to the PS3 or Window/Linux/Mac PC using generic ripping tools. mp3 market is declining anyway, but so is Apple's share of it.

    Nintendo might have bypassed the bleeding edge hardware criteria with a different sales pitch; but also failed the high attachment rate criteria, length of product life(with good sales to gamers) and failed to provide a platform environment in which publishers could make longterm solid returns and up sell.

  • justsomeone #60 10 months ago

    why did they put in an advanced graphics processor in the ipad and the iphone, and support for gaming-grade graphics, and accelerometer controls, and allowed and encouraged games to be created and sold through the store, if they were so against games?

    stupid.

  • talideon #61 10 months ago

    We have always been at war with Oceania.

  • justsomeone #62 10 months ago

    @technicpuppet

    can you explain to me in what sense android has "taken over" (i think you mean overtaken) IOS in terms of gaming?

    is it in the number of quality games available for android?

    is it in the total number of games purchased on android phones?

    is it in the revenue created for any single company by games on android phones?

    is it in the sheer number and randomness of differing SKUs on android phones, versus the relatively standardised single platform available on IOS machines, making game development on android somehow easier or better?

    the truth is that android is a non-standard, scattered mess across many devices and versions, contributing revenue to a vast array of differing companies, with software sold thru a confusing array of marketplaces. whereas IOS contributes solely to a single company, who can keep things standard and also invest in R&D to improve the platform and support gaming properly.

    i think i know who my money is on.

  • Bander #63 10 months ago

    Because graphics acceleration means smoother scrolling, zooming and pretty transitions as well as better video playback. Phones were already using accelerometers for taking photos before the iPhone. These things probably came on the chipset as standard.

  • NuclearWinter #64 10 months ago

    "People actually pay money for Angry Birds. "

    A heck of a lot of people also paid considerably more money for Brain Age and Nintendogs, but I'd hope that people have more sense than to dismiss the entire DS catalogue as being nothing more than those titles.

    It's a shame that people only ever mention Angry Birds and not the likes of Dodonpachi Resurrection, World of Goo, or Ascension.

  • Smoped #65 10 months ago

    Just a quick note to the people who couldn't be bothered to read the actual article: Blackley hasn't worked for Microsoft for nearly a decade. He may be right and he may be wrong, but he's not a mouthpiece for the company he once worked for.