Steve Jobs and Apple's Influence on Gaming Massively Overstated

I helped create Crash Bandicoot at Naughty Dog back in the late 90s. I've been out of the game industry since 1998, but find the industry changes catalyzed by iOS and the app store fascinating. It must be very unsettling for those working in the industry.<p>The survey results were indeed silly, but you have to forgive people a bit for being enthralled by the rapidity with which Apple has changed the game (pun intended). It's not just mobile vs console/PC -- Apple (and, to be fair, Zynga, though I personally despise their work) have also ushered in a new era of <i>casual gaming</i> that really appeals to the mass audience. And, let's not forget, to little kids.<p>With Crash we tried to channel Miyamoto's emphasis on simple game mechanics and fun for all ages. Nobody did more than Miyamoto to make games (industry-wide) fun. (As an aside, though, there are many largely unknown industry figures who have worked very hard in the same way, and have accomplished similar results; Mark Cerny, whom we worked with at Naughty Dog, and who designed or co-designed the gameplay for the Sonic, Crash, Jak &#38; Daxter, and Ratchtet &#38; Clank series certainly deserves a lot of credit as well.)<p>As a now-industry-outsider, it seems to me that Apple's resurgence has had the following effects on games:<p>1) casual gaming is again dominant; 2) it's no longer clear we need dedicated consoles in our living rooms; 3) one or two people can make a viable, salable game again<p>Naughty Dog has seen their budgets increase from around $1M for Crash 1 to many tens of millions of dollars these days. There will still be a big market for AAA titles with huge budgets. But what interests me most is that two coders in Laos (say) can now make a game that lots of people will buy. Sort of like in the Apple II era, when one or two people could create salable games (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_Gebelli" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_Gebelli</a> for a great example); this is a welcome change for aspiring game developers.<p>And I confess I'm happy about the return to casual gaming and greater emphasis on pure gameplay.<p>But if I were Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft, I would be very concerned about #2.

There's a lot of truth in this article but that didn't surprised me at all.<p>What did surprise me was the arguments against the author, specially those who said that Steve Jobs was more known that other options in the list. Under that -and many of the other- premises the top spot would definitively belong to Bill Gates, since for a long time the best games ran almost exclusively in PC, or because BASIC -that had the snake game or the one with the gorillas throwing bananas- came with MS-DOS and was the first development environment offered free for anyone who bought a PC, with no $100 annual fee and no big-brother curation.<p>Also I can argue against the notion that the future of gaming is mobile, I've been in the (mobile) industry for many years and I came to the conclusion that mobile gaming will always be a niche for a casual gamers, but heavy gaming, the one that pushes the technology to its limit, will be for a long time the realm of the consoles and PC's. The future of gaming is virtual reality, EEG controlling and motion sensors, not virtual potatoes spamming people's email.<p>And this illustrates very much the reality of Mr. Jobs, his products were in many cases very innovative from the consumer electronics point of view, but not necessarily from the technological point-of-view, even the iPod, by far his most breakthrough product, was developed from parts he bought off-the-shelf somewhere.<p>Saying that mobile is the future of gaming is like saying that the iPad is the future of computing.

The child who wrote that article is clearly too young to realize that the Apple II was a HUGE gaming platform back in the day: <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/80s/apple2/" rel="nofollow">http://www.angelfire.com/80s/apple2/</a><p>"In the 1980's (and into the mid 1990's) the Apple II computer series was one of the premier game systems in the computer industry. Despite it's graphical and sound shortcomings (especially with the 8 bit series machines), programmers always found ways to make the best games possible for the II series. In it's heyday, Apple II supporters claimed the Apple II had some 10,000 programs for it and many of those were games."

While I entirely agree with the thrust of the article, including that his criticism is all-the-more necessary given that poll was of industry professionals, this really points out the weakness in moment-to-moment opinion polls more than anything. Much like day-to-day polling of presidential primary candidates, an even-handed, reflective consideration doesn't seem to be the dominant force in this type of measurement.<p>To actually consider the point at hand (influence of iOS on the game industry), it's fair to note that this battle is far from concluded. The advance of video games targeting new demographics, as led by the Wii, smartphone and social network games, and how they will play out versus sales of tried-and-true genres on PCs and consoles, is far from over. One could be forgiven an ambiguous stance on the matter.<p>Personally speaking, as a recently retired gamer (that is, I plumb don't have the time these days), my hat is in the ring with Gabe Newell. Game distribution following a publishing model is flawed, and while the industry is just barely waking up to this, Valve seems to be in the best position to adapt as time goes by.

Did no one here own a Mac prior to the introduction of iOS? It's a plainly undeniable fact that Jobs refused, year after year, to do anything to make the Mac a viable desktop gaming platform despite developers and publishers begging him to do so. (Valve's Source games [HL2,TF2,L4D,etc], which came out nearly six years after the first PC release, is the exception that proves the rule.)<p>The reason that games are a success on iOS is due to the fact that the graphics support was already there for other purposes. If an extra chip was required in order to enable that level of gaming Jobs would almost certainly have killed it.

I think mobile games are opening up a new market, not taking over an existing one. The fact that X% of gaming is taking place on i-devices / Facebook doesn't necessarily imply that people don't play AAA devices anymore.<p>The wave of mobile games allows people who don't play games to start - and the fact that you can play off a mobile device means all they have to do is buy a $1 game off the App Store instead of spending $250 on a PSP/DS. It also allows gamers to take their games on the go without bringing along ANOTHER device. So in this way Apple probably did influence gaming more than any other company.<p>That said, it was NOT Apple that got the industry to where it was before the iPhone came out. It was NOT Apple that developed video games from their infancy to the art/science it is today. And at this time, Apple still hasn't interfered into the console/AAA market, which is, in a sense, the foundation of the industry. Apple is popularizing casual games and carving out a new market, which is good. Apple is providing a good way for indie developers to distribute their games to a mass audience, which is also good. But at this point I think it's too early to give Apple so much credit, and rankings like these ones are definitely unjustified.<p>Note: While unjustified, the rankings are understandable, given the craze about mobile/"social" games in the industry.

The first thing you have to ask when faced with a survey like this is: who conducted the survey and to whom?<p>The London Games Conference is a high-level biz-dev and marketing conference. The questions were asked to readers of MCV - a games industry business and marketing magazine who are also sponsors of the show.<p>Says the editor of MCV:<p>“LGC is the only event dedicated to examining the ways connected gaming has transformed video games – we will be welcoming 300 industry professionals to head great leaders speak and discuss hot topics including how smartphone games are transforming the world.”<p><a href="http://bastion.gamespress.com/link.asp?i=2097&#38;r=7899&#38;r2=5750" rel="nofollow">http://bastion.gamespress.com/link.asp?i=2097&#38;r=7899&#38...</a>

Not that I think Steve Jobs was the most influential person in gaming, but it would've been nice if the author had mentioned that Jobs worked for Atari, where he and Woz built Breakout. Also, let's not forget the Apple ][, which was wildly popular with gamers -- Apple sold millions of them, before anyone had a IBM PC.

&#62; treating him like some sort of god who invented anything with an on switch<p>actually, he never invented anything with an on/off switch; he claimed so in one of those 60 minute interviews because it reminded him of death

What about John Carmack? He's not even on the list, and certainly has contributed more to gaming than Jobs.

From a developer standpoint, the App Store did eliminate the barriers to entry for mass distribution. In order to distribute for Sony, Nintendo, or XBox, you had to go to large publisher. Just as it is with iTunes, any studio, big or large, is capable of distributing on the App Store. Even if Steam isn't difficult to get published, the App Store certainly has the perception of being easier.

What can you say, the man knew how to market himself, period.

If Steve Jobs is that much serious about gaming then he would have taken the acquisition offer from Bungie first time, not after hearing that Microsoft also wants to buy Bungie. Source <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/jobs-turned-down-bungie-at-first-how-microsoft-burned-apple.ars" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/jobs-turned-down-...</a> .If they bought Bungie then there was a chance that Mac would have been a gaming platform not PC or XBox.<p>iOS devices emerging as a popular casual gaming platform is a side effect imho. The credit goes to casual gamers who plays games for time passing. By that same logic one can easily say that Mark Zuckerberg is the pioneer in gaming, in a sense that he brought gaming to 800+ million user.

I have played computer games since I was about 6 years old, starting with an ancient text-based nethack clone called LARN.<p>I played (many) dozens of games on the C64 that was my next computer. The first game I bought was Civilization, for the PC. I have bought (a large proportion, at least) and played (many) dozens of games for the PC, everything from UFO: Enemy Unknown, to Populous 2, Black&#38;White, Warcraft (1, 2, 3, WoW), Diablo (1, 2, 2X), Wolfenstein 3D, Doom 1/2/3, Dune 2 (and Dune 2k), C&#38;C, Red Alert, Dawn of War, Total War, Total Annihilation, King's Quest, Space Quest, Flashback, Prince of Persia, Duke Nukem, Quake 1/2/3, Loom, the TSR/SSI rpg's (played through the whole Krynn series and the Savage Frontier series), Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate, The Elder Scrolls Arena/Daggerfall, etc. I played them online and offline. I played MUDs till my social life withered to a pale, ghoulish shred of nothingness. I have never been much into consoles, but some of my friends have been, so I've played games (to completion) on the PS2, PS3, the original Xbox, the Xbox 360, and the Wii. I bought games on the XBox Live Arcade, and on PSN, and at the time (before the iPhone) I thought this was an awesome way to deliver games at the right price point, and it was the future of gaming.<p>I think I qualify as one of those "real gamers" - at least I did in the past.<p>Despite this long and varied history of playing games on many platforms, today, I own about 3 games on my mac (HL and clones, Trine, and Braid). I own about 40 on my iPhone and iPad.<p>Arguing who has the most influence is retarded. The unarguable fact is that the iOS platform is indeed having a huge effect on the games that I, a "gamer", play.<p>I look forward to the final annihilation of the console and PC gaming worlds when the Apple TV comes out.

The author seems to miss the point. The iPhone has had a massive impact on gaming, like it or not. The iPad will too. This is why the new Nintendo and Sony devices may be DOA.<p>I do think that giving Steve Jobs credit as a person is wrong, though. He didn't seem to care much for games. And according to the book, he was against the App Store originally.

&#62;&#62; Then to give Jobs the top honors over Gabe Newell (of Valve) and Shigeru Miyamoto (of Nintendo) is blasphemy, plain and simple.<p>The author is taking this all way too seriously. Who cares what a fan poll at a gaming conference says? I see this type of tunnelvision with video games/television/movie industry types all the time. Why do they think that their industry is so important? Oh my god, who gives a shit.

Steve Jobs re-invented shareware through the app store. People are now willing to buy titles from independent game developers. But having said that, I still agree with the author that it didn't get that much impact as much as Miyamoto did to the gaming industry.<p>Maybe that's what you'll get when you ask people to vote for their opinions. The popular candidate and not exactly the right one will win.

Modern Warfare 3 will probably make a billion dollars before the end of the year.

Every time I read something by this writer on Forbes, I get the impression that it's an angry rant meant to up his hit count so he gets paid more. (He did the same thing with Google Plus a few months back, when he clearly made some comments that showed he didn't understand how the service worked.) If so, mission accomplished.<p>Now how about you give us some real insight, Paul Tassi, instead of another rant about something that makes you angry?<p>It's not that I don't think your argument has some merit, Paul. You're right. Steve Jobs probably gets too much credit for a medium he only had a passing interest in. But you had an opportunity to correct the record, rather than simply ranting about it. A little context goes a long way. As a blogger, it's easy to tell people what you don't like. It's much harder to bring your argument full-circle. If you can succeed at that, it makes your writing essential, rather than a pit stop on the reader's long trip through his Google News feed.

I mostly agree with the points made in this article (I grew up on 8 and 16 bit Nintendo), but still I wonder if the majority of the folks at that conference are actually iOS game devs? Would not be surprised at all, the low barrier for entry and high potential for profitability compared to PC and console game dev seems much greater on iOS nowadays.

I've been saying this for a year or two and I'll say it again: Apple is a huge player in the gaming market <i>already</i>.<p>The PSP Go and 3DS are niche products that absolutely won't reach the sales of their predecessors. This I guarantee you and you can blame the iPod Touch and the iPhone for that.<p>I see a future where the Apple TV becomes a low end console, much like the niche Nintendo currently fills, probably at the expense of Nintendo.<p>I see Nintendo becoming strictly a software house, much like Sega. Nintendo franchises like Zelda and Mario Bros are still valuable. Their hardware business is (IMHO doomed. Because of Apple.<p>I'm not a console gamer. I never was. PC games were always my thing and sadly PC gaming seems to be dying. Sure it's still big for FPS titles, MMORPGs and the like but my particular favourites (RPGs and turn-based strategy games) are almost nonexistent. Even my guilty pleasure of the GTA franchise seems doomed (GTA4 took 6+ months to come to PC, RDR din't come at all, I wouldn't be surprised if GTA5 doesn't either).<p>The console market Sony and MS fill is harder to predict. I do kinda think it's seen its peak. Consoles are coming out less often. Mobile gaming and Steam are decreasing the prices people expect to pay for games. The hardware race has resulted in top-tier titles having massive art budgets that I don't think are sustainable in this mobile gaming world.<p>Plus what you can already do with the iPad 2 (in terms of graphics) is pretty incredible. I hazard to think how good the iPad 3 will be.<p>By any objective measure Steve Jobs has already had a massive influence on the gaming industry.

My girlfriend is 27. She has never touched a console and doesn't own a personal computer. She absolutely loves Angry Birds and Tiny Wings on the iphone.<p>Whether or not Jobs should take credit for that is irrelevant. What's important is that a revolution is happening in video gaming and all smartphones and tabs, regardless of maker, are playing an absolutely HUGE part in it.

Here's my rewrite of the headline:<p>Forbes Columnists' Influence Massively Self-Inflated<p>Mine even has the side benefit of being true.

Wow, tons of great data this bozo used to support his argument.

This is just the Recency Effect. Jobs has been in the media a lot because of his death, so people think of him more, much more than those of even a few years past.<p>If Bill Gates had died instead, the poll would have shown the same kind of effect, as he would have been in people's minds as they took the poll.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_position_effect" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_position_effect</a>

Mostly I agree with the article. But I'm noticing a new trend now with Steve Jobs. For the first weeks after his death, he was excessively glorified (deserved or undeserved is not for me to comment here) by the media and by the grand majority of commentators. Now that some time is past, the new trend seems to be...not <i>renegging</i> on the earlier attitude so much as bringing to light why his innovations <i>aren't</i> quite so universal, or that they <i>are</i> "overstated" (again, while I agree with this article, I'd hardly call a lot of his contributions overstated). Perhaps I'm just being more selective in the posts I read, but has anyone else noticed this?