Has Apple Created the Perfect Board Game Platform? 531
andylim writes "recombu.com is running an interesting piece about how Apple has created a 'Jumanji (board game) platform.' The 9.7-inch multi-touch screen is perfect for playing board games at home, and you could use Wi-Fi or 3G to play against other people when you're on your own. What would be really interesting is if you could pair the iPad with iPhones, 'Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.' Now that would be cool."
Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
The perfect board game platform is cardboard.
Sure thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Too Small (Score:5, Insightful)
How is less than 10 inches perfect?
I don't think I play a single board game with a board that small. Zoom in and out? Scroll around? Everything smaller? No thanks. A lot of my board game time is great just because I'm unplugged anyway.
If I were alone, maybe then I could see it. The less than ideal experience would be o.k. compared to not being able to play at all. But to sit around with phones out to 'hold' tiles and play the game on a little screen doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
ok ill bite (Score:1, Insightful)
get some cardboard, draw on it
man was that cheap.
now go pay apple
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:2, Insightful)
yup. This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing. The answer is: it's not. There are other apple products more compelling at this price, iphone namely.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not a big ass table, so no (Score:2, Insightful)
No... the "big ass table [youtube.com]" that apple fans made fun of Microsoft for is the perfect board game platform.
The iPad would maybe make a nice "private" board for keeping player information hidden. But a big ass table would be a lot better for a group to gather around to play a board game.
We had created a solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could read a book. You could buy all sorts of books before you would come close to the price of the iPad + e-book purchases.
Or you could listen to a CD. You could buy all sorts of CDs before you would come close to the price of the iPad + .MP3/AAC/whatever purchases.
Or you could watch a movie. You could buy all sorts of DVDs before you would come close to the price of the iPad + digital video purchases.
Funny thing is, a large and growing number of us have small music players, e-book readers, watch movies/TV on our laptops, play assorted multi-player games, etc. - all on hardware comparable in price to the iPad.
Between a convenient play-everything device and some bulk storage to off-load under-used content, those of us realizing it's 2010 already LIKE the idea of replacing boxfulls of atoms with a few cubic inches of bits.
Always amazes me how many /.ers exhibit Luddite tendencies.
Re:Manufacturing and distribution (Score:3, Insightful)
COST?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
So I have the choice of a buying a 10 dollar board game or spending thousands in on iPads and iPhones. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
The perfect board game platform is cardboard.
And cardboard games don't come with DRM or restrictive rights where you don't actaully 'own' it, rather rent it and rebuy it when you magically lose the rights to the game. No thanks.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
With an iPad, you could save the game, put it back in your hand luggage, then get it out and resume the game in the taxi to the hotel.
I agree with the article. I think the iPad presents a great opportunity to play board games with friends in a more convenient way.
Re:COST?!?! (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're comparing a single use game with a multi-use platform capable of doing numerous other things with a changing interface to fit those things.
Hmm, did you also make that decision when deciding on whether or not to buy a paperback or an iPhone?
(no need) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure thing (Score:3, Insightful)
$499 + $299/phone
$299 phone?
Well, assuming for some reason you've got an aversion against or unusual obstacle to using WiFi, you could use a phone that costs around $50. At least, that's what I do with my laptop and a Nokia 2865 (via bluetooth DUN). It's not 3G speeds, which means you don't want to be pushing video over it, but for sending model data between games it should work just fine.
As for the rest of the economics... yeah, if you're just going to buy one board game, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense, to buy an iPad just to play it. The question is if you're going to do anything else... whether that's a handful of other games, or something else the device does (as well as whether game titles cost less or more than the equivalent board game). In other words, whether or not the iPad makes sense for games is probably going to a have a lot to do with whether the iPad makes sense in general for you.
Personally, for me the bigger objection would generally have to be that it's a bit small for group board gaming.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:4, Insightful)
But how does that compare to paying $9.99 each from the app store (and probably 99 cents for each player) and about $700 for the board and $200 for each player...
but have MULTI-TOUCH!!!
Ummm, yeah. That's my take on it too.
The iPad just isn't selling itself to me yet. Maybe the iPad 3Gs Pro.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:4, Insightful)
This reminds me of the horrifying carnage of the train wreck that was the GameCube + GBA link cable.
Remember Metroid Prime - you could get some bonus by just connecting Metroid Fusion. And Animal Crossing - just some minigame (again with a bonus incentive) that could easily be presented on the TV instead of on the GBA. Wind Waker - useless except for the ultra-die-hard 100% complete players. Four Swords Adventures or Crystal Chronicles? Yeah, go buy four GBAs, four GameCube link cables, plus the game itself. I bet like Nintendo Apple can't imagine how out of a set of four people one of them could not use an iPhone.
Forgive me for being skeptical.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
yup. This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing.
I didn't realize recombu.com was owned by Apple.
The answer is: it's not.
Oh, I disagree. I find it very compelling, and I suspect most people will as well, after using one for only a few moments. Whether that will translate into a sale ($499 is cheap for this type of product, but still a good chunk of cash) is yet to be determined.
The problem right now is the geeks are looking at specs and keywords (multitasking? iPhone OS? No stylus? No e-ink?) and disliking the iPad that they imagine based on that. The trick with Apple is that their products are rarely what a geek-mind would imagine based on the specs. Apple doesn't look at making a product to meet some technological specs, they design them to end-user goals.
That may not be your cup of tea. You, as a geek-type end-user definitely have different needs and wants than the standard person. So sure, this may not be compelling to you, and just like with the iPhone, since most people haven't used an iPad, they are listening to the geek-minded criticism (valid criticisms, to be sure, but not valid in relation to how most people will feel about this product), causing their imaginations are leading them astray.
There are other apple products more compelling at this price, iphone namely.
This isn't an iPhone. It's won't directly compete against the iPhone. The iPhone is a phone. The iPad isn't. You won't automatically exclude buying one because you bought the other.
As for a direct comparison between it and the iPhone (or more reasonably, an imaginary 3G data iPod touch), I think the iPad offers a lot in terms of the much larger display. This won't just be a "big iPhone". Unlike a PC or Mac where larger screen and higher resolution simply means you can have larger windows, or more windows side-by-side, or whatever, software for the iPad will not simply be iPhone software scaled up (although that is one of the ways to use it), but will have software written with the larger screen in mind. Just look at the difference between the included apps on the iPad and the iPhone. Also, imagine doing something like the iWork apps on an iPhone! On the iPhone it would be something that, technically you could do, in a pinch, if needed. But on the iPad, the process looks actually enjoyable.
In a lot of ways, the iPad isn't a big iPhone so much as the iPhone is a small iPad. Specifically in the sense that iPhone apps are pared down iPad apps more than iPad apps will just be zoomed in iPhone apps.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:2, Insightful)
If they talk about "perfect board games" and then mention Scrabble, then
THEY DO NOT KNOW A FUCKING THING ABOUT BOARD GAMES. [boardgamegeek.com]
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I am not questioning your opinion, nor am I discrediting it. You are completely entitled to your own thoughts.
No matter what you do, say, or show me, you will never convince me that buying a device as expensive as a full computer but with only half the functionality is a good thing. Paying more and getting less is not a good thing, even if it comes wrapped up in a pretty package.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry-- the iPad is a netbook wanna be with a business plan that aids Apple. It has a nice touchscreen, it's flat, and it connects to stuff. It's incapable of multi-task, multi-thread and uses nifty little programlettes from the iPhone. Well, iPhoey.
iSorry. iThe iPad iS iSimply iNot iThe iUltimate iGame iPlaying iPlatform.
Your Jedi Knight drivel changes nothing.
Pretty sure I'm not missing it (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, everything YOU mentioned are things that Apple may or may not approve.
My point was just that looking at it as a "board game player" is silly and unrealistic.
Particularly with the whole "ooooh then you can link the iPhones to it!" line of reasoning - now everyone who comes over to my place to play games needs some sort of smart phone? Lots of my friends are broke mofos.
I wouldn't trust any closed device as my content repository; too much about copyright is nebulous right now to trust any company to "look out for my interests" which is where Apple leaves you - Trust Me, Steve says.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
> The perfect board game platform is cardboard.
No, it isn't. Not for all situations. The iPad is a bit pricey at the moment but in the future when they're cheaper (and/or used) I could see this actually being quite good for the kids to play checkers in the backseat of the car or on a flight.
1) No pieces to lose
2) Bored of checkers? It can hold a few hundred other games.
3) Related to #1: also no pencils/pens/crayons floating around/getting lost/poking people in tender places
Honestly, I'd rather have the kids in the backseat playing games instead of watching movies the whole time.
Re:Sure thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, because those guys are going to be rushing to give you the game for free. Somehow I think they'll find a way to make the cost of the digital version comparable with the boxed one, and you're right back where you started except gathering around a small screen with your friends instead of a big board. If you wanted to talk a platform for electronic board games, I'd go with something like MS Surface, which has a much larger available playing area.
Re:Pretty sure I'm not missing it (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh sure, the closed source nature of it kills the utility, though I'm sure the DRM folks salivate at the thought of a ubiquitously accepted storage device that can be locked down.
I was looking at the potential capabilities that the hardware offers.
As for "broke mofos", I did note (sarcastically) that "everyone" will have a phone, for all practical values of "everyone". Crap, I know poor kids who have phones to keep in touch with their parents between home and school -- not iPhones, of course, but phones capable of display. In any case, I'm sure that private display devices for such "board game" applications could be produced relatively cheaply if that's all they did: LCD tethered to a USB port, maybe?
I'm more intrigued by the possibilities offered by the technology and form factor, than present-day artificial encumbered.
If you want to criticize the "walled garden", do so. I'd agree (which is why I have an HTC2 and not an iPhone). But do not criticize the notion of a garden just because some might be walled.
Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... (Score:2, Insightful)
No mention of flash in that sentence, or the entire article.
No mention of emulators in the article.
No mention of playing NES, Amiga, MAME games AT ALL in the article.
Wild assumptions that the games have to be flash, or have to come from NES, Amiga, MAME emulators. You're assumptions are just as weird as this article. Yes I think the article is dumb too.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which means that *functionally* it is not capable of multitasking. Apple is selling a device that is hardware+firmware+software. I couldn't care less what the hardware is capable of if the firmware does not allow me to make use of it.
Analogy time: You can raise the tastiest pigs in the world, and cure the awesomest bacon ever known to man, but if I keep kosher, I can't eat it. See, Apple is rabbinical law, and the i~Device hardware is the bacon. Apple only wants you to eat Apple-cured bacon, which isn't made from pigs at all. It's made from hipsters in Apple's secret Cupertino rent-controlled hipster abbatoir. You can't have the regular bacon, which is unfettered hardware.
Re:This is really starting to stretch it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash is awful. HTML5 will do all flash can do and more, without sucking my CPU cycles and battery life. My browser blocks flash. Whenever I open flash component, my browser with flash eventually goes to the top of my thread list in terms of processor usage. My CPU fan eventually whirs on.
I think we should boycott flash. If enough people start blocking it, ad producers will be forced to change over to HTML5, which is an open standard.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
To be a perfect board game, it needs to have holographic pieces that project out of the screen.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:2, Insightful)
My god would you fucking let it go, not everyone gives a shit or at least point out someone who has 'lost rights' to something from iTunes.
Re:iFail (Score:5, Insightful)
This is modded funny, but funny is the fact that in the last 24 hours I've started 3 apps based loosely on ideas from slashdot alone that will be great on this device.
I could give a fuck if you don't think its useful, I'm pretty sure its going to be the next addition to my iPod Touch/iPhone income source.
Hell, theres another 4 or 5 in this article alone that can be good with some domain specific knowledge (which I don't have).
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that they are cheap.
Computer games sell for 60 bucks and can only be used by one person in a household at a time.
Good board games, the Ticket to Ride, or settlers cost 60 bucks, but many people can play in your house at one time.
The reasale of popular game sis also higher.
Pay 10 bucks for a movie for 2 hours of entertainment per person. Thats 6 movies, or 12 hours. A board game can get 100's of hours.
Also, cheap ass games as some excellent games.
Laughable. (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess if you just play Chess, Go, and maybe the occasional game of Monopoly, it might be perfect for you. Maybe. I'd hate to play Chess on such a small board and I would loathe to play Go. If you're really into board games it's obviously crap for most games. The big problem: "screen" size. Most board games use a play area that is significantly larger than the 10" diagonal that the iPad offers. I can see different parts of the board in detail with the fastest, most intuitive interface ever: my eyes. Other people playing with my in person can look at other areas simultaneously. If I have a hand of cards, I can see them without needing to simultaneously obscure the board. If I need to move a piece or set of pieces, a touchscreen isn't bad, but a tactile experience is superior and has zero learning curve.
I can envision games that port reasonably well to the iPad. I can envision "board" games designed specifically for the iPad that rock. Something like Microsoft's Surface would really rock for many purposes, but the iPad has a clear portability win. (Of course, the iPhone is even more portable.) There may be merit to board gaming on the iPad. But as the "perfect" solution for playing board games it's laughable.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of people want to be able to use a computer without having to use one. They don't want to ever see the computer geek side of computer ownership. They only want the benefits. Access to the the content they consume etc. Non geek benefits are not the same as geek benefits. Geeks value multi-use, multi-configuration devices and software. Geeks may also value learning complex rituals that they have to use to get the computer to work. Non-geeks want to turn on the device and maybe change the channel. There are very many people who want an appliance not a computer. These are the people this type of device is designed for.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not mail it? Because he is used to using bluetooth, because just about every other device except the Jesusphone accepts bluetooth file transfer. Why should he have to change his habits and workflow because Apple decided to only implement a subset of a standard?
Mart
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Monopoly is a dreadful board game, and I don't understand why anyone ever plays it.
Monopoly isn't dreadful just because you don't understand its appeal to other people. Some games provide tense competition through skilled play, some provide social interaction through leisurely random or skill-less play. People who like the first may find the latter pointless and frustrating. So what? The reverse is probably true too.
I cannot stand most games, but will play card or mah jongg solitaire games every day. They relax me. Hunt and shoot games bore me to tears. I have tried to play them, but they don't do anything for me. The only game I liked beside card and mah jongg solitaires and some tetris derivatives was Space Quest 2, and that was because it was funny. But after playing that, I found the rest of the genre boring - just more of the same.
Different people, different games. I would probably throw all yours into the nearest compost heap.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
a) The limited opportunity for players to meaningfully influence the outcome of the game through their decisions (auction bids and house purchase timing is pretty much it)
b) The very limited number of winning strategies (buy orange and build like crazy is pretty much it)
c) the outcome is clear long before the win conditions are met, which makes for a dreadfully boring endgame.
There are plenty of good economic boardgames, but Monopoly isn't one of them.
PS - nobody else here is talking about video games.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:2, Insightful)
The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively.
Yet
Apple has chosen to restrict ... applications to run only 1 at a time.
You nullify your own delusional argument with reality. I don't get why Apple fans are so into denying the fact that apple restricts, revokes, and limits the freedoms and abilities of users and developers. Particularly in the case of the iPhone it's easy to point out a myriad of instances in which Apple has done so and each case has been one which revoked the users freedoms and been inhibitive to the development or spread of new technology. Can't put a script interpreter in your code? Well we don't want you circumventing the App store! Can't use VoIP? Our carriers just wouldn't have that. Oh, you opened a terminal and now you can actually do productive things on the phone!? Update to a locked down version or we terminate your service.
I expect to be flamed by a flood of Apple zealots, but just so you all know I won't be reading replies to this post so go nuts guys.
Re:Uh, no. They didn't. (Score:1, Insightful)
You are correct that monopoly being a terrible game. But smoke-opoly is a freaking great game. First person to jail sparks the first joint, take a hit off the bowl when you pass go, etc. Play this the day after thanksgiving. It is mandatory.
Re:Sure thing (Score:3, Insightful)
There's one other advantage when you're learning a game, which is that the computerised one will enforce rules which you missed, or mis-interpreted. Of course, this becomes a disadvantage when you've played the game a few times and want to try some house rules.