News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

September 19, 2007

games

Apple makes new iPod owners repay for games

Posted Sep. 19, ’07, 11:15 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Games

New iPod gamesAs much as we love Apple, it doesn’t mean we can’t occasionally chide them for lapses in judgment. Take, for example, the case of new iPod games. When the classic and nano appeared, we discovered that they were incompatible with the exciting titles that Apple offers for download via iTunes. Fans of The Sims Bowling (all three of them) rent their garments and beat their breasts while crying their lamentations.

Now, Apple’s remedied that unfortunate situation by rereleasing three of the games—Tetris, Ms. Pac-Man, and Sudoku—in updated versions that are compatible with the new hardware. They’re even compatible with the iPod video, and cost the same $4.99. So far, so good.

But, if you happen to already have owned one of those games for a previous iPod, you’ll find yourself paying another $5 for the privilege of Click Wheeling along on your new classic or nano. Boo, Apple. Boooooo. It’s not our fault that you didn’t plan ahead well enough. Help a Tetris-addicted brother out. That’s $5 I could use for something far more productive. Like parking, or the crank (hey, kids, don’t do crank, ‘kay?). Show us a little love, guys. Thanks.

[via Infinite Loop]


11 Comments

Bob said:

Maybe the early adopters should get a $5 Apple Store credit. :-)

September 19, 2007 11:29 AM
Oh Great BallistiK One Author Profile Page said:

Just think, in a few years Apple will be the new Microsoft.

September 19, 2007 11:57 AM
Walt said:

Kind of like their OS eh? I say quit killing trees for those OS coupons in the box if you're not going to use them. It's like getting a whole new operating system - all over again. :-)

September 19, 2007 12:08 PM
Donn Author Profile Page said:

Okay, NO. This is getting ridiculous, and I have to state my (unpopular) position.

It is unquestionable that what we are talking about, with the new video- and game-playing nano, and the classic which surely shares its technology, is a new platform. It's still called an iPod, but the software is apparently different, and the hardware is clearly different.

It has always been a fact of computing that upgrades in hardware and operating software occasionally require a new version of an app or game to run. Not everything is backwards compatible. Yes, I can play DOS games on my iMac, and on up the line to Windows and MacOS <10 games via various emulation and virtualization methods. But an iPod is a very simple, underpowered, specific purpose computer (comparable to a game console in fact), and that simplicity is why it works so well. I don't think it's reasonable to demand that games from a previous version be compatible with the current one.

Besides, we are talking about FIVE DOLLARS. This is not a library of N64 titles you paid >$40 apiece for that now don't work on your GameCube. There are only a handful of iPod games to begin with. Perhaps it's presumptuous of me, but I suspect that if you can afford to buy a video iPod, buy some number of games for it, and then turn around and buy the new iPod within a couple of years, you can afford to buy the games that are compatible.

September 19, 2007 1:36 PM
PT said:

Since it's Apple, the M.O. would be to complain, swear never to be taken again, then pay out for the next Apple thing.

September 19, 2007 1:54 PM
John Caruana said:

It seems Apple is being controlled by its share
holders these days. It really is the bottom line.

I bought a song off of iTunes last weekend and on Tuesday it was offered for free as the Song of the Week. Apple offers no 'price protection'. ouch.

I'm still upset about the artificial limitation placed on the calendar on the iPod Touch. All I wanted was a PDA-iPod. Guess that's no gonna happen, even though the iPhone is not available in my area. That was a deal breaker for me and just cost them a sale.

Unfortunately Apple gets the idea of "Our way or the Highway" sometimes. It makes it hard to stay loyal.

September 19, 2007 2:07 PM
Ward Author Profile Page said:

Pretty poor.

Around this one event, we have:

* iPhone early adopter tax
* Rebuying games for new iPods (and you probably can't even give the old ones away with your old iPod since they're linked to your account)
* Crippled software in iPod touch
* $.99 cent tax to use songs as ringtones (and restricted list of songs)
* Concerns about iPod touch screen quality
* Concerns about iPod classic audio quality
* Slow software in nano and classic

Now the severity of all of these, and the extent to which they are necessary evils or Apple's fault varies. But overall, this event has generated a lot of negative press for Apple.

September 19, 2007 2:39 PM
Ward Author Profile Page said:

@ Donn

The flip side of your argument is that other store content, like music and movies, that you could use on the old iPods can be used on the new iPods.

I don't think it's unreasonable for customers to expect the same for games, particularly when updated versions are available.

I'm usually quite pleased with Apple, but this is disappointing behavior.

September 19, 2007 2:42 PM
Wondercow Author Profile Page said:

@Ward

Your "flip side" argument is flawed. Documents always continue to work as long as there is software that can read and display it.

September 20, 2007 6:48 AM
Wondercow Author Profile Page said:

@Ward

Your "flip side" argument is flawed. Documents always continue to work as long as there is software that can read and display it.

September 20, 2007 6:49 AM
Ward Author Profile Page said:

@Wondercow

OK, so movies/music are documents whereas games are executable code, and thus the code has maintenance costs associated with it.

The general consumer doesn't know this and doesn't care. They bought media from iTunes, and now it doesn't work on their shiny new player.

If iPod games were as expensive, received as much hype, and sold as well as the iPhone, there'd be a lot more noise being made about this.

As it is, the dollar amount and volume makes it inconsequential. But I don't take it as a good sign.

September 20, 2007 10:17 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: