Too bad there is yet to be an absolute "must play" original iPhone title. There have been some decent efforts, and all the expected card/board games (Go!, Chess, MahJong; etc.) are nice to carry around, but the platform's potential is not even close to being realized. Hopefully we'll see some gems in 2009!

There have been several must play titles in my opinion but even barring those I simply haven't picked up a PSP or DS game since I got my iPhone. The real killer app of the iPhone is all the bang for your buck. Right now you can buy Sway, Zen Bound, Rolando, and Payback for $20 which is the price of a new but mediocre PSP or DS game. The iPhone and iPod Touch win.

Still, I do agree that the platform's potential hasn't been reached. The possibilities blow my mind. As such, I don't think we'll witness the full potential of the platform for quite some time.

@Tom and Jeremy: Aww, come on you guys. The platform has only been out for half a year; cut us some slack!

Now, I'm going to be utterly shameless right here and suggest trying out my company's games: Toy Bot Diaries (physics-based puzzle platformer), Zombie Attack! (non-traditional Turret Defense game), and Shaky Summit (strategy racing game, has two player). These are not your normal fare, and we've done our best at IUGO to make some crazy, unique, and entertaining games. You can find more info about them in my website link on my name.

Needless to say, there is quite a few crazy games on the platform, but as the article above shows, there's just a lot of games. That means that the signal-to-noise ratio is kinda harsh, and that's further compounded by the sheer volume of new content that hits the App store every week, so it's hard to keep track of popular or "good" games (whatever your metric for good may be).

Your racing game is the only one I haven't bought. I really think they are must-have titles, just like Rolando, geoDefense and others. An awful lot of TD games being released lately, though. I am close to committing the sin myself!

There are also many innovative titles showing up. I like Petri, which I picked up after seeing a post by the developer on the Apple forums. I also bought Zen Bound without a second thought, but haven't had time to play with it yet. It sure seems like the therapy I need between programming sprees.

With the diversity of small game makers I've seen so far, I have no doubts that we'll see some truly innovative games in the near future. The iPhone/Touch system is still new and people have to unlearn traditional conventions (like mandatory buttons and static displays) so it's an evolving process.

One thing I would like to see is a willingness to listen to suggestions from the players. Right now it seems as though game companies ignore gamer input entirely, or only say things like "We value your feedback, as long as it's only about racing or tower defense games," or "We listen to your suggestions, as long as they match up with what we already have planned." Having been actively involved in the gaming world long before personal computers, I can tell you that there are brilliant game designers out there who are being completely ignored because they can't program, while brilliant programmers are being hired for big money despite the fact they can't create an interesting game without copying what everybody else is doing.

Sean, has your company every considered holding a contest where gamers who can't code can submit their ideas and, if they win, get a percentage of the sales? I'm surprised nobody is doing this because as player-created content games have proven, there's a lot of very creative people out there who can't program.

@ Paul: I assure you, many of the developers at IUGO (including myself) view the App store for comments, and do our best to find comments in other sites as well (Sarah, our PR person, often finds links to sites that have reviews or substantial comments). I know it may seem like the responses dev's end up having are along the lines of what you have, but don't forget: we're a company. IUGO's been around for 5 years in the mobile business, which makes us ancient compared to most mobile development companies. We need to make sure that our business decisions keep us alive. I read the comments for Zombie Attack! (my first game I designed exclusively at IUGO), and keep track of the comments people have for improvements, but we're not afforded dev time to implemented it into our current game. I'd like to make a sequel to it, personally, but that's a decision I can't make myself.

And I hear you about brilliant game designers not getting hired, because I recently gradded out of a class of 11 designers almost a year ago. So far, I'm the only one of that group with a job that says "Designer" on the contract; everyone else is either still looking, or a handful have gotten a foot in the door as QA (on and off employment).

However, your idea about contest for user-generated IP sounds interesting. I'll forward the idea off to my boss, and see what he thinks.

yea the contest idea is interesting... just remember the idea the easiest part of the process. to some degree there is "Street Cred" that has to be accumlated to get the respect of a group to make it. I think many of us have great ideas, but to say that someone who has little/no experience in making games can expect to walk in and have a team of skilled people to hoist that designers idea over their heads cheering and dancing all the way to gold... well it must be one hell of a game... or (more importantly probably) one hell of a salesman.

as for 6,000 games.. seems like that would not be a good climate to introduce 6,001... being more and more deluted... but yea like any other market.. in time it will stablize and either it will grow or fade as developers make money or loose money.. i look forward to seeing how it develops.

Sean, I've noticed that not only does the App Store even the playing field among game makers, so 1-3 person teams can create games as good, if not better, than large AAA companies, but the way it's set up allows for unprecedented feedback response. I've seen dozens of games patched within weeks of initial release where all of the changes were direct results of comments. Before this it would have been prohibitively difficult/expensive to upgrade a game unless it was a major overhaul. Any game company that doesn't follow sites such as toucharcade.com just can't compete in the long run. And it's getting to the point where programmers have to code anticipating multiple patches and updates. Hopefully the days of "once it's out the door we never think of it again" are gone, too many games with great potential died because they refused to patch. In fact, several games (like iDracula) are selling well specifically because they plan on updating the game based on player's feedback.

Caleb, practically all of the good non-computer game designers I know understand that the idea is the easiest part, and give full credit to the programmers/artists who make the idea a reality. However, being able to think up a good idea and develop it into a workable game, one that is fun to play many times, balanced so it's challenging yet not too hard or too simple, and is easy to learn but difficult to master, is the true meaning of the title "game designer," and this is often lost on company execs and many programmers. When you say "I have an idea for a game" to them all they think is you have a one-sentence outline, like "Tower defense with fish" or "World of Warcraft but with more blood and bigger cleavage." They rarely give you the chance to explain how your idea works, how it can be developed and expanded, and why it would have broad appeal.

For instance, A few years ago I developed a card game idea because it was something my friends and I wanted to play online but nobody was doing anything along these lines ( http://www.palenoue.com/card_game_intro.html ). I whipped up these web pages one day to explain the concept then visited a number of computer game company web sites to pitch the game, begging them to steal the idea and market as their own just so my friends and I could play it. The few that responded said player-created content can never work (tell that to Spore), the game was impossible (tell that to Magic: The Gathering), and that they had more than enough of their own ideas (yet all they've come out with since are match-three and rip-offs of other casual games). It became obvious they never read more than the first couple of paragraphs.

Just as the App Store changed things for the game makers, the game makers need to change how they operate if they want their games to stand out from the other 6,000. There are lots of people out there with well-developed ideas for great games, and they are able to work with programmers to develop the idea inside the constraints of the iPhone, but there's no way for them to communicate those ideas to the people who could make the game a reality.

@Paul: Be careful what you wish for. I've seen this approach of "release now, improve on feedback" end up being "release beta now, have people pay to beta test" (see Fieldrunners, who released their game with no sound). Personally, I don't like this approach, and I feel that the business practice is absolutely abhorrent.

Of course, I'm not denouncing all updating your game after it is released. We made a lot of improvements to Zombie Attack! after it was released, largely based off of people's comments of the game both in the App Store and in other forums. The difference, however, is that we released a full game (as spec'd in the GDD) first.

Your second paragraph of your previous post basically boils down to this though: "Game Designer" doesn't start and end as the person with the ideas, but the person who implements it to maximize enjoyment and/or sales for the company (depending on your game, or outlook on the business). This is something that is widely misunderstood, but thankfully education in the general populous - and within ignorant members of our own industry - is improving this.

To comment on your last point though: it's interesting to note the popularity of games when a free version is also released. Zombie Attack!, when it first came out, was not very well known, and the recently released Fieldrunners ended up giving people a lot of expectations we weren't expecting walking into the project. Fast forward a few months later, and we released a free version... which ended up putting the free version and the paid version high in the top 100 lists in the App Store for a few weeks.

Lesson for Dev's: Free versions are ridiculously good at improving exposure of your paid game.

Yes, the App Store allows small teams to make interesting games, and get feedback on them, but does it level the playing field ? Can you sell that much? Really ? I'm sorry, but standing out from among 6,000+ games, or finding shelf space at EB, it all comes down to the same mechanics in the end. I can tell you about MAJOR mobile publishers (who shall remain nameless) who have staff buying their own games on the Store, just to bump themselves up the "most popular" ranks, and therefore, get more sales. And it actually makes sense as a "marketing" expense - the ROI is quite good. But that does mean shelling out more dough for marketing. And we all agree that this is as "unconventional" as it comes in terms of marketing tactics.

Now, factor in that, as someone else said, the App Store has only been out for about a year, and you already have 6,000 games fighting for visibility. How many will it be in 2 years ? How will you stand out from among 10,000+ games ? Therefore I like to bring it back to one very simple concept: Too much (downloadable product fighting for visibility) is like not enough (shelf space in brick & mortar stores).

Sean, excellent point on some companies releasing betas, expecting to fix everything with a patch (Age of Conan, anyone? ;-) But I think this is a case where the good outweighs the bad. For instance, Aurora Feint used their free game to solicit feedback that they used to fine tune their real game. Also a plus is the app store reviews. When a badly made game comes out people complain, a lot! Sure, employees of the bad company will post high praise, but when the reviews alternate between "Best thing since sliced orcs!" and "This is worse than beta" potential buyers become wary and wait to hear what others have to say before buying it. Or they look for review sites like toucharcade.

Also good point on the position of "Game Designer." I know a number of artists who have worked in game companies, and for quite a while "Game Designer" meant the person who tried to squeeze the most frame rates out of the video card, they often knew nothing about what makes a game fun and focused entirely on programming for the hardware. I have nothing against these people, they can do amazing things with the right crew, except make a game you want to play more than once. It just gets frustrating when I see a lot of well-made games that are lame, unimaginative, and boring to play. They put so much effort into the games yet ignore, or don't understand, the non-programming part of gaming.

Congratulations on the success of Zombie Attack! That's another big plus of the App Store, being able to release a free version like that. I expect someday soon someone will release multiple versions of a free lite game (like the first level but with different elements) just to see which one becomes more popular. Still, I wish the App Store would let you put up short videos of gameplay, or link to youtube videos. That would be a popular feature.

Yannick, because there's 6,000+ games in the App Store its even more important that the games be unique and fun enough that people will recommend them to others. It's like console games in that regardless of how spiffy the graphics look, if it's not a fun game word gets around and people avoid it (like many AAA titles), whereas if the game is fun to play, even if it has sub-par graphics, people tell their friends and it becomes popular (katamari). No matter how many company employees buy it, word of mouth wins out every time. Yet regardless of this, I get the distinct impression from many companies and programmers that if you don't know how to code a game, you can't possibly have anything useful to say (and some have even said this in forum comments).

And does the App Store level the playing field? Just look at the popular games. Take the top 100 sellers at any given time and you'll find that most of them are from 1-3 member development teams. Also, if you track the sales of large company games and compare them with small companies you'll find the small ones do better. Sometimes you get the impression the big companies are doing better, like for a while there all you heard about was Super Monkey Ball, but in reality people were really talking about, and buying, much smaller games.