Why Apple Shouldn't Make an iPad Mini

Once upon a time, I had an argument with a coworker about whether or not Apple was making a 7-inch iPad. It went something like this:

“Apple is making a 7-inch iPad.”

“No they aren’t, you are dumb.”

“Of course they are, how else will they compete with the 7-inch Blackberry Playbook?”

Fast-forward two-and-a-half years and it becomes clear to all that my coworker is eating more hat than a face-hugger at a Limp Bizkit concert.

Analysts like to get their names seen by predicting what companies- especially companies like Apple - are up to. Sometimes they back up their hypothesis with facts, leaks, and anonymous sources. Sometimes they just flail their arms around like Zangief on a bad LSD trip.

This is the reason, year after year, we have to read about Apple’s inevitable 7” tablet, and why every year I have to field calls from friends asking me when a product that doesn’t exist is going to start existing.

First of all, I don't believe the iPad Mini exists, and I don't think it will ever exist. I think someone in Apple is intentionally floating false rumors so people won't buy Nexus 7's. But some very reputable sources seem to think it's a done deal. The iPad Mini could be coming to a fancy glass store near you as early as this fall.

Of course, I don’t know anything you don’t, but I feel like I know a whole Hell of a lot more than analysts who say Apple must position themselves against the Nexus 7s, the Kindle Fires, and other products that are so far behind Apple in terms of sales, that they aren’t even directly competing with the iPad.

Like it or not, the current slew of 7-inch tablets are competing for second place.

“

Apple has never been in the business of competing for the low-end.

The argument I keep hearing is that for some reason Apple isn’t content with simply dominating a market they created a mere two+ years ago, but that they also must own the offshoots. A 7.85” iPad would compete with the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 and become king of the lower end of the market. But it would mostly compete with the 10” iPad, and therein lies the problem.

Apple has never been in the business of competing for the low-end. Apple makes high-quality products at high price points, and it appears to me that strategy is working out just fine for them.

Furthermore, the iPad already has more SKU’s than a game of Scrabble. There are currently 18 versions of the new iPad(!), and six versions of the iPad 2, all of which are on sale simultaneously. Customers not only have to choose color, they have to choose carrier and size. Another version of the tablet would make choosing between tablets even more confusing to consumers and, more importantly, cannibalize their own 10” tablet sales.

That's the really important part: by making a 7-inch tablet, Apple would be implicitly stating that the 7-inch form factor is important, and if that's the case, how could you be sure the 10” iPad was really the ultimate tablet experience? It's not just my own opinion that a 10" tablet is a far superior experience to a 7-inch.

Steve Jobs famously repudiated 7-inch tablets in 2010 with some very choice words, including:

• "This size is useless unless you include sandpaper so users can sand their fingers down to a quarter of their size."


• "...We think the screen is too small to express the software. As a software driven company, we think about the software strategies first."


• "7-inch tablets are tweeners: too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with the iPad."


• "We don't think you can make a great tablet with a 7-inch screen."

That’s not to say the iPad Mini is some entirely fabricated impossibility, just that Apple shouldn't make it.

If recent rumors are to be believed, Apple will try out a new size for their next iPhone. We may very well see the rise of the 4” iPhone later this year (sidenote: this likely won’t be called the iPhone 5, because it’s the sixth generation iPhone). Up until now, Apple has stuck to their 3.5” guns, and has had an incredibly successful run.

In order to see why Apple would upsize their phone, one must first understand that the first iPhone was huge. But in the last five years, the general public has adopted larger phones. In fact, every flagship phone is currently larger than the iPhone – The Galaxy S3 at 4.8”, the HTC One X at 4.7”, the Nokia Lumia 900 at 4.3”.

Apple’s little 3.5” seems undeniably compact – which is a good place to be, separated from the competition, but it also shows the general public is ready and willing for larger phones. By trimming the top and bottom borders up a bit, Apple could create an iPhone that was bigger but not a lot larger.

The tablet market, on the other hand, is a different beast. The iPad is winning the tablet wars with a brilliant display and a solid, but not cheap, price tag. While no company should rest on their laurels while competitors play catch up, the introduction of a 7-inch Apple-brand tablet would cause more problems than it's worth.

What do you think? Should Apple make a 7-inch tablet in addition to their 9.7-inch iPad?

Nic is the Editor of IGN Tech. He loves technology almost as much as Wall-E, Boyz II Men, and Fable 1. You can follow him on Twitter and IGN.

Source : ign[dot]com

The Best New School Boss Battles

Nearly one year ago I wrote a feature for IGN that said the traditional boss fight is a relic of a bygone era. My argument was that while technological and creative advancements within the games industry have resulted in modern games that are more cinematic and immersive than ever before, these advances have not extended to how many developers shape the conclusion of their games. As a result, many games end in a traditional boss fight.

Even the most casual gamer is familiar with boss fight clichés - a closed arena, glowing weak-points, increasingly exaggerated transformations, and the rule of three. It is because of this familiarity that the traditional boss fight lives on in modern games. Boss fights span genres, existing as a common narrative shorthand. The repetitive mechanics make them feel as comfortable as a well-worn pair of slippers. And quite frankly, most gamers demand and expect them.

The classic boss battle mentality. And no, we're not dissing Mario - this is iconic stuff!

For me, this familiarity breeds contempt. Without developers who innovate and push the boundaries of what games can accomplish, gamers would be left with the Frankenstein’s monster that was Deus Ex: Human Revolution – a game whose bland boss fights were outsourced and poorly grafted onto an otherwise pretty stellar game. But let’s not dwell on games that are stuck in an 8-bit mentality. Let’s celebrate games that eschew tradition - and are all the better for it.

To start, I have highlighted two games that delivered stunning conclusions without choosing the easy way out. Then, I have highlighted two sequels that vastly improved upon their predecessors by mixing up the boss battle formula.

ATTENTION: MASSIVE SPOILERS TO FOLLOW - TURN BACK NOW IF YOU HAVEN’T FINISHED RED DEAD REDEMPTION OR BATMAN: ARKHAM CITY. DON'T SAY WE DIDN'T WARN YOU.

Red Dead Redemption

Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar San Diego’s take on the Western (and semi-sequel to Red Dead Revolver) tells the tale of John Marston. Having years earlier retired from an outlaw gang to marry and raise a family, John is tasked by the government to bring his former gang-mates to justice in return for his continued freedom. This personal journey is supported by a beautifully realised world populated with interesting, well-written characters. In short, it is engaging on nearly all levels.

For me, Red Dead Redemption’s conclusion solidified it as one this generation’s great games. After completing his mission, John settles back into farm life and rebuilds the tattered bonds he shares with his wife and son.  John’s well-earned peace is ended when government troops lay siege to his property, gunning for him - their final target. A shootout ensues. Knowing he is out-numbered, John helps his family escape before taking his last stand. As John steps out into the firing-line, time slows – a mechanism employed throughout the game to enable the player to precisely line up a number of shots. John and, by extension, the player are left with a gun full of bullets, precious few seconds, and an insurmountable enemy. This segment firmly puts players in John’s doomed shoes and he desperately fights for survival, and loses.

Not all conflicts and climaxes lend themselves to traditional boss fights – a trap that many developers fall into. Rockstar San Diego recognised this and chose to be daring rather than fall back on tired, old tropes. The studio was able to present an unforgettable conclusion to its game simply by using a key gameplay concept in a new context. The team deserve all the praise they can get.

RDR had one of the best conclusions in recent years.

Bastion

Bastion, a downloadable game for PC and XBLA, is probably most famous for its use of a gruff, dynamic narrator describing the player’s actions. Beyond this (pretty cool) gimmick, Bastion is predominantly an action game with RPG elements. The brilliance of Bastion’s design lies in its tight gameplay focus: simplistic, but incredibly fun and customisable weapons-based combat, while the backstory of Bastion’s floating, post-apocalyptic landscape is delivered piecemeal throughout the experience. By the time the game’s climax is reached, players are a lean, mean killing machine. Instead of presenting a traditional boss fight, Bastion offers two key moral choices. The game ties together its loose narrative threads and delivers a hefty emotional punch – all without using a boss fight. It is the type of ending that sticks with you long after you have finished the game.

Batman: Arkham City

I have previously been vocal about my dislike of the Joker boss fight at the end of Batman: Arkham Asylum (http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/116/1166802p1.html). With that in mind I approached Batman: Arkham City with some trepidation. Arkham City contained a number of new villains but the backbone of both Arkham games has been the relationship between Batman and Joker. While Arkham Asylum totally dropped the ball in relation to offering any sort of fitting (if only temporary) conclusion to their dynamic, Arkham City does something more interesting.

During the game’s climax, Batman discovers that Joker had recruited Clayface to be his stand-in for much of the game. Clayface attacks Batman while the real Joker looks on. Cue a fairly traditional boss fight.  Fortunately, the game doesn’t end with Clayface’s inevitable defeat. What follows is a compelling set of cutscenes that perfectly encapsulates the Batman/Joker dynamic and a pitch perfect conclusion to Batman’s ordeal.

Sure, the Joker/Clayface switcheroo could have come across as cheap, but instead it allows the game to have its bat-cake and eat it too: a big dramatic boss fight, followed by quiet character reflection. Boss fights and fitting closures are not mutually exclusive, but many games – Arkham Asylumn included – are evidence that a lot of developers will often pick the former over the later.

Uncharted 3

While not reaching the same heights as Arkham City’s conclusion, the climactic fight in Uncharted 3 also greatly improves upon its predecessors’. Uncharted, and especially Uncharted 2, ended with fairly lame, traditional boss fights in lieu of a climax and resolution best fitting their narrative and game styles.

In its opening scene Uncharted 3 showed off its improved melee combat system in a chaotic bar-brawl. This scene is bookended by the game’s final boss fight – a bad-arse fist/knife fight amidst crumbling ruins. This fight might not revolutionise boss battles, but it’s a big improvement over the previous game, where a hulked up man whose weakness was glowing resin chased you around a ravine. Uncharted 3’s fight feels more visceral and personal while also feeling like a natural extension of the gameplay preceding it.

So many incredible sequences, yet the end still stood tall.

And now it is over to you. Hit up the comments section to tell us what your favourite game endings are – and how they used or avoided boss fight clichés.

Source : http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/05/21/the-best-new-school-boss-battles

Sony: Core PSN Gamers Are 'More Adult'

Whether or not games are art is an argument that will likely never be resolved. But it's hard not to come down on the side of at least games being art when you play the likes of Flower or Journey, both PlayStation Network exclusives from the minds of Thatgamecompany.

Indeed, it was the co-founder of Thatgamecompany, Jenova Chen, that made some interesting comments about the PlayStation audience in particular, as reported by GamesBeat.

"Sony has a more artistic and adult-focused taste. They care about how grown-ups feel toward their games," Chen told GamesBeat. "The player who owns a PlayStation 3 is more likely to be interested in artistic games compared to Wii and Xbox 360."

Chen's claim isn't exactly surprising considering just about everything he's ever done with Thatgamecompany (short of Cloud) appears exclusively on PlayStation products. What surprising is that Sony's Senior Director of PlayStation Digital Platforms, Jack Buser, doubled-down on Chen's comments.

"Our primary PSN audience is indeed more adult, and many of our best-selling titles appeal to this demographic. Many PlayStation and PSN games have themes that require a user to think and feel about a deep, immersive gameplay experience, and we see that exemplified in the success of titles like Flower, Journey and Heavy Rain. Titles like these can only be found on PlayStation, and our users enjoy the emotional and thematic sophistication of their games, especially with our digital offerings," Buser told GamesBeat.

Do you agree with Chen and Buser? Let us know in the comments below.


Source : http://ps3.ign.com/articles/122/1224445p1.html