You're not negating anything.
You're basing your argument on something that isn't true: Just because it plays games it does not mean it's a dedicated gaming device. Nor were Apple products (as far as I recall) ever promoted as gaming devices to begin with. Phones have played simple games since long ago (Snake on those old Nokia phones anyone?) however it didn't make them gaming devices at all.
And I'd like to see those "active gamers" in more detail. The article mentions that many games require a Games Center registration to play, thus for all we know they could be taking into account the number of accountes created only, not activity within the game itself. Which is a total lie. Who's to tell me, that those supposed "active gamers" only downloaded 1 game that required an account played for 5 minutes and never touched it or any other game again? Or who's to tell that 1 single user couldn't have created several accounts to play, assuming the service allows the user do so?
This is what a lack of real info brings. Numbers mean nothing if they aren't backed up by actual precise data.
So, while you are trying to negate the "grey area" argument, you are in fact using. You are assuming out of the blue all iDevices are gaming devices, when they are in fact not (better yet, they are MORE than just that) and assuming gaming activity by the end user (not the dev's who put the games in there, who are many times just dudes with loads of free time) is as strong and dedicated as in current or past dedicated gaming machines.
That's almost as moronic as saying: Oh since TV's are needed to play home consoles, TV's are in fact gaming devices. The end user need it to play games, however it does quite a bit more than stream the game from the home console, especially the new Smart TV's. Now I wonder how many TV's Samsung has sold so far since they started producing TV's... probably some unholy number. So TV's as gaming devices>home consoles for gaming?
I guess so...with this sort of "grey area" logic.
Another great example is: How many people have played one of those games that come with Windows? Millions and millions of people most likely. If MS tracked the number of people who did and counted them as gamers for their own service (GFWL) would it be the most popular platform for gaming ever? Most likely. Even more so when one would add PC gaming as a whole (aka Gaming services like Steam).
With this "grey area" logic, that is feasible and also true.
However, in reality we all know 99.9% of the people that played those games from Windows are actually not gamers. They just needed something to do for 5 minutes.
Desmonic
So you do not agree with the following points:
Log in to comment