5 ms·

No, it wouldn't. It's engaging for about 2 seconds, and doesn't even begin to compare to the addictiveness of a successful game, even if you lumped a bunch of b

No, it wouldn't. It's engaging for about 2 seconds, and doesn't even begin to compare to the addictiveness of a successful game, even if you lumped a bunch of bogus social stuff on. I think this is only really novel to technical users looking through a lens of tech, though of course I think it's incredibly novel too. But addictive video games already do very realistic stuff around hair, cloth, and all sorts of things, and your average game player will rip the cloth and move back to Angry Birds. I agree it's really cool, and I Facebooked this, but a cool animation a game does not make.

kingkawn 14y ago
i disagree this could make a lot of money off pure satisfaction. better than playing first person shooters and blowing things up
hnriot 14y ago
I disagree too, and it seems by the many comments that say how satisfying this is, that others find this fun. Obviously it would need a little more to make it a game, but just like Osmos which is simple physics and a simple concept (absorb smaller things) it can b very satisfying and successful. I think you're over thinking the game buying public. Many games have been little more than a concept like this.
trhtrsh 14y ago
"game" != "toy" https://www.google.com/search?q=bubble%20wrap%20app%20store&qscrl=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=bubble%20wrap%20app%20store&...
archagon 14y ago
There are lots of very simple toys that are popular on the App Store. (Of course, it's hard to tell which ones will make money ahead of time.)
nwh 14y ago
I've played with an app called Koi Pond for ages. Its just poking fish and feeding them, but it is still engaging. I would play with a textured cloth. I would pay for an app that let me play with a textured cloth.
tjoff 14y ago
"It's engaging for about 2 seconds" In other words, it clearly surpasses the vast majority of games in the app store.
- rimantas 14y ago
  If you were able to try "the vast majority of games in the app store" no wonder you couldn't spend more than 2 seconds on each.
rmc 14y ago
No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame. This is slashdot's review of the iPod. It's a great example of techies completly under judging a new product

kingkawn 14y ago

i disagree this could make a lot of money off pure satisfaction. better than playing first person shooters and blowing things up

hnriot 14y ago

I disagree too, and it seems by the many comments that say how satisfying this is, that others find this fun. Obviously it would need a little more to make it a game, but just like Osmos which is simple physics and a simple concept (absorb smaller things) it can b very satisfying and successful. I think you're over thinking the game buying public. Many games have been little more than a concept like this.

trhtrsh 14y ago

"game" != "toy" https://www.google.com/search?q=bubble%20wrap%20app%20store&qscrl=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=bubble%20wrap%20app%20store&...

archagon 14y ago

There are lots of very simple toys that are popular on the App Store. (Of course, it's hard to tell which ones will make money ahead of time.)

nwh 14y ago

I've played with an app called Koi Pond for ages. Its just poking fish and feeding them, but it is still engaging. I would play with a textured cloth. I would pay for an app that let me play with a textured cloth.

tjoff 14y ago

"It's engaging for about 2 seconds" In other words, it clearly surpasses the vast majority of games in the app store.

rimantas 14y ago
If you were able to try "the vast majority of games in the app store" no wonder you couldn't spend more than 2 seconds on each.

rmc 14y ago

No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame. This is slashdot's review of the iPod. It's a great example of techies completly under judging a new product