If this article is even remotely close to accurate then the problem is not the iPod touch/iPhone, it's the over-inflated costs of current console software. This whole argument is based around cost. We have overly-gaudy packages on the market with useless add-ons like figurines or toy helmets or just simply $10 for a metal case and artwork. And yes $60 is too high for games.

This is mad to be honest we grew up with mario on the gameboy but still had home console versions. Kids know there is a difference like they know there is a difference between New Super Mario Bros on the DS and Mario VS DK 2 on the DSIstore which is cheaper again and smaller.

The mistake he and many other older game industry figures are making is that they are basing their opinions on pre-technology childhoods. These days kids are taught keyboard skills by 6 and most children can use the net and portables better then many adults. The kids know what time it is already.

His comments somewhat follow what actually happened to the music industry. You have a generation who started "consuming" music via free peer 2 peer downloads, which sets up the perception and expectation that music is something you get free and downloads have no value. The music industry was mostly at fault for taking so long to setup legitimate means for customers to pay for downloaded music, and even with iTunes and other downloadable music services, the music industry has yet to recover.

The problem he is describing is slightly different, as it's about devaluing a brand. A similar problem creeps up, if kids grow up with iPod Touches/iPhones as their primary gaming devices, their gaming expectations will be locked down based on that experience. The biggest danger would be the price of games that belong to brand that straddles across different platforms. I'd say it's fairly safe to assume most people that read Edge and post comments are "enthusiasts" (or viral marketers), which means we have no problems seeing that different versions of a game carry different values. But more casual game players, just see the brand name. So if a kid grows up playing $10 iPod Touch versions of Madden, there's a good chance they'll be under the impression that the console version of Madden @ $60 is way overpriced.

Behavioral patterns and perceptions established at a young age can have huge impacts, and I think this is one of the smartest insights Michael Pachter has stated publicly to game journalists. And I think Publishers should take it under advisement. There's still many ways to make profit off of iPhone games, without cheapening established brands.

I agree with his assertion that the iPhone could well kill off the traditional handheld consoles - this is simply because they can deliver a similar experience. I mean, of course, why would you pay more for a similar game on a similar platform, which is exactly why EA are chasing the iPhone aggressively because they probably realise this fact and are making sure they're well installed on the iPhone early on.

However, I don't believe this will ever happen to the home consoles for the simple yet crucial reason that the games are a completely different experience. His argument rests on the fact that he doesn't appreciate this.

“One, if you put Madden on the iPod touch for $10, you just cheapen the value of Madden. Whether it’s the same experience or not, and it’s not, why would I ever spend $60 for Madden if I can get it for $10 on my iPod touch?”

His reasoning is full of misassumptions, incorrect hypotheses and contradictions. First of all the above quote is just daft - if you had to choose then most people would spend $60 on Madden if they could (which thanks to an ever increasing disposable income they can) because it's a superior experience (which he clearly doesn't appreciate), and the others will probably get the $10 version as well for when they're out. The only time it'll ever become an issue is if the experience on the iPhone matches that on a home console, which by definition will increase the game price to accommodate for the increased development costs. I have had Tiger Woods on many phones over the years and that has never stopped me buying the console versions -- they're fundamentally different -- the phone version is deliberately designed for quick goes here and there, say on the train, which EA clearly understands and exploits.

He then makes the massive assumption that kids who start off on an iPhone aren't going to progress to home consoles, because of pricing, even though those that started on a GBA did. But the crucial point is that his argument revolves around the assumption that the DS is a kids device. He implicitly suggests that the kids who started on the GBA progressed to home consoles, because the price difference wasn't too great, and then stopped playing handhelds because the were kids devices. The problem he considers is that the pricing difference will be too great and they will stay on the iPhone. This is wrong because most people didn't stop playing handhelds when they progressed to consoles because they don't consider them kids devices, they simply played both. As I said because the experience is fundamentally different, and although there are in depth games on handhelds, there are also lots of the dip in dip out games e.g. for travelling. These people started playing home consoles as well, when they were old enough to be able to afford them - which has nothing to do with the cost of handheld games. Clearly then, those that start off on an iPhone will do the same, provided that there is a significant difference in the games available on both - which by definition is required to keep the pricing different!

In other words, his entire argument revolves around the fact that the handheld games are cheaper. However, they're only cheaper because they aren't the same experience as the home console games, and most people won't pick between them, they will have both. So unless somebody magically makes a development pipeline that allows game developers to make home console equivalent games on a handheld at the same cost as the small development teams they currently fund, then his argument has an obvious fundamental contradiction in it.