A new Adult Swim-branded iPhone/iPod Touch app from Turner Broadcasting System and the Cartoon Network has office desk jockeys attempting to off themselves in the fastest way possible utilizing a variety of bloody and violent (and amusing) means.

TouchArcade describes some of the action from 5 Minutes to Kill (Yourself):

You can staple your forehead, drink toilet water, pee on computers, and countless other things. The amount of objects that you can interact with and the objects that can be combined with others for even more lethal damage is pretty amazing.

5 Minutes to Kill (Yourself) is on sale for $2.99 in the iTunes store, though purchasers must be at least 17 years of age to grab the game. A free Flash version of the game is also available on the Adult Swim website.

TouchArcade also has a video embedded on its page featuring gameplay from the touch-enabled title.

I wonder how the Classification Board of Australia would rate this one.

Australia’s Classification Board wants to extend its sphere of influence to mobile applications.

Classification Board Director Donald McDonald (left) has written to Commonwealth Censorship Minister Brendan O'Connor on the issue and also relayed his concerns to a Senate Estimates Committee, expressing his unease that:

Some so-called mobile phone applications, which can be purchased online or either downloaded to mobile phones or played online via mobile phone access, are not being submitted to the board for classification.

The delayed rating of World of Warcraft down under—it took five years for the title to receive a rating—apparently spurred McDonald’s interest in rating mobile content, reports Australia’s ITnews.

A Classification Board spokesperson clarified that McDonald’s rating talk was referring only to “mobile applications which are computer games.”

Apple currently governs its own content on iTunes, but said that if changes needed to be made, “We do what the Australian Classification people tell us to do.”

In rating any mobile content, the Classification Board said it would “apply the National Classification Code, the Classification Act, and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer.”

|Via Edge-Online| Thanks Ryan

Although EA's exclusive licensing deal with the NFL and NFL Players Association has outraged some gamers and even sparked a class-action lawsuit, it appears that, while negotiating with league, the game publishing giant neglected to wrap up the mobile device rights for NFL games.

By way of example, BitMob points out that Gameloft has released NFL 2010 this month for iPhone/iPod Touch. Screenshots for the $7.99 App Store download clearly show actual NFL team and player names. The game appears to be available for non-Apple phones as well.

It seems quite puzzling that EA would let development rights for any platform slip away, particularly for the popular Apple platforms.  

-Doug Buffone, ECA intern

The top dog at U.K developer A-steroids, creator of Underworld: Sweet Deal for the iPhone, is worried that his company's game is going to be rejected by Apple over its drug-dealing theme.

As readers may recall, this is a bit of an ongoing saga. GamePolitics reported in December, 2008 that A-steroids had renamed the game, originally called DrugLords, in an effort to avoid an App Store ban. A few days later, an Englishwoman who lost her daughter to heroin abuse called upon Apple to ban the game, whatever its title.

Apparently the issue is still up in the air, based on an e-mail GamePolitics received today from Andrey Podoprigora, Head of Studio for A-steroids:

We have recently released our first game on the AppStore - Underworld: SweetDeal. The game was previously known as DrugLords, location-based MMO about dirty trade...

This week, we have submitted the game in it's original drug-trade setting to the AppStore. We were hoping that after the iPhone 3.0 came out with it's parental controls improved, there is a chance for the game to finally come through.

Now, we have got an update from Apple, saying they require "unexpected additional time for review". Which is sort of bad because we are already familiar with responses like that - in December, 2008 this led to months of silence and then ended up as a reject. Would be sad if it means nothing changes in Apple's app reviewing policy.

The recent discussion concerning the ESA's desire to have its rating organization, the ESRB, evaluate game content for the iTunes App Store brings a number of questions to mind:

1.) Why?

Having watched how corporations, lobbyists and their related entities do business for some time now, I'm too jaded to believe that ESA/ESRB wants to jump into rating App Store games for the good of society or because it's the right thing to do. This would, after all, be a significant commitment of ESRB resources. Generally such things happen because there is revenue to be made or there's power to be grabbed.

Despite its present chaotic nature, the App Store is a rising star in the game space. Getting in on the ground floor would be a coup for the ESRB. Apple has a lot of money, too, and the ESRB is paid a fee by the developer/publisher for each game it rates. Despite my cynicism, ESRB spokesman Eliot Mizrachi told me that it's not about the Benjamins:

ESRB is a non-profit organization funded by the revenue generated from the services we provide the industry.  Given our highly discounted rate for lower-budget games, rating mobile games is not a financially attractive proposition; however we believe making ESRB ratings available for those games would serve consumers well.  Parents are already familiar with ESRB ratings and find them to be extremely helpful in making informed choices for their families.  
 
To be clear, our desire is to see Apple integrate ESRB ratings as an option in its parental controls and display a game’s rating (if it has one, the ratings are voluntary after all) in the App Store or on iTunes prior to purchase, not to require that every game available via an iPhone carry an ESRB rating (just as not every piece of video content available will carry an MPAA or TV rating). 

 

Apple’s integration of ESRB ratings into its parental controls for iPhone games would afford parents the ability to block those video games that carry an ESRB rating utilizing the same tool they are being offered to block video content that has been rated by the MPAA or carries an official TV rating.  It’s about giving parents the same ability to do on the iPhone what they are being offered with other entertainment content and can already do on game consoles and other handheld game devices.     

2.) What would it cost?

I asked the ESRB what it costs a developer/publisher to have a typical console game rated?  Would the cost to rate an iPhone game be less? Mizrachi said:

Our standard fees for getting a game rated cover the costs of providing that service.  However, to make accommodations for lower-budget product like casual and mobile games, several years ago we introduced a highly discounted rate - 80% less - for games that cost under $250,000 to develop.  We believe most iPhone games would likely be eligible for the discounted rate.

3.) Isn't this a lot of extra work for ESRB?

Mizrachi was asked whether the ESRB has the capacity to handle an influx of iPhone games for rating. His response:

ESRB has seen increases in rating submissions each year since its founding and has always been able to keep pace.  We have rated more than 70 mobile games to date and will undoubtedly rate more in the future as the market grows.  Consumers of those mobile games that have been assigned ESRB ratings should have access to rating information, and if parental controls are available, the ESRB rating should ideally be operable within that framework. 

4.) If the ESRB plans to do App Store games, what about Xbox 360 Community Games (soon to be known as Indie Games)? 

I also asked Mizrachi about the indie games on XBL. Wouldn’t they seem to be a more natural focus for the ESRB before targeting iTunes? Mizrachi said:

Once XNA games graduate to XBLA they are rated by ESRB... ESRB isn't "targeting" iPhone games.

5.) Who would pay for ESRB to rate App Store games?

Not the creators of $0.99 games, for the most part. They are apparently not making significant revenue. Apple has a deep pocket, of course, although they are not the creator of the games for sale on the App Store. Perhaps the larger industry players such as EA, Namco, etc. would foot the bill for their games. They are already accustomed to dealing with the ESRB.

6.) If only some games are rated, why bother?

But then again, if only the commercial game apps from major publishers are rated, how does that stop your kid from downloading Baby Shaker or Hot Dog Down a Hallway? The foundation for the retail employment of ESRB rating is its ubiquity. Major retailers won't carry non-rated games. Thus, parents have a reasonable expectation that their 12-year-old will be turned down if he tries to buy GTA IV. If not all App Store games are rated, such an expectation is not applicable. So, what's the point?

Hopefully we will learn more about the ESRB's plan as we go forward.

The ESA & ESRB (which is owned by ESA) have recently begun a push to bring the videogame industry's content rating system to that wild frontier of gaming known as the iTunes App Store.

The ESA plan has now received support from a rather unexpected source.

Dr. David Walsh of the National Institute on Media & the Family has weighed in with an endorsement of ESA boss Mike Gallagher's offer to have the ESRB rate App Store games. In a statement released late on Friday, Walsh said:

Michael Gallagher deserves considerable credit for his foresight in identifying the latest challenge for parents, the gaming industry and the ESRB. As gaming technology continues to advance and games become more accessible via online downloads and phone applications, parents will need new tools to keep inappropriate games out of their kids’ hands.

 

Gallagher took a great first step offering to work with Apple to ensure inappropriate content does not make its way into kids’ lives. I hope Apple accepts his offer and reaches out to other organizations like the ESRB and non-industry groups who are concerned about this issue and can offer valuable insight.

GP: As GamePolitics reported last September,  the National Institute on Media & the Family was the recipient of a $50,000 grant from the ESA Foundation.

Do games on the iTunes App Store need to carry ESRB ratings?

In recent times there have been a number of questionable developments in regard to iPhone apps. Some were banned that perhaps shouldn't have been. Others were cleared for sale despite containing questionable content.

Kotaku reports that ESA boss Mike Gallagher would be open to working with Apple on rating App Store games:

We’ve been down this road before, the entertainment software industry, we know how this goes and it’s wise for (Apple) to make steps in that direction so that this is addressed up front and there is an environment that is hospitable to children and families. It would be wise to do that, we would welcome the opportunity to work with them, we are reaching out to encourage that.

 

That doesn’t mean that every entrepreneur, every software engine that is able to write code and put up an app on the App Store is going to go through this process it simply says that if a game is rated it needs to pass through and be filtered appropriately by the controls that are on the iPhone. That would be a big step in the right direction and it is virtually friction free.

GP: While App Store offerings clearly need some kind of coherent rating system, it's unclear whether the ESRB is the right vehicle. As Gallagher notes, there is a high volume of games on the App Store. If all are not to be rated, of what value is a rating system? Who decides which games need to be rated? What is the ESRB's operational capacity to absorb App Store games into its workload?

Not mentioned by Gallagher, but clearly a factor, are the fees paid by developers to the ESRB have games rated. As GamePolitics reported just yesterday, most App Store games are not making money. Will small-time developers of $0.99 games who are hoping to catch lightning in a bottle on the App Store participate in a rating system which requires them to fork over to the ESRB up front? It seems unlikely.

While stories of striking App Store gold abound, a successful iPhone developer writes that the market is over-hyped and under-performing.

Using his STROMCODE blog as a platform, developer Rick Strom complains that even some best-selling apps generate very little return for their creators:

With two apps on the [Top 100] paid charts, one would assume I’m rolling in dough... 

The reality is much more startling.  In order [for Strom's Zen Jar app] to place #34 on the social networking charts, you need 30-35 downloads a day.  At the standard app store pricing of .99, and after Apple takes its cut, that means your app needs to bring in a little over $20 a day to chart at that position... 

 

So what does this all mean?  Well keep in mind there are over 36,000 apps in the app store.  If the apps on the category charts are doing those sorts of numbers, what do you think the rest of them are doing?

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.   The aren’t selling at all...

 

The app store isn’t a sane marketplace at all, any more than the lottery is...  

Inexplicable content decisions continue to be made by the people running the iTunes AppStore.

In the latest example, Apple has banned a new version of Metaversal Studio's Hot Dog Down a Hallway game due to sexual innuendo. However, an earlier version was previously approved and remains available - double entendres included - for $0.99.

As reported by the Boston Globe:

In the game, players try to launch a hot dog down a corridor lined with various hazards. Players earn "achievement" awards, which are described using suggestive slang terms.

A shaken baby game gets cleared for sale, but an official Nine Inch Nails app is rejected because users might hear some bad language from the 1994 album The Downward Spiral. Never mind that the album itself is readily available from the music side of the iTunes house.

Such are the vagaries of life on the iTunes AppStore, where an ESRB-like app rating system seems increasingly preferable to the hodgepodge system now in place.

While NIN frontman Trent Reznor (left) is not the first to vent about the AppStore situation, he may be the best-known celebrity to call Apple out. In his rant, Reznor even managed to pull Wal-mart and Grand Theft Auto into the mix:

Thanks Apple for the clear description of the problem - as in, what do you want us to change to get past your stupid... standards?

 

And while we're at it, I'll voice the same issue I had with Wal-Mart years ago... Wal-Mart went on a rampage years ago insisting all music they carry be censored of all profanity and "clean" versions be made for them to carry...

 

NIN refused... My reasoning was this: I can understand if you want the moral posturing of not having any "indecent" material for sale - but you could literally turn around 180 degrees from where the NIN record would be and purchase the film "Scarface" completely uncensored, or buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto where you can be rewarded for beating up prostitutes. How does that make sense?...

 

Come on Apple, think your policies through and... get your app approval scenario together.

Thanks to: Longtime GP reader ZippyDSM...

A brief item on TheStreet.com mentions that there are rumors afoot that Apple may be fueling a major move into gaming by attempting to acquire publishing giant Electronic Arts.

Commenting on the speculation, Edge Online notes that Apple has recently hired some execs with game biz background.

TechNewsWorld has more speculation on Apple's gaming ambitions.

UPDATE: VG247 reports that Wedbush-Morgan analyst Michael Pachter pulled no punches in his assessment of the Apple-EA rumor:

To say that it is idiotic would be an insult to all idiots.

Pachter was also blunt in comments to Gamasutra:

Sounds retarded to me.

Apple could buy Warner Music for around $3 billion, and control 20 percent of all recorded music. That makes more sense to their current business model than buying EA for more than twice that, doesn't it?

I don't want to start a rumor, but want to point out that Apple doesn't own any entertainment content, so I don't know why they would feel compelled to enter a new business unrelated to their current product slate.

Pacific Islanders are expressing outrage over a popular iPhone game which they say encourages the torture and killing of characters who resemble them.

The Brisbane Times reports that the Pacific Women's Information Network has targeted Pocket God, which puts the player in a deity-like position of power over "primitive islanders." Group spokesperson Elaine Howard - who lives in the United States - told the newspaper:

How do you think people would react if you created a game where you were God and you could create and kill as many Mexicans as you wanted? Or Asians? People would be outraged.

I hope you don't decide to advertise your application in New Zealand or Australia because you will get a backlash of the same intensity.

Dr. Malakai Koloamatangi of New Zealand's Canterbury University added:

To claim [the characters] are not Pacific islanders is ridiculous. Everything about them is Polynesian. How can they justify encouraging the torture of a race in this way? It's disgusting.

I'm not saying let's bring in the thought police but there needs to be limits on what is acceptable, and this surpasses those.

Bolt Creative, which developed the 99-cent app, denied that it intended to depict any actual ethnic group in the game.

For JFK fans or those with an interest in history, a just-released free app for iPhone/iPod Touch delivers the full audio and text of President Kennedy's January, 1961 inaugural address.

The best-known line from that speech, of course, is:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

An iPhone/iPod Touch game in which the player attempts to stop a baby from crying by violently shaking the motion-sensitive handheld device is understandably causing a stir.

Although iTunes has apparently removed Baby Shaker from its AppStore offerings, the controversy over the game lingers.

Cnet reports that Baby Shaker drew criticism from, among others, Jennipher Dickens, whose son Christopher was injured after being shaken by his father. Dickens, the founder of the nonprofit group Stop Shaken Baby Syndrome, commented on the iPhone app:

As a mother of a child who was violently shaken at 7 weeks old, causing a severe brain injury, and the founder of a national organization for Shaken Baby Syndrome prevention... I don't have to tell you how much this horrifies me!

But Saul Hansell, writing for the New York Times's Bits blog, has criticized Apple for pulling the game:

I’m troubled by the way Apple caved into pressure here. Of course this application is deeply offensive, with no redeeming value except to people who like to play gross games or have twisted senses of humor.

But as I wrote in February, the App Store is coming to resemble a bookstore. The applications available there can have political, social or literary content. And we know that one person’s manifesto is another’s heresy, and that your masterpiece may well be trash to me.

Meanwhile, The Consumerist reports that Baby Shaker was pulled from iTunes, made available and pulled again.

Over at Water Cooler Games, Georgia Tech prof and noted game designer Ian Bogost offers some thoughts on Bailout Bonanza, an iPhone game released in late March.

Bailout Bonanza is essentially a clone of the classic Activision game Kaboom! -- the player moves or tilts the iPhone to maneuver a bucket at the bottom of the screen, which catches money bags dropped by a Wall Street banker out of a neoclassical financial building...

 

The problem is, this game doesn't really satirize or comment upon the bailout. If anything, the Kaboom! gameplay feels backwards... The game also points to the issue of timeliness in editorial games. Creating an iPhone game like this one is relatively easy, but it still takes more time than making the equivalent Flash game... the bailout of the financial sector is, in a way, old news.

Bogost notes that Bailout Bonanza is just one of several bailout-themed games available on the AppStore.

Anti-violence campaigners in the U.K. are upset by iPhone apps which simulate real-world firearms, reports the Evening Standard.

At issue are freely-distributed titles such as Bang Bang and Shotgun Free, which advertise a gun-like user experience. From the Evening Standard:

Software available free from Apple's online store allows the devices to emit a loud gunshot sound when the owner points it and shakes it... Several different guns are available, from revolvers to shotguns, including a "gangsta edition" where the serial numbers have been filed off.

John Beyer of mediawatch UK, a frequent critic of violent video games, told the newspaper:

In view of recent events in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, I think anything that glamorises guns and shooting is in extremely poor taste. I would hope that whoever is responsible for this would withdraw it immediately.

Via: Mediasnoops

Apple, it appears, takes a rather dim view of political satire - at least where iPhone apps are concerned.

TechCrunch reports that Apple has nixed a seemingly harmless game in which depictions of President Barack Obama and other U.S. political figures jump on a virtual trampoline.

The news comes on the heels of Apple's recent rejection of another would-be iPhone game which parodies December's hurling of a shoe at then-President Bush. That well-known incident was widely satirized via online Flash games.

TechCrunch questions Apple's censorship of Obama Trampoline:

Developer Swamiware was surprised to see its latest iPhone app rejected by Apple, and so are we. The application was a harmless game that let you select a known U.S. politician (both republicans and democrats) and have him/her jump a virtual trampoline...

 

Does the Obama Trampoline app actually ridicule public figures? It’s not obscene or pornographic of nature, so why was it deemed either offensive or defamatory?

The Illinois Senate may have given  Rod Blagojevich the boot via impeachment, but game developer Yanki.JP is celebrating the disgraced ex-Guv's reign with with Pay2Play, a new iPhone app.

The game's website lets us know that this is not exactly a hardcore political sim:

Pay2Play is the game of trading and danger. How much money can YOU make selling senate seats? Head all over Illinois trading your way to success!

You have 30 days to pay back the unions, make tons of cash, and get out of town all before getting impeached! Transposing a trading game such as Dopewars with a slick interface on the iPhone.

Also a gaming first! Alcopops make it to the game scene for the first time. See what Illinois politicians have been so worried about!

The alcopops reference is a dig at a recent Illinois law prohibiting the depiction of the sweet, boozy drinks in games aimed at children - not that there has ever been an alcopop depicted in a video game.

Eager to try your hand at corrupt Illinois politics? You'll have to wait a bit longer. Pay2Play is currently on hold pending AppStore approval.

Via: Kotaku 

Last week, GamePolitics reported that a soon-to-be-released drug dealing game for the iPhone had been renamed in an apparent effort to win App Store approval. Drug Lords, developed by a-steroids, had its name changed to the less offensive Underworld.

Despite new title, the mother of a British heroin user wants the game banned, according to UK tabloid the Daily Star. Thelma Packard's daughter Amy has been in a coma for seven years after dabbling with heroin as a 17-year-old. Mrs. Packard told the newspaper:

My daughter’s life has been ruined by drugs. If this game is allowed to come out, impressionable kids will play it and Amy’s mistake will be repeated over and over again. Youngsters like Amy are exactly the people who download and play games like this on their mobiles.

 

I just want to help other families avoid the nightmare that’s wrecked mine.

What's in a name?

App Store approval, perhaps.

Pocket Gamer UK reports that Drug Lords, a drug dealing sim for the iPhone, has been renamed Underworld by its developer, a-steroids.

The move is apparently by way of not alarming the folks who run the App Store. From Pocket Gamer:

a-steroids contacted us to announce the game has finally been submitted to the App Store. Assuming approval, you should be able to start hawking your illicit narcotics sometime in December. But, in order to grease the wheels, the game has undergone rebranding. So, like a GTA hot car respray, it's goodnight Drug Lords, good morning Underworld. The name is less controversial and certainly more App Store friendly.

The game sets you up a small-time drug pusher, selling your stash on the local street corner to other players, and even makes use of the iPhone's GPS functionality, meaning you'll be wheelin' and dealing from your realworld local street corner... the map screen now includes data on pushers in your local vicinity...

a-steroids notes on its website that the game will be free. But, when it comes to drug dealing, isn't the first one always free?