Slashdot Mirror


Sugar-Coated Drug-Dealing Game Approved For iPhone

Pocket Gamer writes "Of course, Apple wouldn't allow such a salacious games as Dope Wars on the hallowed corridors of the App Store. What Catamount's done is sugarcoat its game (quite literally) and turned it into Prohibition 3: Candy Wars — a reskinned version of the exact same game."

73 comments

  1. Drat it all! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    I used to love playing this game on my Handspring/Palm clone. Why didn't I think about this? The stupid hype it's going to get will guarantee it'll be on the top ten for at least a few days....

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Drat it all! by snowraver1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember playing this on my TI-83 during high school.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    2. Re:Drat it all! by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      I knew that this sounded familiar! I used to play this on my old Visor! Good times.

    3. Re:Drat it all! by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      Yes I did the same. Of course, without the drug references nobody would have found it the least bit interesting.

    4. Re:Drat it all! by Mozk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On Windows, I always liked Drug Lord more. It's essentially the same game as Dope Wars, but with a better interface. I had a lot of fun/frustration trying to get on the high score board, but then I realized that it was sort of easy to cheat and assumed everybody else was since there was no way to get near even the bottom of the board without doing so. Still, it's a great game that I still occassionally play.

      --
      No existe.
  2. I thought it would be Mario by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    out getting more 'shrooms.

  3. Somehow... by samriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that inhaling any of the ingredients in the screenshot from TFA would be bad for you. Especially whole candy.

    Kidding aside, I don't think Apple had much choice. All it takes is five or ten idiots who can't see through their guise, and all of a sudden people are e-mailing them about keeping kid-safe apps off of the App Store.

    In conclusion, blame the shallow, gullible masses.

    1. Re:Somehow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why does a KID have an iPhone? The only phone my kid has is a preprogrammed one with 7 set phone numbers they can call.

    2. Re:Somehow... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      I dont think thats fair. Apple coule make a stand or put in an adults-only section of the store. There are lots of solutions here except for censorship. Blocking and censoring is the dumb way out.

    3. Re:Somehow... by samriel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apple coule make a stand or put in an adults-only section of the store.

      There's the catch.
      If Apple were to make a stand, those same gullible people would cry foul, and before long, the iPhone is 'full of devil-music and Christ-defying smut', and there goes a good portion of conservative buyers.
      On the other hand, if Apple put in an adults-only part of the store, we could skip people crying foul and jump straight to the devil-smut.

      DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what I'm talking about.

    4. Re:Somehow... by powerlord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why does a KID have an iPhone? The only phone my kid has is a preprogrammed one with 7 set phone numbers they can call.

      Possibility 1. They don't have an iPhone, they have an iPod Touch. (queue the "why does a KID have an iPod Touch?" question)

      Possibility 2. Maybe they saved their money and bought it themselves (as a "major purchase") Either with them paying for it through their job, or with the understanding that the parents pick up X amount of the monthly fee, and they have to pay the difference out of chores/allowance/income?

      I could certainly see kids (and I'll be generous and group anyone under ~16 in that category) wanting an iPhone, and with that generation's increased use of SMS/IM, social networking sites, etc I see the iPhone/ipod Touch as a great tool for them (don't need a dedicated computer most of the time, can "time share" the family computer to load music or new apps). The only barrier to entry for them is the initial cost, and any reoccurring charges (for the iPhone), and of course keeping your "friends" from stealing it.

      Of course the real problem here is what the definition of "KID" is.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    5. Re:Somehow... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I dont think thats fair. Apple coule make a stand or put in an adults-only section of the store.

      Why would it even need to be in an "adults-only" section of the Apple store? It's a *game*. It's not real. Anyone who fails to realise this isn't real should be put away for the good of the community.

    6. Re:Somehow... by AnonGCB · · Score: 1

      ... and all of a sudden people are e-mailing them about keeping kid-safe apps off of the App Store...

      Wait, what?

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    7. Re:Somehow... by hobbit · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, well, some kids have to deal drugs for a living, you insensitive clod!

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    8. Re:Somehow... by jack2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The type-o here is correct.
      I HATE "kid-safe" apps and games, they drive me nuts!

    9. Re:Somehow... by Theoboley · · Score: 0

      And thus lands us into the "Why are video games corrupting today's youth" Debate.

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    10. Re:Somehow... by DreadfulGrape · · Score: 1

      "before long, the iPhone is 'full of devil-music and Christ-defying smut'"

      I think that would just help them sell more iPhones...

      --
      sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
    11. Re:Somehow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that inhaling any of the ingredients in the screenshot from TFA would be bad for you. Especially whole candy.

      Kidding aside, I don't think Apple had much choice. All it takes is five or ten idiots who can't see through their guise, and all of a sudden people are e-mailing them about keeping kid-safe apps off of the App Store.

      In conclusion, blame the shallow, gullible masses.

      Why blame an external group who has no direct influence on Apple's actions. Blame the culprit: Apple, this is just wrong.

    12. Re:Somehow... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      If a kid is responsible enough to hold a job that pays well enough to afford an iPhone, then I'll just assume that they are responsible enough to handle omgdrugz!

      And if it's a spoiled kid who was handed a pacifier^H^H^H^H^H^H^H iPhone, then their parents have already screwed them up far more than a game ever will.

    13. Re:Somehow... by brkello · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not blame Apple for the stupid things they do? If they did this on the XBOX 360 the Slashdot crowd would be all over that. If they did this on a PC, people would be crying about the "think of the children" mentality in this country. But because it is Apple, it gets a free pass. I don't understand the worship of companies. Yeah, there are ones that are less evil than others, but they all want as much of your money as possible and they all are capable of making bad decisions. If you are going to have morals or an opinion, try applying it equally to any company rather than allowing yourself to be blinded by zealotry.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    14. Re:Somehow... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I agree. I was exposed to this game in high school. It was a pretty fun game. Can't say it really inspired me to do drugs, or not do drugs for that matter. Having no other expenses, I could have afforded an iPhone at the time, had they existed.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    15. Re:Somehow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seriously. These damn "reply" buttons should definitely be labeled less kid-safe:
      1. Preview -> Goddamn Preview
      2. Quote Parent -> Quote the Motherfucking Parent
      3. Options -> Exercise my right to abort.
      4. Cancel - > Hell, I give up.
    16. Re:Somehow... by scientus · · Score: 1

      the is why googles model (android) is so good. the conservatives can buy only from the store while anybody else can get their apps from anywhere. no whining from either side

    17. Re:Somehow... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      the is why googles model (android) is so good. the conservatives can buy only from the store while anybody else can get their apps from anywhere. no whining from either side

      Considering they already whine when something is available, period, I think they'd still whine in this case. Unless you expect the masses to not know about installing apps from outside the store, in which case the iPhone will be just the same. They can, after all, be jailbroken fairly easily (on Windows it takes a few clicks of the mouse, and the ability to hit both the power and home buttons, but the program walks you through it, on Mac it's similar, but you have to change your USB driver if it's running leopard). And there are millions of tutorials out there to walk you through the exact procedure too.

    18. Re:Somehow... by scientus · · Score: 1

      it is differnt because apple actively attacks jailbreakers while google will suppor the os even if unoffcial apps are installed. In the car world apple's type of tactics were deemed illegal.

      and yes some fundamentalists will find out, but IMHO it makes them not care nearly as much if these things have to be sought out.

    19. Re:Somehow... by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Unless the kid is Pablo Escobar.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    20. Re:Somehow... by ogmaheme · · Score: 1

      "before long, the iPhone is 'full of devil-music and Christ-defying smut'" the iphone IS full of devil music and Christ-defying smut and that's why they do sell more iphones

  4. Re:Poppers by hobbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cocaine is known for making its users go on and on about the same thing, thinking they're being terribly clever when they're really just boring everyone else rigid. It is therefore well-loved by Slashdot AC trolls.

    --
    "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
  5. TI-86 by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    I played the hell out of that game on my TI-86 back in the day.

    1. Re:TI-86 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bloody teacher almost failed me because when they were checking our TIs for coded-in formulas during a calculus exam I refused to delete, among others, Crack Wars (unofficial remake or something).

      The explanation that it was simple a game about drug dealing did not sit well with him, either.

      Humorless git.

  6. Dope Wars by Smidge207 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I remember playing this in real life during high school... (Disclaimer: I attended HS in the mid-80s in So. Cali.)

    =Smidge=

    --
    Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
    1. Re:Dope Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had a rib removed and paused to post on /.?

  7. Yet they let that stupid mobsters game go by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

    I get hit with ads for it from time to time and I think it just jumped to the top of the App store.

    So if we're going to worry about a drug dealer simulator game making it onto the iPhone can we worry more about the one that allows you to put hits out on your friends and uses real social networks (cheapening them in the process as well)...

  8. One of the first Apple ][ games was similar... by msauve · · Score: 1

    "Lemonade" was an economic simulation of selling drugged (sugar) water to people.

    It came on cassette tape.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  9. Sugar Coated Drug Dealing Game ? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are you sure that is what the white powder is?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  10. Re: !literally tag by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they didn't literally sugarcoat it. The submitter felt it necessary to hint that they are using wordplay, for those who might not otherwise catch it.

    --
    ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
  11. Re:Poppers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Indeed seems like you've had plenty of it today as it is

  12. Chocolate Underground? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think of Chocolate Underground when they read this review?

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  13. Re: !literally tag by Duradin · · Score: 3, Funny

    So is figuratively the new old literally?

    "His head literally exploded."
    "I bet, he must have been really mad."
    "No, his head exploded. You can pack a surprising amount of C4 in someone's mouth."
    "Why'd you say literally then? You meant his head figuratively exploded."
    "There's never enough C4..."

  14. Lots of controversy over what they let on ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There is a lot of discussion lately about what they do and don't let on the platform... http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090120-apple-and-app-store-censorship-where-to-draw-the-line.html

  15. They aren't trying to hide it. by orenbum · · Score: 1

    They're not exactly trying to hide id. I just checked on my ipod touch and in the Info it says "based on Drugwars/DopeWars".

  16. There's a word missing from the summary. by Peganthyrus · · Score: 1

    "What Catamount's done is sugarcoat its game (quite literally) and turned it into Prohibition 3: Candy Wars â" a badly-reskinned version of the exact same game."

    Fixed that for you. Seriously, the screenshot in the article is hideous.

    --
    egypt urnash minimal art.
  17. Scandalous! by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

    How DARE Apple quash the creative freedom these developers were exhibiting by ripping off and repackaging an old freeware game!

    1. Re:Scandalous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the smartphone platform with the most marketshare, and the only platform that can claim virtually 100% security, Apple has to make an unpopular decision or two to preserve the platform's integrity.

  18. Of course it's all about the packaging by kalirion · · Score: 1

    "No you just winged him, now he's a Unitarian."

  19. just slang words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    the article says

    The premise now revolves around the abolition of candy in 2040 to combat the obesity epidemic sweeping across the world.

    but from the screenshot (same link) it seems these are just slang for drugs.

    • Sour Tarts = acid?
    • Sugar Sticks = Ecstacy
    • Chocolate = ?
    • Raw Sugar = cocain?
    • Lollipops = ?
    • Brownies = Amphetamine - though I'd have gone with the obvious magic brownies
    • Jelly Beans = Crack Cocaine
    • Rock Candy = Crack

    what would be sweet of course is if all these weren't common slang terms, but only become so because of the iPhone game!

  20. Re:Poppers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cocaine's a hellova drug /Rick James-BITCH!

  21. Re: !literally tag by nog_lorp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Incorrect.
    To literally sugarcoat means to coat with sugar.
    The alternative, to figuratively sugarcoat (i.e. the figure of speech) is to make appear more pleasant or acceptable.

  22. Re:Poppers by rampant+mac · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Cocaine is known for making its users go on and on about the same thing..."

    Linux on the desktop?

    --
    I like big butts and I cannot lie.
  23. Re: !literally tag by paulthomas · · Score: 1

    A wonderful Best of Craigslist rant about the meaning of "literal": http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/van/144733448.html

  24. Re: !literally tag by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To literally sugarcoat means to coat with sugar

    I hate it when people say "literally" for things that are actually far from literal, but in this case, the submitter deserves some leeway. Not only did they figuratively sugarcoat it by making a drug-dealing game a candy-dealing game, but they transformed drugs into candy. Which you could do by literally sugar coating drugs and making them sweet.

    It's still not literally sugarcoating, because there were no actual drugs and no actual candy, but it was quite clever wordplay, so I would say the usage is valid for the purpose of the joke.

  25. Ok, maybe not the first. by SolusSD · · Score: 1

    let me be the first to say: "mmm... sugar-coated drugs".

  26. What we have here is a failure to communicate by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

    Do the article author and the slashdot editor not actually get it? The problem wasn't the game play, it was the theme involved. "Sugar coating" it exactly solves the problem. So why does anyone think they've reached some massive cleverness by sneaking their drug game through the censors?

    It's like that idiot lady that snuck "gun powder" (components) through airport security showing how terrible they are. (I'm not claiming any magic profiling ability in the TSA here.) But if you don't blow up an airplane they didn't fail. If they can determine that you aren't a threat, you being on a plane with a stick of dynamite rammed up your backside isn't an issue.

    1. Re:What we have here is a failure to communicate by spinlight · · Score: 1

      Now trying to explain that reasoning to the TSA agent with said stick of dynamite in one's posterior would be quite a feat. Quite a feat, indeed.

      --
      "I do not avoid women, Mandrake . . . but I do deny them my essence." - Gen. Ripper
  27. Re: !literally tag by chishm · · Score: 1

    This is one place where "ironically" could've been used correctly.

  28. lame pedantry by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, they did also do the figurative meaning: they changed their game from being about selling drugs to being about selling something else in order to figuratively "sugarcoat" the subject.

    But they did so by skinning the game with sugary graphics, which seems pretty "literally" sugar coating to me, in that rather than merely figuratively sugarcoating their game with some arbitrarily less offensive graphics, the new graphics are, literally, images of sugar. That's not the figure of speech "sugarcoat", but the literal "a coating of sugar".

    To quote the grandparent poster, "just because you're not actually pouring sugar over your fuckign iPhone doesn't make this use of sugarcoat (giving your gtame a candy theme) less literal". Perhaps you're going to argue next that a painting of a haystack doesn't "literally" depict haystacks, but only depicts them "figuratively", because it's not actually made out of hay?

    1. Re:lame pedantry by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      In that case, if you want to apply the literal meaning, you would say the in-game drugs were sugar coated. The word play to begin with was witty, until it was ruined by the "literally" comment. I'd put it on par with throwing in "(look at the funny pun I made)", when in fact it isn't even a pun but a double entendre.

  29. VP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyright infringement, sue those MFKRS
    VP

  30. Taipan by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

    I remember playing this game on my apple ][e when it was called Taipan.

    --
    OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    1. Re:Taipan by fullmetal55 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i was going to say, Wasn't Taipan first? and wasn't Drug wars and Dopewars based on Taipan? only good thing about my old Palm IIIe was playing Taipan :)

  31. Re: !literally tag by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

    Well, I think the use of "literally" is redundant at best, and probably ruins the joke (subtlety and all that).

  32. Re: !literally tag by IBBoard · · Score: 1

    They did pretty much literally coat their in-game drugs with in-game sugar, so it's in-game literal in this case :)

  33. Re: !literally tag by Phydaux · · Score: 1

    Incorrect.
    To literally sugarcoat means to coat with sugar.
    The alternative, to figuratively sugarcoat (i.e. the figure of speech) is to make appear more pleasant or acceptable.

    Not really, there are 2 definitions of literally: actually, and figuratively.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally

    Just another auto-antonym.

  34. iphonedopewars.com - shameless plug by jashmenn2 · · Score: 1

    Hey guys, if you want to play a real version of this game, I've created a web-app here: http://iphonedopewars.com/ It's a web app because I knew that APPL would never approve a native app, but hopefully it should be fun just the same.

  35. Re: !literally tag by Will+M+Smith · · Score: 1

    unfortunately government is a necessary evil

  36. Remember "Root Beer Tapper" by DVARP · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the reskinned arcade video game "Tapper." They took out the Budweiser logos, renamed it "Root Beer Tapper," and made it into a fun game I wouldn't have any problem letting my elementary school-age children play. In fact, I might dig up my copy of MAME and let 'em play it!

  37. any1 remember that mac game "happy weed"? by iPhoneAppDemo · · Score: 1

    bcause i'm waiting for a iphone version, I'm sure they won't mind that on the app store! -------- see apps b4 you buy - http://www.iphoneappdemo.com/