Talk:Mobile game
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merging
The current mobile game page seems to be an advertisment for a report company! --24.84.188.174
- I'm against merging mobile game with multiplayer mobile gaming. There is enough content in the existing multiplayer mobile gaming article. Mobile game is an even broader subject, so I wouldn't want it subsumed into the multiplayer article, but multiplayer is such a small portion of the market I wouldn't want it to dominaite this article. I will try and give both articles more love, they can easily be improved. Mathiastck 14:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. I personally think that multi-player mobile games should simply be a section (albeit a larger one) in the mobile games article, but I don't know much about the topic, so don't take my word for it ;). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that be weird, the multiplayer article is larger then the mobile games article? Mathiastck 01:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Multiplayer games are not a stand alone thing. In mobile games that support mulitplayer this is usually just an extra feature of the game. For example, most mobile games that support multiplayer also support single player. Multiplayer is not a seperate thing, it is simply part of the entire mobile game. I agree multiplayer should be a section of mobile games. Why should multiplayer get it's own page when it is just a part of the mobile game (assuming the game support multiplayer). -- Nov 9th 2006
- Merge. I personally think that multi-player mobile games should simply be a section (albeit a larger one) in the mobile games article, but I don't know much about the topic, so don't take my word for it ;). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reference links
We have a few reference links which are all either broken or empty contents. I think those should be removed or corrected. codetiger 08:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Worldwide view
The section currently doesn't mention a thirs type of distributor namely the networks themselves. This is by far the most common here in NZ. Unlike Jamba they don't necessarily spend a lot on advertising their service directly. Rather they it is an intergral part of their network and advertised accordingly. For example Vodafone in NZ althoguh I believe Vodafone in most countries are similar. A key advantage such an entity has of course is that they have a simple direct way of billing/charging users without requiring any agreement with networks and they also don't need to worry about downloaders paying high data charges. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
