It's amazing how smartphones can be used nowadays. One of my friends this past summer bought a steadycam for her smartphone. It actually worked pretty well. In a way smartphones have made film making much more accessible and "democratic" since steady cam technology is starting to become cheaper through smartphone technology. ...Well I don't know how practical it is to carry around a PS3 controller, but it looks pretty cool.
I think it's an interesting concept, and would certainly make gaming on a phone easier (I hate the stupid touchscreen emulators, they make my fingers feel so clunky), but for me it brings up the question of whether we really need to be playing games on a phone. I feel like this echoes the trend of things like the kindle and the iPod etc. Is "on the go" necessarily better? Or are there some things meant to be enjoyed in their original form?
This is an interesting point. I usually see people immersed in their PSPs and their iPads on the train and subways back home. How does the gaming experience change when people are playing between trips rather than at home on their couch? Do the games need to be played in a specific environment in order to be experienced fully? Does this imply that you need to tune out entirely (which you can't do on public transportation) in order to enjoy the full world of the game? I think it's different for everyone. I know people who happily watch five minutes of a movie then go to class then save the rest for later. I'm very anal and can't watch some movies on my computer because I feel I won't fully get everything out of it that I want. This could be the same with games, though some games are designed specifically to be played in short bursts like "Ski On Neon" while movies are not. I don't know if there's an answer, but if I had a game I really liked I'd probably buy that attachment, though I'd be scared of getting too addicted to it. I got rid of my iPhone for a year because I was playing too much Angry Birds.