
If South Park has taught me anything, we should beware the smug pollution.
25 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Nov 2012
I agree that I'm much happier to pay a fixed amount for a game and I very very rarely pay real money for anything from a free to play game. The exceptions being a few PC games, namely TF2, Tribes: Ascend and League Of Legends. Even then, I haven't paid anymore than £15 between them.
Unfortunately, more and more developers are embracing the free to play model, which in some cases I imagine is being pushed on them by publishers. However, I believe there are 2 different approaches to the model. Genuinely "Free To Play" games vs "Pay To Win" games.
In an ideal world, I would imagine that only charging for cosmetic changes would be the Utopian vision for free to play games. In the case of TDS, changing your bitizens (I still cringe at the name) outfits or names.
Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, and the developers have to strike a decent balance between free to play and pay to win. Some developers have been more successful at this than others. Which is why i have paid for a couple of things in the games mentioned above, because I believe the balance is good enough between paying and non-paying players.
So Facebook have a lot of money, but how long will it last?
As we know, there are many Web 2.0 companies, aimed at what can only be loosely referred to as "social" networking, which I believe are overvaluing themselves, Snapchat at $3 billion for instance and Instagram being bought by Facebook themselves at $1 billion.
I for one think this all might be another bubble waiting to burst and personally I don't think Facebook are currently diversifying enough to be sustainable in the long term.
If we look at other the other major companies mentioned in this article, such as Google and Amazon. Google are expanding into many different markets, Android being a clear success story of that. Amazon are pioneering the online retail sales market, with the obviously dubious drone idea but the much more realistic Amazon lockers.
Facebook however, initially didn't see a market for mobile social networking, and they took their time before coming around to that idea.
All this is of course is referring to 10-15+ years ahead, but surely it's only a matter of time before the bubble bursts.
I'm a bit unsure with the way Samsung are going with their mobile devices. To me it seems like they're aiding the "fragmentation" issue that people like to bring up.
This is due to the extra APIs they are including with their devices. I'm all for innovation with regards to mobile technology and some of the work is extremely useful, such as their own TeamViewer QuickSupport for mobile devices. On stock Samsung devices, you can control the input of the mobile device. However, you are unable to do this on non Samsung devices. Of course you can work around this by flashing the relevant API onto the device, but that's not something a general consumer would necessarily want to be doing.
I'm worried that if they do entice developers to make use of their SDKs using non-standard Android APIs it will fragment the app market (where we'd have non-Samsung compatible versions) and hinder app innovation. Google have been working hard on adding useful APIs to Android over the last few version since ICS and I think it would be nice to see them working with Samsung to add these additional features to the standard Android build.
Unfortunately, it's a case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place, since both are major players and are currently reliant on one another.
It just seems to me like Samsung are hedging their bets a little, whereas Amazon forked Android for their own needs.
"Smartphones have cameras pointing at our faces, and enough processing power to analyse the images captured by them, but manufacturers have been struggling to find a use for that ability since it became possible."
I'm sure the NSA would be able to find a use for that ability...
I would imagine the issue there was if the installed app handled transactions/micropayments for the developers rather than the App Store.
Where as this (Office 365) is a subscription based service that is handled outside the App Store ecosystem (much like The Times or Spotify) with an app to access said service on iOS devices.
I would imagine the customers that this effected had their purses/wallets in their hands whilst fiddling with the chip n' pin terminal. However, this is not the lack of common sense I am referring to.
More that when the NFC payment standard was designed, why was it not specified that there should simply be a confirmation dialogue? Is anything more than a wand waving motion too much for the average consumer to be burdened with?
Surely this would have prevented potential fraudsters as well.
You might want to check there's no prior art for this circular disk idea. Although I'm sure it won't matter to the USPTO. I can see it being very popular idea, revolutionary you might say... Better make sure you patent it for mobile devices as well, just to be on the safe side.
Although it is difficult to formulate legislation on such matters, surely a bit of common sense is required both in terms of the law makers and the potential offenders.
It was only a few years ago when it was a hot topic that many thought violent gaming would turn young people into violent offenders. Seemingly common sense prevailed here and we're not overrun by an army of foul mouth angry teenagers stealing Lambos to pick up prostitutes and then avoiding the police helicopters and tanks while going on a killing spree in Liberty City... At least not anymore than we were before.
Now a more real threat on the internet appears to be the people who think they have no responsibility over what they say online. There is definitely a time for free speech, but if you wouldn't say it out in the real world, why would you post it online with such intent?
Couldn't agree more with the point about MS working this out and evolving the 360 into an entertainment hub.
They're well and truly ahead of the console crowd with regards to this. I think home entertainment devices are the future of gaming, where everything is under 1 roof; TV, films, music, gaming, web browsing and social networking.
The question that remains about this is what will this hub be? A Smart TV? Set top box (eg. Apple TV or Google TV)? Or games consoles becoming more entertainment focused?
However, once this is answered, it will raise more questions. If it's not going to be a console, casual games might work locally on the devices, but hardcore games will have to be streamed via services like the more or less defunct OnLive. If it is to be a Smart TV, what platform will become most dominant? With Smart TVs, how will they sort out the appalling input methods? With a set top box, will there be a default control system for gaming?
It already appears like MS is making inroads into the wider varieties of input methods required for the 360 with regards to the SmartGlass app for smartphones, which you can use as a simple controller to navigate menus or keyboard/mouse where appropriate (eg. Internet Explorer on 360).