Pokemon Go Economy

I think the writer of this gets one thing wrong about how apps, specifically like Pokemon Go can interact with local economies.  While the "internet destroys local business" is actually correct in a lot of ways, augmented reality apps like Pokemon Go could actually turn that around.  The reason is that, while a normal game leaves me in my living room, this one gets me out into the world around.  I was at my train station last night (walking dog but also hitting pokestops and catching pokemon when their servers allowed) and there were 8 people sitting there and I saw another half a dozen at least walk by.  There isn't anything open there that time of night, but what if there was a bar, or ice cream shop or all night diner--better one with free wifi?

And it doesn't have to be food/drink related (just those are easier things to pop into small spaces), It could be shopping or recreational.  If people are going to walk around a lot more, they are more likely to pop in and out of places they walk by--even if most don't--so being near a gym or pokestop has advantages for businesses that know to take advantage.  Additionally, someone could imagine something like Pokemon Go busses being set up...particularly in areas where the critters are less populous and pokestops are fewer and further between.

But really, augmented reality type games, by their nature, could be a boon to local economies. Local businesses could have stakes in the games, where they need to authenticate something, or where they could, instead of advertising, pay to have their place of business be a stop for something.  Maybe a virtual pet can be trained regularly, but if you get at least 8 oz at a DIY frozen yogurt place you can "feed" your pet some and it gets a special trait, or it levels up faster (a one time bar code prints out on your receipt).  Basically a purchase at a store has an ancillary purchase associated in a game.

Why Not Buy the Teams?

I read things like this--and I've heard/read about this issue many times over the past decade or so--and to the extent that major league teams are good for a city, the city should own them.  Having wealthy, capricious owners who can hold cities hostage is bad on so many levels.  Think about it this way: would you pay $100M to help a business out without getting some stake in that business, or at least a whole lot of guarantees that you'd be paid back?  That is exactly what is happening with these teams.

It seems to me that that would be a lot easier to sell to taxpayers/citizens: "We're going to spend $600 M to own the Orioles" instead of "We're paying $600 M to the Orioles' organization in return for which they may not leave the city for now."  Then make a handful of the trades/drafts/deals up for a vote, and if it ends up not working out, no problem: they can always sell the team down the road!

Note: I actually do see lots of problems with this proposal, and don't think it would fly for reasons beyond even those, but I don't know why I haven't heard [anything] like it.

New Gaming Consoles!

Whether it's the Xbox or the PlayStation I really don't know what you are getting for the new systems. I mean, yes, Xbox is trying to bring all entertainment to one box, and that may be something, but mostly it's a convenience, and maybe worth waiting if you don't currently have a console, but hardly a reason for me to upgrade.  The PS3 already has a blu-ray player and much greater capabilities than most games were able to realize.  I don't see any reason to get a new console until they are being used to create more immersive gaming experiences.

The Kinect, Wii and Move were all steps toward that, but all imperfect and/or incomplete.  When the Wii came out it was exciting, but very quickly the limits became obvious.  The Kinect and Move were like two halves of a complete setup, both obviously limited by lacking what the other could do (I think the PS Move had the most potential).  Really, though, the biggest problem was a lack of compelling games that prevented any of the systems from being fully realized.  They were all mostly novelties.  Sorcery on the PS3 came pretty close, and the Move shooters were probably ok (though FPS hasn't been my game of choice since Doom 2).

I would love to see something like the Kinect's general motion/voice capture combined with a deluxe version of the Wii balance board (larger for one, so that you could move around a bit and walk/jog in place) and the Move controller combination.  That seems like it would be a great platform for lots of games.  Since all of those things are already on one system or another, it seems like the current consoles could already do what is necessary.  Maybe not, maybe some additional tweaking would be necessary to bring that all together so that it could be incorporated into games (and making games for these systems may actually be the limiting problem).

Something more dramatically different would be moving off screen to video glasses to get even closer to virtual reality.  Google glasses actually seems like it could be more of a breakthrough gaming platform than the next crop of consoles.

Euro Board Games

It's good that they are getting more popular, makes availability (and prices) better.  I mostly have to avoid BoardGameGeek.com because of the time suck, but it's always fun to check out new games.  For people new to the genre or curious, a good place to start is Settlers of Catan.  Not my favorite--though it is up there--but a good mechanic, not terribly hard on new players, and lots of customizability even with the base game.

Video Gaming

The thing about console gaming for me isn't related to overall consoles and sales, but the rush out for the latest thing.  If the number of titles available on the PS3 was limited, then there would be a decent chance that I would shell out $60 for the latest game.  It isn't, though, and there are plenty of 1-2 yr old titles available new for $20, and lots, even fairly recent ones, available used for under $15. 

Part of it is I'm cheap, and part is that I'm not spending 80 hrs a week playing games so I can't exactly clear 1-10 games/week, but there are way more titles available right now than I will ever be able to play.  Being a year behind the curve doesn't really phase me.

Social Meh.

I'm really not a social gaming fan. I've tried a few (not on Facebook, which I really don't much care for either) but they all struck me as crappy, and remarkably similar. The the linked article is an excellent read as to why (it's long).

Short version: the games are designed to be addictive so that they can extract money from people. They are not designed to be fun, good, or entertaining.

NBC: Ruining the Olympics Once Again

It's no fucking wonder that NBC loses money on it's Olympics coverage: they never show the damned games!

Between their networks there should never be a time that I can't tune into some sport. Further, when they are actually on and I watch, I want to watch the Olympics, not some story about whichever athlete they have decided to drool over that day. I like Shawn White, and I enjoy watching the half pipe, but when that is done, I don't need to see 10 min of celebration or an interview with the athlete, or even worse an interview with a former athlete about a current one or a sentimental montage put to music about the trials and tribulations of some individual. Feel free to talk about those things in the background while ACTUALLY SHOWING THE DAMNED GAMES but there is already way too much time dedicated to commercials, so don't waste the time that you are not advertising.

It's no wonder Olympic viewership is never what they want. If I turn it on and they are doing some crap background story, then I switch over to something else. I want to watch the games, not sports reporters discussing the human stories that are ancillary to the games.

Fable 2 Offline Money Calculator

Is a very fun game. I don't have it but played at a friends. The fighting sucks, but I love the money/real estate side and the interactions with the people around. In particular if you lease a property or own a store you earn money. When you are playing you get it every 5 min of real time. But you get paid when offline too. I finally found some numbers, and used them to give a rough calculator. This is my guess as to how it works in the game. The number of payments you receive when you start playing again goes with the square root of time. Put to numbers it seems:

#pmts = int(sqrt(t/5))

Where t is in minutes since logged out, and with the at max #pmts = 100 (which would occur at near 35 days). I was frustrated by not being able to find this, which at least that serves as a rough estimate.

So it's a good idea to log in, get money and log out daily, even if you don't have time to play every day. (you get 16-17 in the first 24 hrs, but 32-33 in 96, and 45 for 7 days)