It’s one of the best stories that I’ve seen in games, but there is still a ridiculous amount of just non-stop peril that’s slightly divorced from the story and I know there’s a logical reason for it to be all going on in the story – you’d never sit through a film with that level of violence going on for so long – like this is the most mental film I’ve ever seen.”
Such a good point, I suppose the catch is how you keep the interaction up and don’t slip into just becoming a lame movie substitute. I’d imagine the innovations that solve this will come from indie world where budgets are lower and risks can be taken. Although strange that has so rarely been the source of innovation in gaming?
December 2nd, 2013
New research suggests that IT buyers continue to shun social media, preferring search engines, personal networks, consultants, trade media and industry analysts when choosing their suppliers.
The study, from CCgroup, polled 150 IT decision-makers in the UK. It found that when researching suppliers, IT buyers were very unlikely to use LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook or Twitter. They were also unlikely to be influenced by national media or industry forums, placing their trust instead in peers & colleagues, search engines and consultants.
Bizarrely confused conclusions here. So, they trust search engines, personal networks, consultants etc — but don’t think to connect that those influencers may get their knowledge from social channels? If it’s vicarious influence, isn’t it just as valuable?
Also, you might expect that some of this audience doesn’t use social in a native sense. But there are no doubt innovative and forward-looking members of the group that do. And if you’re the vendor of something that’s ambitious, disruptive and innovative, aren’t those going to be the low-hanging fruit to convince to your side?
Unless I missed a bit, the conclusions here seem pretty off.
November 28th, 2013
From Wired UK:
"I remember Chad and Steve parading celebrities onto YouTube which made the community go fucking ape-shit," said Paul. "We completely mobbed their videos with shitty comments and the corporations said, fuck this! We’re out. The community for one second knew that we were YouTube. Everyone had to go through us, because we owned that bitch." And for a very brief moment, that "bitch" was indeed owned by the content creators — until Chad and Steve sold YouTube to Google.
For all the recent fuss about YouTube, it’s easy to forget how far it has come and the struggles and evolution it has weathered so far. Looking at this, twitter and co, the message is clear: Change or die. If you get a bit of negative sentiment through the process, it comes with the territory.
November 28th, 2013
Facebook today is worth around $120 billion. So the market value of Facebook in the last two years has swung between about $40 billion and $120 billion, so maybe average it out to $80 billion. My point is Facebook actually sold the company. They actually sold the company to Yahoo (YHOO) in 2008 for $1 billion. But a very lucky thing happened, which was the financial crisis, and Yahoo reduced the offer by $200 million. And Facebook walked. It was literally how to lose. It’s like a horror story: how to lose $119 billion in five years.
November 27th, 2013
I knew that Handford had placed Waldo in each of these illustrations, and in my experience, all people—even people who make a living hiding cartoon men in cartoon landscapes—have tendencies, be they conscious and unconscious. True randomness is very difficult to achieve, even if you want to, and according to Handford he does not necessarily aim for unpredictability. “As I work my way through a picture, I add Wally when I come to what I feel is a good place to hide him,” he once told Scholastic. Knowing this, is it possible, I wondered, to master Where’s Waldo by mapping Handford’s patterns?
November 26th, 2013
Sometimes effective growth hackers execute less scaleable tactics to drive WOM. Every Thursday, Dan Martell, CEO of Clarity, picks up the phone to call 25 to 30 users and asks how the company can make a better product to suit that user’s needs. Dubbed “smile and dial,” he gathers direct feedback but he isn’t just doing customer development—he’s inspiring WOM.
Good PR is a two way street…
November 25th, 2013
By all means make a choice, and by all means obtain the maximum utility from it. Just don’t deceive yourself about the reasons for your decision. If you can only afford one machine, then that’s all you’ll buy, and that’s fine – but don’t frame it as a choice. If you only want to carry one, then only carry one – and acknowledge that you imposed that limitation yourself.
But if those limitations don’t really apply, allow yourself to see the age-old wisdom of using the right tools for the job. Choosing only one device is so enormous a compromise as to make other factors irrelevant.
No device fits all situations, and no device ever will. If you do more than one thing, in more than one place or in more than one way, maybe you ought to have more than one tool.
Feels like this article is slightly rushed. For example, why not include TV? Why ignore watches, since they’re starting to become part of the game?
I think the more interesting thing is why we bother to think of these devices as such discrete categories. It doesn’t mean you’ll start only buying one, it just acknowledges that as the services are increasingly whirring away in the cloud, what you decide to call these various pieces of glass is irrelevant.
In that sense, he’s right. If you need a small piece of glass on your person for notifications (watch/phone) a bigger one for work (tablet/laptop) and a bigger one for viewing (TV), that’s fine. But I think less and less will it be that you’re buying what we think of as specifically one of those old fashioned items.
November 25th, 2013
It is also why arsonists tend to favor gasoline. Trying to set the side of a building on fire with a battery pack is far less effective.
Tesla is maybe my strongest example of communicating your story blog-first at the moment. And you don’t have to be Tesla to do it smartly.
November 25th, 2013
If we return to the graph at the beginning of the article we see that the value of Youtube is $1.5bn - this is the price Google bought it at in 2006. It’s now estimated to be worth anywhere from $15 - $45bn. This is the power of combining a great funneling service with an ad giant like Google. This is Snapchat’s only hope of creating value for its board and investors, and it can only be realized by another company.
Would make sense that most of its publicity is about suggesting it’s incredibly valuable then. Is this how balloons are born?
November 21st, 2013