Retro Immersion

This week I’m back to talking about Microsoft, and probably a bit about Apple too but mostly Microsoft and their service for Xbox and PC called “Game Room” (www.microsoft.com/games/en-US/Games/Pages/gameroom.aspx) . I’m going to start by saying that I love arcades; My generation was probably the last generation to have awesome arcades that were common and also video game systems that were common in the house, so I have an appreciation for playing games at home and going to the arcade. My childhood had a lot of going to arcades and blowing all my money on games like Street Fighter. Sadly, this trend is declining and even countries like Japan are seeing arcades closing in droves). I honestly don’t see video games at home very social when compared to meeting and challenging friends at the arcade, and that’s something else I miss.

In walks Microsoft with their Microsoft Game Room, which, is basically a giant arcade with tons of old school retro and arcade games that you visit using your Microsoft avatar. You can walk around and interact with others in a simulated virtual arcade. I’ve used it and it’s sweet. You get a pseudo interaction by walking up to other in game avatars of your friends playing on the arcade cabinets and you can communicate with them via microphone as if you were there. It’s still not as great as being in an actual arcade and I’d like to see more recent arcade titles, but it’s still an extremely fun experience that is really designed around the social aspect of arcades (and that’s what makes it so fun).



Alternatively outside of Microsoft, classic arcade game companies like Capcom are implementing their own idea of a social like experience within their games. They remade the classic Street II Turbo and added an arcade feature where up to 8 people can be in a lobby watching two people play against each other. When someone loses the next person challenges the winner and this repeats until the winner’s streak is broken and the new winner keeps playing. Everyone can watch the match and talk with each other. This is a similar experience for anyone who’s played their fair share of Street Fighter in arcades. The new Super Street Fighter IV (www.streetfighter.com) also has the feature (called “Endless Battle”), in addition to a drop in feature where you can play against the computer until someone challenges you and they can drop in and play a match against you. Again, this is similar to another Capcom arcade classic coming out Final Fight Double Impact which allows anyone to hop into the game you’re playing at anytime just like in the arcades.



This might all be a lot of talking about video games, but the immerse nature of these types of games that try to replicate a once common social aspect of them is something I think that goes overlooked. When we talk about video game immersion and Web 2.0, the most common types to talk about are games like World of Warcraft and things like Second Life or even Neopets. I don’t really consider those games actually socially based as interactions are based on the interactions created by the game (also I think they are boring, and that to get truly immersed in the social aspects of those games, you might give up on some social aspects in life…just saying). Virtual arcade type features revolve around the fact that there used to be a social setting, and then it tries to recreate that. To me, that’s more of a social experience, especially as it’s a social experience rooted within a social experience. Any experience that replicates going to an arcade with your friends is a good thing!

Oh and my gamertag on Xbox Live and Games For Windows Live is KidQuamen (Not that anyone is reading this to add me…)

The Implications of Making a Game In Facebook...and Web 2.0 or Something

So a couple of fellow Computer Science students and myself, who are also friends (and also in CS280 and loving life), are throwing around the idea of making a social type game. We were looking at ideas for games as we kind of know a little bit, but we didn't want to get too ambitious (we'd rather finish a project than have a pretty demo). We've kind of determined the game we'll be doing and the dynamic, but then we had to decide on how to program it...

We looked at our varying degree of knowledge between the few of us, and threw around a couple of ideas as to how to code it and get it out there. There's the first obvious one, C++, but that could be a large undertaking to work with that. We then looked at a pre-made game engine like Unreal, but that could make a low tech game look even worse (or it'd take a lot of effort to create some post-processing effects to make it look low tech). There were some other options we threw around like C# and XNA, but we then thought we'd try our hand at a Facebook game after reading how companies like Zynga (http://www.zynga.com/) who were relatively inexperienced at making Facebook games managed to do something with it. So we've decided on a Facebook type game, using Flash, which we honestly don't know a thing about. As nerdy as it sounds we thought this would be a fun summer project to make a game AND learn flash at the sametime. The only question is what are the downsides of working with Facebook?



- The main thing once again is learning Flash. How hard is it? How easy is it to use? We have no idea. After reading about Zynga kind of going with the flow and not necessarily being huge Flash gurus though, that eased our pain a little bit.

+ Tons of people are on Facebook, so that was a major positive for us. Not so much to make it big (we are students afterall), but as a way to get as much feedback as we can and hopefully learn to be better programmers (and having something meaningful to put on the resume!).

- Games on Facebook are definitely low tech and socially focused, this means if we want to get anything out of this project we still need to make sure we're not eating up all our time trying to make some really complex stuff that won't even be appreciated or noticed.

+ On the opposite end of the spectrum, the simplicity might actually help. Working within stricter boundaries might teach us a thing or two about coding and make sure that we keep it simple and to the point.

Those are just a few of the main implications we had to take into account. I think we'll understand more as we get this rolling. Who knows, we'll probably even get some of the early code and implementation of the ideas we have up here. The main thing though, is that Facebook much like a lot of Web 2.0 is a very social atmosphere so the main thing is to make something that appeals to the more casual person, while hopefully poking a little fun at the more hardcore gamer (have I said too much?).

More to come...

What Web 2.0 REALLY Means...

Just thought I'd make a quick post as I'm quite busy right now, but I thought I'd quickly comment on what being connected an integrated really means to me.

Today at school our group all transferred files and shared some YouTube videos we made for a school project on our laptops in class. I took us 20 minutes and we all had all the info we needed to finish up our project.

I had to go to Saskatoon for some family business today, so right now I'm writing this, using Dropbox to get files off of my home PC to work on school work while away from home and I was able to access my school group's wiki to edit everyone's content. I downloaded a programing assignment off of an instructor's site and got the notes off of URCourse (University website) because I wasn't able to print them off at home. Tomorrow I'm going to map out all the bike shops I want to go to on Google Maps as I don't know directions to well and I'm a frustrated driver, so it will save me lots of time.

Sure there's Facebook, Myspace and all those Web 2.0 things, but at the end of the day what saves me time is what matters most to me, and I can't help but feel a bit spoiled by technology. If people want to see me drunk in a social setting, they can give me a call, but I'm in no rush to put it online. If I can find where to buy handlebars though...

Web 2.0 vs Real Life...WEB 2.0 WINS!

Ok so I know the last three posts were about Apple/Windows/Linux gadgetry and how they integrate into Web 2.0 and thus how people interface with it. This week I guess I'll switch it up a bit with gaming and people who take the whole virtual life gaming too far. After all, Web 2.0 is about integrating into the web and virtual life gaming in a sense epitomizes the whole Web 2.0 idea.

The reason this all came up is because I read an article on cnn.com (don't hate don't hate) here and it talks about a South Korean couple who neglected their actual real life infant to raise a virtual child character in an online game. They've been charged and are obviously looking at jail time. There's no mental defense or anything like that, they've basically been straight out neglecting their child and ducking the responsibilities of parenting and escape reality with a game.

In a way the whole Web 2.0 idea really caught on with them; they've basically been extremely caught up in the game that they lost touch with reality. They are obviously an extreme case, but isn't that the ultimate goal of these games? Games and websites like Facebook are now marketed with ads and pay schemes to benefit the more people use their services. Obviously they all don't say they want people to get obsessed but at the same time a lot of these services don't do anything to snap them out of it. Companies like Firaxis put an ingame clock, timer, and alarm clock in Civilization IV to help people monitor their time and make sure they don't forget about the real world.

However, looking at a screenshot of this game Prius Online:


It looks pretty ridiculously stupid so maybe people are just idiots (and bad parents).

Moderation, I guess. No one should have to teach you that.

Why Not Jolicloud (or something else geeky and Linuxy)?

So I’m starting to think I might have one of the most potentially bipolar blogs about technology. I’ve also noticed how I seem to like to focus on the battle between Windows and it’s gear, and Apple and it’s stuff. So basically I’m going to try and make that my focus of these blogs, instead of my randomness. Well I shouldn’t say that; there will probably be more randomness. I’ll post some pictures of cheetah’s (which are sweet) in the next post maybe to cleanse the palette of this blog. ANYWAYS...

So yes, Apple stuff vs Microsoft stuff blah blah blah. Why not include Linux stuff? Sure. Specifically Ubuntu and even more specifically Jolicloud. What brought this up was that a few days ago, I was typing away on my laptop (Sony Vaio -> Windows 7) next to my friend/classmate who was doing his thing on his Macbook (regular one with Snow Leopard) and I got to thinking, “Why PC? Why Mac?” and not to hate because I like and use Apple and Microsoft products, but I got to thinking, why do people pay so much more for Macs? I still honestly don’t get it. They’re based off Intel chipsets and the software you can often get for free or buy a much cheaper PC laptop and get even better software (high end Mac or PC software that is, think Garageband vs Cubase if you’re into music). Okay I get it now, the layout is much nice and more intuitive, as the argument goes. I do get that…sort of. Windows 7 is similar now, different for sure, but the functionality is the same or can be made to be the same on either Snow Leopard or Windows 7. So I get it now, people like shiny pretty things! That explains why millions don’t tune in to watch Miss Plus Size America. Ok I get that, plus people often have such a disdain for Windows that in comparison they like Macs that much more(no everyone, but judging by Apple’s marketing strategy that’s the demographic they like to market to most).

So all of this makes sense to me and I can understand why people choose what they do. In a Web 2.0 (see how I included it there?) era people use Windows or Macs to access many of the same things. I mostly see students on Facebook on either a Mac or PC at the University here and it looks exactly the same, so the market for Laptops/Netbooks and OSes, in a sense, is a somewhat level playing field. This all makes me wonder why we we don’t see many if any laptops and netbooks shipping with Linux, and more notably Ubuntu or Jolicloud. I got my girlfriend a Samsung NC10 (I know ladies, I’m a dream come true) and it came with XP but I see some Samsungs are now shipping with Jolicloud. Which I think is sweet. Take a look at it here (keep in mind it's for netbooks):


It's a very straightforward and user friendly interface. In fact it's very similar to an iPhone (which are sweet). Jolicloud and Ubuntu are also free. So why don't we see more linux out of the box computers? They have even more full features on a standard install than basic Windows 7 and just as much as Snow Leopard (well close), and once again it's free. Now let's look at two screenshots of Ubuntu, the first is the current screen and the second is a concept view that is supposed to be implemented in the next major build:





We can see how the first option is very decluttered and how the second pic looks very similar to OSX (but you can get Ubuntu to look somewhat like OSX anyways). Ubuntu is very secure (less susceptible than a Mac or PC) and it's got tons of free software. It's software center and self organization are also great...amazing actually. I do love Windows due to the fact I can play Street Fighter in it and code in Visual Studio, but you can't play many games on Ubuntu or use Windows software on it, but you can't do this on a Mac either (you can run the same virtual pc programs on either though). Really I love Ubuntu, and I still don't get why we don't see more of Linux on laptops and netbooks out of the gate (I remember seeing yellow penguin boxes in tons of shops 10 years ago...as a kid). You get all the slick easiness and access to all the web 2.0 features you get with a Mac plus you get an extra layer of open source accessibility to tweak and program it yourself if you choose to go that route.

Post some comments if you have some insights in this...love to hear it.

The more open ended Web 2.0 approach...from Windows?

Time for another post, and this time it's something I'm VERY excited about. Sure I was excited previously for the iPad (I even made two posts about it), but I think the honey moon excitement period was over and the more I read about the iPad, the more I partially hear the words AppleTV blowing in the wind...I mean one program at a time is all you can use and there's the question of Flash compatibility, not too mention the dreaded App Store process, and I what I find as an amateur programmer looking to start developing software to be a bit off-putting. I mean the only way you can get software on the platform is if you use a Mac AND get accepted by the App Store. If I want to get a more open ended approach, I have to jailbreak my iPhone and then Apple treats you like a piece of dirt.

Now in walks the Windows Phone 7 Series, which while still mum on the details looks to be a real competitor. There is the whole Android thing but Google Chrome isn't really proven and no 3g on the latest model hurts a bit, and it looks a bit like something cheap made by some Korean company you've never heard of...oh wait I think it is! Here's a pic of the Windows Phone 7 Series (is that what we call it?):


Now that's classy! It's the very model of a perfect balance of sleek business shick, futuristic classiness, and simple functionality, but I'm not hear to talk about some sort of weird erotic obsession I may have with Microsoft gadgets (even if they don't have a bunch of crappy commercials with god awful indie music and a bunch of hip wannabes you'd never want for friends)...

I'd like to quickly touch on why I now think Microsoft now rules, very quickly, from a programming enthusiast's point of view:
- C#/C++/VB Express - great for development, free, and all you need to make programs
- XNA - free coding tools and templates to make games
- The fact that Microsoft has really humbled itself by listening to it's user base and giving them what they want.
- Xbox Live - if you like that
- The Zune - underrated but great
- tons of 3rd party software companies adopting royalty based approaches to using their development software to subsidize it's freeness (that a word?).

There's a lot more to it, but the key thing I want to bring up is that MIcrosoft is doing a lot to get me pumped up and that's before they even mentioned their phones. Especially because Microsoft is adopting a 'hub' approach to how you use your phone and it's totally customizable and can be streamlined based on the individuals needs. For me the Gaming hub might take precedence while the People hub might take precedence for someone else. I think it will be great to see what happens, plus there's no itunes needed and no garbage DRM. I'm hoping Microsoft will give more development tools for the masses based on the large user base using already using Windows.

I'm not going to rush out and sell my iPhone yet as Microsoft hasn't announced pricing, networks, locked or unlocked etc., but I may have a post about a 16gb 3gs for sale come Holiday season. I love my iPhone and I knock Apple but I'm still addicted to the iPhone, but still letting go might not be that hard...

iPad Round Two...DESTROY ALL BOOKS

My last blog was about the iPad and how great it is, and while the iPad alone may not signal the ushering in of a digital age of books, I think it may mark the new era of digital books.

It's no secret the iPad exists now and already the New York Times has an app coming out for the digital print edition, and talk of e-books and iPads seems to be two terms that get used in conjunction more and more. It's not just the iPad but Kindle and many others exist as well to make e-books more accessible, and while e-readers are still expensive, they're coming down in price and every year, just like mp3 players, and will soon be a common device (I predict 2010 holiday season).

E-books have been around for awhile though, so if digital books haven't caught on massively yet I don't think they'll have the same shock value on the print industry that digital music had on the record industry, but I think hardware like the iPad will be a catalyst in getting more people to embrace digital print. Books much like vinyl records, have a lot of symbolism and will never go away, but the convenience of having so much data and knowledge at your fingertips will be something that has an addictive quality to it, and I think it may be enough to shift a lot more people towards reading again. Especially in today's society where we see value in things that are easy and come to us. Using an e-reader is like using a computer or a novel so the familiarity will be there no matter who you are.

Contrary to my thoughts (which are pretty much haphazard at best), some in the industry think digital books, more so their prices, will kill paper books. Some companies have have gone as far (Macmillan) to take action against Amazon selling their books digitally for $10, and Amazon even bowed to some of the pressure (read about it here ).

I think it's exciting to see books talked about so hotly, as a musician and someone who's made some money off music, I honestly could care less about some bigger record companies getting ripped off, but a lot of these big book publishers have aggressively adapted prices to the market, not to mention how much effort goes into these books. I think of all the years it takes some authors to write the 900 page programming books I use, then I think of that godawful template music on the radio, and I can't help but feel some authors are under paid.

I don't think digital books will have that same tactile ease or pleasure you get from flipping through a text book, but to carry primers to C++, C#, and Lua in one handy little reader that weighs a pound could be something just as pleasurable. Either way I can't wait to see what comes next for digital print.