This form of advertising, I feel, only becomes a problem when it detracts from the game. Well-considered product placement may even be essential to enhancing the realism; a game set in the 1990s really ought to feature realistic brands, to add 'authenticity'. The same reasoning can be applied to movies, too.
On the other hand, if, having just defeated the Hideous Dragon Zorgaroth (for want of a better name), the player can only restore his health with Lucozade Isotonic Sports Drink(r)(tm) etc., then this is likely to be unacceptable.
Sports game sponsorship falls into the former category. To brind a stadium to life, it is generally better to use current stadium ads, or authentic sports strip, than to invent fictitious, but plausible sounding brands.
The only further problem I can identify with this business model is perversion of cause and effect. For example, if, within the context of an RPG, my character eats MacDonalds regularly, he _should_ become unhealthy. If this is not the case, then it is conceivable that among regular players, the cumulative effect of these type of 'causal anomalies' could cause the player to be less critical of their own diet. Many people identify very strongly with their characters, and this will tend to increase the effect.
A similar problem is if the game rewards preferentially, e.g. drinking a particular type of cola, buying a particular type of PC in game. It is not impossible to imagine a situation whereby to keep your character happy, a MacDonalds is required. Or to advance the character's skill, an HP Handheld PC is required.
In the cases above, these placements are no longer passive. This is problematic especially if the game is attempting to model 'modern life' (e.g. The Sims). Then the distortions introduced are causing the game to resemble a marketeer's nirvana, rather than the reaility and causality we experience.
Few studies have been conducted about the effect of 'reality' games on the mind - those studies that have been done done have tended to focus on 'fantasy' games (e.g. the much publicised Doom and Quake studies).
If implemented as above, this could create a whole new method of implanting brands into people - if you spend your time continually associating 'MacDonalds' with 'happiness', and carrying out the accociation actively, not passively, there is likely to be a significant crossover into reality.
It's relly important, when talking about anything 'Adult', to really understand what you mean. Enjoyable by adult, adult themes, realism, complexity, or the usual 'undesirable content' label.
Age-stratification is essential to product targetting, and as today's first few generations of 'adults' have grown up with the presence of videogames, we should expect this market to be on the increase.
These creatures run a modified Windows Mobile, and have native Pocket Outlook, Contacts, Calendar, Tasks etc installed. These will only sync to MSOutlook, but the original poster did specify Outlook as a possible option.
Statistically, this population *could* be less than 40. To have 692 unique pairs of conversants, in a well-connected network (where most people are on each other's lists), requires less than 40 nodes.
Only in poorly-connected cases, where people only add a few other nodes to their network, can you see 700 unqie users forming 692 unique pairs.
Of course, the ultimate worst possible case requires around 1400 users.
The only problem I can identify with this business model is perversion of cause and effect. For example, if my Sim eats MacDonalds regularly, he _should_ become unhealthy. If this is not the case, then it is conceivable that among regular players, the cumulative effect of these type of 'causal anomalies' could cause the player to be less critical of their own diet. Many people identify very strongly with their Sims, and this will tend to increase the effect.
A similar problem is if the game rewards, preferentially, owning an Intel PC over a non-Intel PC.
It is also not impossible to imagine a situation whereby to keep your Sim happy, a MacDonalds is required. Or to advance the Sim's career, an Intel PC is required.
In the cases above, these placements are no longer passive. This is problematic since the game is attempting to model 'modern life', however the distortions introduced are causing the game to resemble a marketeer's nirvana.
Insufficient studies have been conducted about the effect of 'reality' games on the mind - those studies that have been done done have tended to focus on 'fantasy' games (e.g. the much publicised Doom and Quake studies).
If implemented as above, this could create a whole new method of implanting brands into people - if you spend your online time continually associating 'MacDonalds' with 'happiness', and carrying out the accociation actively, not passively, there is likely to be a significant crossover into reality.
Even where there is no corruption, misunderstanding and insufficient knowledge regarding the details of DNA profiling can lead to miscarriages of justice.
The difficulaty lies in the fact that matches of this kind are nearly always incomplete - you are matching a DNA fragment against a person.
Making a judgement based on the results of tests of this nature requires quite a significant degree of statistical understanding. If a lawyer were to state in a court that DNA testing showed a match with the defendant, and then went on to state the the probability of the test detecting the criminal was 0.999999 or some similar number, it is likely that he would win the support of the jury, and add weight to his argument.
However, this is the wrong issue to be considering in a system of 'innocent until proven guilty' There are always two errors associated with any test, that of a false positive, and that of a false negative. The lawyer is saying that given that this person is guilty, the probability of his DNA matching the sample from the crime scene is 0.999999 - fairly high. In this case, the probability of a false negative is 0.000001 But no mention has been made of the probability of a false positive, or that the test matches given that the person is guilty. This sort of value is much harder to calculate, and the mathematical distinction may well be lost in courtroom rhetoric. Even if this probability were as low as 0.0001, that would mean in 1000 cases where DNA matching was used, one person would on average be wrongly convicted (on the basis of DNA evidence alone).
Fortunately the conviction does not rely on DNA evidence alone, so the facts are not as bleak as I paint them. However, in the emotional and oratory world of the court, there is every possibilty for the subtle distinctions to be lost. Surely a test which is 99.9999% accurate is wonderful?
These problems stem not from the nature of the test, or the concept of the database itself, but from the lack of mathematical understanding amongst the population, coupled with obfuscation by the legal terminology in a courtroom. This is not a criticism of non-mathematicians, but a realisation that the use of evidence of this sort needs to be very carefully monitored.
The same problem extends to many other areas where probabilities and test are used, of which the AIDS test and cancer tests are only two examples.
Slashdot Mirror
This form of advertising, I feel, only becomes a problem when it detracts from the game. Well-considered product placement may even be essential to enhancing the realism; a game set in the 1990s really ought to feature realistic brands, to add 'authenticity'. The same reasoning can be applied to movies, too.
On the other hand, if, having just defeated the Hideous Dragon Zorgaroth (for want of a better name), the player can only restore his health with Lucozade Isotonic Sports Drink(r)(tm) etc., then this is likely to be unacceptable.
Sports game sponsorship falls into the former category. To brind a stadium to life, it is generally better to use current stadium ads, or authentic sports strip, than to invent fictitious, but plausible sounding brands.
The only further problem I can identify with this business model is perversion of cause and effect. For example, if, within the context of an RPG, my character eats MacDonalds regularly, he _should_ become unhealthy. If this is not the case, then it is conceivable that among regular players, the cumulative effect of these type of 'causal anomalies' could cause the player to be less critical of their own diet. Many people identify very strongly with their characters, and this will tend to increase the effect.
A similar problem is if the game rewards preferentially, e.g. drinking a particular type of cola, buying a particular type of PC in game. It is not impossible to imagine a situation whereby to keep your character happy, a MacDonalds is required. Or to advance the character's skill, an HP Handheld PC is required.
In the cases above, these placements are no longer passive. This is problematic especially if the game is attempting to model 'modern life' (e.g. The Sims). Then the distortions introduced are causing the game to resemble a marketeer's nirvana, rather than the reaility and causality we experience.
Few studies have been conducted about the effect of 'reality' games on the mind - those studies that have been done done have tended to focus on 'fantasy' games (e.g. the much publicised Doom and Quake studies).
If implemented as above, this could create a whole new method of implanting brands into people - if you spend your time continually associating 'MacDonalds' with 'happiness', and carrying out the accociation actively, not passively, there is likely to be a significant crossover into reality.
It's relly important, when talking about anything 'Adult', to really understand what you mean. Enjoyable by adult, adult themes, realism, complexity, or the usual 'undesirable content' label.
Age-stratification is essential to product targetting, and as today's first few generations of 'adults' have grown up with the presence of videogames, we should expect this market to be on the increase.
These creatures run a modified Windows Mobile, and have native Pocket Outlook, Contacts, Calendar, Tasks etc installed. These will only sync to MSOutlook, but the original poster did specify Outlook as a possible option.
In the UK we have the XDA/II
More info on Smartphones at Microsoft Pocket PC Phone Edition
Examine page 20.
What's wrong with this picture?
Statistically, this population *could* be less than 40. To have 692 unique pairs of conversants, in a well-connected network (where most people are on each other's lists), requires less than 40 nodes.
Only in poorly-connected cases, where people only add a few other nodes to their network, can you see 700 unqie users forming 692 unique pairs.
Of course, the ultimate worst possible case requires around 1400 users.
The only problem I can identify with this business model is perversion of cause and effect. For example, if my Sim eats MacDonalds regularly, he _should_ become unhealthy. If this is not the case, then it is conceivable that among regular players, the cumulative effect of these type of 'causal anomalies' could cause the player to be less critical of their own diet. Many people identify very strongly with their Sims, and this will tend to increase the effect.
A similar problem is if the game rewards, preferentially, owning an Intel PC over a non-Intel PC.
It is also not impossible to imagine a situation whereby to keep your Sim happy, a MacDonalds is required. Or to advance the Sim's career, an Intel PC is required.
In the cases above, these placements are no longer passive. This is problematic since the game is attempting to model 'modern life', however the distortions introduced are causing the game to resemble a marketeer's nirvana.
Insufficient studies have been conducted about the effect of 'reality' games on the mind - those studies that have been done done have tended to focus on 'fantasy' games (e.g. the much publicised Doom and Quake studies).
If implemented as above, this could create a whole new method of implanting brands into people - if you spend your online time continually associating 'MacDonalds' with 'happiness', and carrying out the accociation actively, not passively, there is likely to be a significant crossover into reality.
Even where there is no corruption, misunderstanding and insufficient knowledge regarding the details of DNA profiling can lead to miscarriages of justice.
The difficulaty lies in the fact that matches of this kind are nearly always incomplete - you are matching a DNA fragment against a person.
Making a judgement based on the results of tests of this nature requires quite a significant degree of statistical understanding. If a lawyer were to state in a court that DNA testing showed a match with the defendant, and then went on to state the the probability of the test detecting the criminal was 0.999999 or some similar number, it is likely that he would win the support of the jury, and add weight to his argument.
However, this is the wrong issue to be considering in a system of 'innocent until proven guilty' There are always two errors associated with any test, that of a false positive, and that of a false negative. The lawyer is saying that given that this person is guilty, the probability of his DNA matching the sample from the crime scene is 0.999999 - fairly high. In this case, the probability of a false negative is 0.000001 But no mention has been made of the probability of a false positive, or that the test matches given that the person is guilty. This sort of value is much harder to calculate, and the mathematical distinction may well be lost in courtroom rhetoric. Even if this probability were as low as 0.0001, that would mean in 1000 cases where DNA matching was used, one person would on average be wrongly convicted (on the basis of DNA evidence alone).
Fortunately the conviction does not rely on DNA evidence alone, so the facts are not as bleak as I paint them. However, in the emotional and oratory world of the court, there is every possibilty for the subtle distinctions to be lost. Surely a test which is 99.9999% accurate is wonderful?
These problems stem not from the nature of the test, or the concept of the database itself, but from the lack of mathematical understanding amongst the population, coupled with obfuscation by the legal terminology in a courtroom. This is not a criticism of non-mathematicians, but a realisation that the use of evidence of this sort needs to be very carefully monitored.
The same problem extends to many other areas where probabilities and test are used, of which the AIDS test and cancer tests are only two examples.