All electronic games are made to be addictive, ever since the heyday of pinball. They should have hired the people behind Candy Crush Saga or Farmville or something if that was their goal.
Tencent bought 40% of Epic Games back in 2013, specifically to make addictive games that will bring in a lot of revenue. Fortnite brought in $2.4 billion last year in revenue for a "free to play game".
Why would they hire the makers of Candy Crush Saga or Farmville when they themselves are BETTER at making addictive games than the makers of those games?
And yes, it's true that electronic games are designed to be addictive and always have been, it's good business sense after all. But there's two differences here: 1. Fortnite has decades of experience in psychological research to draw upon and a company with the money and incentive to do so 2. You can play fortnite on your phone. You couldn't play pinball on your phone. This means you can play fortnite pretty much anywhere you want to, any time you want to. And once you've invested money in buying skins and other things for the game, you want to keep playing to "get your money's worth". And all your friends are playing too, and that's all your friend group ever talks about...
Watch this video and learn how Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addictive and get children to spend money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It made $2.4 BILLION in revenue last year, for a "free to play" game. Clearly they know what they're doing. You don't just "accidentally" make that amount of money from a "popular" game.
Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addictive and get children to spend money, which is the point you're missing and the point that Harry is talking about.
Says the guy who has enough free time on his hands to go visit addiction services and see what problems they are dealing with in society, and who has a platform he can use to talk about the problems he has seen with his own eyes.
Fortnite is FAR less of an economic drain for the U.K. than the continued waste of having a pointless "Royal Family" monarchy that doesn't even serve a real political purpose anymore!
Why are you talking about this being an economic drain? Prince Harry isn't. He isn't say "ban Fortnite because it's an economic drain on the country". He's saying "ban Fortnite because its destroying people's lives, and for children damaging their education".
Are you suggesting that the Royal Family causes people to become addicts of royal memorabilia, or something?
I see no reason it's any more addictive than any other online game?
Fortnite actually is deliberately designed to be addictive. Tencent bought 40% of Epic games back in 2013 with the explicit intention of making addictive games such as Fortnite that could wring as much money out of players as possible. In 2018 Fortnite brought in $2.4 BILLION in revenue, for a game that is ostensibly "free to play".
4 prominent employees including Cliff Bleszinski left Epic after the merger due to Tencent's involvement in the company, their plans for monetization of games or both.
This video covers the general structure and psychological manipulations that the game uses to get kids to keep playing and keep spending money and also talks about the 'in-game concert' that Slashdot had a story about last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> So you never know whether you'll be delayed with a "Firefox is installing the latest updates" message box when you need to access something in a hurry.
This is one of the main reasons I use Chrome. Seriously. It updates in the background then displays a little icon saying I need to restart the browser. When I do it shuts down and starts back up in about 2-3 seconds total and all of my tabs reload. Never have to sit through a stupid 'updating' window like Firefox forces on you periodically.
A lot of people in the other comments seem to have not understood what is being suggested here.
The summary talks about a virtual concert that was held with 10 million attendees, using the Fortnite game engine. They're not saying Fortnite the game is going to be this new social thing, they're saying that Fortnite's engine and existing player base is the basis for a new social platform.
If they swing it right, this could be the first online VR world that gets some semblance of mass adoption. It won't be quite like what is pictured in Ready Player One but that's the direction they're heading in.
I think given their existing fanbase and technology they're in a better position to achieve this than any of the other online behemoths. The only question is whether VR tech is good enough / cheap enough to achieve this, or if it's still not quite ready for prime time. Because if they can't use VR then this is likely to go the way that Second Life did - gain a respectable following and some mainstream mindshare, but eventually peter out.
Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon are all working on online game streaming services - Google and Apple have announced Stadia and Arcade and Microsoft and Amazon are going to announce theirs later this year. Nintendo and Sony appear to be missing. But what Epic are suggesting here is a different pivot that looks like it is ahead of the competition, which suggests they're ahead of the curve and therefore could rapidly hoover up a new market before anyone else gets a look-in, the way Amazon did with their cloud offering and Netflix did with online streaming.
The summary reads like IFTTT is a feature of Gmail.
It's the other way around, an app called If This Then That (IFTTT) has Gmail integration functionality that is going to stop working because of changes Google is making to Gmail's API and the IFTTT developers are incapable of finding a workaround for these changes (note: that's not the same as saying workarounds don't exist).
The other half is what will the people DO with their UBI or similar style income?
Maybe you didn't actually read what was written?
more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in
Used to be you turned up at the same place each day, used a shovel and toiled for 8 hours. Eventually the ditch was dug, but your actual duties while monotonous were pretty simple.
Now operating a backhoe is much more complex - less manual toiling required, but more skilled knowledge. Have to know how to safely operate the backhoe, make sure you don't get it stuck, etc. You'll also be going around to many more sites more often, and thus dealing with more clients (or at least worksites) than when you were just shovelling.
Meanwhile the other 9 people are no longer digging ditches at all, but they're also not being paid.
If you're going to have the TV in a fixed position against a wall, then yes this feature is not of any interest.
But if you're going to have it in the middle of a room / on an island, or if you want to move your TV around a lot, then this could be quite a good selling point for you.
For example I imagine that exhibitors at trade shows that like to set up displays in their booths showing videos would love to have wireless displays so they don't have to fiddle with running cables or making sure they aren't stepped on / disconnected sometime during the conference, etc.
Yet another advantage of XRP is that it doesn't use mining to secure it's ledger, so this sort of attack is not possible.
To attack XRP would require 81% of all validators to collude. Since there is no direct monetary incentive to run a validating node, and clients can choose which nodes they can trust, if anyone were to pull off an 81% attack against XRP it would suggest the coin was no longer useful for any serious purpose whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
All electronic games are made to be addictive, ever since the heyday of pinball. They should have hired the people behind Candy Crush Saga or Farmville or something if that was their goal.
Tencent bought 40% of Epic Games back in 2013, specifically to make addictive games that will bring in a lot of revenue. Fortnite brought in $2.4 billion last year in revenue for a "free to play game".
Why would they hire the makers of Candy Crush Saga or Farmville when they themselves are BETTER at making addictive games than the makers of those games?
And yes, it's true that electronic games are designed to be addictive and always have been, it's good business sense after all. But there's two differences here:
1. Fortnite has decades of experience in psychological research to draw upon and a company with the money and incentive to do so
2. You can play fortnite on your phone. You couldn't play pinball on your phone. This means you can play fortnite pretty much anywhere you want to, any time you want to. And once you've invested money in buying skins and other things for the game, you want to keep playing to "get your money's worth". And all your friends are playing too, and that's all your friend group ever talks about...
Watch this video and learn how Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addictive and get children to spend money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It made $2.4 BILLION in revenue last year, for a "free to play" game. Clearly they know what they're doing. You don't just "accidentally" make that amount of money from a "popular" game.
Fortnite is deliberately designed to be addictive and get children to spend money, which is the point you're missing and the point that Harry is talking about.
Says the guy who has enough free time on his hands to go visit addiction services and see what problems they are dealing with in society, and who has a platform he can use to talk about the problems he has seen with his own eyes.
Fortnite is FAR less of an economic drain for the U.K. than the continued waste of having a pointless "Royal Family" monarchy that doesn't even serve a real political purpose anymore!
Why are you talking about this being an economic drain? Prince Harry isn't. He isn't say "ban Fortnite because it's an economic drain on the country". He's saying "ban Fortnite because its destroying people's lives, and for children damaging their education".
Are you suggesting that the Royal Family causes people to become addicts of royal memorabilia, or something?
I see no reason it's any more addictive than any other online game?
Well watch this video then and learn something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Illegal drugs don't have multinational companies pushing them on children. Fortnite does.
Fortnite actually is deliberately designed to be addictive. Tencent bought 40% of Epic games back in 2013 with the explicit intention of making addictive games such as Fortnite that could wring as much money out of players as possible. In 2018 Fortnite brought in $2.4 BILLION in revenue, for a game that is ostensibly "free to play".
4 prominent employees including Cliff Bleszinski left Epic after the merger due to Tencent's involvement in the company, their plans for monetization of games or both.
This video covers the general structure and psychological manipulations that the game uses to get kids to keep playing and keep spending money and also talks about the 'in-game concert' that Slashdot had a story about last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
> So you never know whether you'll be delayed with a "Firefox is installing the latest updates" message box when you need to access something in a hurry.
This is one of the main reasons I use Chrome. Seriously. It updates in the background then displays a little icon saying I need to restart the browser. When I do it shuts down and starts back up in about 2-3 seconds total and all of my tabs reload. Never have to sit through a stupid 'updating' window like Firefox forces on you periodically.
Maybe not easy to remember, but a damn sight easier to read out to someone over the phone.
Your comment does not make much sense.
I would have thought a triangular prism would be the least curvy way to enclose a volume.
A lot of people in the other comments seem to have not understood what is being suggested here.
The summary talks about a virtual concert that was held with 10 million attendees, using the Fortnite game engine. They're not saying Fortnite the game is going to be this new social thing, they're saying that Fortnite's engine and existing player base is the basis for a new social platform.
If they swing it right, this could be the first online VR world that gets some semblance of mass adoption. It won't be quite like what is pictured in Ready Player One but that's the direction they're heading in.
I think given their existing fanbase and technology they're in a better position to achieve this than any of the other online behemoths. The only question is whether VR tech is good enough / cheap enough to achieve this, or if it's still not quite ready for prime time. Because if they can't use VR then this is likely to go the way that Second Life did - gain a respectable following and some mainstream mindshare, but eventually peter out.
Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon are all working on online game streaming services - Google and Apple have announced Stadia and Arcade and Microsoft and Amazon are going to announce theirs later this year. Nintendo and Sony appear to be missing. But what Epic are suggesting here is a different pivot that looks like it is ahead of the competition, which suggests they're ahead of the curve and therefore could rapidly hoover up a new market before anyone else gets a look-in, the way Amazon did with their cloud offering and Netflix did with online streaming.
Those things are not mentioned because they don't fit this narrative.
Facebook is known to create shadow profiles for people that haven't signed up to their service, yet.
The summary reads like IFTTT is a feature of Gmail.
It's the other way around, an app called If This Then That (IFTTT) has Gmail integration functionality that is going to stop working because of changes Google is making to Gmail's API and the IFTTT developers are incapable of finding a workaround for these changes (note: that's not the same as saying workarounds don't exist).
The headline should simply be "Instagram recommended I follow other anti-vaxx accounts after I followed one".
Everyone would simply say "so? why is that surprising" and then the story would not get much attention.
The meant of the story is still that Instagram are trying to do stop recommending these accounts, but that they haven't gotten a handle on it yet.
There aren't any trees that can survive 5 months of darkness, nor 7 months of sunlight.
The other half is what will the people DO with their UBI or similar style income?
Maybe you didn't actually read what was written?
more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in
Is the job truly easier, though?
Used to be you turned up at the same place each day, used a shovel and toiled for 8 hours. Eventually the ditch was dug, but your actual duties while monotonous were pretty simple.
Now operating a backhoe is much more complex - less manual toiling required, but more skilled knowledge. Have to know how to safely operate the backhoe, make sure you don't get it stuck, etc. You'll also be going around to many more sites more often, and thus dealing with more clients (or at least worksites) than when you were just shovelling.
Meanwhile the other 9 people are no longer digging ditches at all, but they're also not being paid.
> I see many pics which have a timeless, classic, sexy look without being "Here's my open legs!" which are a dime a hundred nowadays.
If you were only using Tumblr for "here's my open legs!" pics, which are indeed a dime a hundred nowadays, then you were doing it wrong.
Yes, it was offtopic.
But now that the question has been asked, perhaps you'll answer it?
If you're going to have the TV in a fixed position against a wall, then yes this feature is not of any interest.
But if you're going to have it in the middle of a room / on an island, or if you want to move your TV around a lot, then this could be quite a good selling point for you.
For example I imagine that exhibitors at trade shows that like to set up displays in their booths showing videos would love to have wireless displays so they don't have to fiddle with running cables or making sure they aren't stepped on / disconnected sometime during the conference, etc.
Not with that attitude it won't.
It's just a pity Venus' rotational period is so low, since it would otherwise be quite a nice target for terraforming.
Except XRP is not centralised in any meaningful way.
Yet another advantage of XRP is that it doesn't use mining to secure it's ledger, so this sort of attack is not possible.
To attack XRP would require 81% of all validators to collude. Since there is no direct monetary incentive to run a validating node, and clients can choose which nodes they can trust, if anyone were to pull off an 81% attack against XRP it would suggest the coin was no longer useful for any serious purpose whatsoever.