All I know is they better not implement something like Comedy Central and Cartoon Network did. Adult Swim Fix is running that stupid Honda campaign FOREVER and I just discovered today that when I watch Daily Show video clips, they all have the same stupid Pringles ad in front of them.
I'm in advertising, I like seeing new and interesting ads, and while the first time through those ads were cool, now they are fucking annoying, especially when I tend to watch the video clips one right after another like with The Daily Show. Worst move ever, I sure hope Google learns from others mistakes.
" I shell out the monthly fee deliberately because it leaves me with little motivation to purchase $50-a-pop titles at retail."
You know, there are some better things you could do with that $15/mo that would also prevent you from spending it on a $50/pop title. Such as investing...and who knows, with enough of that you might not have to worry about spending $50/title.
The major peril given a single-word mention in the article is PRIVACY. Remember, Google handed over Gmail emails, there's sure as hell nothing stopping them or any other company from handing over all of your data to the courts and probably even the NSA if they asked for it. Their advice to encryptt should be taken seriously. Can any more encryption-savvy slashdotters suggest some powerful encryption tools that would be suitable for backing up files online to be accessed from a remote location?
"Perhaps new copyright legislation should define the "limited time" as one half of the total average lifespan of an American citizen"
And when the uber-rich copyright holders are the only ones who can afford new gene-therapy that enables them to live forever, then what will you do, huh?!
"And, I'm pretty sure the Piracy Party is not supposed to be a 100% serious organization."
And the Daily Show isn't supposed to be a 100% serious news show. Yet look what happens. I personally wouldn't mind if these got treated seriously. In fact I'd welcome it. It would sure be a helluva lot better than a governer being elected whos most famous line is "Asta-la-vista baby!"
/I'm kidding, I think its hilariously awesome that he got elected //Have back-slashies migrated from Fark to/. yet?
"But pirates have cannons that can kill ninjas before they get close enough to use their ninja-fu."
"You can't hit what you can't see." - An old pirate who lost his leg in a ninja-related incident
Re:Ok, I was interested before but now....
on
Wii-mote In Action
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
" It's not as nice as the videos suggest, since you have to overcompensate in any direction you want to aim, making big elabourate movements instead of calculated manuvers."
Thats not what I'm most concerned about...my big concern is how can you have realistic sword fights when there is nothing to forcibly stop the controller from moving past a certain point if your character makes contact in the game.
I especially see this as a problem for multiplayer swordfighting (think a multiplayer Star Wars game) where two people might be waving their swords, but if they cross blades, the controller keeps moving past the contact point, thus screwing up the positioning of the players hands with the remote.
"In a society where people don't need to make any sacrifices -- EVEN DURING A WAR "
We're at a state of war? Someone should really notify the UN since as of yet the US has not made an official declaration of war as of this point. This war is as legit as the "war on drugs". And uses many similar scare tactics to boot.
"So how do you deal with a market that is saturated with viral marketing?"
See, thats the thing. I don't think marketing that goes viral can get saturated. The very nature of it means that it is something new and interesting that people seek out. Thats about as specific as it gets. There are some common tactics thought of as "viral", and those might saturate things, but they are not true viral in the definitive sense of the word. Viral marketing is another way to say "new and interesting creative that pushes the boundaries". Its an excuse for ad agencies to go nuts with stuff. I don't see how this can be a bad thing despite how hard everybody is trying.
"Ads should not be about building excitement. It should be about establishing a consumer need for a product that they do not yet know they need."
There exist in the industry many different types of ads that seek to accomplish a variety of things for a variety of reasons. Building excitement and informing about the product are just two possibilities. Ads should not be a certain specific thing. They should be whatever works.
You seem to think there isn't a market for geeks who don't mind carrying a bag for extra gadgets and want the ability to pull out a small "handheld" computing device and be able to play WoW on the go without the need for a hugely expensive laptop.
Per this post earlier in the comments for this story:
"Weight was fine. I didn't find it too heavy at all. It even played WoW quite well. The digitizer was a little slow to react, but that was about it."
Sounds more to me you have a consumer group who might definitely be interested in this product.....and maybe more if all the chinese gold farmers decide they want to be able to work on the go.
"We all loved it with no ads, and then something happened and we debated about whether or not to add ads to slashdot, and it basically came down to, "we have to if we want to survive". Faced with that, most slashdotters preferred slashdot with ads to no slashdot.
If craigslist can survive without pimping ads to users, more power to them, and their userbase will only grow."
Hmmm...if only Slashdot had some other revenue streams that could help keep them afloat. I know! Story submitters could pay money to have their stories posted to the front page of Slas...oh wait....
"Guess what? I do not want my advertizing to be entertaining. I want it to be informative."
Why can't it be both? Or would that have ruined your point that you are 100% anti-advertising and that no new viewpoint will ever shake you from your sturdy foundation of strawman arguments?
Newsflash: Viral advertising lets agencies put more interesting work in front of people. The only real difference between viral advertising and non-viral advertising is that with viral, you can't really set out and "make" viral. You can try, but in reality something "becomes" viral, because it is ultimately the viewers who decide whether or not to pass something along. There ARE techniques to seed your idea, but that isn't really a huge deal yet.
This is a good tool for agencies to dangle in front of their clients to enable them to have more freedom with their creative work and thereby generate more interesting and entertaining ads. It also offers the agencies to say to the client, "look, if you don't let us put ALL of this juicy information on there, even though your competitors might have some better specs, customers will notice and will not buy from you), thus providing a perfect opportunity to give you even more information.
"Viral advertising works because it is rare. How could it be the norm? I seriously doubt that there is enough talent out there to regularly churn out advertising that is entertaining enough. It is, after all, only advertising. People will learn to filter it out."
As someone in the industry, and who also has a hobby of studying viral marketing, I have to say I think this is a good thing for us. Whereas before a lot of clients would pound their agency over their head to make their ads in ways they saw fit (which often times is the culprit for all the annoying, bland and laughable ads out there); now they will hopefully allow us more creative freedom to give viewers something they actually wanna check out.
Yes, we want to drive business for our clients, that is our business. But there is not a single person at any ad agency who doesn't want to be known for their creative, and this will give them great leverage with their clients to be able to say, "look, the only way you'll get customers with the huge problem of advertising saturation is to give them content that they actually seek out and pass along, and the only way to do this is to give us more creative freedom."
For the love of god thank you! ATTENTION PEOPLE: Razer is nothing more than a company that makes decent mice and has a lot of marketing people who do their best to invent new marketing metrics that they claim sets this mouse apart from the rest.
Their mice are over-priced, customer support is shite, but the mice are almost worth it.
I HIGHLY suggest you try and see if a friend has one you can demo before you buy it though.
"But of course so is cancer, AIDS, Polution, WAR, Famine, the disparity between the rich and poor, dictators, terrorism, pattent trolls, etc... BUT funnily enough, people still try and fix those PROBLEMS."
Because believe it or not a large number of people are perfectly fine in advertising and realize the necessity for it in the business world. And BTW, most of the examples you give are things that people pretty much unanimously agree are bad. Good luck finding someone who thinks AIDS is a good thing. Advertising is not something that falls into that category.
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that while you will stop buying them, enough of the market will not and will thus perpetuate the status quo. And as for not liking my suggestion for integrating it less intrusively into the game, well, lets see you do better!
The reason these stories on Slashdot are useless is because all of the slashbots here will be screaming "I don't want ads!". Well, tough shit. Advertising is part of our world and culture and they are coming to video games whether you want them to or not. Sure, there will be some smart companies that manage to avoid it, but rather than bitch and moan about how you don't want the ads, why not try to think of ways that they may actually become a value-add to the game?
Someone in here posted a suggestion of destructable ads. That is phenomenal! It would take an advertiser with BIG balls to do it, but it would be a guaranteed hit.
I wrote an article on my site a while ago that I will not shamelessly plug that discusses this exact topic and how companies can make their ads fit into the gameworlds rather than just be intrusive and disruptive to the gaming experience. You can read the article here. Would love any feedback people have.
"Unless you are completely in an online pseudonym"
Sometimes not even that works. A recent example was when an intern at my office friended me on MySpace. I do not use my real name, nor list my job and I was not a friend of a friend of hers in any way.
My only guess is that she searched locally and found me. I mean, I'm not complaining cuz she's cute, but its a little weird to just get friended like that by someone you work with out of the blue.
And now with sites like Stalkerati, its become kind of a game to stalk people online. I don't know if thats a good thing or a bad thing, but I guess we'll see how the climate evolves and whether or not people actually care about people seeing that deep into their lives.
I mean, everybody has pretty much accepted how much corporations peer into their lives, whats wrong with everybody else finding out about you.
People want to have an online presence and some moreso than others.
First, do we have a confirmed source for this? The YoutTube video is INCREDIBLY out of sync. Can anybody confirm that it is indeed him speaking and not someone doing a voice-over?
My second question is, now that Cowboy Neal himself has commented on this, does that mean Slashdot editors will stop posting his stories finally? Something inside tells me it won't change a damn thing because much like Dvorak, Slashdot also gets large amounts of revenue from posting his trolling stories.
Does anybody know of any products that sell a bunch of RFID chips on stickers so you can affix them to objects in your house, set up a 3 (minimum) wireless scanners and transmit the triangulated data to a computer program displaying the room so you can tell where in the room those objects are? That would be a godsend to us disorganized folks.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in advertising, I like seeing new and interesting ads, and while the first time through those ads were cool, now they are fucking annoying, especially when I tend to watch the video clips one right after another like with The Daily Show. Worst move ever, I sure hope Google learns from others mistakes.
You know, there are some better things you could do with that $15/mo that would also prevent you from spending it on a $50/pop title. Such as investing...and who knows, with enough of that you might not have to worry about spending $50/title.
And when the uber-rich copyright holders are the only ones who can afford new gene-therapy that enables them to live forever, then what will you do, huh?!
You don't even realize what pun you just unleashed, do you.
And the Daily Show isn't supposed to be a 100% serious news show. Yet look what happens. I personally wouldn't mind if these got treated seriously. In fact I'd welcome it. It would sure be a helluva lot better than a governer being elected whos most famous line is "Asta-la-vista baby!"
/I'm kidding, I think its hilariously awesome that he got elected /. yet?
//Have back-slashies migrated from Fark to
"You can't hit what you can't see." - An old pirate who lost his leg in a ninja-related incident
Thats not what I'm most concerned about...my big concern is how can you have realistic sword fights when there is nothing to forcibly stop the controller from moving past a certain point if your character makes contact in the game.
I especially see this as a problem for multiplayer swordfighting (think a multiplayer Star Wars game) where two people might be waving their swords, but if they cross blades, the controller keeps moving past the contact point, thus screwing up the positioning of the players hands with the remote.
We're at a state of war? Someone should really notify the UN since as of yet the US has not made an official declaration of war as of this point. This war is as legit as the "war on drugs". And uses many similar scare tactics to boot.
See, thats the thing. I don't think marketing that goes viral can get saturated. The very nature of it means that it is something new and interesting that people seek out. Thats about as specific as it gets. There are some common tactics thought of as "viral", and those might saturate things, but they are not true viral in the definitive sense of the word. Viral marketing is another way to say "new and interesting creative that pushes the boundaries". Its an excuse for ad agencies to go nuts with stuff. I don't see how this can be a bad thing despite how hard everybody is trying.
There exist in the industry many different types of ads that seek to accomplish a variety of things for a variety of reasons. Building excitement and informing about the product are just two possibilities. Ads should not be a certain specific thing. They should be whatever works.
Per this post earlier in the comments for this story:
"Weight was fine. I didn't find it too heavy at all. It even played WoW quite well. The digitizer was a little slow to react, but that was about it."
Sounds more to me you have a consumer group who might definitely be interested in this product.....and maybe more if all the chinese gold farmers decide they want to be able to work on the go.
Hmmm...if only Slashdot had some other revenue streams that could help keep them afloat. I know! Story submitters could pay money to have their stories posted to the front page of Slas...oh wait....
Why can't it be both? Or would that have ruined your point that you are 100% anti-advertising and that no new viewpoint will ever shake you from your sturdy foundation of strawman arguments?
Newsflash: Viral advertising lets agencies put more interesting work in front of people. The only real difference between viral advertising and non-viral advertising is that with viral, you can't really set out and "make" viral. You can try, but in reality something "becomes" viral, because it is ultimately the viewers who decide whether or not to pass something along. There ARE techniques to seed your idea, but that isn't really a huge deal yet.
This is a good tool for agencies to dangle in front of their clients to enable them to have more freedom with their creative work and thereby generate more interesting and entertaining ads. It also offers the agencies to say to the client, "look, if you don't let us put ALL of this juicy information on there, even though your competitors might have some better specs, customers will notice and will not buy from you), thus providing a perfect opportunity to give you even more information.
Thanks for playing.
As someone in the industry, and who also has a hobby of studying viral marketing, I have to say I think this is a good thing for us. Whereas before a lot of clients would pound their agency over their head to make their ads in ways they saw fit (which often times is the culprit for all the annoying, bland and laughable ads out there); now they will hopefully allow us more creative freedom to give viewers something they actually wanna check out.
Yes, we want to drive business for our clients, that is our business. But there is not a single person at any ad agency who doesn't want to be known for their creative, and this will give them great leverage with their clients to be able to say, "look, the only way you'll get customers with the huge problem of advertising saturation is to give them content that they actually seek out and pass along, and the only way to do this is to give us more creative freedom."
Does that mean we can classify anybody there breaking the law as an unlawful combatant?
D&D was the one thing I never pirated materials for but ever since this 3.5 bullshit I've wanted to do nothing but download their books.
Its such a shame the Gygax's got so screwed from what D&D has become.
Their mice are over-priced, customer support is shite, but the mice are almost worth it.
I HIGHLY suggest you try and see if a friend has one you can demo before you buy it though.
Because believe it or not a large number of people are perfectly fine in advertising and realize the necessity for it in the business world. And BTW, most of the examples you give are things that people pretty much unanimously agree are bad. Good luck finding someone who thinks AIDS is a good thing. Advertising is not something that falls into that category.
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that while you will stop buying them, enough of the market will not and will thus perpetuate the status quo. And as for not liking my suggestion for integrating it less intrusively into the game, well, lets see you do better!
Someone in here posted a suggestion of destructable ads. That is phenomenal! It would take an advertiser with BIG balls to do it, but it would be a guaranteed hit.
I wrote an article on my site a while ago that I will not shamelessly plug that discusses this exact topic and how companies can make their ads fit into the gameworlds rather than just be intrusive and disruptive to the gaming experience. You can read the article here. Would love any feedback people have.
Sometimes not even that works. A recent example was when an intern at my office friended me on MySpace. I do not use my real name, nor list my job and I was not a friend of a friend of hers in any way.
My only guess is that she searched locally and found me. I mean, I'm not complaining cuz she's cute, but its a little weird to just get friended like that by someone you work with out of the blue.
And now with sites like Stalkerati, its become kind of a game to stalk people online. I don't know if thats a good thing or a bad thing, but I guess we'll see how the climate evolves and whether or not people actually care about people seeing that deep into their lives.
I mean, everybody has pretty much accepted how much corporations peer into their lives, whats wrong with everybody else finding out about you.
People want to have an online presence and some moreso than others.
First, do we have a confirmed source for this? The YoutTube video is INCREDIBLY out of sync. Can anybody confirm that it is indeed him speaking and not someone doing a voice-over?
My second question is, now that Cowboy Neal himself has commented on this, does that mean Slashdot editors will stop posting his stories finally? Something inside tells me it won't change a damn thing because much like Dvorak, Slashdot also gets large amounts of revenue from posting his trolling stories.