Jesus.
After 5 press conferences, (and some good natured banter) it's safe to say the gaming and tech worlds had big info dumps today: new hardware and software, pricing announcements, previews, embarrassments, and even a few technical hiccups. This is the time of year when the next year and a half (not to mention the holiday season) start to take shape. Apple's annual presentation kicking off the WorldWide Developers Conference started just as Microsoft was beginning their E3 press conference, which may or may not have been an attempt on Apple's part to take away their thunder, but too many eyes were on Microsoft today, wanting to see if they could make up for their seriously lackluster unveiling of their new Xbox One console. For simplicity's sake, I'll start alpahabetically, because this is my blog dammit shut up.
Apple
Apple had a slew of things to go over, but the biggest were most likely the redesigned Mac Pro and iOS 7. The Mac Pro redesign looks great, and the power it's looking to pack is indeed impressive, but since it's a fall release, there wasn't much in the way of solid information about it. No specifics on specs, no price point; just a good look at the chassis and some general info about the processors and graphics units, along with some neat tidbits involving Thunderbolt 2 and multiple displays. Reactions to this have been expectedly mixed, but most folk seem to like the general design. It doesn't leave much room for expandability (though it IS upgradeable, just with custom hardware), but folks in the "pro" space don't need to "upgrade" their machines every year; the smart folks buy a seriously overpowered machine, designed to last several years down the road. Plus, with those Thunderbolt ports, I think it's designed more for external expansion (hard drives and the like) rather than internal expansion (graphics cards, etc.). It'll be interesting to see how reactions change as more info comes to light later this year.
iOS 7, however, is getting even harsher divides. It seems you either love it or hate it. Personally, I'm a fan of cleaner, flatter interfaces. Interface clutter is a big pet peeve of mine (which is why I don't typically play MMOs) but Apple did a pretty neat job of throwing all the commonly used stuff in easy-to-reach places, while getting rid of most of the skeuomorphic aspects, giving a more "smoked glass" look to the interface. Some complainers have whined about how they "stole the look from Android;" I've had the opportunity to use a few different variations of Android devices - none of them have looked even close to this new design. I'm betting it'll pop up a lot later this year, though. Basically, it's a moderate redesign, keeping most of the core functionality while bringing a new visual flair and theme to the new generations of devices to come. To me, it's fairly striking, and the forthcoming functionality that comes with it will be useful. Haters gonna hate.
Microsoft
Last Thursday, Microsoft unceremoniously dumped a bunch of severely unflattering info about the Xbox One's policies regarding used games, rentals/lendings, online DRM, family access, and other such things. As such, the internet went kind of berserk, and probably rightfully so. The policies basically come down to this: you don't own the games you buy anymore, and we'll be checking on you daily to make sure you remember that. When you buy a disc-based game, you are not buying the game itself, you are buying permission to play it on a certain number of accounts, with restrictions. There were many (more consumer-friendly) options available to essentially accomplish the same thing, but they were ignored, for whatever reason. This new info, paired with the reveal a couple weeks prior, left a bad taste in gamers' mouths, and as such, many were looking to the E3 conference today for actual information on games, as well as pricing and release dates.
They weren't disappointed... with the games. For the most part.
The cap of it all was the $500 price point, which is what the PlayStation 3 launched at all those years ago, and it didn't work. One thinks that their reasoning behind it is based on the "it does cool things with your cable box" thing; a feature that the majority of gamers don't really want, despite the potential usefulness of the features themselves. The reaction got bad enough that an executive got snippy during a BBC interview after the conference, when asked about the high price point and the slew of limits placed on the users.
Most of the games did indeed look pretty good; Titanfall and Below in particular were quite interesting, and many of the exclusives revealed looked fairly decent. I was quite surprised that Metal Gear Solid V might end up being a "next-gen" exclusive, at least for now. But the color of the restrictions placed on it's users and the high initial price point are tough pills to swallow for many people.
Sony
Sony was kind of in the opposite position than Microsoft for this E3; with only a controller revealed back in February, their last event concerning about the PlayStation 4 was focused mainly on games rather than hardware features. This time around they had to discuss the hardware in more detail (along with actually showing the console itself), as well as talk about games and policies. There were worries that the conference would get a little buried in jargon, but thankfully not only did games get a great amount of attention, so did the console itself.
Physically, I'm a little torn on the design; it's nice enough, but possibly a bit too similar to the Xbox One's design theme; basically, they're both black boxes that'll sit on your shelf or entertainment center. Nothing inherently wrong with that, I was just hoping for something that could stand out a little more.
The games they showed ran the full gamut: from big triple-A titles like Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed 4, and Destiny; to a wide range of indie titles like Don't Starve, Transistor, and Octodad. They didn't have a large number of titles to show overall - due to having to discuss the system itself a bit - but all were overshadowed by the last couple announcements.
Saving the best for (mostly) last, they went on record in front of hundreds of live people and several thousand streaming online that there would be NO restrictions on disc-based used games, NO restrictions on "lending" or renting disc-based games, and NO online DRM check-ins. Also, it would be priced at $400. Whereas Microsoft's pricing announcements were met with a few "boos," Sony got a standing ovation. Sony went out of their way to not only ensure that a customer's ownership rights for physical-based games would be protected, but to actually encourage the resale of games. For the time being, Sony has "won" this year's E3.
A few other conferences went out, most notably EA and Ubisoft. Good things were shown there; The Division was a big highlight, as well as the Trials Fusion/Frontiers reveal. That being said, there's still a full week of E3 to go, and I'm sure one or two things will show up there that no one expects. Here's hoping.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Xbox One frustrations (or, HEY MS SHARE IT IF YOU GONNA SMOKE IT.)
Lots of contradictions going around as to how used games can happen on the new Xbox One. This is a subject close to my heart and mind, as well as many others. The confusion here lies with the lack of actual real finalized information, but that's not the fault of the people reporting it, it's the fault of the company that can't seem to stay on message.
Here's a step-by-step synopsis of how these things are supposedly going to work:
1: You buy a shiny new game, most likely Call of Duty Ghosts, since that's... yeah. Whatever. You push it into that slot-loading drive. It begins to install the game itself to the internal HDD.
Personally, I'm fine with this. Installing games for consoles isn't really a new thing, and you can supposedly play them as they are installing. Storage space is an issue, of course, but 500GB is decent by console standards. As long as you can delete game data off of it, it shouldn't be too big a hassle.
2: As the game is installing, before you can play it, you must enter a one-time activation code that ties that copy of the game to your Xbox Live account. After that, you don't even need the disc itself anymore, just a semi-regular connection to the internet.
I can see the logic behind this, but it's still a bad idea. A majority of the country doesn't have what could be considered "regular internet access," not to mention the crappy ISPs who love to cut access for funsies. Also, DISPOSABLE BLU-RAYS BECAUSE MS CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT BUT REALLY NO SERIOUSLY THROW THOSE DAMN THINGS IN THE GARBAGE.
3: Weeks or months later, you decide you are bored with this stupid shooting game. So you (apparently) have a choice: take it in to a Gamestop (or whatever) and trade it in, or (somehow, specifics are non-existent) trade it in digitally over Xbox Live, gaining... some form of reward, maybe.
As you may be aware, this last one is where much of the confusion comes in. If there's a one-time activation code, how can one trade the disc in to a retail shop? How would MS even know that you've done it? And the poor person buying the used copy from said Gamestop: how do they play the game without the activation code? The only thing I can think of is a partnership with retailers (maybe in the form of a "key generator"), but no one's even whispered about anything like that at ALL. All this comes down to is an attack on used game markets and an implementation of some weird DRM.
Another question: say you want to bring that sweet, sweet new Forza game over to a pal's place, play it there? Well there are two options, the primary being you can bring your disc over there and sign in to your account on their device. Not unreasonable, though there's no confirmed limit as to how many consoles you can be simultaneously signed into at any given time (if it even allows more than one, for instance). The other option is somewhat more likely: you lend your disc to the aforementioned buddy, then go about your merry life, eating tacos and (potentially, anyway) having sexual relations. Your buddy puts the game into their console, and is prompted for an activation code. Since he doesn't have one (you already used it, remember?) they are then prompted to pay FULL MSRP (that's the full $60 price tag for those of you not knowing what that term means) if they want to play the game. So they're basically paying full retail price for "renting" a game from a friend. Granted, they get all the "benefits" of ownership of the game: account ties, disc-less play, etc, but if someone is only borrowing to see if they enjoy the game or not, that's not a great way to go about it.
Some of you will cry "That'sh what DEMOSH are for, jerkfacesh," in your whiny, lispy voices, and I would agree with you, but demos are a rare thing these days; developers can't justify the cost of making one (and yes there is a significant cost; it's not just "cutting out" a chunk of the game and wrapping it up) since they don't bring in as much in the way of "extra" sales.
More of you may say "If you want your friend to play it, then you should GO TO THEIR PLACE AND SIGN IN, OR MAYBE GIVE THEM YOUR ACCOUNT PASSWORD." Again, this would make sense, if one was not conscious of how BAD an idea that is. I know you trust your friends and all, but it is really unsafe to do that, with ANY account. If they're devices you own, that's usually alright, as long as you change the passwords regularly. But devices you don't own, or have regular access to should NEVER have your account information saved on them, EVER. Again, NEVER EVER EVER. It's just asking for something to get compromised. It's fairly common sense, which is why it's surprising that Microsoft is encouraging folks to do just that. Wait, did I say surprising? I meant NOT SURPRISING AT ALL.
What if your friend has a console, but for whatever reason - no wi-fi, not enough cables, evil assbutt parents - no regular internet access? No borrowed (or whatever) gaming for you, my friend. That means you'd have to bring your friend to your own place. Not a terrible idea, but not always a viable one. You might have to share the aforementioned tacos or sexual relations, which is... just... not a fun afternoon.
A lot of these confusions and contradictions would be disrupted if Microsoft would just come out and actually say what the actual deal is. Instead, they let people just say things, and instead of clarifying, they fire off a "we'll talk more about that later" brush-off. Not smart, especially in this day and age of Twitter, Facebook, and, well, the goddamned Internet. People have been asking about this stuff, specifically, for months. If Microsoft didn't have a clear answer to give, then they should've waitied to announce until they did. Giving incomplete information, especially when the missing info is what most people actually want to know about, is just bad PR. Ask Sony. Their conference was mostly well set up, had good solid info, and a pretty clear message after the fact, but lots of people went "DURR WHERE'S THE BOX HUUUR."
Not surprisingly, none of this stuff was covered in the reveal event itself. Adam Sessler even tweeted that the enthusiasm at the event was a little disingenuous. It served the purpose of getting the core of the hardware specs (mostly) out into the public, showing off the interesting (but frankly fluff) TV controlling and multitasking features, and the media hub stuff. Games were almost an afterthought; games themselves weren't mentioned until over half an hour into the conference. And the ones they showed... weren't great.
It seems obvious to me that they stuck to the stuff that sells well on Xbox consoles: EA Sports stuff, Forza, and Call of Duty. Aside from Halo (which did get a bit of a mention in the form of a TV show) those are probably the most visible names Xbox has to offer (Gears of War notwithstanding). It's a clear strategy, but not a very exciting one, particularly for core gamers, who are typically looking for new stuff to consume fairly regularly. This particular "reveal" strategy focused on franchised that both A) are annual and B) sell well across most demographics. The result is that this "new" machine feels almost exactly like the old one, in terms of gaming, which is what the majority of folks are going to buy it for. Sony at least tried; in fact, most of their games announcements (which were touched on early with demos and lasted the majority of the conference) were new IPs. Microsoft announced that they were working on 15 exclusive Xbox One games, 8 of which were new IPs, but they were nowhere to be seen, aside from a thoroughly confusing trailer for Quantum Break. If they're all going to be released within the next 12 months, today would've been the perfect time to announce or tease them. As a result, the conference (and by extension, maybe the console itself) felt rushed and incomplete.
Most of what's going to decide the validity of these systems is going to depend on their respective showings at E3. With games being the core of that convention in general, it'll be a decent opportunity for more information, clarification, and actual games to get shown off. (Or, in Sony's case, an actual console box thingy.) Sony has a lot to prove given their rough start with the PS3, but with their changing attitudes and focus on actual gaming features, they're in a better position than Microsoft is right now in the "battle" for core gamers. Microsoft is in Sony's position from last gen - the clear winner of this last generation, going into the next with more than a little smugness and "we can do whatever the fuck we want" attitude. If they're not careful, they'll end up where Sony was this last gen, too: fighting hard for second place. (Wait, they're going up against the Wii U? Nevermind. Second place is pretty much a given.)
Here's a step-by-step synopsis of how these things are supposedly going to work:
1: You buy a shiny new game, most likely Call of Duty Ghosts, since that's... yeah. Whatever. You push it into that slot-loading drive. It begins to install the game itself to the internal HDD.
Personally, I'm fine with this. Installing games for consoles isn't really a new thing, and you can supposedly play them as they are installing. Storage space is an issue, of course, but 500GB is decent by console standards. As long as you can delete game data off of it, it shouldn't be too big a hassle.
2: As the game is installing, before you can play it, you must enter a one-time activation code that ties that copy of the game to your Xbox Live account. After that, you don't even need the disc itself anymore, just a semi-regular connection to the internet.
I can see the logic behind this, but it's still a bad idea. A majority of the country doesn't have what could be considered "regular internet access," not to mention the crappy ISPs who love to cut access for funsies. Also, DISPOSABLE BLU-RAYS BECAUSE MS CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT BUT REALLY NO SERIOUSLY THROW THOSE DAMN THINGS IN THE GARBAGE.
3: Weeks or months later, you decide you are bored with this stupid shooting game. So you (apparently) have a choice: take it in to a Gamestop (or whatever) and trade it in, or (somehow, specifics are non-existent) trade it in digitally over Xbox Live, gaining... some form of reward, maybe.
As you may be aware, this last one is where much of the confusion comes in. If there's a one-time activation code, how can one trade the disc in to a retail shop? How would MS even know that you've done it? And the poor person buying the used copy from said Gamestop: how do they play the game without the activation code? The only thing I can think of is a partnership with retailers (maybe in the form of a "key generator"), but no one's even whispered about anything like that at ALL. All this comes down to is an attack on used game markets and an implementation of some weird DRM.
Another question: say you want to bring that sweet, sweet new Forza game over to a pal's place, play it there? Well there are two options, the primary being you can bring your disc over there and sign in to your account on their device. Not unreasonable, though there's no confirmed limit as to how many consoles you can be simultaneously signed into at any given time (if it even allows more than one, for instance). The other option is somewhat more likely: you lend your disc to the aforementioned buddy, then go about your merry life, eating tacos and (potentially, anyway) having sexual relations. Your buddy puts the game into their console, and is prompted for an activation code. Since he doesn't have one (you already used it, remember?) they are then prompted to pay FULL MSRP (that's the full $60 price tag for those of you not knowing what that term means) if they want to play the game. So they're basically paying full retail price for "renting" a game from a friend. Granted, they get all the "benefits" of ownership of the game: account ties, disc-less play, etc, but if someone is only borrowing to see if they enjoy the game or not, that's not a great way to go about it.
Some of you will cry "That'sh what DEMOSH are for, jerkfacesh," in your whiny, lispy voices, and I would agree with you, but demos are a rare thing these days; developers can't justify the cost of making one (and yes there is a significant cost; it's not just "cutting out" a chunk of the game and wrapping it up) since they don't bring in as much in the way of "extra" sales.
More of you may say "If you want your friend to play it, then you should GO TO THEIR PLACE AND SIGN IN, OR MAYBE GIVE THEM YOUR ACCOUNT PASSWORD." Again, this would make sense, if one was not conscious of how BAD an idea that is. I know you trust your friends and all, but it is really unsafe to do that, with ANY account. If they're devices you own, that's usually alright, as long as you change the passwords regularly. But devices you don't own, or have regular access to should NEVER have your account information saved on them, EVER. Again, NEVER EVER EVER. It's just asking for something to get compromised. It's fairly common sense, which is why it's surprising that Microsoft is encouraging folks to do just that. Wait, did I say surprising? I meant NOT SURPRISING AT ALL.
What if your friend has a console, but for whatever reason - no wi-fi, not enough cables, evil assbutt parents - no regular internet access? No borrowed (or whatever) gaming for you, my friend. That means you'd have to bring your friend to your own place. Not a terrible idea, but not always a viable one. You might have to share the aforementioned tacos or sexual relations, which is... just... not a fun afternoon.
A lot of these confusions and contradictions would be disrupted if Microsoft would just come out and actually say what the actual deal is. Instead, they let people just say things, and instead of clarifying, they fire off a "we'll talk more about that later" brush-off. Not smart, especially in this day and age of Twitter, Facebook, and, well, the goddamned Internet. People have been asking about this stuff, specifically, for months. If Microsoft didn't have a clear answer to give, then they should've waitied to announce until they did. Giving incomplete information, especially when the missing info is what most people actually want to know about, is just bad PR. Ask Sony. Their conference was mostly well set up, had good solid info, and a pretty clear message after the fact, but lots of people went "DURR WHERE'S THE BOX HUUUR."
Not surprisingly, none of this stuff was covered in the reveal event itself. Adam Sessler even tweeted that the enthusiasm at the event was a little disingenuous. It served the purpose of getting the core of the hardware specs (mostly) out into the public, showing off the interesting (but frankly fluff) TV controlling and multitasking features, and the media hub stuff. Games were almost an afterthought; games themselves weren't mentioned until over half an hour into the conference. And the ones they showed... weren't great.
It seems obvious to me that they stuck to the stuff that sells well on Xbox consoles: EA Sports stuff, Forza, and Call of Duty. Aside from Halo (which did get a bit of a mention in the form of a TV show) those are probably the most visible names Xbox has to offer (Gears of War notwithstanding). It's a clear strategy, but not a very exciting one, particularly for core gamers, who are typically looking for new stuff to consume fairly regularly. This particular "reveal" strategy focused on franchised that both A) are annual and B) sell well across most demographics. The result is that this "new" machine feels almost exactly like the old one, in terms of gaming, which is what the majority of folks are going to buy it for. Sony at least tried; in fact, most of their games announcements (which were touched on early with demos and lasted the majority of the conference) were new IPs. Microsoft announced that they were working on 15 exclusive Xbox One games, 8 of which were new IPs, but they were nowhere to be seen, aside from a thoroughly confusing trailer for Quantum Break. If they're all going to be released within the next 12 months, today would've been the perfect time to announce or tease them. As a result, the conference (and by extension, maybe the console itself) felt rushed and incomplete.
Most of what's going to decide the validity of these systems is going to depend on their respective showings at E3. With games being the core of that convention in general, it'll be a decent opportunity for more information, clarification, and actual games to get shown off. (Or, in Sony's case, an actual console box thingy.) Sony has a lot to prove given their rough start with the PS3, but with their changing attitudes and focus on actual gaming features, they're in a better position than Microsoft is right now in the "battle" for core gamers. Microsoft is in Sony's position from last gen - the clear winner of this last generation, going into the next with more than a little smugness and "we can do whatever the fuck we want" attitude. If they're not careful, they'll end up where Sony was this last gen, too: fighting hard for second place. (Wait, they're going up against the Wii U? Nevermind. Second place is pretty much a given.)
Monday, February 4, 2013
Skyfall is basically Dark Knight with a bit of DKR in there too.
NOTE: SPOILERS AHEAD. WARNED.
Movies are a tough thing for me to see, given my situation, so when the opportunity comes along to catch something good, under whatever circumstances, I grab at it. Skyfall was a great film, but had been slightly colored by the fanfare prior to my viewing, the more common remark being "it's basically this new Bond's Dark Knight." A telling statement, that.
What does a description like that implicate? To me, it is mainly defined by a few factors.
1) A villain who - while certainly quite deranged, sinister, clever, and ruthless - is also surprisingly likeable, mainly due to the actors portraying them. Dark Knight had the wonderful Heath Ledger, while Skyfall gets the equally wonderful Jarvier Bardem, who dives into "Silva" beautifully, even going so far as to actually wear a set of false teeth over his own to simulate how a mouthpiece (such as one used by his character in the film) would alter a person's voice. Creepy, devious, and almost always one step ahead, my only real nitpick is that we never really see how his hand-to-hand skills compare to Bond's, especially given that he's touted as Bond's predecessor, of a fashion. In the film he comes of as a brilliant planner, great with a gun, and honestly believes he's untouchable, which makes his rare looks of surprise much more valuable. His motivations are a bit one-dimensional - basically a fairly standard revenge plot - but that doesn't diminish Bardem's presence as a genuine threat.
2) A plot involving the villain knowing the ins and outs of who he's up against, while doing a fairly decent job of keeping his own methods and machinations out of the eyes of his adversaries. This usually does involve the "planned" capture of said villain, who then proceeds to demolish or otherwise diminish the protagonists' abilities, then cleverly escaping. It also tends to include the destruction (and subsequent moving or rebuilding elsewhere) of the protagonists' main headquarters or home. (Though in Batman's case, the demolishing of Wayne Manor happened in Batman Begins, with the new "basement cave" thing popping up in Dark Knight.) It's interesting that this is now a "thing" that movies do, and it isn't always done right. Skyfall's attempt is admirable, and certainly unique in places, but it does somewhat feel like it's just going with the proverbial flow. (This also worries me about Star Trek Into Darkness.)
3) An ending that drastically changes the status quo for the characters moving forward into the next installments. With the death of Dame Judi Dench's "M," it falls to Ralph Fiennes to take the mantle and run with it, basically bringing this version of Bond to a place similar to where the other iterations of the character lived for so long. Dark Knight did this by making Batman a fugitive, which he hadn't really been up to that point in the "Nolanverse," but in terms of the comics he has been for many years, through most iterations. In Skyfall, this is further qualified by the introductions of two other characters: Moneypenny and "Q." Both long-time franchise stalwarts, bringing them into the fold in the third movie of this "new" franchise sends a clear message that THIS IS A REBOOT PEOPLE. Given how the series has gone so far, it's doubtful that things are ever going to "go back to normal," at least in terms of the formula that the older Bond movies followed fairly tightly.
And for those confused about the concept of a "reboot," it means just that: fresh start, all stats back to zero. This series is NOT a prequel to the other flicks. They DID keep Dench on from her Brosnan days, but honestly I couldn't see anyone else doing that role; she did it so well, they decided to potentially destroy all credibility concerning the reboot to keep her. Basically, they almost broke the Bond universe to keep Judi Dench on their cast. And honestly, who wouldn't?
I do find it interesting that it took them 3 movies to firmly establish that this is a reboot. Things such as showing where Bond grew up hit this home hard. One of the big rumors (not helped by the continued casting of Dench) is that there is no "real" James Bond; that the name is a codename given to anyone who takes over the "007" designation after the previous agent assigned to it dies (or is killed in the line of duty, as is more likely given the job itself). But here we visit the family manor. The old groundskeeper (who is curiously quite good at killing armed secret agent types) calls him by the name "James Bond." The father's gun is stamped "AB," and the parents' grave has the clear inscription of "Andrew Bond." So, it's settled. James Bond is his actual name. Now, when another actor takes over (sadly, Craig has got maybe 2 more in him, I think) that may change. But for now, this is clearly the beginning (or third beginning, whatever) of a redesigned continuity. Star Trek did it, as did Batman, with Superman coming up. Why can't 007?
Other, more singular thoughts as follows:
The New "Q" - Ben Wishaw does a great job capturing the dry, superior wit that "Q" needs to have, while making it clear that his genius with a computer or gadgetry is countermanded by his nearly zero experience with field work, or field agents in general. I'm looking forward to seeing how they develop this character beyond the old-school "Here's your stuff, now bring it back in one piece" bit that gets referenced in his first scene. (Though his line about exploding pens is genius - itself a reference to Goldeneye, considered by many to be Bond's first "reboot," and basically a great big middle finger to those who want the wacky gadgets to come back.)
Moneypenny - I honestly don't care that she's black, so let's not mention that again. Established up front as a middling quality field agent (she did accidentally shoot Bond in a critical moment) she pops up a few times to kindle interest in Bond, help out in a pinch, and finally basically "retires" to desk duty as... the new "M's" secretary. Some things never change. Though I'm interested to see where they go with her, I wouldn't be surprised if she gets relegated to just the occasional flirtation and over-the-radio intel gathering.
Less Hand-to-Hand - Casino Royale had a few great hand-to-hand combat scenes, but there are very few in Skyfall. Lots of focus on chase sequences, gunplay, and vehicular carnage, but the few instances in which Bond gets up in someone's face are short, and brutal. That might've been their focus, or even Bond's focus, this time around: hand-to-hand needs to be quick and effective, so one can move on from it in as little time as possible.
Crippling the Hero - Another Batman comparison comes from Dark Knight Rises; the crippling (or near enough) of the hero, so their recovery is more important as the story goes on. In DKR, Batman gets crippled nearly halfway through the flick; Skyfall does it at the end of the first chase sequence, not even 15 minutes in. Most of the movie he spends recovering, both mentally and physically, while trying to find / fight this new threat, bigger than most he's seen up until now. It's an interesting dynamic, and handled well enough, it's just one of those "trilogy" things that happens sometimes; take away (or limit access to) the thing that makes the hero "special" so we can see how they do without it, thereby making them a better person. We'll see.
Overall, it was a great movie, worthy of the box office receipts it earned. It basically made "Avengers money" (formerly known as "Dark Knight money") and it deserved it. You can tell they worked hard to make this a unique entry in the series, especially since Quantum of Solace seemed kinda "by the numbers," a worrying sign for a rebooted franchise. So, hope renewed, I eagerly await the next one. It'll be interesting how these "new, yet old" elements will fit with the new direction that the character (and series) are going.
Movies are a tough thing for me to see, given my situation, so when the opportunity comes along to catch something good, under whatever circumstances, I grab at it. Skyfall was a great film, but had been slightly colored by the fanfare prior to my viewing, the more common remark being "it's basically this new Bond's Dark Knight." A telling statement, that.
What does a description like that implicate? To me, it is mainly defined by a few factors.
1) A villain who - while certainly quite deranged, sinister, clever, and ruthless - is also surprisingly likeable, mainly due to the actors portraying them. Dark Knight had the wonderful Heath Ledger, while Skyfall gets the equally wonderful Jarvier Bardem, who dives into "Silva" beautifully, even going so far as to actually wear a set of false teeth over his own to simulate how a mouthpiece (such as one used by his character in the film) would alter a person's voice. Creepy, devious, and almost always one step ahead, my only real nitpick is that we never really see how his hand-to-hand skills compare to Bond's, especially given that he's touted as Bond's predecessor, of a fashion. In the film he comes of as a brilliant planner, great with a gun, and honestly believes he's untouchable, which makes his rare looks of surprise much more valuable. His motivations are a bit one-dimensional - basically a fairly standard revenge plot - but that doesn't diminish Bardem's presence as a genuine threat.
2) A plot involving the villain knowing the ins and outs of who he's up against, while doing a fairly decent job of keeping his own methods and machinations out of the eyes of his adversaries. This usually does involve the "planned" capture of said villain, who then proceeds to demolish or otherwise diminish the protagonists' abilities, then cleverly escaping. It also tends to include the destruction (and subsequent moving or rebuilding elsewhere) of the protagonists' main headquarters or home. (Though in Batman's case, the demolishing of Wayne Manor happened in Batman Begins, with the new "basement cave" thing popping up in Dark Knight.) It's interesting that this is now a "thing" that movies do, and it isn't always done right. Skyfall's attempt is admirable, and certainly unique in places, but it does somewhat feel like it's just going with the proverbial flow. (This also worries me about Star Trek Into Darkness.)
3) An ending that drastically changes the status quo for the characters moving forward into the next installments. With the death of Dame Judi Dench's "M," it falls to Ralph Fiennes to take the mantle and run with it, basically bringing this version of Bond to a place similar to where the other iterations of the character lived for so long. Dark Knight did this by making Batman a fugitive, which he hadn't really been up to that point in the "Nolanverse," but in terms of the comics he has been for many years, through most iterations. In Skyfall, this is further qualified by the introductions of two other characters: Moneypenny and "Q." Both long-time franchise stalwarts, bringing them into the fold in the third movie of this "new" franchise sends a clear message that THIS IS A REBOOT PEOPLE. Given how the series has gone so far, it's doubtful that things are ever going to "go back to normal," at least in terms of the formula that the older Bond movies followed fairly tightly.
And for those confused about the concept of a "reboot," it means just that: fresh start, all stats back to zero. This series is NOT a prequel to the other flicks. They DID keep Dench on from her Brosnan days, but honestly I couldn't see anyone else doing that role; she did it so well, they decided to potentially destroy all credibility concerning the reboot to keep her. Basically, they almost broke the Bond universe to keep Judi Dench on their cast. And honestly, who wouldn't?
I do find it interesting that it took them 3 movies to firmly establish that this is a reboot. Things such as showing where Bond grew up hit this home hard. One of the big rumors (not helped by the continued casting of Dench) is that there is no "real" James Bond; that the name is a codename given to anyone who takes over the "007" designation after the previous agent assigned to it dies (or is killed in the line of duty, as is more likely given the job itself). But here we visit the family manor. The old groundskeeper (who is curiously quite good at killing armed secret agent types) calls him by the name "James Bond." The father's gun is stamped "AB," and the parents' grave has the clear inscription of "Andrew Bond." So, it's settled. James Bond is his actual name. Now, when another actor takes over (sadly, Craig has got maybe 2 more in him, I think) that may change. But for now, this is clearly the beginning (or third beginning, whatever) of a redesigned continuity. Star Trek did it, as did Batman, with Superman coming up. Why can't 007?
Other, more singular thoughts as follows:
The New "Q" - Ben Wishaw does a great job capturing the dry, superior wit that "Q" needs to have, while making it clear that his genius with a computer or gadgetry is countermanded by his nearly zero experience with field work, or field agents in general. I'm looking forward to seeing how they develop this character beyond the old-school "Here's your stuff, now bring it back in one piece" bit that gets referenced in his first scene. (Though his line about exploding pens is genius - itself a reference to Goldeneye, considered by many to be Bond's first "reboot," and basically a great big middle finger to those who want the wacky gadgets to come back.)
Moneypenny - I honestly don't care that she's black, so let's not mention that again. Established up front as a middling quality field agent (she did accidentally shoot Bond in a critical moment) she pops up a few times to kindle interest in Bond, help out in a pinch, and finally basically "retires" to desk duty as... the new "M's" secretary. Some things never change. Though I'm interested to see where they go with her, I wouldn't be surprised if she gets relegated to just the occasional flirtation and over-the-radio intel gathering.
Less Hand-to-Hand - Casino Royale had a few great hand-to-hand combat scenes, but there are very few in Skyfall. Lots of focus on chase sequences, gunplay, and vehicular carnage, but the few instances in which Bond gets up in someone's face are short, and brutal. That might've been their focus, or even Bond's focus, this time around: hand-to-hand needs to be quick and effective, so one can move on from it in as little time as possible.
Crippling the Hero - Another Batman comparison comes from Dark Knight Rises; the crippling (or near enough) of the hero, so their recovery is more important as the story goes on. In DKR, Batman gets crippled nearly halfway through the flick; Skyfall does it at the end of the first chase sequence, not even 15 minutes in. Most of the movie he spends recovering, both mentally and physically, while trying to find / fight this new threat, bigger than most he's seen up until now. It's an interesting dynamic, and handled well enough, it's just one of those "trilogy" things that happens sometimes; take away (or limit access to) the thing that makes the hero "special" so we can see how they do without it, thereby making them a better person. We'll see.
Overall, it was a great movie, worthy of the box office receipts it earned. It basically made "Avengers money" (formerly known as "Dark Knight money") and it deserved it. You can tell they worked hard to make this a unique entry in the series, especially since Quantum of Solace seemed kinda "by the numbers," a worrying sign for a rebooted franchise. So, hope renewed, I eagerly await the next one. It'll be interesting how these "new, yet old" elements will fit with the new direction that the character (and series) are going.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
RECENT THINGS
Alright, things to talk about...
Borderlands 2 - I burned out fairly quickly on the first Borderlands, honestly. The story dragged for a few too many hours, taking forever to get anywhere interesting, and the sense of humor it was trying to push on me had very few redeeming moments. ("Also he has three balls" is priceless.) The core gameplay concept I found very interesting: a shooter-rpg (fairly rare) with randomly generated weapons numbering in the millions (literally) and a heavy emphasis on co-op play. A great mix, though maybe not executed as well as one could have hoped. Seeing the same 3 or 4 areas over and over again covering almost a dozen hours pushed my patience to the limits, and I eventually dropped it. A crappy PC interface didn't help things. So, when a sequel was announced, I held my breath until I saw who was writing it: none other than Anthony Burch, former game journalist, comedy writer, web show creator, and all around smart guy, particularly when it comes to storytelling. As soon as he said he took a lot of influence, tone-wise, from Firefly, I knew the story was in good hands, so I kept a look out for changes to gameplay. Again, good things flooded my ear-holes: more varied designs for areas and enemies, better checkpoints for fast travel, even more guns, and PC options and interfaces that didn't suck. All seemed well. And it is. BL2 is a great time, both online and off, with some interesting characters, great (but smart) humor, and lots and lots of explosions of various kinds, it's taking about half of my free time. Which leads me to...
XCOM: Enemy Unknown -I must confess, I had very little experience with the X-COM series prior to this game. I had played a little bit of one of them, and was turned off by the "complexity for the sake of complexity because challenge" mentality of it. I like turn based strategy, as long as it's done well, a la Civilization. Seeing the videos of this new game (alongside the troubled 2K shooter) intrigued me, and the way they marketed it (basically having the devs just flat-out play the game with folks) was a good move. After sinking many hours and a couple attempted playthroughs, I can say that it's among the best games of this year. It's deep without being offensive to the brain. It's challenging and terrifying in subtle ways, and the unique experience of having a whole squad (named after friends and family) decimated is a mix of emotions one needs to experience.
Borderlands 2 - I burned out fairly quickly on the first Borderlands, honestly. The story dragged for a few too many hours, taking forever to get anywhere interesting, and the sense of humor it was trying to push on me had very few redeeming moments. ("Also he has three balls" is priceless.) The core gameplay concept I found very interesting: a shooter-rpg (fairly rare) with randomly generated weapons numbering in the millions (literally) and a heavy emphasis on co-op play. A great mix, though maybe not executed as well as one could have hoped. Seeing the same 3 or 4 areas over and over again covering almost a dozen hours pushed my patience to the limits, and I eventually dropped it. A crappy PC interface didn't help things. So, when a sequel was announced, I held my breath until I saw who was writing it: none other than Anthony Burch, former game journalist, comedy writer, web show creator, and all around smart guy, particularly when it comes to storytelling. As soon as he said he took a lot of influence, tone-wise, from Firefly, I knew the story was in good hands, so I kept a look out for changes to gameplay. Again, good things flooded my ear-holes: more varied designs for areas and enemies, better checkpoints for fast travel, even more guns, and PC options and interfaces that didn't suck. All seemed well. And it is. BL2 is a great time, both online and off, with some interesting characters, great (but smart) humor, and lots and lots of explosions of various kinds, it's taking about half of my free time. Which leads me to...
XCOM: Enemy Unknown -I must confess, I had very little experience with the X-COM series prior to this game. I had played a little bit of one of them, and was turned off by the "complexity for the sake of complexity because challenge" mentality of it. I like turn based strategy, as long as it's done well, a la Civilization. Seeing the videos of this new game (alongside the troubled 2K shooter) intrigued me, and the way they marketed it (basically having the devs just flat-out play the game with folks) was a good move. After sinking many hours and a couple attempted playthroughs, I can say that it's among the best games of this year. It's deep without being offensive to the brain. It's challenging and terrifying in subtle ways, and the unique experience of having a whole squad (named after friends and family) decimated is a mix of emotions one needs to experience.
Monday, July 16, 2012
FRUSTRATION.
Gaming isn't all fun and games. (Get it?)
Buying and playing games used to be a lot easier. Or at least that's my memory of it. My earlier experiences involved console gaming, starting with the NES. I also had experiences with the Genesis, Game Boy, and even a Game Gear. Consoles being what they are, it was never super complex of a process to acquire a game. Go to most any store, plunk down some cash. Playing it was even easier: plug game into console, turn on said console. As I got older, I found myself desiring a bit more out of my gaming experiences, so I starting splitting time between consoles and PC gaming. Definitely more complex and involving, PC gaming tended to give richer experiences that consoles couldn't really emulate. The drawback is that they can sometimes take some extra maintenance and effort to make them work optimally.
The Internet changed a lot of things, few more dramatically than games. Consoles were suddenly able to handle such things as online multiplayer games and patches, which then evolved into downloadable content and even entire games delivered via the internet. PC gaming evolved around the same lines, though slightly ahead of consoles in terms of online features. Then publishers conjured something interesting: online DRM. This is basically part of the software that "checks in" with a server owned and controlled by said publisher. This is mainly used as a way to make sure that the software that's being used has been genuinely bought and paid for, and is otherwise un-molested. It started with simple, one-time checks upon installation, moved on into installation limits, and finally, into the current era: always-on DRM. Granted, few companies use it, the big two being Ubisoft and Blizzard, currently. Ubisoft puts it (or did, rather, it's difficult to tell) into almost all of their PC games, most notably the extremely popular Assassin's Creed series. Blizzard had an account system in place (similar to Steam) until Diablo 3, where it was implemented to justify the existence of their auction houses.
Here's a couple of recent examples of why this system doesn't work, from personal experience:
Ubisoft: Steam's annual summer sale is in full swing, conveniently falling just after my birthday. One of the games that I hadn't owned yet that I'd been hoping to grab was one of the first to go on sale: Assassin's Creed Revelations. I nabbed it, installed it, and started it up. Ubisoft games require what's known as a UPlay account; an Ubisoft specific account that ties the game you buy to the account, forever linking them so all one has to do in order to play one of their games on just about any computer is log in. With fresh installs, it does a single check to Ubisoft's servers to verify the game key that you entered upon installation. Only I couldn't log in. At all. I figured I had forgotten my password, so I went to Ubisoft's website to log in there, possibly reset my password. But the password I had worked fine on the site. I thought it was a software issue so I ran some integrity tests. All clear. Then I hit the support forums. Turns out that the sudden increase in activity had pretty much knocked out Ubisoft's authentication servers. A few hundred thousand players couldn't log in and activate their games, which meant they couldn't play the games they had recently bought, or previously bought, or any Ubisoft game at all that was tied to that account. A couple days later, the server was back up, but the rage put forth by the community (and myself as well) is another reminder of the flaws behind such forms of DRM. Basically, if one demands or requires that their DRM is "always on," that company is responsible for having those servers being "always on."
Blizzard: This is the one that really pisses me off. For my aforementioned birthday, I was given a copy of Diablo 3. Good times. Like all most current Blizzard games, these require a battle.net account, which I have had for a good long while. These accounts are set up pretty straightforwardly (email address/password) with an "additional security" option being an "authenticator," a little keychain device that syncs up with Blizzard's servers, outputting a code that you enter upon logging into a game. I went into the game to log in, and was kicked back, with a "login / password are not correct" message. Considering I had logged in with the same credentials the day before, this was a ridiculous lie. So I went to Blizzard's site to log in. Same result. Happening to have my e-mail open at the time, I found a message from Blizzard saying that the e-mail address associated with my account had been changed by request. I clicked the suggested link that would bring me to a "I call bullshit" section of the site. There is, however, a problem. Whoever got into my account had changed everything about it. Name. E-mail. Security questions. Password. All gone. The account was still active, but it had been scrubbed clean of all traces of... well, me. This being the case, the online methods of "calling bullshit" are completely invalidated. My only recourse is to call Blizzard's support directly (which, due to scheduling, I won't be able to do until Thursday) and I have a good idea of what they're going to say: "You really need to get an Authenticator." Here's the thing, Blizzard: No I Fucking Don't. I don't put my information onto your site so I can keep track of it. Once it's on your site, that's your job now. I shouldn't need to buy a stupid little keychain to keep my info secure; that's your responsibility. I know that Blizzard gets hacked and phished a lot, but I'm more careful than most folks; I'm 99% sure this is not something that's my fault. I'm hoping this can get resolved soon, but this really shakes my faith in Blizzard as a developer.
So, ranty rant rant. Basically, I want games to be on Steam. Is that too much to ask? Their security is super tight, it's unobtrusive, and the client is a joy to use. WHY, GAMING, WHY.
Buying and playing games used to be a lot easier. Or at least that's my memory of it. My earlier experiences involved console gaming, starting with the NES. I also had experiences with the Genesis, Game Boy, and even a Game Gear. Consoles being what they are, it was never super complex of a process to acquire a game. Go to most any store, plunk down some cash. Playing it was even easier: plug game into console, turn on said console. As I got older, I found myself desiring a bit more out of my gaming experiences, so I starting splitting time between consoles and PC gaming. Definitely more complex and involving, PC gaming tended to give richer experiences that consoles couldn't really emulate. The drawback is that they can sometimes take some extra maintenance and effort to make them work optimally.
The Internet changed a lot of things, few more dramatically than games. Consoles were suddenly able to handle such things as online multiplayer games and patches, which then evolved into downloadable content and even entire games delivered via the internet. PC gaming evolved around the same lines, though slightly ahead of consoles in terms of online features. Then publishers conjured something interesting: online DRM. This is basically part of the software that "checks in" with a server owned and controlled by said publisher. This is mainly used as a way to make sure that the software that's being used has been genuinely bought and paid for, and is otherwise un-molested. It started with simple, one-time checks upon installation, moved on into installation limits, and finally, into the current era: always-on DRM. Granted, few companies use it, the big two being Ubisoft and Blizzard, currently. Ubisoft puts it (or did, rather, it's difficult to tell) into almost all of their PC games, most notably the extremely popular Assassin's Creed series. Blizzard had an account system in place (similar to Steam) until Diablo 3, where it was implemented to justify the existence of their auction houses.
Here's a couple of recent examples of why this system doesn't work, from personal experience:
Ubisoft: Steam's annual summer sale is in full swing, conveniently falling just after my birthday. One of the games that I hadn't owned yet that I'd been hoping to grab was one of the first to go on sale: Assassin's Creed Revelations. I nabbed it, installed it, and started it up. Ubisoft games require what's known as a UPlay account; an Ubisoft specific account that ties the game you buy to the account, forever linking them so all one has to do in order to play one of their games on just about any computer is log in. With fresh installs, it does a single check to Ubisoft's servers to verify the game key that you entered upon installation. Only I couldn't log in. At all. I figured I had forgotten my password, so I went to Ubisoft's website to log in there, possibly reset my password. But the password I had worked fine on the site. I thought it was a software issue so I ran some integrity tests. All clear. Then I hit the support forums. Turns out that the sudden increase in activity had pretty much knocked out Ubisoft's authentication servers. A few hundred thousand players couldn't log in and activate their games, which meant they couldn't play the games they had recently bought, or previously bought, or any Ubisoft game at all that was tied to that account. A couple days later, the server was back up, but the rage put forth by the community (and myself as well) is another reminder of the flaws behind such forms of DRM. Basically, if one demands or requires that their DRM is "always on," that company is responsible for having those servers being "always on."
Blizzard: This is the one that really pisses me off. For my aforementioned birthday, I was given a copy of Diablo 3. Good times. Like all most current Blizzard games, these require a battle.net account, which I have had for a good long while. These accounts are set up pretty straightforwardly (email address/password) with an "additional security" option being an "authenticator," a little keychain device that syncs up with Blizzard's servers, outputting a code that you enter upon logging into a game. I went into the game to log in, and was kicked back, with a "login / password are not correct" message. Considering I had logged in with the same credentials the day before, this was a ridiculous lie. So I went to Blizzard's site to log in. Same result. Happening to have my e-mail open at the time, I found a message from Blizzard saying that the e-mail address associated with my account had been changed by request. I clicked the suggested link that would bring me to a "I call bullshit" section of the site. There is, however, a problem. Whoever got into my account had changed everything about it. Name. E-mail. Security questions. Password. All gone. The account was still active, but it had been scrubbed clean of all traces of... well, me. This being the case, the online methods of "calling bullshit" are completely invalidated. My only recourse is to call Blizzard's support directly (which, due to scheduling, I won't be able to do until Thursday) and I have a good idea of what they're going to say: "You really need to get an Authenticator." Here's the thing, Blizzard: No I Fucking Don't. I don't put my information onto your site so I can keep track of it. Once it's on your site, that's your job now. I shouldn't need to buy a stupid little keychain to keep my info secure; that's your responsibility. I know that Blizzard gets hacked and phished a lot, but I'm more careful than most folks; I'm 99% sure this is not something that's my fault. I'm hoping this can get resolved soon, but this really shakes my faith in Blizzard as a developer.
So, ranty rant rant. Basically, I want games to be on Steam. Is that too much to ask? Their security is super tight, it's unobtrusive, and the client is a joy to use. WHY, GAMING, WHY.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Shop Concepts/Ideas - Miscellaneous
Some of you may know that I'm planning to open a custom computer /
gaming center shop here in Fairbanks. If you didn't know that... well,
there it is. In keeping with my weird brain ideas about such things,
it's helpful to gauge public opinion. I realize that my "audience" here
(or on FB, twitter,
etc.) isn't huge, and may not reach the majority of folks I'd like it
to reach. So sharing this post with friends or other interested parties
would be greatly appreciated, especially if one lives in the Fairbanks
area, and even if you don't, opinions are always appreciated. That
being said, I'd like to have some of these ideas down on (non-existent)
paper, if for nothing else than to see how they look outside my head.
Miscellaneous
This is going to be a bit of a "catch-all" post, as there are ideas that have come up since the other posts went up, or I feel that some points or ideas may need clarification and/or expansion. To get these points across, I'm just going to basically dump them into this post instead of updating and re-sharing the older ones, because laziness. There may also be mild ranting.
UPDATE: One thing I did forget to mention was having a table set up for tabletop gaming, ranging from CCGs, (Magic, etc.) Board Games, grid-based games, (Warhammer and it's ilk) as well as RPGs. (Dungeons and Dragons, for example.) I wouldn't charge for use of these, mainly because the one place in town that also does this doesn't charge; nor should they. They would, of course, need to bring their own materials, (books, paper, etc.) but I'm fully willing to sell snacks and the like. If a group would like their session recorded, however, I would charge an hourly fee for "equipment usage." (Since I'd already have the equipment needed from the computer videos and the podcasts. See? SYNERGY.) These could also go up onto YouTube or into the weekly podcast feed as a sort of "bonus" episode.
One of the first ideas I had about the shop was having an iPad as a kind of multi-tool, mainly in terms of the computer shop. The obvious usage would be as a veritable library of tech manuals, guides, and other useful texts, which would come in handy in both the building and repairing aspects. However, another potential use has just recently become technologically sound: mobile checkout. The Point-of-Sale software I'm planning to use for the computer shop (yes, there will be multiple POS systems; sadly, it's unavoidable, but I can make it work) has a companion iPad/iPhone app, that can access the main "server" of my store from pretty much anywhere. This means if I'm doing a field repair, (yes, I'm offering that as an option) when I finish up, I can generate an invoice and take a credit card payment, then e-mail a receipt to the customer, without having to go back to the store to finalize anything. It also means I can generate repair orders, quotes for custom systems, and create temporary inventory orders on the go.
Some concern was raised about the custom "walkthrough" videos for the computer shop, mainly consisting of : "Isn't that showing off a trade secret?" or somethingstupid weird like that. As I mentioned in the post, YouTube has tons of videos made in the same vein: some instructional, some are more professional, some are showing off. Most of them are pretty dry, no offense to the folks making them, and it's understandable why: its a highly technical subject, so it's hard to figure a way to make something like that informative as well as entertaining. A couple guys do it fairly well, but for the most part it's blank faces saying words that only a fairly low percentage of people will fully understand. So, building computers isn't a trade secret. Honestly, it's not an extremely difficult thing to do. I liken the "self-building" experience to going to a restaurant: of course you can buy the food and prepare it yourself, but chances are, unless you've had some form of training (self or otherwise) it's not going to be anywhere close to the same as having that same meal prepared by a professional. So while it's not a secret, building a computer does take a fair amount of skill, training, and preparation. (Not to mention patience and more than a little in the guts department. Also steady hands are a big plus.) Why else do companies like Dell, HP, and Acer exist?
To add another spin to the videos, I'm going to relate things back to my Community post. Typically, when one buys a computer (especially a branded pre-built one) they don't have any real connection to the device. It's a tool, nothing more. Even if you customize the specs a bit, custom order it, the process still feels all you're doing is exchanging money for a thing you'll use to do more work. (Or play games, or whatever.) Because that's all you're doing. Even buying a custom made system (not a branded one) can be a fairly benign experience, because there's no real customer involvement, aside from giving specs (or a general idea of what they want it to do) and paying for it. The idea behind these videos is to help the customer feel more involved in the building process, even if only tangentially. By speaking directly to a customer through these videos, they can feel more connected to their system, making it more than "just" a tool or device; it's a part of their lives, one that they had a hand in.
Another clarification has to do with the gaming shop, and whether or not it will be pre-paid or post-paid. Both methods have their advantages, but for the sake of simplicity (not to mention security) I've chosen to go with pre-paid. It saves from hassles like having a card declined or "accidentally" forgetting a wallet or cash, as well as keeping sneaky or opportunistic individuals from "skipping on the bill," as it were. Doesn't take much; a phone call, a conversation, a smoke break, whatever, and someone could be able to take off without paying what they owe the store for the time they've spent. This also gives customers a bit more control over how much they spend; by planning ahead, they can choose how much they plan to use in any given day, week, whatever. The "cafe" software will give them advance notice as to when they're almost out of time, so if they're coming up to the end of their purchased time, they can purchase more to keep their session going. I may use post-paid on a case-by-case basis, such as if someone who has a good established record (and who I have some amount of trust in) wants to play for a couple hours, but doesn't get paid until the next day, I may consider letting them pay by the end of the current week. In cases like this, I'll also take down some contact information, so I can annoyingly inquire as to when I'd be expecting them to come back in. After that week of waiting, I can "suspend" their account until they come back in, as well as letting other similar places know about the incident.
While I'd like to think I've got a lot of things figured out in regards to this endeavor, there are a great many things that I'm still up in the air about, or need suggestions for:
Miscellaneous
This is going to be a bit of a "catch-all" post, as there are ideas that have come up since the other posts went up, or I feel that some points or ideas may need clarification and/or expansion. To get these points across, I'm just going to basically dump them into this post instead of updating and re-sharing the older ones, because laziness. There may also be mild ranting.
UPDATE: One thing I did forget to mention was having a table set up for tabletop gaming, ranging from CCGs, (Magic, etc.) Board Games, grid-based games, (Warhammer and it's ilk) as well as RPGs. (Dungeons and Dragons, for example.) I wouldn't charge for use of these, mainly because the one place in town that also does this doesn't charge; nor should they. They would, of course, need to bring their own materials, (books, paper, etc.) but I'm fully willing to sell snacks and the like. If a group would like their session recorded, however, I would charge an hourly fee for "equipment usage." (Since I'd already have the equipment needed from the computer videos and the podcasts. See? SYNERGY.) These could also go up onto YouTube or into the weekly podcast feed as a sort of "bonus" episode.
One of the first ideas I had about the shop was having an iPad as a kind of multi-tool, mainly in terms of the computer shop. The obvious usage would be as a veritable library of tech manuals, guides, and other useful texts, which would come in handy in both the building and repairing aspects. However, another potential use has just recently become technologically sound: mobile checkout. The Point-of-Sale software I'm planning to use for the computer shop (yes, there will be multiple POS systems; sadly, it's unavoidable, but I can make it work) has a companion iPad/iPhone app, that can access the main "server" of my store from pretty much anywhere. This means if I'm doing a field repair, (yes, I'm offering that as an option) when I finish up, I can generate an invoice and take a credit card payment, then e-mail a receipt to the customer, without having to go back to the store to finalize anything. It also means I can generate repair orders, quotes for custom systems, and create temporary inventory orders on the go.
Some concern was raised about the custom "walkthrough" videos for the computer shop, mainly consisting of : "Isn't that showing off a trade secret?" or something
To add another spin to the videos, I'm going to relate things back to my Community post. Typically, when one buys a computer (especially a branded pre-built one) they don't have any real connection to the device. It's a tool, nothing more. Even if you customize the specs a bit, custom order it, the process still feels all you're doing is exchanging money for a thing you'll use to do more work. (Or play games, or whatever.) Because that's all you're doing. Even buying a custom made system (not a branded one) can be a fairly benign experience, because there's no real customer involvement, aside from giving specs (or a general idea of what they want it to do) and paying for it. The idea behind these videos is to help the customer feel more involved in the building process, even if only tangentially. By speaking directly to a customer through these videos, they can feel more connected to their system, making it more than "just" a tool or device; it's a part of their lives, one that they had a hand in.
Another clarification has to do with the gaming shop, and whether or not it will be pre-paid or post-paid. Both methods have their advantages, but for the sake of simplicity (not to mention security) I've chosen to go with pre-paid. It saves from hassles like having a card declined or "accidentally" forgetting a wallet or cash, as well as keeping sneaky or opportunistic individuals from "skipping on the bill," as it were. Doesn't take much; a phone call, a conversation, a smoke break, whatever, and someone could be able to take off without paying what they owe the store for the time they've spent. This also gives customers a bit more control over how much they spend; by planning ahead, they can choose how much they plan to use in any given day, week, whatever. The "cafe" software will give them advance notice as to when they're almost out of time, so if they're coming up to the end of their purchased time, they can purchase more to keep their session going. I may use post-paid on a case-by-case basis, such as if someone who has a good established record (and who I have some amount of trust in) wants to play for a couple hours, but doesn't get paid until the next day, I may consider letting them pay by the end of the current week. In cases like this, I'll also take down some contact information, so I can annoyingly inquire as to when I'd be expecting them to come back in. After that week of waiting, I can "suspend" their account until they come back in, as well as letting other similar places know about the incident.
While I'd like to think I've got a lot of things figured out in regards to this endeavor, there are a great many things that I'm still up in the air about, or need suggestions for:
- A Name: This seems like a fairly important aspect to have in place. In my head, I've been calling it "Arctic Gaming and Computer Shop." If this happened to be the final name, this would be the "official" name (the one required by law to be on all advertising and signage, etc.) but in more casual conversation I'd refer to it as just "Arctic Gaming." This isn't a great name in my mind, but I'm having trouble figuring anything else. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Of course, a name typically leads into...
- A Logo: I can't draw to save my life. While I have a few core concepts in terms of a logo, I have no real way to execute it in a meaningful way. So, if any budding or wannabe artists want to take a crack at it, feel free to give me an e-mail or DM on my various social media. Sine this is something that will represent the store (both in signage, adverts, etc.) I'm of course willing to pay a commission fee, if or when this venture does actually happen.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Store Concepts / Ideas - Gaming Center
Some of you may know that I'm planning to open a custom computer /
gaming center shop here in Fairbanks. If you didn't know that... well,
there it is. In keeping with my weird brain ideas about such things,
it's helpful to gauge public opinion. I realize that my "audience" here
(or on FB, twitter,
etc.) isn't huge, and may not reach the majority of folks I'd like it
to reach. So sharing this post with friends or other interested parties
would be greatly appreciated, especially if one lives in the Fairbanks
area, and even if you don't, opinions are always appreciated. That
being said, I'd like to have some of these ideas down on (non-existent)
paper, if for nothing else than to see how they look outside my head.
Gaming Center
This will more than likely be the main revenue stream for the store. Even though the individual receipts may be smaller than a computer sale, the (hopefully) sheer quantity of these purchases is going to bring some fairly substantial profit margins; after all, there's very little overhead associated with this type of transaction. Granted, there will still be a daily and monthly amount, sales-wise, to justify keeping the doors open, but that's a much smaller number than some might think. There's a lot to talk about here, so I'm going to attempt to get into it, in no real order.
First, let's talk operating hours. This will obviously be somewhat dictated by where the location eventually ends up; malls can be fairly strict about their hours, but even with that being the case, I'm sure things can work out with whatever management is involved. All that aside, I'd like to keep it simple: 10AM to 10PM. Early enough so folks needing computer service don't have to wait too long, and late enough so gamers can feel like they've got enough time (say after school or work) to get some decent gaming time in. For those of you concerned about the employees working such long hours every day we're open, rest assured, the plan is to have multiple "official" breaks per shift. For those of you not concerned about the employees, fuck you.
Next topic should be the games themselves. This is a trickier subject, believe it or not, as there's still a few question marks about a few aspects of handling multiple licenses, or adding new ones. Any PC gamer worth their salt knows of and uses Steam regularly, if not primarily. I've been using it for almost a decade, if not longer, and I shudder at the thought of how much time and money I've spent with it. Of course, there is a reason for this, as well as the fact that it's the most popular PC gaming service on the planet. A user-friendly client, huge selection of games, near constant sales and specials, cool features, a thriving community, exclusive content, spotlights on games both big and small, and more. It's a great service, created by a great company, Valve; known for making such huge hits such as the Half-Life series, the Portal series, Team Fortress 2, Left4Dead, and more. The Steam store itself has a vast selection of games, both single-player and multiplayer alike. Thankfully, Valve has a "cyber cafe" program designed specifically for gaming centers and the like, which gives places like this access to most of the Steam catalog, over multiple computers, for a monthly or yearly fee. It's not clear what this fee is, but it also includes: listing by Valve in their official directory (so people can search their database for nearby gaming centers,) exclusive promotions, advertising material, customer service, etc. It's a great service from what I can tell. It'll be important to note that not only will customers be able to access our "store accounts" to access Steam games, but also will be able to log in with their own Steam accounts for syncing save games or installing a game they like that's not available on the store account. (With permission, of course.) Likely big hits from this service would be Counter-Strike, TF2, L4D2, Civilization 5, Call of Duty, and even some Free-to-play MMOs.
However, Steam doesn't cover everything. There are plenty of games, indie and AAA that don't use it for one reason or another. The big one at the moment is Battlefield 3. Huge multiplayer component, widely popular, (though not as much as Call of Duty,) and is sadly tied to EA's vastly inferior (and much maligned and controversial) Origin service. Granted, it's only been around a year, so it does need some room to grow, but it's a bit of an obvious attempt on EA's part to ignore customer's demands and do what they want while getting as much money as they can in the process. This wouldn't be a big deal if EA had offered to put BF3 on Steam as well, but sadly, it as well as other popular games such as Mass Effect 3 are exclusive to Origin, leaving PC gaming customers no other choice (other than consoles) if they want to play these popular games, or any of the upcoming ones such as Crysis 3 or Dead Space 3. To top it all off, Origin has no "cafe" or gaming center program, which means that I'd have to buy a copy for each machine I intend to run it on, which would be a substantial expense. Plus, since Origin accounts and software are tied to single machines, there's no way for achievements or ranks in multiplayer games to carry over from machine to machine, so customers would have to try and stick with a specific computer each time they wanted to play that particular game. Frustrating, to say the least. That said, I'm not against doing that, buying a bunch of copies for the machines in my store. Gamers are savvy enough to know these limitations, and deal with them on a regular basis, so it might go over alright in the long run. We shall see.
Other games such as Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Star Wars the Old Republic, Minecraft, and plenty of others use their own fashion of DRM, mainly based upon user accounts. If you're a previously paid (or currently paying/prepaid) customer, your user account for said game will reflect it, and all you have to do is log in. These clients are fairly easy to obtain, with little to no cost. MMOs in particular use this method a lot, so there will be plenty of support for those, both current and upcoming. It'll be interesting to see which ones become more popular; there seems to be a wild shift in the direction of Free-to-Play games in this particular category, such as DC Universe Online, Star Trek Online, and Lord of the Rings Online. Many F2P shooters and MOBAs such as Super Monday Night Combat, Tribes Ascend, and League of Legends use this particular system as well.
One note I've gotten (that was pretty well in the back of my mind anyway) was how young kids are going to be handled in the store. (More than likely by parents who think they're basically dropping them off at a "playground" while they go do grown-up things, like taxes or cheating on their spouse.) It's a valid point: many of these games are rated "M" for Mature, meaning that they're intended for folks 17 and up. Think of them as an "R" rating for games. We're talking realistic violence, blood, gore, foul language, sexual content, partial nudity, and just plain being mean. I'm all for keeping mature content away from youngsters, but I also think that that decision isn't up to me; it's up to the parents to take the responsibility for what their child's doing, even in terms of the games they play. So, anyone under 16 or so will be asked to bring a parent in to sign a waiver. This will basically explain that their children may be exposed to the various things I mentioned above, and that neither I nor my store are liable or at fault for what these children experience while they're in the store. If they have a problem with any of these, or are unable to sign for whatever reason, it doesn't mean the kids won't be able to play. The account they use to log in to the system to access games will limit them to games rated no higher than "T" for Teen, possibly lower if they're younger than teens, which I doubt would be coming into the store very often at any rate. It may be inconvenient, but it's important. It'll (hopefully) force the parents to take a good look at what their kids are doing, gaming-wise, and make a judgement call based on how well they know their children. I'm also hoping that it'll open up a line of dialogue between parent and child about what kind of games and other media they consume.
On to the machines themselves. I'm of the opinion that customers aren't paying for an experience they can have at home or on a cheap/outdated computer. They're paying for a better experience than that. So, without going too much into technical specifics, here's a general rundown of the "standard" tier of machines I'm going to build for customer use: Intel quad-core i5 processors, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 graphics cards, at least 8 GB of RAM, a hybrid SSD/HDD drive, high definition monitors, gaming grade mice/keyboards, comfortable headsets, and cushy chairs. (That last one is more important than one might think.) This is all subject to to change, of course; no telling what kinds of new things will come out (or how pricing will change) in the time between now and when the time comes to actually order and build these things. I haven't settled on a case as of yet; I'll probably keep them fairly smallish, nothing too fancy, though I do want things such as fan controllers, side windows, (so I can put at least one light strip in there to show off) and decent wire/cable management.
That's the standard tier of machines, which will consist of 16 out of the 20 machines that customers will be able to use. The other four are going to be... interesting. More powerful, for sure: faster (as well as possibly overclocked) processors with liquid cooling, more RAM, higher-end (if not multiple) graphics cards, boot/system SSDs, surround sound headsets, and more. That's not what's making these "premium" machines interesting, however. These remaining 4 machines will be split into 2 categories: 3D, and Surround. Surround systems will be basically triple-monitor systems tuned for games that utilize that screen real estate to immerse gamers by basically surrounding the gamer with the game world. 3D systems are just like they sound: a surprising number of games use 3D to enhance their experience, and it's something everyone should experience at least once. We may even add an extra machine that combines the two categories: NVIDIA calls it 3D Vision Surround, and it'll be interesting to see how customers react to these systems. They will be first come, first serve, of course, but I may institute a "consecutive time limit" and possibly a customer queue in regards to those machines, just so everyone who wants to (and wants to pay for it) can experience these unique machines.
I don't want to keep console folks out in the cold, so there'll probably be a selection of the major ones (PS3, 360) along with some of the more popular games on hand. Gamefly would probably be utilized quite a lot for those games, though I may purchase ones that get requested a lot, along with just ones that are universally awesome or unique. Thanks to X-Box Live and PSN, profiles and saves can travel with the customers, so they can keep their achievements and rankings up to date. This isn't going to be a huge part of the business, so I don't see having more than one TV connected to both consoles paired with a comfy couch. More ideas may surface about that at a later date, but for now, that's pretty well done.
Another common practice in gaming centers is LAN party hosting. This is a nice idea, and allows customers to basically have an all-night gaming session, complete with food, games, and friends. I also think of it as a way for some of the more tech-savvy customers to bring in (and show off) their personal machines. There would be a flat fee for this ($20 for bringing a personal machine, $25/$30 for using a store machine) and it would include pizza, soda, and other such snacks. We may also play movies or TV shows as a kind of background noise or small distraction while folks are taking breathers from their gaming sessions. As this is fairly common practice, a way to make it unique (not to mention community oriented) is to film the hijinks (both in-game and real life varieties) and post them to Facebook and YouTube. (With customer's permission, of course.) It'll be more work; editing a video together from multiple sources is never an easy task, but I believe it'll bring the customers as well as the employees together. Since these would literally be all-nighters, though, the store would probably be mildly short-handed the next day.
Speaking of snacks: yes, we will sell sodas, energy drinks, candy and the like. We may also go a little further with frozen foods, to be used in one of a couple microwaves conveniently located within the store itself. Outside foods would be allowed in a minimal basis; that is to say, customers can bring in one drink and one snack of their own with them into the store per day. If we do get located within a mall, I'm not going to argue with folk refilling a personal water bottle a few times, but for insurance reasons we wouldn't be able to risk outside food/drink damaging our equipment. I'm fine with a couple risks, but there is a limit. Weird how insurance works like that.
Tournaments are a great way to get people involved, and are fun to boot. This may roll in well with the LAN party concepts; small charge for entry (say $5-10) with the prize being... well, I dunno. I'm hesitant to put cash up as a prize. Possibly an upgrade for their computer (if they have one) or an individual component, some unique gaming swag or accessories? It's a work in progress, people. THIS IS WHY I NEED FEEDBACK. Valve hosts tournaments on their servers occasionally, usually for some pretty interesting prizes, though I believe one needs to sign up (and possibly pay) for a store's entry into these things.
Well, that's all I got for now. This is the largest part of the shop, so it needed the most attention. Hence the long post. Please, comment. PLEADING NOW.
Gaming Center
This will more than likely be the main revenue stream for the store. Even though the individual receipts may be smaller than a computer sale, the (hopefully) sheer quantity of these purchases is going to bring some fairly substantial profit margins; after all, there's very little overhead associated with this type of transaction. Granted, there will still be a daily and monthly amount, sales-wise, to justify keeping the doors open, but that's a much smaller number than some might think. There's a lot to talk about here, so I'm going to attempt to get into it, in no real order.
First, let's talk operating hours. This will obviously be somewhat dictated by where the location eventually ends up; malls can be fairly strict about their hours, but even with that being the case, I'm sure things can work out with whatever management is involved. All that aside, I'd like to keep it simple: 10AM to 10PM. Early enough so folks needing computer service don't have to wait too long, and late enough so gamers can feel like they've got enough time (say after school or work) to get some decent gaming time in. For those of you concerned about the employees working such long hours every day we're open, rest assured, the plan is to have multiple "official" breaks per shift. For those of you not concerned about the employees, fuck you.
Next topic should be the games themselves. This is a trickier subject, believe it or not, as there's still a few question marks about a few aspects of handling multiple licenses, or adding new ones. Any PC gamer worth their salt knows of and uses Steam regularly, if not primarily. I've been using it for almost a decade, if not longer, and I shudder at the thought of how much time and money I've spent with it. Of course, there is a reason for this, as well as the fact that it's the most popular PC gaming service on the planet. A user-friendly client, huge selection of games, near constant sales and specials, cool features, a thriving community, exclusive content, spotlights on games both big and small, and more. It's a great service, created by a great company, Valve; known for making such huge hits such as the Half-Life series, the Portal series, Team Fortress 2, Left4Dead, and more. The Steam store itself has a vast selection of games, both single-player and multiplayer alike. Thankfully, Valve has a "cyber cafe" program designed specifically for gaming centers and the like, which gives places like this access to most of the Steam catalog, over multiple computers, for a monthly or yearly fee. It's not clear what this fee is, but it also includes: listing by Valve in their official directory (so people can search their database for nearby gaming centers,) exclusive promotions, advertising material, customer service, etc. It's a great service from what I can tell. It'll be important to note that not only will customers be able to access our "store accounts" to access Steam games, but also will be able to log in with their own Steam accounts for syncing save games or installing a game they like that's not available on the store account. (With permission, of course.) Likely big hits from this service would be Counter-Strike, TF2, L4D2, Civilization 5, Call of Duty, and even some Free-to-play MMOs.
However, Steam doesn't cover everything. There are plenty of games, indie and AAA that don't use it for one reason or another. The big one at the moment is Battlefield 3. Huge multiplayer component, widely popular, (though not as much as Call of Duty,) and is sadly tied to EA's vastly inferior (and much maligned and controversial) Origin service. Granted, it's only been around a year, so it does need some room to grow, but it's a bit of an obvious attempt on EA's part to ignore customer's demands and do what they want while getting as much money as they can in the process. This wouldn't be a big deal if EA had offered to put BF3 on Steam as well, but sadly, it as well as other popular games such as Mass Effect 3 are exclusive to Origin, leaving PC gaming customers no other choice (other than consoles) if they want to play these popular games, or any of the upcoming ones such as Crysis 3 or Dead Space 3. To top it all off, Origin has no "cafe" or gaming center program, which means that I'd have to buy a copy for each machine I intend to run it on, which would be a substantial expense. Plus, since Origin accounts and software are tied to single machines, there's no way for achievements or ranks in multiplayer games to carry over from machine to machine, so customers would have to try and stick with a specific computer each time they wanted to play that particular game. Frustrating, to say the least. That said, I'm not against doing that, buying a bunch of copies for the machines in my store. Gamers are savvy enough to know these limitations, and deal with them on a regular basis, so it might go over alright in the long run. We shall see.
Other games such as Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Star Wars the Old Republic, Minecraft, and plenty of others use their own fashion of DRM, mainly based upon user accounts. If you're a previously paid (or currently paying/prepaid) customer, your user account for said game will reflect it, and all you have to do is log in. These clients are fairly easy to obtain, with little to no cost. MMOs in particular use this method a lot, so there will be plenty of support for those, both current and upcoming. It'll be interesting to see which ones become more popular; there seems to be a wild shift in the direction of Free-to-Play games in this particular category, such as DC Universe Online, Star Trek Online, and Lord of the Rings Online. Many F2P shooters and MOBAs such as Super Monday Night Combat, Tribes Ascend, and League of Legends use this particular system as well.
One note I've gotten (that was pretty well in the back of my mind anyway) was how young kids are going to be handled in the store. (More than likely by parents who think they're basically dropping them off at a "playground" while they go do grown-up things, like taxes or cheating on their spouse.) It's a valid point: many of these games are rated "M" for Mature, meaning that they're intended for folks 17 and up. Think of them as an "R" rating for games. We're talking realistic violence, blood, gore, foul language, sexual content, partial nudity, and just plain being mean. I'm all for keeping mature content away from youngsters, but I also think that that decision isn't up to me; it's up to the parents to take the responsibility for what their child's doing, even in terms of the games they play. So, anyone under 16 or so will be asked to bring a parent in to sign a waiver. This will basically explain that their children may be exposed to the various things I mentioned above, and that neither I nor my store are liable or at fault for what these children experience while they're in the store. If they have a problem with any of these, or are unable to sign for whatever reason, it doesn't mean the kids won't be able to play. The account they use to log in to the system to access games will limit them to games rated no higher than "T" for Teen, possibly lower if they're younger than teens, which I doubt would be coming into the store very often at any rate. It may be inconvenient, but it's important. It'll (hopefully) force the parents to take a good look at what their kids are doing, gaming-wise, and make a judgement call based on how well they know their children. I'm also hoping that it'll open up a line of dialogue between parent and child about what kind of games and other media they consume.
On to the machines themselves. I'm of the opinion that customers aren't paying for an experience they can have at home or on a cheap/outdated computer. They're paying for a better experience than that. So, without going too much into technical specifics, here's a general rundown of the "standard" tier of machines I'm going to build for customer use: Intel quad-core i5 processors, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 graphics cards, at least 8 GB of RAM, a hybrid SSD/HDD drive, high definition monitors, gaming grade mice/keyboards, comfortable headsets, and cushy chairs. (That last one is more important than one might think.) This is all subject to to change, of course; no telling what kinds of new things will come out (or how pricing will change) in the time between now and when the time comes to actually order and build these things. I haven't settled on a case as of yet; I'll probably keep them fairly smallish, nothing too fancy, though I do want things such as fan controllers, side windows, (so I can put at least one light strip in there to show off) and decent wire/cable management.
That's the standard tier of machines, which will consist of 16 out of the 20 machines that customers will be able to use. The other four are going to be... interesting. More powerful, for sure: faster (as well as possibly overclocked) processors with liquid cooling, more RAM, higher-end (if not multiple) graphics cards, boot/system SSDs, surround sound headsets, and more. That's not what's making these "premium" machines interesting, however. These remaining 4 machines will be split into 2 categories: 3D, and Surround. Surround systems will be basically triple-monitor systems tuned for games that utilize that screen real estate to immerse gamers by basically surrounding the gamer with the game world. 3D systems are just like they sound: a surprising number of games use 3D to enhance their experience, and it's something everyone should experience at least once. We may even add an extra machine that combines the two categories: NVIDIA calls it 3D Vision Surround, and it'll be interesting to see how customers react to these systems. They will be first come, first serve, of course, but I may institute a "consecutive time limit" and possibly a customer queue in regards to those machines, just so everyone who wants to (and wants to pay for it) can experience these unique machines.
I don't want to keep console folks out in the cold, so there'll probably be a selection of the major ones (PS3, 360) along with some of the more popular games on hand. Gamefly would probably be utilized quite a lot for those games, though I may purchase ones that get requested a lot, along with just ones that are universally awesome or unique. Thanks to X-Box Live and PSN, profiles and saves can travel with the customers, so they can keep their achievements and rankings up to date. This isn't going to be a huge part of the business, so I don't see having more than one TV connected to both consoles paired with a comfy couch. More ideas may surface about that at a later date, but for now, that's pretty well done.
Another common practice in gaming centers is LAN party hosting. This is a nice idea, and allows customers to basically have an all-night gaming session, complete with food, games, and friends. I also think of it as a way for some of the more tech-savvy customers to bring in (and show off) their personal machines. There would be a flat fee for this ($20 for bringing a personal machine, $25/$30 for using a store machine) and it would include pizza, soda, and other such snacks. We may also play movies or TV shows as a kind of background noise or small distraction while folks are taking breathers from their gaming sessions. As this is fairly common practice, a way to make it unique (not to mention community oriented) is to film the hijinks (both in-game and real life varieties) and post them to Facebook and YouTube. (With customer's permission, of course.) It'll be more work; editing a video together from multiple sources is never an easy task, but I believe it'll bring the customers as well as the employees together. Since these would literally be all-nighters, though, the store would probably be mildly short-handed the next day.
Speaking of snacks: yes, we will sell sodas, energy drinks, candy and the like. We may also go a little further with frozen foods, to be used in one of a couple microwaves conveniently located within the store itself. Outside foods would be allowed in a minimal basis; that is to say, customers can bring in one drink and one snack of their own with them into the store per day. If we do get located within a mall, I'm not going to argue with folk refilling a personal water bottle a few times, but for insurance reasons we wouldn't be able to risk outside food/drink damaging our equipment. I'm fine with a couple risks, but there is a limit. Weird how insurance works like that.
Tournaments are a great way to get people involved, and are fun to boot. This may roll in well with the LAN party concepts; small charge for entry (say $5-10) with the prize being... well, I dunno. I'm hesitant to put cash up as a prize. Possibly an upgrade for their computer (if they have one) or an individual component, some unique gaming swag or accessories? It's a work in progress, people. THIS IS WHY I NEED FEEDBACK. Valve hosts tournaments on their servers occasionally, usually for some pretty interesting prizes, though I believe one needs to sign up (and possibly pay) for a store's entry into these things.
Well, that's all I got for now. This is the largest part of the shop, so it needed the most attention. Hence the long post. Please, comment. PLEADING NOW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)