Categories
Web 0.1

Skype rejects filthy internet users

Do you use Skype?

Are you WEIRD enough to own MORE THAN ONE computer?

(or gullible enough to want to download the LATEST version of Skype?)

Well … f***-off! Skype is desperate to prevent you using their service.

Download … FAIL

Try to download skype today, and you’ll get:

It’s a recent development … I downloaded skype a month ago, and this crap wasn’t there back then. For the last 5 years, if you wanted to download Skype, it was a single-click from the front page. Now it’s not even *on* the front-page, and they’ve added this “don’t download” barrier.

Net effect … I’m not using Skype today. I’ve got better things to do than jump through hoops to login to a website and be spammed with advertising to use a service *I AM ALREADY PAYING FOR*.

Seems to me there’s a wave of clueless marketing people working for internet corporates these days…

Categories
games industry

$100m, guys. Stop whinging about a blogger.

Nicholas Lovell reveals all in Page 3 Special…

His recent post about the top ten “doomed” games-industry projects/companies/things attracted a lot of attention … and some snide commentary. It was “traffic-chasing”, “doom-mongering”, “gutter-press”, “tabloid journalism”.

Even if all the above were true and fair, it would still be wrong to focus on it.

The games industry has real problems right now.

I can think of 100,000,000 of them off the top of my head, floating in the air above Dundee. For instance, the industry at large had plenty of opportunities to see that RTW was in big trouble. But no-one said a word. Without naming names, go and ask a few publishers how many of them were approached by an increasingly desperate RTW over the last few years, and what terms were on offer; research some rumours.

But, overall, get a sense of perspective: you should be celebrating Nicholas’s call-out, and begging him to write more. Because otherwise there’ll be another 50,000,000 of them, quite possibly starting in Southam and rapidly spreading to Guildford, before leaping across the Atlantic, swinging down the east coast, doing a little tour of Texas (via Austin), and then finishing up with a round of bankruptcy parties in San Francisco.

Provocation in Blogs…

I thought about commenting, but decided against it. IMHO the post was fine. It wasn’t exactly “detailed researched professional journalism”, but it wasn’t presented that way – and it was perfectly reasonable throughout.

Any intelligent reader would quickly see that he backed-up his opinions and clearly had thought about the topic – it wasn’t simply tossed-off in a spare few minutes.

I suspected (because I’m a cynical game developer) that most of the complainers were either looking at a slow news day and needed something to comment on … or were feeling bitter that they’d (implicitly) been denigrated by their OWN failure to speak up about these failures.

At the same time … IMHO, Nicholas knows exactly what he’s doing – I’ve been following his blog and tweets for a year or so, and I’ve seen his tone gradually change to become more and more provocative.

So I was pleased to see Nicholas’s followup today, in which he states of *some* aspects of the post:

“That was traffic chasing. But I wanted people to read my blog post. And it worked.”

Excellent. I’d said it privately to one or two people who asked – and not in a derogatory sense – but I wasn’t expecting such a frank admission. Most smart people tend to back down when told-off for being negative.

My own blog (t-machine) is regularly (albeit infrequently) denounced for being argumentative, blunt, and full of outrageous provocations. It got that way because I learned (on the MUD-DEV mailing list back in the 1990’s) that reasonable, qualified, objective statements *do not trigger debate*. Great times, great people – but if you wanted a decent discussion, and insights from smart people, you had to include just enough bite to your words to get them to hit the Reply button…

And debate is something this industry is sorely lacking in when it comes to introspection and “what went wrong”.

Categories
games design MMOG development programming

Entity Systems for Objective-C (iPhone)…prologue

I’ve just started a new game project for iPad which I hope will end up with a commercial release. At Red Glasses, we’ve got comparitively few projects for the next couple of months. If anything comes in, I’m expecting one of the other coders can pick it up, and I can concentrate on this in-house iPad game.

Schedule: 1. Prototype; 2. Refine

I wrote the first prototype this weekend – it looks like a very basic Flight Control right now (the game design is trying to do something novel with FC mechanics – I like that control system, but I think we can do a lot more with it than people have done so far).

Now it’s time to implement some of the novel mechanics, and prototyping our core game design. This will mean creating a lot of game-logic, lots of behaviours, etc. And so … I’d really like to use an Entity System.

Objective-C: the bad bits of C … without the good bits of C

The thought of building an ES without templating makes me weep.

Unfortunately, Obj-C continues to show it’s age/mediocrity/general-lack-of-usefulness: it’s finally (this year!) acquired an implementation of closures, but it still doesn’t have generic classes.

NB: *I believe* it doesn’t have generics; it might have, but I’ve not noticed them in any ObjC projects, code, libraries, etc. A quick google came up with nothing.

ES without generic classes is like OOP in Perl: techically possible, but liable to contain a lot of painful bugs which a compiler would have spotted for you … and contain a *lot* of boiler-plate code you really shouldn’t need to write in this day and age.

I could fix all this with C++ – it has probably the world’s best implementation of generic classes. It’s not perfect, but IME it’s the best overall balance of functionality.

Unfortunately, unlike C, Obj-C is incompatible with C++.

What next?

Ideas and suggestions are *very* welcome…

Assuming I can get an ES to work on iPhone, I’ll be blogging it. I’ll aim to open-source the ES I build.

I’ve had a quick look at using C++ classes and objects in ObjC. Using the objects has a lot of boilerplate code from Apple, that looks pretty good (but painfully verbose :( ).

…but using the *classes* appears pretty horrific. Since ObjC doesn’t have any kind of generics (that’s how we got to this point :)), it can’t handle those parts of C++ in a meaningful way.

Then again, since Obj-C is *very* dynamic as a language, I might be able to do something cunning with passing around NSClass instances / references. Combine that with runtime method dispatch / message-passing, and *maybe* I can code a decent C++ ES … while using ObjC to write logic that acts on the data from that ES, without having to write so many extra lines of code that the “saving” is lost.

As I said … ideas welcomed!

Categories
games industry

The Wicked Edge is Dead!

Frabjous:

The court has denied Edge Games’ motion for injunction, citing that it believes that Langdell made fraudulent statements to the US Patent and Trademark Office and strongly believes that Langdell is “suspect,” and has been “trolling” the game industry for licensing opportunities. His actions could possibly warrant “criminal penalties.”

An EA spokesperson told us the company is “pleased with the opinion issued by the court. We hope that this case serves as a milestone in protecting independent developers from nuisance litigation.”

Although I’m not keen on schadenfreude, I’m genuinely pleased to see the US PTO finally smack him down, after years of being caught napping. Tim always seemed a nice enough guy in person, but I found his (publically reported) trademark actions simply vile. His extensive lies and disingenuous claims of being a game developer just added insult to injury.

In other news … with this, EA may finally have recovered brand normality from the long after-effects of EA-Spouse.

Categories
games industry

Retailers and the Game Development industry

This year, numerous retailers (GameStop (GamesIndustry.biz sucks) , HMV (GamesIndustry.biz sucks) ) have been whinging and crying that they can no longer make huge profits out of selling computer games. Publishers have often jumped on the same bandwagon, but tended to blame retailers for selling 2nd-hand games (oh my! shock! horror!).

You might think that developers would agree, would sympathise – after all, they’re losing money too.

Not really. Here’s the historical perspective:

“Industry: Hey, Retail. Take your dick out of my arse!
Retail: You love it you little bitch.
Industry: Grr!
<Time passes>
Retail: OMG THERE’S A DICK IN MY ARSE! I DON’T LIKE IT! HALP! HALP!
Industry: You cheeky fecker.”
— ForkBoy

…at the end of the day, there’s no drop in demand for computer games; there’s only drop in demand for the weak ways that those games were traditionally *sold* to the consumer. Developers (and publishers) aren’t facing doom. And after many years of having to “bribe” retailers to even be “allowed” to send their products for sale, no-one’s feeling much sympathy for the retail sector…

Categories
computer games games design

Games and the loss of Art

If a picture paints a thousand words, then a 3D engine wipes-away 900.

Even a 3D engine with “a great game” and “good level-designers” still only manages five hundred.

It’s taken me a long time to realise this, but … games published today often have inferior visual Art to games published 20 years ago.

Working inside game studios you still get to see stunning art on a daily basis – it’s just that none of that ever makes it into the game. It’s all “concepting”: static, one-off paintings. And although it’s only a minor issue, I feel we’ve lost something in having these moments fade away from the games themselves.

I don’t have time to carefully research and pick my examples, so I’ll just pull straight from memory (and hope the point still makes sense by the end :))

1991-1994: in-game graphics

This is going to be hard to demonstrate if you judge each image too literally, but bear with me…

I’ll start with one of the most “art” games of the 1990s: Another World (1991):

Another World is easy for this post: the whole game was designed around “how good can the visual art be … with a very small colour palette, no shading, and very blocky characters?”

Here’s a screenshot from Ishar 2 (I think; could be Ishar 3?) – either way, 1993-1994:

From GOG.com

Ugly, horrible. Composition is mediocre.

And yet … just have a look at the open book on the left-hand side, opened, with the pages caught in the act of riffling in a breeze. Hand-painted in *very* low resolution, with readable text.

Look around the room, look at how much stuff is crammed in a single image. Why? Because none of it had to be modelled in 3D – the game was crammed full of this kind of whimsical artistic painting, full of imagination.

Or look at Elf – published 19 years ago! Here’s two screenshots. First, look at the “normal” graphics in this platform game:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/elf/screenshots/gameShotId,315213/

…now look at one of the “boss” screens:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/elf/screenshots/gameShotId,315213/

In the second screenshot look at the background: hand-painted, but also soft-focus, to provide greater contrast with the player and the boss. I want you to consider the technique, rather than the actual screenshot – this is a poor example, sadly – but my copy of Elf is FUBAR so I can’t take a good one.

2010: the missing Art

15 years later, how has the artwork improved?

The engines produce stunning visual effects, fully animated, in 3D. Sony and Nintendo are now putting their games onto mass-market 3D displays so you see *actual* 3D images, rather than 2D simulation of a 3D scene.

But the artwork has atrophied. Modern games have no time to spare for epic vistas – there’s no room in the gameplay for static screens.

And it’s phenomenally expensive too: it used to be that painting a 100×100 pixel area of screen required 10,000 pixels to be painted – a matter of minutes with a good photo app.

Nowadays, you have to create 3D models – separately – for each item that will appear in that area. Then you have to paint textures for each one – usually 100 times as many pixels *each* as in the 2D equivalent – and apply lighting by hand, and positioning in 3 dimensions.

Net effect: low-importance areas of scenes are empty and ill considered (artistically). Flights of fancy are rarely possible (developers literally can’t afford them – it costs too much money in the salaries of extra staff)

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it”

Don’t believe me? Then try this site, find a game you’ve played, and compare the images here to the images you *actually saw* in the game:

http://deadendthrills.com/

From the about page:

an emerging art form that’s as far from the average screenshot as it is the average photograph.

So … what?

Go back to the Ishar screenshot.

Fire up Oblivion (a modern equivalent: a sword-and-sorcery RPG), and look for anywhere in the game with even half as many “interesting” items that might spark the imagination. What are those things? What do they tell about the character of the person who lives here?

(in Oblivion, you’ll find that everyone has a fetish for broken crates and buys their chairs and tables from the same – apprentice – carpenter. Some of them have a couple of houseplants. That’s it.)

This post was about the visual art, but the loss is felt in the games themselves, in a loss of immersion, and a loss of *player* imagination. Sole-author flash games – often made by artists working alone – go some way to redressing the balance. Even if they didn’t, it’s small, and it’s subtle – it’s really not that important. But it’s a loss nevertheless.

(some of my favourites from Dead End Thrills)

Categories
web 2.0

Google Groups: destroying the internet one community at a time

Google has just announced that they’re deleting all web content (pages, files, downloads) from Google Groups, leaving only the mailing lists.

(Incidentally, they failed to inform the group-admins / owners that they’re doing this – which is mind-blowingly stupid when you think about it)

Just to be clear, *without* the web content: Groups is a high-spam mailing list with very poor setup and controls. It’s difficult to find a mainstream mailing list that is as bad as Groups. But it’s from *Google*, so you can trust it, and it had all this “web content” that’s essential to running a group – I’ve run a few groups using Google Groups.

(Google does NOT provide spam-filtering for their mailing lists: if you have an open group you will receive thousands of spam users even for groups of under 100 “real” people)

I’m disappointed that Google has taken the actions they have. Their web-hosting for Groups was hard to use but it *worked*. Google’s “production quality” was very low, but I trusted the company to keep the service live. Like many admins, I spend weeks of my free time wrestling with the tools until I could make a useable group, because I trusted Google not to do something Evil, like … well, like: deleting the content and the service. Never again…

Anatomy of a community-hating executive

When I look at things like this, and things like Yahoo’s acquisiton of Upcoming.org, it’s amazing how often these big companies:

  1. Find/create a community with huge value
  2. Take it over, and put their brand on it
  3. Destroy it as thoroughly as possible, sowing salt on the ground to make sure it can never rise again

I find it hard to understand how/why these companies do something so stupid. Who allowed a committee / manager / executive to do something so self-destructive?

But then I realised there is a very traditional explanation for this kind of scenario, from back in the mid-20th Century:

  1. Senior executive at “big internet company” wants a promotion/raise/etc
  2. Said executive doesn’t really know what they’re doing, doesn’t really understand the business that the company is in
  3. Exective’s manager cares even less themself; he/she is probably just hanging on waiting for their own pension
  4. However, the exec knows that their manager rates “internet success” on the number of unique users that a service has
  5. They spend $100 million acquiring / creating a useful service
  6. PROFIT!!! (get their raise / promotion / whatever)
  7. …and dump the project as fast as they physically can

The net effect on the service is this:

  1. Service gets acquired/funded: All the best people working on the service get a big bribe / pay-off and are happy to leave to start something new
  2. There’s lots of press releases from Big Internet Company, and lots of claims of all the Great Things that will be added to the service
  3. Users get excited, and growth rate increases
  4. … but then: …
  5. Big Internet Company provides zero cash, because the Executive has received their promotion and no longer cares
  6. Service falls to pieces
  7. Service haemhorrages users
  8. Big Internet Company’s finance department sees the spending on hosting / servers / bandwidth, and wants an excuse to shut it down
  9. (there is no *need* to shut it down – but inexperienced and/or bored financial employees have nothing better to do all day; more on this in a future post)
  10. Other executives come along and shutdown and destroy whatever they can, so that they look good in front of the finance department
  11. Service becomes worthless for most people, and loses all but the tiny, hardest of hardcore, segment of users

I’d assumed that companies like Google had improved their hiring procedures a little, and weren’t so prone to this. Maybe not.

Categories
web 2.0

LinkedIn doesn’t like money?

LinkedIn is running a promotion right now to get more people using their advertising platform.

It’s nicely conceived – two clicks (the first to login), and I was straight into writing an advert. Brilliant!

The advert-writing was simple, easy to understand, and fit within the top 500 pixels of the screen – really welcoming. Not at all complicated.

“And then you go and spoil it all / By saying something stupid…”

…like “your email address is dis-allowed”.

My startup doesn’t have a profile page on LinkedIn, so I can’t direct people to it. This hugely undermines the value of running and advert.

I try to create a profile. Takes a few false starts, and then:

“You cannot create a profile for a company unless you can receive an email at the same domain address as the company website”

Oh.

(this is, apparently, non-negotiable)

We don’t even run a mailserver, let alone have an MX record for our domain.

SO … after lots of effort trying to convert me into a paying advertiser, LinkedIn once again shoots itself in the foot. There isn’t even an OPTION for me to sort this out – it’s just a big “fuck off!”.

Sigh.

Categories
iphone

Generating iPhone App Icons

A couple of years ago, someone setup this neat, handy, site:

http://www.flavorstudios.com/iphone-icon-generator (DON’T USE THIS)

…but their web skills were poor, and their script kept crashing, and they couldn’t be bothered either to fix it or to document the bugs. Or even to just … you know … release it as open-source and let someone else fix it.

I wouldn’t mind, except I’d contacted the authors multiple times, and simply been ignored.

I run a local non-profit group that hosts monthly iPhone events for designers, programmers, clients, freelancers, etc, and I was stuck with this tool as the only free icon mangler that made decent icons at minimal effort.

Finally, I’ve found an alternative. It’s not quite so quick-and-easy (and it requires flash), but it does the job:

http://www.iconj.com/iphone_style_icon_generator.php

Notes to self:

  1. Set the output size to 64×64 or it will destroy the icon quality
  2. Set the “icon shadow” to “normal” (bizarrely, it always defaults to “not normal”)
  3. Resize to 60×60 afterwards to get an icon that’s ALMOST exactly 57×57 (iPhone size) with applied shadow
Categories
amusing

Customer Service, Czech-style … now with Taser!

iPhone app seeks to prevent taxi drivers from ripping-off their passengers

“there has even been a case of a driver who had wired up the seats so he could deliver an electric shock to any troublesome passengers.”

Categories
amusing Web 0.1

Embarassing uses of Flash #342: Wicks Group

The Wicks Group is a private-equity firm routinely buying and selling companies for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Here’s their web page:

Yes, really. At first I thought it was some small spam-using firm with crappy webskills, that had managed to buy the domain name of a bigger company. I closed the window.

But later, I got referred back to the same domain by a reputable site, so I tried again.

Here’s what the site looks like when you enable Flash:

Ah! That’s better!

So, I’m guessing their website got hacked some time ago, inserting the advert spam for NFL Jerseys … on that basis, I’ve emailed them and suggested they hire a decent web developer to take a look at the site and remove the hack – and probably upgrade their webserver so that it doesn’t get hacked again.

Categories
amusing

Apple: Keepin’ it Complex, Impenetrable, Unusable…

Apple runs a conference each year (“WWDC”) where they provide documentation and material that developers MUST use – but isn’t available elsewhere.

That’s OK – they record it all, and the slides, and make it available free afterwards.

Except …

  1. You can’t download it from the web, you can only download from inside iTunes – Apple doesn’t like the web, they insist you use iTunes
  2. You can’t find it on iTunes, you can only find it on the web – Apple’s proprietary “iTunes University” declares that the files don’t exist. Even if you’ve got them downloaded. But google finds it quick and easy.

I *guess* this is because some “genius” at Apple declared that since you need a Developer account (cost: $99) to download the content, they would remove it from their (proprietary, low-quality) search engine “just in case a BAD PERSON got to see the mere existence of this content!”.

Of course … if iTunes is already checking my account is allowed to download this stuff before downloading it … how much of a “genius” would it take to merely make the SAME check when displaying search results?

Google, Yahoo, Bing, et al: +1
Apple: -1000

Categories
iphone

iPhone: massive news for developers re: App Store

After 2 years, Apple finally shares the list of reasons that they reject apps (approximately 100 or so – it’s not complete, but it’s close)

This is big news – finally, professionals can act professionally and do their own QA before submitting apps, rather than just wishing and praying.

(http://apprejections.com/index.php/post/264)

Categories
amusing startup advice web 2.0

LinkedIn more popular than Twitter (according to LinkedIn?)

When I log into LinkedIn, I now receive 3 pages of spam. That spam is “every tweet by every person I’ve ever met”.

Somewhere, buried inside the avalanche of spam, are a few genuine LinkedIn messages. e.g. today I saw that a friend had moved to a new company – important, useful information.

Support: why would you want to refuse our spam?

I asked the LinkedIn customer support folks how to disable the spam. Their response:

You can “only hide the member’s Twitter updates [if you] also [hide all] their LinkedIn updates”.

i.e. your choices are:

  1. Get spam
  2. Get nothing

Hmm. Think about the people with tens of thousands of connections on linkedin. Their linkedin home pages must be absurdly high spam-to-signal ratio.

LinkedIn’s management: Twitter? WTF is Twitter?

LinkedIn’s CTO / lead architect / whoever authorized this stupid setup apparently “forgot” that the main feature of Twitter is it *allows* you to choose the people you receive tweets from.

(or, more likely, they’ve never used Twitter – it’s just a buzzword they’d heard of from a VC)

LinkedIn removes that choice. It simply forces everything on you. No filtering. No choices. Nothing. As a user, you exist to be spammed.

As a user, you exist to consume LinkedIn’s adverts, and nothing else. The site is – it would seem – not intended to be useful.

RIP LinkedIn.com

For a business to sink to such a low level of utility, and for the management to achieve such a high level of ignorance about the market, suggests to me that LI is moving rapidly towards implosion. I don’t believe it will still be with us two years from now. And that’s rather tragic, given how valuable it used to be.

Categories
marketing social networking startup advice

Startups: measure your attention-marketing (download)

If you’ve followed this blog for a while, you’ll have read my thoughts on the Science part of Marketing, and how much money this makes you.

As I explained recently to an Accountant, we don’t have a “business plan” for my current company, we only have a spreadsheet. A spreadsheet – done correctly – *is* a business plan, and a better plan than any you’ll ever see written down.

(NB: I’m not an accountant. I’m not a Finance Director – and never have been. I don’t even like spreadsheets; normally they bore me to death. But this is an exception. It is the only way to effectively plan and run a startup)

So I was delighted to see that Dave Stone has posted a spreadsheet to track and measure the effectiveness of your “attention” campaign – how much exposure did you get from TechCrunch et al? Was it worth it?

Categories
amusing recruiting

Everyone should work for the BBC…

Seriously: I’m not getting paid enough!

(read closely, from this page)

BBC Worldwide job advert

Categories
entrepreneurship startup advice

VCs, Angels, and Beta Pages: They’re wrong

There is a curse afflicting the startup world right now. It’s insidious, it’s harmful, and – as a potential customer – I’m fed up of running into these brick walls of customer-hatred. Each time it happens, yet another startup generates massive harm for itself, and I’d like to see this madness STOP.

(by “startup world” I mean: West-coast USA-style startups – i.e. Silicon Valley VC’s and Angels, the startups they back, the people seeking money from there, and any startup that follows their way of thinking. I do *not* mean – for instance – old-style Europe startups, who haven’t even grasped the idea of a pre-funded “beta” release yet. This post probably will sound new and scary to some of them. For everyone else, this is already standard practice)

EDIT: I forgot (!) to add: when it works, for the startups that use it sparingly, and for the *minority* that are well-suited to it, it works fine. But the current trend is for *everyone* to try it – and that’s where the failure lies. “When all you have is a hammer…”

What are we talking about?

Startups today are advised to build a micro-website with just 1-3 pages that gathers people’s email addresses and does nothing else. This is supposed to show “traction” (in the number of emails captured) and “early lead generation” (by creating a pre-made mailing list of potential customers you can later approach), as well as “idea/product feedback from potential customers” (soliciting opinions from these people by emailing them and trying-out your ideas on a fresh audience – BEFORE spending the money to make the product).

I can’t remember where I first saw this, but its been promoted by a number of major VC’s on their blogs and tweets, and it’s generally seen as a sign that a startup is hip and modern and knows its shit. From memory, it’s been popularized too by things like Y Combinator, Seedcamp, etc – the places that up-and-coming startups go to learn “how to be better at being a startup”.

The importance of courting Early Adopters

First para of wikipedia’s summary on what is an Early Adopter?

Typically this will be a customer who, in addition to using the vendor’s product or technology, will also provide considerable and candid feedback to help the vendor refine its future product releases, as well as the associated means of distribution, service, and support.

Why do we care about these people? Because we certainly do care; we care very much. Startups pore vast amounts of energy into wooing this crowd.

In this context, there’s several valuable uses of these people (

  1. They’re customers: they’ll pay us
  2. They’re “easy sell”: by their nature, and their needs, they’ll buy the product with only a small amount of urging
  3. They’re trendstters: they will do considerable amounts of marketing *on our behalf*, unasked-for, and unpaid
  4. They’re vocal on feedback: they give us huge amounts of valuable insight into what’s good and bad about our product, and what we could/should/mustn’t change about it. Ditto for pricing. Ditto for marketing. Everything, really – they’re like the world’s most friendly and hard-working investor, giving the most honest feedback about the company’s products every single day

Three things on that list shine brightly, and are where old-style startups haven’t caught up yet: these people massively reduce the startup’s SALES and MARKETING costs. A small, lean startup doesn’t yet have the cash to hire a sales team. Nor a marketing team. Also, the founders usually don’t *quite* know what it is they’re selling, or how best to describe it.

These early adopters make SALES EASY, they do FREE MARKETING, and they ADVISE ON WRITING A BETTER SALES MESSAGE. Wow. Awesome!

When Early Adopters Turn Bad

Let’s look at the *second* para of Wikipedia’s description:

The relationship is synergistic, with the customer having early (and sometimes unique, or at least uniquely early) access to an advantageous new product or technology.

i.e. for all that FREE juicy goodness your Early Adopters are giving you, you’re expected (usually: required) to give back, in spades. Usually what you give back is worth more in cash than what you receive – but it’s all about timing. The cash “cost” to you is due in the future, in the long-term product discounts, etc. Whereas the cash “benefit” to you is accrued in the present, in the form of increased sales *today*. And cashflow is the thin that tends to kill startups, so this is hugely valuable for you.

And – unfortunately – these “beta” websites tend to completely ignore the “give back” part of the relationship.

Here’s the problem: if you piss-off the visitors to that micro-site, you generate *disproportionately* large hatred of your company, your team, and your product. Just as an Early Adopter is inclined to tell everyone how wonderful your product is (even though it doesn’t work yet, and they’ve only got a partial version) … they’ll equally tell everyone how terrible your product is (even though it’s not finished, and they’ve only got partial info).

These people don’t conveniently sit around waiting to SERVE YOUR STARTUP … no, they’re people with reputations of their own, with thoughts and feelings. That’s what makes them so valuable – other people trust and listen to them. And that means they’re expected/required to report the bad along with the good. Upset them at your peril.

What does a potential customer want?

When they come to your website, an Early Adopter has a rough pyramid of needs. The more convinced they are of your product – OR the more it seems to fit a problem they already know they have – the further down this list they’ll go:

  1. information
  2. a demo
  3. a service/product
  4. purchase-form

…and they’re impatient, by nature. If you convince them with your first sentence that your product is even ATTEMPTING to fix a problem that’s causing them major pain right now, they may well *immediately* run to your “pricing” link, straight from the home page.

Incidentally … in that case, here is a person TRYING TO GIVE YOU MONEY. You don’t always want their money – it might come with too many strings attached – but, generally, you probably do. You certainly want to consider it, not cut-them off mid-stride and tell them to piss off and leave you alone (which is what a lot of sites do).

It takes two to trade

But lets go back to the most basic need: information.

Someone comes to your site. Why?

You can bet that – no matter what else – they want Information. Who you are, what you’re selling, why is it useful … might they want to use/buy it for themselves?

And here is where most of these beta sites today do a full-frontal face-plant straight onto the tarmac.

Here’s what most sites do:

  1. I won’t let you see the site until you fill in a form
  2. Give me your email address
  3. I’ll show you a webpage telling you nothing, but vaguely promising to contact you “at some time in the future”
  4. The rest of my site is completely empty

This reminds me of The Pirate Code, courtesy Disney:

  1. Take what you can
  2. Give nothing in return

“Synergistic”, says Wikipedia: i.e. a trade, an equivalence: you rub my back, I rub yours.

Only … with these startups, it’s all about TAKING the customer’s info, and then sending them away empty-handed. No wonder a lot of visitors come away with a vague sense of having just been scammed – this is exactly how most con-artists work!

Why? Why, for the love of all that is good?

Not every startup is created equal; if the founder of Twitter, or Facebook, or Google, or … etc … choose to start a new startup now, with a new product, then you can be sure thousands of people will beat a path to their door just on spec of who the founder is. They don’t know what it will be, but they know they want in – if only for the bragging rights to say “First!”.

To a lesser extent, there are startups whose product approaches a need so great, and so tightly defined, and so cutting-edge … that customers will again come beating down the door IRRESPECTIVE of any sense of rationality or sense.

But, for most startups, that’s not the case.

For most startups, if you throw up a “gathering email addresses TRUST ME I’M NOT A PORN-IN-YOUR-INBOX SITE REALLY”, it’s not so simple.

For most starutps, who then use that landing page as *the main funnel for all outside contact*, this is a disaster.

For instance, last week I met a startup co-founder who gave me his business card. Only it wasn’t his card – when I followed the web-address, it proved to direct straight to the funnel for gathering email addresses. Ironically, the site didn’t even have contact info. The founders had linked to their twitter profiles.

(and the main founder had then back-linked his Twitter profile to this funnel site! Way to go, idiot: now there’s literally no way of contacting you directly. I have to @reply you on Twitter and “hope” that you will be gracious enough to a) bother to check your @-replies (since Twitter doesn’t inform you automatically) and b) avoid irritating my own followers with meaningless private messages I had to send to you in public)

Categories
advocacy

Warner Bros FAILs again: Piracy for the win

What happens if you want to watch the Animatrix films on the WB website?

Here’s the direct link, in the intothematrix.com website, as of August 2010:
http://progressive.warnerbros.com/thematrix/us/med/Episode1l_dl.zip

The handful of Google links I tried all just redirected to the WB hosting.

Right. So. The only way to see the free content, from their OWN website, is now to go and pirate the full version, and “promise not to look at the non-free parts”.

Sigh. Remind me again, what was the film companies’ stance on digital piracy?

Categories
games industry recruiting

No, no, no: Contractors are NOT your salvation

Anyone saying “redundancies are inevitable for games industry companies” should never be allowed to run a studio. Ditto for the raving loons who think everyone should be hired as contractors instead.

I was pointed at this by Nicholas Lovell’s wholehearted supporting tweet, reminding me that Nicholas is a finance guy, not a game developer:

“If you’re a work-for-hire/self-funded studio working for little profit who employs 100% of your staff on a permanent basis then expect redundancies at the end of every project and or the business completely failing.”

No. If you’re in that situation *you don’t deserve to be in business*. Contractors are no solution here at all: your “solution” is to *raise income*. Making games is not a box-shifting industry, it’s a creative industry. The ONLY way this works is to charge high prices, because you can never directly control creative-cost.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with “Cyclical business” and “Core teams” and “Contractor flexibility” – those are the terms of idiots who think it’s reasonable to run a business as if it were a hobby, always on the brink of bankruptcy. You’ll go the way of Woolworths et al – and you damn well deserve it.

A healthy, profitable, creative business not only ALWAYS runs at less than 100% staff efficiency, it positively THRIVES on it. The open secret of successful creative industries is that you pay someone’s salary just to get them in the door and to keep them content … so you can reap the rewards by being the one to exploit the new IP that – randomly, spontaneously – flows out of them.

Categories
Uncategorized

Copyright greatly reduced European growth?

I’ve long felt this intuitively to be true, but the weight of opinion and accepted “evidence” has made the idea laughable: Copyright has no social benefit.

So this article in Spiegel Online is fascinating:

No Copyright Law – The Real Reason for Germany’s Industrial Expansion?

(I’ve been in hospital recently, just catching up now on old posts, but I see other outlets such as Wired have finally caught-on to this too – I haven’t read their take on this yet)

It appears to be mostly centered on a contrast between two similarly advanced nations, England and Germany, which had radically different copyright laws at the time.

“In Great Britain, people were dependent on the medieval method of hearsay for the dissemination of this useful, modern knowledge”, whereas “The prospect of a wide readership motivated scientists in particular to publish the results of their research”.

…and so we see a key part of modern research and academia, the concept of publishing your work: born from the *abscence* of Copyright.