Aethaeryn
Joined 14 years ago
Joined 14 years ago
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3830867
[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3151751
[3] http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=lis...
There's just not enough Lisp.
> To be clear, your phrasing seems to present this as a novel
> approach, though it is not.
Obviously, the idea of a strategy game[a] in a browser is as old as web browsers themselves. I even played a few in the mid-2000s.[b] There's lots of them, written in PHP, and with a fairly static experience.[c] There's a reason, though, that when asked for my inspirations, I'll name desktop games like Civilization II rather than browser games.The novel thing isn't the idea, it's the opportunity that HTML 5 gives for the execution of the idea. I'm not original. I'm just lucky enough to be at the right place and the right time. My particular execution of the ultimately older-than-computers[1] idea is possible only because of <canvas>.[d]
Digital portable media players existed as far back as 1979 and MP3 players go back to about 1997,[2] but the iPod didn't take off until 2005.[3] It's possible to have the right idea, but years too early and with poor execution.[e]
-----
[a] Don't just limit it to space. There's plenty of non-space ones, too! There's usually not that big of a difference in how a browser game is played based on the setting.
[b] My observation in footnote a of my previous post that a once-a-day refresh would stress the server is something I experienced in one of the games I played.
[c] Many of them are better than anything Zynga has written, though.
[d] My game was originally going to be a desktop game. That's not very interesting compared to the challenge of doing it in HTML 5 and JavaScript.
[e] The poor execution is often due to being years (or decades) too early.
-----
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_game
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Media_Player
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipod_sales_per_quarter.sv...
> The 'hanging out' part was key, and I am convinced that if
> Blizzard could figure out a way for folks to sit down and play
> cards or checkers or something it would be popular.
The problem with Zynga is that they built up casual games around a general purpose social network. I agree that social-oriented minigames would provide a much better user experience if they were built around a larger game environment, like a high-quality MMO. People who form groups in games want to be able to socialize, so social mini-games built around such a game is a good idea.Another advantage, of course, is that you don't necessarily have to tie your full real life identity to your social identity. This allows people to be freer about what they can say or do, and might be more appealing.[a]
-----
[a] Yes, an argument can be made that attaching one's RL name to a post makes abuse less likely, but I believe that effective moderation of a community is a much stronger factor in having a quality community than simply requiring real names. I've seen places on the Internet where people were happy to flame using their full name and identity because of no moderators. On the other hand, HN is a good example of a civil online environment where real names are not required.
> I suspect because there just isn't a big enough market for games
> of that nature. Maybe there is a handful of us out there. Maybe a
> relatively small handful, but one that's willing to pay a fair
> amount for a really great, truly strategic global power game. I
> dunno. Maybe it's worth organizing, or Kickstarting, or what have
> you. If any game devs out there are reading this and are
> interested, know that there's a niche crossing its fingers for
> you.
I'm actually working on an in-browser MMO strategy game set in space that will try to balance around long run[a] strategy and diplomacy instead of just constantly-at-war deathmatches. Of course, relying on humans rather than AI does help.I suspect that the market is bigger than the big publishers are willing to take a risk on, especially if it was written to be run within browsers (including mobile browsers) and was fun to play.
I have considered Kickstarter, but it seems like most Kickstarter game projects fail unless they go viral first so there's definitely a major risk[b] in going public too early.
-----
[a] One way to make the games last a long time (perhaps indefinitely) is to make it a slow-playing game, such as using Civilization-style simultaneous turns that refresh by default once a day. This would also put more focus on forming alliances, socializing, and making strategies. Of course, the issue with this is that there would be a massive surge of traffic on the servers during turn refresh times.
[b] The main risk of Kickstarter is the uncertainty in receiving funds. I could underestimate costs on purpose and have a decent chance of being funded, but with an insufficient amount, or I could provide the "real" amount and have a very high chance of getting no money at all, even though a little bit would go a long way. Neither outcome seems ideal, especially when people would assume that "funded" means that the game is ready to be released given a certain amount of time.
They have 3,000 employees,[1] even though their business model revolves largely around cloning[a] games that are simple enough for very small teams to create.[2] They're losing money; their EPS is -1.30.[3][4] Just because they have cash from investors doesn't mean that the business model will make significant money in the long run and it's made more complicated by the fact that they have a very heavy dependence on Facebook.[5]
They're also dependent on casual gamers (who don't have much loyalty or will to pay) and current trends.[b] Apparently, only 2% of their customers pay for their games.[5] Their stock market valuation seems largely mapped to their active user count[6] (and also Facebook's share prices[5]) rather than their financials.[c] In fact, I can't even say that they're overvalued because that involves looking at the P/E and with a negative EPS, I can't really do an apples-to-apples P/E comparison of Zynga against companies that are actually listed as profitable. Is a -3.8 P/E overvalued?[4] It certainly is risky!
-----
[a] They also buy some companies behind popular games too, like OMGPOP. This isn't necessarily a good idea.[7]
[b] The use of the term "game craze" in the title of the parent article implies that part of the reason ZNGA has a valuation in the billions is because of the current trendiness of Facebook games. The problem with relying on trendiness for investments is that when there's something even trendier (i.e. mobile apps), all the investor money that chases trendy stuff could simply go there instead.
[c] It was a popular dot-com bubble plan to focus on market share with a free product at a sustained financial loss.[8] Of course, it's too early to tell if ZNGA will sustain its losses in the long run because its stock is too young. Still, it's very risky.
-----
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga
[2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/nbpromo/dearzynga.jpg
[3] http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:ZNGA
[4] http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/ZNGA
[5] http://beta.fool.com/buffettbeater/2012/06/11/dont-get-zynge...
[6] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/zynga-falls-on-ugly-faceboo...
[7] http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/05/04/draw-somet...
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#Bubble_growth
C-h r m antinews RET
This provides a changelog in the opposite direction, which is entertaining: For those users who live backwards in time, here is information about
downgrading to Emacs version 23.4. We hope you will enjoy the greater
simplicity that results from the absence of many Emacs 24.1 features.
-----It can be found online here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Ant...
-----
[1] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LineSegment.html
[2] Just saying 'two distinct endpoints' instead of 'two endpoints' would work, so it's literally just one word that makes a big difference!
> A zero-length line segment is a point.
The Wikipedia definition of a line segment says that it is bound by two endpoints.[1] It provides a reference to Planet Math that goes into specifics.[2] In this page, it is made clear that the two endpoints cannot be equal. Planet Math provides an equation for a closed[3] line segment: L = {a + tb | t in [0, 1]}
This means that a line segment can be expressed as all of the points a + tb, where t is the range [0, 1] (which contains 0, 1 and all the points between them). It also limits a, b as real or complex numbers with b != 0. In other words, any line segment is just "morphing" the basic 0 to 1 range, with a shifting it and b scaling it.Now, since b can't be 0, and 0 != 1, you're not going to get the endpoints of the range 0 and 1 to equal each other no matter how you scale them with b or shift them with a.[4] In other words, line segments will always have length.
Because you cannot get the endpoints to equal each other, a point cannot be thought of as a line segment under what appears to be the common definition.
-----
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment
[2] http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/LineSegment.html
[3] Open is the exact same thing, except with (0, 1) instead of [0, 1] and it doesn't include the points 0 and 1.
[4] Of course, if b = 0 was allowed, you could just say that points are where b = 0 for all a.
> White on solid color is what basic metro tiles look like, though, and
> the offenders are the parties who shove their faux-3D logo into the
> tile without adapting it to the platform.
Why didn't Microsoft anticipate this and require that icons be plain white silhouettes on top of a solid color when placed on a tile? That way, the third-party applications would match the Microsoft applications in appearance.Actually, isn't there still time to fix this now that it's apparent that it will mess with the user experience in a major way and degrade the basic aesthetics of the main screen?
irc://irc.freenode.net
My nick is the same as it is here.