chrisdbaldwin

12

Are the costs of the current paradigm any different?

unless you consider plant life some form of animal ;)

And they couldn’t just autoscale the login servers in the cloud. I remember the login servers were always an issue after down time.

I think including abandoned server code is odd, and I'm for it. I think we should start curating more public libraries with games in general, but that's going to be very difficult to do publicly (i.e. in a government library) in today's current online landscape. Between walled garden platforms and API integrations to centralized corporate servers, it seems unlikely that many of today's games will survive in their current state for long. More than ever, games frequently update becoming a different game or die to competition. It'd be rewarding to be able to spin up or join a local [Flavor] World of Warcraft server without getting shut down or told to wait for Blizzard to do it because that specific version of software was abandoned at some point. If it became public domain then, it would be available to the public to operate as we please.

I really just look at situations like Halo 2 and think that there's got to be a way to put server code into the public domain so that if someone wants to "rent" Halo 2 server code from the Library so that they can play online on the original hardware and everything, that'd be really cool, and experiences would be able to be shared across generations like books, films, and other forms of art.

In the wild, it seems permanent shut down of an online service is equivalent to forfeiting server code for the dead game over to whomever can acquire it, either for sale, or often times theft in form of sharing among the most hardcore followers. This up-for-grabs situation is a symptom of the problem, and shouldn't be the main focus, but it is worth noting because it can affect Copyright/IP protection. If the company behind the game doesn't want to continue supporting a version of their online game, there needs to be a way to gracefully donate said deprecated version without losing underlying IP rights. It's donated and falls into public domain for operation under some relatively clear license a la books in a library. That'd be cool.

Planned obsolescence

Look at it this way, some people have broke escape velocity and reached orbit. Those that have reached orbit are now laser beaming down the rockets still trying to reach orbit.

That's how the US education system works and why it is so shit.

We pay orbiters to prevent others from reaching orbit. It's quite crowded and no one wants the competition.

Very cool! I enjoyed playing a little during my lunch break. I've got to say, for what it is, it's very fun. I don't feel like I'm learning, but I also feel like I'm learning. :)

Pay more to win.

I think it's about time we stop throwing the baby out with the bath water when libertarian ideology comes up.

Looking at it simply, is there a possible set of rules that reduces waste, increases efficiency of constrained resources, and reduce exploitation from within the system? Libertarian ideologues suggest that there exists such a set of such rules, and it's a dramatically smaller set than we currently have. In order to move towards that smaller ideal set, we need a ideological shift in America -- we need to admit we suck. We suck at things, and some things that we think are okay now will suck soon. American culture sells the opposite: you're great, and it's poisonous. We need to acknowledge when others are doing better than us. I think we currently suck at it because the system is working as intended: corruption for sale. I don't think that's a sustainable system for the American people. It's about time we upgraded our "infrastructure."

We need to realign our government, giving it back to those that they are supposed to be serving in the first place: the citizens. Let's start by acknowledging that Libertarians are trying to free us from that which the government has no business being involved, thus reducing waste, increasing the efficiency of constraints, and reducing opportunity for exploitation. It is not about trying to create loop holes for exploitation. It's about shifting the meta away from corruption.

You need exactly 1 in the organization. No more, no less. Can you deduce why a collective or cluster hasn't replaced the role? I'd imagine the answer is blame, but I'd like to know what you think.

Snap's game is changing from getting people in the door to keeping them inside. No longer do they need that network effect to get people in the door -- they've escaped orbit. In fact, they're probably discovering that what worked for getting people in is also driving people out, and they've probably got someone with too much influence that is unwilling to accept that churn.

Yes, they can change their design for retention; do not expect it to work.

What if I told you that was part of the genius design? This "frustrating design" forces curiosity out of users to discover the app for themselves and encourages them to share these features with friends further augmenting the network effect. Based on which semi-hidden features get shared/used the most, Snap can A/B test faster than you'd imagine.