How many of you have owned your own business?  Even if you haven’t I’ll bet every single one of you have hear the phrase, “the customer is always right.”  This is of course not the literal truth, but more of an axiom for how you want your customers to feel.  In business, it’s imperative that your customers be at the very center of each an every decision you make.  When you make a product or service, the end goal is to have people pay for it, be happy with it, and think of you again the next time you want to sell them something.  In today’s world of instant results, and today’s bottom line is the only one that matters, it seems many companies have forgotten this all important rule.  They may think they “have to” protect their bottom line for the next fiscal quarter, but by taking short sighted actions today, they all but assure that there will be less money later.  Two companies have made it clear they have lost the concept that made them a success in the past, EA and Ubisoft.  Some of you may be thinking that it can’t be true, how can two of the biggest game publishers in the world be so wrong?  I can’t say how it happened for sure, I can only speculate that poor ineffectual management at the highest levels must be at the root.  A company evolves a type of feel, or culture that directly reflects upon the leadership at the top.  Good companies foster a balance between the needs to perform today and invest in tomorrow, while bad ones sell their souls grasping at the elusive last few percent of profits, apparently ignorant to what it means to the customer, and the companies future sales.

Earlier this year EA announced that they would be ending support for online play for many of their games, most shockingly EA Madden 2009.  Now, sure we just finished the 2010 season, so 2009 is about a year and a half old, but its also a game you could have purchased just a few months ago, because it was still on many store shelves (and likely still is being sold some places).  So what is EA telling us, well its clear they are trying to say “Please buy madden 2010″, the problem is what they are really saying to me is, “we got your money for that game, now give is more you moron.”  You see, they have just taken the value away from every single one of their titles, even brand new ones.  If I know that when I but an EA game the clock starts ticking, and in just a year or so I have a new drink coaster, well, that doesn’t encourage me to but your games, IT MAKES ME NOT WANT TO BUY THEM.  Now before you all start shooting out a few thousand emails about how you can still play the games, just not online, let me assure you I know that, but that is not the issue here, there issue is one of perceived value, and lost features.   When I make a decision to purchase a game, many things go into the is it worth the money equation, and the last thing you want me to be thinking about is how the company that makes the game screwed me over last year, and  that some of the game features may be broken in the near future.  I don’t expect EA to keep running servers indefinitely forever, but to shutter them so soon is a clear money grab that is destined to backfire.  The lost sales for the current years games long tail of Madden 2010, and next years Madden 2011 will most certainly exceed the cost associated with maintaining a few servers to keep customers happy.

Then we have Ubisoft, a company well known in the gaming community for poor management decisions when it comes to DRM.  The uproar caused by some of the choices they made several years ago actually seemed to work, as they dropped use of one of the most poorly implemented pieces of DRM code in the history of bad ideas.  One that destroyed DVD drives, made systems unstable, and was so important to them that they actually didn’t take it off when you uninstalled the game they were allegedly protecting.  So they learned their lesson right?  Sadly no.  UBI has announced that all of their future titles, even those that are 100% single player, will include a special form of DRM that will actually cause the game to crash (on purpose) if your computers connection to the internet or their servers is interrupted for any reason.  You lose any unsaved progress, and are sent to the “we think you stole our game” corner until you fix the connection issue.  Now online activation is problematic at best, because what happens when the authentication servers that bless you with permission to play the game you paid for are no longer running?  But to require a constant unwavering internet connection to play a single player game is so anti-consumer its hard to fathom.  If you are worried about lost sales due to piracy, you need to increase the number of people who want to pay you for your product, not reduce that number.  I can guaranty that you will lose a big chunk of the very people you want, the ones that pay to play your game, the moment they lose progress in a game because of a momentary hiccup in their internet connectivity, or your servers.  Every internet connection has minor hiccups now and again, it may not happen every hour, but it happens, and to call me a thief as soon as I commit the unbelievably heinous act of allowing my internet connection to laps  for a few seconds it unacceptable, and I will not stand for it.  Piracy is out there, and no matter what you do, someone is going to play your game without paying for it, but I can’t imagine why you want to take the people who wanted to pay for your game, and drive them to find a way to “fix” what you broke so they don’t have the game stop working all the time is the ultimate stupid idea.  One of two things is going to happen, either they cant find a way to get the game to work properly, so they never but another of your products, or they find a way to “fix” the game, and CONGRADULATIONS!!! You have just taught a paying customer how to pirate your game…good job UBI.

–Mike

Paying a premium for the ‘privilege’ of being allowed to pay $15/month to play an MMORPG, its been going on for more than a decade now, and while it made a little since in the beginning, now it feels like an antiquated idea whose time has passed.  Back in 1999 when Everquest came out, there was very little competition for this type of gameplay, and there was limited proof that a subscription model could make money for  a mainstream computer game.  This is no longer the case in either argument in 2010, and the industry should wake up and take notice.

I understand that there is a large outlay of cash to develop a modern online only interactive universe type of game, and I can appreciate the desire to recoup that investment as quickly as possible.  While that may seem like a sound strategy, it may not be the best way to maximize long term, or even the near term return on investment.  The real pot of gold for any of these ventures is the monthly subscription base, with its continuous stream of revenue. It is vital that you quickly gain a large base of paying subscribers to overcome the ongoing costs of maintenance and additional content to keep players happy. If you can’t very quickly gain these numbers, your game will stagnate and wither away quickly.  Yet here we are, looking at game after game being released, with the publisher expecting potential customers to pay a premium of 2-3 months subscription cost before even getting to find out if they like the game.

Proponents will argue that having someone pay upfront gives them a feeling of being invested in the game, and so they are more likely to continue to pay a monthly fee once their initial free month expires.  I would say that this is a specious argument, as it flies in the face of basic logic.  I am really to believe that if I pay a large amount upfront to play a game that I am somehow more likely to pay even more money to it each month if I don’t like it because I feel like I’ve wasted my initial purchase if I don’t continue to throw money away to something I don’t like???  The other side if this issue is that you are fighting an uphill battle with many potential customers already having been burned paying $50 for a game they realized all to late was crap, now you are there asking for their money and they are asking themselves if the risk is worth it.   The other argument I hear is that if you don’t charge a premium up front too many people will want to play the game just to see what its all about and overload the servers…what…so you want less players?  Now I know that the initial release of any online game has some challenges when it comes to server capacity, but I cannot believe that the increased revenue from the increased install base could not be used to overcome this problem.  Lets not forget that if you eliminate the premium pricing structure, you can also eliminate the large black hole that is retail markup, since 20-30% of that retail box cost goes right to the retailer and packaging costs.  Eliminate the need to buy a box, and eliminate that money sucking void.

Right now, any new MMORPG needs to overcome the behemoth that is World of Warcraft.  You have to somehow entice players who either are playing or having played WOW to come try your game, and what better way to do this than to offer the game without a premium up front cost on top of the monthly fee!  Yet hear we are, with game after game asking me to pony up $50 or more to give them a test drive, when the real profits are to be had by getting me addicted so I pay five times that much in monthly subscriptions. At this point I’m afraid that just isn’t the smart move.  I know that some will argue that I would pay the same price for a regular non subscription game, even if I knew I would likely finish it within the 1st month, and that is true to a point.  The difference is that a MMORPG does not have a demo for me to try, and it is a very rare thing for my wallet to open if I haven’t gotten to try a game first.  But just as important, these multiplayer games have a dynamic that cannot be inferred without playing them yourself, live with other players.

My suggestion is for game makers to offer the game for free when you start your monthly $15 subscription, or at most require a 2 month subscription to start.  You will get more subscribers and in the end, make more money…provided your game isn’t total crap.

When I want to rent a movie, its a little annoying if its out of stock, but it really toasts my crunchies if the place I fo to get it from doesn’t stock it at all.  Redbox, the automated DVD rental kiosk has entered the very competitive industry with an aggressive roll out of locations, but has been hampered by anti-competitive (some would say illegal) business practices, and now a new policy to only attempt to st0ck top tier new releases.  Universal, Warner and Fox have all put pressure on DVD suppliers not to sell new releases to RedBox in a misguided effort to protect a failing business model. Redbox responded quickly by using alternate means to obtain new releases so they could meet customer demand…so far so good.  But as of late there have been several new movies that just didn’t appear at your local Redbox, and a new analyst report has stated that this in an intentional omission.

Apparently, Redbox doesn’t think its profitable to stock new release titles that were not big box office hits.  While its certainly true that you can’t expect any physical location to stock every single title, to ignore significant releases is one sure way to lose customers in a hurry.  People (thats you and me) are not to tolerant of being disappointed.  If you stop by a Redbox, and they stock the movie you want…and it happens again, pretty soon your not going to even bother looking.  This type of negative reinforcement will quickly erode the customer base, and at a time when physical DVD rental is nearing decline in favor of streaming media, I just don’t think this bodes well for Redbox.

Attention Redbox, if you decide to not even attempt to stock mainstream new releases, I will stop even looking.  I don’t like disappointment, and when I heard 3 major movie studios were trying to prevent you from getting new releases, I felt like supporting you to show they my middle finger…but if you can’t be bothered to try and provide me with a good selection, sorry but that’s something entirely different.

When tragedy strikes, human nature has us seek out a logical and predictable reason for an event that we desperately want to understand in order to feel a sense of control over the very chaos that has befallen us.  The desperation can often be heard in the families of victims, as the shattered comfort we all take in the day to day monotony of life feels like it has been ripped away, along with the loved ones they have lost.  It is this tenancy towards hyperbole that is the hallmark of so many sound bites we hear on the 24 hour news stations.   Those reporting on the news, must be held to a higher standard, and should be careful not to overreach for a scapegoat in an effort to sensationalize a story, that by its very nature needs nothing of the sort.

Daniel Schorr is a reporter for NPR, has published a story that has me scratching my own head, and asking why.  In this case, I am not asking why the tragedy occurred, but rather why a respected reporter would disrespect the memories of the victims with what I consider to be a sensationalistic premise.   In a headline asking the question: “Was Internet Complicit In Fort Hood Shooting?”, he has in once sentence taken the real story, and brushed it aside in favor of a a catchy headline.  We may as well ask if the invention of language in complicit as well, since if we couldn’t communicate at all the radical teaching of a fanatic would never be spread, not matter what the medium.

These types of weak efforts to make a story where there isn’t one is nothing new.  I have witnessed many instances of a reporter taking an isolated fact and running to length of near incomprehensible leaps of fuzzy logic in order to blame the current social ‘Bad Boy’.  In the 60’s it was Rock and Roll, the 80’s gave us Dungeons and Dragons, and certainly in the late 90’s there was a certain desire to vilify the internet.  We are now nearing the end of 2009 however, and while I would hope that an Emmy Award winning reporter would avoid these weak and simplified stereotypes no matter what the year, I have got to believe that Mr. Schorr has completely lost touch with the current world we live in to point the finger at the internet.  I must believe that is the case because the other explanation is that he knew he was writing sensationalistic drivel, and I would like to think, that is not the case.

Lets be clear, this tragedy is one that we will no doubt hear many theories on in the coming months, and anyone who says they know exactly what happened is likely a bit over confident in their own answers.  We can be very confident that, as with so many of these incidents, at its heart is one unstable personality who made several decisions, which in the end we want to understand so we can avoid this ever happening again.  I am confident there will be much finger pointing and maneuvering, but there is no perfect solution, there is no logical reason, and we must learn to accept that we cannot prevent every tragedy, but we have a much better chance of preventing them if we concentrate on the true causes…and leave the wild sensationalist statements to those we can forgive, and have empathy for, the friends and families trying to cope with a grief we all hope to never experience.  Reporters should stick to reporting.

.

The Florida man who was disbarred after numerous, and what many called frivolous lawsuits is at it again.  In a story that has to be real becuase it is so undeniably in line with former actions, Jack Tompson is suing Facebook because they allowed a group to exist named “I Hate Jack Thompson.”

According to reports he even went so far as to compare the group to an online pole that Facebook removed that asked if assasination was a good thing for the president.  I can’t imagine the court siding with Jack Thompson in this case…as has so often been true.  It still seems to me that Jack either has no clue what is and is not actionable, or he has no desire to do anything but keep his disbarred, discraced name in the headlines.

Do I hate Jack Thompson?  I hate ignorance, I hate self serving blowhards who want nothing more than to be in the spotlight, no matter the cost, and I do hate the idea that occasionally morons get much more importance placed on their misguided ideas than should ever happen.  But hate Jack, no…I feel sorry for what I beleive is a deeply sad and lost individual, doing the only thing he knows how to do in an apparently vain attempt to bring meaning and purpose to events that cannot be held to such standards

The Electronic Entertainment Expo was most of the way back to its former glory.  Booth babes, large crowds, but more importantly, Excitment.  After a few failed years, the organizers have finally realized that while you need to put a limit on how big and crazy something gets, you cant make it small and mundane and expect anyone to care.  Think about it, there are hundreds of confrences and expos each year…how many do you know about?

.

There are may takes on what was the biggest surprise of E3, but I have two that I think just have me standing here scratching my head.  The first is Microsofts project Natal, which is getting rave reviews.  In a nutshell, Natal is a way of making the act of interfacing with your gaming console or computer more compley, tiring, and prone to error….why push a button when you can waive your arms all about.

.

But the number one surprise was Left 4 Dead 2, by Valve (the same folks who brought us Team Fortress 2 and many other great games).  The surprise wasn’t so much the games announcement, but the reaction by a vocal minority of crybabbies who feel its unfair for Valve to make a new game, since the last one just came out 6-8 months ago.  Over 10,000 of these “the world owes me” whiners have signed an online Boycott of Left
.
.

.

University of Missouri, Columbia students entering this year have been given an interesting if not stupid requirement.  Along side things like your school text books, a computer, and other normal class essentials, the university is now saying that they REQUIRE all students to purchase an Apple iPhone, or iPod Touch.  The reasoning is suspect at best, and the justification that students can add the costs to their student loan forms does little to help the double pain of a public university requiring a specific companies device (a dang expensive one at that), dispite it having no unique functionality that cannot be duplicated in other ways.   One of the main reasons given for the requirement by Brian Brooks, associate dean of the school, is so that students can record lectures and refer back to them later….

.

Apparently there is a space time vortex in the university that prevents 1974 tape recorders from working there (not to mention the hundreds of other electronic recording devices).

.

photo courtesy of XbBiker
.
.

When a teenage girl leaves Phoenix to spend a year with her father in a small town, she knew there would be things that would take some getting used too, she just never though it would be quite this different.  Slowly, she begins to realize that a group of students at the school is not just a little strange, but there is something very different about them.  Soon she learns the truth, there is a family of vampires who have taken up residence in her fathers small town, and she is falling for one of them.

Twilight is a cautionary tale, thinly veiled in the vampire mythos.  Lessons on abstinence and trust are woven throughout the story, and as with any good vampire movie, we get a little lesson in blood feeding.  Love story, Drama, Horror…its a little of everything.  Listen as Jeanne and Mike give you their review of Twilight, the teen vampire movie with a heart.  Availadle now on DVD.  Don’t forget to come back later this week for our premier review of  X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

.

Don’t forget to update your RSS FEED

.

122 min   rated PG-13

.

You can buy your very own Lets Watch Movies T-shirt HERE,

Ring us up a 347-284-6453 (That’s 347-Bug-Mike). Thanks for listening.

.

News is coming out that BluWiki is taking a rather aggressive legal stance against what it believes are “Baseless legal threats.”  In a nutshell, Apple is none too pleased with the fact that BluWiki is hosting forums that contain information on how to use your iPhone to run software that has not been approved (or has even been rejected) by Apple.  The complaint raised by Apple is another heavy handed use of the DMCA, claiming that allowing a discussion on how to use an iPhone with unapproved software is in itself violating the law.  It pains me to think, that we have really fallen this far from a free market and a free society, that anyone could even consider that talking about how to use a product you paid for in a way you want is illegal because the manufacturer doesn’t like the idea.  So back in November of 2008, a letter demanding the takedown of all content containing information on ‘hacking’ your legally purchased iPhone be taken off the site.

The interesting thing about this new report is that we are not only seeing a site claim safe harbor, based on the fact that its the users posting the information, not the site itself, but they are actually taking the stance that it is not illegal to talk about such topics at all.   As reported on Ars Technica, this is much like how it does not make you a terrorist just because you describe how to make a firecracker.  More importantly, just because you make a piece of hardware, you do not have the right to tell me I cant talk about how to use it in ways you don’t like.

The DMCA has such a broad and clumsey interpretation as to effectively make legal things illegal because you had to break the almighty encryption to do it.  Imagine if your car had a lock on the hood, and anytime you needed to add oil or do basic maintenance you had to undo a padlock to open the hood…now its perfectly legal to change your oil and service your engine, but for sues you because you broke into the engine compartment by circumventing their ‘lock’ and thats against the law.  In fact the law has been interpreted in ways so broad as to even bring into question the legality of accomplishing the same task without breaking the lock because the effect is the same.  Insanity…yes, and why havn’t you been calling your congressman about it yet?

images modified from original work by jpovey

.

There is a disturbing report over at Stop the Cap! that leaves me fuming.  According to the report, Time Warner may be saying they are shelving the bandwidth caps for now, but what they are actually doing is worse.  Ryan Howard is saying that his internet stopped working suddenly this week, and after multiple calls to the Time Warner support line, and several new modems purchased at the store, he was eventually directed to the Security and Abuse center for TW.  I wont even get into the pathetic lack of customer service it takes to have a paying customer need to call three or more times to discover the ‘problem’ is due to the company intentionally disconnecting you.

So he calls and has to leave a message.  The return call is reportedly more of a re-education and this is how the world works smack down from the TW rep, in which he informed Brian (that’s Brian the paying customer, Brian the customer who pays extra to be on the Top Tier of internet account speeds) that he used 44 gigs of bandwidth in only one week, and that is just unacceptable.  When pressed, the re-education department representative would not give any hard numbers, but alluded to a percentage of Brians current use that sounds awfully similar to the nof imfamous 40 gig/month cap.  No surprise that they poitned straight to the terms of service that gives them the ‘right’ to cut you off since you are on a shared network.

Now you may be thinking that 44 gigs in a week is a lot, and for some people it is.  But it is far from what I would even think to call abusive or excessive given this is 2009.  The cable providers of the United States have been handed hundreds of millions of dollars to build out infrastructure, and yet they still cry the same lame wolf story about not having enough bandwidth.  A single High Definition movie stream is likely to be 5-7 gigabytes, is Time Warner telling us that they have managed their company in such a way over the past decade, that a preimium tier customer is not allowed to watch one movie a night?  Something is way out of wack here.

Time Warner pulled back on the caps last week under intense pressure, and the threat of congressional intervention, it looks like many of our fears were well founded, nothing changed, they are just paying lip service.