best web design company Jersey City. торговая система Goldman Sachs Retail Index for Same Store Sales для VTBR прибыльность 3,35. У нас можно найти лучшие отели Красной Поляны описание, и многое другое.. гостиницы санкт-петербурга,.

Archive for the ‘Rants’ Category

I’m at the point now where I’m considering setting up a separate blog or a Tumblr or something for this shit.

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

Kotaku just posted this item on their website:

It had to happen eventually. Having wowed people ceaselessly since E3 with a a succession of explosive trailers, Just Cause 2 has finally put a foot wrong. And as far as the PC crowd is concerned, it’s a big foot.

It’s been revealed that the game won’t run on Windows XP. Why? Because it’s DirectX10 only. So only those running Vista or Windows 7 will be able to play the game, making it the first high profile release to completely lock out the nine year-old operating system.

Are you kidding me? No, I’m not pissed off that Just Cause 2 is going to require DirectX 10, which means it won’t support Windows XP – I don’t give a mouse’s scrote about that. I’m pissed off because apparently it’s the “the first high profile release to completely lock out [Windows XP]“. Did Kotaku just forget about the Windows version of Halo 2? Y’know, the one that only works with Windows Vista, a fact that Kotaku themselves reported not once but twice in 2006?

Well done, Kotaku. Way to do your research.

Why is Videogame Journalism full of Morons?

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

Videogame journalism has been in a decline for the last two decades now. In the early 90s magazines were giving average games a 7 out of 10 score instead of the more obvious 5, purely to appease developers and publishers, and to ensure they continued to get review copies of the latest games. Incredulous and deceitful, but at least it served a purpose.

Now, in the 21st century, we’re getting all kinds of articles popping up on gaming blogs that, in all honestly, really shouldn’t be there.

When Juno came out in 2007, a rep at Fox came out in early 2008 and said something to the effect of her job being finding ways of expanding brands, for example by developing videogames based upon them, and she cited Juno as an example of a successful film that could go down that path. Every gaming blog I subscribed to lept upon this as clear evidence that a Juno videogame was in the works! Perhaps the worst offender out there was Gawker-owned gaming blog Kotaku, who a few days later posted an article stating the bloody obvious – the game wasn’t really under development, and an innocent comment had been taken out of context.

Don’t go looking for the article where Kotaku excitedly and terrifyingly reveal that Juno: The Game is under development. You won’t find it – they’ve long since deleted it. However a quick Google for “juno video game” reveals that there are plenty of articles on the subject written by other gaming blogs and news sites just as trigger-happy as, but perhaps a little more honest than, Kotaku are.

This morning Kotaku are once again guilty of getting all in a panic over something stupid. A recent post on the gaming blog put forth the question: With Halo Reach coming out this year and the game planning to offer a new multiplayer experience, will the Halo 3 servers be shutting down? The conclusion that they came to: No. Of course the answer is no. That’s not a question that requires you to get any clock cycles going in the brain. But for some reason the writer felt it necessary to contact someone at Bungie to find out.

That may be the single most retarded question I’ve ever seen posed on a gaming website. Halo is a huge franchise. There are people who are still playing the first one, for Glod’s sake. The Halo 2 servers are due to be closed this month but only because Xbox Live support for original Xbox games is being shut down. Hell, even smaller franchises like Worms have kept their servers up and running for older titles – the Worms 2 server has been going since 1997 and it’s still up and running, as are all the servers for every Worms game released since. Asking if the servers for an insanely popular game are going to be shut down two and a half years after the game was first released (and six months after a standalone expansion for the game was released) just because a new entry in the series is coming out is bloody stupid, and I can’t help but wonder exactly what was going through the mind of Brian Crecente, the writer of the entry, when he felt the need to not only pose the question but to research something with such a mind-meltingly obvious answer.

(It should be pointed out that Gawker Media’s blogs aren’t exactly beacons of fact. Last year io9 reported that Neil Gaiman was definitely writing an episode of Doctor Who for the show’s fifth series, and what’s more they knew the title and plot as well. That entry can be found here, although they removed the reference to the title and story in the wake of the denial Neil Gaiman issued shortly after io9 posted the news.)

Why is videogame journalism in such a turgid state? Why are the so-called journalists who write about the industry wasting so much time and energy asking questions that don’t need to be asked, and reporting news that isn’t really news? One could argue that this is the state of journalism as a whole, but I don’t think that’s the answer. Despite how seriously magazines like EDGE and websites like GamesIndustry.biz try to make themselves appear to be, the truth is that videogame journalism never broke out of its infancy. It’s filled with people writing what they think they know instead of actually doing the research. It’s filled with people raising concerns and asking questions about things that everybody already knows the answers to. It’s filled with people getting excited about a game one moment and then forgetting about it in the next. Gaming journalism has a lot of things, but an interest in games and a passion for the medium isn’t one of them.

And that’s a real shame.

“Let us know if you *knuckle-crack* change your mind.”

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

I’ve let my McAfee antivirus account lapse, mostly because I don’t really like the idea of paying an annual subscription fee for a piece of software that they also release a new version of every year, meaning if I want to keep my antivirus software 100% current I basically have to pay for it twice. That’s a bit shit, but it’s the type of shit that McAfee can get away with. Apparently McAfee is one of those companies that tries to lure you back by making you shit your pants rather than by throwing the usual insincere “We’re sorry you’re leaving” messages at you.

Here’s an excerpt the latest of five emails I’ve received since Friday:

Internet thugs are motivated, ruthless…and silent. They use stealth to invade your computer system. It can happen so quickly, you won’t even realize it—at least not until after your credit score plunges.

They slip in the night, clad in black. They creep into your megabits and datapixels, surreptitiously pilfering every jiggawatt you have into their infosacks. And before you know it , BAM! You’re laying out on a table in Mexico’s Canadian district with some half-drunk, half-mad bandit sucking gin from your belly button while his associates steal your kidneys. All because you didn’t resubscribe to McAfee’s antivirus. Is that what you want? Is that the future you want for you and your family?

Membership starts from $49.99 a year.

An open letter to Whoever Winds Up Organising This Year’s “Rage Against The X-Factor” Campaign

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Dear loose confederacy of internet protestors,

You did good last year. You managed to bring to a stop The X-Factor’s streak of inane UK Christmas Number Ones. I applaud you for that. But next year could you… I don’t know… maybe pick a different song?

It’s not that I don’t appreciate your effort, and it’s not that I don’t like Rage Against The Machine (I don’t, but that’s besides the point), but it seems to me that you could use this as an opportunity to get an independent artist into the UK chart. Wouldn’t it be fantastic to discover that the Christmas #1 was Jonathan Coulton? Or Dan Bull? In fact “Thistopia” would make a perfect candidate for this year’s campaign. And it’s available to buy on iTunes. Perfect!

It also amuses me that you were given the opportunity to send an anti-X-Factor message a couple of years ago when Malcolm Middleton released “We’re All Going To Die”, but I guess The X-Factor wasn’t such as nuisance then. For some reason.

You’ve proven you have some kind of phenomenal cosmic power. That’s great. But maybe you could use it to send a message not just to The X-Factor but to the music industry as a whole. And the best way to do that is to throw your support behind an independent artist.

Think about it.

Kind regards,
Ben Paddon

Some Thoughts Concerning Webcomics, Procrastination, and Getting Serious About Your Work

Saturday, January 16th, 2010

Last year I acknowledged I had a problem with procrastination, and this year I’ve started taking steps to overcome it. In the last two weeks I’ve worked on a Jump Leads script I’d been putting off doing for two months to the point where it’s very nearly finished, I’ve begun working with the rest of the Jump Leads creative team to screw down the details of an upcoming multiple-issue story arc as well as fleshing out a new character who we’ll be introducing at some point in the future, and I’ve redoubled my efforts to find a new dayjob. I’m also looking at ways of raising capital to properly publish the second book as well as to republish the first, having nearly sold out of my own stock, and trying to raise the profile of our little webcomic.

The Jump Leads stuff is particularly important because last year I realised that if I want to make a career out of writing, specifically out of writing Jump Leads, I need to be about 5,000% more focused than I have been. I need to stop looking at it as a hobby, as something for my portfolio while I wait for something bigger and better to come along and start looking after it properly.

It’s started to bother me when I see people in the webcomics community – that is, the lower end of the webcomics spectrum where you’ll find people such as myself – who in one breath say that they want to make a living out of webcomicry, and in another mention that they haven’tupdated their webcomic for the last three days running because they’ve been playing Modern Warfare 2. Or re-watching Firefly with the cast commentary. Or, y’know, they just haven’t gotten around to it yet.

How can you possibly be serious about making a living as a webcartoonist when you don’t even have the discipline or the inclination to get your comic drawn and updated? We’re talking about people who say they’re on, say, a thrice-weekly update schedule but who haven’t updated their comic in a week and a half, and then they wonder why their already small readership is dwindling.

It’s even worse when their Twitter feed is littered with tweets along the lines of, “Will draw next comic after this game of Assassin’s Creed II.” Then “Whoa, is that the time? I just got sucked into that game! I’ll draw the comic tomorrow.” Then “Gonna jump into Assassin’s Creed II again. Man, that game rocks.” Then ‘Why isn’t anyone reading my webcomic? :( :( :(

If you want your webcomic to succeed, the first rule is “Make it worth reading,” and the second rule is “Stick to your fucking update schedule.“*

And while I’m on the subject, let’s discuss the relaunched Webcomics.com, shall we?

To everyone who has pointed out the apparent “irony” of Halfpixel charging for access to the site now when in How To Make Webcomics they decry paywalls with a passion: You make a webcomic. You want people to read your stuff, and there are millions upon millions of webcomic readers out there. They, conversely, make a niche website. There are probably only thousands of fledgling webcartoonists out there, and probably only a hundred or so of those people who genuinely want to make a living from making webcomics.

To everyone who has balked at the cost: It’s $30 a year. That’s not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things – a drop in the hat compared to the cost of webhosting, convention table/booth costs, travel and accommodation expenses, book and tee-shirt printing, and so on. Brad’s articles – and they are mostly Brad’s articles – are worth every damned penny, and that the guy has been pouring so much effort into them for over a year for free is, frankly, criminal. Brad deserves some kind of compensation for such sterling work, and I for one don’t mind picking up part of the bill. If you’re serious about making a living as a webcartoonist, it’s completely and utterly worth it.

To everyone who takes offense to the above: If you feel you don’t need Webcomics.com, if you didn’t use it before or if you’ve never really had much interest in the articles, then that’s fair enough and I wish you luck. If you feel it’s something you want or need to have access to but you object to the idea of throwing a twenty and a ten in Guigar’s direction then you need to seriously reconsider whether you’re willing to put in the effort to making webcartooning your job, because if you aren’t prepared to pay $30 a year for articles that could potentially help you improve the way you go about your business (and what you’re doing is business if you’re taking it seriously) then will you be prepared to shell out for hosting? For marketing? For book-printing and all that other gubbins I mentioned earlier?

I utterly regret not taking full advantage of the website before they shifted it over to a pay model. I thumbed through it occasionally last year but I didn’t have the time – or, at least, I told myself I didn’t have the time – to read the articles in full. I’m kicking myself now. Absolutely kicking myself.

I’m going to go to sleep, and I’m going to enjoy my weekend. And Monday morning I’m going to wake up at 8am, have breakfast, and sit in front of my laptop at 9am ready to write, and plan, and prepare for the year ahead. What will you be doing?


* Yes, I’m aware that there’s a degree of irony in this statement considering Jump Leads’ schedule has been wobbly for the last four or five months. No, I’m not going to discuss it.

Wikipe-”annoyed grunt”-a

Friday, January 8th, 2010

There’s an episode of The Simpsons called “Mypods and Boomsticks”, famous for tackling the subject of Islam and terrorism, and attacking America’s perception of the religion. It also features rather blatant, shameless mocking of Apple, its userbase, and its line of products.

Typical, then, that Wikipedia’s editors (and by “Wikipedia’s editors” I mean the loose global collective of sticklers, pedants and, let’s be honest, complete fucking morons who take it upon themselves to update the encyclopedia) would include the following passage on their article about the episode:

MyPod“, “MyPhone“, “MyCube“, “Mapple Store“, “Braniac Bar“, and “Mapple” may be parodies of Apple Inc. and its products, though this is ambiguous.

“Ambiguous”? It’s blatant, init? Blatant! And in case you’re wondering, I didn’t add the links in that quote. They’re right there in the original article, linking to the articles relating to the Apple products the episodes parody.

Two sentences later in the very same article, it says this:

The CEO of Mapple is “Steve Mobbs”, a parody of Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs. The scene where Comic Book Guy throws a sledge hammer at the screen is a reference to the famous “1984″ Apple commercial.

Yes, well, of course.

A Quick Recap Of My Day

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

I’ve had an interesting day so far. Here’s a recap for those of you not paying attention:

Helen: “Wake up, Ben!”

Me: “Alright, I’m awake.”

Agency: “Are you up?”

Me: “Yes.”

Agency: “Good. You’ve got a job. You start on Friday.”

Me: “Hooray!”

Agency: “Fill out this background check form.”

Me: “Definitely!”

Agency: “Oh, and the background check won’t be done by the time you’re supposed to start, so you don’t have the job after all.”

Me: “Bwa?”

Agency: “But I’ll put you forward for another, slightly higher-paying job, so fill out the forms anyway.”

Me: “Alright then.”

Agency Background Check Rep: “Thanks for the forms, we should get your background check finished today.”

Me: “Hang on, how come that’s not quick enough? Agency, what’s going on?”

Agency: “No idea. We’ll see what happens.”

Me: “Thanks.”

Agency: “Oh, the company have deleted the position.”

Me: “…”

This is the polar opposite of a bank error in my favour.

Here’s My Card

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

On Monday I took every Christmas and Yule card I was given and put them in the recycling bin. I do this every year, and I can’t help but feel like it’s a waste. I don’t mean to come across as a Scrooge, but I’ve always felt like Christmas and birthday cards were something of a waste. I appreciate the sentiment, certainly, but the card just goes in the trash after the fact and the money people spend on a card could easily have been put to better use.

My birthday is April 26th. Instead of getting me a card, I’d like to ask that my friends and family instead make a donation to my charity of choice, Child’s Play. Those children’s hospitals could use the money much more than I could use a square bit of card.

As Someone Who’s Looked At a Thing, You Might Like This Other, Vaguely Relevant Thing

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Amazon just sent me an email. This isn’t unusual – they send me about a dozen of the buggers a day – but this one is a little bit… well, odd.

There are two problems with this email. The first one, a minor one, is that we didn’t buy our PS3 remote from Amazon. We bought it from a brick-and-mortar Best Buy store the same day we bought our console. I’ve never bought a remote control from Amazon.

This is dwarfed by a slightly larger question. That being: How in the Hell does a Bluray remote control have any relevance to the game being marketed, besides the fact that they’re both for the PlayStation 3? It makes no ruddy sense at all. It’s like saying, “We see you’ve bought socks from us in the past. Would you like a pedicure?” Yes, they’re both foot-related, but they’re very different things.

And I’d love a pedicure, although I was sadly born without toenails.

In Russia, Ask.com Asks You!

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Last night I was on some website or another when Ask.com’s ridiculous “dancing morons” commercial appeared in a banner ad on the sidebar of the site. I’ve seen this commercial elsewhere, I think it’s dumb, and so I tweeted about it:

Dear @AskDotCom – your marketing campaign is stupid. Nobody uses you anymore. Just stop, okay? You’re embarrassing yourself.

Because the tweet was written in a “Dear x” format it got picked up and retweeted by @DearRobot who is, I assume, a robot. I’ve no idea whether @DearRobot helped this get noticed by whoever runs Ask.com’s Twitter presence because I woke up this morning to find this response:

@DearRobot @BenPaddon – Can you offer any suggestions on we can improve?

My reply:

@AskDotCom Not in 140 characters unfortunately.If you have an email address I’d gladly write you a thing.

And so I was furnished with an email address from someone who’s name I wasn’t entirely sure of, and I wrote the following:

Hi there. Not sure if your name is Mary Ann, or Mary-Ann, or Maryann, so I’ll go with Mary for now. I think that’s probably the safest bet.

I’ve thought about Ask.com a lot over the years. Not excessively, of course – I have one of those “life” things that stop me devoting too much time to trivial things like search engines, or which shape of acorn squirrels find the most aesthetically pleasing, or why whenever super villains team up they invariably end up giving themselves a long team name which abbreviates to something like HARM, or DEATH, or SCUM. I mean, they’re just calling attention to themselves. You’d think they’d go with something more pleasing like KITTEN, or FLOWER, or TREACLE. If I found out that there was an organization called SPECTRE I’d probably want to know a bit more about what they’re getting up to. That’s an inherently untrustworthy name, if you ask me. You can get away with a lot more evil if you dress it up a little.

But anyway.

I mentioned on Twitter that Ask.com’s marketing campaign, the one with people dancing around pointing at themselves, is ridiculous. Don’t worry, you’re not the only ones doing an ad campaign that looks this foolish – I’m fairly certain I saw a similar commercial on Hulu for a completely different company. All that means, though, is that both Ask.com and another company had this idea thrown at them by a marketing team and then said, “Yeah, sure, why not?”

There’s the first problem – two companies are doing the same thing. Already any success your”dancing around like a pointing idiot” campaign may experience is marginalized by those other buggers. The commercial starts up and you don’t know which one it is, and so you don’t care. You go off and do other things – make a sandwich, feed the cat, and wait for Heroes to come back on.

The second problem is that it doesn’t actually tell you what Ask.com actually does. Now I’m sure the answer to that is “Well, people can go to Ask.com and find out for themselves,” but if all you’re doing is showing a bunch of people dancing and then follow that by throwing a URL up on the screen, people aren’t going to be inclined to find out more. For all they know it’s a commercial for dancing lessons.

Put simply, it’s a silly commercial. It’s painful to watch. I feel sorry for the people who appeared in it (although not too sorry because I know how well commercials pay and I am, frankly, a little jealous that they got paid to dance around for thirty seconds). All that commercial does is bring to mind how great Ask.com used to be. “O, how the mighty have fallen,” I think.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that funny commercials tend to stick in people’s minds more. When I say “funny” I don’t mean “marketing funny” – that is, ideas that marketing people think will be funny but when actually committed to film and shown on network television are actually kind of rubbish – I mean genuinely funny. Genuinely funny commercials written by people with a genuine sense of humour and featuring actors who are capable of genuinely pulling off the joke. have a look at this commercial for John Smiths, a British bitter. Now, this commercial ran in the mid-90s. I was probably ten years old when I saw this commercial. I didn’t drink then and I still don’t drink now, but that commercial is forever lodged in my mind. 14 years later I still remember the joke, and I still remember the name of the bitter being sold.

I doubt that anyone will remember Ask.com’s dancy pointy commercial in even a year’s time. And, dancing aside, there’s nothing about Ask.com’s branding that really stands out… which leads me onto my next point.

There are some people who feel that Ask.com lost its way when it ditched P. G. Wodehouse’s “Jeeves” character as its mascot. I’m not one of those people. I can, to a point, see why Ask.com would let the character go. When the only reason people are going onto the website is to ask in the question “Are you gay?” you have to wonder if the character has retained its value. Plus the licensing probably wasn’t cheap either, unless it was, in which case ignore this last sentence.

Dropping Jeeves was by no means a bad decision, but it did mean that Ask.com has lost a human face. Granted, it’s a cartoon human face, but it’s a face all the same. Jeeves is back in the UK, and if American users specifically go to AskJeeves.com they’ll be greeted once again by the fat-faced butler, but the current CG rendering of the character lacks the charm of the original stylized drawing from the late 90s/early 2000s. It doesn’t have any life, or soul, or what have you. Now the company, and by extension the website, just feels like another Big Company. Indeed, there was a time when asking Jeeves “are you gay?” was met with the response “I prefer the term ‘jovial’” but that doesn’t happen anymore. There’s no human element to Ask.com. There’s nothing friendly about the site.

Google has somehow managed to retain that feeling of “We’re just like you!” because… well, I suppose because they’re big and bright and colourful and they interact with their users and have given us nice things like GMail and Google Wave and they have, above all else, kept things simple. And their marketing! Their Google Chrome commercials are inspired. Google’s philosophy seems to be “Let’s make things that could be useful to people, and the money will probably come afterwards.”

What can we gleam from this? Well, insofar as the internet is concerned, going in with an attitude of “How can we make money?” probably won’t work. The best thing to do is to go in with an attitude of “What do people need?” The answer to that question probably isn’t “a search engine”, because there’s tons of the buggers about. There’s a reason Microsoft has had so many failed search engine attempts – there’s no demand for one. There’s no gap in the market.

The trick, then, becomes finding something that internet users don’t even know they want yet. And I’m afraid I can’t help you with that, because if I knew what that was I would be a millionaire by now.

I hope this has been of some help to you, although it probably hasn’t. Nevertheless it was fun to write.

Regards,
~Ben

So that’s it. I’m no consultant – and I think it probably shows – but when someone asks me how they can improve I’ll bloody-well tell ‘em.

?>