Thursday, 22nd of November, 2007
06:47: A simple guide to status modes in IM clients
In some ways, this is a reiteration of what Anam posted a while ago on the same subject. I decided to write it anyway, though, partially out of frustration and partially because it seems that the use of status modes isn't as apparent as I'd thought it was.
Every time I set myself as N/A or DND in my internet messaging client, these days, people seem to decide that they absolutely need to talk to me at that particular moment. Somehow, every month, it gets a little worse, and I'm getting rather tired of ignoring and instructing people, so here's a quick list of status modes as used in ICQ. (ICQ is the original and most comprehensible IM system in that aspect - don't whine about this not being tailored to MSN. MSN copied the ICQ layout and then changed the features around.)
What it means:
Present. Here. Available. Likely to answer if approached.
What to use it for:
Online status is used to signal that you are at the computer and willing to talk.
How to interpret it:
Usually, people will use online as above. Some people seem to find it pertinent to leave their client in Online mode whenever their IM client is running, thus completely voiding the use of status modes. They're easy to spot, however, and it only takes a couple of braincells to figure out that they probably won't always answer.
What it means:
Computer off. Not online at all. No chance of answer, whatsoever.
What to use it for:
When your IM client is off.
How to interpret it:
The user is offline or has put you on their invisible-to list. Either way, they're not going to respond immediately, but you can send a message that they will eventually receive.
What it means:
User is nearby or at the computer, but busy with something and probably not interested in idle chatter unless they're already speaking to you.
What to use it for:
See above.
How to interpret it:
Try to keep from sending idle chatter. Don't expect the user to answer right away.
What it means:
Do Not Disturb. Bugger off. Come back later. User is at the computer or nearby, but does not desire to be disturbed.
What to use it for:
When you need people to back off so that you can focus on what you're doing, or when you need some peace. Don't use it as a sort-of-away. Use Occupied if you're busy but might be willing to talk. DND is only useful if it really means Do Not Disturb.
How to interpret it:
Don't send messages unless it's important. Show respect to your acquaintance and leave them the fuck alone.
What it means:
Temporarily not here. Gone away to do something, but likely to return within reasonable time.
What to use it for:
When you've left the computer but intend to return fairly soon.
How to interpret it:
The user isn't here, but they will be in a bit. Leave a message if you've got something to say, kind of like when you get the voice-mail on a mobile phone.
What it means:
Not available. Not here. Will not answer and will probably be gone for a while.
What to use it for:
When you're not around, but your IM client is on.
How to interpret it:
The user isn't here, and won't be back for a while. This is like the voice-mail function on a home phone number.
I have a lot of people on my contact list. I can't keep explaining the basics of IM courtesy and practice to everyone. Please do not send me messages querying me if I'm around. If I am interested in talking, my status message will denote it. If you want to relay a message, do so. Just send send the bloody message. I will look at it when I have the time and energy. It's not complicated.
Being shown some basic respect in communication and privacy is important to everyone - to someone with anxiety and mood problems such as mine, even more so, since my DND message may well mean that I'm dealing with an anxiety attack and will react vehemently to being rubbed the wrong way. You may think that I'm being a bastard, but the fact is that I've done the equivalent of putting a comprehensive Do Not Disturb sign on my door and you knocked it anyway.
To clarify, I'm not complaining about getting messages when I'm in N/A mode or such (even though I would prefer not getting boingboing links and the likes when I'm in DND.) I'm pointing out that there is a reason for these modes and that it would be nice if more people took them into account. I know I'm not alone in this. Besides Anam, I have a couple of other friends who have taken to shutting down their clients entirely whenever they're not explicitly interested in talking. To get some basic privacy and peace when they're at the computer, they've had to cut off that line of communication entirely. It's ridiculous, but completely understandable.
Noone is perfect. We all have those energised highs when we find a link that everyone just has to see, and realise a little too late that maybe everyone was not in the mood for it. This isn't about making mistakes. It's about showing basic courtesy on a general level. It's about trying not to be an arse all the time.
Every time I set myself as N/A or DND in my internet messaging client, these days, people seem to decide that they absolutely need to talk to me at that particular moment. Somehow, every month, it gets a little worse, and I'm getting rather tired of ignoring and instructing people, so here's a quick list of status modes as used in ICQ. (ICQ is the original and most comprehensible IM system in that aspect - don't whine about this not being tailored to MSN. MSN copied the ICQ layout and then changed the features around.)
Online
What it means:
Present. Here. Available. Likely to answer if approached.
What to use it for:
Online status is used to signal that you are at the computer and willing to talk.
How to interpret it:
Usually, people will use online as above. Some people seem to find it pertinent to leave their client in Online mode whenever their IM client is running, thus completely voiding the use of status modes. They're easy to spot, however, and it only takes a couple of braincells to figure out that they probably won't always answer.
Offline
What it means:
Computer off. Not online at all. No chance of answer, whatsoever.
What to use it for:
When your IM client is off.
How to interpret it:
The user is offline or has put you on their invisible-to list. Either way, they're not going to respond immediately, but you can send a message that they will eventually receive.
Occupied
What it means:
User is nearby or at the computer, but busy with something and probably not interested in idle chatter unless they're already speaking to you.
What to use it for:
See above.
How to interpret it:
Try to keep from sending idle chatter. Don't expect the user to answer right away.
DND (Do Not Disturb)
What it means:
Do Not Disturb. Bugger off. Come back later. User is at the computer or nearby, but does not desire to be disturbed.
What to use it for:
When you need people to back off so that you can focus on what you're doing, or when you need some peace. Don't use it as a sort-of-away. Use Occupied if you're busy but might be willing to talk. DND is only useful if it really means Do Not Disturb.
How to interpret it:
Don't send messages unless it's important. Show respect to your acquaintance and leave them the fuck alone.
Away
What it means:
Temporarily not here. Gone away to do something, but likely to return within reasonable time.
What to use it for:
When you've left the computer but intend to return fairly soon.
How to interpret it:
The user isn't here, but they will be in a bit. Leave a message if you've got something to say, kind of like when you get the voice-mail on a mobile phone.
N/A (Not Available, also Extended Away)
What it means:
Not available. Not here. Will not answer and will probably be gone for a while.
What to use it for:
When you're not around, but your IM client is on.
How to interpret it:
The user isn't here, and won't be back for a while. This is like the voice-mail function on a home phone number.
I have a lot of people on my contact list. I can't keep explaining the basics of IM courtesy and practice to everyone. Please do not send me messages querying me if I'm around. If I am interested in talking, my status message will denote it. If you want to relay a message, do so. Just send send the bloody message. I will look at it when I have the time and energy. It's not complicated.
Being shown some basic respect in communication and privacy is important to everyone - to someone with anxiety and mood problems such as mine, even more so, since my DND message may well mean that I'm dealing with an anxiety attack and will react vehemently to being rubbed the wrong way. You may think that I'm being a bastard, but the fact is that I've done the equivalent of putting a comprehensive Do Not Disturb sign on my door and you knocked it anyway.
To clarify, I'm not complaining about getting messages when I'm in N/A mode or such (even though I would prefer not getting boingboing links and the likes when I'm in DND.) I'm pointing out that there is a reason for these modes and that it would be nice if more people took them into account. I know I'm not alone in this. Besides Anam, I have a couple of other friends who have taken to shutting down their clients entirely whenever they're not explicitly interested in talking. To get some basic privacy and peace when they're at the computer, they've had to cut off that line of communication entirely. It's ridiculous, but completely understandable.
Noone is perfect. We all have those energised highs when we find a link that everyone just has to see, and realise a little too late that maybe everyone was not in the mood for it. This isn't about making mistakes. It's about showing basic courtesy on a general level. It's about trying not to be an arse all the time.
Thursday, 27th of September, 2007
17:38: Shooting from a distance...
Whatever happened to the overhead view, third-person tactical shooter? You know, the likes of Syndicate, Cannon Fodder and Crusader: No Remorse?
You'd think with the immense success of Diablo, its sequel and the endless stream of derivatives, someone would come up with the idea of making one that involved gunplay rather than melee.
Apparently, not so. The closest thing to a recent successor of the original tactical shooter games that I can think of is the Grand Theft Auto 3 titles, which at least partially involve the same type of game-play, and the highly underrated Silent Storm, which really is more of the turn-based, Jagged Alliance/X-Com type of beast.
Now, I know there are supposedly third-person tactical shooters around, but they're all run from a highly impractical over-the-shoulder view which is, if we're going to be straight, pretty bloody close to first person. They also tend to play out very much like first-person shooters in terms of handling and inventory, where the older variety had at least as much in common with role-playing games.
I also know that there is some disdain for us "old-timers" yearning for a return of overhead (which is not necessarily isometric) view in something other than the occasional Baldur's Gate (or *cough* actually, Ultima VI/VII *cough*) derivative or strategy games, but wouldn't it be nice to have something other than the clone-upon-clone action titles we're getting, these days? Just for a change, wouldn't it be pretty fun to play a shooter game with the handling and visual style of, say Neverwinter Nights? No? Well, there will certainly be more formula FPS games for you. It would be nice if the immense, global game market could offer up some variety for the rest of us.
The third-person tactical shooter was an idea sprung from combining the role-playing game view and handling with shooter-style gameplay, and it worked splendidly; several major hit titles proved it beyond argument. In the flood that followed the rise of the first-person shooter, however, this wonderful game concept was somehow utterly forgotten, and apparently no game publisher today will touch a game concept that hasn't been iterated at least five times in the latest three years.
Funny how it seems that the supposed worship of "revolutionising gameplay" and "next-gen" amounts to spurning everything but the most obvious of concepts and how it would actually renew the business a great deal more to look a bit backward rather than forward, now and then.
You'd think with the immense success of Diablo, its sequel and the endless stream of derivatives, someone would come up with the idea of making one that involved gunplay rather than melee.
Apparently, not so. The closest thing to a recent successor of the original tactical shooter games that I can think of is the Grand Theft Auto 3 titles, which at least partially involve the same type of game-play, and the highly underrated Silent Storm, which really is more of the turn-based, Jagged Alliance/X-Com type of beast.
Now, I know there are supposedly third-person tactical shooters around, but they're all run from a highly impractical over-the-shoulder view which is, if we're going to be straight, pretty bloody close to first person. They also tend to play out very much like first-person shooters in terms of handling and inventory, where the older variety had at least as much in common with role-playing games.
I also know that there is some disdain for us "old-timers" yearning for a return of overhead (which is not necessarily isometric) view in something other than the occasional Baldur's Gate (or *cough* actually, Ultima VI/VII *cough*) derivative or strategy games, but wouldn't it be nice to have something other than the clone-upon-clone action titles we're getting, these days? Just for a change, wouldn't it be pretty fun to play a shooter game with the handling and visual style of, say Neverwinter Nights? No? Well, there will certainly be more formula FPS games for you. It would be nice if the immense, global game market could offer up some variety for the rest of us.
The third-person tactical shooter was an idea sprung from combining the role-playing game view and handling with shooter-style gameplay, and it worked splendidly; several major hit titles proved it beyond argument. In the flood that followed the rise of the first-person shooter, however, this wonderful game concept was somehow utterly forgotten, and apparently no game publisher today will touch a game concept that hasn't been iterated at least five times in the latest three years.
Funny how it seems that the supposed worship of "revolutionising gameplay" and "next-gen" amounts to spurning everything but the most obvious of concepts and how it would actually renew the business a great deal more to look a bit backward rather than forward, now and then.
Thursday, 27th of September, 2007
07:54: Trial & Error
Anyone who has been interested in computer games for more than a year will have noticed that game publishers (- not to be confused with game developers, sometimes they're the same, mostly they're not -) have an astounding track record of extremely uninformed and often downright infantile decision-making. Among the more common idiocies are forcing developers to release unfinished games, slashing well-known series with underdeveloped, quick hack "sequels" and then shelving the brand because it "doesn't attract the new generation", including "copy-protection" schemes that effectively break the installation and - the latest contender in this cavalcade of absurdity - offering no or overly limited trial accounts for online games.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the lure of internet-based gaming - let me explain why this is such a big deal. The Massively Multiplayer Online Game is based on four ubiquitous human tendencies: sense of progress, the desire to improve upon what you see, lust for exploration and social one-upmanship. Of these four, only one can really be effectively advertised - the exploration. The other three can only be experience by actually trying the game out. This is what trials are for - to get you into the game and get you hooked on the experience. (Excuse the pun.) By not offering easy access to trials, game publishers are closing their doors on a considerable amount of potential customers.
As with all the previous stupidities I recounted, the one common reason for limiting trials is the insatiable hunger for the quick buck. It's easier to measure sales in number of boxes sold than in sustained subscriptions, and marketing primarily focusses on get-me-that-game-for-christmas-mommy sales, which isn't exactly the prime choice for faithful subscribers.
World of Warcraft is in my opinion lauded a great deal more than it deserves, but - possibly because Blizzard is one of those few developers who are their own publisher - it does have a good, inviting system for trial accounts. Like with most MMOGs, you get "buddy codes" (trial codes to give to your friends) with the game box, but it's also possible to sign up for a trial account directly on the game web site, which means that they don't miss out on potential customers who don't have friends playing. Also, a while back - in a stroke of genius, Blizzard made it possible to upgrade a trial account to a full one without buying a retail copy. You still have to buy the expansion if you want access to its additional content, but the step from being curious of what all the fuss is about to being a paying customer is a great deal smaller. That's intellingent marketing.
Now, you might say that this is all underhanded hustling, but that's a basic trait of capitalism. It's everywhere. The important bit is the same blindness that makes the RIAA alienate customers by increasingly contrived copy protection schemes and staggeringly complicated purchase procedures. This is entertainment. The more you have to work to get access to it, the fewer people will go through the trouble. Online music sales aren't soaring as expected because nearly all the shops offer stunted products or make the shopping procedure a pain. A lot of MMOGs are garnering lower sales than expected because it's too much of a hassle to try the games out.
In short: alienating customers bad, ease of access good.
Now, if only someone who actually needed to hear it would read this rant.
Cheers for reading.
/ Ahni
For those of you who aren't familiar with the lure of internet-based gaming - let me explain why this is such a big deal. The Massively Multiplayer Online Game is based on four ubiquitous human tendencies: sense of progress, the desire to improve upon what you see, lust for exploration and social one-upmanship. Of these four, only one can really be effectively advertised - the exploration. The other three can only be experience by actually trying the game out. This is what trials are for - to get you into the game and get you hooked on the experience. (Excuse the pun.) By not offering easy access to trials, game publishers are closing their doors on a considerable amount of potential customers.
As with all the previous stupidities I recounted, the one common reason for limiting trials is the insatiable hunger for the quick buck. It's easier to measure sales in number of boxes sold than in sustained subscriptions, and marketing primarily focusses on get-me-that-game-for-christmas-mommy sales, which isn't exactly the prime choice for faithful subscribers.
World of Warcraft is in my opinion lauded a great deal more than it deserves, but - possibly because Blizzard is one of those few developers who are their own publisher - it does have a good, inviting system for trial accounts. Like with most MMOGs, you get "buddy codes" (trial codes to give to your friends) with the game box, but it's also possible to sign up for a trial account directly on the game web site, which means that they don't miss out on potential customers who don't have friends playing. Also, a while back - in a stroke of genius, Blizzard made it possible to upgrade a trial account to a full one without buying a retail copy. You still have to buy the expansion if you want access to its additional content, but the step from being curious of what all the fuss is about to being a paying customer is a great deal smaller. That's intellingent marketing.
Now, you might say that this is all underhanded hustling, but that's a basic trait of capitalism. It's everywhere. The important bit is the same blindness that makes the RIAA alienate customers by increasingly contrived copy protection schemes and staggeringly complicated purchase procedures. This is entertainment. The more you have to work to get access to it, the fewer people will go through the trouble. Online music sales aren't soaring as expected because nearly all the shops offer stunted products or make the shopping procedure a pain. A lot of MMOGs are garnering lower sales than expected because it's too much of a hassle to try the games out.
In short: alienating customers bad, ease of access good.
Now, if only someone who actually needed to hear it would read this rant.
Cheers for reading.
/ Ahni