Now I'm not much for gaming. Not that I don't enjoy it, but because I don't seem to have the time to feel relaxed while playing. However, my sons, like most kids, are quite into them, and my oldest is pretty darn good too. However, when I say he's good, I don't just mean his fast on the controls or a good aim when targeting something, I mean he "really" enjoys a challenge.
What we've found is that game developers clearly define challenge differently. Some define challenging by how many bullets you need to shoot to take something down, while some define challenging by the creation of puzzles and interactive events one can perform to achieve a goal - while even having the gamers interaction impact their life's moral status and how their past actions impact their future (many of you know this in life as Karma).
To this my son and I have come up with a new rating for games, we call it the "Creative Complexity Rating". While some games like Call of Duty have a rating of 2 or 3 some games such as Fall Out we give an 8 or even a 9. These are the games that my son finishes, puts down for about a month, and then goes back and plays again - and with each game play finds new and interesting events and interactions. Gaming clearly tells a great deal about a person and we wish I could find a group to join based on our new "Creative Complexity Rating" to more easily find games of this design.
Additionally, I particularly appreciate that many developers interleave a real life message into the root of a game. For this, I suggest you play something like Fall Out or Lost Planet to see what I mean.
They still don't get it. All of the big guns continue to work hard to fully capitalize on the value of you while none offer "you" anything of value in return! Sure, they say that better ad targeting benefits you but what they're not telling you is that better ad targeting significantly increases their revenue.
At some point some great mind will figure this out and offer the consumer something of value in return for their hard earned (and very valuable) attention.
Or maybe (just maybe) there is someone with something in the works right now…. Stay tuned...
We'll, déjà vu, This is the result of feeding the bottom line . And now it expands to more ISPs. Does this surprize you? Spammers have known for years that your attention is valuable so why would you expect your ISP to not capitalize on it.
Here are just a few of the not so happy netzians that "get" how Certified Mail is a wolf in sheeps clothing:
and on...and on....and on......
My Opinion - Marketers should realize that customers are part of the value chain. The customer must feel respected at every point in the sale. This means before they even consider buying. If not they will jump ship as soon as an opportunity shall arise. So, this is what I see - you pay for ISP service, you still have a spam folder to sift through, some of your outbound messages still get trapped in destination spam folders, but the ISPs and Goodmail capitalize on the value of your commercial attention. (Sounds like the reason TiVo sparked the revolution to crush commercial television!)
Spam and our Anti-Spam Filters (and Spam Blockers) are doing more to negatively impact economic growth than the average person might realize.
This auther explains the impact perfectly -The medium that destroyed itself - "Software has been developed to filter spam out, diminishing the quantum of commercial activity - and economic growth - that might be delivered through the web."
Curing Spam: Rights, Signals & Screens - is an academic approach to describing just how Personal Value Control will correct the email value chain for all players – senders, ISPs, recipients, and yes, even legitimate marketers. In the past you’ve read that I use the term Personal Message Guarantee, and here the author uses the term Attention Bond. The function is the same.
This author (Ron Lopshire) in usenet group mozilla.support.thunderbird; T-Bird can get you blacklisted, says:
"Let's cut to the chase. Since October, I have received over 21, 000 pieces of spam in my 3 primary non-disposable POP3 accounts. Not one piece of spam got through my Bayesian filter (K9). And that is with only 37 legitimate emails marked as spam (FPs - 0.17%), and most of those should have been marked as spam."
The implication in this article How Would You Deal With A Global Bandwidth Shortage? is that bandwidth volume is a per account (or per user) commodity. However, if a customer's bandwidth were throttled based on their value as a customer then things would be quite different.
Shortages of any commodity will occur when the value of that commodity is left to those other than the owner to control it.
The propagation of unsolicited irrelevant information on the web will continue to get worse as the bandwidth required to shuttle heavier forms increases - forms such as graphics (image spam), voice (SPIT), and video spam (acronym required) which I am sure will follow. (If you think your sexual enhancement spam is bad, wait until you receive your first “how to” video version.)
NEC's Quittek says, in NEC Plans to SEAL out SPIT , some key methods help to block incoming SPIT, starting with tests to determine how many calls a remote phone may be making. "If you're an operator, you can see how often the phone calls others," he says. "If there's a regular pattern or if you've called too often, then you just don't assume human or common behavior-and then we classify this caller as a potential source of SPIT."
My kids' elementary school called 500 parents this morning at 5am to tell us the start of the school day would be delayed by 2hr. - 500 simultaneous calls at 5am - Is this SPIT?
The Definition of spam: Contact attempted by a party that has little or no consideration for the recipient’s time, resources or personal information desires.
What the definition is not is: email that is unsolicited, bulk, commercial or pornographic. I think everyone can think of many instances of desirable mail that would fit one of these inaccurate (relatively speaking) terms.
So, wouldn’t you say that the sender knows spam before they send it? If not, wouldn’t you say they should?
We must get the administrators (Your ISP, my ISP, the Board of Registrars) out of the loop here. Person-2-Person communications is, -well- personal`
Well, here is another one of those shoot-from-the-hip shortsighted business remarks.
Didn’t someone once say: “What idiot would ever buy anything from an unknown sending an offer via email?” The economics of marketing and the downright cheap (or free) cost of P2P or B2C communications is simply to attractive to ignore.