I will bet anyone on this image board $100 U.S. dollars that he talks about or writes about Pokemon Go in some capacity before the conclusion of this year.
>>8287531
Any response to your would constitute talking about Pokemon Go in at least some capacity.
I already have. Some people mentioned it to me. I installed it and realized it was stupid. Fun stuff.
I continue to remind people that Pokemon Go is almost 99% a reskin of a previous Nianta project that totally flopped. Without the brand recognition of Google and Pokemon, the product is insipid. It's purely superficial. It is not the first and it will certainly not be the last, however it brings nothing to the table in its design, gameplay, or design style.
>>8287531
Debord and Baudrillard already did it
>>8287556
he means Zizek you stupid man
>>8287563
Are you sure? That seems like a much less rewarding bet. Some idiot is bound to ask him about it.
>>8287569
It's a more widely applicable concept. Much of what we 'enjoy' on an everyday basis conceals a banal, hackneyed approach to game design over shiny new graphics or a relabeling. This is a consistent pattern in the iPhone game industry especially: Zynga, Angry Birds, the Clash of Clans/Boom Beach franchise. It's also common in the movie industry: various superhero movies, remakes of 'pop classics' like Ghostbusters and Independence Day. In all cases the content lacks in major degrees yet people flock to them because of the brand recognition or the shiny packaging. It could also be applied to literature.
>>8287589
it could also be applied to your post
>>8287613
My post lacks both brand names and shiny packaging, in the sense that my post is both anonymous and looks superficially like every other post. Nice try though.
>>8287622
>My post lacks both brand names and shiny packaging
> Zynga, Angry Birds, the Clash of Clans/Boom Beach franchise
>various superhero movies, remakes of 'pop classics' like Ghostbusters and Independence Day
this is just the same banal, hackneyed argument that was better handled by writers such as adorno and horkheimer, but without the added insight of hall or de certeau that would rightfully demonstrate how complex the topic is. what it does have however is references to contemporary culture -- specific brand names included to give it a sense of currency. ultimately though your post lacks 'content' i.e. any sort of conclusion to be made, or even a definition of what 'content' even is that makes it something more than some arbitrary sign
>>8287589
it's not just shiny packaging
games are sold on lies about the kind of experiences they will offer
I don't blame the average guy for thinking it exciting to go out with his iphone to catch Pokémon in the real world. He has played and loved Pokémon games, he thinks Pokémon are adorable and he enjoys collecting them and forming bonds with them (as we form bonds with stuffed animals or other objects to which we've grown familiar—I don't think this is necessarily stupid), etc. He thinks this game will be Pokemon with an added layer of real-life adventure.
What he doesn't know is that he liked the other Pokémon games for features which Go lacks. He formed a bond with his Pigeot because it fought for him and levelled up through hours and hours of playing, and because it had the added utility of allowing him to fly. (Here I'll refer you to Jonathan Blow's bit about why Portal elicited feeling from the player more naturally through design than Bioshock did through sloppy appeals to emotion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0kup_anLeU&t=32m55s) Pokémon GO doesn't offer that, and the buyers don't know that the experience is going to be more empty than they had reason to believe it would be.
Most people only know the good Pokémon titles, so they feel confident in the brand, but the brand name is being given to a weak product, which is a kind of dishonesty I think.
>>8287680
>pokemon go
>buyers
>>8287701
>He doesn't accept that it's going to be monetized through in-app purchases, paywalls, ads, or other capitalistic nasties
>He doesn't think the user's data is *already* being monetized
>>8287708
that doesn't matter. one key reason as to why it's so popular is that the app is free. similarly league of legends didn't become the most popular online game because of brand recognition or even original gameplay. it's free.
>>8287701
sorry
"people who are willing to invest their time and expose themselves to in-app offers"
>>8287716
Yeah well with ads it's pretty common to introduce paywalls after initial release to build hype/dependence on the app. For instance, Dictionary.com was free once upon a time too but then they introduced ads, removed features, and made in app purchases to 'unlock' those features.
Same with Facebook with ads
Same with Google with ads and additional product offerings, the company that OWNS Pokemon Go.
There's a reason there are in-game items like Pokeballs and incenses that attract more Pokemon, and only a small set of the original Pokemon released, and that all the initial outfit offerings make the characters look like butt ugly tracksuit-laden slavs.
>>8287556
These games need a big player base and jolly corporation to be fun. Attaching Pokemon gen 1 which everyone recognizes to it helped it along quite a lot. The VR that everyone disables after a day probably also helped it because it creates so many funny pictures that serve as advertisement.
>>8287743
i don't doubt it but fewer people will be using it once it becomes harder to use. as for now though it's a free popular social experience that gets people walking around their own cities in new ways. i don't even think nostalgia has much to do with it
>>8287531
ive already got 10x leveraged credit default swaps ready to go
just need you to sign :)
>>8287556
Is nobody else thinking this is Zizek? The prose is uncanny.
