I started off writing a post about how I wanted Windows Phone 7 on a tablet, then today I saw this.
Microsoft: Where's your $199 Windows Tablet?
I spent many months last year on the Windows Phone 7 Backstage Forum. It was created by MS shortly after they announced WP7 back in February 2010 and became largely irrelevant after the release in November.
One of the things we discussed was the possibility of putting Windows Phone 7 on tablets. This led, especially after the introduction of the iPad, to a differentiation between a tablet, which ran a smartphone style OS, and a slate, which ran a desktop level OS.
From the moment I saw the first videos of WP7, I became excited about the idea of Windows Tablet 7 (my own name). Metro on a tablet seemed like such an obvious idea that I was actually surprised when MS announced that there would no such thing.
I agree that MS is missing a trick right now. Many of the cheaper 7" tablets are 800x480, which means that Mango could run on them without alteration. Simply remove the phone icon from the start screen and you are all set to go.
I am excited about Windows 8 on tablets, but what I really want on a tablet is the simplicity of the way that Mango handles Office and email. I neither want nor need a full Office suite on a tablet. I love the fact that my contacts come in immediately from Windows Live when I start up my phone and I really don't want to have to park a full version of Office on my tablet to get the same email and office experience that I get on my phone.
By restricting the Mango tablet to 800x480 for now, and expanding it later when they expand the resolution for smartphones, I think they would have some tremendous traction against the iPad in the consumer market. Later, Windows 8 comes out and blows all the large tablets right out of the water in the business sector.
Microsoft has managed to be a very usable app ecosystem for WP7 in a very short time. I know they can do it again, but by the middle of next year, the iPad, Kindle Fire, and Nook Tablet, not to mention all the other Android Tablets, are going to have a huge lead, and fighting an uphill battle in two different mobile markets may be very tough.
I think Microsoft could gain significant $$ rewards in the short term, and when Windows 8 comes out, these people will already be well entrenched in a Microsoft ecosystem.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Gamers...no matter the game
Many of my thought experiments start with something presented by someone else. This time it was on Kotaku, a gaming blog site.
The Hardcore Gaming Myth
I find the biggest difference in gamers...as opposed to games...is in the goals behind why you play, and it doesn't really matter what the game is. I have seen it myself, both in a Martial Art I participate in, and in an online game I played for several years. I had a friend describe it to me in a cycling club that he was part of.
Humans are competitive, and it is natural for us to turn almost any endeavor into a competition, but not all people are driven to compete. So, here you have the difference, what is the goal or participation? Do you play to win, or do you play to enjoy yourself? The problem arises when people with these two different goals intermingle in the same environment.
In my friend's cycling club, he encountered both types. Some of the members were racers or at least wannabe racers, and others were there for the love of cycling, and had no wish to compete. The problem that my friend saw was that the intensity of the competitive cyclists tended to be a big turn off for new enjoyment cyclists. Literally, it scared them off, because they just wanted to get out occasionally and ride, while the competitive cyclists wanted everyone to agree to ride several times a week, and long rides, and try for certain time goals.
This discussion came up because of my participation in Armored Combat in the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). My friend was also in the SCA (still is, as a matter of fact). At that time, we had a small group of very competitive, very driven fighters, and we were trying to find more opponents. Having different people to fight not only makes the practice more enjoyable, but it also helps in not developing bad habits. The intensity with which we fought could have the effect of driving off new fighters, at least that was my friend's contention, and after a time, I came to see his point.
Now, in neither of these examples, nor others that could be provided should it be assumed that those who play to win don't enjoy themselves, nor, that those who play for fun don't like to win. What would be more correct is to say that who play to win don't enjoy themselves as much if they aren't competing and those who play for fun don't have to win to have fun. Both agree that winning is more fun than losing.
I primarily play RPGs. I very much like playing out the storylines, and exploring the character choices. I spent many years playing Neverwinter Nights (NWN) on Persistent Worlds (PWs). While there, I found a distinct dichotomy among the players. Casual and Hardcore isn't really adequate to this situation, because it was all people who were spending 5-20 hours a week playing, and generally in blocks of at least a couple of hours at a time.
One term used negatively for one camp was Powergamers. These players were definitely hardcore about the game, they spent time studying various character builds in order to learn how to make the strongest builds. They could tell you exactly what they were going to do with the build from the first time they played. They reveled in player-versus-player confrontations.
The other camp preferred the Role-Playing aspects of the game. They preferred to let the story that their character played out to influence (possibly even control) their character build. Often, these players did not seek player-versus-player confrontations.
Now, it isn't that the Powergamers were unwilling to role-play, in fact many of them were quite excellent at the role-play elements of the game, but their characters had to be very powerful, and they used that to push other players around from time to time, all the while claiming that this was the appropriate role-play for that character.
They were competition/goal/victory oriented in their gaming, while the second group was not.
The author brought up basketball. Ever participated in pick-up games, and run across someone who only cared about making the perfect shot? They weren't driven to win. To them it was almost like performance art, and as long as they made that perfect shot, they didn't really care who won or lost.
Some people need to win to have, others don't, participation, the action, not the result is the goal. To me that is the fundamental difference between gamers, whether the game is basketball, golf, or computer games.
The Hardcore Gaming Myth
I find the biggest difference in gamers...as opposed to games...is in the goals behind why you play, and it doesn't really matter what the game is. I have seen it myself, both in a Martial Art I participate in, and in an online game I played for several years. I had a friend describe it to me in a cycling club that he was part of.
Humans are competitive, and it is natural for us to turn almost any endeavor into a competition, but not all people are driven to compete. So, here you have the difference, what is the goal or participation? Do you play to win, or do you play to enjoy yourself? The problem arises when people with these two different goals intermingle in the same environment.
In my friend's cycling club, he encountered both types. Some of the members were racers or at least wannabe racers, and others were there for the love of cycling, and had no wish to compete. The problem that my friend saw was that the intensity of the competitive cyclists tended to be a big turn off for new enjoyment cyclists. Literally, it scared them off, because they just wanted to get out occasionally and ride, while the competitive cyclists wanted everyone to agree to ride several times a week, and long rides, and try for certain time goals.
This discussion came up because of my participation in Armored Combat in the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). My friend was also in the SCA (still is, as a matter of fact). At that time, we had a small group of very competitive, very driven fighters, and we were trying to find more opponents. Having different people to fight not only makes the practice more enjoyable, but it also helps in not developing bad habits. The intensity with which we fought could have the effect of driving off new fighters, at least that was my friend's contention, and after a time, I came to see his point.
Now, in neither of these examples, nor others that could be provided should it be assumed that those who play to win don't enjoy themselves, nor, that those who play for fun don't like to win. What would be more correct is to say that who play to win don't enjoy themselves as much if they aren't competing and those who play for fun don't have to win to have fun. Both agree that winning is more fun than losing.
I primarily play RPGs. I very much like playing out the storylines, and exploring the character choices. I spent many years playing Neverwinter Nights (NWN) on Persistent Worlds (PWs). While there, I found a distinct dichotomy among the players. Casual and Hardcore isn't really adequate to this situation, because it was all people who were spending 5-20 hours a week playing, and generally in blocks of at least a couple of hours at a time.
One term used negatively for one camp was Powergamers. These players were definitely hardcore about the game, they spent time studying various character builds in order to learn how to make the strongest builds. They could tell you exactly what they were going to do with the build from the first time they played. They reveled in player-versus-player confrontations.
The other camp preferred the Role-Playing aspects of the game. They preferred to let the story that their character played out to influence (possibly even control) their character build. Often, these players did not seek player-versus-player confrontations.
Now, it isn't that the Powergamers were unwilling to role-play, in fact many of them were quite excellent at the role-play elements of the game, but their characters had to be very powerful, and they used that to push other players around from time to time, all the while claiming that this was the appropriate role-play for that character.
They were competition/goal/victory oriented in their gaming, while the second group was not.
The author brought up basketball. Ever participated in pick-up games, and run across someone who only cared about making the perfect shot? They weren't driven to win. To them it was almost like performance art, and as long as they made that perfect shot, they didn't really care who won or lost.
Some people need to win to have, others don't, participation, the action, not the result is the goal. To me that is the fundamental difference between gamers, whether the game is basketball, golf, or computer games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)