changes were discussed on the game's website, along with ideas currently under consideration based on player feedback.
"In game voice chat is currently in development," said the developer, who added that it hopes to include the feature in a title update this month. "While the game was setup to allow users to speak with the parties they created and people they trust, you have indicated this does make teamwork among strangers more difficult. As team based gameplay is our main focus, we are currently working on this feature as a top priority."
It is also...
new blog post.
He continued: "I really can't emphasize enough - this is going to be an early access project on steam. It's a true-blue alpha. Massive areas of the engine were entirely reworked, involving a large team of people over the last 12 months. Much of what these achievements will enable won't be seen for many months - so I really plead for anyone who is on the fence to take a skeptical approach - watch streams, read reviews, watch some let's play and form your opinion. You could always come back to the game in three, six months...
Gamers can be a pretty passionate bunch of people, especially when it comes to the games that they love. There are also times when gamers will sign petitions in order to get a particular game onto a certain platform. Nintendo certainly has their fair share of passionate fans, many of whom have taken part in Operation Rainfall, in which many gamers signed a petition to get Nintendo to bring Japanese titles, such as the Xenoblade Chronicles, The Last Story, and Pandora’s Tower to North America where it was localized. This particular petition was successful which undoubtedly made many gamers happy, but it seems that if you’re hoping that future petitions will sway Nintendo’s decisions, don’t count on it. (more…)
Yeah, the headline is correct. The Federal Trade Commission is trying to put together its case for or against native advertising. Unfortunately, the agency isn’t sure about the true nature of native ads and admitted as much following its own conference. Leave it to a government agency to, in effect, confuse itself.
A day-long examination of native advertising left regulators with no clear direction about how to police what has become digital media’s hottest ad format.
The Federal Trade Commission, which organized the workshop, has been bringing cases against ads masquerading as editorial content since 1917 (the first case was against a newspaper ad for an electric vacuum cleaner). But digital media has put what the FTC once termed “masquer-ads” on steroids.
Worried that consumers might be confused by native ads, the FTC was looking to the workshop to help figure out if the agency should issue additional guidance to help advertisers and publishers steer clear of enforcement action.
But after hearing from all parts of the industry, from academicians to publishers and ad networks, FTC officials said they would have to think about the next steps.
“This has raised more questions than it answered,” said Mary Engle, the FTC’s associate director of the advertising practices division.
So while yet another government agency feels like it has to have control over everything in business, the real folks they should be focused on, the consumer, may not be as worried about native ads as the FTC wants to believe. Heaven forbid, the public actually state their general feeling about a matter. Regardless, the FTC is likely to keep moving ‘forward’ because they ‘know what’s best’ for poor citizens not smart enough to take care of themselves. Maybe the feds should just back away and relax for a bit but don’t count on that.
Even the recent studies on how consumers react to native advertising proved inconclusive. Research conducted by Prof. David Franklyn of the University of San Francisco School of Law found that a growing number of consumers simply don’t care if the content is paid or unpaid; 50 percent don’t even know what the word “sponsor” means.”
“The market has overwhelmingly blurred the lines in a way consumers have accepted because search is free and the Internet is largely free. If consumers had to pay, they might get more annoyed. The consumer has been conditioned to acquiesce to anything people in this room can think of to make money,” said Prof. Franklyn.
We’re no strangers to native advertising here at Marketing pilgrim where our channel sponsors get the chance to create content that is labeled as sponsored. We try to make sure that the content is good, not salesly and will benefit our readers. If our readers decide to investigate more about our channel sponsors they do so knowing they had been exposed to the advertiser and not deceived.
So what is your take on native advertising? Why is it a problem if it is identified clearly and properly? What level of involvement should the government have in establishing minimum standards/guidelines?
Maybe next time the FTC could organize something more remedial so it doesn’t chase after its own tail trying to tread where they might be better served by playing in the shadows.
Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community
The term “app” is being thrown around a lot these days, and while initially used to describe downloadable software for smartphones and tablets, it has started to apply to software running on computers as well. Technically it’s not far from the truth as “app” is an abbreviation for “application”, but it seems that Apple thinks that they have the right to the term because they feel that they were the ones who changed what it meant.
This is being challenged in Australia where Apple had lost the right to trademark the “App Store” name, which they have since tried to appeal but lost again, and now they have taken the case of the Australian Federal Court against the Registrar of Trademarks. According to Apple’s counsel, Rob Webb, “The fact that one of its components — app — was as a stand alone word, itself in something of a transition at the date of the filing of the application.” Webb went on to state, “We say that must reflect back to the filing date in 2008 and one can see that at that time, it had some layer of meaning that wasn’t purely application software.”
What do you guys think? In all honesty, whether you are an Apple critic or a fan, do you think that Apple was responsible to making the term popular, ultimately changing its definition?