My original post last summer about Games for a 10% Attention Span generated a fair amount of complimentary feedback from friends and colleagues, but also came with a number of questions. Most of those revolved around existing titles that might fit the bill; the rest can be summed up as “so?”
I’ll address existing titles in future posts. Today I want to talk about the relevance question, particularly from a consumer adoption standpoint. For that I’m going to turn to some research done in the mobile game sector.
Several studies were done on consumer play habits in the mobile space a few years back, by companies such as Nokia, In-Fusio and (what was then) Sorrent. At the time, many of us in the space assumed consumers played mobile games when they had no other entertainment options available: at the bus stop, on the subway, waiting for your dentist, etc. Given the availability of cable TV, the web or an Xbox, people would turn to those instead.
What they found was very different. Of those that played mobile games:
- About 60% played at home.
- Average play sessions were roughly 20 minutes, with a subset exceeding that by a fair amount (in the Sorrent study, up to 2 hours).
- Roughly a third played every day.
Now these are games built to be played in very short chunks of time, maybe five minutes, tops. They’re typically light affairs, without a lot of depth. So why would anyone pick them up at all when they’re at home, with more compelling experiences at their disposal?
The studies above don’t address that. But my takeaway is that these games are:
- Accessible: The most accessible product is more likely to garner consumer attention, not the richest or deepest. Mobile games are the kings of accessibility (at least, good ones are). Shoot, every design I ever wrote for a mobile game included a section on how many key presses it would take to start playing the game, and whether you’d have to move your thumb at all during that process.
- Commitment Friendly: Consumers probably didn’t sit down thinking they were going to play for 20 minutes (or more). The likely turned to the mobile game because they could get in faster and be done in a couple minutes. They just wound up playing again and again.
Consumers were facing the friction of playing something else and went for the mobile game instead. It may sound trivial to go find the Halo 3 disc, turn on the Xbox, turn on the TV, find the controller and/or remote, and then assume you’ll have a good 20 – 30 minutes to play, but that’s an eternity compared to a mobile game. And in a world of media overload and scarce attention, a game that asks less of the consumer has a greater opportunity to gain traction.
Now there are other problems with how the mobile game business works. But the premise is still sound, and it applies to any game, mobile or not. Games with a flexible attention requirement reduce friction: the friction to try, the friction to keep playing and the friction to come back. Less friction means more consumers will try and stay with the game. And consumers who play longer offer more opportunities to generate revenue; their lifetime value increases.
Next time I’ll tackle an asynchronous web game that almost – but not quite – fits the flexible attention model.
January 05 2009 | Game Design | No Comments »
The Daily Photo series focuses on the two or three key creative choices, in terms of composition and processing, that go into creating an image. Specific technical details about the shot have been left out — you won’t hear me talking about tone curve adjustments and whatnot unless it was a key component of the end result.
Once a year, when I visit my dad for the Thanksgiving holiday, I spend some time shooting surfing at Steamer Lane in Santa Cruz, California. The cliffs of Lighthouse Point provide an excellent vantage point for capturing the surfers on film from a wide range of angles. And when the weather cooperates, as it did this past November, you can get some great shots.
- Shutter: 1/2000
- Aperture: f/4
- ISO: 800
- Camera: Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
- Lens: Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM + Canon 1.4x extender (effective 420mm)
Original:
Composition and Processing:
- Lighting is always a challenge here. The waves are backlit by the afternoon sun (a simple fact of being on the west coast), and that provides a nice translucent glow to the wave. But often times the surfer is on the face of the wave and a good 3 stops darker than the crest of the wave. In this case I got lucky and caught the surfer just as he was emerging from the wave and into the sunlight (albeit, not with his board).
- For most sports photography, I turn to the 1D instead of the 1Ds. The faster frame rate and cleaner image at high ISO settings makes it preferable despite the trade off in resolution. Plus, in cases like this, the 1.3x crop sensor adds a little more reach. On this day though, with the swell north of 15 ft at times, another photographer encouraged me to shoot wider and focus more on the wave itself. That is, instead of capturing the tightest possible image of the surfer, set the surfer in the grander context of his surroundings. By shooting wider, I could afford to go with the 1Ds and the lower frame rate, making this shot possible.
- The final shot is much more colorful than the original. What can I say, I like the notion of contrasting the warm sun with the cold water, and processed accordingly. Those colors are actually there in the original, just much more muted. But I decided to overlay a gradient with Lightroom 2’s new graduated filters to exaggerate the effect, and then mucked with the HSL sliders for good measure.
January 05 2009 | Photography | No Comments »
The Daily Photo series focuses on the two or three key creative choices, in terms of composition and processing, that go into creating an image. Specific technical details about the shot have been left out — you won’t hear me talking about tone curve adjustments and whatnot unless it was a key component of the end result.
I had a chance to work with Brigitte before the Thanksgiving holiday this year. We mostly shot out of the home studio and the surrounding area, taking advantage of the natural light until the sun went down before shifting to studio lights and backdrops. Janus Anderson also took part in this shoot — his results can be seen here.
- Shutter: 1/125
- Aperture: f/8
- ISO: 200
- Camera: Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
- Lens: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
- Lighting: see below
Original:
Composition and Processing:
- Lately I’ve been interested in really simple compositions that isolate the subject against either black or white. And by simple, I mean only the skin and hair are used to identify the subject — everything else is run to black or completely blown out, including clothing (there’s probably a clever term for this, but I don’t know it). I love this look: there are no distractions, everything’s focused on the subject and the expression.
- Of course, simple composition doesn’t necessarily mean simple setup. I wanted really soft light for this, so I positioned two bare Zeus heads on each side of Brigitte and pointed them back in the direction of the camera, bouncing the light off of some white fabric I hung behind me and a couple of 4′ x 8′ sheets of foam core (creating a half circle of reflective material 8′ high). To keep the lights from spilling onto Brigitte, I put 4′ x 8′ black foam core sheets between her and them (effectively creating a 3-side black box for her to stand in.
- This shot isn’t bad in color, but black and white really enhances the texture of the hair and makes the eyes pop. The black background matches and brings out the darker areas of the image, instead of just isolating the subject like it would in color.
January 04 2009 | Photography | No Comments »
The Daily Photo series focuses on the two or three key creative choices, in terms of composition and processing, that go into creating an image. Specific technical details about the shot have been left out — you won’t hear me talking about tone curve adjustments and whatnot unless it was a key component of the end result.
I’ve had a number of opportunities to shoot fireworks this past year, and with each attempt I’ve tried to improve on the overall concept. Conveniently, the city of Austin sets them off a few times a year on Town Lake, and the launch point is about two blocks from my 12th floor balcony.
This image is a massive composite of several images. I’ve included a couple samples of originals, but not all of them.
- Shutter: 8 seconds (fireworks and background HDR); 30 seconds (bridge light trails)
- Aperture: f/22 (fireworks and bridge light trails); f/22 - f/4 (HDR background)
- ISO: 200 (fireworks and background HDR); 50 (bridge light trails)
- Camera: Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
- Lens: Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
Original Fireworks Example:
Original HDR Example:
Original Light Trails Example:
Composition and Processing
- The first time I shot fireworks I was happy with the fireworks themselves, but the background felt a little lackluster. I could try reversing the angle, shooting from the bridge or across the river, but the Austin skyline is a bit ugly at the moment with several new buildings under construction. I decided to try and balance the fireworks with another light effect: the light trails from traffic crossing the 1st street bridge. That meant shrinking the size of the fireworks to accomodate the larger scene, which may or may not have been worth it.
- The first component of the shot was the fireworks themselves. I chose two images and processed them individually like the last time. Blending the two together didn’t work because they overlapped and it looked like a mess. So I took one of them and moved it adjacent to the main burst. This had the nice side effect of increasing the overall size of the fireworks themselves.
- The second component was the background, which was a simple HDR composite using five frames and served as the basis for most of the image (the fireworks were painted into this scene in their original position).
- The final component was a blend of about a dozen shots of vehicle light trails on the bridge, using the “difference” blending operation in Photoshop. There weren’t any cars on the bridge during the fireworks themselves– I simply left the camera on the tripod until the streets were re-opened and rattled off about 100 30 second exposures once cars started moving through. The only problem with my plan was that the bridge lighting is actually brighter than the tail lights of most of the cars, and with traffic infrequent and moving quickly across the bridge, I had very little material to work with. Hence the blending of so many images in the hopes of getting something interesting. The end result was painted into the HDR image.
- Ultimately, this image is close to what I wanted for the shot, but fails in a few places:
- The background is still weak and somwewhat distracting. The light trails themselves look interesting and do balance the fireworks a little, but they might have helped frame the scene more if I’d been able to capture them on Cesar Chavez and San Antonio too (the streets running to the right of the building in the middle as well as along the water). Not to mention the road the runs in front of the Long Center across the river.
- The empty water treatment plant in the lower right is too distracting and should probably be removed or at least de-emphasized in the image.
- The fireworks are simply too small for the scene. As interesting as it is to capture this from high up, there may be better angles down on the street that can achieve the same effect (such as the main intersection on the left side of the image, shooting back down Cesar Chavez).
- I didn’t shoot the New Years fireworks, but I may give this another go on the 4th this year. One thing that did occur to me was that the three components that go into the shot don’t actually have to be shot on the same night. In fact, it would be better to shoot the traffic trails during rush hour. And the fireworks, if kept against a black background, don’t even need to be aligned perfectly since there are no other visual cues to identify where they are supposed to be in the scene.
January 03 2009 | Photography | No Comments »
The Daily Photo series focuses on the two or three key creative choices, in terms of composition and processing, that go into creating an image. Specific technical details about the shot have been left out — you won’t hear me talking about tone curve adjustments and whatnot unless it was a key component of the end result.
Last summer the W began construction on a new hotel which, for better or worse, is next door to where I live in downtown Austin. The entire block was initially ringed with covered pedestrian walkways, painted bright white except for a number of promotional images put up on the south facing sidewalk.
The afternoon light in downtown Austin bounces off quite a number of buildings in the area and in some cases snakes down the east-west streets to create some interesting backlighting opportunities. This shot of Stephanie is the first in series we did around the construction walkways, before they became covered in dirt from the construction.
Exposure
- Shutter: 1/200
- Aperture: f/1.4
- ISO: 800
- Camera: Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
- Lens: Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
Original:
Composition and Processing:
- Models must hate me. Really. They show up with their hair all done up and the first thing I do is ask them to mess it up. Hair can be used to great effect when framing the face though, and in many cases you can get radically different looks (where the model looks almost like a different person), just by moving their hair around a bit. In this case I asked Stephanie to pull her hair forward, then bring the chin up enough that I could just barely see both eyes.
- Despite Stephanie’s wonderful red hair, I had black in white in mind from the start. I was more interested in the tonal differences between her skin and everything else. Plus, blowing out her skin really highlighted the eyes and brought out the texture of the hair.
- I expected to crop this shot more tightly later, but it wasn’t until I was done processing that I decided to push it into the upper right corner. I liked the north-south lines created by her face and neck, and this positioning emphasized that. The hair is a little squarish going into the corner, but not too bad.
- When Stephanie posted this to her flickr account, one viewer asked about the catchlight in her eye (particularly since this is a natural light shot). It’s actually the entire sky, right after sundown, framed on four sides by the awning above her head, the two buildings on each side of second street, and the fence one block away. Not exactly planned for, but an added bonus nonetheless.
January 02 2009 | Photography | No Comments »
Coed BB Doubles - Aussies - November 8, 2008
Final Standings
1st - Daniel Sulak / Nicole
2nd - Colby McCarty / Jayna
3rd (tie) - Marah Friesen / Joe Ting
3rd (tie) - Hon Chan / Lindsy
5th (tie) - Scott Galup / Aimee Richardson
5th (tie) - April / Jamie
7th (tie) - Josh G / Nicole
7th (tie) - Ben / Meg Poag
9th (tie) - Josh Fitzhugh / Angela
9th (tie) - Chic / Trina
11th (tie) - Kate / Michael
11th (tie) - Shalom / Nicole
Pool 1
1st 5-0 Daniel Sulak / Nicole
2nd 3-2 Scott Galup / Aimee Richardson
3rd 3-2 Hon Chan / Lindsy
4th 1-4 Josh G / Nicole
5th 1-4 Josh Fitzhugh / Angela
6th 1-4 Kate / Michael
Pool 2
1st 5-0 Colby McCarty / Jayna
2nd 4-1 Marah Friesen / Joe Ting
3rd 3-2 April / Jamie
4th 2-3 Ben / Meg Poag
5th 1-4 Chic / Trina
6th 0-5 Shalom / Nicole
Playoffs
Quarter Finals: Hon Chan / Lindsy def. April / Jamie 21-17
Quarter Finals: Marah Friesen / Joe Ting def. Scott Galup / Aimee Richardson 23-21
Semi Finals: Colby McCarty / Jayna def. Hon Chan / Lindsy 21-9
Semi Finals: Daniel Sulak / Nicole def. Marah Friesen / Joe Ting
Finals: Daniel Sulak / Nicole def. Colby McCarty / Jayna 21-18
Coed BB Doubles - Aussies - November 9, 2008
Final Standings
1st - Daniel Sulak / Ally
2nd - Colby McCarty / Kelly
3rd (tie) - Rachel / Milk
3rd (tie) - Mark / Cindy
5th (tie) - Rick Larabee / Jayna
5th (tie) - Shalom / Nicole
7th (tie) - Cherish / Chad
7th (tie) - Marah Friesen / Matt
9th (tie) - Kirk Attwood / Angela
9th (tie) - John / Jamie
11th (tie) - Nicole / Mitch
Pool 1
1st 4-1 Mark / Cindy
2nd 3-2 Rachel / Milk
3rd 3-2 Rick Larabee / Jayna
4th 3-2 Cherish / Chad
5th 2-3 Kirk Attwood / Angela
6th 0-5 Nicole / Mitch
Pool 2
1st 4-0 Colby McCarty / Kelly
2nd 3-1 Daniel Sulak / Ally
3rd 2-2 Shalom / Nicole
4th 1-3 Marah Friesen / Matt
5th 0-4 John / Jamie
Playoffs
Quarter Finals: Rachel / Milk def. Shalom / Nicole
Quarter Finals: Daniel Sulak / Ally def. Rick Larabee / Jayna 25-21
Semi Finals: Colby McCarty / Kelly def. Rachel / Milk
Semi Finals: Daniel Sulak / Ally def. Mark / Cindy
Finals: Daniel Sulak / Ally def. Colby McCarty / Kelly 25-17
November 13 2008 | Volleyball | No Comments »
Blind Draw Coed 4’s - Aussies - October 25, 2008
Final Standings
1st - Karen / Chic / Aaron / Brandon
2nd - Tish / Jamon / Arik / Carlos
3rd (tie) - Donna / Chad / Dave / Michael
3rd (tie) - Marissa / Josh / Freddie / Trina
5th (tie) - Jamie Lynn / Hon / Javier / Nicole
5th (tie) - Anne / Tom / Quintin / Larissa / Jennifer
7th (tie) - Angela / John / Pete / Richard
7th (tie) - Betsi / Blake / Patrick / Joe
9th - Joy / Will / Clayton / Chris S.
Pool 1
1st 4-0 Donna / Chad / Dave / Michael
2nd 3-1 Tish / Jamon / Arik / Carlos
3rd 2-2 Jamie Lynn / Hon / Javier / Nicole
4th 1-3 Angela / John / Pete / Richard
5th 0-4 Joy / Will / Clayton / Chris S.
Pool 2
1st 5-1 Marissa / Josh / Freddie / Trina
2nd 5-1 Karen / Chic / Aaron / Brandon
3rd 2-4 Anne / Tom / Quintin / Larissa / Jennifer
4th 0-6 Betsi / Blake / Patrick / Joe
Playoffs
Quarter Finals: Tish / Jamon / Arik / Carlos def. Anne / Tom / Quintin / Larissa / Jennifer 25-22
Quarter Finals: Karen / Chic / Aaron / Brandon def. Jamie Lynn / Hon / Javier / Nicole 25-10
Semi Finals: Karen / Chic / Aaron / Brandon def. Donna / Chad / Dave / Michael 25-23
Semi Finals: Tish / Jamon / Arik / Carlos def. Marissa / Josh / Freddie / Trina 25-23
Finals: Karen / Chic / Aaron / Brandon def. Tish / Jamon / Arik / Carlos 25-19
November 02 2008 | Volleyball | No Comments »
Men’s BB Doubles - Aussies - October 18, 2008
Final Standings
1st - Gareth Sampson / Josh Fitzhugh
2nd - Kirk Attwood / Mark Herrin
3rd (tie) - Milk (Steven Raesz) / Mike Pop
3rd (tie) - Rick Larabee / Kevin Keller
5th (tie) - Colby McCarty / Shawn Brown
5th (tie) - Paul Bostrom / Daniel Sulak
7th (tie) - Red (David Lear) / Blake Rocap
7th (tie) - Ben / Sam
9th (tie) - TJ / Joe
9th (tie) - Dan Bockman / Scott Galup
11th (tie) - Ken / Matt
11th (tie) - Toby / Chris
Pool 1
1st 5-0 Rick Larabee / Kevin Keller
2nd 4-1 Colby McCarty / Shawn Brown
3rd 3-2 Gareth Sampson / Josh Fitzhugh
4th 1-4 Ben / Sam
5th 1-4 Dan Bockman / Scott Galup
6th 1-4 Toby / Chris
Pool 2
1st 5-0 Milk (Steven Raesz) / Mike Pop
2nd 4-1 Paul Bostrom / Daniel Sulak
3rd 3-2 Kirk Attwood / Mark Herrin
4th 2-3 Red (David Lear) / Blake Rocap
5th 1-4 TJ / Joe
6th 0-5 Ken / Matt
Playoffs
Quarter Finals: Kirk Attwood / Mark Herrin def. Colby McCarty / Shawn Brown 25-20
Quarter Finals: Gareth Sampson / Josh Fitzhugh def. Paul Bostrom / Daniel Sulak 25-19
Semi Finals: Gareth Sampson / Josh Fitzhugh def. Milk (Steven Raesz) / Mike Pop 27-25
Semi Finals: Kirk Attwood / Mark Herrin def. Rick Larabee / Kevin Keller 25-21
Finals: Gareth Sampson / Josh Fitzhugh def. Kirk Attwood / Mark Herrin 25-20
Women’s BB Doubles - Aussies - October 18, 2008
Final Standings
1st - Cindy Chapa / Jayna
2nd - Nicole Smitt / Jen
3rd (tie) - Sherry / Ally
3rd (tie) - Susan / Aimee Richardson
5th (tie) - Marah Friesen / Lindsay
5th (tie) - Nani Aguilar / Tracy Singleton
7th (tie) - Kelly Hardy / Emily Herrin
7th (tie) - Rita / Shannon
9th (tie) - Meg Poag / Stacey
9th (tie) - Nicole / Misty
11th (tie) - Cherish / Donna
11th (tie) - Kate / Leslie
Pool 1
1st 5-0 Nicole Smitt / Jen
2nd 4-1 Sherry / Ally
3rd 3-2 Marah Friesen / Lindsay
4th 2-3 Kelly Hardy / Emily Herrin
5th 1-4 Meg Poag / Stacey
6th 0-5 Cherish / Donna
Pool 2
1st 5-0 Cindy Chapa / Jayna
2nd 4-1 Susan / Aimee Richardson
3rd 3-2 Nani Aguilar / Tracy Singleton
4th 2-3 Rita / Shannon
5th 1-4 Nicole / Misty
6th 0-5 Kate / Leslie
Playoffs
Quarter Finals: Susan / Aimee Richardson def. Marah Friesen / Lindsay 21-14
Quarter Finals: Sherry / Ally def. Nani Aguilar / Tracy Singleton 21-16
Semi Finals: Cindy Chapa / Jayna def. Sherry / Ally 21-14
Semi Finals: Nicole Smitt / Jen def. Susan / Aimee Richardson 21-16
Finals: Cindy Chapa / Jayna def. Nicole Smitt / Jen 21-15
October 20 2008 | Volleyball | No Comments »
Men’s B Doubles - Aussies - October 11, 2008
Final Standings
1st - Hon Chan / Ben
2nd - Steve / Shalom
3rd (tie) - Pete / Shawn
3rd (tie) - Ken / Hooper
5th - Blak / Francois
Pool Play
1st 7-1 Hon Chan / Ben
2nd 4-4 Steve / Shalom
3rd 4-4 Pete / Shawn
4th 4-4 Ken / Hooper
5th 1-7 Blake / Francois
Playoffs
Semi Finals: Hon Chan / Ben def. Ken / Hooper 21-17
Semi Finals: Steve / Shalom def. Pete / Shawn 21-15
Finals: Hon Chan / Ben def. Steve / Shalom 21-16
Coed BB Doubles - Aussies - October 12, 2008
Final Standings
1st - Daniel Sulak / Kendra
2nd - Nicole Smitt / Lucas Johnson
3rd (tie) - Cindy Chapa / Kirk Attwood
3rd (tie) - Scott Galup / Jayna
5th (tie) - Shawn Brown / Sherry
5th (tie) - Mark / Melanie
7th (tie) - Paul Bostrom / Emily Herrin
7th (tie) - Colby McCarty / Kelly Hardy
9th (tie) - Marah Friesen / Matt
9th (tie) - Ally / Rick
11th (tie) - Meg Poag / Rick Larabee
11th (tie) - Jennifer / Matt
Pool I
1st 4-1 Cindy Chapa / Kirk Attwood
2nd 4-1 Shawn Brown / Sherry
3rd 3-2 Nicole Smitt / Lucas Johnson
4th 2-3 Paul Bostrom / Emily Herrin
5th 1-4 Marah Friesen / Matt
6th 1-4 Meg Poag / Rick Larabee
Pool 2
1st 4-1 Scott Galup / Jayna
2nd 3-2 Daniel Sulak / Kendra
3rd 3-2 Mark / Melanie
4th 3-2 Colby McCarty / Kelly Hardy
5th 2-3 Ally / Rick
6th 0-5 Jennifer / Matt
Playoffs
Semi-Finals: Daniel Sulak / Kendra def. Cindy Chapa / Kirk Attwood 21-18
Semi-Finals: Nicole Smitt / Lucas Johnson def. Scott Galup / Jayna 21-19
Finals: Daniel Sulak / Kendra def. Nicole Smitt / Lucas Johnson 21-17
October 20 2008 | Volleyball | No Comments »
Coed BB Doubles - Aussies - September 27, 2008
Final Standings
1st - Daniel / Rosa
2nd - Shawn / Sherry
3rd (tie) - Keith / Aimee
3rd (tie) - Jamon / Nicole
5th (tie) - Rick / Raven
5th (tie) - Chic / Trina
7th (tie) - Jeff / April
7th (tie) - Ally / Bowie
Pool I
1st 6-0 Daniel / Rosa
2nd 3-3 Shawn / Sherry
3rd 2-4 Rick / Raven
4th 1-5 Jeff / April
Pool 2
1st 6-0 Jamon / Nicole
2nd 4-2 Keith / Aimee
3rd 2-4 Chic / Trina
4th 0-6 Ally / Bowie
Playoffs
Quarter Finals: Shawn / Sherry def. Chic / Trina 21-12
Quarter Finals: Keith / Aimee def. Rick / Raven 21-17
Semi Finals: Shawn / Sherry def. Jamon / Nicole 21-18
Semi Finals: Daniel / Rosa def. Keith / Aimee 21-13
Finals: Daniel / Rosa def. Shawn / Sherry
October 03 2008 | Volleyball | No Comments »
Next »
