Category: Mitch Donovan


Archive for the ‘Mitch Donovan’ Category

Nov 25 2010

Augmented Reality and the Novelty of New Technologies

Published by

Having the pleasure of presenting about the future of augmented reality for this class, I like to think that I found in a little insight on the technology. In researching for the presentation, I downloaded several iPhone apps to see just how real augmented reality is. What we talk about in class is exciting and fascinating, but as the iTunes store showed me, those potentials just aren’t quite realized yet in the commercial market. The apps I demonstrate in class are pretty much the best I could find.

So why the hype if the tech really isn’t at Minority Report level yet? Are we really just so excited by AR that we will willingly pay for novelty and impractical apps? In my opinion, yes that’s exactly what AR is right now. Here’s your average tech life-cycle: concept, crappy applications of said concept, practical uses of the concept, media overexposure,  replaced by a new crappy application of another novelty concept.

For example, let’s look at video games and their use of motion technology. A few years ago, when the Wii was released, it was the big new thing. I would call GameStop everyday to see if they had a Wii in stock until I finally got one. This Fall has seen the release of Playstation’s Move and Xbox’s Kinect. The reason non-gamers probably haven’t heard of Move is because it’s really just a refined version of Wii for the PS3. But consider the Kinect. I haven’t played it, but from what I’ve seen, its really just a novelty. There’s no games really worth indulging more than a couple hours in. Yet, what is the big seller this holiday season?

So with AR, even though there’s not much use in it now, we’re all wowed by the possibility of where it could go. We try to get whatever taste of it we can, and we’re briefly amused by the novelties, and then we convince ourselves that it’ll totally be awesome next time. The catch is – by the time we get to “next time,” the novelty will have worn off and we won’t be quite as excited by it (while Move is certainly a technical upgrade from the Wii, nobody really seems to care…).

So as designers, how do we account for the fickleness of audiences when it comes to new technologies? Well, consider Apple. When they released the iPhone, it worked out of the box doing everything they said it could. They didn’t bother releasing it when the touch controls merely worked, they released them when the controls were perfect. So when people got their iPhones, there was no real sense of “oh hey, this is cool, but it’ll probably get better in the future.” No, the iPhone was already cool. And when it did get more features and applications, that was just another reason for the same users to repurchase another phone.

But too often, companies don’t have the restraint of Apple. They throw it out there because they want the profit margin now. As far as AR goes, we’ve already got our taste of what the tech can possibly be do. But as for me, I think I’ll wait until they manage to actually deliver what they’re selling.

Nov 18 2010

The Positive Side of Virtual Worlds

Published by

You know, if this were more of a philosophy class, I could write on about how we all live “virtual worlds,” so to speak. But rather than get bogged down in discussing existentialism in an interactive media class, I think I’d like to speak about how virtual worlds aren’t as weird as we might initially speak. The key is in how we define “virtual worlds.” While Warcraft and Second Life are obvious answers, I think there are non-digital virtual worlds that get overlooked. To me, anyone who’s ever spent time reading a great book, or lost themselves in film, could be said to have spent some time in a virtual world. In my opinion, any deviation from direct human-to-human interaction could be considered a virtual world. Any flight of imagination, or narrative indulgence, brings a person to a different plane of existence that separates them from our traditional world. Whoops, I guess I couldn’t stop the Kierkegaard in me from getting out.

With this broader definition, I think we can analyze a lot of benefits to spending times in virtual worlds. While the documentary we watched seemed to focus exclusively on the negative aspects, such as addiction, associated with digital virtual worlds, they seemed to ignore any possible positive effect. Like almost anything on Earth, there are those who become addicted to virtual worlds. While I will not argue that this is not an issue, it is far from outweighing benefits of virtual worlds. Addiction is a personal problem, not a social one. Blame the player, not the game.

The primary value of virtual worlds, as I use them, is through entertainment. Whether through narratology or ludology, these worlds offer the user to escape from frustrations of every day life. You can battle a dragon, interact with users around the world, or simply observe the story of anyone imaginable. This escape, however, is what primarily feeds the aforementioned addiction. Its easy to get lost in a world that can gives players unparalleled power with (relatively) no real-world consequences. Like everything in life, moderation is the answer. And while entertainment may be considered trivial by many, virtual worlds offer a cathartic effect to relieve the tensions of everyday life.

But that isn’t always the case.  As almost any gamer would tell you, games are about challenge almost as much as entertainment. Many virtual worlds challenge players to solve problems. In presenting these challenges in a consequence-free environment, games in virtual worlds are an excellent way of pushing a player’s thought process and problem solving skills.

While virtual worlds do present many issues in regards to addiction and social isolation, there are almost many benefits, entertainment and puzzles among them. And in regards to more open-ended worlds like Second Life, these worlds allow users to experience social interaction in an entirely new and thought-provoking way. Just because they’re different from traditional communication modalities, doesn’t mean they’re invalid. The more diversity we can bring to life, whether through in a real or virtual world, the better.

Nov 11 2010

A Gamer Who Doesn’t Like Games

Published by

I like to think of myself as a “gamer.” I own all three major home consoles and usually play through all the major well-reviewed releases, Red Dead Redemption, Super Mario Galaxy 2, you name it. But then I look at the most popular games around right now. I’ve never desired to play any Call of Duty game, nor do I play very much Madden. I especially have no interest in dancing for Kinect. When looking at the role games play in our culture, these are types of games that I observe breaking the boundaries from stereotypical gamers like myself, and reaching people who have never picked up a controller. Even with online games, whether they are Farmville or World of Warcraft, they just don’t appeal to me.

When trying to look at this paradox, as a gamer who doesn’t like or play the most popular games, I arrived at two reasons: I love narratives, but dislike social gaming. Almost all of the above games include some interaction with other players, where I guess I would rather just play through a game on my own. I wasn’t aware introversion applied to video game usage, but apparently it does. Further, I like to play through narratives on my own, which are almost exclusively single-player based. Ironically, I am most attracted to the cinematic and literary elements in games, not their ludological elements. In juxtaposition with what distinguishes games from other media, I play games that are similar to other media.

As to avoid the egotism that goes with talking about oneself for an entire blog post, what does this personal case study mean about games in our society? Well for one, I think it shows how diverse the audiences are for any type of game. Whereas many people may like specific genres of film, television, or books, it seems that many people view games as an entire genre, which is liked by a specific group of people. There’s no other medium that I can think of where the medium is thought of as more of a niche market rather than a form of entertainment that everyone can enjoy a part of. In contrast with this mindset, I think recent surge in diversity in not just game content, but game interface, displays the growing appeal of games to various types of people. The idea that someone like me would like some games but not many others shows how games, like traditional media, are developing specific genres.

Additionally, I think these narrative elements of games make them comparable to other media. In the early days, games were focused on challenge and skill, but as the industry has grown, the genre of narrative-based games have developed as well. By focusing on well-developed characters and plot, in a single-player experience, games can offer stories in the vein of a miniseries or television show, where the audience views the story episodically. Like other media, not all games are about stories, but many of them are. For every Heavy Rain there is a Wii Fit. For every Boardwalk Empire there is a Dancing with the Stars. Different strokes for different folks. Even though I may not care to play a lot of games, I’m happy they’re bringing new audiences to this growing medium. As the industry expands further, I don’t expect everyone to play games for same reason, I just hope we can all find satisfaction in them, rather than passively dismissing them as a waste of time. Games aren’t just for gamers, they’re for everyone.

Nov 08 2010

Interactive Entertainment

Published by

As someone who routinely procrastinates blog posts in favor of going on one more quest, I’m excited to discuss interactive entertainment and video games this week.

1. What I mostly wrote my paper about was the use of narratives in games. While I know my opinion, and that of the research I did, I’m curious to as to what the class thinks. Are games capable of telling stories or narratives on the same level as movies, books, or TV? Or are they a different type of narrative entirely?

2. The Xbox Kinect recently came out recently, which for those of you who don’t know, is basically a way of playing video games without a controller. While the technology might be cool, the reviews for the games seem to suck, at least from what I’ve seen. Aside from the novelty and usage for family dance games, what practical entertainment uses can be gained from controllerless games?

3. As Lackaff mentioned, games are a huge industry, where the cash flows despite a down economy. Yet, they don’t quite have the mass appeal that other media do. More so than any other medium, video games are associated with specific demographics. Why is this, and why are games not as prevalent in our culture as they are in our economy?

Nov 04 2010

Pentagon Papers vs. Wikilinks – Then and Now

Published by

Communication majors may remember studying a case involving the “Pentagon Papers” in a media history class. Basically, back in 1971, the New York Times got their hands on the aforementioned papers that detail classified information about the war effort in Vietnam. They wanted to publish the info, the President objected, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court in The New York Times v. United States. The Court found 6-3 that the government failed to demonstrate burden of proof required for a prior restraint injunction. First Amendment win. The papers remain classified to this day.

Hmmm… Sounds familiar right? Does the American public have a right to know so-called “government secrets”? Does the American press have a right to access such information? The Pentagon Papers are an interesting pre-digital precedent to the recent WikiLeaks scandals. It was this historical background that made the story regarding the New York Times and Wikileaks so fascinating to me.

In their coverage of WikiLeaks, BBC, the Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Politico all explored how the the United States apparently ignored detainee abuse. The New York Times basically said “but these Iraqi guys were worse!” In forty years, the Times seemingly went from trail-blazer to truth-spinner.

Obviously, editors change over the years, so the philosophy behind a newspaper can change drastically as well. But something clearly changed regarding the culture of the paper, and their interpretation of the first amendment. When the issue involves such a clear reprehensible morality of the American government, citizens deserve to know the facts. While they can find these facts in the aforementioned papers, none of those papers carry the same homegrown credibility that the Times uniquely posesses.

To understand this discrepancy, maybe the American culture offers some insight. In 1971, citizens had no global digital network through which to share information. In attempting to publish the Pentagon Papers, the Times would have broken the story and offered citizens information they could find nowhere else. Sales would go through the roof.

In 2010, the document itself can be downloaded through a clicks. Everyone has the same access and the flow of information is more flat. All of this at a time when traditional newspapers are facing a slow demise. The Times are probably hold on to what over goodwill with government sources they have left. Instead of breaking the story, the Times attempted to not let the story break them.

As Greenwald explains: “serving the Government’s interests, siding with government and military officials, and attacking government critics is what they do. That’s their role. That’s what makes them the ‘establishment media’.” What new media like Wikilinks offer is a system of media not tied to any traditional form of reputation or connection. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. But in our political culture, don’t media outlets need some type of consistent source? These torture memos are a big find, but how likely will Wikilinks get another source like that again, especially after this scandal? At least the Times still gets invited to the White House press conferences.

Oct 27 2010

The Political “Brand”

Published by

In the pre-Internet era, politicians used to personally meet with their potential constituents, kiss babies, and have backyard visits to discuss the topics of the day. While this hasn’t changed, the Internet has allowed politicians to engage with people in unprecedented ways. Through social media and other devices, the gap between leaders and followers is smaller than ever. Or so it would seem…

Obama’s innovative feature www.mybarackobama.com harnessed the power of social networking to rally and mobilize users to aid the campaign surely contributed to the campaign’s success. With the site, users felt like they were directly contributed to the cause, and personally assisting their Barack Obama. They could converse with him over tweets, follow blogs, and participate in whatever other social media jargon seems be #trending these days.

For the first time in history, a national election was heavily determined through widespread interactive technologies. Rather than construct passive narratives that were pushed upon individual regions, Obama and McCain had to create dynamic personas that people of all backgrounds connect to. Whereas the candidates would’ve normally created various TV spots and campaign strategies unique to particular areas and demographics, nearly every part of their campaign was viewed on a national level thanks to the Internet.

This access and exposure, while supposedly making politicians more “transparent,” arguably lessened the credibility of both campaigns. While fudging your image to appeal to various demographics isn’t particularly noble, what developed was even worse: mass commodification  of politics. Citizens were no longer electing leaders, they were electing brands.

When Facebook users can “like” politician in the same way they would their favorite band or restaurant, something is miss. Maybe its just the way social networks operate, but a person liking “Barack Obama,” “Vampire Weekend,” “Panera” and “I hate that Sunday night feeling when you know you have school tomorrow!!” all on the same Facebook update says less about that person’s interests and more about the decline of political integrity.

Rather than understand the candidates as people, national campaigns run through social media tend to transform these candidates into mascots. Slogans like “Yes We Can” may be catchy and memorable, but what does it really add to the political discourse? Maybe its because we live in a country that depends on convenience and simplicity, but treating a political campaign like a fast food chain does not seem the right way to go.

Democracy already is an interactive medium. That’s what defines it as form of government. But the packaging and branding of national politics devalues an already low-value enterprise. The art of politics is notoriously slimy and murky. So I remind myself: “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” While I approve of (most of) Obama’s political decisions, the Obama brand does not add credibility. Social media brings tremendous influence to the political spectrum, but when used as a marketing tool instead of an outreach device, politicians only further the stereotype of corruptible power.

Lilleker/Jackson explain: “So rather than merely amplifying the party brand, they can create their own, so that voters may vote for them as a personal brand… Web 2.0 interactivity can encourage a break-down of the rigid-party system, and move towards a more individualistic system.” Individual for the politician maybe, but not for the voter. While the distinction of a candidate as separate from the party brand is a step in the right direction, continuing to view politicians as “brands” subverts the democratic system. This may be just how politics work, but I’m still dreaming of a better way.

Oct 25 2010

Framing – Citizen Journalism in the Government

Published by

1. Are there any intrinsic benefits from not being traditionally trained and vetted as journalist? Is ignorance bliss?

2. Actual journalists rely heavily on political connections and inside men from the government. Citizen journalists, as amateurs, typically do not have these connections. Is this a hindrance on their political reporting ability? Can politicians take them seriously?

3. How much authenticity can we give citizen journalism? Are they credible enough to site in research paper? If politicians are fudging the truth, and if citizen journalists are not getting or misinterpreting the truth, how are we as an audience supposed to respond what news we do read?

4. Does citizens even care anymore whether journalists are trained or not? Or do they just want stylized re-spouted rhetoric?

Oct 21 2010

Citizen Journalism – A Cynical Approach

Published by

Just now I was sitting in my girlfriend’s apartment when her roommate asked if there was any wrapping paper she could use. Since we’re both the type to give a present wrapped in a plastic bag from Food Lion, she regrettably told her that no, there was no wrapping paper.

At which point, I suggested “what about a newspaper?”

The roommate replied: “What newspaper?”

“The Pendulum… right there…”

“Oh… well I would want to wrap it in a cute newspaper…”

There you have it folks – the downfall of the newspaper industry – just not cute enough.

That, and the Internet I guess. As anyone who heard the first radio news broadcast (about 90 years ago, history buffs) will tell you, the newspaper is totally dying guys! Well this time, they really mean it.

Just read The State of the News Media 2010: “Newspapers, including online, saw ad revenue fall 26% during the year, which brings the total loss over the last three years to 41%.” To clarify this, imagine you are the Newspaper Industry. You are now missing your left arm and leg.

More than ever, America is the home of the “free.” We don’t want to pay for news, we feel entitled to know it. So the traditional forms of news media, when people did not have free or even ad-less alternatives, is scraping to find revenue. Things that cost money: paper, radio and TV airspace, journalism school. Things that are free: blogs, self-important opinions. Welcome to the era of citizen journalism.

The Internet has formed the perfect marriage: those who don’t like to pay for things, and those who like yell their opinions to anyone who will listen. The State of the News Media 2010 is right: the notion that the news media are shrinking is mistaken. The news media is growing more than ever, except the definition of news media has changed. Instead of “well-trained ethical and objective professional journalists,” we now have “anybody.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against blowhards with blogs. They are an important component of the freedoms allowed by the first amendment. But when “citizen journalism” is enabling the death of “actual journalism,” therein lies the problem. When credible news reporting is on the decline, and subjective unprofessional reporting is on the rise, the integrity of the fourth estate begin to collapse. Woodward and Bernstein took down a president. Bloggers took down Britney Spears.

Have you watched The Wire? You should. The 5th and final season is all about media and media consumption. David Simon, the creator, says:

“I am offended to think that anyone, anywhere believes American institutions as insulated, self-preserving and self-justifying as police departments, school systems, legislatures and chief executives can be held to gathered facts by amateurs pursuing the task without compensation, training or for that matter, sufficient standing to make public officials even care to whom it is they are lying to.”

Exactly. Note that last part too: “whom it is they are lying to.”

The State of the News Media 2010 also found that “Technology is further shifting power to news-makers, and the newest way is through their ability control the initial accounts of events” Considering this within the context of Simon’s remark, public officials are making their own news. PR specialists, people who do get paid, are the people responsible for creating entire stories regarding their clients. These news stories are then increasingly analyzed by citizen journalists, those who don’t get paid. In a world where money and power are everything, citizen journalists just don’t have the ability to hold the system in check the way professional journalists do.

And my girlfriend’s roommate? Well, let’s just say she didn’t wrap her present in an old blog.

Oct 14 2010

The Illusion of Free

Published by

As the old maxim goes: there’s no such thing as a free lunch. After reading “Free: The Future of a Radical Price,” this is more evident than other. Of course, we’re discussing two definitions of the word “free” here. In the traditional sense, free means that you can obtain something with no cost whatsoever. While wonderful for the consumer in theory, this doesn’t exist in the practical world. Anything that is “free” comes with at least a few strings attached. Sure, you can watch a TV show on TV or online, just be prepared to watch a commercial for something else first. Sure, you can get a free book, you just need to buy two more first. As Team America taught us so eloquently: freedom isn’t free.

So is this a good or bad thing? Despite having to deal with obnoxious commercials and other forms of marketing, we’re stilling getting content we want for free right? Well yeah, but usually said content is the bare minimum. If you want to see the whole season of a TV in HD without commercials, you better be prepared to pay for it. Otherwise, be happy with the most recent episode with the same commercial playing in every break. Consumers have two definable traits: they love to get stuff for free, but they hate to be sold things.

While we can go on and on about shifty dealings that big companies do to get our dollars, how does the issue of free affect us as content producers? We can make the greatest content in the world, but it won’t mean too much to us if we don’t get paid for it. Such is the one the central issues of Fincher’s “The Social Network.” After TheFacebook becomes immensely successful, the creators argue about featuring advertising on the site. Saverin, the CFO’s argument: they need some cashflow coming in to the company to keep it growing and earn a profit. Zuckerberg, the creator’s argument: advertising isn’t cool, and featuring any ads would make TheFacebook lose the rare status of “cool.” While Zuckeberg has never cared too much about money, he’s always cared about cool, because its something he’s never had. Once the site loses its “cool”, it can never get it back. So how can this issue be resolved? Well it isn’t really in the movie. Facebook just becomes more popular and is eventually bought by a big company. The issue of advertisements inevitably coming to facebook isn’t addressed in the later scenes. By this point, any tension between “free” and “cool” was irrelevant. If you have access to a million users, you’re going to exploit them, that’s just how these things go. Cool doesn’t matter anymore.

So for those us who aren’t creating the biggest website in the world, how do we resolve the tension between “free” and “cool”? While some might argue ads can be done tastefully, they will always be intrusive in some way or another. So are there any other ways to we can earn revenue from our content? As independent producers, probably not at this point. Until we get to the level of the companies described in the book, we’ll probably still have to rely on third party revenues if we intend to distribute for free. Economics may be intimidating, but its basic components are not hard to grasp. Someone is always losing money and someone is always gaining it. Until there’s someone clever enough to make traditional “free” a reality, we will will have to settle with the practical “free” for now.

Oct 11 2010

Free Framing

Published by

1. How has the internet and other digital networks transformed basic economic principles like supply and demand?

2. As digital content producers, how can we make our projects earn revenue for us without being sleazy spammers?

3. Is freedom really free? How do we put a price on digital content which is composed of time/effort?