The Rise of Mobile Gaming

A few weeks ago, I read a very interesting article, written by my good friend, Matt Watts. The article (link here: http://bit.ly/16bnlFx) talks about how gaming has become much more focussed on short-term time-wasting, and much less focussed on longer, more involving games such as, to use Matt's example, the Mass Effect series, "a game which allows you to intricately foster friendships and relationships with other characters". Now, don't get me wrong, this post is not meant to attack his argument, so Matt, if you're reading this, don't take it personally! But my immediate thought was that he's missed the point of the time-wasting games that he so dislikes, such as Angry Birds and Cut the Rope. 

In my opinion, the point of the time-wasting game is exactly that - to pass the time whilst waiting for the bus, or whilst on the train on the way to work or school. Sure, it's different from what people were doing on their commute a few years ago, such as reading the paper or a book, chatting to other workmates/commuters or staring out the window watching the world go by. But now, people can spend that 20 minute journey (or however long) attacking pigs with flying birds, or feeding candy to a little green monster (at 7.30am?? Bit early for sweets, isn't it?!). Yes, the storylines are dreadful, if the game even has one! But the point of one of these games is being very stop-start - you can put it down to work throughout the day, then on your way home, you can pick it straight back up again, with very quick loading times. You don't have to remind yourself where in the story you are, it doesn't really matter! The fact that these games are available on mobile phones, MP3 players and tablets, many of which people have on themselves at most, if not all, times, means that people can play them wherever, whenever. I'm going to the dentist later today, and no doubt, whilst I wait to go through to the Chair of Pain (my dislike of dentists is another post altogether!), I'm sure I'll probably be playing some kind of game on my phone. It's significantly easier playing games on my phone than hauling around a console and TV (or PC) to play on!

Also, I think another attraction of these short-term games is that most of them are very cheap or free, whilst the Mass Effect trilogy is about £40 total. For that amount of money, you could get 50 or so games priced at 69p, or 20 games priced at £1.99. The point is that you can get a significantly wider scope of games for a similar amount of money, if you so choose. Yes, the games aren't going to be as deep or as well thought-through as "proper" games, like Mass Effect, but it means that throughout one day, if ever you get bored of one game, it's very easy to switch to another. 

I do like these mobile games. I'm especially a fan of puzzle-type games, whether that be Sudoku, Flow (in which you have to draw different coloured lines to different coloured dots), or Unblock Me, (where you have to free a red wooden block from a congested board of other wooden blocks). I find that they do pass the time on the train, or wherever. Maybe this time can be better spent doing other things, like reading, or studying (probably need to do more of that anyway...), but playing on my phone is so easy. That's why mobile gaming on cheap, some say "tacky" games is here to stay. Although, something is true with Matt's final point - watching people throw live birds in to other people's faces would certainly liven up the commute! 

Osborne: "Turning a Corner" or Turning an Eye on Society??

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in a speech today that the economy is “turning a corner”. Now, people who know me, know that I’m not a big supporter of the current Tory government, but the way that Mr Osborne is touting this story really takes the biscuit. In London, this morning, he said that there were “tentative signs of a balanced, broad based and sustainable recovery”. About time...! We’ve now had this Conservative theory of austerity and budget costs for the last three and a half years, and we’re only starting to see signs of recovery!

 

Looking at the GDP growth figures per quarter, during the time that the Conservatives have been in power, there have been six quarters of growth and four quarters in which the economy shrank. Now, admittedly, a lot of the financial trouble that we have been in has been due to the recession in the Eurozone (i.e. the countries who use the Euro as their currency), but other EU countries have weathered the storm better than the UK. Germany, for example, has fared better, as well as other, lesser European nations, such as Estonia.

 

But, and this is my key gripe with economists, many only care about the figures on the page. Whilst growth figures look good in news reports, can anyone really honestly say that living standards are better than they were in 2010, when this Conservative government took power? Food prices are on the increase, energy bills are on the increase and more and more families are struggling to make ends meet. But, I’m sure that come Spring 2015, when the campaigning for the General Election is well under way, that the Conservatives will wheel out the growth statistics, saying that “look at our GDP figures! We’re helping people!”, even though more people may be living in poverty than before.

 

My final problem with George Osborne’s speech this morning was his boasting statement that “those in favour of a Plan B have lost the argument”. This is clearly rubbish. It took three-and-a-half years for any real, sustained improvement in the figures. In the UK, quarterly GDP growth has not been above 1% since Q3 2007 (July-September 2007), showing that whilst the UK economy has “turned a corner”, it’s hardly a fantastic recovery. Whose is it to say that if Ed Balls was running the economy, we would have favoured any better (or indeed worse)? No-one - we will never know. So Mr Osborne cannot, and should not, state that his plan was better than any other plan, because there is no way of knowing. All that should matter is the question of whether living standards (because that’s all that important) are better or worse than they were in 2010 with the Coalition came together. If it is better, then it has been a success, if not, then they have been a failure.

 

We can all stand up at the front of the class (or a press conference) and read out a list of figures, saying, “look, everything is better now!”, but the real people who know whether the Coalition have made living easier and better for them, or worse for them. And they hold the key at the next general election in 2015.

 

Syria: Is there a "right" solution?

I've been wanting to do a post on Syria for almost as long as it's been in the news, but until now, I never really came to a judgement on whether we should intervene. And, to cut a long story short, I still haven't reached a verdict. It's all very murky. Did the president of Syria, President Assad, use chemical weapons on people protesting against his presidency? Or did the so-called terrorists (in Assad's words) launch the attack against the government forces? There is little doubt that there was a chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus, killing "hundreds of people" (according to the BBC), and US President Barack Obama has previously stated that any attack by chemical weapons is a "red line" that should not be crossed. The United Nations is unlikely to sanction military involvement with Russia and China on the Security Council, allowing both countries to veto any resolution, leaving individual countries to decide on their course of action. The UK Parliament voted on the prospect of military action (interestingly, before UN inspectors, sent to investigate who attacked who, returned with their report) and said that the UK should not get involved militarily. And it's not just Parliament who are against military intervention. The public also want to stay out of the Syria crisis. According to a YouGov poll, just under three-quarters of people agreed with Parliament that the UK should stay out of any military attacks on Syria, and less than half agree that if there were further chemical attacks, the UK should launch missiles against the Assad regime. It seems the UK is now reluctant to charge straight in to military action in the name of "justice". But why?

Well, firstly, I think the recent memories of Iraq and Afghanistan plague our minds. The deaths of our servicemen and women in these two regions (179 and 444 respectively), with relatively little achieved, has made us reluctant to enter into new conflicts. Also, public opinion suggests that the Government should try to fix the problems here (specifically the economy and immigration) before trying to fix problems elsewhere in the world, especially as we don't have any money to spend. Even though David Cameron and Barack Obama have both ruled out putting "boots on the ground" (i.e. sending soldiers in), clearly the public is worried that one thing could lead to another, resulting in a full-scale army invasion of the region. In addition, any military action would certainly raise tensions between whoever launched an attack (probably the US and/or France) and Russia and China. At a time where US-Russian relations are tense because of the Edward Snowdon case, the US may not want to antagonise the Russians any more than they have done. 

The judgement on whether the UK is "right" to stay out of the crisis will depend heavily on hindsight. If, as in the case of inaction over Rwanda in 1994, the killings continue, and the rest of the world continues doing nothing, or continues to offer aid, but no firm resistance, then it will turn from a civil war in to a genocide. But, if there is intervention, and that intervention is vague and unplanned, then, as in Somalia after the UN-led intervention in 1992, the country is likely to continue a downward spiral in to becoming a failed state. 

There is also a big debate over what is morally "right". Should, as the West argues, the citizens of a country be free from oppression and violent abuse? Or, as Russia and China argue, should a country be able to do anything it likes to it's citizens within it's own borders? This difference of opinion has dominated global politics since the end of the Cold War, and even before then. Cases such as human rights abuses in North Korea, nuclear weapons development in Iran and enforcing no-fly zones over Libya have led to many disagreements between the main powerhouses of international politics. 

I suppose that the only "right" way to deal with Syria is to convince representatives of both the Syrian regime and the rebels to the negotiating table, to try to hash out a peace deal, but as Kofi Annan (former UN Secretary-General) has already tried this route with his failed six-point-peace-plan, there doesn't seem much hope of a diplomatic solution. 

So, what is the "right" solution? I don't know. There doesn't seem to be one. In this situation, it seems like you can't please all of the people all of the time. As I said previously, a lot will depend on hindsight. If it is revealed that there have been more chemical attacks, there will no doubt be more calls to intervene militarily, or if there is a reduction in civilian deaths, then the decision not to intervene would have been the right one. Only time will tell.