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. 

The Rise of the Coffee Shop

In my town, a new coffee shop has opened called Moment by Greggs. The pasty shop, specialising in bakes, slices and sausage rolls, has diversified to offering tea, coffee and cakes. And it's not just Greggs offering a coffee break to customers. Household names litter the high street, including Costa (over 1,600 stores nationwide), Starbucks (over 800 stores nationwide) and Café Nero (over 500 stores nationwide). Whilst these three companies do dominate, there has also been a rise of independent coffee shops. But what is the appeal of having a cup of tea or coffee when you can have one made at home, in your favourite mug, curled up on the sofa?

Well firstly, (and as I don't drink coffee or tea) I would imagine that people go because of the vast variety of drinks that these places offer. Frappuccinos, Cappuccinos, Mochas, Americanos, Hot Chocolates, Espressos, Babycinos, fruit smoothies, milkshakes, and that's just the start of it!! Gone are the days of simply asking for "a cup of coffee, please", and it's not just as easy as asking for a Mocha. "Do you want chocolate sprinkles?", "whipped cream?", "an extra shot of coffee?", every drink made is different. Maybe this is the key to it. At Starbucks, they ask for your name, so they can write it on the cup, and thus makes it personalised to you. It becomes your drink, no-one else's. It's not just one coming off a coffee conveyer belt, it's tailor-made to you. It becomes part of your identity. If you think of a busy metropolitan middle-aged women in New York, you think of her striding purposefully with a Starbucks Skinny Latte in hand. You only have to browse through a couple of pictures on Instagram, Facebook or other picture-sharing social networking site to see someone (usually a teenage girl) sharing their coffee with the world. It's seen as being trendy. Whilst a recent YouGov poll showed that fewer 18-24 year olds drank instant coffee than their over 55 counterparts, a lot more chose the wider variety that a coffee shop has on offer (such as, as mentioned earlier, mochas, cappuccinos, Americanos etc.).

I suppose another reason for the explosion of coffee shops on Britain's high streets is that they are a common place in society to meet up for a drink. From teenagers on school holidays, to pensioners going for a catch-up, it's a common ground where people can relax and unwind. The setting is often one of mellowness, a place of calm away from the hustle and bustle of the busy town and city centres. There are sofas and newspapers, relaxing lounge music playing, and the distant background noise of chatter, talking about how university is, or how the grandkids are. Meeting up in these cafes means that you don't have to dust, clean and hoover the house top to bottom just so a couple of friends can come over for half an hour. And no washing up either!

And, the rise of these coffee shops is not only good for the coffee industry. It means that people get down on to the high street more, using local shops and bolstering the local economy, especially if there is a local independent coffee shop open. In addition, these coffee shops offer many jobs to local people. Whitbread, the company behind Costa, but also behind other restaurant brands such as Bella Italia, Café Rouge, and Beefeater, employs around 35,000 nationwide.

It seems that the rise of the coffee shop is here to stay with us. From a pre-work caffeine boost to get you through the morning, or as a place to catch-up with family and friends, the coffee shop seems to be everyone's cup of tea! (Or skinny hot chocolate with whipped cream and chocolate sprinkles, if you so choose!)

Twitter account news!!

Hello!

The just-some-musings blog now has a twitter account! On it, there will be some brief thoughts about the news of the day, stories which I otherwise would not have blogged about. Follow @justsomemusing for my updates.

I have also now returned from my holiday, so hopefully should start blogging more regularly now!

Watch this space!

Cameron: A Man with a Van (with a slogan)

Firstly, I must start off with an apology. I haven't been writing as much as I planned to recently, because I've been away for a few days. Hopefully, I'll be able to write more in the coming weeks and months. Anyway, moving on...

Last week saw large billboard van commissioned by the Home Office warning illegal immigrants to "Go home or face arrest". These vans were trialled in six London boroughs (Ealing, Brent, Hounslow, Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham), not notorious for illegal immigrants. So, what is the motivation behind this campaign?

The slogan could be interpreted in a way that isolates legal immigrants who have a right to live and work here, and could lead to an increase in racially aggravated attacks on ethnic minorities. Whilst this hasn't been proven, or any suggestion of it being made in the national press, it is still worth considering. Likewise, the billboards did make it clear they were targeting illegal immigrants, rather than those legally living in the UK. But, the way that the media has grabbed hold of the story, focussing on the "Go home or face arrest" aspect rather than the illegal immigrant part.

Another motivation of this campaign could be a massive publicity stunt. After the Conservatives' huge failure at the local elections in May 2013, losing 335 councillors (that's 23% of the number held before the elections), mostly to UKIP - perceived to be stronger on immigration - David Cameron wanted his Party to be seen to take a strong stance against UKIP, and against immigration. Reading an article in The Guardian, only a couple of people had seen these moving billboards around the six London boroughs. So, maybe the announcement was only for big publicity, to be seen as been tough on immigration.

This is what I don't like about David Cameron. He always seems to jump on the bandwagon whenever it comes to the major policy areas that matters to the people. He does this whenever it comes to Prime Minister's Questions and he is questioned about the flat-lining economy, he instead turns his blame on Labour saying "Labour got us in to this mess" (I'm assuming that he's just practicing his election campaign motto for 2015!). He jumped on the bandwagon with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and the London Olympics last year, Andy Murray's Wimbledon success and the birth of the Royal Baby, Prince George this year, and will continue to do so whilst distracting the public's attention from the poor economic state that neither he, nor George Osborne, has helped in his last three years. But, I'm sure come 2015, David Cameron won't care. He'll still say "Don't vote Labour, we'll go back to the mess of 2010!" rather than actually offering a viable alternative! In fairness, Labour aren't much better, as they haven't even suggested an alternative either, but come 2015, Labour should show their cards and their policies.

So, hopefully, the public will see through these vans and these slogans, as either a "call to arms" against illegal immigrants, or as a publicity stunt to show that they aren't going to roll over against UKIP's sudden rise to popularity. Either way, Cameron's jumping again!!

Arise, "Sir" Andy??

So, a Brit has finally won Wimbledon after 77 years of disappointments. Andy Murray, loved by some, and hated by others, beat Novak Djokovic in straight sets on Sunday afternoon to win the Wimbledon trophy, and is the most recent British man to win it since Fred Perry in 1936. This was an amazing achievement. A British man winning a Grand Slam (that is any one from Wimbledon, the French Open, the Australian Open or the US Open) is big news itself. Before Andy Murray, the last British person to win a senior Grand Slam was Fred Perry in 1936 (winning the US Open as well as Wimbledon that year). Then Murray himself broke that record last autumn to win the US Open.

In reaction to his win yesterday, Murray had a full day of media commitments and visits, including a visit to Number 10 Downing Street, where he toasted his victory with none other than Prime Minister David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband and Angus Robertson from the Scottish National Party (Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP, was busy, probably pre-occupied with hating the English, or something of the like). David Cameron even claimed that Andy Murray should be knighted in celebration of his victory. Now, I'm not taking anything away from Andy Murray, but becoming a Sir for winning a tennis tournament? Seems a bit extravagant. Obviously, Cameron is convinced that trying to distract the public from the flat-lining economy and the poverty that the poorest in our society are currently in because his Government are removing essential benefits from those who need it most, and taxing spare bedrooms in council housing, all whilst claiming that "we're all in this together", will work in getting his party re-elected at the 2015 General Election (rant over!). And, I'm sure when Kate and Wills have their baby during this month at some point, David Cameron will be one of the first to jump on the national happiness bandwagon by encouraging everyone to ignore the economic gloom, and instead be out partying because a future king/queen has just been born.

This hijacking of someone else's achievements for your own self-interests isn't what annoys me most. Its the fact htat Andy Murray has only won Wimbledon. I say "only", as stated previously, a Brit winning a major tennis tournament hasn't happened since before the Second World War, but what I mean is that by all means, he deserves recognition (e.g. an OBE/MBE, or Sports Personality of the Year, or similar), but a knighthood? Isn't that a bit of an over-reaction? Surely if he is knighted, should Olympians from last summer's Olympics and Paralympians be offered the same reward? Greg Rutherford, for winning Gold at the long jump? Mo Farah, for winning double Gold at the 5,000 and 10,000 meters? Or, more widely, the England Cricket team of 2005, who won the Ashes after 20/30 years of not regaining them? (They got MBEs/OBEs, but not knighthoods!) Or Lewis Hamilton, the first British Formula 1 World Champion this millennium? The England Rugby team who won the Rugby World Cup in 2003? The list of British sporting achievements which merit recognition goes on.

There may even be a case for Chris Froome to be knighted, if he wins the Tour de France (which, as a side point, I really hope he does). After all, Bradley Wiggins won it last year and was knighted, so shouldn't Chris Froome should as well? Well, no. Here, I think, lies the point of knighthoods. Bradley Wiggins is the most decorated British Olympian of all time, and that was the real reason why he was knighted. Not taking anything away from his Tour de France win (because I can barely ride a bike for 20 miles, let alone 200 miles, in a day, and then doing it for three straight weeks as fast as you possibly could go... wow!), but he has been winning and being successful for the past 14 years (since his first medal in the 1998 Commonwealth Games). Sir Steve Redgrave is a similar case - he won medals in five consecutive Olympic Games from 1988 until 2000 including 5 Gold Medals. That just proves he is not a one-hit-wonder. Sir Chris Hoy is exactly the same (6 Golds and 1 Silver across 12 years). Not taking anything away from Andy Murray (I am not one of those people who loathe him), I support knighting him, if he deserves it. If, in ten years time, he has won everything there is to win on the tennis world stage, and has been world number 1, and maintained his current level of success well in to the latter stages of his career, then sure, those achievements should be recognised. However, if (and I really don't wish this is the case) he returns to his pattern of getting to semi-finals but losing to the big three of Rafa Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic, then, in my opinion, he should not be knighted.

So, "Arise, Sir Andy"?? Hopefully in a decade's time, when he has achieved all that there is to achieve in the world of tennis, but the time is not right. Yet.