Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Adds Games To Google+

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the tic-tac-toe-better-have-an-i'm-feeling-lucky-button dept.

Google 161

derGoldstein writes with this quote from the official Google blog: "Today we're adding games to Google+. ... We want to make playing games online just as fun, and just as meaningful, as playing in real life ... When you're ready to play, the Games page is waiting — click the games button at the top of your stream. You can see the latest game updates from your circles, browse the invites you've received and check out games that people you know have played recently. The Games page is also where your game accomplishments will appear. So you can comfortably share your latest high score — your circles will only see the updates when they're interested in playing games too."

cancel ×

161 comments

Google+ (3, Insightful)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065850)

At least Google isn't dumb enough to forget that people want to play games and spend times on social networking sites. It's also interesting to see that Zynga is there.. There goes two usual slashdot arguments straight out of the window, one being that Zynga is somehow completely relies on Facebook and that Google+ is in some way different social network than Facebook. It is currently, but only because they're lagging behind in development. And to be honest, the place is completely dead without casual people, games and pages. The latter one they still need to add too.

Google+ is so direct copy of Facebook that it isn't even funny. The whole thing even looks almost exactly the same, just that it has different colors and is lacking features that Facebook has. What exactly is Google trying to archieve here? They aren't innovating, they're just copying. I rather don't have everything about me known by a single company, so I like to use Facebook much more than let Google know all my personal details, my friends, my web searches, my YouTube views, my emails and every site I visit on the internet (via Google Analytics). Putting that much information to a single company is just plain stupid, especially when they just a few days ago revealed they're been secretly handing European citizens information to US agencies, even when it's illegal to do so in the EU.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37065890)

Nic

Re:Google+ (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37065892)

Circles, privacy options, hangouts, and keeping games/apps out of the normal social areas.

How is Google+ an exact copy of Facebook with less features again?

Re:Google+ (2)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066526)

He's not saying it is an exact copy right now but it's in the process of becoming one.

I for one hardly believe that you will be able to protect your personal info from these games for too long. I'm pretty sure a "what transformer are you?" app that scraps your friends' "friends-only" data is just waiting to happen. The functionality must be there for the really interesting (and way creepier) apps that do actually make use of your friends' private data.

The circles thing is sorta of a scam*, trying to give you the feeling that you are going to be able to keep the different aspects of your life separate, but its very purpose is preventing you from doing what really could help you manage your identity online --keeping multiple profiles--

G+'s privacy options are not something to write home about, they are not much different from facebook's. But I admit they will most probably do respect them, unlike facebook.

To rip from XKCD, G+ is a facebook that is not facebook.

* Oh golly, I said scam in relation to Google, I'm not going to see the end of it, am I?

Re:Google+ (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066888)

Separate profiles? I don't think you understand how relationships work. The status of my various contacts is _not_ static: co-workers became friends, friendships get broken, etc. Separate profiles are totally unable to cope with that seamlessly and most importantly invisibly to the contact in question. My contacts do not need to know how much information I'm giving them / keeping from them.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066934)

You say:

He's not saying it is an exact copy right now but it's in the process of becoming one.

And talk about this opinion as if it has merit. Then you change your mind:

G+'s privacy options are not something to write home about, they are not much different from facebook's. But I admit they will most probably do respect them, unlike facebook.

The biggest problem with Facebook is Facebook's history of selling out its users by changing who can see what without telling anyone. If Google+ is Facebook without Facebook's biggest problem, how are they not a huge improvement?

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37067074)

You say:

how are they not a huge improvement?

And he said:

in the process of becoming one.

They're a huge improvement at the moment. Give them a few years.

  For the record though, the interface on G+ is a lot easier to use at the moment, and that's always been my biggest irritation with Facebook, who are still an improvement over MySpace.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37067010)

"Google+ is so direct copy of Facebook that it isn't even funny." ~ zget

Re:Google+ (0)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065906)

Mod parent up. Wish I hadn't wasted all my mod points earlier today

Re:Nigger+ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066026)

Mod parent up. Wish I hadn't wasted all my mod points earlier today

Wish niggers didn't stink so bad. Or use so much welfare. Or commit so many crimes. Or have so many fatherless kids. Or aspire to be gutter trash thugs. Or get so fat. Or score so low on any standardized test.

C'est la vie. Niggers will be niggers. Might as well invent a bunch of political correctness bullshit to make them feel better about themselves. Seems to placate them.

Re:Google+ (1)

MrMatto (2429900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065916)

I hope I don't get spammed every time someone in one of my circles plays a Zynga game. That to me is the worst part of the whole platform; all the ads it forces on other people.

Re:Google+ (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066230)

From the look of it, all games stuff goes into a separate games stream. You can completely ignore all game spam and it will never show up in your normal stream.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066442)

From the look of it, all games stuff goes into a separate games stream. You can completely ignore all game spam and it will never show up in your normal stream.

As you easily can on Facebook too (something there you don't want to see anymore? Click on x, hide all by..). The difference might be what is default.

Re:Google+ (1)

MrMatto (2429900) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066474)

I know, but every time a new game came out I had to 'hide all' for it. I ended up just turning off all platform apps entirely.

Re:Google+ (1)

Permutation Citizen (1306083) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065938)

Well, if they add games to Google+, but avoid the annoying thing that Facebook does, it's a great move.

With Facebook, game request permission to post on your wall, and all your contact knows which games you play, when and how often. It's annoying for them and for you.

Re:Google+ (2)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065982)

You know, you can just not allow it to post. Google+ has the exact same thing, they described how you can post "your high scores" and everything else for others to see.

For the other end it's also not that complicated to block those updates. The first time you get them, click the x and select hide updates. There's also the dropdown box next to latest updates link which allows you to select which kind of updates and from who you like to see. They're improved it a lot since a some years ago.

Re:Google+ (5, Informative)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066088)

For the other end it's also not that complicated to block those updates.

No it's not simple. I mostly access my social networks from my phone, and the mobile app doesn't have an X. So I get constantly annoyed by this crap and it forces me to go and log in on my PC to disable it. Then another game takes over. It's a never ending battle to keep facebook usable.

Re:Google+ (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066268)

The trick is to block gamers, not individual games. There's usually a small group of people who play these things and let them spam indiscriminately.

Re:Google+ (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067086)

Yes Mom, I blocked you because you kept spamming me with Farmville crap so I didn't get your post that Grandma died.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37067248)

If your mom is relying on facebook to tell immediate family about a death in the family, she needs to put the computer away for a few months.

Re:Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37067454)

True, but that doesn't change the fact that muting people on a social website is a terrible workaround.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37067436)

If the only way to find out that your grandma died is on facebook, and it's an actual issue for your mom that you didn't get a post from facebook, then I'd say your family have worse social problems than that of facebook.

Re:Google+ (1)

JohnnyBGod (1088549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066478)

Really? Because when I block them on the website, all the other apps stop getting them, too.

Re:Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066538)

That's not his complaint, it does that. But he can't block them from anywhere but the website, which is an absolute pain when you're nowhere near a computer and the mobile version of the Facebook page doesn't have the option.

Re:Google+ (2)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067528)

But there is a key difference to how google allows the high scores etc to be posted. Google posts it to an entirely different feed, and still allows you to limit what circles can see it within that feed. To put it in comparison the way Facebook handles games is like a water balloon fight at a picnic, where the rule is, if someone hits you with a water balloon, you can ask him/her not to hit you again, a new kid shows up you need to ask that one too. G+ on the other hand is more like, "We have an area for water balloon fighting over there, go on over if you want to join in.

Re:Google+ (0)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066012)

No, no, this is new:
"But sharing is about more than just conversations. The experiences we have together are just as important to our relationships. We want to make playing games online just as fun, and just as meaningful, as playing in real life."

See? This was their idea. It's new, it's innovative. They came to this realization through trial and error, through experience. They employed a crack team of behavioral psychologists that independently came to the conclusion that "people want to play games online". Up until now, games online weren't fun. But they're going to change that. Look at this list [blogspot.com] of games they're going to launch right off the bat: Angry Birds, Bejeweled, Sudoku! Oh man, Google's gonna make games FUN again. I can't wait.

Re:Google+ (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066068)

Look at this list [blogspot.com] of games they're going to launch right off the bat.

No FarmVille? Surely there is an error in that list.

Re:Google+ (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066226)

Zynga's already on board [techcrunch.com] . Maybe they thought that placing the FarmVille icon will make them seem too much like Facebook? I mean they really are creating carbon copies of the features they're adding. If you added Zynga to the announcement post it'd just read "Step 17 of the 'Google+ == Facebook' project".

They should just give up the pretense, though. I'd respect them a lot more if they said -- "Look, Facebook is popular and they're making a ton of money. We didn't invent the search engine, and we didn't invent online advertising. We just made them better, and that's what we're going to do with the social network".

Re:Google+ (2)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066260)

That article says they can't bring FarmVille and CityVille to Google+ because of deals with Facebook, but it does link to another interesting article - Google investing $100-200 million to Zynga [techcrunch.com] . So much for the another usual slashdot argument about Google just providing neutral platform for others to use - it's a highly strategic game, such that every other huge company in the industry plays as well.

Re:Google+ (3, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066788)

Keep in mind that Facebook didn't invent social networks either. I just checked, and apparently Orkut is actually a month older than Facebook [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Google+ (0)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066056)

This.
Google+ == Facebook minus a lot of feature.
All comments beyond parent (including this) are redundant.

Re:Google+ (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066110)

You know, XKCD said it first. [xkcd.com]

What is Google+?
-- Its NOT Facebook
What's it like?
-- Facebook!

Re:Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066136)

so I like to use Facebook much more than let Google know all my personal details, my friends, my web searches, my YouTube views, my emails and every site I visit on the internet (via Google Analytics). Putting that much information to a single company is just plain stupid, especially when they just a few days ago revealed they're been secretly handing European citizens information to US agencies, even when it's illegal to do so in the EU.

Do you know that your ISP (Internet Service Provider) are privat and very FOR-PROFIT companies what has excluded rights even in law book? They know _everything_ what you do on Internet. They can track you anyway how they want. Even your position trough mobile phones more accurate than you believe (accuracy of few meters in cities because multiple cells and in countryland they can track your position in few dozen of meters if three cell in range or hundreds of meters if just 1-2).

And ISP's _share_ all the data (email addresses, website addresses, called numbers, SMS's etc) to security agencies. In EU it is not illegal if you have at all followed the passed laws in EU. In EU, it is not illegal to phonetab normal citizens by police even that they dont have high level cirme done. That law was passed at 1993 and is valid for every EU country. Media was very silent of that. And at least you know that EU passes all traffic data to databases what you buy with your name? They all end up to US as well, at least on the point when someone asks them. The law gives the same permits to police to phonetab, follow people or get access to their bank accounts and other information as similar laws gave to KGB and STASI. Even FBI needed to get a public congress hearing to get rights to that, while in EU it was passes silently.

You are afraid of single international company only because it is famous. But you are not afraid of EU, USA and so on, because they are invisible and media eats from their hands telling people only what needs to be told. You know more data of politicians life and tastes, than their work and tasks what they do.

So what you really should have written is:

so I like to use Facebook much more than let Government know all my personal details, my friends, my web searches, my YouTube views, my emails and every site I visit on the internet (via ISP). Putting that much information to a single agency is just plain stupid, especially when they just a few days ago revealed they're been secretly handing citizens information to security agencies, because it isn't illegal to do so in the EU.

Do you trust your ISP more than Google? Do you trust more to EU than Google? I dont trust either ones... but I can not avoid EU and ISP, while I can avoid much more Google.

Re:Google+ (1)

razvan784 (1389375) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066606)

I don't trust anyone, that's why I use encryption when transferring data over the Internet that I don't want others to look at. The ISPs only know that there's been a connection from A to B at time T and nothing more. And that's why I don't have any sensitive data on third party servers, Google-owned or otherwise. Chill out.

Re:Google+ (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066236)

You don't understand. It's NOT Facebook. That's the whole feature! I know this doesn't make any sense to Facebook users...

Re:Google+ (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066780)

It does to me.

Re:Google+ (1)

polle404 (727386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066842)

I rather don't have everything about me known by a single company, so I like to use Facebook much more than let Google know all my personal details, my friends, my web searches, my YouTube views, my emails and every site I visit on the internet

Oh believe me, Zuckerberg's no slouch when it comes to tracking facebook users.

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/11/30/facebooks-button-tracking-you/ [thinq.co.uk]

Re:Google+ (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066894)

Google bought 10% of Zynga last year.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37067078)

Mark? is that you? Steal any new ideas or code lately?

Re:Google+ (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067260)

let Google know all my personal details, my friends, my web searches, my YouTube views, my emails and every site I visit on the internet (via Google Analytics)

So install NoScript and block analytics?

Farmville+ (1)

qxcv (2422318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065860)

Oh dear $DEITY.

Re:Farmville+ (4, Funny)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066064)

brausse@auedv23:~$ echo $DEITY

brausse@auedv23:~$

Nietzsche was right :)

Re:Farmville+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066084)

brausse@auedv23:~$ echo $DEITY

brausse@auedv23:~$

Nietzsche was right :)

Nietzsche never said there isn't a god, he only deleted him/her from the sudoers list...

Re:Farmville+ (0, Troll)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066234)

He also didn't use PHP.
"echo $DEITY"? Please. It's: printf ("%s \n", "DEITY");
Though I think that suggests that god is a string, which I also don't think he said...

Re:Farmville+ (2)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066364)

If you can't recognize that it was a shell prompt and not PHP, you probably shouldn't be trying to seem too geeky for the language.

Re:Farmville+ (0)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066646)

A great example of one of the top 5 posts on Slashdot: "your joke isn't technically correct". Saying "Nietzsche didn't use the shell prompt" wouldn't have worked. The string "echo $DEITY" is valid PHP. Now kindly remove the stick from your ass.

Re:Farmville+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066768)

But how often does PHP have a PS1 prompt? Nietzsche probably used perl anyway, much more obtuse.

Re:Farmville+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066820)

PHP statements are semi-colon terminated. Bash shell commands are semi-colon separated. Learn the difference and you will see why "echo $DEITY" is not PHP.

Also, the "brausse@auedv23:~$" prompt should've tipped you off.

Re:Farmville+ (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066636)

I think you've misunderstood what String Theory is all about...

Re:Farmville+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066866)

Nonsense,
I always have DEITY="$USER" set in my /etc/bash/bashrc.

Re:Farmville+ (3, Funny)

mortonda (5175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067158)

Fix your PATH.

Re:Farmville+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37067192)

I laughed hard at this one :)

Re:Farmville+ (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067510)

brausse@auedv23:~$ echo $DEITY

brausse@auedv23:~$

Nietzsche was right :)

brausse@auedv23:~$ sudo echo $DIETY

Trent Reznor

brausse@auedv23:~$

WTF?

How's that news? (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065900)

Let's put it that way, it would be news if Google made the statement that they decided to NOT copy one thing of Facebook.

Re:How's that news? (0)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065930)

Good point. Are we going to have a /. article every time google+ adds something Facebook has? "google+ adds groups", "google+ adds email", "google+ adds advertising", "google+ gives your information away to government"

Re:How's that news? (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066042)

"google+ gives your information away to government"

I'd actually really want to know when that happens.

Re:How's that news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066176)

In realtime. Just like it happens at the AT&T, etc.

Re:How's that news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066224)

No need to wait, it already does...

Oh sorry, we were talking about Google and not about ISP.
Well, they do already store every email (even not when using Google services) information and web address where you go when you use your ISP services.

Re:How's that news? (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067380)

Unfortunately for Google, they can't copy the users.

Who cares (1)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 2 years ago | (#37065968)

Who cares what they are adding if no-one can log in?

Re:Who cares (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067150)

Because doing so stresses the artificial scarcity of a Google+ account which makes the majority of the population's desire for an account ever more strong. [southparkstudios.com]

This exact same marketing strategy is the exact reason why women fawn all of diamonds today. Contrary to popular myth, outside of heavy industry people largely didn't give a crap about diamonds (they used to be considered almost worthless - as they actually are). The same thing is done for cool night clubs and country clubs.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public. That moto has worked extremely well for Fox News and most politicians.

Google Apps? (4, Insightful)

richy freeway (623503) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066028)

How about just getting the hell on with it and adding support for Google Apps users? Once again we're left lagging behind!

Re:Google Apps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066378)

How about just getting the hell on with it and adding support for Google Apps users? Once again we're left lagging behind!

+1

Nope (1)

razvan784 (1389375) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066096)

There is no Games button at the top of my Stream yet.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066304)

But when i do a "find" for "games" - it takes me to the very top of the stream page ... I can't work it out. Doesn't show up if I click "view source" anyway.

Re:Nope (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066520)

The blog says they're "gradually" rolling it out. Might take a few days before everybody can see it.

Re:Nope (1)

zigurat667 (1380959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066564)

just try https://plus.google.com/games [google.com] , but currently it says

We're glad you want to play games on Google+. Don't worry, your turn is coming up! We're currently testing with a small number of Google+ users. Please check back soon..

...what was the point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066114)

I went on Google+ to stop imbeciles from spamming me with Zynga shit.

Re:...what was the point? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067102)

That tells us more about your lack of predictive skills and less about the benefits/negatives of Google+ - it was pretty obvious games would be coming from day one, the only question is how good a job Google will do of allowing you to filter out gaming spam you're not interested in. I don't really see how they can (even if they block direct channels for spam the game designers will have the option of getting users to spam their contacts directly in return for points/cows/whatever passes as currency).

Google+ learns from Facebook. Forthcoming Troubles (2)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066116)

Maybe Facebook filed a patent application for "online games in a social network site". As well as a number of other patents.

My request to Google (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066122)

Allow us to save the game on your server, no matter how big our game might be.

Allow us to save player data, up to 1 GB per player.

Have Google Wallet built in, so micro transactions can go through it.

Maybe even give developers some high performance servers to run multiplayer games at the same time instead of requiring us to get our own servers.
I'm writing a Facebook game. And as a startup, we don't have the resources to host our own games. We don't have the resources to keep a multiplayer server up all the time to do action oriented games either. Finally Facebook wants about 50% of every transaction with Facebook currency. I think that is a pretty much a rip off. Could Google maybe go lower?

Re:My request to Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066200)

Google App Engine [google.com] . You would have to pay if you outgrew the quotas, but if you out grow the quotas you have a big game and should be profiting from it.

1GB per player? WTF kind of game needs that?!

Re:My request to Google (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066216)

If you have to remember all the names of the pigs and cows that are lost and found on Farmville...

Re:My request to Google (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066612)

If you have to remember all the names of the pigs and cows that are lost and found on Farmville

1. Huffman coding. 2. I've never played FarmVille; how many of those are there per player? Harvest Moon: Magical Melody for GameCube saves two players' campaigns in one 456 KB file. Animal Crossing for GameCube saves one cooperative campaign for four players in one 456 KB file. And I'm pretty sure those figures include some sort of internal backup in case the machine loses power while writing to the memory card; I know the DS sequel to Animal Crossing does. Why must Zynga's offering be so much less efficient?

awesome.. (2)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066244)

They're going to turn around and be just like the service everyone claimed to hate, and that's why they went to google+. In the meantime, they can't get around to fixing things like broken, unchangeable "personalization" that breaks services and can only be corrected by not using google+..
Sorry, but being logged in to Facebook has never broken other services/sites for me.

The beginning of the end (4, Insightful)

broothal (186066) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066294)

Sweet Jebus - that was the reason I LEFT facebook. To get rid of that crap.

Oh well - it was fun while it lasted. IRC is still my favorite social network

Re:The beginning of the end (5, Informative)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066522)

On the upside, this time the games spam is in its own tab. If you just read the stream, games don't appear in it.

Oh no, there goes the neighborhood (3, Interesting)

Masa (74401) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066444)

Why in the hell they want to ruin Google+? I hate Facebook for two reasons:

1) It is annoying as hell to have those game requests. And if you don't block all applications, then you have to "enjoy" the constant stream of shit, when your friends request new tools in Farmville or want to share a pony.

2) Gaming becomes a sole purpose for using social networking site. Most of my friends don't bother to use Facebook for keeping touch or sharing interesting news or stories. They just spend time playing and filling their page with useless game-related crap.

I lost hope with Facebook long ago and recently joined Google+ hoping that it would be different. It seems I was wrong :(

Re:Oh no, there goes the neighborhood (1)

janek78 (861508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066524)

How difficult is it to block the application the first time it spams your wall? Two, three clicks? Maybe it's the choice of friends who I let appear in my Facebook feed, but few mouse clicks every couple weeks/months when a new game appears does not seems to "ruin" anything for me. But then again, I don't have friends who start playing five new games every day and of my 200 contacts, only about 20 are not "hidden" competely from my wall, so my experience may be different.

Got blocked? Make a new game (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066622)

How difficult is it to block the application the first time it spams your wall?

For one thing, it appears not all clients have the block button [slashdot.org] . For another, a publisher could just introduce its new game, and that won't also be blocked.

Re:Oh no, there goes the neighborhood (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066932)

I don't put my face in the book, but surely this is the wrong way around? If you opt in to things a person says, that shouldn't opt you in to things various programs that they own say. Each game / app should have its own message type, and you should opt in to person / message type pairs, with optional wildcarding (e.g. every stream from this person, every stream of this type from anyone I know). What kind of crazy system does the spam book use?

Re:Oh no, there goes the neighborhood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066578)

Actually you can just read latest updates. Web version of Facebook seperated these in different category and it looked clean and sleek.

Re:Oh no, there goes the neighborhood (2)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066620)

Well their focus seems on having games on a separate tab. So if you don't want to know about games you don't click on that tab and you don't hear about others playing games either.

Don't know if that works perfectly, but that appears to be their goal: "your circles will only see the updates when they're interested in playing games too".

Re:Oh no, there goes the neighborhood (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067072)

Well their focus seems on having games on a separate tab. So if you don't want to know about games you don't click on that tab and you don't hear about others playing games either.

Don't know if that works perfectly, but that appears to be their goal: "your circles will only see the updates when they're interested in playing games too".

This! I like that g+ is trying to make the default behavior for users not involve what a lot of people find to be annoying.

Re:Oh no, there goes the neighborhood (1)

Syberz (1170343) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066872)

You do realize that games are segregated to their own section, so you can just choose to ignore them... right?

Re:Oh no, there goes the neighborhood (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067216)

Friends don't spam friends for farmville tools. If someone you friended does, it reveals an interesting characteristic trait of that person, that he/she is willing to nag friends and family for a very modest personal gain. Better to de-friend them and tell them why.

At any rate, you can not run away from your core problem. You have friends who suck. Suck the life out of you, nag you, who don't care about you. Your fundamental problem is, you mistake them for friends. You can not solve this problem by running away from it. These so called friends will follow you in facebook, google, real life. Stand firm, follow the modified Silver Rule[*], to take your life back.

Rules to live by:

Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated by them. You will never punish abusers and never give an incentive to treat you nice. Stupid rule.

Silver Rule: Treat others as they treat you. Very good rule, except for endless feud. So forgive once in a while, retaliate nasty behavior with slightly less aggressive way and reward nice behavior by a little bit extra niceness on your part. Very good rule for you and for building a lasting good soceity.

Iron Rule: Be nasty to everyone. Very bad rule. Evolution strongly discourages this kind of selfishness.

Weasel rule: Be nice to people stronger than you, and be nasty to people weaker than you. This is a surprisingly enduring rule. Led to very long periods of stability in history, but with very little economic growth, bad life for most of the population, usually ends in being defeated by a stronger neighbor.

Anybody really usng g+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066506)

I doubt whether anybody really using g+? I have around 50 friends and I hardly get any update, whereas same is not true in fb.

Re:Anybody really usng g+ (1)

curmi (205804) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067004)

Yep. Same here. A couple of nerds using it, and everyone else joined up, kicked the tyres, and logged off never to return.

Google can gloat all they like about millions of users, but it is millions of "active" users, and I mean REALLY active, that are going to make this a success.

Re:Anybody really usng g+ (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067092)

I use it pretty much exclusively now. I have 170 people in my circles and there are only a few (between 1-10) that don't post in g+. So I still read facebook but I only post there in response to said individuals, oh and events. I really wish they would get good event/calendar hook up for g+.

jumped the shark (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066614)

well, google+ isn't cool anymore...

Gaming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066690)

Why is Google worried about adding gaming when they didnt even open up google+ to the public yet?

Re:Gaming? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067140)

My guess is they're not "adding" anything - the code is probably all there and they're just iteratively testing it in blocks with a fixed number of users to see how well it scales before they open it to the world. If they open everything up on the same day it's much harder to track down bugs than if they say: this month you get basic circles, next month you get gaming, the month after you get... whatever's next... and when that's all working as expected the doors open to the general public.

not fully available yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066720)

https://plus.google.com/games/restricted

games tab? (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37066724)

Can others see it? I can't find it on my page.

Re:games tab? (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067110)

Can others see it? I can't find it on my page.

A friend from google posted in g+ that they are doing a very limited opening of the games at first before letting everyone in the trial. So you'll see it soon enough.

Re:games tab? (1)

Cant use a slash wtf (1973166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067588)

Is this 'infinite invites' very limited or 'we actually mean it this time' very limited?

Re:games tab? (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067632)

I think it is the latter. It isn't something you can invite people to, it is just something you can either see or not see (at least at the moment).

Open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37066782)

Is this the same Google that has Android? The only phone OS that's open? the same Google that is now suing Microsoft [computerworld.com] for disclosing proprietary source code? Wait...how can that be possible if Android is open?

"The confidential source code improperly provided to Dr. Stevenson is highly proprietary source code that Google does not even share with its partners, such as Motorola," Google said.

They don't even share it with Motorola? This open thing, I don't get it.

Well, that sucks. (1)

Cant use a slash wtf (1973166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37067554)

There goes one of my reasons for actually using G+. I thought the point was that it was just social networking without all the bullshit.
Then they bring the bullshit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...