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!

What Google+ Games Needs To Beat Facebook

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the zero-update-spam dept.

Facebook 75

donniebaseball23 writes "Google's new games offering on Google+ has only been around a few weeks, and it's been getting mixed reactions. According to veteran game designer Ed Del Castillo, the potential is there to beat Facebook at its own game, if Google improves in the right areas, which he outlines as evolved content, player discovery and a push for HTML5. 'Overall, the quality of Google+ gaming isn't bad. It's just another Facebook with fewer games and fewer friends. It's a baby step in a time where successful companies, like Apple, are taking huge strides. The good news is that they didn't blow it. They have a good base to build on,' he said."

cancel ×

75 comments

Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureless (2)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292070)

It's bene out for a few months now and nothing that interesting has come out of it. People aren't moving there from Facebook, nothing interesting is happening there (compared to Facebook), and like the article states they missed some really great opportunities. I mean, Google is pushing for HTML5 and all kinds of nice new technologies. They used to innovate. They did nothing this.

I was actually interested to see what they have for offer. I saw Angry Birds and some mention about playing with your friends, so I asked my friend to join me, thinking "oh this should be fun together". But when we actually tried to see how to make a game, the great oh-so innovative multiplayer aspect was that the more friends you invite to play the game, the more levels you unlock. So fun! Not.

I see Google+ becoming just an another niche product within Google. Just like Orkut is mostly used by Brazilians. Google+ caters to the technical people and if you have those kind of friends or want to interact with them in some other way than the IRC, email, IM, forums and newsgroups, sure (though I'm not so sure that group wants to move on from the established places). There are technical people and some artful people, but that's pretty much it. It's a niche, and it's a niche that already mostly uses other mediums like forums, slashdot and newsgroups.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292136)

You don't get it.

The core innovation is how they are implementing circles.

I'm not sure why some developers poor implementation of a feature is Google's fault.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (2)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292172)

Google actually worked with those developers to make those games to Google+. No one else can sign up as develop yet. I would say Google played their role in it.

The circles won't do much if Google+ doesn't offer anything new or can't get people to move. Gaining popularity for new social networks is extremely hard because of the established user bases. Circles alone won't cut it. Besides, Facebook added those features too. Google+ succeeded in one thing - it made Facebook to improve their site a little bit.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (2)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292248)

The core innovation is how they are implementing circles.

Yeah, from now on pi will be equal to three in Google.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

Phoghat (1288088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296502)

Actually, 3.14159..... rounds off nicely to 3.1

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292406)

circles would be innovative if they could overlap/intersect. As it is, Facebook offers quite the same feature.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292538)

They can, and facebooks implementation is pretty damn bad and hard to find. Most people aren't even aware they can do that.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292804)

You can add people to as many circles as you want, I do believe that is the definition of overlapping/intercepting.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

True Vox (841523) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295406)

I agree, and am a fan of Google Plus. What I personally would like to see is the ability to place a whole circle within another circle. I ALWAYS want to share EVERYTHING I do on there with my wife. Same with a few other people. I was hoping they would let me nest circles within circles. That said, I'm still pretty happy with it and haven't looked back since.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

brim4brim (2343300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292942)

Circles isn't as innovative as it sounds. Sectioning information into the groups you want to know about it is fine except Google and anyone willing to pay them can bypass your circles so you still need to be careful what you say.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (2)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37294914)

You don't get it.

The core innovation is how they are implementing circles.

Nobody actually cares that much about circles except for tech journalists who think dragging things to a circle is the most amazing innovation ever.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (2)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292772)

It's bene out for a few months now and nothing that interesting has come out of it. People aren't moving there from Facebook, nothing interesting is happening there (compared to Facebook), and like the article states they missed some really great opportunities.

It is interesting to see other people's perspective on this. Like many of us here, I'm a geek. I've seen more than one person I know post a countdown on Facebook with a link to their Google+ account and then, kill off their Facebook account entirely. I haven't gotten rid of my account, but I also got an e-mail from Facebook the other day reminding me I haven't logged in in more than 30 days. I did not plan that or anything, I've just been using it less and less. I've been using Google+ much more than I ever used Facebook. Partly this is because Huddles on the mobile app are an unbelievably easy way to do free group chats with people I actually want to talk to on a regular basis. My co-worker informed me via a Google+ Huddle, late last night, that she was not going to be in this morning. I have about the same number of friends on Google+ as I do on Facebook, but fewer of them are old high school classmates and more have things to say I actually care about. Oh, and being able to view public comments in my locality is an extra entertainment and occasionally even useful.

So I'd say Circles, Huddles, and Nearby are great additions that are better than Facebook. The other big advantage being the things Google+ doesn't have, namely a million notifications from games and boring people that I have to wade through.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37294918)

It is interesting to see other people's perspective on this. Like many of us here, I'm a geek. I've seen more than one person I know post a countdown on Facebook with a link to their Google+ account and then, kill off their Facebook account entirely.

You acknowledge that you're a geek, which is exactly what the grandparent post said Google+ would appeal to--niche technical users who feel the need to abandon Facebook in favor of the a geekier product.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

Circle of Owls (872157) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295598)

Google+ appeals to niche technical users who feel the need to abandon Facebook in favor of a social network where people actually have something interesting to say. A social network that isn't bogged down with layers of ads and games and a long history of privacy issues. Personally I feel that Google's implementation of Circles is brilliant; they took a feature that could be implemented in Facebook and made it both obvious and effortless to use. The "Nearby" Circle on Android is awesome as well.

Re:Google+ is Facebook, but smaller and featureles (1)

yog (19073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293096)

Featureless? I find Facebook cluttered and annoying, and I feel locked in by their decisions. Facebook keeps changing things around, as well; just when I've gotten used to things a certain way, it all shifts around. I don't like the one dimensional approach of Facebook wherein my friends are one giant group. I have several hundred "friends" and I can't remember most of them because I haven't put them into any subgroups. I am hearing that Facebook is implementing something like Google's circles, but frankly it's a bit too late.

Google Plus, like Google's other well designed products, has a clean, streamlined feel to it. The circles thing is right there, apparent and easy to start using. It's kind of the basis of the system, in fact. They seem to have incorporated the best features of Facebook and Twitter, so you can follow people without adding them to some circle of yours. You can treat the system like Facebook, post micro logs or lengthy treatises as you wish, and you can categorize your contacts into as many arbitrarily named circles as you want. I suppose a professional services provider might have customer circles which would be useful for notifying people of new developments, sales, times available, etc. A music teacher could use this service to great effect. Really, there's great potential here.

Games? Meh, I guess if that's what they have to do to compete, as long as I don't have to have it rubbed in my face like on Facebook where someone is always being announced as having completed this or that level or milestone and then I have to tell it to hide all similar postings.

Technically literate people seem to be switching to G+ or at least spending a lot of time there, and I'm glad. I really hope it does well because it's a really well thought out product.

It's not even a social network (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37294934)

Isn't it funny how quickly everyone forgot that Eric Schmidt said Google+ is an identity service [slashdot.org] rather than a social network?

Re:It's not even a social network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37294952)

Not everyone. For example I'm not using it until they step away from their id craziness.

WHO HERE GIVES A SHIT ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37292110)

Get a life and stay the fuck off of FB or Teh G- !!

Re:WHO HERE GIVES A SHIT ?? (1)

readandburn (825014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292150)

The irony of your comment is not lost on me.

Google What Now? (1)

steevven1 (1045978) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292118)

Google+ still exists?

Re:Google What Now? (1)

awshidahak (1282256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295504)

So does google wave.

Articles About Google+ and Facebook on Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37292162)

I don't understand why an article like this should be interesting at all.

Really. Why is this anything?

Re:Articles About Google+ and Facebook on Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37292240)

You realize that Google and Facebook are two of the biggest players in Internet technology today, right? Slashdot isn't just for articles about recreating things in Lego. Well, it didn't used to be.

Re:Articles About Google+ and Facebook on Slashdot (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293164)

There's always going to be a "who cares?" post in every story, regardless of the content. At this point, however, I think Slashdot is just trolling us by putting up dozens of articles on Facebook, Google+, Twitter, etc.

Re:Articles About Google+ and Facebook on Slashdot (1)

MrMarket (983874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293452)

Whatever. It doesn't run linux.

G+ users like the games just the way they are... (4, Informative)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292212)

The only complaints I've seen about the game implementation on Google+ has been game developers bitching about the fact that they're separated into their own tab and not splashed all over the main stream like on Facebook. As long as they're separated, I could care less what they do, but if they start caving into developer demands and splashing game bullshit all over the main stream they're going to lose a lot of people and they really can't afford to lose people.

Re:G+ users like the games just the way they are.. (1)

cshake (736412) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292602)

I agree completely.

As a G+ user I'd be perfectly content with games being not even included in the first place, because that's not at all what I want to use it for. If I were a developer already invested in trying to make money off G+ games, then I'd have made a bad business decision. A huge share of users are there because it's not covered with games and bloat, it's only a simple way of connecting with people and sharing links and posts. I hope Google also realizes that and sticks to just making a little money off ads and whatever they sell right now, instead of trying to make even more with games and losing their user base.

Re:G+ users like the games just the way they are.. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292794)

I have not played any. Every single one pops up a privacy notice asking if I will let it look at my personal information and list of people in my circles. I say no so it won't let me play. I have enough spam without saying yes to every popup that appears.

Re:G+ users like the games just the way they are.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295042)

I opened an additional account with no contacts to try the games. They are actually entertaining. An yes, the settings they demand is a bit worrying. I wish there was an opaque way to invite/interact with contacts without giving full access tothe game.

Re:G+ users like the games just the way they are.. (1)

rpetre (818018) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295328)

Same here. I am apalled that this criticism doesn't feature more frequently in G+ games reviews. Having 3rd party developers have full information about my account and contacts was the main reason I ditched my FB account. I'd be okay if some features required extra permissions (like friends leaderoboard and so on), I'd even be willing to show the game a particular circle of friends, but not like this.

This and the "identity service, not social networking" thing are the two major letdowns from this service. And I think i can imagine the tsunami of cash pushing on the other side, so my hopes are really low.

"Do no evil" my foot.

Re:G+ users like the games just the way they are.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37303164)

This is exactly why I like Google+; there aren't any games whoring themselves all over my main screen.

Re:G+ users like the games just the way they are.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37294870)

No, you couldn't care less. Let David Mitchell explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

The presumption by him [and me] is that you're American.

MOBILE (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292230)

Comon now, let's think for a second here. Google owns Google+. Google also "owns" Android, which is the single largest Mobile OS. Google should leverage (I hate that frigging market-speak word) its Android market to increase Google+ adoption. That means making full, unadulterated, high-performance (IE NOT HTML5 or Flash) versions of Google+ games that natively support Android - full blown apps. If they REALLY want to make an impact then they should target iOS too. Now THAT would rake in some serious users if the games are good. People would be joining Google+ just because they found a free Google+ game on the Android Marketplace that caught their attention.

Re:MOBILE (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293418)

Google also "owns" Android, which is the single largest Mobile OS

Gasoline is by far the most popular fuel for automobiles in America. Yet a Pinto is not in the same category as a Corvette, is it?

Targeting umpteen devices just to get the popular ones makes Androids popularity practically irrelevant.

Re:MOBILE (1)

Attila the Bun (952109) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293432)

leverage (I hate that frigging market-speak word)

There's always a way to elegantly express yourself whilst avoiding the mangled nouveau-English spoken in offices. Try "exploit" or even "use".

Re:MOBILE (1)

Rolgar (556636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37294346)

Leverage is a physics word. Use of it in business is an allusion to it's physics meaning.

Nethack (2)

mrflash818 (226638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292258)

Google+ Nethack, of course! ;) ...Or a multi-player version of Nethack ?! ;D

Re:Nethack (2)

nerdcodegeode (2368700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292458)

Regular Nethack, with some announcements of unusual/awesome things you do on it, could be pretty awesome, as Nethack is already so. I suspect Multiplayer Nethack, whether it's on Google+ or not, will require either legendary patience by people waiting for their turn to move, a high speed of computation/button mashing while you move your character before the fact that other characters are moving allows the monsters to jump up to you and kill you, or some kind of time limit, turn-based system...Which falls back into the patience category, but maybe a little less hard. It's super fun in concept, but I don't think it would work out too well in practice. If someone proves me wrong, though, I'll be eager to check it out, and then eat my words.

I agree with XKCD (1)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292326)

http://xkcd.com/918/ [xkcd.com]

I really can't say more... other than I'm not a fan of Facebook.

Re:I agree with XKCD (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293804)

I'm sick of it. From now on I'm going to tune out every link to that damned website.

Re:I agree with XKCD (2)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37294928)

This is exactly the audience Google+ will attract--people who just want to be different and not use Facebook. Google+ traffic has already begun to drop off.

Just one thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37292342)

Fun.

It Feels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37292386)

less dirty than FaceBook, but still feel dirty.

Re:It Feels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37292492)

True, like sticking your thumb up your arsehole whilst masturbating. Oh god, does it feel good -- don't take my word for it! Try it yourself! But afterwards, you're left with a stinky thumb, cum all over your sister's underwear, and a sense of shame.

HTML5 games? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292408)

Good luck with that we have a hard enough time getting enough performance out of flash. It would be a great thing but the performance just is not there for most gaming needs.

Re:HTML5 games? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292568)

Yes it is. You might want to look around, there are some pretty well done games in HTML 5.

Re:HTML5 games? (1)

shar303 (944843) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293194)

There may be, but Flash gaming is still streets ahead in just about every respect.

And with the gpu powered 3d that the next version of the Flash plugin offers, and the swf export in the latest unity IDE (complete with physics, paths etc) it would be silly to bet against it.

There are reasons for the massive growth of flash games compared to other parts of the industry, which are mostly in decline, and these reasons are not going to go away.

Re:HTML5 games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37294436)

Right now, HTML5 is about where Flash was five years ago, in terms of features and speed. Games can be written in it, great games. But if you're pushing a lot of sprites, or doing other relatively demanding tasks, Flash will just out perform.

Performance isn't everything, and I'm eager to dive into writing HTML5 games. But it will be limiting.

Re:HTML5 games? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 2 years ago | (#37296174)

You must be looking at a different list than I am, I have yet to find any that perform well. You may be able to get away with rather simple click based games but anything with any intensity is just not going to happen.

What does G+ Games need to do to beat Facebook? (1)

lizardb0y (149142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292444)

Not exist!

HTML5 and G+ (1)

waddgodd (34934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292558)

Honmestly, the fact that Google+ is aiming for HTML5 games is by and large the reason it'll end up getting and keeping mindshare in the long run. Flash is reliant on Adobe's good graces to get fixes et al, but putting it into the HTML standard means that the FOSS mantra "all bugs are shallow to many eyes" starts having meaning. Basically, it may mean that google+ might have to make some small sacrifices to allow for firefox32767 (or whatever inflated versioning they use this week) compatibility, but it'll have a more robust environment for programmers and a much lower bar to entry (you need all sorts of development tools to make a flash game, you need a text editor to make HTML). Of course mindshare alone doesn't make for a successful platform (I'm looking at you, Commodore), but that mindshare will mean that eventually there will be a much richer gaming environment, and presumably the richer gaming environment will translate into user numbers eventually.

Re:HTML5 and G+ (2)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292670)

Honmestly[sic], the fact that Google+ is aiming for HTML5 games is by and large the reason it'll end up getting and keeping mindshare in the long run. Flash is reliant on Adobe's good graces to get fixes et al, but putting it into the HTML standard means that the FOSS mantra "all bugs are shallow to many eyes" starts having meaning.

I agree to some extend, although the argument is a bit amusing in light of Google only supporting Flash for movies uploaded through the Google+ Web interface.

(you need all sorts of development tools to make a flash game, you need a text editor to make HTML)

Well, realistically to make a viable game you will be using fancy development tools 99% of the time targeting either platform, conceivably the same dev tool targeting both. The difference is if you're developing for Flash you don't have a choice as to who is supplying that dev tool, and Adobe is not the most responsive company in the world. More importantly, if you're trying to adapt your software to a particular platform, you're not limited to what Adobe supports well enough for your needs. Anyone can write HTML5 interpretation engines for their platform and likely everyone will for all credible platforms.

Re:HTML5 and G+ (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292906)

you need all sorts of development tools to make a flash game, you need a text editor to make HTML

Actually I think nowadays you can write a Flash game using nothing more than a text editor and the Flex SDK, which is free and open source.

What Google+ Needs To Beat Facebook is (2)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292628)

more people.

Re:What Google+ Needs To Beat Facebook is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37292730)

+1

Re:What Google+ Needs To Beat Facebook is (1)

Stevecrox (962208) | more than 2 years ago | (#37294524)

No it needs to fix Picasa Web Albums. I tried to load my entire photo collection in to Picasa Web Albums and came across 2 problems. Firstly local tags don't aways get put online, when they don't appear online the application detags them locally. Secondly it creates duplicate people I have a person called bob, I upload 2 photo's of bob to web albums on my local machine that is one person but on Picasa Web Albums bob now has two person albums. This problem is compounded by the fact you can't merge or delete duplicate people albums. I have no photos in web albums at the moment but my account is stuck with over 400 empty people albums most of which are duplicates. Lastly just because I tag someone in Picasa Web Albums doesn't mean they are tagged in a Google + stream and tagging a person through the Google+ stream does not tag that person in Picasa Web Albums.

The people manager issue has been a known bug for more than a year and Google haven't even acknowledged it, for me the draw of Google+ was circles and Picasa Web Albums. If Picasa Web Albums is broken what is the point?

Is anyone surprised by this? (1, Insightful)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292688)

Google launched a service that only a few were allowed to use. People who were curious about it were told to get lost. People who were allowed to sign up got bored because nothing is happening, so they left. The miracle behind Facebook is the ability of people to find friends and relatives they haven't seen in years, even decades, because EVERYONE is welcome to sign up.

Re:Is anyone surprised by this? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#37292858)

Google+ is still in beta I thought. Anyone can join Google+ just by being invited by someone there, and there are many who are there. People can't find me on facebook because I'm not there and I don't care if they don't find me. If I haven't seen someone in decades I'm not going to add them to my friends list anyway. If I am interested them I can follow them on Google+ without getting them to add me as a friend, and they can see what I have without some stupid email asking me to include them.

Facebook seems oriented to "everyone is my friend" sorts of people who click accept everywhere. Google+ feels more like LinkedIn where you only add people who you really have worked with but w/o the sleezy recruiters. Some completely and utter stranger added me to her circles awhile back, so I think there are still some on Google+ trying to treat it as a Facebook clone.

But it's not a social network (3, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293184)

Ok, I'm not really understanding the article, nor the comments. This being in light of the fact that -- as was already submitted here a week or so ago -- Google+ is NOT a social Network according to Google. It's an identity service.

Admittedly, I'm not sure I entirely believe that, as there's clearly some social network aspects to Google+. But it certainly is clear that, at the moment, that is not what they are promoting it as.

Thus, more games etc, seems kind of redundant. Other than for purely speculative reasons, should Google decide they want it as a social network.

Regardless, personally I have no need of an identity service. I will not ever sign up to any social network that requires me to use my real name. So Google+ is an useless product for me, regardless of what games or features it may ever have.

Which is kind of a shame, I actually was excited about Google+ being a much better tool than Facebook when I first heard about it. However, the ID thing is a deal-breaker.

Though, at least it scared Facebook into making a very small step towards fixing its many, and massive, privacy issues.

Re:But it's not a social network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37294836)

Google+ is NOT a social Network according to Google. It's an identity service.

It would be horrible if it worked, and it is useless because it will never work. If Google really wants to turn the web into an authenticated realm, they are paving the road to hell with their work. Imagine how easy it will be for a totalitarian government to track and find users browsing the wrong sites, say a Chinese guy reading about democracy on the BBC, or an American reading about Gitmo on Wikileaks. There will be no end to the suffering caused by an online identity service backed by Google. I really hope they will fail often and fail quick in this endavour.
 

Good Start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37293656)

The major steps have yet to come, in order to scratch a dent in facebooks monopoly.

What Google needs is more a lot more than games. (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293660)

I do NOT want to sign up to a service which (apparently?) changes my name on other google sites, like youtube for example.
You can't use an alias and your account ends up 'tying' your other google services closer. While I see the advantage in some ways, I am personally not interested.

I've already been dumb enough to post too much stupid shit on the internet under different accounts which could easily be tied together, I don't need to be made even easier to identify.

Also, to my knowledge, I don't believe it's possible to seperate my work friends, internet gaming friends, internet asshole troll friends, family, real life 'nice' friends and real life asshole troll friends! - I'm one of those weirdos who is in many social circles and some of the people I know would be horrified at some of the shit I discuss and find humourous.

Facebook, at least I had my name obscured (couldn't find me by real name) and if I recall, I'd managed to make it so even searching for my email, I wouldn't come up.

Iron Helmet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37293680)

What Google+ needs for games is these guys [ironhelmet.com] putting some real games for real gamers on the service. None of this cow clicking and popularity contest crap. Give us some games with real meat.

My complaint about Google+ Games (4, Insightful)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293988)

Every game I tried to play greeted me with a pop-up saying:

[Game] is requesting permission to ... View a list of people from your circles, ordered based on your interactions with them across Google

What are the implications of that (if I click the "More info" link it just gives me an email address for the developer)? Does that give the game developer a way to spam the people in my circles? Admittedly, they do provide a link to a privacy policy (which is different for each game), but if they think I'm going to read all of that to figure out what they plan to do with my list of contacts, well, they're wrong. I just ended up playing none of them.

Re:My complaint about Google+ Games (2)

dabrowsa (233759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37294288)

And it wants permission to pillage your personal data before it even tells you anything about the game.

An app has at least got to give me a plausible motive to surrender my privacy to it.

Re:My complaint about Google+ Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295152)

No, the dev can't spam anyone. It's only for getting access to your contacts list, in case you wish to share an achievement in the game with them.
Even those appear only in the Games tab.

It's pretty cool in fact. No user-generated quizzes like FB.

Re:My complaint about Google+ Games (1)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295470)

No, the dev can't spam anyone. It's only for getting access to your contacts list, in case you wish to share an achievement in the game with them.

If that is the case, it should be made a lot clearer. And, I should be prompted to grant such permission at the point where I've decided to "share an achievement" (which would be never), not before I've even played the game. From a programmer's point of view, if I grant permission when the action is to be performed, it is at least reasonable to believe that that permission is confined to the specific action I tried to take (sharing an achievement). If I grant permission at the beginning of the game, why would I expect the app to be unable to share an ad behind my back if it is able to share an achievement?

Re:My complaint about Google+ Games (1)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 2 years ago | (#37307076)

No, the dev can't spam anyone. It's only for getting access to your contacts list, in case you wish to share an achievement in the game with them.

If that is the case, it should be made a lot clearer. And, I should be prompted to grant such permission at the point where I've decided to "share an achievement" (which would be never), not before I've even played the game. From a programmer's point of view, if I grant permission when the action is to be performed, it is at least reasonable to believe that that permission is confined to the specific action I tried to take (sharing an achievement). If I grant permission at the beginning of the game, why would I expect the app to be unable to share an ad behind my back if it is able to share an achievement?

I have played two or three of the Google games (only the ones with less permissions, I refuse the games that want to see my email address). From my experience, when you have done something, an in-game pop-up appears saying what you have done, with the options to "Share" or "Skip" (the layout and terminology differs for each game). If you click on "Share", an additional Google+ specific popup appears, and allows you to select people to share the achievement with. For example, you could share with everyone, or only certain circles, or only certain people. Once you have selected people to share with, and then clicked on the "Post" option in the Google+ popup, is anything shared with your contacts (and only the selected ones).

tl;dr: Even after the general permission has been granted to the game, you have to click two different things to actually share something

Re:My complaint about Google+ Games (1)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 2 years ago | (#37307822)

Good to know. Thanks.

Re:My complaint about Google+ Games (1)

Nemo's Night Sky (1051346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37295180)

Exactly what, how, and why I did the same.

Cart before horse? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 2 years ago | (#37293998)

How about we focus on getting Google+ working with Apps first, before we worry about games.

You know, Apps. Us paying folks. Who have been told fake deadlines a number of times, and now can't even get a commitment on the timeline ( no, "soon" does not constitute a "timeline". Not when the other deadlines turned out to be lies ).

Re:Cart before horse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37294664)

YES.

This isn't what google needs.. (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#37294736)

Games are not going to drive people to the service. Facebook was popular before it got apps/games

Google should spend time fixing broken stuff like their "personlized news searches" that defy all logic, instead of this crap.

They will never beat Facebook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37295590)

They have had the product out for several months, but you can't join unless you've got an invite. Why did I switch from MySpace to Facebook? Because I post things where my friends will actually be able to read them. Why do I stay on Facebook? Because I've found more of my old High school buddies there than anywhere else. Open it up to everybody, or shut it down. Until you do that, who gives a rip what the service can or can not do?

Google+ Games Needs Users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37321330)

... to beat Facebook.

Check for New 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...