#but now studios keep certain assets as part of IP

[cloud-based-and-rainpilled]

Hate to doom post, but I really don't think there's gonna be a 3rd season of Good Omens.

Not being renewed immediately is a very bad sign. Righteous Gemstones was renewed immediately; Succession was offered a 5th season, but Jesse Armstrong most likely declined considering he didn't want a 5th season.

From dumping off a whole season in one day, the writer's strike and (awful lol) studios prioritizing AI and reality shows, streaming generally dying, and the industry floundering, it's never good for very expensive shows that take a long time, e.g. fantasy, sci fi, etc. Even superhero shows are suffering and are going the way of westerns.

Basically I'm still dealing with trauma from Pushing Daisies being cancelled mid-season and I've been fighting those demons since I was 12. Disillusionment runs my life smdh

[noassallclass]

So my roommate spent all of today writing up a report for Critical Role as a company and I really don't know much about business stuff but I think it is fascinating. Read to the end for a wild ride.

"Okay here is my idea of how Critical Role is actually structured based on what public information exists:

At Geek and Sundry, “Critical Role” as an entity was essentially a partnership between all cast members. The only asset this partnership had was the intellectual property of CR and the only Revenue it took in was licensing that IP to Geek and Sundry. This is because Critical Role Partnership was adamant about maintaining ownership of the IP. This license then pays out between the partners. Percentage

ownership of Critical Role Partnership is divided based on money put in, and previous work done. I would be very surprised if Mercer did not own at least 25% but probably not more than 50%, and the others are probably more or less even. At this point, the cast members both draw a salary from geek and sundry as employees (or contractors), and collect drawings from the licensing of the IP and also royalties as actors. When Orion leaves, the others almost certainly force him to sell out his ownership portion and he probably gets royalties from Geek and Sundry (and later CRPLLC). At this point, this licensing agreement is the only transaction that the entity “Critical Role” actually conducts.

Geek and Sundry pays to produce, distribute, and market the show, and takes all profit. It also takes some aspects of creative control, but probably not that much, though this is listed as the reason to leave Geek and Sundry. At this point, Critical Role continues to license with Geek and Sundry’s parent company Legendary Digital Networks and incorporates their partnership into a Limited Liability Corporation “Critical Role Productions”.

The ownership split is probably kept mostly the same, unless someone decides to sell portions of their shares, but I don’t see why they would. The shareholders (or owners) at this point hire a bunch of employees. Some roles they hire themselves, like Willingham as CEO and Mercer as CCO, and some they hire outsiders like COO Ed Lopez, SVP of Marketing Rachel Romero, and VP of Business Development Ben Van Der Fluit. Those who take additional roles will take salaries for those roles, as well as a salary for acting and writing, and dividends from profits. It is likely that Lopez got a certain amount of shares because C-Suite Executives often do as bonuses because it’s non-taxed income until he sells it and it incentivizes maximizing profits because that would increase his dividends. The other employees probably did not receive shares, so as not to dilute the percentage ownership further.

Critical Role seemingly has no board of directors (it’s possible they have one which is not public), which only happens when there are so few shareholders that they can all convene and take votes (Usually less than 20 owners), implying they don’t use investors to raise cash, which is consistent with a desire to retain creative control. This also means that it is up to all of the shareholders to vote on decisions about the managers of the company instead of a board. That means the only way they could fire Willingham as Chief Executive Officer is if all of the shareholders convene and vote for his firing. Without a board of directors, which often has independent outsiders, this is typically seen as bad for the company’s interests, but is legal in this case because it’s a limited liability corporation and they do not trade on an exchange .

Over the next year or so, CRPLLC makes a new studio and Geek and Sundry gradually relinquishes the distribution rights to older episodes. At this point everyone who works towards the function of the production and distribution of shows is an employee of CRPLLC and not Legendary or Geek and Sundry. For the past couple of years, Critical Role has licensed various brand crossover products like Funko Pops and The Darkhorse Comics. Funko Pop pays CRPLLC for the character likenesses and keeps all profits. CRPLLC also produces its own merchandise like t shirts and that sexy calendar that they pay manufacturers to produce and CRPLLC makes the profit in that scenario. They also have advertising revenue, which is a straightforward revenue stream.

Throwing back to two paragraphs ago, if they don’t use investors to raise cash, how can they afford to embark on a new expensive project that wouldn’t pay out until the future? Well, they could take out a loan (ew interest), save more money in retained earnings forgoing development in other areas (what do you mean we can’t afford to redo our website?) OR

They could do an 11 million dollar kickstarter! This would allow them to retain ownership of both the company and the product, because kickstarter is essentially just buying really expensive merchandise! People will buy a 30 dollar mug if it also comes with the promise that if enough people do it, they’ll make a tv show. Kickstarter money is revenue, not financing and it’s actually against kickstarter’s rules to promise equity for backers. Instead, kickstarter backers assume the risk that investors take (albeit on a smaller individual scale) with none of the benefit besides knowing that they helped make something exist. Compare this to if I, Callie invested $11 million into CRPLLC.

If the Legend of Vox Machina completely bombs and bankrupts CRPLLC which was kickstarted: CRPLLC would have to sell off all of its assets, resolve its liabilities (pay people for work done before laying them off, pay off bank loans) and whatever is left over would be split between the owners. Do they owe you, the kickstarter backer, for not making the show? Legally no. You chose to give us that money and had to trust we would spend the money well to make a good show and we spent all our money making sure our tree leaf animation looked good and could only afford to make 2 episodes.

If the Legend of Vox Machina completely bombs and bankrupts CRPLLC and it was Calliestarted: It would still be the same, except now Callie, the person who put in a lot of money for this show, is also an owner, and at least gets a slice of that money after the debts are paid off.

If the Legend of Vox Machina is really successful and it’s kickstarted: Good job, you did it! You got a fun tv show and like a t shirt! Fun!

If the Legend of Vox Machina is really successful and it’s Calliestarted: Not only do I get my fun tv show and probably also every piece of merch that exists, I got mad paid as an owner, not just from the show itself, but as we sell more and more merchandise because I’m a part owner of the company. I then continue to make money from literally everything else the company does until I decide to sell my shares or the company goes bankrupt.

And even better news! Amazon Prime bought the streaming rights for two seasons, so now I, Callie, have even more money from that sweet sweet licensing money.

Speaking of which, it is likely that the Amazon Deal is structured as follows: Amazon pays CRPLLC to license LoVM, with the stipulation that kickstarter backers can access the first 10 episodes legally. CRPLLC pays, with Kickstarter and Amazon money, Titmouse Inc. to produce LoVM. CRPLLC makes the difference between what they paid Titmouse (variable cost, depending on ultimate cost of animating) and what Amazon paid them. Amazon makes the difference of what they paid CRPLLC and what they make at market with LoVM. Amazon is the only company that stands to profit directly from the actual product of LoVM doing well. If it does poorly, there’s the possibility it gets cancelled, meaning that CRPLLC (and maybe Titmouse if CRPLLC already commissioned the work from them) will still get paid by Amazon, but never released. It’s possible that other companies could buy the license from Amazon in this scenario. This is the risk of selling your show to another company.

CRPLLC also has one subsidiary and one associated foundation: Darrington Press LLC and The Critical Role Foundation

Darrington Press LLC is an imprint of CRPLLC created to design and produce card and board games with the Critical Role IP. DP has 3 listed employees, Ivan Van Norman as Head of Darrington Press, Darcy L. Ross as Marketing Manager, and Mercer as Creative Advisor. As a subsidiary, it is wholly owned by CRPLLC. DP pays manufacturers and contractors to design and manufacturers games and pays for its own advertising, as a separate entity from CRPLLC. DP will likely sell its products to games distributers and the Critical Role Store. If the Critical Role Store sells DP games it’s because CRPLLC bought them from DP. The relationship between DP and CPRLLC is that when DP makes a profit and pays dividends, the recipient is CPRLLC. If DP goes bankrupt and cannot pay its debts, CPRLLC is not required to pay them. CPRLLC also chooses DP’s Board of Directors, which is probably just the owners of CPRLLC. This is all very ordinary. DP has four announced games set to release in 2021, but as of yet has not released any products or made any revenue.

The Critical Role Foundation is a registered non-profit and legally distinct from CRPLLC with seemingly no employees, with Johnson as President, and 4 other Board Members: Mercer, Lopez, Romero and another person named Mark Koro, who is a figure very closely tied to critical role I will outline later. Lopez and Romero are also in a long-term relationship or perhaps marriage. It is usually considered a bad idea to have two partners on a board of directors, as a conflict of interest can arise easily. As a registered non-profit CRF’s projected breakdown of donations is 85% grants to other non-profits, 10% emergency fund allocation, and 5% admin costs (this would be where possible future employees’ salaries would come from). Board Members on non-profits traditionally don’t take salaries, but can use their role as a board member to calculate donated time as a charitable donation for tax purposes. This all seems pretty normal. It’s not stated if or how much CRPLLC itself donates to CRF, including its initial endowment, besides the donation of free advertising, as no donation matching or any other programs seem to be advertised. In terms of an initial endowment, it seems that the only money put in was immediately spent on filing fees and legal fees, meaning the initial endowment was less than $5000. As a result, CRF operates from donors and possibly is not funded at all by CRPLLC. Any money that is donated from CRPLLC’s profits to CRF would be a charitable donation and lower CRPLLC’s taxable income amount. CRF began collecting non-taxable donations in May 2019, and as of December 8, 2020 CRF has yet to publish their 2019 financial statements, so not much is publicly known of how much money is raised by CRF and if they achieved their desired breakdown.

Now to talk about Mark Koro. Koro is an executive of Governmental Affairs (some places list director and others list VP) at Qualcomm, a telecommunications technology company with an annual profit of $7.67 Billion, and is estimated to make $20 per smartphone sold. Every smartphone. Qualcomm has been sued by China, South Korea, Taiwan, the EU, and the USA for anti-competitive behaviour. Koro’s department of Governmental affairs is responsible for negotiating and bidding with governments for contracts and rights to airwave frequencies, and also lobby and develop proposals for telecommunications legislation and policy. Before this, Koro worked at the National Security Agency in their corporate relations department liaising with defence and intelligence contractors. Before this, he worked in the George H.W. Bush administration as The National Security Advance Representative. This entails preparing logistics and security for Presidential events and dispatching Secret Service Agents to respond to Presidential Threats and continued in this capacity under following administrations until 2008. Koro was also an advisor to The Deputy Director of the NSA (the second highest position in the Intelligence Agency), and was a consultant to The Lawrence Livermore National Library, which is

“self-described as a ‘premier research and development institution for science and technology applied to national security.’ Its principal responsibility is ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons through the application of advanced science, engineering, and technology.”

These positions are all listed on Koro’s biography on the The United Nations website for the International Telecommunications Union Radiocommunication Sector (accessed Dec. 8, 2020). Mark Koro has no public associations with Charitable Work.

There is little online about Koro’s association with Critical Role, besides an article stating that Koro, as a fan of the show, in 2016 matched $50,000 worth of donations to 826LA. Koro’s associations with a monopolistic technology company, the NSA, Nuclear Weaponry, and multiple presidential administrations would be cause for alarm for many of CR’s fans, but if it were a purely professional relationship, it could be excused as including him for his business accumen, but Mark Koro is mutuals on twitter with all of the cast members and Brian W Foster, Britney Walloch-Key. This might seem like normal professional courtesy, but there is a lot of interaction between Koro’s account and Critical Role Employees’ personal accounts that reflect at least a close personal relationship between people that he would not interact with regularly just as a board member of a legally distinct organization."

P.S. 100% of Critical Role's Chief Officers are men in relationships with female subordinates.

[breakingbadcriminalelement-blog1]

Breaking Bad Criminal Elements Guide

Breaking Bad Criminal Elements Guide was as of late discharged. If you don't mind see our "publicists" segment above for subtleties. All information gathered through our Website is put away on servers situated in the United States. Our servers are affirmed under the EU-US Privacy Shield. IP address and client operator string information from all guests is put away in pivoting log records on Amazon servers for as long as 7 days. The majority of our workers, specialists and accomplices are focused on keeping your information classified. We have assessed our accomplices protection approaches to guarantee that they follow comparative arrangements so as to guarantee your information security. When you visit our Website, we gather certain data identified with your gadget, for example, your IP address, what pages you visit on our Website, regardless of whether you were alluded to by another site, and at what time you got to our Website. We don't gather some other kind of close to home information. In the event that you are getting to our site through an online networking account, if it's not too much trouble allude to the internet based life supplier's security arrangement for data with respect to their information gathering. Like most standard Web website servers, we use log documents. You can likewise tap on it to perceive the amount additional time it will take for a development action to finish. Past development, you ought to consistently guarantee that something's "cooking" on your RV Lab. There is a breaking point on the amount you can cook inside a game keep running as what you can cook relies upon how much assets you have in your white glass tank. It recovers after some time, however, so make sure to return to cooking before it turns out to be full. You can access contracts through the dollar symbol at the upper right half of the screen, just underneath the manufacturers symbol. As you acquire more notoriety focuses, you can open more contracts you can take on and in the event that you have enough white glass to participate in numerous agreements, you can do as such even crosswise over various territories. When your base camp arrive at level 5, make sure to check the body shop and research things to help make either your base or troops progressively imposing. In accordance with this, make it a propensity to consistently focus on the green bar that shows the amount of an asset you have in respect to the amount you can store. Responsively, modify your exercises to guarantee a decent and unfaltering equalization of these assets to abstain from increasing additional sums that will simply overflow. For instance, on the off chance that you have huge amounts of extra Cash yet at the same time have space for a lot of block, you can evacuate obstructions around your camp which fundamentally changes over Cash to blocks. What you can expect is another portable game dependent on the arrangement, called Breaking Bad: Criminal Elements. As detailed by The Hollywood Reporter, it's a methodology game created by Plamee, a Russian studio known for titles like Narcos: Cartel Wars. There's valuable couple of subtleties out there, however we do realize that you'll be cooperating with all your preferred Breaking Bad characters, and probably you'll be making and selling meth. There's likewise moral decisions to make, as "is it appropriate to sell meth? A while later, it's currently out and players can start building up themselves as the following boss to be dreaded. Today, FTX Games authoritatively announced Breaking Bad: Criminal Elements would now be able to be downloaded on the App Store and Google Play. The game is allowed to play, yet there are discretionary in-application buys. You can watch a secret trailer featuring different parts of the game in the space beneath: When individuals start playing, they will begin as somebody who is a partner of Walter White and Jesse, and attempt to stir their way up the criminal stepping stool. When you open the Map menu, you will see a few red targets where you can assault foes. These objectives are situated in different places around the guide, and when you tap on them you can scout", "which fundamentally demonstrates to you the foe arrangement, or to "Assault" to straight up assault them! The more you advance, the more I propose that you don't go indiscriminately assault the adversary, since it could be really hard to bring down! At the early levels you can do that, yet later on don't do it on the off chance that you would prefer not to lose! Simply remember that you need to finish various degrees of the game to open each edge of the guide. Breaking Bad: Criminal Elements provokes you to deal with every one of the assets accessible so as to store up your fortune. From the outset, you'll need to get by with simply the fundamental utensils found in your RV. However, don't stress, you'll have every one of the fundamentals to begin making the methamphetamine that will enable you to contribute and open new components. Despite the fact that the controls of the game are entirely simple to ace (to some degree due to the mechanized idea of a lot of procedures), the various alternatives on your screen could wind up overpowering. It has been a couple of years from that point forward and today we discover that another Breaking Bad game is being developed gratitude to HollywoodReporter. Breaking Bad: Criminal Elements arrives 11 years after Walter White chose to break awful. Given the prevalence of Better Call Saul (the spinoff) and how later that is, you'd figure this game would be founded on that brand however Criminal Elements is a versatile game from FTX Games and Plamee with a procedure center. The distributer says this game will be a legitimate expansion of the story universe and will be a fun method to associate with characters from the arrangement in another manner. Walt, Jesse, Gus, Saul, and Mike will be incorporated and your point here will be to develop your criminal task. Breaking Bad: Criminal Elements is set to discharge not long from now and it will be allowed to play true to form. There are no subtleties on discharge plans or territorial accessibility or even gadget support yet. I'll post about that data when the group declares subtleties. Is it true that you are keen on another Breaking Bad game? It is safe to say that you are a person who opens the entryway and gets shot, or would you say you are the person who thumps?

[emritcheson]

Is Mortimer Beckett and The Book of Gold Really That Bad?

(Full disclosure: this post contains mild spoilers for discussion’s sake.)

So I am a big fan of the Delicious series and the many spin-offs that have launched from its universe, now formally known as GameHouse Original Stories.  Yes, they sometimes seem like they’re hyper-marketed at that Hallmark Channel crowd, but they are the cream of the crop of modern casual games, I promise.  That said, not every game that comes out of GameHouse Studios is a masterpiece.  But just because it’s not a masterpiece doesn’t mean there isn’t good to be found or fun to be had.

Enter Mortimer Beckett and The Book of Gold, released in 2017.  For those unaware, Mortimer Beckett was not originally a GameHouse IP, instead starring in his own series of hidden object games developed by Paprikari from 2007 to 2012.  I played the first in the series, Secrets of Spooky Manor, and dabbled with others, but I am by no means an aficionado on Mortimer Beckett lore.  Actually, I’m not big into the hidden object genre period.  I can tell you, though, that this game feels very different to the traditional Mortimer Beckett series.  Paprikari still worked as the developer for Book of Gold, but the overall style and flavor is extremely influenced by GameHouse.

I can only assume GameHouse acquired permission to use Mortimer’s character around the same time they acquired Sally from GamesCafe’s Sally’s Salon series.  These were two fairly well-known faces in casual gaming for many years, and for those characters to suddenly be picked up by a new company and breathed new life was a strange move to witness.

Not to say it was a bad one.  I was an am a dedicated Sally fan and Sally’s Salon - Beauty Secrets blew my expectations out of the water.

Book of Gold on the other hand...well, that’s why we’re here.

Before I even played the game, the first things I noticed were the consistently negative ratings it received across distributing websites.  Now all things considered, I wasn’t expecting perfection, but these scores were abysmally low.  I thought, “it can’t be as bad as that, right?”

And after playing through the whole thing in one night, I will proudly go on record to say that this game does not deserve these low ratings.

Buuut it’s not perfect, either.

So let’s talk.

First, the elephant in the room - the gameplay itself.  As previously stated, Mortimer Beckett is a hidden object series.  GameHouse is best known for their time management games that occasionally have hidden object mini games sprinkled through the levels.  Mini games and main gameplay mechanics are two very different things, mind you.

That said, I think the translation of the gameplay went very well.  Better than I was expecting, at least.  You’re given a scene in which you must find pieces of different objects that will help you in your current situation.  Then, once those pieces are put together, you can use those objects in the scene to complete small puzzles.  Even with my limited hidden object experience, I can tell that this style of finding pieces of things is quite unique.  

In fact, this was my biggest complaint back in Secrets of Spooky Manor: the pieces that some objects broke into seemed arbitrary and unnatural, making it harder to find what I was looking for.  In Book of Gold, the objects are broken up where they naturally have different “sections” (for example, if you’re looking for a screwdriver, it would be in two separate pieces: the handle and the bit) and gameplay is smoother as a result.

There are also three different kinds of challenge levels throughout the game in which you have to complete certain tasks within a time limit.  These provide a nice sprinkle of adrenaline rush as the main levels have no time limit and you’re welcome to stare at and contemplate them as long as you wish.  So all in all, the gameplay is pretty solid.

Let’s discuss the plot.  Mortimer Beckett moves to Snuggford after inheriting a museum from his Uncle Jerome (a staple character of the series until now, I understand).  In his last letter, Uncle Jerome mentions something called the Book of Gold which apparently possesses mystical qualities, and warns Mortimer to keep it safe.

Even as someone with very little preexisting attachment to this character, I found Mortimer very charming and enjoyable, in that “I don’t really know what I’m doing but I’m going to make the best of it anyway, and probably embarrass myself in the process” kind of way.  It was also refreshing simply to play as a guy, as GameHouse Original Stories pretty much exclusively feature women protagonists.

Speaking of which, while this is happening, Kate O’Malley (Delicious Emily’s sister-in-law) is having something of a life crisis and desperately looking for some kind of adventure to get her out of her “boring” hometown.

This is good for two reasons.  One: Kate is a character seen very little of in the Delicious series.  Other than she’s Patrick’s sister and she used to work as a perfume salesgirl, we didn’t know much about her until Book of Gold.  The writers really gave her some agency this time around, where previously she felt kind of cardboard.  And two: Snuggford is often viewed as a very idyllic small town with emphasis on supporting local businesses and fostering community with others.  It’s oddly refreshing to see a protagonist character have a negative view of this place.

Anyway, the two run into each other, shenanigans ensue, and an adventure does indeed begin.

Now if GameHouse is known for anything besides time management gameplay, it’s their heterosexual romantic subplots.  And as much as I was hoping for a platonic partnership this time around, I have to say I ended up liking Kate and Mortimer more than I expected.  It is a bit tropey and shoved down your throat at times, but I think their personalities play off each other quite nicely - Mortimer the somewhat bumbling scholar and Kate the confident risk-taker.  In the end I was genuinely rooting for them.

The story itself as a whole is...fine.  Not amazing, not terrible, but fine.  It has good intentions but, as I said, falls into tropes and shenanigans rather than raising the stakes.  And when the stakes are raised, it fails to explain why and generally lacks urgency.

The best parts of the story in my opinion are the more character-driven scenes.  Stemming from Kate’s desire for adventure, there is an underlying emotional theme about whether or not you’re satisfied with your life and where you are in it.  I think this is handled better than the immediate plot, but could still use some tweaks.  Overall, the writing has the same wonkiness I would expect from any story that hasn’t truly found its groove yet, but it does enough to keep you intrigued.

I absolutely cannot knock GameHouse for trying to do something new, especially in this cash cow of a universe they’ve built for themselves.  They’ve been using basically the same formula for the past ten years or so, and it makes sense that they would want to branch out into other things while still attracting their core audience.

Unfortunately, this game has some very apparent growing pains.

My biggest issue without a doubt is the art.  It’s inconsistent, there’s no other word for it.  Some sprites are completely 2-D, others are completely rendered in 3-D.  Sometimes it’s 2.5-D.  Sometimes it’s 2-D heads stitched onto 3-D bodies.  Some characters look very disproportionate when standing next to others.  Not to mention a lot of reused assets from other games.  I can’t show it for spoiler reasons, but there is a scene near the very end of the game where the character cutting-and-pasting is so painfully obvious and so sloppily done that I almost had to close my computer and take a lap around the house to compose myself.

Also, this game has far less music than I expected.  Despite a swingin’ noir-style theme song written by Adam Gubman, most cutscenes carry out with only generic background white noise for company.  And let me tell you, when a dramatic scene is going down and the only thing you can hear is the muffled voice of an airport intercom?  It feels wrong.  And also lends to that lack of urgency I mentioned earlier.

And as much as I hate to, we have to talk about the “exotic” themes.

For the most part, I would describe GameHouse as having “lukewarm sensitivity” to cultures that are not North American or European.  They have good intentions and for the most part their characters are pretty well rounded, but their research still leaves a little bit to be desired.  I think the Inuit tribe from Delicious - Emily’s Hopes and Fears is the best example of what I’m talking about.

However, I would not put Book of Gold in that same sensitivity tier.  During the third chapter, Mortimer and Kate travel to South America (it’s never specifically stated but since Machu Picchu is clearly visible in one of the scenes, it’s pretty safe to say they’re in Peru) and end up getting lost in the jungle.  Kate is more or less kidnapped by a group of natives, whose leader speaks what can only be described as “cave man English” and invites her to join his harem.  When she refuses, he threatens to kill her if she doesn’t complete the puzzles set before her.  Then, when Kate manages to escape, the tribe leader leans over to one of his guards and says, “Those tourists are so gullible,” indicated that it was all an act.  I still have no idea what to think about this entire section.

There’s also a great deal of Arabian influence in the second half of the game, as the main villain claims to be a sheikh, but I would say that it’s more there for visual interest than anything else.  The side characters you meet in this arc aren’t particularly memorable, and aside from avoiding a sandstorm and racing camels at one point, the desert setting is just kind of...there.  It’s not as bad as it could have been, but it certainly wasn’t doing the game as a whole many favors, either.

To wrap this up with a bow, if you disliked this game simply because it was different and not the “signature GameHouse experience” you’ve come to expect, I feel sorry for you.  If you disliked this game because it doesn’t feel as polished as it could have been and the graphics are a bit of a train wreck?  Yeah, I get you.  But I still found this game enjoyable despite its flaws.  And if you’ve been avoiding this game because the bad ratings scared you off, pull on your big girl panties and manage your expectations.

I really hope that GameHouse sees Book of Gold as a learning experience and not a failure, because I think there’s some genuine potential here.  With some tweaks and polish (and clearer art direction), I would happily accept another game like this.

[cryptnus-blog]

Keeping Ethereum's Promise: CryptoKitties Is Embracing Open-Source

New Post has been published on https://cryptnus.com/2018/06/keeping-ethereums-promise-cryptokitties-is-embracing-open-source-2/

Keeping Ethereum's Promise: CryptoKitties Is Embracing Open-Source

Call it an explosion of cute names for a cause.

Announced this week, CryptoKitties debuted a number of new initiatives that will further decentralize its popular ethereum app, which while largely passing under the radar, show the startup is making strides to give users rights. It’s been the subject of criticism for the beloved game, which raised $12 million in March with the expectation it would loosen controls on its code in line with the larger crypto ethos.

Among a slew of updates, CryptoKitties is open-sourcing its API and smart contracts for gameplay in the KittyVerse – a virtual world of experiences including catfights, racing and accessories – through a developer toolkit. Plus, it’s updated its user agreements to be more lenient and introduced a players’ rights contract called the Nifty License.

“CryptoKitties … was always criticized for not being completely decentralized,” Afri Schoedon, communications officer at the ethereum startup Parity, explained. “I think CryptoKitties is doing a good job on finding the perfect path between decentralization and usability.”

He continued: The more you try to decentralize things, the more complicated it will be to actually use it.”

And CryptoKitties isn’t just improving for end-users, but also for developers.

Take players like Candi Johnson, who have donated their time to build gameplay features like more complex battle options. Observers pointed out that CryptoKitties’ old terms of service stipulated the team owned all graphics and elements of the app, but the Nifty License gives Johnson, and other cat owners, the legal rights to the intellectual property of each tabby.

As CryptoKitties fan Todd Goldberg tweeted: “I have the right to delete my account and still take the asset with me. If this was a centralized game and I wanted to delete my account, I’d lose the asset.”

A traditional, centralized gaming studio might balk at the idea of letting users take their digital assets off the platform.

To the contrary, CryptoKitties co-founder Bryce Bladon said that diverse experiences with the items increase the whole ecosystem’s value, plus, people looking to build alternative versions of CryptoKitties now don’t ever need to worry about being sued.

Blandon told CoinDesk:

“It’s as much about removing ourselves as any form of a central authority as it is about doing so in a way that doesn’t compromise the value of this game, of this product, and of this platform as a whole.”

Looking ahead, CryptoKitties plans to build on this progress by looking into decentralized data storage solutions like Filecoin and the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS), Blandon said.

Stakeholder rights

Crypto collectibles are valuable only as long as they are unique or rare – so balancing owners’ rights with some limitation on how these tokens are reproduced will be crucial to this ecosystem’s success.

Bladon said he hopes the Nifty License can set an example for other non-fungible tokens, a broader class of crypto assets of which CryptoKitties is the most well-known, establishing a norm where the asset belongs to the user and not the platform.

“That is why we have loosened up our terms of service. That is why we put this license out there,” he said.

However, the Nifty License still appears to stipulate that owners can’t apply the cat’s image for commercial use – like a company logo – or sell it on a marketplace that doesn’t verify ownership, such as Craigslist.

Limitations aside, Parity’s Schoedon sees the Nifty License as a step in the right direction.

“It would be good to just get away from this second-layer licensing issue by just saying ‘whoever owns that token owns the attached art,'” he said, referencing how commercial use and distribution clauses can get tricky.

Fortunately for gamers, the CryptoKitties team sees the Nifty License as a work in progress.

Looking ahead, the virtual playground will no longer be maintained solely by the startup. Case in point, Johnson’s work on new CryptoKitties’ experiences is not as a part of another open-source project or separate IP; instead, it’s just for the love of the game.

“The goal is to add value to the community and the kitties by giving them additional functionality. They’re super cute as collectibles, and being able to play with them is fun,” Johnson told CoinDesk.

Speaking to why making the application easier to use for developers will be beneficial to end users, Blandon said:

“There is no more one-size-fits-all gameplay experience.”

Sustainable funding

Yet another initiative CryptoKitties announced this week is the Nifty Kitty Program, which gives opportunities for independent developer teams to apply for loans or grants to fund work for the community.

“We are trying to build sustainable revenue options for people outside of the core CryptoKitties team,” Bladon said.

These days, the startup’s main source of revenue is charging 3.7 percent on all transactions done through CryptoKitties.co, such as buying a new kitty.

However, since the ethereum smart contract is now open-source, other parties could theoretically give birth to new pets without that tax. Bladon said users with the skills to utilize the smart contract themselves are welcome to experiment.

“The hash code would correlate to the cat’s art and they would own it. It would be a legitimate CryptoKitty,” Bladon said. “I’m certain there is immense potential and a strong possibility for new and interesting ways for CryptoKitties to be made.”

The team has already selected a few external projects to receive loans or grants through the Nifty Kitty Program. Whatever those teams make won’t be owned or managed by the original startup. This initiative aims to boost outside participation in building a cat-tastic ecosystem.

For Johnson, CryptoKitties was her first introduction to blockchain technology and she enjoyed the opportunity to learn more about it with a group of players who call themselves the KittyBattles team. Regardless of whether this team ever seeks monetary rewards for their creation, other developer teams might want that option.

The Nifty Kitty Program could be aligned with CryptoKitties’ interest in decentralizing its processes. In the future, if CryptoKitties relinquishes control of the platform, the game would still need a vibrant developer community to continue iterating on the game to make it fun for users.

Speaking to this point, Bladon said:

“Once a core concept is proven, developers can build on top of it. Players can sort of invest in the idea. Players and developers alike are elevated to stakeholders in it.”

Pink CryptoKitties image via CryptoKitties Medium 

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

[megadarkbouquettidalwavethings]

An Ad Executive Often in the Vanguard Peers Into the Future

Later, he guided brands and colleagues through the heydays of MSN and Yahoo and the rise of platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat and streaming TV. Along the way, Mr. Norman became known for sharing his insights at industry events and in trade publications, always with a healthy dose of dry British wit.

Mr. Norman recently spoke with The New York Times about where the media and advertising worlds are now and where he thinks they are going. The interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

There is a huge focus on how dominant Google and Facebook are in digital advertising, where they are often referred to as the “duopoly.” Some people have a hard time seeing that change.

The people who are most stuck in the world are those who see hegemonic positions now and don’t believe that now can be disrupted — despite the fact that what exists now only exists because everything’s been disrupted.

At the beginning of my career, the hegemonic position was held by ITV and the big commercial broadcasters. Then it was held by this display triumvirate of Yahoo, MSN and AOL and, separately, search by Google. And it took quite a long time to get here.

If you asked anyone in 2009, ‘Guess what the combined market shares of Google and Facebook will be in 2017,’ I’m not sure there would have been anyone that would have come close.

How long do you think will they maintain that position?

It kind of depends on what Google and Facebook allocate their resources to, and like everybody else, it depends on how they manage to navigate actual and potential regulatory environments going forward. I think if they were both worried about a thing today, it would be what regulators think about them, because they’re not at the peak of their popularity with those folks at the moment, it would seem to me.

Continue reading the main story

I think that’s why people are so interested in the Amazon story and were so interested in the Snap story and were so interested in Twitter’s story — because everyone’s looking for the next one to break through.

What’s the next thing that’s going to look and feel completely different that disrupts how people interface with the world around them? My guess is that five to seven years from now, there will be at least one company that people will think of in the top five most important enterprises in advertising that simply doesn’t exist now.

Photo

The Manhattan offices of GroupM, the media-buying arm of WPP. Mr. Norman remains a consultant there. Credit Karsten Moran for The New York Times

Last month, the Walt Disney Company said that it had reached a deal to buy most of 21st Century Fox, which would fit into its plans to introduce two Netflix-style streaming services and give the company a majority stake in Hulu. (Comcast and Time Warner have the minority stakes.) What do you think?

Imagine a massively emboldened Hulu.

If Disney decides to put the Fox assets in entertainment and movies into Hulu, and Comcast decides to put Universal and NBC studio assets into Hulu, too, then certainly from a domestic point of view, you end up with a product that looks pretty fantastic if people watch television.

You could have things like day-after episodes of new drama of the Hulu model and then the entire movie libraries of Universal, Fox, Disney, Pixar and all of the other stuff with it.

Then what happens if that same group of people says to the broadcasters of the world: “What we have here is a working business model of what the studio system plus the broadcast system can look like in a new world, with a tiered-option model based on some combination of live, day-after, on-demand, paid, ad-funded and so forth, and basically you could slice it whichever way you’d like for your market. We’ve got the content block and the technology license block so that everyone can build their own castle in all these markets.”

Disney has BamTech, remember. [Disney has a majority stake in BamTech, the company that built HBO Go in time for the fifth season of “Game of Thrones,” and will build Disney’s new streaming services.]

It may not be owned 100 percent by one company, but it could be a new phenomenon that could be a kind of distributed monopoly, which I don’t think anyone’s really thought about.

And this could potentially run ads?

Because you’re using the same underlying systems, you suddenly have a data pool that crosses all of that content, all of those users and potentially all of those markets. People are asking the question about what’s the third force? That would probably be the answer.

Continue reading the main story

What’s another way that could go?

I think if I learned one thing over my career, it is that Newton was right: The objects that are in motion stay in motion, and that motion tends to accelerate, hit plateaus and reaccelerate.

Given the asymmetry of certain enterprises in the world, you kind of wonder as to whether or not new Disney, with all of its IP, has in fact become the juiciest peach in the world to be consumed by Apple.

If Apple was going to make a “one bound and you’re serious” move into the video content business globally, and the provision of video service business globally, it could make sense. You then have most of Hulu and all of the IP in Pixar, Marvel and all of the other things that Bob Iger has been assembling over the years, and you have ESPN. That wouldn’t be a terrible place to start, and they could do it for 30 percent of their market cap.

What do you make of Facebook’s plans to prioritize “meaningful interactions” between friends and family while showing less news to its users?

You can on one hand take it at face value and say that Facebook is taking a step back to their roots. The other way you could argue this is that Facebook has decided that there is a degree of toxicity which comes from being overtly an economic participant in a news-based value chain, and that the economics of it are not worth the perceived risks of association.

The one thing that’s kind of disturbing about all of this to me and potentially The New York Times is: Are we moving into a world where the dominant platforms of media consumption are basically getting close to a point where they’re blacklisting the monetization of news?

What have you seen that makes you think they’re getting close to that?

It seems that there is no huge demand in Google’s program commissioning to commission news. I don’t see there’s a big appetite for Facebook saying, “We would like 20 news organizations to provide news bulletin programming for Facebook Watch.”

We know there are dozens and dozens of news organizations around the world, or at least a dozen or two that include The Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, the BBC and so on, who are, for the most part, the keepers of truth in news and the people who keep the public informed.

And it seems odd to me that if you have aspirations to take up a very significant part of the media consumption time of the public that you do not have an overt policy for the dissemination of news and to participate in the funding of news for your audience.

Continue reading the main story

SAPNA MAHESHWARI

The post An Ad Executive Often in the Vanguard Peers Into the Future appeared first on dailygate.

[ramialkarmi]

Disney is about to go to war with Netflix and Fox could be a big weapon

Disney is preparing for a full-scale rivalry with Netflix.

That means Disney needs all the programming it can get as it plans for a direct-to-consumer, digitally-dominated media future.

Disney's first shot in this war was to buy a collection of assets from 21st Century Fox.

More deals are sure to follow.

It's official: Disney has announced a media-industry-rocking deal to acquire a collection of assets from 21st Century Fox.

The deal comes as media companies look for ways to survive as consumers shift their attention to ad-free streaming services from Netflix and Amazon, cut the cord in increasing numbers and spend an inordinate amount of time glued to mobile screens and social media. 

Disney's already declared that it is going to war with Netflix by launching its own streaming service. Already Disney has some big assets to offer subscribers to this potential service, including movies made by its own studios and the rights to mega-hits like Star Wars. But it's going to need as many big guns as it can get in that fight.  If the future is less about cable bundles and classic TV advertising, and more about bringing content directly to paying subscribers, giants like Disney can't stand pat. That's where Fox comes in.

In a statement announcing the deal, the fourth bullet point read:

Expands Disney’s direct-to-consumer offerings with addition of 21st Century Fox’s entertainment content, capabilities in the Americas, Europe and Asia; Hulu stake becomes a controlling interest

As one industry observer put it, "nobody knows what the business model of the future is. But if you have a lot of content, you're either going to get people to pay for it, run ads in it, or license it to somebody. So this is a pretty good hedge for Disney."

So, here's what we're thinking about in terms of breaking down the potential deal:

Building out a super-powered library

Disney's content library seems as good as it gets: Mickey, Pixar, Marvel. Given the company's plans to pull back on Netflix distribution to build out its own streaming service, it's arguably in great shape to launch its own streaming subscription business.

But as consumer media consumption fragments more every year, Disney will need as extensive a menu as possible to make sure they have something for everybody's plate, said Mike Kelly, CEO of Kelly Newman Ventures, a media industry consulting firm.

"Media has always been a distribution business, but digital is about one-to-one," he said. "So the only way to remain central to consumers is to continue to have scale by owning as much of a library as possible."

Netflix's approach to this has been to spend heavily to develop new shows, and compete with the likes of HBO and major TV networks for potential hits. With Fox, Disney would grab the rights to a trusted library including  X-Men, Deadpool, Planet of the Apes, Avatar, and Captain Underpants, and of course the added capability of finding and nurturing future blockbusters.

Defending against FANG

Beside fighting Netflix, everyone in media is making sure they don't get taken out by the rest of Silicon Valley – namely Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. These companies have huge scale, deep pockets and are getting aggressive in content while dominating digital advertising.

"People talk about Facebook and Google taking 85 cents of every dollar in digital ads, but the way those companies look at it is that they are only taking like 20% of advertising overall," said Kelly. "They want it all."

Indeed, overall the so-called FANG companies "are trying to eat [media's] lunch," he said. For big media players, "this is about being around five years from now."

What about sports?

This is where it gets really interesting, as Fox's regional sports networks are included in this deal. That will give it control of local sports networks like Fox Sports Detroit, which broadcasts Detroit Tigers and Detroit Pistons games, and part of the Yes Network in New York, which streams the Yankees and Brooklyn Nets.

Meanwhile, FS1, Fox's fledgling ESPN wannabe, and FS2 and Big Ten Network are being spun off as part of a newly listed company that will also own Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network.

There's a massive amount of money in local sports rights and advertising. And remember, like parent company Disney, ESPN is planning to launch its own direct-to-consumer sports streaming service, which could suddenly become a lot more enticing to fans of certain local teams. Is this why Disney purchased the streaming technology firm BAMTech?

In other words, even if companies like Amazon and Facebook continued to dabble in live sports rights, the Fox deal is a total game changer for Disney.

Disney/Fox deal would be a massive boost for ESPN if they can use those local RSNs to boost their new OTT service. That’s a huge win if so.

— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) December 5, 2017

This is huge, although it would seem to run counter to FOXA's stated desire to focus on sports/news. RSNs are basically ATMs. https://t.co/elAgXbvQRL

— Anthony Crupi (@crupicrupicrupi) December 5, 2017

Don't forget FX

If a Disney/Fox mashup is about traditional media girding for an 'over the top' future, the FX network could provide to be a great test case. The network has produced a continued slate of prestige shows with small, but passionate fan bases ("The Americans" got a shoutout in the deal announcement) FX has recently begun offering an ad-free version of the network to Comcast subscribers for $6 a month.

FX CEO John Landgraf is one of the more respected minds in the TV business, and coined the phrase 'peak TV' describing the current glut of scripted series. He said a few months ago during an Advertising Week event that a linear TV network may not be "the best expression of our brand." Maybe FX tries to become the next HBO Go? 

Or, as Landgraf noted, maybe FX figures out a way to bring premium TV content to consumers for free – with a limited number of targeted ads. Either way, FX would be a solid addition to the Disney portfolio.

The power of Avatar

Fox is spending over $1 billion on four planned sequels to James Cameron's smash hit "Avatar." Those movies basically have to work. Is anyone better suited to maximizing a franchise like that (theme parks, merchandise, etc.) than Disney? 

From the deal announcement:

"The addition of Avatar to its family of films also promises expanded opportunities for consumers to watch and experience storytelling within these extraordinary fantasy worlds. Already, guests at Disney’s Animal Kingdom Park at Walt Disney World Resort can experience the magic of Pandora—The World of Avatar, a new land inspired by the Fox film franchise that opened earlier this year."

"I'm not sure this is about taking on Netflix," Chris Silbermann, managing partner of the Hollywood talent firm ICM Partners told Business Insider. "You only need a few big shows to get a subscription service going, like say CBS All Access (with the new "Star Trek"). But on the film side, this makes total sense. Disney owns it from a big brand perspective. You get access to more Marvel brands like X-Men and Fantastic Four. And given the multibillion bet they have on Avatar alone, there's only one company in the world that can market and leverage it to its full potential, and that's Disney."

Netflix won't stay still and may want to make more deals

Netflix is planning to spend an astonishing $8 billion on content next year. How can they keep this spending up? Its subscription service offers a better business model than cable TV or advertising, argued Ted Sarandos, Netflix's chief content officer, speaking at the UBS event.

Sarandos also gushed about the company's recent acquisition of the comic book publisher Millarworld, which provides Netflix with exclusive access to a stable of characters that could be turned into TV shows and movies.

"It's very freeing... owning your IP," said Sarandos. Owning IP can lead to much bigger relationships and partnerships, he said. And Sarandos didn't shoot down the idea when he was asked if Netflix might want to make more such deals.

To read more about media's Game of Thrones-like machinations, click here.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How couples improved their sex lives in one week

[thedeadshotnetwork]

Disney is about to go to war with Netflix and Fox could be a big weapon Disney/Lucafilm Disney is preparing for a full-scale rivalry with Netflix. That means Disney needs all the programming it can get as it plans for a direct-to-consumer, digitally-dominated media future. Disney's first shot in this war may be to buy a collection of assets from 21st Century Fox . More deals are sure to follow. Disney may be closing in on a media-industry-rocking deal to acquire a collection of assets from 21st Century Fox. CNBC reports that a deal, which would include Fox's movie studios, could be announced as soon as next week. The deal comes as media companies look for ways to survive as consumers shift their attention to ad-free streaming services from Netflix and Amazon, cut the cord in increasing numbers and spend an inordinate amount of time glued to mobile screens and social media. Disney's already declared that it is going to war with Netflix by launching its own streaming service. Already Disney has some big assets to offer subscribers to this potential service, including movies made by its own studios and the rights to mega-hits like Star Wars. But it's going to need as many big guns as it can get in that fight. If the future is less about cable bundles and classic TV advertising, and more about bringing content directly to paying subscribers, giants like Disney can't stand pat. That's where Fox comes in. As one industry observer put it, "nobody knows what the business model of the future is. But if you have a lot of content, you're either going to get people to pay for it, run ads in it, or license it to somebody. So this is a pretty good hedge for Disney." So, here's what we're thinking about in terms of breaking down the potential deal: Building out a super-powered library Disney's content library seems as good as it gets: Mickey, Pixar, Marvel. Given the company's plans to pull back on Netflix distribution to build out its own streaming service, it's arguably in great shape to launch its own streaming subscription business. But as consumer media consumption fragments more every year, Disney will need as extensive a menu as possible to make sure they have something for everybody's plate, said Mike Kelly, CEO of Kelly Newman Ventures, a media industry consulting firm. "Media has always been a distribution business, but digital is about one-to-one," he said. "So the only way to remain central to consumers is to continue to have scale by owning as much of a library as possible." Netflix's approach to this has been to spend heavily to develop new shows, and compete with the likes of HBO and major TV networks for potential hits. With Fox, Disney would grab the rights to a trusted library including X-Men, Deadpool, Planet of the Apes, Avatar, and Captain Underpants, and of course the added capability of finding and nurturing future blockbusters. Defending against FANG Beside fighting Netflix, everyone in media is making sure they don't get taken out by the rest of Silicon Valley – namely Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. These companies have huge scale, deep pockets and are getting aggressive in content while dominating digital advertising. "People talk about Facebook and Google taking 85 cents of every dollar in digital ads, but the way those companies look at it is that they are only taking like 20% of advertising overall," said Kelly. "They want it all." Indeed, overall the so-called FANG companies "are trying to eat [media's] lunch," he said. For big media players, "this is about being around five years from now." What about sports? This is where it gets really interesting. CNBC is now reporting that Fox's regional sports networks will be included if this deal happens. That means that while Disney wouldn't control the Fox broadcasting network and its NFL rights, or FS1, Fox's fledgling ESPN wannabe, it could theoretically control local sports networks like Fox Sports Detroit, which broadcasts Detroit Tigers and Detroit Pistons games, or part of the Yes Network in New York, which streams the Yankees and Brooklyn Nets. There's a massive amount of money in local sports rights and advertising. And remember, like parent company Disney, ESPN is planning to launch its own direct-to-consumer sports streaming service, which could suddenly become a lot more enticing to fans of certain local teams. Is this why Disney purchased the streaming technology firm BAMTech? In other words, even if companies like Amazon and Facebook continued to dabble in live sports rights, a Fox deal could be a total game changer for Disney. Tweet Embed: https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/938102675899498496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Disney/Fox deal would be a massive boost for ESPN if they can use those local RSNs to boost their new OTT service. That’s a huge win if so. Tweet Embed: https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/938064561449721856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw This is huge, although it would seem to run counter to FOXA's stated desire to focus on sports/news. RSNs are basically ATMs. https://t.co/elAgXbvQRL Don't forget FX If a Disney/Fox mashup is about traditional media girding for an 'over the top' future, the FX network could provide to be a great test case. The network has produced a continued slate of prestige shows with small, but passionate fan bases (think "The Americans" and "American Horror Story.") FX has recently begun offering an ad-free version of the network to Comcast subscribers for $6 a month. FX CEO John Landgraf is one of the more respected minds in the TV business, and coined the phrase 'peak TV' describing the current glut of scripted series. He said a few months ago during an Advertising Week event that a linear TV network may not be "the best expression of our brand." Maybe FX tries to become the next HBO Go? Or, as Landgraf noted, maybe FX figures out a way to bring premium TV content to consumers for free – with a limited number of targeted ads. Either way, FX would be a solid addition to the Disney portfolio. The power of Avatar Fox is spending over $1 billion on four planned sequels to James Cameron's smash hit "Avatar." Those movies basically have to work. Is anyone better suited to maximizing the marketing and profit potential of a franchise like that (theme parks, merchandise, etc.) than Disney? Netflix won't stay still and may want to make more deals Netflix is planning to spend an astonishing $8 billion on content next year. How can they keep this spending up? Its subscription service officer a better business model than cable TV or advertising, argued Ted Sarandos, Netflix's chief content officer, speaking at the UBS event on Tuesday. Sarandos also gushed about the company's recent acquisition of the comic book publisher Millarworld, which provides Netflix with exclusive access to a stable of characters that could be turned into TV shows and movies. "It's very freeing... owning your IP," said Sarandos. Owning IP can lead to much bigger relationships and partnerships, he said. And Sarandos didn't shoot down the idea when he was asked if Netflix might want to make more such deals. Then there are a bunch of unanswered questions: What happens to Hulu? According to CNBC, Disney could end up controlling a majority stake in Hulu – which is a joint venture between 21st Century Fox, Disney and Comcast. This could present an odd conflict: would Disney prioritize it's own streaming service over Hulu, even though Hulu already has a built-in subscriber base? What happens to Hulu if Disney/Fox pulls its content? Would Disney sell it to somebody else? Will it outlive its usefulness over time? Or, as one observer suggested, could Hulu be used as the base service to jump-start a Disney subscription offering? Who's in charge? Could a Murdoch best known for a phone hacking scandal in the UK actually run the company that brought you Moana? Yes, reported the Financial Times on Tuesday. Disney has been seeking a successor for CEO Bob Iger for several years, and Iger has extended his stay past a planned retirement. Is James Murdoch the right man for the job? He declined to talk about the deal at the UBS Media Conference on Tuesday, reported Deadline. Murdoch has painted himself as a digitally savvy, ready-to-shake-things-up media mogul. Is he just what Disney needs? What about a smaller Fox? If the deal closes, the Murdochs will suddenly have a pile of cash, and a small collection of assets: Fox network, Fs1 and Fox News. Those networks are all solid, but will suddenly seem very vulnerable as media becomes all about being big. What if Fox suddenly loses the NFL in a few years, for instance? Could the Murdochs suddenly become buyers again? Or could the family recombine the Fox assets with News Corp. (Barron's, The Wall Street Journal, etc), as Kelly suggested? There are so many other dominoes to fall. What happens to Viacom? Discovery/Scripps? What does Facebook do on TV? Amazon? It will be very hard to stand pat in the new media world ahead. To read more about media's Game of Thrones-like machinations, click here. NOW WATCH: How much money you need to save each day to become a millionaire by age 65 December 6, 2017 at 04:43AM

[tortuga-aak]

Disney is about to go to war with Netflix and Fox could be a big weapon

Disney/Lucafilm

Disney is preparing for a full-scale rivalry with Netflix.

That means Disney needs all the programming it can get as it plans for a direct-to-consumer, digitally-dominated media future.

Disney's first shot in this war may be to buy a collection of assets from 21st Century Fox.

More deals are sure to follow.

Disney may be closing in on a media-industry-rocking deal to acquire a collection of assets from 21st Century Fox. CNBC reports that a deal, which would include Fox's movie studios, could be announced as soon as next week. 

The deal comes as media companies look for ways to survive as consumers shift their attention to ad-free streaming services from Netflix and Amazon, cut the cord in increasing numbers and spend an inordinate amount of time glued to mobile screens and social media. 

Disney's already declared that it is going to war with Netflix by launching its own streaming service. Already Disney has some big assets to offer subscribers to this potential service, including movies made by its own studios and the rights to mega-hits like Star Wars. But it's going to need as many big guns as it can get in that fight.  If the future is less about cable bundles and classic TV advertising, and more about bringing content directly to paying subscribers, giants like Disney can't stand pat. That's where Fox comes in.

As one industry observer put it, "nobody knows what the business model of the future is. But if you have a lot of content, you're either going to get people to pay for it, run ads in it, or license it to somebody. So this is a pretty good hedge for Disney."

So, here's what we're thinking about in terms of breaking down the potential deal:

Building out a super-powered library

Disney's content library seems as good as it gets: Mickey, Pixar, Marvel. Given the company's plans to pull back on Netflix distribution to build out its own streaming service, it's arguably in great shape to launch its own streaming subscription business.

But as consumer media consumption fragments more every year, Disney will need as extensive a menu as possible to make sure they have something for everybody's plate, said Mike Kelly, CEO of Kelly Newman Ventures, a media industry consulting firm.

"Media has always been a distribution business, but digital is about one-to-one," he said. "So the only way to remain central to consumers is to continue to have scale by owning as much of a library as possible."

Netflix's approach to this has been to spend heavily to develop new shows, and compete with the likes of HBO and major TV networks for potential hits. With Fox, Disney would grab the rights to a trusted library including  X-Men, Deadpool, Planet of the Apes, Avatar, and Captain Underpants, and of course the added capability of finding and nurturing future blockbusters.

Defending against FANG

Beside fighting Netflix, everyone in media is making sure they don't get taken out by the rest of Silicon Valley – namely Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. These companies have huge scale, deep pockets and are getting aggressive in content while dominating digital advertising.

"People talk about Facebook and Google taking 85 cents of every dollar in digital ads, but the way those companies look at it is that they are only taking like 20% of advertising overall," said Kelly. "They want it all."

Indeed, overall the so-called FANG companies "are trying to eat [media's] lunch," he said. For big media players, "this is about being around five years from now."

What about sports?

This is where it gets really interesting. CNBC is now reporting that Fox's regional sports networks will be included if this deal happens.

That means that while Disney wouldn't control the Fox broadcasting network and its NFL rights, or FS1, Fox's fledgling ESPN wannabe, it could theoretically control local sports networks like Fox Sports Detroit, which broadcasts Detroit Tigers and Detroit Pistons games, or part of the Yes Network in New York, which streams the Yankees and Brooklyn Nets.

There's a massive amount of money in local sports rights and advertising. And remember, like parent company Disney, ESPN is planning to launch its own direct-to-consumer sports streaming service, which could suddenly become a lot more enticing to fans of certain local teams. Is this why Disney purchased the streaming technology firm BAMTech?

In other words, even if companies like Amazon and Facebook continued to dabble in live sports rights, a Fox deal could be a total game changer for Disney.

Tweet Embed: https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/938102675899498496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Disney/Fox deal would be a massive boost for ESPN if they can use those local RSNs to boost their new OTT service. That’s a huge win if so.Tweet Embed: https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/938064561449721856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw This is huge, although it would seem to run counter to FOXA's stated desire to focus on sports/news. RSNs are basically ATMs. https://t.co/elAgXbvQRL

Don't forget FX

If a Disney/Fox mashup is about traditional media girding for an 'over the top' future, the FX network could provide to be a great test case. The network has produced a continued slate of prestige shows with small, but passionate fan bases (think "The Americans" and "American Horror Story.") FX has recently begun offering an ad-free version of the network to Comcast subscribers for $6 a month.

FX CEO John Landgraf is one of the more respected minds in the TV business, and coined the phrase 'peak TV' describing the current glut of scripted series. He said a few months ago during an Advertising Week event that a linear TV network may not be "the best expression of our brand." Maybe FX tries to become the next HBO Go? 

Or, as Landgraf noted, maybe FX figures out a way to bring premium TV content to consumers for free – with a limited number of targeted ads. Either way, FX would be a solid addition to the Disney portfolio.

The power of Avatar

Fox is spending over $1 billion on four planned sequels to James Cameron's smash hit "Avatar." Those movies basically have to work. Is anyone better suited to maximizing the marketing and profit potential of a franchise like that (theme parks, merchandise, etc.) than Disney?

Netflix won't stay still and may want to make more deals

Netflix is planning to spend an astonishing $8 billion on content next year. How can they keep this spending up? Its subscription service officer a better business model than cable TV or advertising, argued Ted Sarandos, Netflix's chief content officer, speaking at the UBS event on Tuesday.

Sarandos also gushed about the company's recent acquisition of the comic book publisher Millarworld, which provides Netflix with exclusive access to a stable of characters that could be turned into TV shows and movies.

"It's very freeing... owning your IP," said Sarandos. Owning IP can lead to much bigger relationships and partnerships, he said. And Sarandos didn't shoot down the idea when he was asked if Netflix might want to make more such deals.

Then there are a bunch of unanswered questions:

What happens to Hulu? According to CNBC, Disney could end up controlling a majority stake in Hulu – which is a joint venture between 21st Century Fox, Disney and Comcast. This could present an odd conflict: would Disney prioritize it's own streaming service over Hulu, even though Hulu already has a built-in subscriber base?

What happens to Hulu if Disney/Fox pulls its content? Would Disney sell it to somebody else? Will it outlive its usefulness over time?

Or, as one observer suggested, could Hulu be used as the base service to jump-start a Disney subscription offering?

Who's in charge? Could a Murdoch best known for a phone hacking scandal in the UK actually run the company that brought you Moana? Yes, reported the Financial Times on Tuesday. Disney has been seeking a successor for CEO Bob Iger for several years, and Iger has extended his stay past a planned retirement. Is James Murdoch the right man for the job? He declined to talk about the deal at the UBS Media Conference on Tuesday, reported Deadline.

Murdoch has painted himself as a digitally savvy, ready-to-shake-things-up media mogul. Is he just what Disney needs? 

What about a smaller Fox? If the deal closes, the Murdochs will suddenly have a pile of cash, and a small collection of assets: Fox network, Fs1 and Fox News. Those networks are all solid, but will suddenly seem very vulnerable as media becomes all about being big. What if Fox suddenly loses the NFL in a few years, for instance?

Could the Murdochs suddenly become buyers again?  Or could the family recombine the Fox assets with News Corp. (Barron's, The Wall Street Journal, etc), as Kelly suggested?

There are so many other dominoes to fall. What happens to Viacom? Discovery/Scripps? What does Facebook do on TV? Amazon? It will be very hard to stand pat in the new media world ahead. 

To read more about media's Game of Thrones-like machinations, click here.

NOW WATCH: How much money you need to save each day to become a millionaire by age 65

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2BMjWOO

[cryptnus-blog]

Keeping Ethereum's Promise: CryptoKitties Is Embracing Open-Source

New Post has been published on https://cryptnus.com/2018/06/keeping-ethereums-promise-cryptokitties-is-embracing-open-source/

Keeping Ethereum's Promise: CryptoKitties Is Embracing Open-Source

Call it an explosion of cute names for a cause.

Announced this week, CryptoKitties debuted a number of new initiatives that will further decentralize its popular ethereum app, which while largely passing under the radar, show the startup is making strides to give users rights. It’s been the subject of criticism for the beloved game, which raised $12 million in March with the expectation it would loosen controls on its code in line with the larger crypto ethos.

Among a slew of updates, CryptoKitties is open-sourcing its API and smart contracts for gameplay in the KittyVerse – a virtual world of experiences including catfights, racing and accessories – through a developer toolkit. Plus, it’s updated its user agreements to be more lenient and introduced a players’ rights contract called the Nifty License.

“CryptoKitties … was always criticized for not being completely decentralized,” Afri Schoedon, communications officer at the ethereum startup Parity, explained. “I think CryptoKitties is doing a good job on finding the perfect path between decentralization and usability.”

He continued: The more you try to decentralize things, the more complicated it will be to actually use it.”

And CryptoKitties isn’t just improving for end-users, but also for developers.

Take players like Candi Johnson, who have donated their time to build gameplay features like more complex battle options. Observers pointed out that CryptoKitties’ old terms of service stipulated the team owned all graphics and elements of the app, but the Nifty License gives Johnson, and other cat owners, the legal rights to the intellectual property of each tabby.

As CryptoKitties fan Todd Goldberg tweeted: “I have the right to delete my account and still take the asset with me. If this was a centralized game and I wanted to delete my account, I’d lose the asset.”

A traditional, centralized gaming studio might balk at the idea of letting users take their digital assets off the platform.

To the contrary, CryptoKitties co-founder Bryce Bladon said that diverse experiences with the items increase the whole ecosystem’s value, plus, people looking to build alternative versions of CryptoKitties now don’t ever need to worry about being sued.

Blandon told CoinDesk:

“It’s as much about removing ourselves as any form of a central authority as it is about doing so in a way that doesn’t compromise the value of this game, of this product, and of this platform as a whole.”

Looking ahead, CryptoKitties plans to build on this progress by looking into decentralized data storage solutions like Filecoin and the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS), Blandon said.

Stakeholder rights

Crypto collectibles are valuable only as long as they are unique or rare – so balancing owners’ rights with some limitation on how these tokens are reproduced will be crucial to this ecosystem’s success.

Bladon said he hopes the Nifty License can set an example for other non-fungible tokens, a broader class of crypto assets of which CryptoKitties is the most well-known, establishing a norm where the asset belongs to the user and not the platform.

“That is why we have loosened up our terms of service. That is why we put this license out there,” he said.

However, the Nifty License still appears to stipulate that owners can’t apply the cat’s image for commercial use – like a company logo – or sell it on a marketplace that doesn’t verify ownership, such as Craigslist.

Limitations aside, Parity’s Schoedon sees the Nifty License as a step in the right direction.

“It would be good to just get away from this second-layer licensing issue by just saying ‘whoever owns that token owns the attached art,'” he said, referencing how commercial use and distribution clauses can get tricky.

Fortunately for gamers, the CryptoKitties team sees the Nifty License as a work in progress.

Looking ahead, the virtual playground will no longer be maintained solely by the startup. Case in point, Johnson’s work on new CryptoKitties’ experiences is not as a part of another open-source project or separate IP; instead, it’s just for the love of the game.

“The goal is to add value to the community and the kitties by giving them additional functionality. They’re super cute as collectibles, and being able to play with them is fun,” Johnson told CoinDesk.

Speaking to why making the application easier to use for developers will be beneficial to end users, Blandon said:

“There is no more one-size-fits-all gameplay experience.”

Sustainable funding

Yet another initiative CryptoKitties announced this week is the Nifty Kitty Program, which gives opportunities for independent developer teams to apply for loans or grants to fund work for the community.

“We are trying to build sustainable revenue options for people outside of the core CryptoKitties team,” Bladon said.

These days, the startup’s main source of revenue is charging 3.7 percent on all transactions done through CryptoKitties.co, such as buying a new kitty.

However, since the ethereum smart contract is now open-source, other parties could theoretically give birth to new pets without that tax. Bladon said users with the skills to utilize the smart contract themselves are welcome to experiment.

“The hash code would correlate to the cat’s art and they would own it. It would be a legitimate CryptoKitty,” Bladon said. “I’m certain there is immense potential and a strong possibility for new and interesting ways for CryptoKitties to be made.”

The team has already selected a few external projects to receive loans or grants through the Nifty Kitty Program. Whatever those teams make won’t be owned or managed by the original startup. This initiative aims to boost outside participation in building a cat-tastic ecosystem.

For Johnson, CryptoKitties was her first introduction to blockchain technology and she enjoyed the opportunity to learn more about it with a group of players who call themselves the KittyBattles team. Regardless of whether this team ever seeks monetary rewards for their creation, other developer teams might want that option.

The Nifty Kitty Program could be aligned with CryptoKitties’ interest in decentralizing its processes. In the future, if CryptoKitties relinquishes control of the platform, the game would still need a vibrant developer community to continue iterating on the game to make it fun for users.

Speaking to this point, Bladon said:

“Once a core concept is proven, developers can build on top of it. Players can sort of invest in the idea. Players and developers alike are elevated to stakeholders in it.”

Pink CryptoKitties image via CryptoKitties Medium 

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

[ramialkarmi]

Disney is about to go to war with Netflix and Fox could be a big weapon

Disney is preparing for a full-scale rivalry with Netflix.

That means Disney needs all the programming it can get as it plans for a direct-to-consumer, digitally-dominated media future.

Disney's first shot in this war may be to buy a collection of assets from 21st Century Fox.

More deals are sure to follow.

Disney may be closing in on a media-industry-rocking deal to acquire a collection of assets from 21st Century Fox. CNBC reports that a deal, which would include Fox's movie studios, could be announced as soon as next week. 

The deal comes as media companies look for ways to survive as consumers shift their attention to ad-free streaming services from Netflix and Amazon, cut the cord in increasing numbers and spend an inordinate amount of time glued to mobile screens and social media. 

Disney's already declared that it is going to war with Netflix by launching its own streaming service. Already Disney has some big assets to offer subscribers to this potential service, including movies made by its own studios and the rights to mega-hits like Star Wars. But it's going to need as many big guns as it can get in that fight.  If the future is less about cable bundles and classic TV advertising, and more about bringing content directly to paying subscribers, giants like Disney can't stand pat. That's where Fox comes in.

As one industry observer put it, "nobody knows what the business model of the future is. But if you have a lot of content, you're either going to get people to pay for it, run ads in it, or license it to somebody. So this is a pretty good hedge for Disney."

So, here's what we're thinking about in terms of breaking down the potential deal:

Building out a super-powered library

Disney's content library seems as good as it gets: Mickey, Pixar, Marvel. Given the company's plans to pull back on Netflix distribution to build out its own streaming service, it's arguably in great shape to launch its own streaming subscription business.

But as consumer media consumption fragments more every year, Disney will need as extensive a menu as possible to make sure they have something for everybody's plate, said Mike Kelly, CEO of Kelly Newman Ventures, a media industry consulting firm.

"Media has always been a distribution business, but digital is about one-to-one," he said. "So the only way to remain central to consumers is to continue to have scale by owning as much of a library as possible."

Netflix's approach to this has been to spend heavily to develop new shows, and compete with the likes of HBO and major TV networks for potential hits. With Fox, Disney would grab the rights to a trusted library including  X-Men, Deadpool, Planet of the Apes, Avatar, and Captain Underpants, and of course the added capability of finding and nurturing future blockbusters.

Defending against FANG

Beside fighting Netflix, everyone in media is making sure they don't get taken out by the rest of Silicon Valley – namely Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. These companies have huge scale, deep pockets and are getting aggressive in content while dominating digital advertising.

"People talk about Facebook and Google taking 85 cents of every dollar in digital ads, but the way those companies look at it is that they are only taking like 20% of advertising overall," said Kelly. "They want it all."

Indeed, overall the so-called FANG companies "are trying to eat [media's] lunch," he said. For big media players, "this is about being around five years from now."

What about sports?

This is where it gets really interesting. CNBC is now reporting that Fox's regional sports networks will be included if this deal happens.

That means that while Disney wouldn't control the Fox broadcasting network and its NFL rights, or FS1, Fox's fledgling ESPN wannabe, it could theoretically control local sports networks like Fox Sports Detroit, which broadcasts Detroit Tigers and Detroit Pistons games, or part of the Yes Network in New York, which streams the Yankees and Brooklyn Nets.

There's a massive amount of money in local sports rights and advertising. And remember, like parent company Disney, ESPN is planning to launch its own direct-to-consumer sports streaming service, which could suddenly become a lot more enticing to fans of certain local teams. Is this why Disney purchased the streaming technology firm BAMTech?

In other words, even if companies like Amazon and Facebook continued to dabble in live sports rights, a Fox deal could be a total game changer for Disney.

Disney/Fox deal would be a massive boost for ESPN if they can use those local RSNs to boost their new OTT service. That’s a huge win if so.

— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) December 5, 2017

This is huge, although it would seem to run counter to FOXA's stated desire to focus on sports/news. RSNs are basically ATMs. http://bit.ly/2irQDZP

— Anthony Crupi (@crupicrupicrupi) December 5, 2017

Don't forget FX

If a Disney/Fox mashup is about traditional media girding for an 'over the top' future, the FX network could provide to be a great test case. The network has produced a continued slate of prestige shows with small, but passionate fan bases (think "The Americans" and "American Horror Story.") FX has recently begun offering an ad-free version of the network to Comcast subscribers for $6 a month.

FX CEO John Landgraf is one of the more respected minds in the TV business, and coined the phrase 'peak TV' describing the current glut of scripted series. He said a few months ago during an Advertising Week event that a linear TV network may not be "the best expression of our brand." Maybe FX tries to become the next HBO Go? 

Or, as Landgraf noted, maybe FX figures out a way to bring premium TV content to consumers for free – with a limited number of targeted ads. Either way, FX would be a solid addition to the Disney portfolio.

The power of Avatar

Fox is spending over $1 billion on four planned sequels to James Cameron's smash hit "Avatar." Those movies basically have to work. Is anyone better suited to maximizing the marketing and profit potential of a franchise like that (theme parks, merchandise, etc.) than Disney?

Netflix won't stay still and may want to make more deals

Netflix is planning to spend an astonishing $8 billion on content next year. How can they keep this spending up? Its subscription service officer a better business model than cable TV or advertising, argued Ted Sarandos, Netflix's chief content officer, speaking at the UBS event on Tuesday.

Sarandos also gushed about the company's recent acquisition of the comic book publisher Millarworld, which provides Netflix with exclusive access to a stable of characters that could be turned into TV shows and movies.

"It's very freeing... owning your IP," said Sarandos. Owning IP can lead to much bigger relationships and partnerships, he said. And Sarandos didn't shoot down the idea when he was asked if Netflix might want to make more such deals.

Then there are a bunch of unanswered questions:

What happens to Hulu? According to CNBC, Disney could end up controlling a majority stake in Hulu – which is a joint venture between 21st Century Fox, Disney and Comcast. This could present an odd conflict: would Disney prioritize it's own streaming service over Hulu, even though Hulu already has a built-in subscriber base?

What happens to Hulu if Disney/Fox pulls its content? Would Disney sell it to somebody else? Will it outlive its usefulness over time?

Or, as one observer suggested, could Hulu be used as the base service to jump-start a Disney subscription offering?

Who's in charge? Could a Murdoch best known for a phone hacking scandal in the UK actually run the company that brought you Moana? Yes, reported the Financial Times on Tuesday. Disney has been seeking a successor for CEO Bob Iger for several years, and Iger has extended his stay past a planned retirement. Is James Murdoch the right man for the job? He declined to talk about the deal at the UBS Media Conference on Tuesday, reported Deadline.

Murdoch has painted himself as a digitally savvy, ready-to-shake-things-up media mogul. Is he just what Disney needs? 

What about a smaller Fox? If the deal closes, the Murdochs will suddenly have a pile of cash, and a small collection of assets: Fox network, Fs1 and Fox News. Those networks are all solid, but will suddenly seem very vulnerable as media becomes all about being big. What if Fox suddenly loses the NFL in a few years, for instance?

Could the Murdochs suddenly become buyers again?  Or could the family recombine the Fox assets with News Corp. (Barron's, The Wall Street Journal, etc), as Kelly suggested?

There are so many other dominoes to fall. What happens to Viacom? Discovery/Scripps? What does Facebook do on TV? Amazon? It will be very hard to stand pat in the new media world ahead. 

To read more about media's Game of Thrones-like machinations, click here.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Korean parents are having their kids get plastic surgery before college