Fox News' Special Report suggested that a "deal" in the health care bill was sought by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) for a proposed hospital in Connecticut and discussed other purported "deals" for Tennessee and Louisiana. In fact, Connecticut would potentially have to compete for funding against other states, and Republicans and Democrats have said that provisions for Tennessee and Louisiana are crucial to fixing an imbalance in Medicaid funding in those states.

From the March 19 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

BRIAN WILSON (correspondent): Deals still alive for the moment? Well, Republicans claim that Democrat Bart Gordon changed his vote from "yes" -- from "no" to "yes" after he got $100 million for Tennessee hospitals that treat the poor. Other deals still in play? Yes, the Louisiana Purchase: $300 million in Medicaid money is still alive; Connecticut hospital handout -- $100 million sought by Senator Dodd.

From the March 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Retiring Congressman Bart Gordon is doing a 180 as well. Now he voted "no" in November, but after securing millions of dollars in Medicaid funding for low-income patients in his home state, well, he's now in the "yes" column.

Connecticut would reportedly have to compete for the hospital funds. The Hartford Courant reported that Connecticut would have to compete for the funds. Also, Dodd reportedly said that at least 14 other states could apply for the grant.

Funding for health care facilities would be decided by Health and Human Services secretary. The text of the Senate health care bill as passed states that the $100 million grant for "infrastructure to expand access to health care" "may only be made available by the Secretary of Health and Human Services upon the receipt of an application from the Governor of a State" that meets certain requirements:

(b) REQUIREMENT.-Amount appropriated under subsection (a) may only be made available by the Secretary of Health and Human Services upon the receipt of an application from the Governor of a State that certifies that-

(1) the new health care facility is critical for the provision of greater access to health care within the State;

(2) such facility is essential for the continued financial viability of the State's sole public medical and dental school and its academic health center;

(3) the request for Federal support represents not more than 40 percent of the total cost of the proposed new facility; and

(4) the State has established a dedicated funding mechanism to provide all remaining funds necessary to complete the construction or renovation of the proposed facility.

Proposed UConn hospital part of Republican Gov. Rell's health care proposal. Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has reportedly proposed a $352 million University of Connecticut Health Center that would rely on $100 million in federal funds available as a grant in the health care bill under the provision inserted by Dodd.

Under health care bill reconciliation "fix," $100 million in Medicaid would go to "disproportionate share hospital" payments. Changes proposed to the Senate health care bill included a section that, in part, gives disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments to states that otherwise would receive no payments after FY2011. The House Rules Committee summary of the changes describes Sec. 1203:

Sec. 1203. Disproportionate share hospital payments. Lowers the reduction in federal Medicaid DSH payments from $18.1 billion to $14.1 billion and advances the reductions to begin in fiscal year 2014. Directs the Secretary to develop a methodology for reducing federal DSH allotments to all states in order to achieve the mandated reductions. Extends through FY 2013 the federal DSH allotment for a state that has a $0 allotment after FY 2011.

Entire TN delegation asked Energy and Commerce Committee to deal with the fact that the state is scheduled to get no DSH money. As reported by the Nashville Business Journal, a May 2009 letter from Tennessee's entire House delegation -- consisting of both Democrats and Republicans -- to the House Energy and Commerce Committee requested DSH funding. According to the letter, Tennessee had given up DSH funding in 1993 when it created a special state insurance program, TennCare, in lieu of traditional Medicaid. The letter added that, since March 2006, Tennessee hospitals have "returned to a traditional Medicaid population," but are not getting DSH payments, unlike almost every other state. From the letter:

As you may know, with the onset of the TennCare waiver in 1993, the state agreed to eliminate the DSH payment for Tennessee, using the rationale that the majority of the uninsured and uninsurable would have the opportunity to enter the new TennCare program and, consequently, hospitals would be getting TennCare reimbursement for the majority of the patients that would have been charity care patients. Although there was an initial 25 percent-decline in charity care under the program, the cost of charity care in Tennessee hospitals returned to pre-TennCare levels by 2000 and has continued to grow at a pace consistent with hospitals across the country. As of March 2006, the state Medicaid program began to disenroll adults who were eligible for TennCare as uninsured or uninsurable previously. This leaves Tennessee hospitals in the dilemma of having returned to a traditional Medicaid population covered by a Medicaid program with no DSH payment. Tennessee is one of only two states with no DSH payment. The other state is Hawaii.

Tennessee reportedly got temporary fixes in the past. The Nashville Business Journal article also reported:

The imbalance has existed since Tennessee gave up its payments when it created TennCare in the 1990s -- and it has been similarly addressed by lawmakers in the past. Early last year, a $32.8 billion bill to insure poor children included a provision extending DSH payments to Tennessee hospitals by $30 million a year for two years.

TennCare spokeswoman Kelly Gunderson said the majority of Tennessee hospitals receive some level of DSH payments.

Funding would fix FMAP rates for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." The Senate bill as passed includes a provision -- often referred to as the "Louisiana Purchase" by conservative media -- that would adjust the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." The bill requires that it only apply to states "for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster" and "determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government."

The Department of Health and Human Services states that FMAP is "used in determining the amount of Federal matching funds for State expenditures for assistance payments for certain social services, and State medical and medical insurance expenditures. The Social Security Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to calculate and publish the FMAPs each year."

Times-Picayune: Temporary post-Katrina spending "spiked" per capita income "long enough" to skew Medicaid funding formula, causing state Medicaid funding shortfall. The Times-Picayune reported on January 22 that "FMAP refers to the percentage of a state's payments under Medicaid that are covered by the federal government. Louisiana usually gets a higher match because of how poor the state is, but because of all the recovery and rebuilding money that poured in after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, state per capita income spiked long enough to throw the formula out of kilter and threaten to blow a hole [in] the state budget. [Sen. Mary] Landrieu's fix was, according to state officials, only the beginning of a solution for a huge Medicaid shortfall the state is facing." The article stated that Landrieu said "attaching the Medicaid provision to a health-care bill made sense, and there is no obvious and feasible legislative alternative."

Jindal: "If not corrected in Washington, D.C.," FMAP problem will cost $500 million a year. Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal's fiscal year 2010-2011 budget proposal states that the "Louisiana state government faces significant, multi-year budget challenges, compounded by a faulty federal FMAP formula that, if not corrected in Washington, D.C., will cost the state approximately $500 million a year in Medicaid funding, impacting services for the poorest in our state, and often those who need care the most." The proposal also says that "[w]hile there is discussion in Washington about extending the enhanced federal Medicaid match rate for six months for all states, without a permanent fix to Louisiana's faulty FMAP calculation, combined with the loss of federal stimulus funding, Louisiana will still face a projected $1.7 billion shortfall for FY 12."

Gallery: BlazBlue Continuum Shift

Aksys announces North American release, hype train for BlazBlue: Continuum Shift originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Gallery: BlazBlue Continuum Shift

Aksys announces North American release, hype train for BlazBlue: Continuum Shift originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

The shortest way to describe this is that Google is no longer a verb. It's becoming a noun. Not just the few clicks to find information, but the information itself and the experience surrounding it.

Today, we get to add Google's chapter to "Will One Company Dominate the Cloud" introspective series and take a glimpse of the silent revolution from "index" to "be" that is transforming the company and it's products to the default way to engage the Internet.

As fate has it, Google done us a big favor in preparing for this piece. The company has launched an assault on the enterprise with its movement in the Google App Engine, having a stand-off with China, and negotiating with the EU. And that was just a bit of Google news from this week.

Sponsor

Whereas it's a bit more clear where Amazon and Cisco win (our recent analysis) as they head towards the cloud, with Google it takes a bit more expansive view. We have to take the focus out a bit, to be able to dial in on the details.

We recently had the opportunity to sit down with Tim Bray. He has been a key contributor and thought leader in key areas of interoperability and information design, including his leadership in bringing XML to the world. He recently announced that he's joining Google and focusing on Android in a transition from Sun.

Several things struck us about our dialog that we think are key for Google.

First, when Bray described his new job at Google, he talked about what he wanted to do and what he saw that needed to be done. Within three days of being there, he has a sense of ownership of the companies products and mission. In some organizations, you may never get such a luxury.

Second, Bray described his opportunity to "roll up his sleeves" and get back in the groove as a developer on a project he feels passion for. He mentioned his desire to take the open APIs of Android and expose some of the information in a more portable way, for example to transfer a call log from one phone to another. A very interesting project, with tangible results. This type of innovation lives on top of all the work the company has done to make the API exist, and to attract individuals who are willing to rethink how it should really work.

We think that this is the most interesting thing about where Google is right now. It's "open" mantra gives the company the ability to see a whole generation into the future of information channel disruption. And, by bringing in "no holds barred" developers like Bray and a legion of others, the company is patiently solving problems that many of us don't even know exist.

Lastly, Bray said something that caused us some deep thought.

His comment, "when the Drizzle team was moved into Google, they just kept working on the their open source project and things stayed nearly the same."

What caused us to pause was that open source development, whether Linux or XML, gives the developer, as a person, a way to contribute to the world. And it's documented. If the Internet was the Bible, leading a key open source initiative, is like getting your own chapter in the book, where time will be the judge of your actions. Much better than your manager alone.

To know that hard work, intellectual capital, libraries are available to the world after the contract is complete. This really speaks to the artist in us, in a way, the paid open source developer is using Google as a canvas.

If working at Google offers this emotional spark to employees, it will gain entirely new efficiencies in solving the big problems, in the context of individual efforts. Maybe this open source spirit is embedded into Twitter, and is why it works. We like to contribute to our version of the greater good...and want fans to cheer us on.

What we learned; acknowledgment matters, and connections to the whole population of people is an amazing vehicle. Google: become an indie rock star - with the strength of grep.

Google's destiny to become the hub of the worlds information is intertwined with history. And this comes with artifacts of policy and posturing. To start with, not everyone agrees that Google should achieve a dominant cloud position. As we're noticing, stopping it is another matter.

We'd like to suggest that in 2010, the company is not shy about stepping towards its future and will use its power, technology, and cash to stir it up. Here is our list of organizations in the world that Google has, is, or will be, continually bumping into in its quest for cloud information dominance.

• China (counties own the filters for the people)
• ATT (service providers own consumer on the network)
• Penguin (book publishers own the words in the texts)
• Visa (financial institutions own the digits in the transactions)
• Facebook (social networks know the details)
• Amazon (commerce sites own the decision point)
• Twitter (owns "what's happening")
• Microsoft (owns the computer applications and files)

We see both practical and strategic reasons that Google has a deep connection with the open source movement. Strategically, being the new optimized layer, removing all historic barriers to information give the company more leverage. Practically, solutions can be built where information is free.

Reviewing a few examples, such as Google Earth, Android, and even GMail and we see that where there are open protocols and information disruptive products can be built. Once they are built, the Google wields a significant economic advantage in binding the worlds information assets and converting them to eyeballs.

Here, we take a quick look at the information assets that Google is investing the global cloud.

• Results: Google has moved away from Page Rank to "Closest Object" in it's default results. What this means is that many businesses today show up as widget in the results in google with embedded links, maps, and other efficiencies.
• Ads: This is perhaps the best known and most valuable insight and unique asset, who wants to pay for what customer
• Realtime index: Google has worked to keep up with Twitter's realtime firehose
• Semantic index: The company continues to add more and more microsyntax parsers into its index, giving more controlled tools for publishers
• GMail: It had to be done. And it is monetized.
• Documents and files: Google Docs and the Apps Marketplace create a whole new stream of information about an individual. Private, personal, and shared.
• Mobile transactions: This is an interesting sample of where Google's strategy to build the Android OS pays off in the cloud. Not only does Google get to connect mobile to the rest of the offerings, but also to be able to dial in on movements, calls, and other critical tasks in our real-time lives.
• Books: Indexing all of them, first is an interesting piece of the strategy to break apart historic containers of knowledge. Is the book copyrighted? How about the quote?
• Browsers: The browser knows a lot. Google's Chrome moves it from being default search, to being default experience. This was a great example of where access to information "Faster pages" is the simple value proposition for consumers to switch.
• Filters: Protecting companies, trademarks, and interpreting the legality of free speech. Someone has to do it, if we're all one people.
• Health transactions: Google has even taken on one of the most sensitive challenges, private health information. And, it's connections to legacy systems that prefer EDI to JSON.

It's clear that Google is making progress. What we've also learned in this review is that the companies biggest asset - people - may scale to solve problems in lightweight ways that entire teams and companies haven't been able to in the past. Perhaps being open, or transparent, gives the company a unique advantage in being prepared for a cloud future.

Is the cloud where the action is?

What verb would you be if you were hired at Google?

Chalk Crayon Under an SEM Scanning Electron Microscope

ASPEX, a company that makes desktop scanning electron microscopes (SEMs), is running a promotional campaign under which anyone can mail them a sample, which they will then image under one of their SEMs. The results will be posted on their webpage, and all for free! Challenge: Take advantage of their offer to produce publishable data! [via Boing Boing]

Mozilla confirmed yesterday a critical vulnerability in the newest version of Firefox, and said it would plug the hole by the end of the month.

Although the patch won't be added to Firefox before next week's Pwn2Own browser hacking challenge, researchers won't be allowed to use the flaw, according to the contest's organizer.

Chris Frates / The Politico:
Democrats challenge authenticity of ‘doc fix’ memo  —  An earlier post in this spot detailed what was purported by Republicans to be an internal Democratic memo regarding the upcoming health reform vote Sunday.  Democratic leadership has challenged the authenticity of the memo.

[‘Design Diversions’ is a biweekly GameSetWatch-exclusive column by Andrew Vanden Bossche. It looks at the unexpected moments when games take us behind the scenes, and the details of how game design engages us. This time -- how emotional design can make us think about not thinking about violence.]

Senseless violence in videogames is fun, but more importantly, it can also be intellectually stimulating and thought provoking. While designers and critics alike cry out for more depth in games, pathos is not the only path to artistic merit. For a medium that's constantly patronized, misunderstood, and derided even by its supporters, sometimes satire and irony is the best way to get a point across.

This is the philosophy of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, as the most unapologetic of that series so lambasted by those who were the target of the game’s satire. The ultraviolent and candy colored Vice City is an excessively pink world in which violence is comical and cartoonish. Violence in this game is already highly desensitized. Pedestrians die, but after their bodies despawn the world will be back to normal as if nothing happened, maintaining the status quo like a TV serial.

It's the worst possible environment for a serious engagement with issues of violence, but it's a great environment to engage with how we depict violence. Most games take the opposite position of Haunting Ground, and are designed to soften, justify, or excuse violent actions so that players feel like heroes instead of murderers.

It's the same treatment summer blockbusters get. But unlike most of these media, Vice City goes a step further. This is a game that mercilessly skewers the groups most opposed to its existence, freely leaps into self parody, and satirizes the cultural attitudes towards violence that ultimately gave it form. By the end of Vice City it's clear that everyone from the mob to the talking heads on the radio are guilty of the same violence as the protagonist. No one in Vice City is innocent, and neither is anyone in the world.

How to Take the Sense Out of Violence

While technology makes blood and gore more realistic, game designers continue to construct this violence to minimize its impact. In the goriest of games (like Mortal Kombat) violence is there to thrill or disgust, not to inspire existential terror. Designers (and gamers) get excited over realism, but we want it for specific reasons. Despite how much we clamor for realism in graphics and physics, emotional realism actually gets in the way of enjoying games like Grand Theft Auto.

For this reason GTA4 has actually been criticized for being too realistic. GTA4 succeeded in its attempt to be more serious and taken more seriously, but it resulted in a different game experience--one that many fans hadn't been looking for and subsequently found in the much less serious Saints Row 2.

GTA4’s Nico feels more like a person than the caricature that is Vice City’s Tommy Vercetti, and for that reason it can be hard for players to engage senseless violence. Even the normal missions feel a little odd considering the sheer number of people you kill, creating a scenario in which the gameplay and story don’t quite mesh.

Abstracting Emotion

Trauma Center is an interesting example of a game that uses abstraction to eliminate squeamishness. This is a game inspired heavily by medical dramas with surgery-based gameplay. Medical dramas have a wide appeal; exposed organs do not. Surgeons and other medical professionals have to get used to blood and guts, but most people are pretty squeamish about that. Even the bloody fantasy violence of the average videogame can be less intense than the exposed entrails of a living human. Because of this, the designers went to great lengths to create a representation of the human body that wouldn't be grotesque.

Naoya Maeda, the lead 3D and event designer said on the Trauma Team web site that he came up with this abstract approach while thinking of how a surgeon would see the entrails. What's interesting about this approach is that the more realistic option may be less "true." In the game, the player is a doctor and revulsion is not part of the experience. In the same way, Tommy Vercetti attitude towards human life is pretty obvious from the way pedestrians are depicted.

A World of Mannequins

In violent videogames, it’s common to dehumanize the enemy so that players can feel justified in killing them. Zombies, robots, and aliens all serve their roles. With human opponents, it’s common to make them as evil as possible, which may be why WWII is the favorite FPS genre and Nazis the favorite foe. Ultimately though, the greatest tool for removing humanity is simply to leave them undeveloped.

The civilians in GTA don’t mourn, cry, or express themselves. Because they don't exhibit sympathetic actions, it's hard to empathize with them. They exist only to run screaming like Godzilla was stomping through the city. Vice City is inhabited by crash test dummies that respawn endlessly no matter how many times they die. It’s similar to watching Bugs Bunny gets blasted point blank with a shotgun: the next second, he's up and chomping carrots.

No matter how many times the player dies in GTA, or however many generic citizens he wastes, everything in the world will be respawning and back to normal in minutes. In this way, actions that would normally appear reprehensible loose all their emotional impact. If GTA was an accurate murder simulator, depicting the horror of real-world violence and murder with unflinching accuracy, the nightly news stories would have been about kids getting PTSD.

Sensitive Violence

If there is a flaw in this form of violence in videogames, it’s that it isn’t violent enough. It’s emotionally casual, designed specifically to not challenge the player’s feelings of empathy or guilt. Although it takes a lot of design work to make sure the player won’t feel sorry for the extras, seeing how many pixilated crash-test dummies you can run over isn’t emotionally challenging for the player.

Haunting Ground has a near-opposite outcome, but the design is obviously quite intentional. Compare GTA to the visceral Manhunt, and you can see that Rockstar is quite capable of creating an experience uniquely tailored to inspiring certain emotions. That’s a game that really does make the player feel like a murderer.

So Vice City is engineered for players to be as violent as possible without thinking about it. This is where a lot of game stop, having accomplished their purpose, and just let the player have fun. But Vice City fills the game with relentless satire, and this cleverness works in part because it's so violent. The result is a game about thinking about not thinking about violence.

Whose America?

The talk radio blabbering about videogame violence is underscored by the incredible violence perpetuated by the player. With Tommy Vercetti chaining rows of exploding cars and fighting everything from SWAT to the US Army, the irony of legislating against bleeding pixels isn’t lost on the player.

The jingoistic ads run by the game's gun stores unsubtly implicate that GTA is not the cause of America's attitudes towards violence, but a product of it. The entrepreneurial rise of the main character reflects a certain pulling-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-attitude that, along with this construction of violence, satirically constructs Tommy Vercetti as an ideal American.

Vice City is violent videogame about America’s attitude towards violence. Vice City came out after GTA 3, and it was born while the immediate reaction to that game was fresh in the minds of its audience and opponents. As the in game talk show parody unfolds, extremists from all sides fight over which vision of America to cram down the rest of the country’s throat while the player is laughing at them and having a grand old time.

While the guests on talk radio worry about fictional violence, their world is being blown up by the player on a regular basis. After mowing down the city in a tank, players may wonder why they aren't the ones being discussed on the news. Shouldn't they be thinking about real violence? Shouldn't the player? It's fun to live the American Dream as Tommy Vercetti, but is this bitter satire worth bringing to reality?

Even though Vice City goes to great lengths to create emotionally uninvolved violence, it wants the player to be conscious of how different this is from real world violence. At the time, the charge levied against the playerbase and the industry was that videogames confused the two. With the pitch perfect satire of radio pundits and activists, Vice City invites the player to think about whether the game is more damaging to society than the people trying to ban it. Rockstar has a clear agenda, of course, and stacks the deck in their favor. Even so, that’s a lot to think about for a game that’s not supposed to be about thinking at all.

Pathos certainly has its place in videogames, and it's certainly something we need more of. A GTA like game that forced players to confront the realities of murder would be an interesting idea. It couldn't work as a satire, and it wouldn't really be fun, but that’s just fine as it’s another way to engage the player. One of the great things about survival horror games like Haunting Ground is that they've proven that games don't necessarily need to be fun to be compelling.

But let's not underestimate Vice City just because it makes us laugh.

[Andrew Vanden Bossche is a freelance writer and student. He has a blog called Mammon Machine, which is updated less often than this message, and can be reached at AndrewVandenB@gmail.com]

A non-profit organization called Reboot has a mighty challenge for you this Friday night: Power down your cellphone, let your FarmVille crops languish and sign out of Skype for a full 24 hours. What do you think: Can you hack a single day sans technology?

We’re seen efforts of this nature before — remember when John Mayer wanted you to make like a Luddite for the first week of 2010?

But this event, which Reboot is calling The National Day of Unplugging, goes the extra mile with promotions (ironically enough) through Facebook, Twitter and a website called the Sabbath Manifesto (the day itself is part of a larger movement called the Sabbath Manifesto, a movement started by a group of Jewish artists, writers, filmmakers and social media professionals seeking to integrate traditional rituals into their modern lives).

There will also be a series of events in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco (according to Reboot, they’re private and space is limited). All guests at these events will be asked to check their phones at the door, where they will sleep the next 24 hours away in a cell phone sleeping bag [pictured above].

Tanya Schevitz, a Reboot rep, told us that the idea is spreading. “We are hearing from people all over the county –- and beyond –- that they will create their own events, gather with friends, family, etc. to embrace the Sabbath Manifesto and the National Day of Unplugging,” she said.

Participants are also encouraged to sign on to the Sabbath Manifesto website and report back on their technological withdrawal experiences.

This venture is certainly interesting in light of recent stats that point to our society’s obsession with technological communication and increasing fascination with social media.

“There’s clearly a social problem when we’re interacting more with digital interfaces than our fellow human beings,” said Dan Rollman, Sabbath Manifesto creator and founder of the Universal World Record Database. “Rich, engaging conversations are harder to come by than they were a few years ago.”

What do you think? Do you think digital communications are eroding our ability to truly connect with others? Or do you think Twitter, Facebook and the like serve as channels to bring people together? Let us know in the comments.

Tags: apple, facebook, iphone, twitter

The e-book war between Amazon.com and Apple is
getting uglier. Dennis Johnson cites a report in Publishers Marketplace (subscription required) that alleges that Amazon.com is telling publishers that if they switch to an agency model (ala Macmillan) , they will lose Amazon as a platform for both e-books and print.

This battle, which in many ways mirrors similar struggles between record labels and online music stores, underscores some of the challenges that moving into widespread digital distribution for a formerly non-digital product can bring.

Recently, Macmillian’s CEO John Sargent explained the agency model, as it relates to e-book sales, in his blog:

“Starting at the end of March, we will move from the ‘retail model’ of selling e-books (publishers sell to retailers, who then sell to readers at a price that the retailer determines) to the ‘agency model’ (publishers set the price, and retailers take a commission on the sale to readers).”

In other words, Macmillan wants to be able to control how much digital books are sold for on a per-book basis. Much like music publishers fought (and eventually won) the right to sell certain digital tracks or digital albums for more (or less, in some cases) than the $0.99 per track/$9.99 per album standard, publishers want that same control.

Amazon disagrees. And while it did acquiesce to Macmillan’s position at the end of January, it apparently has no plans of making those same concessions for future publishers.

In the Publishers Marketplace report, Michael Cader writes:

“At least one independent publisher of scale was told categorically by Amazon in a recent phone call initiated by the retailer that Amazon would not negotiate agency selling terms with any other publishers outside of the five initial Apple partners. This publisher was told that if they switched to an agency model for e-books, Amazon would stop selling their entire list, in print and digital form. In conversation, Amazon is said to have reiterated that as matter of policy they are declining to negotiate an agency model with any publisher outside of the five who have already announced agreements with Apple’s iBookstore.”

In other words, the agreements that have been made with the five publishers signed to work with Apple — Macmillan, Harper Collins, Penguin, Hachette, and Simon & Schuster — will not be passed on to smaller publishers.

It seems even the agreement with the other four publishers outside of Macmillan (known as Agency Four) isn’t set in stone.

Cader also writes:

“The indications are that if the Agency Four have not finalized new digital sales agreements with Amazon prior to the launch of Apple’s iPad, they could face delisting from direct sale at Amazon, as Macmillan did.”

Translation: If those publishers don’t finalize a new digital agreement with Amazon before the launch of the iPad, they risk being removed from Amazon.com

Because it is both the biggest seller of e-books and print books, Amazon has enormous power in the publishing industry. However, it’s unclear how long it will be able to play hardball with publishers, especially as formidable competitors like Apple (with iTunes) and Google emerge.

Apple, interestingly, held a reverse stance with music executives for many years before finally changing course in January of 2009 with the introduction of variable pricing. However, one reason Apple was able to exert so much influence over record labels pricing was because until Amazon launched its service (again, Amazon took the reverse approach with music, letting publishers set variable pricing for tracks and albums), there was no real competitor in the digital music space.

Amazon isn’t quite as lucky. First, e-books have been around for years and are available in a variety of formats from a variety of different storefronts. In fact, Amazon sold digital books long before it introduced the Kindle.

The e-book market has evolved much more quickly than the digital music space, which leaves less wiggle room for retailers, like Amazon, to exert pressure.

However, make no mistake, for smaller publishers, the risk of losing listings on Amazon.com is still probably a big enough threat to have an effect.

We’ll keep following this situation as it develops.

[via John Gruber]

Tags: amazon, apple, business, ebook price war, ebooks, ipad, Kindle, Macmillan

The Onion has come out with a parody video in which YouTube entreats its users to make a “good” video — the incentive? A $100,000 prize.

As someone who spends much of her day wading through the chaff of the online video realm, can I just say: Could this be a real thing now please?

Check out the video below and be sure to share some of your favorite YouTube vids in the comments.

That’s what you’re doing at the moment, no? Watching YouTube videos? Don’t front — it’s Friday.

Tags: humor, the onion, viral video, youtube

Voilà une nouvelle qui devrait faire plaisir aux amateurs de handball : Neutron Games est actuellement en train de développer un jeu en l’honneur de ce sport. Nommé Handball Challenge, le soft, prévu à la fois sur Playstation 3, Xbox 360 et PC se dévoile pour l’instant via un court trailer. En attendant d’en savoir plus…

Lire la suite..

From the customer’s perspective, it’s all the same. If it’s provided over the Internet on a pay-for-usage basis, it’s a cloud service. Within the industry, we argue about definitions more than is good for us. Customers look in from the outside and see a much simpler array of choices.

Why is this important? It matters to how we market and support cloud services (of whatever ilk). Yesterday EuroCloud UK (disclosure: of which I’m chair) had a member meeting, hosted at SAP UK headquarters, that covered various aspects of the transition to SaaS for ISVs. From the title, you’d imagine it would have little content of relevance to raw cloud providers at the infrastructure-as-a-service layer. (One of our challenges in the early days of EuroCloud, whose founders are more from the SaaS side of things, is to make sure we bring the infrastructure players on board with us). But in fact, much of the discussion covered topics of equal interest at any level of the as-a-service stack: How to work with partners? How to compensate sales teams? What sort of contract to offer customers? How to reconcile paying for resources on a pay-per-use basis with a per-seat licence fee? What instrumentation and reporting of service levels should the provider’s infrastructure include?

And then came the customer presentation, by Symbian Foundation’s head of IT, Ian McDonald. He was there as a customer of SAP’s Business ByDesign SaaS offering, whose team were hosting the meeting. But it soon became clear that his organization’s voracious consumption of cloud services runs the gamut from high-level applications like ByDesign and Google Apps through to Amazon Web Services, Jungle Disk storage and file sharing (stored on either Amazon or Rackspace), even Skype. Symbian’s developers still build their own website infrastructure using open-source platforms but that too is hosted in the cloud. The imperative for Symbian, as a not-for-profit consortium, is to stay flexible and minimize costs. An important part of that is having the capacity to scale rapidly if needed but without having to pay up-front for that capacity.

For Symbian, relying on the cloud for the entirety of its IT infrastructure gives the cost flexibility and agility of execution that it requires. It doesn’t differentiate between infrastructure and applications as a service — what matters is that they are delivered from the cloud in a usage-based billing model.

The takeaway for industry players is that we all have to work together. Earlier in the afternoon, the meeting heard a presentation by Chrysoula Christopoulou, a long-term member of the SAP Business ByDesign team and a key architect of its go-to-market and channel strategy. SAP will be bringing live its partner strategy for ByDesign this year (it already has some beta partners working with it) and it will encourage partners to offer mashups, add-ons, integration services and other extensions to ByDesign. Indeed, SAP is planning to introduce an application marketplace (they’re all the rage these days) and will be positioning ByDesign to its partners not just as an application but also as a platform.

SAP needs partners to sell ByDesign because (for the average case) the product alone doesn’t produce enough margin to cover the cost of making a sale. By adding their own extensions and services, the theory is that partners can spread that cost of sale across a larger total value. I think the Symbian story demonstrates that ByDesign partners should consider casting their net wider and as well as building on ByDesign they should also offer services that bring together a complete portfolio of cloud services. Most ByDesign customers won’t have the same in-house resource of smart developers that Symbian, because of the nature of its business, has on tap. Therefore there’s probably a big opportunity for partners to provide that expertise as part of their service offering. Of course they still have the challenge of providing it at cost-effective prices that are more in line with the price points of cloud services — the old SI models of long-term projects and sky-high bills don’t work in the cloud. The opportunity is around understanding the cloud environment and helping customers make the most of it — becoming the customer’s trusted advisor as they embrace the cloud, from top to bottom.

The city of Amsterdam has been involved for several years in building Citynet, a partnership between the city and two private investors to wire 40,000 Amsterdam buildings with fiber. And it's not just fiber, it's open access fiber—any ISP can sign up to use the infrastructure and deliver ultra-fast Internet access.

In 2008, the European Union ruled that the city's involvement in the project was in fact legal, and that it was not improperly interfering in the market.

We asked Herman Wagter, CEO of the company that built Citynet fiber project, to talk about how he got the job done, and to explain the challenges of rolling out fiber in a densely crowded European city.

Read the comments on this post

The city of Amsterdam has been involved for several years in building Citynet, a partnership between the city and two private investors to wire 40,000 Amsterdam buildings with fiber. And it's not just fiber, it's open access fiber—any ISP can sign up to use the infrastructure and deliver ultra-fast Internet access.

In 2008, the European Union ruled that the city's involvement in the project was in fact legal, and that it was not improperly interfering in the market.

We asked Herman Wagter, CEO of the company that built Citynet fiber project, to talk about how he got the job done, and to explain the challenges of rolling out fiber in a densely crowded European city.

Read the comments on this post

[Finishing up our GDC written coverage, we were going to pick just one lecture, but we decided to just go with all of the major ones, as well as the big announcements - lots of neat stuff to check through here.]

With Game Developers Conference 2010 now at an end, we've rounded up the top announcements, from Sony Move through OnLive's release specifics, and write-ups of the biggest talks into one handy news story.

The official GDC 2010 page on Gamasutra has more than 100 news stories on one of the biggest events of the gaming year, but we're now highlighting the biggest product-related announcements of the show.

This will be followed by our pick of the top ten most intriguing write-ups from the more than 450 sessions on display at this year's GDC in San Francisco - created by the UBM Techweb Game Network, as is this website.

Here are some of the top announcements and write-ups from last week's show:

The Announcements

GDC: Sony's Motion Controller Is 'PlayStation Move'
"At GDC on Wednesday, Sony revealed more details about its PS3 motion controller, which isn't called Arc or Gem, but 'PlayStation Move,' a product Sony says will bring on 'the next generation of motion gaming.'"

GDC: OnLive Gets Launch Date, Reveals Initial Publishers
"Cloud-based game streaming service OnLive has announced an official U.S. launch date of June 17, 2010, including games from Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, 2K Games, THQ and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment."

GDC: Microsoft Announces XNA Game Studio 4.0
"Microsoft has announced version 4.0 of its XNA Game Studio development package, which includes support for its new Windows Phone 7 Series, as well as enhancing features for Xbox 360 and PC game development."

GDC: InstantAction Reveals Platform For Instantly Playing Large-Download Games
"InstantAction unveiled its platform allowing users to play full PC games in their browser as they download titles, made possible with a delivery mechanism that CEO Louis Castle tells Gamasutra is superior to OnLive."

Valve Confirms Mac Versions Of Steam, Valve Games
"Valve will release its Steam digital distribution service for Mac along with Mac-native versions of its own games, the company confirmed today, calling the Mac a 'tier-1 platform.'"

Other notable GDC-timed announcements include: Bigpoint Announces Battlestar MMO, Unity Partnership, San Francisco Office; Unity Announces 3.0 Platform, Support For PS3, iPad, And Android; Palm to Debut webOS Plug-in Development Kit at GDC 2010; MySpace Launches New Games Experience, Tools.

The Top Lectures

GDC: Will Wright Peels Back Layers Of Entertainment, Games
"Will Wright (The Sims, SimCity) explained how 'perspectives are more valuable than solutions' in a fascinating talk during the closing hours of the Game Developers Conference 2010 on Saturday."

GDC: Jenova Chen's HeavenVille Wins Game Design Challenge
"HeavenVille, Jenova Chen (Flower), took this year's top prize at the GDC Game Design Challenge, which also featured games by designers Kim Swift, Heather Kelley, and Erin Robinson."

GDC: Sid Meier's Lessons On Gamer Psychology
"'Gameplay is a psychological experience,' according to legendary Civilization creator Sid Meier, who gave tips on taking advantage of player psychology during his GDC keynote Friday."

GDC: Hecker's Nightmare Scenario - A Future Of Rewarding Players For Dull Tasks
"It's possible that an over-reliance on metrics-driven design and extrinsic rewards for in-game actions could lead to a future of 'designing shitty games that you have to pay people to play,' warns independent developer Chris Hecker."

GDC: Blizzard's Core Game Design Concepts
"Blizzard EVP of game design Rob Pardo shares Blizzard's core design concepts, offering examples of places where the World of Warcraft developer succeeded and failed in creating compelling multiplayer experiences."

GDC: Nintendo's Sakamoto's Four Creative Tenets
"Nintendo's Yoshio Sakamoto explains the methodology that allows him to create two franchises as polar-opposite as Metroid and Wario Ware -- and drops hints on Other M."

GDC: Peter Molyneux On Simplifying And Enhancing Fable III
"Lionhead's Peter Molyneux talked about the 'angst' Lionhead went through on whether to de-RPG Fable III -- and why and how the team went through that process, from a design perspective."

GDC: ThatGameCompany's Santiago, Hunicke Talk Exploratory Development
"An exploratory development process can be a solution to the anxieties of game development, but only if it's managed with confidence and honesty, say Thatgamecompany's Kellee Santiago and Robin Hunicke."

GDC: Indie Keynote - Championing Immediacy And Depth
"Tiger Style co-founder Randy Smith (Spider: The Secret of Bryce Manor) delivered the keynote of the Indie Games Summit, encouraging indie developers to embrace a philosophy of immediacy and depth to hasten their popular ascendancy."

GDC: 2D Boy's Carmel On A New Alternative For Indies
"At the 2010 Independent Gaming Summit at GDC, 2D Boy's Ron Carmel talked about why traditional publishing just doesn't work for indies -- and why the newly-unveiled Indie Fund hopes to offer alternatives."

Other notable GDC 2010 lecture write-ups include: Facebook Keynote Discusses True Multi-Platform Gaming; Taking Inspiration from EVE Online's Espionage Metagame; Creating Deus Ex Human Revolution's Cybernetic Renaissance; Refining The Real-Time Combat In Mass Effect 2; EA's Cousins Talks Social Gaming's Wal-Mart Parallel.

The April issue of Scientific American includes an exclusive excerpt from Bill McKibben's new book, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet , plus an interview that challenges his assumptions. Expanded answers to key interview questions, and additional queries and replies, appear here. [More]

The culture clash between social games and core gamers was on full display at GDC. I have been called a traitor to the cause of core gamers, even. At the awards show, when a Zynga rep claimed the social games award for Farmville and did a little bit of recruiting from the stage, he was not only booed, but someone shouted out, “But you don’t make games!” This is a common sentiment out there in the usual gamer haunts.

I have many many thoughts on all this — and I have been posting some of them in various places when discussions arise.

Yes, Farmville is a game. It just requires fairly little skill compared to games for “advanced” gamers. But by any reasonable definition of game, it fits perfectly.

You have to make choices (they are strategic choices rather than real-time, but so what? Games have a long tradition of slower play). The choices require knowledge and skill (the skill is what gets derisively called “spreadsheet gaming” by the cognoscenti, but that’s a brush that EVE Online and other MMOs have been tarred with too). You have to prepare for the challenge. You can screw up. You get rewarded for doing well, etc.

It may seem elementary to those who can juggle complicated business sims, but think of it as the training wheels version for novices to that genre, and you won’t be far off. I think people who didn’t play games in the early days forget that the level of complexity they enjoy today is a phenomenon of the last ten years, a symptom of typical genre development. Social games are more advanced than most of the games made from 1970 to 1988.

Yes, social games truly are social. They just work on somewhat different modes than real-time synchronous games do. Instead of rewarding real-time teamwork the way that group combat in an MMO, playing on a soccer team, or being a member of a chorus line does, they reward asynchronous behaviors.

Most specifically, there is a lot of exactly the sort of weak-tie social design that was intrinsic to Star Wars Galaxies and Asheron’s Call: stuff around gifts, networks of mutual benefit, etc. More, they are exploring some of these things in a deeper way than MMOs do (because MMOs fall back on the synchronous crutch). Which is more indicative of social ties, a user who logs in once a week for a raid, or a user who logs in every day to send every friend a gift? The answer is not straightforward, if you dig into social networking data.

Yes, it is arguably even an MMO. The core activity is single-player, but the features around gifting, fertilizing, helping build structures collaboratively, etc, are all massively multiplayer techniques. Oh, they are not yet truly virtual worlds, though some of them do feature real-time chat, and more will over time, because in many many cases it is a value-add of a feature.

Long ago, I posed the question of whether American Idol was an MMO. And in that post, I said

It’s surprising, in a way, how little collective action matters in most MMOs. Here’s a medium that allows it better than any other game type, and yet we still see fairly little collective action — and when we do, it’s raids — arguably, exactly the wrong sort of collective action to really play to the strengths of what virtual spaces can do, precisely because what MMOs offer is spaces with thousands in them, not spaces with a few dozen.

Well, here we are. Collective action is starting to matter in the social games, and it’s going to matter more, not less precisely because it is an assumed core premise of the genre.

No, social games are not what we think of as a virtual world. But as I said the other day, that definition is evolving.

Yes, social games make money. Do some Googling, people! And no, it’s not all from scams.Yes, there are shady practices. But not all games use them, and if they do, it is less every day as the market gets cleaned up. And even when they do, they are not the bulk of the money.

Social games are not just a fad. There have been a lot of comparisons to things like motion control, 3d imaging, and so on. But back in 2008 there were Gamasutra articles about whether retro-looking gaming was a fad; before 3d graphics got good enough, there were questions about whether it was a fad… the key thing to look at here is whether there are underlying technical and social factors that are pushing development in a particular direction.

In the case of retro looks (which are now a firmly established aesthetic), the answer lay in the somewhat complicated fact that a younger gamer sees all previous aesthetics side-by-side and does not judge their quality based on technology, the way that older gamers do. A push towards innovation and artistic intent in game design called forth the ghost of the 8-bit era, and the pixelated look became an identity badge. Tech helped this along — the rise of Flash as a common game development platform resulted in a “Flash aesthetic” driven by the display limitations that today we see in console games such as PixelJunk Eden and Patapon.

In the case of 3d, the march of technology simply made it work over time, and it evolved from gimmick to tool. This may yet happen with 3d displays as well, or motion control.

In the case of social games, you have to look at the overall context too. As I have been saying for quite some time, all games are becoming connected experiences. And it turns out that social networks are becoming the glue. They are sweeping away all the “gamer-only” networks that so many companies started.

The value in these networks lies in the connectivity to friends, the easy distribution of content across the social graph, the web accessibility, and so on. These are things that we now take for granted. The genie is not going to go back into the bottle.

Now, is the investment level going to change? Absolutely. The white-hot heat around the segment will definitely subside as everyone gets used to the fact that the market is here to stay.

No, social games won’t turn into core games. This is one of the misconceptions that AAA developers often have as they try to establish themselves in the market. It is absolutely true that social games are going to grow more sophisticated over time. But they will do so by growing further along the direction they have already been going.

If you look at the AAA game world today, you can trace just about everything in it to the early core gamer market. Video games got going with sports, dragons, robots, guns, jumping & climbing, and cars. Those were the first big ideas. And here we are now, decades in, and they are still the big ideas. Many other ideas have come along since, but somehow they have always been quirky, “outside the mainstream” — like, say, when Rollercoaster Tycoon, or Guitar Hero, or The Sims came along. The only way something like “playing house” can possibly be “outside the mainstream” is if there’s a subculture in charge.

Well, social games are here and they managed to get themselves established largely without reference to those tropes. As a result, they have a different set of starting premises. Many of the things that were “quirky” are “normal” and vice versa. Central design tropes  include cooperation rather than competition; asynchronous rather than synchronous play; social dynamics; and a very different set of core cultural references. There’s more.

What will happen over time is that this new audience will grow in sophistication. They already take for granted all of the elements of a farming game, for example. You can think of the farming game as equivalent to any other genre, and replete with design tropes that are exactly equivalent to conventions like WASD, hit points, skill point allocation, rocket jumping, and tank-nuker-healer, if you like.

All that is going to happen is a recapitulation of design history, only with a new of new assumptions embedded in the games:

• a far broader set of cultural references.
• a new and different set of core artistic choices driven by different rendering technology
• a fresh and exciting set of design paradigms built around asynchronous sociability and large-scale weak-tie “guild” structures — hoo, is there a design essay lurking in the difference between a guild and a neighbor ring...!
• a whole new set of business models and practices

What this boils down to is that social games will grow along those axes, and not magically turn into what core gamers today consider to be core games. It’s a mistake to think that the game development industry is going to manage to magically make this audience fall in love with sports, dragons, robots, guns, jumping & climbing, and cars.

But there’s hope for core gamers nonetheless: These games are the new home of “worldy” games, in some ways. And they are bringing neglected genres back to life.

Social games are going to push boundaries in design areas that are currently neglected. A renaissance in simulation and strategy games is likely, and I don’t think it is an accident that so many prominent AAA strategy game developers are in social games now.

If what you have craved is greater user agency and impact on a persistent world, a greater sense of community and economic interdependence — those are features that are intrinsic to this new market. As an example, I would point out that there was a core MMO game that many of the readers of this blog loved that had a farming game where you had to check in every few days to collect your stuff and decide what to try to harvest next. And it’s wasn’t Farmville. It was Star Wars Galaxies. In many ways, the features that were seen as oddest or least “gamer-like” in the worldy MMOs are going to be among core features in the social games: housebuilding, shopkeeping, farming, dancing, dress-up, even hairdressing. Right now, these are one-to-a-game. But one possible direction of development is that they not be.

I have thoughts on what all this means for the core games we know and love, but I’ll leave those for another day.

Established in 1998, Agava is one of Russia’s top 5 web hosting companies employing around 300 people. Last night, police investigators arrived at a datacenter where Agava has some of its operations.

The investigators had a self-awarded warrant which allowed them to conduct a search in order to retrieve evidence located on servers used by Agava client iFolder.ru, a large file-hosting service and Russia’s 51st most-visited site

The police had been working on an investigation into an individual who used iFolder to upload child pornography a while ago. The person was caught by the police, but investigators wanted to search to see if he had uploaded more material.

Agava employees offered their full co-operation in assisting them to find the data in question. However, the police turned down the offer and insisted they were going to seize all of Agava’s servers, more than 100 in total, and waited for several hours for a vehicle to come and collect them.

In the end the mass seizure did not take place but police did cut the power and seal them all off. Some of those affected are Agava’s primary DNS servers, but fortunately their secondary units were unaffected.

“Agava considers this unprecedented event as putting in jeopardy and dimming the future of every business in RuNet,” said the company in an announcement. “We are determined to challenge and overcome the excessive and destructive actions we encountered, to protect our customer’s interests. We thank our clients in advance for their patience, and for media and other support they provide us with.”

Even though the police have stated they have no problem with iFolder continuing its operations, the investigation has rendered the site completely non-operational. On a normal day, 180,000 people upload or download from the service resulting in 1.5 million pageviews. Total users per month is around 4.3m.

This action against iFolder follows the unilateral decision to seize the domain name of Russia’s biggest torrent site, Torrents.ru.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.