What can Splatoon do to break Splatoon's problem with Splatfest in America?

[Zombie Aladdin]

The lack of ESRB ratings on mobile games is interesting, considering several of the key ESRB members make mobile games (EA, Ubisoft, Activision, now Nintendo.) I'm surprised they haven't pushed that, especially considering, as ESRB members, they could wield it like a club over King and Zynga, their competitors. (Always look for corruption angle, it's the basics of human nature, and there will always be such an angle to almost everything!)

The ESRB is doing a tremendous service to video games right now. It's a quick way for parents to find out if a game is appropriate for their kids, and it's a great way for people who don't like certain content in a game to avoid them. The ESRB website provides information on what can be potentially offensive in a video game so you can make informed decisions. This is what it has for Splatoon, for instance:

"This is a third-person shooter set in a “cartoony” fantasy land called Inkopolis. Players assume the role of squid-like creatures traversing through stages using paint guns, ink bombs, inkzookas, and paint rollers to attack enemy tentacles and boss creatures. Battles are somewhat frenetic with gunfire sounds and cries of pain. In a handful of sequences, players use a turret gun to fire paint projectiles at enemy targets."

Heck, I learned about a ratings system the comic book publishers themselves agreed upon when I walked into a comic book shop and asked the guy behind the counter if there's a way to determine if something's appropriate for little kids, as I wanted to buy a few comic books for those aforementioned cousins' birthdays. They said they're into Marvel superheroes at the time, so I wanted to give them some family-friendly comic books. Turns out, next to the bar code, there is a content rating, at least for comic books from 2011 and onwards. (Until then, comic books were even more nebulous in whether or not something is kid-friendly than mobile gaming.)

I don't know that I can agree with "quality checks" so much though. Other than a "Seal of Quality" or review recommendation, how do you guarantee a quality product? Mobile, other than the gateway e-stores, follows the PC model. Any software anyone makes can be sold to anyone who agrees to buy it. It's not a bad model, and the PC world has run on it for many decades. If you want to buy a product, you buy it, if you don't think it looks like what you want, you don't. In the era of reviews and such that should scarcely be a problem. Mandatory ratings is a problem Google needs to look into, and they should be prominently advertising to report such frauds. They don't. But government enforced software rules won't help much. It would be Google that would mostly write them in a way that works best for them and worst for startups. And would then also be used to creep into other sectors outside mobile they find troubling. I'd argue we have the opposite problem: It's not a wild west. You have a single app vendor that is "approved" for your platform. They choose to not groom their marketplace and sell trash, knowing it's trash, and you have no choice for something better (except attempting to wield government as a hammer to "enforce" that your monopoly store become a better monopoly store. If you could choose your e-store, and simply choose one that only sells high quality goods what a different market it would be!

The current console manufacturers of video games do it. They check every game that gets published onto their platforms to see if there's anything that will mess up the hardware it's played on, whether it has a hardware-crashing bug, a virus inside of it, or something else. The Pinball Arcade was rejected when Farsight submitted it for the Wii U. No doubt Nintendo found something bad in there. (And The Pinball Arcade is full of all sorts of bugs.) Nintendo has always been stricter than the others though; bugs that render the game unplayable get rejected, for instance.

If Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all do checks, there's no reason Apple and Google cannot. Doesn't Microsoft already do that for its Windows Phones?

Naa, I see what you're getting at, and the problem you're trying to solve. I'm not sure I have a single alternative solution to offer wholesale, but the deep deep rats nest of nightmarish troubles we'd be inviting not just into mobile but into dozens of other industries by taking a step on that slippery slope would be the start of a problem far, far worse than the one we have, and would likely not even solve the one we have. The worst offenders in mobile, like I said, are ALREADY illegal and triable under existing laws (gambling laws, truth in advertising laws, etc.) But nobody does it because generally anyone with a standing to do so is benefiting from it. For the same reason the police in Japan seem to have a lot of difficulty finding whether or not a pachinko parlor is in fact participating in converting wins for cash (oddly legal if it's done off-premises, illegal on premises). It's kind of hard to find them when often times you ARE the guy converting wins for cash.... (A serious problem there, though a silly one when the illegal action is gambling in the same building you're playing the slots, but it becomes perfectly legal if you walk your wins across the street to do it.)

Regarding pachinko parlors, they're exploiting a series of loopholes. The current laws, to my knowledge, can be summed up as such:
1. Gambling machines are not allowed, period.
2. A gambling machine is a machine where you pay in money and can pay out in cash.
3. A business is considered a gambling house if you can win cash on the premises.

Hence, a pachinko parlor is two separate businesses: One where you win metal pellets to redeem for useless trinkets, and a second business next door that functions legally as a pawn shop, buying said trinkets for cash.

I'm guessing no further legal action has been taken either because the Yakuza has the power to stop the government, or pachinko parlors bring in so much money that everyone turns a blind eye to it.

Not the same case with bingo machines in Belgium though. Bingo machines are currently an enormous problem in Belgium. They were once everywhere--in convenience stores, at markets, at movie theaters, wherever you could fit them. And a lot of Belgian people got addicted to them, spending all their money and going massively into debt. The government then stepped in and limited where bingo machines could be set up. The bingo machine businesses weren't going to regulate themselves. It's money coming in.

Gravity Rush 1 you mean? GR2 is to be PS4 only. And yes, that was a truly amazing game (though the better version is now on PS4. Same with Tearaway.) But all the good Vita stuff has now been done better on PS4. Just got my GR1 PS4 copy the other day! But I'm not playing it..because Splatoon. And of course there's Persona 4 Golden....arguably the real reason to have a Vita. It could have been great, but was so poorly handled by Sony.

Oh, okay then. I thought Gravity Rush 2 got a simultaneous Vita/PS4 release.

I also see a sideways dynamic: The traditional video game market is getting older. Which is good and bad. Some if it is because those of us who got hooked as kids got older, but there's no new kids to replace us. But also those kids that got angry birds on their tablet now get older and they are now either bored/turned off from games, having learned they're simple and time wasters. Or when they get to high school or beyond take note of the more complex experiences available and gain interest. Thus a dynamic shift: In the 80's & 90's games were sold and marketed to young kids as alternative toys. Due to "digital babysitting" mobile games, the market is now more advanced, it's something that teenagers and adults will appreciate as an alternative to television. I don't know that "kids" are any longer a serous major market for consoles. The positive however as as gaming becomes "adult" it may carry less stigma. To do that however we do have to get beyond the "COD" adolescent focus and the "arthouse to be arthouse" the xbox/sony culture provides.

The mobile market has always relied upon a minority of whales. They're the ones who pour so much money into them that they alone help sustain companies like King. What is potentially dangerous is if some of these kids become whales, or worse, if their parents are already whales.

There's also a very real possibility of kids being into mobile gaming early and being there for life. Little kids look for something to identify with, and from then on, they'll have fond memories of that thing until the day they die. This was Ray Croc's strategy when he bought McDonald's from the McDonald Brothers and set the franchise nationwide. His Ronald McDonald character and Ronald's Happy Meals were a deliberate strategy to get kids to eat at McDonald's so that they'll continue to eat there for the rest of their lives. He was selling a lifestyle, and it worked wonders. It is possible, if not certainly, that there are many kids nowadays for whom their lifestyle is Angry Birds or Candy Crush Saga. There are already a lot of kids whose lifestyle is Minecraft.

 

[Award]

The current console manufacturers of video games do it. They check every game that gets published onto their platforms to see if there's anything that will mess up the hardware it's played on, whether it has a hardware-crashing bug, a virus inside of it, or something else. The Pinball Arcade was rejected when Farsight submitted it for the Wii U. No doubt Nintendo found something bad in there. (And The Pinball Arcade is full of all sorts of bugs.) Nintendo has always been stricter than the others though; bugs that render the game unplayable get rejected, for instance.

If Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all do checks, there's no reason Apple and Google cannot. Doesn't Microsoft already do that for its Windows Phones?

That's a very different comparison. It was Nintendo that started that process. Not because it "must be done", it was not standard in the software industry prior to that (which is what pretty much brought down Atari), so Nintendo defined as its strategy the Seal of Quality program to ensure all software on Nintendo's platform guaranteed their quality standards. It wasn't "to filter out bad software" so much as to define their image to consumers that "If you buy a Nintendo, we make sure that everything from the top down is quality!" They used that, very successfully, to define their role as a reliable, trustworthy platform that you can always trust will feature a quality product (and then there was the whole Tengen debacle...though some of those games were the best! Toobin was fantasitc! :D)

Sega had to do it to keep up with Nintendo as a similar quality item (though they didn't do it as well.) Sony did it because it was needed to compete with Sega and Nintendo. And Microsoft does it because it's needed to compete with Sony and Nintendo. Notice Microsoft does NOT do it for Windows?

But that's a far cry from "government regulated software quality" - that's a closed platform holder choosing to only license software they've approved the quality of as part of their brand identity and value proposition. And given how broken a lot of AAA games are at launch, we could easily say that Sony and Microsoft don't do as much as they pretend they do so long as they receive their licensing payment.

Google's not really in a position to do it since they don't sell a closed platform, they sell a baseline that most vendors further modify and apply to wildly varying hardware units. What would they even test? They can't do a quality control test since the hardware/software is so segmented. You're talking about content - and content "approval" is the very last thing I want to hand Google of all companies any keys at all to.

Apple does have a closed platform, and could. But again, I'd rather not view the iOS platform as a closed platform like Nintendo. It's not an entertainment machine. And I don't believe a productivity/data retrieval tool should have a "greater authority" "approving" software. Though AFAIK, Apple DOES have some minor quality checks they do on software. Which is laughable given the trash (and blatant copyright violations) that make it through. But the problem is, unlike Nintendo that does everything in-house, they sub-contract to some low tier budget operation in a country where most of the employees barely have a grasp of the English language. They just scan their quick checklist for "violations" without understanding any real subtlety. But when they have a million apps submitted a day versus Nintendo that gets, what, 100 a year? It's a very different market.

There's nothing wrong with the PC model for PCs (which iOS and Android effectively are) - you should be able to run whatever software you want to run without asking "Mother May I" to the "platform owner" or The State. We're not feudal serfs, wards of the State, or tenants of the world our masters allow us to live in. However there is VALUE to be proposed in closed platforms for those that choose to be freed from evaluating software themselves and buying from a quality-checked trusted source. That option is, loosely, closer to what Apple offers. But we don't have any truly proprietary computer systems anymore because, honestly, it's expensive and there's not TOO much value to it. There used to be plenty. People stopped buying them. Plus remember all the calls for Nintendo and proprietary consoles to vanish and just become PC software houses.

Regarding pachinko parlors, they're exploiting a series of loopholes.

Well of course they are! That's the point :)

I'm guessing no further legal action has been taken either because the Yakuza has the power to stop the government, or pachinko parlors bring in so much money that everyone turns a blind eye to it.

Corruption doesn't need "power" to stop government, when they can be paid to participate instead. Some things are universally human. :) What government official when offered a piece of the pie for doing nothing at all says no? Even in honor bound Japan, money, particularly untraceable money, has tremendously varied ways of being "justifiable".

Also, I know they do have draft legislation to end the gambling ban since it's so universal anyway, so the whole thing could be solved anyway. But I know it's heated.

Not the same case with bingo machines in Belgium though. Bingo machines are currently an enormous problem in Belgium. They were once everywhere--in convenience stores, at markets, at movie theaters, wherever you could fit them. And a lot of Belgian people got addicted to them, spending all their money and going massively into debt. The government then stepped in and limited where bingo machines could be set up. The bingo machine businesses weren't going to regulate themselves. It's money coming in.

Yeah, but here in the US it's the government itself that runs the "bingo machines" - most (every?) state runs their Lotto, and pulls in a vast fortune in doing so. Legalized gambling, sold in every market, gas station, deli, and convenience store, and operated by the organized crime syndicate known as government....how convenient! I love how they also operate (tax payer funded!) gambling addiction hotlines they advertise along with their gambling machines.... It's like an alcohol distributor that manufactures breathalyzers....

Oh, okay then. I thought Gravity Rush 2 got a simultaneous Vita/PS4 release.

I haven't seen anything about a Vita release, and I think Yoshida specifically commented that they're done with dedicated Vita software. Shame, it would have been neat, but at this point Vita is a Gamepad for PS4 and a pocket PSX. Though I'm excited Gravity Rush didn't get binned due to Vita's failure, that series is too good to be lost!

There's also a very real possibility of kids being into mobile gaming early and being there for life. Little kids look for something to identify with, and from then on, they'll have fond memories of that thing until the day they die. This was Ray Croc's strategy when he bought McDonald's from the McDonald Brothers and set the franchise nationwide. His Ronald McDonald character and Ronald's Happy Meals were a deliberate strategy to get kids to eat at McDonald's so that they'll continue to eat there for the rest of their lives. He was selling a lifestyle, and it worked wonders. It is possible, if not certainly, that there are many kids nowadays for whom their lifestyle is Angry Birds or Candy Crush Saga. There are already a lot of kids whose lifestyle is Minecraft.

Ultimately that's what Nintendo did as well. Though Croc's legacy was also to sell "quality" (junk) food - McDonald's food used to be a good quality burger for a low price. I don't think Croc would like what the food became, which is what has ultimately brought them to near collapse. The kids that grew up with it learned to see it as trash (because it did become trash.) It was never "good" as in gourmet, but it was a fair "working man's burger", and a far cry from the sheer poison it is these days.

And yes, the latter is what worries me, as well as Nintendo. The kids who grew up accepting that video games are Candy Crush - and LIKING IT. That wouldn't bode well for proper gaming.

 

[Leronne]

Is this thread even about splatfests anymore?

 

[Award]

Is this thread even about splatfests anymore?

Not really. Then again, we don't seem to HAVE Splatfests anymore. Apparently Nintendo's answer to this thread was "stop announcing Splatfests."

Maybe we'll all log in on Sunday and they'll just announce "You've all been randomly assigned to a splatfest team. The question was which do you like more: moldy cheese vs. creme brulee. The winnner is: Team Callie. You can go pick up your snails in the Plaza."

 

[Leronne]

Not really. Then again, we don't seem to HAVE Splatfests anymore. Apparently Nintendo's answer to this thread was "stop announcing Splatfests."

Maybe we'll all log in on Sunday and they'll just announce "You've all been randomly assigned to a splatfest team. The question was which do you like more: moldy cheese vs. creme brulee. The winnner is: Team Callie. You can go pick up your snails in the Plaza."

Nintendo has made it blatantly clear that splatfests are irregular. i'm honestly glad there hasn't been a splatfest in almost a month (granted i haven't been able to play these days because of personal reasons). it's so annoying. same three stages, same music and removing ranked for 24 hours can get so annoying and repetitive. it was fine the first few splatfests, but at this point i only see it as a snail grinding mode. i still like it. i just wish the map rotation was still active, and that other music played. sure i could listen to my own music, but this is really one of those games where i find listening to the game's surrounding sounds is important. but that's just my take on it.

 

[Award]

Nintendo has made it blatantly clear that splatfests are irregular. i'm honestly glad there hasn't been a splatfest in almost a month (granted i haven't been able to play these days because of personal reasons). it's so annoying. same three stages, same music and removing ranked for 24 hours can get so annoying and repetitive. it was fine the first few splatfests, but at this point i only see it as a snail grinding mode. i still like it. i just wish the map rotation was still active, and that other music played. sure i could listen to my own music, but this is really one of those games where i find listening to the game's surrounding sounds is important. but that's just my take on it.

Eh, I love splatfests, but then again I seem to be one of the few on the boards who loves TW more than the ranked modes. Not that I don't like the ranked modes, but TW is the Main Event that defines what Splatoon is (if not for the awful matchmaking.)

I agree about map rotations though, more variety would be nice, and heck I'd love to see a splatfest that features all game modes, but that's just me, and I understand logistically why they wouldn't. I do wish there were more music tracks in general in the game, not just with Splatfest. It needs it. And as I love Callie & Marie's singing, I'd have loved for each of the 3 maps to have their own Squid Sister's track at least.

The irregularity though is a problem since they made the events part of the in-game currency. I'm not out of snails since I'm not into rerolls, just unlocks, but a lot of people are, and it presents a problem.

Also, I've got my Maru Chan Akai Kitsune Udon & Midori no Tanuki Soba cups ready and waiting for splatfest day food. Nothing like getting into the spirit by eating ACTUAL Splatfest team choices :D

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

Apple does have a closed platform, and could. But again, I'd rather not view the iOS platform as a closed platform like Nintendo. It's not an entertainment machine. And I don't believe a productivity/data retrieval tool should have a "greater authority" "approving" software. Though AFAIK, Apple DOES have some minor quality checks they do on software. Which is laughable given the trash (and blatant copyright violations) that make it through. But the problem is, unlike Nintendo that does everything in-house, they sub-contract to some low tier budget operation in a country where most of the employees barely have a grasp of the English language. They just scan their quick checklist for "violations" without understanding any real subtlety. But when they have a million apps submitted a day versus Nintendo that gets, what, 100 a year? It's a very different market.

There should, however, be a system to let people make informed decisions on what apps they want to get, even if it's third-party. I don't care who makes that system, as long as it's honest. Currently, it's the Wild West. Anything goes. I'm sure this is exactly how some people like it, but not me. It's what allows scummy things like the aforementioned "Rate this app 5 stars and you can keep using it!" to continue to happen.

Yeah, but here in the US it's the government itself that runs the "bingo machines" - most (every?) state runs their Lotto, and pulls in a vast fortune in doing so. Legalized gambling, sold in every market, gas station, deli, and convenience store, and operated by the organized crime syndicate known as government....how convenient! I love how they also operate (tax payer funded!) gambling addiction hotlines they advertise along with their gambling machines.... It's like an alcohol distributor that manufactures breathalyzers....

You still have to be 21 or older to use the lottery machines though, and it simply amounts to picking numbers, getting a printout, and waiting for the numbers. It's extremely passive, impersonal, indirect, and requires a lot of waiting. It doesn't have the visceral feel bingo machines have. Or claw machines, for that matter, which are banned in some provinces of Canada because they've been classified as gambling machines.

Of course , you then have ticket redemption machines, which are, for all intents and purposes, gambling machines. Any skill component in them is modified over time to bereplaced with a mere illusion of skill, and they're aimed at kids.

Ultimately that's what Nintendo did as well. Though Croc's legacy was also to sell "quality" (junk) food - McDonald's food used to be a good quality burger for a low price. I don't think Croc would like what the food became, which is what has ultimately brought them to near collapse. The kids that grew up with it learned to see it as trash (because it did become trash.) It was never "good" as in gourmet, but it was a fair "working man's burger", and a far cry from the sheer poison it is these days.

And yes, the latter is what worries me, as well as Nintendo. The kids who grew up accepting that video games are Candy Crush - and LIKING IT. That wouldn't bode well for proper gaming.

Yep, I am sure that part of King's strategy (and Gameloft's, to a lesser extent) is to build a freemium lifestyle. Get them in as kids, and you hook them for life. Zynga too, but their claim to fame, Facebook gaming, has become supplanted by mobile gaming.

That being said, McDonald's is still financially doing fine. Their announcement to have breakfast items throughout the whole day actually brought their share prices to their highest-ever amount. McDonald's is still the fast food restaurant of choice for people who have no idea what they want to eat, and it's usually the first burger place to open in particular countries, where they get first dibs and thus crowd out any other burger joint that might want to open there. It also seems to be the restaurant of choice for Asians, particularly those not born in the United States (probably because of the stereotype of Americans eating McDonald's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner; a lot of Asians I've met who live in Asia don't know there are other hamburger joints than McDonald's, and the ones who live in the United States don't trust any of the other ones).

McDonald's endures because it's a cornerstone of American culture. It's the safe and familiar option for food; you know exactly what you'll be getting, whereas you might not know if that mom-and-pop place is for you. And kids love it, whereas they might not necessarily love eating at Wendy's or Whataburger or In-N-Out. Also, they consistently get popular franchises for Happy Meals.

The McDonald Brothers actually became a big deal by employing young men rather than young women. Other hamburger joints, because they had a staff mainly of young women, would attract teenage boys and young men. This resulted in what you'd expect would happen when a bunch of boys gather in one place: Vandalism, theft, and general intimidation of other people. McDonald's, through their staffing strategy, attracted women, families, children, and other people scared of other hamburger restaurants. They got Ray Croc's attention because the brothers bought eight milkshake machines from him (each machine could produce 6 milkshakes at once, and he wondered why one restaurant would need to make up to 48 milkshakes at a time). It was Croc, actually, who made the menu what it is. The only late contribution the McDonald's Brothers made was removing every menu item that couldn't be eaten by hand due to the drive-in nature of these places (though, of course, with salads and such now, it's no longer an issue).

Nintendo has made it blatantly clear that splatfests are irregular. i'm honestly glad there hasn't been a splatfest in almost a month (granted i haven't been able to play these days because of personal reasons). it's so annoying. same three stages, same music and removing ranked for 24 hours can get so annoying and repetitive. it was fine the first few splatfests, but at this point i only see it as a snail grinding mode. i still like it. i just wish the map rotation was still active, and that other music played. sure i could listen to my own music, but this is really one of those games where i find listening to the game's surrounding sounds is important. but that's just my take on it.

I'm guessing Nintendo is currently trying to re-do the Splatfests from the ground up due to the large amount of complaints after they're done. It's most pronounced in the Americas, where the minority team wins, and thus there are more losers than winners.

 

[Award]

There should, however, be a system to let people make informed decisions on what apps they want to get, even if it's third-party. I don't care who makes that system, as long as it's honest. Currently, it's the Wild West. Anything goes. I'm sure this is exactly how some people like it, but not me. It's what allows scummy things like the aforementioned "Rate this app 5 stars and you can keep using it!" to continue to happen.

There's always room for third party information sources for better consumer awareness. Once there's any real demand for such a thing, one will exist. Whether a non-profit like the EFF takes it on, or it becomes a paid service, or a 3rd party marketplace with better ratings, one will exist. Right now there's little demand either because customers are content enough with what they have or they're too brainlessly idiotic to have any clue about anything in technology and how they're being screwed over by it. These are the people that DON'T have a problem with Facebook tracking their every move, and don't see anything worrying about it. For the moment the Amazon Android store is probably the closest to what you want since it has its own customer review system that's not abused like the official store (for now.)

I'd never look to Google to address such problems, as they are benefiting from it, and as one of, if not THE single most insidiously destructive entities in the existence of man kind, they probably are enjoying the "social experiment data" it offers. Apple is just ruthlessly profiteering, because, hey, why not? If they can't get sued for it directly, and the problems don't affect consumer perception of their brand, they're not worried about it. But if demand exists, someone will certainly create it.

You still have to be 21 or older to use the lottery machines though, and it simply amounts to picking numbers, getting a printout, and waiting for the numbers. It's extremely passive, impersonal, indirect, and requires a lot of waiting. It doesn't have the visceral feel bingo machines have. Or claw machines, for that matter, which are banned in some provinces of Canada because they've been classified as gambling machines.

Of course , you then have ticket redemption machines, which are, for all intents and purposes, gambling machines. Any skill component in them is modified over time to bereplaced with a mere illusion of skill, and they're aimed at kids.

Don't forget the instant lotto. And the people that buy 30+ tickets at a time, and work on scratching them off outside. That's instant and direct. Yeah, claw machines, and arcade machines of any kind are technically a form of gambling. As is mobile gaming with microtransactions. So is the 3DS Badge Arcade (which is just a virtual claw machine on your 3DS.) (Man, I was so hooked on claw machines as a kid. Ooohh and those quarter drop machines! Which technically is REAL gambling since it gives a cash reward but somehow slipped the radar of being regulated as gambling. I was pretty addicted to those, though my addiction wasn't to winning money like gamblers are, I just liked playing the game, even if it gave wooden tokens instead :p ) Ultimately, were Splatoon to introduce micro-transactions, it would be very much gambling. it already hits on all the gambling addictions, just without the money. And, yes, ticket redemption really is gambling as well. Carnival games as well - especially the automated ones "Bowler Roller" and such.

Of course that gets into how do we define "bad gambling" from "good gambling" so that "casino games are bad" but "arcade games (and pinball)" are good. Pinball and video arcade cabinets give no tickets or cash rewards, but are they not gambling? Continuously pumping quarters to keep playing after what are potentially stacked odds? An arcade operator that keeps the pinball table JUST out of level enough to affect it but not activate the TILT sensors? it's a fine line. If we start labeling everything gambling, half of the fun of 80's arcades wouldn't have existed. But half of what happens in mobile IS gambling. Then again, what is the stock market if not gambling?

That being said, McDonald's is still financially doing fine. Their announcement to have breakfast items throughout the whole day actually brought their share prices to their highest-ever amount. McDonald's is still the fast food restaurant of choice for people who have no idea what they want to eat, and it's usually the first burger place to open in particular countries, where they get first dibs and thus crowd out any other burger joint that might want to open there. It also seems to be the restaurant of choice for Asians, particularly those not born in the United States (probably because of the stereotype of Americans eating McDonald's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner; a lot of Asians I've met who live in Asia don't know there are other hamburger joints than McDonald's, and the ones who live in the United States don't trust any of the other ones).

They're doing well globally but their starting to do fairly poorly in the US. They've been closing a lot of locations and generally trimming back here. They haven't been #1 in a long, long time. Chick-Fil-A is now on top (which is astounding!), Subway was for a long time prior (which is inexplicable, even McD's has better food...) Also, they use different ingredients outside the US to comply with local tastes (and laws, etc. I.E. opening a McDonalds in India that served 100% ground beef would have been a pretty terrible idea...) but that means McDonalds food can actually be better in other countries than it is here! And the American obsession with McDonalds was legit 30 years ago. It's been on a decline for a long time though. Other countries will probably adapt to that change as well as soon as another burger shop opens. AFAIK, McDonalds in Tokyo still has loong lines - but I wonder what they serve? You can't tell me it's all beef. (Then again I can't imagine whatever that slop they serve here is all beef either... :D)

McDonald's endures because it's a cornerstone of American culture. It's the safe and familiar option for food; you know exactly what you'll be getting,

Yeah...that's the reason for why you WOULDN'T eat there :D

Don't get me wrong, I don't want McDonald's to disappear, mostly due to the fond memories of it as a kid. But the menu is NOT what it was even back then. It's good once every year or two though ;)

The McDonald Brothers actually became a big deal by employing young men rather than young women. Other hamburger joints, because they had a staff mainly of young women, would attract teenage boys and young men. This resulted in what you'd expect would happen when a bunch of boys gather in one place: Vandalism, theft, and general intimidation of other people. McDonald's, through their staffing strategy, attracted women, families, children, and other people scared of other hamburger restaurants. They got Ray Croc's attention because the brothers bought eight milkshake machines from him (each machine could produce 6 milkshakes at once, and he wondered why one restaurant would need to make up to 48 milkshakes at a time). It was Croc, actually, who made the menu what it is. The only late contribution the McDonald's Brothers made was removing every menu item that couldn't be eaten by hand due to the drive-in nature of these places (though, of course, with salads and such now, it's no longer an issue).

Well, the QUALITY of the menu was much better in Croc's time. I'm not saying it wasn't junk food, but it was a suitably good product and again a "working man's burger" more like what you'd see at Five Guys today (for less money!) It was really in the 90's that they started taking every shortcut in the book and quality started going on a nosedive to the point that they recently had to announce they were trying to correct that. Most of the food isn't even made there anymore, it's pre-cooked. If you went to a McDonalds today and went back in time (Go Team Past!) to eat a McDonald's burger circa 1987 you'd find it to be an exceedingly different food.

I'm guessing Nintendo is currently trying to re-do the Splatfests from the ground up due to the large amount of complaints after they're done. It's most pronounced in the Americas, where the minority team wins, and thus there are more losers than winners.

Honestly, I doubt that. I want to believe! (X-Files reference), I'd love for that to be true. But I'm just not convinced they're actually going to do that. That would require a notable patch and they already discussed they were done with rules changes in patches (yes, I know they announced maybe they're NOT done after all, but I think that means add-on content mostly.) Also today's server maintenance appears to affect the shop only, so I'm not convinced they have time/intent to apply anything at least this time. If they don't announce anything Saturday, maybe I'll get more convinced. But I wouldn't "hold onto your tentacles" just yet.

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

There's always room for third party information sources for better consumer awareness. Once there's any real demand for such a thing, one will exist. Whether a non-profit like the EFF takes it on, or it becomes a paid service, or a 3rd party marketplace with better ratings, one will exist. Right now there's little demand either because customers are content enough with what they have or they're too brainlessly idiotic to have any clue about anything in technology and how they're being screwed over by it. These are the people that DON'T have a problem with Facebook tracking their every move, and don't see anything worrying about it. For the moment the Amazon Android store is probably the closest to what you want since it has its own customer review system that's not abused like the official store (for now.)

I'd say it's as simple as the ESRB expanding to mobile games. It is, after all, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, and regardless of if you consider mobile gaming as video games or not, it is still entertainment software. For such a small group, it's incredibly comprehensive. (And unlike the MPAA, RIAA, or CCA, it almost never steps out of bounds from its intended purpose. But maybe that's because those three organizations were founded and currently run by concerned parents whereas the ESRB is run by the companies that make these games.)

Don't forget the instant lotto. And the people that buy 30+ tickets at a time, and work on scratching them off outside. That's instant and direct. Yeah, claw machines, and arcade machines of any kind are technically a form of gambling. As is mobile gaming with microtransactions. So is the 3DS Badge Arcade (which is just a virtual claw machine on your 3DS.) (Man, I was so hooked on claw machines as a kid. Ooohh and those quarter drop machines! Which technically is REAL gambling since it gives a cash reward but somehow slipped the radar of being regulated as gambling. I was pretty addicted to those, though my addiction wasn't to winning money like gamblers are, I just liked playing the game, even if it gave wooden tokens instead :p ) Ultimately, were Splatoon to introduce micro-transactions, it would be very much gambling. it already hits on all the gambling addictions, just without the money. And, yes, ticket redemption really is gambling as well. Carnival games as well - especially the automated ones "Bowler Roller" and such.

Of course that gets into how do we define "bad gambling" from "good gambling" so that "casino games are bad" but "arcade games (and pinball)" are good. Pinball and video arcade cabinets give no tickets or cash rewards, but are they not gambling? Continuously pumping quarters to keep playing after what are potentially stacked odds? An arcade operator that keeps the pinball table JUST out of level enough to affect it but not activate the TILT sensors? it's a fine line. If we start labeling everything gambling, half of the fun of 80's arcades wouldn't have existed. But half of what happens in mobile IS gambling. Then again, what is the stock market if not gambling?

Depends on what your definition of gambling is, and if so, how much of it is harmful. No doubt Splatoon employs a number of psychological games with the player that causes the player to keep going akin to gambling.

In any case, I have never seen anyone addicted to lottos or scratch cards the way they are at slot machines or bingo machines. I traveled to Las Vegas in 2014, the first time in thirteen years. I looked at the people at these slot machines. They're putting tokens in or swiping their credit cards in an almost machine-like pattern. They looked like zombies, hardly moving and emotionally blank, just watching the results come in. I've never seen anyone behave like that for anything not ordinarily found in a casino.

They're doing well globally but their starting to do fairly poorly in the US. They've been closing a lot of locations and generally trimming back here. They haven't been #1 in a long, long time. Chick-Fil-A is now on top (which is astounding!), Subway was for a long time prior (which is inexplicable, even McD's has better food...) Also, they use different ingredients outside the US to comply with local tastes (and laws, etc. I.E. opening a McDonalds in India that served 100% ground beef would have been a pretty terrible idea...) but that means McDonalds food can actually be better in other countries than it is here! And the American obsession with McDonalds was legit 30 years ago. It's been on a decline for a long time though. Other countries will probably adapt to that change as well as soon as another burger shop opens. AFAIK, McDonalds in Tokyo still has loong lines - but I wonder what they serve? You can't tell me it's all beef. (Then again I can't imagine whatever that slop they serve here is all beef either... :D)

Perhaps it's from my perspective, but here in southern California, Chick-Fil-A barely even exists, but there's a McDonald's at practically every square mile. McDonald's does well in areas with ethnically diverse populations, as it's the one food understood by most cultures. I clearly have different views from you regarding large fast food chains though. I grew up eating them, they are all around me (there are literally streets lined for miles with nothing but large chains), and mom-and-pop places have trouble competing with them. I should tell you that Five Guys is also rare here, and they're fighting an uphill battle against the likes of In-N-Out.

I've studied fast food trends in Thailand for some time now, as I find it pretty interesting due to the culture being quite different than that of the United States. Every burger chain that has tried to open up there after McDonald's has flopped. Burger King is the only one to have survived, and it survives as something of a niche, found only in large metropolitan areas, rare in number, and much less organized than McDonald's. I would bet it's because McDonald's was the first to arrive. It caught the attention of the locals, and no other hamburger place could yank it away. McDonald's in Thailand currently functions as the trendy place for young people to go to, akin to Starbucks in the United States. (In turn, Starbucks in Thailand is out of the price range for most people there--rather, they cater to tourists.) Things that are American are viewed as cool there, not unlike people in Japan wearing Engrish shirts. A stereotype has emerged there about Americans eating at McDonald's for breakfast, for lunch, and for dinner, which shows just how little they care about any hamburger place but McDonald's.

This seems to be the tendency for many other Asian countries too. You probably would never want to do this, but if you ever go on a tour aimed at Asians, if they stop by in a town with no Asian restaurants, notice that they will ALL flock to McDonald's and completely ignore anything else. Or just do what I do and be at a location with a lot of tourists, like Hollywood, and eventually, an Asian group will appear and do exactly that.

Honestly, I doubt that. I want to believe! (X-Files reference), I'd love for that to be true. But I'm just not convinced they're actually going to do that. That would require a notable patch and they already discussed they were done with rules changes in patches (yes, I know they announced maybe they're NOT done after all, but I think that means add-on content mostly.) Also today's server maintenance appears to affect the shop only, so I'm not convinced they have time/intent to apply anything at least this time. If they don't announce anything Saturday, maybe I'll get more convinced. But I wouldn't "hold onto your tentacles" just yet.

Yeah, looks like this Splatfest is going to go on with the rules unchanged. Would've liked to see something different. Maybe they're saving that for Splatoon 2.

 

[Flareth]

Hey, so this is a lovely conversation that y'all are having, but I have a quick question.

So the current belief is popularity=loss, ergo good players flock to the unpopular team. And I remember hearing people say that at some point, this line of thought is going to backfire, and then the "unpopular" team will end up becoming the popular team.

I guess the implication of this is somehow that it'll be the newly-unpopular team that starts winning, but wouldn't it be the opposite? Because the newly-popular team would still have all of the good players, wouldn't they still be trouncing the other team?

Basically, I get the feeling that the trend wouldn't backfire so much as it would just reverse: now it's the popular team that would do all the winning. Is it a sound belief, or what holes in my logic are there?

 

[Beesenitch]

To answer the question of the thread...

Can anyone explain to me how the splatfest winner is determined? Because in the one screen shot I saw posted, BOTH teams got x6 multiplier.

9 wins to 10

or

54 wins to 60

Either way, the same team -- the one with the most wins - would win splatfest, regardless of the size of the multiplier.

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

To answer the question of the thread...

Can anyone explain to me how the splatfest winner is determined? Because in the one screen shot I saw posted, BOTH teams got x6 multiplier.

9 wins to 10

or

54 wins to 60

Either way, the same team -- the one with the most wins - would win splatfest, regardless of the size of the multiplier.

Popularity % + (6*Win%)

 

[Babycowland]

To answer the question of the thread...

Can anyone explain to me how the splatfest winner is determined? Because in the one screen shot I saw posted, BOTH teams got x6 multiplier.

9 wins to 10

or

54 wins to 60

Either way, the same team -- the one with the most wins - would win splatfest, regardless of the size of the multiplier.

In the system that we have now, it seems like there's an incentive for the really good players to all pick the team that seems like it'll be less popular because the odds of them being matched against other really good players is generally going to be lower when the other team has more people in it. I think the idea behind lowering the wins multiplier is that there will be less of an incentive for the really good players to pick the team that they think will be less popular because being on the more popular team will matter more.

It's anyone's guess as to whether changing the win multiplier would actually change people's behaviors, especially given that a lot of this seems to be based on which side people perceive to be less popular, which could end up being wrong. I'll be interested to see how this Splatfest shakes out, since it looks there's a chance that the more popular team will also be the one with more wins.

 

[Burritoburger]

Really, Splatfest could and should be adjusted accordingly; but I adore the accidental social experiment Nintendo made out of it.
There are three things at play in this experiment: popularity, team wins, and demographic. Demographic itself is the key factor to victory. Because Splatoon appeals to a wide range of ages, you could have kids 4 years old fighting against someone in their 30's. Clearly, the 30-year-old is gonna be better at the game, meaning he's more likely to win against his enemy team of a younger audience.
So, when you can easily predict what the younger/wider demographic would pick for Splatfest (nice over naughty, autobot over decepticon, future over past) it's easy to determine that the less popular team would win because they represent the demographic that isn't so simple minded as to pick the typical option. Because they pick the team with a lower popularity but higher skill ratio, they would end up coming out on top and win it regardless of popularity.
This is all known information, but I love it regardless!
What strategy have you ever heard of to pick the less popular side to guarantee victory? That it's better to pick the side with lower numbers because they can more effectively fight against the team with bigger numbers? You write it on paper and it seems so stupid, but Splatfest is set up so perfectly that someone would pick a less typical team to guarantee a win, purely because that choice isn't as popular.
As for how Nintendo could fix it, bumping down the multiplier would definitely do, so that popularity can become a deciding factor. Heck, if anything, the popularity is already a deciding factor: the team that is more popular is doomed to fail.

TL;DR: Nintendo accidentally created a social experiment through abuse of demographics and favorability of skill over popularity, and I love it. As for fixing the problem, I agree that win multiplier should be bumped down to make popularity more important.

 

[Leronne]

Most recent splatfest winners
NA: Team Blue
Popularity: 45%
Wins: 59%

EU: Team Blue
Popularity: 36%
Wins: 57%

Japan: Team Green
Popularity: 39%
Wins: 64%

*Sigh* as it stands, the unpopular team in europe and japan has a 3 win streak. And america's unpopular team has a 6 win streak, but to be fair, i feel like this splatfest was a lot more honest. A lot more people actually chose the option that they actually wanted to as opposed to picking the unpopular side. I kinda already knew that red team would be the popular one, and that the opposite team would be unpopular, but i was hoping that red would win in at least one region.

On a more positive note, marie won three splatfests in a row.

 

[MeTaGross]

My opinion on this thread's question is that the win multiplier should be either x2 or x3. Sometimes the popularity is more lopsided, sometimes the wins are more lopsided. In this splatfest blue was far better than red when I played. I actually used an alternate file to try and lose on blue (kind of scumy), and I won 9 battles scoring no points. I started with a four game losing streak on team red, always being the best on the team.

 

[ϛ(°³°)/`]

At this point there's not much more that can be done other than echo what's already said: I get the impression that the issue is largely based around the idea that the themes favourite specific age groups over another. For example when we had Cars vs. Planes, we should take into account that most of the younger kids that play this game don't drive themselves anywhere and have to sit in the passenger seat next to their parents. I remember that being a fairly boring time (and was the precise reason I managed to put over 600 hours into Pokémon Emerald :V), and I can't imagine many kids would prefer that to a plane ride. As adults, we realize the convenience of a car for shorter trips and we know the utter joy that comes with customs and immigration through long flights.

What we really need is to have themes that are split evenly through all age groups, which is obviously easier said than done. Something as simple and nonthreatening as Blue vs. Green would probably do it, but admittedly it's a less exciting theme. -not as bad as the EU themes mind you.

Also yeah, lowering the multiplier for wins might give popularity a fighting chance for once. I honestly don't see the immediate consequence of giving popularity and wins an equal weighting, although if that were the case I'd have won maybe 1 splatfest thus far and I likes me some cheap rerolls/slots.

 

[Award]

I'd say it's as simple as the ESRB expanding to mobile games. It is, after all, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, and regardless of if you consider mobile gaming as video games or not, it is still entertainment software. For such a small group, it's incredibly comprehensive. (And unlike the MPAA, RIAA, or CCA, it almost never steps out of bounds from its intended purpose. But maybe that's because those three organizations were founded and currently run by concerned parents whereas the ESRB is run by the companies that make these games.)

RIAA & MPAA aren't rating boards, they're industry association groups (read: lobbyist & advocacy groups run by/sponsored by the key industry players.) They DO rate things, but that's not their core function. Thus their involvement in legislation that affects their industry. Thus their interest in copy protection, piracy, copyright law, active roles in prosecutions, the reason piracy carries a heavier penalty than attempted murder, and the inside industry price fixing of content producers associated to these groups. They also (badly) designed the HDMI standard, based around their content protection needs rather than a sensible electronics standard. Whole different animals than ESRB that's just an industry group for rating to sidestep having to have the government power grab in their own industry.

In any case, I have never seen anyone addicted to lottos or scratch cards the way they are at slot machines or bingo machines. I traveled to Las Vegas in 2014, the first time in thirteen years. I looked at the people at these slot machines. They're putting tokens in or swiping their credit cards in an almost machine-like pattern. They looked like zombies, hardly moving and emotionally blank, just watching the results come in. I've never seen anyone behave like that for anything not ordinarily found in a casino.

Yeah slots/pachinko/videopoker/videobingo have a VERY weird effect on people that are unique to those machines. A better gambling comparison would be the card/roulette/dice tables that still make up a mainstay of casino games. Same addiction pattern, but without the weird zombifying results. And the addiction pattern for lottos is different but no less addicting and bankrupting. It's the repeat customers daily/weekly buying numerous tickets, with some system of their own for number selection (where it's select-able.) It's depressing, and the sad reality is that you have a greater chance of winning a profit on the slots than you do in a state lotto. It's actually a WORSE game to gamble on!

Perhaps it's from my perspective, but here in southern California, Chick-Fil-A barely even exists, but there's a McDonald's at practically every square mile. McDonald's does well in areas with ethnically diverse populations, as it's the one food understood by most cultures. I clearly have different views from you regarding large fast food chains though. I grew up eating them, they are all around me (there are literally streets lined for miles with nothing but large chains), and mom-and-pop places have trouble competing with them. I should tell you that Five Guys is also rare here, and they're fighting an uphill battle against the likes of In-N-Out.

In-N-Out is a purely West Coast thing for now. I'm sure they've expanded in a few locations here and there elsewhere, but I've never once even SEEN an In-N-Out burger aside from the obvious and classic jokes. I've heard before they're pretty good though. I'm surprised Chick-Fil-A is missing out there....midwest on east they're at least in every mall, and recently have built more stand-alone locations. You're probably the only place they HAVEN'T made inroads as they've now surpassed McDonalds and Subway as #1 biggest chain (by sales volume) in the country. Which still astounds me. You're missing out...they really do have good food for a fast food place. ;)

McDonalds has been trimming out a lot of locations. Closing mall locations, trimming others here and there. McD's isn't what they were in the 80's or even 90's anymore. Not in the US anyway. It's not that they're closing up shop, but they've lost a LOT of popularity. Happy Meals aren't a daily phrase anymore. Tourists and recent arrivals may be familiar with it, and in other countries they may be doing well, but here people have moved on to competitors in large numbers. Not a bad thing by any stretch, They wanted to see how cheap they could go, and now they've found out. They had a horrible CEO for a long time that was running the brand into the ground. They're trying to fix it, but it's an uphill battle now that the brand is a punchline.

Oh I grew up on fast food myself. Everyone did...the 80's & 90's were fast food's heyday. It's still everywhere...just not so much McDonalds. And a lot of fav chains are long gone. Surprised CA has so much of it though, I thought that was the land of "organic everything!" :D

Not surprising Five Guys is rare, it's a smaller chain, mostly East Coast...started in DC. I've never actually ate there personally, preferring a smaller all local chain (with amazing fries) and one or two smaller one location shops that have been around since the 50's and 60's respectively. And BK for the cheap fast stuff. :p Yep...#TeamBurger. ;)

A stereotype has emerged there about Americans eating at McDonald's for breakfast, for lunch, and for dinner, which shows just how little they care about any hamburger place but McDonald's.

To be fair to their viewpoint...that DID used to be true :D There's just more competitors offering similar, or cheaper, or better to pick from now. :)

"What do you want for dinner?"
"McDonalds!"
"No."
"McDonalds!"
"No."
"Happy Meal!"
"No."

Or just do what I do and be at a location with a lot of tourists, like Hollywood, and eventually, an Asian group will appear and do exactly that.

It's funny that it still works that way. Strangely encouraging, actually.

Yeah, looks like this Splatfest is going to go on with the rules unchanged. Would've liked to see something different. Maybe they're saving that for Splatoon 2.

Spla2n: This time it actually works. Trust us!


One thing this splatfest taught us, other than "less popular team wins" which can probably not be fixed is: People are indeed choosing the team they prefer, at least the majority of players are. It was Callie's team this time. Usually it's Marie's. So CHOICE is still free on each topic. The good players will still scum for whichever seems less popular. And they always will. Fixing the multiplier might help make the popularity rate factor in more. But I'm not sure that's a good thing. It should be win based. I don't even think the real problem is that really good players are on one team or not. It's that there's so many really bad players in splatfest. On a normal day you just don't see as many levels under 10 as you do on splatfest days. It's hard to fix the scoring when they key problem is that so many people playing splatfest simply can't really play at all! Though there were plenty of low level people on Blue as well. I watched someone that isn't a very good player (but not horrid) get matched endlessly with <lv10 players against 20-35lv players and get spawncamped every time. It wasn't all sunshine on Blue.

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

It's that there's so many really bad players in splatfest. On a normal day you just don't see as many levels under 10 as you do on splatfest days. It's hard to fix the scoring when they key problem is that so many people playing splatfest simply can't really play at all! Though there were plenty of low level people on Blue as well. I watched someone that isn't a very good player (but not horrid) get matched endlessly with <lv10 players against 20-35lv players and get spawncamped every time. It wasn't all sunshine on Blue.

They probably only play Splatoon when it's a Splatfest.

I'm kinda guilty of this too.

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

Hey, so this is a lovely conversation that y'all are having, but I have a quick question.

So the current belief is popularity=loss, ergo good players flock to the unpopular team. And I remember hearing people say that at some point, this line of thought is going to backfire, and then the "unpopular" team will end up becoming the popular team.

I guess the implication of this is somehow that it'll be the newly-unpopular team that starts winning, but wouldn't it be the opposite? Because the newly-popular team would still have all of the good players, wouldn't they still be trouncing the other team?

Basically, I get the feeling that the trend wouldn't backfire so much as it would just reverse: now it's the popular team that would do all the winning. Is it a sound belief, or what holes in my logic are there?

Nah, that's exactly what I predict will eventually happen if Splatfests continue to take place with no change in the rules: There will be enough people to join the team they suspect will be less popular that it will become the MORE popular team. However, should that start happening repeatedly, longtime Splatoon players will likely become confused, and the correlation will break. This is just a prediction though.

In the system that we have now, it seems like there's an incentive for the really good players to all pick the team that seems like it'll be less popular because the odds of them being matched against other really good players is generally going to be lower when the other team has more people in it. I think the idea behind lowering the wins multiplier is that there will be less of an incentive for the really good players to pick the team that they think will be less popular because being on the more popular team will matter more.

It's anyone's guess as to whether changing the win multiplier would actually change people's behaviors, especially given that a lot of this seems to be based on which side people perceive to be less popular, which could end up being wrong. I'll be interested to see how this Splatfest shakes out, since it looks there's a chance that the more popular team will also be the one with more wins.

The core of the matter is the six extra Super Sea Snails. It's why I advocate removing that incentive, giving an equal amount to both teams at the end based on their rank. Either that, or provide bonus Super Sea Snails for reaching King or Queen and continuing to provide more for each victory accomplished after that (like, say, 1 Super Sea Snail for every three wins past King or Queen).

At this point there's not much more that can be done other than echo what's already said: I get the impression that the issue is largely based around the idea that the themes favourite specific age groups over another. For example when we had Cars vs. Planes, we should take into account that most of the younger kids that play this game don't drive themselves anywhere and have to sit in the passenger seat next to their parents. I remember that being a fairly boring time (and was the precise reason I managed to put over 600 hours into Pokémon Emerald :V), and I can't imagine many kids would prefer that to a plane ride. As adults, we realize the convenience of a car for shorter trips and we know the utter joy that comes with customs and immigration through long flights.

With the Pokémon one though, Charizard is an icon that's appealed to kids of multiple generations AND is fondly remembered by older gamers; so Charizard gets the edge over Blastoise and Venusaur in both the younger and older age ranges. Then again, that might explain the pretty high popularity across all three regions, albeit less pronounced in North America. It might be there are enough people deliberately picking Blue in North America, however, to cause the numbers to be more even in popularity, but it doesn't explain how Team Red in Japan got such a trouncing in the matches themselves.

Yeah slots/pachinko/videopoker/videobingo have a VERY weird effect on people that are unique to those machines. A better gambling comparison would be the card/roulette/dice tables that still make up a mainstay of casino games. Same addiction pattern, but without the weird zombifying results. And the addiction pattern for lottos is different but no less addicting and bankrupting. It's the repeat customers daily/weekly buying numerous tickets, with some system of their own for number selection (where it's select-able.) It's depressing, and the sad reality is that you have a greater chance of winning a profit on the slots than you do in a state lotto. It's actually a WORSE game to gamble on!

Depends on the specific lotto. Odds of the jackpot in Powerball are very low, but they're very high in value. The Colorado State Lottery has a pretty lowjackpot, fixed at $100,000, but it's higher than Powerball. I remember reading that the California State Lotto gives away roughly 12% of the dollars that go in for prizes; the rest is treated like tax.

As for the card tables, it's definitely full of energy. I think it's the human element. There has to be a dealer there, and if the dealer is enthusiastic, so will the guests.

I

n-N-Out is a purely West Coast thing for now. I'm sure they've expanded in a few locations here and there elsewhere, but I've never once even SEEN an In-N-Out burger aside from the obvious and classic jokes. I've heard before they're pretty good though. I'm surprised Chick-Fil-A is missing out there....midwest on east they're at least in every mall, and recently have built more stand-alone locations. You're probably the only place they HAVEN'T made inroads as they've now surpassed McDonalds and Subway as #1 biggest chain (by sales volume) in the country. Which still astounds me. You're missing out...they really do have good food for a fast food place. ;)

McDonalds has been trimming out a lot of locations. Closing mall locations, trimming others here and there. McD's isn't what they were in the 80's or even 90's anymore. Not in the US anyway. It's not that they're closing up shop, but they've lost a LOT of popularity. Happy Meals aren't a daily phrase anymore. Tourists and recent arrivals may be familiar with it, and in other countries they may be doing well, but here people have moved on to competitors in large numbers. Not a bad thing by any stretch, They wanted to see how cheap they could go, and now they've found out. They had a horrible CEO for a long time that was running the brand into the ground. They're trying to fix it, but it's an uphill battle now that the brand is a punchline.

Oh I grew up on fast food myself. Everyone did...the 80's & 90's were fast food's heyday. It's still everywhere...just not so much McDonalds. And a lot of fav chains are long gone. Surprised CA has so much of it though, I thought that was the land of "organic everything!" :D

I chose Team Burger for a reason: I live in southern California, the origin of the burger joint, or at least where it became popular. In 1910, a lot of New York City people were polled on their favorite food. Cow tongue and spinach outdid hamburgers 10 to 1. Hamburgers were not popular yet. But now, they are, and they're the third most popular fast food in the world, behind fried chicken and pizza. And you can thank southern California for that; the only nationwide/international burger chains that didn't begin in southern California are Five Guys, Sonic, and Hardee's. (Stuff like White Castle don't count, as they're regional.)

The reason In-N-Out is west coast only is because they have a company policy of never freezing their beef, and they mean never bringing it below the freezing point of water, not the government rule of slightly below freezing. Since they get all their beef from the San Joaquin Valley, In-N-Out Burgers, with a few exceptions, are restricted to as far as their trucks can carry the beef before it spoils. By the way, it's worth taking a read on the family that owns In-N-Out: There are enough suspicious deaths to rival the Kennedys. At this point, everyone with the family name has died, and for about a year, a high school age girl was the CEO because of the rule that it must be run by a member of that family. She was the only living member left.

As for McDonald's, they're not really a mall chain around here. They're a staple of the suburbs. I have not seen any McDonald's location close down in the past six years, but then again, I haven't seen a new one open for longer than that. There are four locations within 5 miles of where I live. As for Chick-Fil-A, it originated in the southeast quadrant of the country, and California is one of the most distance places. There are a few here and there, but not a lot, probably because, like Five Guys, they only recently got here. Them being closed on Sundays seems to really hurt them.

To be fair to their viewpoint...that DID used to be true :D There's just more competitors offering similar, or cheaper, or better to pick from now. :)

"What do you want for dinner?"
"McDonalds!"
"No."
"McDonalds!"
"No."
"Happy Meal!"
"No."

In East Asia? No, I said that they go for McDonald's because it's the only hamburger place they care about. Kind of like how Panda Express is the only Chinese food place most Americans care about. (It is Americanized but authentically Chinese. The founders and the chefs all immigrated from China.) Burger King tried to open up there but everyone just cared about McDonald's. Kind of like how Dunkin' Donuts (which only started appearing in southern California two years ago) and Krispy Kreme tried to set up there, but everyone stuck to visiting Mister Donut. There is literally the market for only one hamburger chain there.

I heard Krispy Kreme has been facing financial difficulties too and has been closing stores. The Los Angeles area seems to be the exception. The Krispy Kremes here are franchised by a third party company, which seems to be running them competently enough to not only not close any of them down, but have been opening new locations.

One thing this splatfest taught us, other than "less popular team wins" which can probably not be fixed is: People are indeed choosing the team they prefer, at least the majority of players are. It was Callie's team this time. Usually it's Marie's. So CHOICE is still free on each topic. The good players will still scum for whichever seems less popular. And they always will. Fixing the multiplier might help make the popularity rate factor in more. But I'm not sure that's a good thing. It should be win based. I don't even think the real problem is that really good players are on one team or not. It's that there's so many really bad players in splatfest. On a normal day you just don't see as many levels under 10 as you do on splatfest days. It's hard to fix the scoring when they key problem is that so many people playing splatfest simply can't really play at all! Though there were plenty of low level people on Blue as well. I watched someone that isn't a very good player (but not horrid) get matched endlessly with <lv10 players against 20-35lv players and get spawncamped every time. It wasn't all sunshine on Blue.

Something else to consider: It's pretty clear people are not simply picking Callie or Marie.