Chances are, if Ingress was anything to go by, the lifetime of the game is too short for any of these strategies to make sense. After a month or two of killing your battery life whilst collecting GPS data for google, most seem to move on or lose interest.
(I've not installed Go, and don't intend to, so it may have some actual game in there beyond collecting and tagging locations. Everything I've read seems to indicate it's as shallow as Ingress with a graphics change).
By the time they have a strategy and have included locations the moment will have probably passed. I also wonder how non-playing folks at a sponsored gym (say) will feel about the foyer or cafe being full of kids playing phone games. At least some attempts will carry negative as well as positive consequences.
The biggest issue is it doesn't really have any mechanics beyond "catch pokemon". There's not really gameplay, short of the laughable gym battles. You can realize this after about a half hour of playing. Nintendo is sitting on top of a big giant pile of money, but I get the feeling they want to gimp Go in favor of their mainstream games.
Seriously, all they need to do is add a basic pokemon PVP with the same battle mechanics from the mainstream, and maybe random events, and they could keep it going for a good while longer.
Also, the always-on-gps is a huge issue with it. They need to find some way to lessen it.
I think this is very true, when I was in 5th grade It wasn't wandering around catching pokemon that made me love the game. It was battling my friends, and trading with them.
They are for sure planning trading already, and probably battling as well.
Catching Pokemon is the core gameplay aspect of it. Walking around, discovering new places, new Pokemon is what the game is currently meant to be about. That is why the PvP is laughable compared to other games.
They should realize that the "core" hook is the ability to walk around as if the world of Pokemon was this world. This is orthogonal to the depth of the game's mechanics and the casual/hardcore dimension. There is tremendous fun in anything that aids in pretending the game you're fantasizing about is the real world you're walking around in.
It's not like they have 6 generations of pokemon games to draw ideas from. Like you said, even basic battling with wild pokemon/virtual npcs would make this game much more interesting, at the moment it's just incredibly simplistic.
I'm not convinced it isn't a purposeful slow release of features to ease people not used to playing the prior games in the series into fully participating.
Then again, that only really makes sense if they really thought it was going to have a bunch of new players, and I'm not sure there were indications it was going to be this big?
I agree. I messed around with it for a bit, and realized it didn't even have the depth of the Gen 1 game, and gave up on it. Its a great idea, with tons of potential, but right now it doesn't have any real gameplay.
I've worked on location based games before and the game design possibilities are constrained. It is a real challenge. Collecting gameplay is something that seems to fit really well however, so if anyone is going to be able to succeed in this space, it's Pokemon, the best and most popular collecting game.
Niantic will have to iterate quickly to build in depth. The need to walk around is a lot of friction to playing a location based game. They'll have to introduce features that are enticing enough to overcome that friction. Simply collecting pokemon and filling out the pokedex isn't going to be enough in the long term.
> The need to walk around is a lot of friction to playing a location based game.
The only reason I play Ingress is the social aspect of it, and the need for walking. I don't have any other game in my cellphone that I play regularly and I don't care about angry birds and so on. If I want a seated experience my computer has far better games.
So, it depends on the user, there are no absolutes in gaming.
Man, if Pokemon Go has half the depth of Ingress it'll do awesome. The problem with Ingress isn't lack of depth, it's that a new player can't see where the depth is due to bad game design. Pokemon Go has a much better newbie experience (still could be better).
On the other hand, the strategic games that are at the heart of Ingress depth don't exist in Pokemon Go, so we'll see.
The tutorial is not great, but you can actually engage in the core loop (capture/evolve) at level 1. Conversely, one of the most common newbie questions in Ingress is "wait, why don't my bursters do anything against these high level portals?"
I'm not sure that the Ingress comparisons are accurate. Pokemon is the secret sauce that is making this ingress clone 'stick' for millions of people. I, like you, have questions about it's longevity, but the simple addition of Pokemon is not so simple, and makes this an entirely different beast imo.
9 out of 10 of the "kids" playing phone games have been 20 or older in my experience with Ingress and Pokemon Go.
So far Go lets you search for pokemon, power them up, and "battle" with them. Trading is coming. Isn't that pretty much everything the previous umpteen Pokemon games let you do?
While I am hopeful of future updates fleshing out the mechanics in the game and adding features, so far it is lacking much of the detail, content and depth that have allowed Pokemon games to retain their audience's attention.
Unless they flesh out the gameplay (either with new elements or mechanics, or by "porting" over from the existing games in the Pokemon franchise), the success of the game could easily be short lived.
Same with Ingress then and careless wording on my part. Actually there were quite a few older folks trying Ingress too. But it had very little sticking power.
Is there already a legal discussion going on about who actually owns the 'virtual' real space?
Let's say you have company A and company B who offer the same service in a city. Company A now buys a sponsored virtual Ingress portal / PokeStop / ad-banner in the real-world location of company B with the message "Come visit us at location of company A, we have more pokestops and we offer better prices".
It's a novel issue of first impression. There is no controlling statute or case law. The most we can do is make informed speculation at this point.
My guess is that at some point a court will find that property rights will extend to geo-spatial, virtual property boundaries. That is, you retain control of how your property appears in 'cyberspace.'
Are you positive there is no precedence? I can think of countless examples of manually augmented reality.
Let's say someone publishes a book of addresses or GPS coordinates. They claim these are hotbeds of paranormal activity. Or ley lines. Or something. People are going to visit these locations based on fictional claims. Possibly they might even get something they value out of visiting the location. (Information from the dead, positive energy vibrations, whatever.)
AR that claims to be authoritatively non-fictional has been done too. Think of a tourist guide book, saying what is worth visiting around town.
I don't see how "the app told me I would find something there" is different from "the book told me I would find something there".
Jesus, I hope that's false. Cyberspace isn't real. It's absolutely insane to suggest that one ought to have control over some abstract data just because there exists a vague correspondence between some part of that data and some piece of land they own in the real world. Should photographs of buildings be illegal? After all, it's just a virtual representation of the real property. In fact, it's a much closer representation than just "these fake coordinates vaguely resemble these real coordinates".
So let's say in some future everyone is always wearing AR. Now let's some someone somehow got derogatory terms to constantly float above your head. There are negative impacts from this: loss of job, harder to meet people, unable to get hire.
Because AR "isn't real", should you have no recourse against this? At the gut level, that doesn't feel right, so as much as some people want to pretend The Web is some wild west of freedom and lawlessness, it really makes sense (some times, with experts consulted) to have (some) regulations.
You're leaving essentially everything about this scenario underspecified, but no; it should not be illegal to say mean things about someone through technology. Do you really have to ask that question?
If somone followed someone else around all day and yelled obscenities at them, there are laws to punish the perpetrator. If someone followed you around everywhere you went on the internet and comment and messaged and posted obscenities at you, you'd want the same protection.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to speak freely, but somewhere out there is a line that crosses from exercising freedom of speech into harassment.
This comic [0] explains it nicely. Just because it's on the internet and "not real life" doesn't mean it doesn't affect your happiness or your life "offline."
> If someone followed you around everywhere you went on the internet and comment and messaged and posted obscenities at you, you'd want the same protection.
It's called a troll, and no I wouldn't, because I'm not a tremendous wanker. I'm an emotionally stable adult who can deal with someone calling me names.
I prioritize free speech over the feelings of people who can't take shit on the Internet. It's not that I've never felt bad after someone criticized me on the Internet; it's that I understand that life is full of positive and negative interactions and you have to deal with both. Crying and demanding that insulting you be made illegal is a puerile and unhealthy response.
> It's absolutely insane to suggest that one ought to have control over some abstract data
I was responding to that to say that it's not insane to govern the internet either by new laws or by applying and extending existing laws. My point was to illustrate a case that should without a doubt merit some governance when it's just "abstract data."
AR and its intersection with real property is a HUGE topic. Can people post ads on your building in AR? Can they write nasty things about you and your customers? Can they setup trap for drug dealers? There are literally hundreds of such questions. Do you have control over how Google maps depicts your properties, how about China Netcom? AR is the worlds biggest genie, and people are just starting to become aware of it. The idea of "Controlling AR" is ridiculous! Its going to come from a million places..
Yes, exactly, I am not talking about some random virtual world but specifically about AR and its connection to the real world.
I wonder what the military thinks about the Ingress portals and PokemonStops on their bases. In worst case that will results in some virtual ban zones around military compounds where AR is forbidden.
AR doesn't "intersect" with anything. It's virtual. It's pixels on a screen. What shows up on my screen has no connection to someone else's physical property.
Interesting sub-thread. But most commentary seems to be assuming that there is only one cyberspace - like in Snow Crash. That is not the case and I don't see it becoming the case. When I walk around in AR cyberspace, I'll not see things that others decide to show me. I'll see no ads. I'll see no obnoxious graffiti. Why would I. It's my cyberspace - I'll see and interact with things of my own choosing.
When you "browse the internet" you are going to someone else's space. When I use my computer, I'm in my own space until I choose not to be. AR will be no different, or no one is going to use it.
You sound very sure about that, but then 25 years ago people probably would have thought it unthinkable for all of their photos, connections, and personal posts on a single platform (facebook, etc.).
Paying $200 for someone else's AR device that "just works" vs. rolling your own and maintaining it? What do you thin the average consumer is going to pick.
Google Maps has my property's location and image on Google's database.
Yelp has my property's location and image on Yelp's database.
Pokemon Go has my property's location and image on Niantic's database.
I don't like how my property is portrayed on Google or Yelp. I have no recourse. Why is Pokemon Go different?
Do you think such a decision would apply to "cyberspaces" like this one:
-75,40,28
That's a (chosen) coordinate pair and an (invented) observation about something at the coordinate pair. Will the property owner be able to force me to delete my 28?
Point a megapixel b&w camera at something (maybe your triplet written on a napkin) and when you press the shutter button it will choose a single coordinate in a million-dimensional space. No annotation needed!
It's not actually in copmany B's space. It's in Niantic's database and the associated coordinates match the location of company B. The law doesn't come into it. You don't own information just because it happens to be about you. Especially if it's about a real world location which you only temporarily lease.
> You don't own information just because it happens to be about you.
The lawsuits that force google to blur faces and some houses in Germany seem to indicate otherwise. Those are privacy related problems, but I think they still show that your blanket statement needs more nuance.
Sure, some countries have stupid laws. I would still say homosexuals are people who deserve the same rights as anyone else, even though there are countries where that is not true.
In Baltimore, there are 2 competing casinos about 10 miles apart off of the same highway. When you approach the newer casino from any direction, there are multiple billboards advising you to keep driving to the older competing casino for better payouts and other bonuses.
Yes, but doing it in augmented reality means that casino A could put ads _inside_ of casino B.
Just imagine casino A would pay some guys to carry advertising sign inside of casino B. Those guys would be removed instantly.
Or let's say somebody creates a AR game where you can leave signs with random texts everywhere. And then somebody decides to plant a sign with "OP is bundle of sticks" on your property. In the real world you can just remove the sign and call the cops, but what would you do in the AR world?
If there will be too much shenanigans I can see that in the future your real property boundary might translate into the virtual AR world.
It is currently not an issue but just imagine that something like Facebook/Twitter/Instagram explodes into AR space and _everybody_ starts using it as their main mode of interaction with people. If Burgerking buys all the virtual ad-space inside every McDonalds location then you can be sure that there will be lawsuits.
Isn't the point of AR that the particular AR can contain anything feasible? Why should McDonald's tell me I can't use a Burger King app inside their store? (I guess they can, but that would be obnoxious.)
But why couldn't you be free to see the Whopper poster in that case? McDonalds owns the store, they don't own my vision while I'm in their store. Until we are given implants at birth, the user chooses to enable augmented reality
They can ban someone from using AR inside the store to protect their brand. But making it illegal for Burger King buy AR ads that display inside the store - I wonder if there's some precedent with radio
Answer one: "while looking at a McDonalds menu board" I am "looking at the McDonalds menu board", so no, I don't see anything else.
Answer two:
> That depends. Is this[0] covering my view, being used by my daughter?
> Am I comparing prices on the internet? Should McDonald's care, or have control over what happens inside my smartphone, or what I can see?
> Am I spoofing my (smartphone) location to pretend I am in fact inside a burguer king, and indeed seeing the Augmented Reality Giant Whooper they have, because I enjoy playing their minigames, but prefer to eat at McDonalds?
Forgive me for taking this to an uncomfortable extreme of a hypothetical:
As a parent, would you seek to prevent an AR app from allowing overlays of an artificially created model of a beaten and bruised child over your child's body when a user looks at them?
As a spouse, would you seek to prevent an AR app from allowing overlays of a pornographic representation of their body when a user looks at them?
As a homeowner, would you seek to prevent an AR app from allowing overlays of "#blacklivesdontmatter" from appearing as graffiti when a user looks at your home?
As a parent, spouse or homeowner, I wouldn't. I would like it to stop, in the same way I would like that guy downstairs to be nice to me.
But I will just postpone as long as I can to interact with people that use said AR app as lens for the world.
Because the problem is not the overlays. The problem is when people use the overlays / AR app as a truth finder. And I don't care much for those kinds of people, neither does anyone I care about.
I think this is overthought, though it's interesting insofar as the likely natural conclusion is you buy Augmented Reality Ad_Space to avoid this very thing.
In my mind, you can look at this two ways:
1. You can't tell people what they can and cannot look at on their technology just because they've entered your "space". Maybe sometime down the road competitive geo-blocking will be a thing (i.e., different companies will auction off parts of cities and let businesses buy up ad-relevancy based on location), but right now there's no such case. I think legally, this is the equivalent of someone walking into McDonalds and a Burger King happens to play on Spotify or there's a banner ad in an app for Wendy's.
2. The advertisement, despite using real world GPS coordinates, is occuring within the application, not an actual advertisement inside the store.
In a way, I guess the question really is "do you have a right to your GPS coordinates?", and I don't think you do. What people do with the coordinates elsewhere may be subject to some laws, but nothing in terms of commerce.
> Yes, but doing it in augmented reality means that casino A could put ads _inside_ of casino B.
While the general point you are trying to make still stands, as regards the specific example, I expect that the possibility of hostile ads is fairly far down the list of reasons that casinos, of all places, are going to crack down hard on any use of AR technology on the premises before long.
I suspect this will eventually go the way domain names went. Initially, any random person would register microsoft.com, and Microsoft didn't have much recourse back then. Now they do, I believe, and I feel like this is a similar question of ownership of something virtual.
If you google Casino A, it's possible the adword at the top will be for Casino B. Just because I happen to physically be somewhere doesn't change things, it's still a virtual space that google owns and can give advertising space based on who pays the most.
Yeah, but try to go inside casino A and put stickers with ads for casino B on the walls. You will be thrown out within minutes for trespassing, property damage and other things.
Still missing the point, Casino A owns the physical space of Casino A. Google owns Pokemon database, the fact that the easiest way to access the content of this specific data inside of googles database is to be physically located on Casino A's premises does not change the ownership of that particular data.
This is all really straightforward, the mental gymnastics required to turn this into a problem is really mental masturbation.
Yelp has a "nearby" feature. If I pull up yelp while standing in a restaurant, do you think the restaurant should have full control over the reviews? Obviously, the answer should always be no. There's nothing really new here.
I think it's a who cares problem. What percentage of the people in a casino are going to be focused on some AR game? Of those people, how many are going to be anything but annoyed by ads?
It is currently not a problem at all. But just imagine something like Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/Tinder/TripAdvisor/Yelp explodes into AR space and it becomes an essential part of daily life. If this somehow becomes reality then localized AR-ads will be very very valuable.
People still aren't going to be interacting with slot machines through the Facebook app. Or if they are, it will be because the home casino has arranged for it (so competitor ads wouldn't be in the interests of Facebook).
When I'm standing at the counter at McDonald's, an ad for Burger King is going to have to be really compelling to matter.
If you're wearing AR gear in the casino, you might see in the corner of your eye while playing the slot machine a little gambling Pokémon, inviting you to play with him for better odds than the stupid slot machine.
AR ads can be highly specific. If you are casino A then you want to reach all the people who usually go to casino B. What is the best way to reach those? Buy all the virtual ad-space at the location of casino B. This will be more effective than any Google Adsense or Facebook campaign.
This already occurs in the third-party controlled "virtual reality" of Google search ads, where you can bid on a competitor's brand name. As this article indicates, there are drawbacks that keep this practice rare if the ad network operator is thoughtful in building a fair market: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2015/06/12/bidding-on-comp...
Interesting possibilities- there's already examples of people having gyms on their houses and having people milling around their yards all day. There was also an "incident" where a koffing showed up at a holocaust museum- and the museum got pissed.
Like someone below me mentioned, virtual ads could be pretty powerful too, and, y'know, what's to stop someone from constructing virtual dicks in front of a building. (Besides whoever runs the AR service) There's really not a DMCA-like-thing for AR stuff.
I hope there's at least going to be some agreed-upon best practices. Pokemon Go seems to draw from the Ingress dataset of interesting places, which excludes a lot of private residences, unless your house is particularly interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07...
I'm glad that guy seems okay with it, but there are real repercussions to a third party instantly turning your home into a location in a game without your permission or even giving warning. If these sorts of games become more popular, someone will start raising a stink.
Right now technically the virtual representation of real life locations belongs to the developer, so I don't think what you describe would hold in court at all. But it's a conversation that we may need to have depending on how massive and pervasive these AR games/services become.
Would it be so bad if for once ads and marketing didn't jump on a trend? Is letting people play Pokemon and not trying to sell them something unrelated really such a bad thing?
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to accept business that needs to "latch on" to trends and product of others. If you can't sell your product and services on their own merits, then maybe the existence of your business isn't exactly justified.
For users? Probably not. For ad companies? Absolutely.
I don't mean this maliciously towards you or advertisers, but you need to understand that advertisers see the world through ad-tinted glasses - you can tell it based on how they try to sell physical ad-space. A billboard will gleefully tick away with "number of people who would have seen your ad". Placards above urinals or in stalls in bathrooms will talk to you about "now this is captive audience". A person isn't a person, they're a demographic of set {male, gay, republican, gunowner, iphoneuser} or any series of fields.
I do agree, it's annoying and as a person, insulting to have companies prying away at my privacy just to try to sell me stuff I don't want or need, or sometimes already have. (just looknig at skype right now on my work machine, it's trying to sell me Office 365 when we're married to the Windows Environment already) But I'm not an advertiser - I don't see the world through their eyes, and they would make far less money if they saw the world through my eyes.
A good advertiser isn't really congruent with respecting privacy or letting things be, and sometimes the difference that jumping on a trend like this can make is "selling [100] good burgers" a day versus "selling [500] good burgers" a day. Even if your burgers stand on merit, if you had the metrics to show that you could quintuple sales, wouldn't you try at least? Even if you fell as short as 1.5(burgers_sold) compared to 5(burgers_sold), you'd still likely make more than you spent on the ad.
It sucks, but as much as they're jerks for doing it, we're suckers that keep on buying and making it work, or at least we make it look like it works.
> we're suckers that keep on buying and making it work, or at least we make it look like it works
True, but there is a huge power asymmetry. While advertisers do this day-in-day-out, and use all the latest psychological hacks they can get their hards on, regular people need to go about their day-to-day lives, with the usual daily struggles. That doesn't leave much time for education, which is sorely needed to not "be a sucker". Advertising is so damn slick these days.
Just wanted to clarify that I'm not blaming us for getting suckered in, it's more that everything we do, whether intentional or not, plays into it. It's a self-feeding beast; you go to a website and a dozen trackers pull your private data, send it off in sale, and somewhere down the line you get served an ad for self-sealing stembolts; advertisers call this a success and claim the system works. Accidentally fat-finger the ad on your phone? Amazing success!
Just about any time you touch a piece of technology, you send off data for the advertisers. Buy some fruit at the market and use your market card? Advertisers know. Or order something online from a "no name" shop? Advertisers know.
So it's not that we're guilty of anything but doing what we are expected to - it just it's costly.
We have a world with far too much stuff. For every business meeting a need there are 50 cheap copies and 20 not so cheap desperately trying to get noticed.
Every trend will get latched on to an ever increasing degree. Most trends come from commercial intent anyway and the latching on is just turning on the "monetisation strategy". No one wants to sell a thing any more, but a recurring licence.
As soon as the Ad-Network zeitgeist gets their grubby hands on this any potential future of a good gaming experience is gone. The game isn't great by itself, but the idea is gold and mated with the perfect franchise. I've been loyal with the hope that they'll introduce more content in the future and address their current problems.
The moment I saw this news about ads I uninstalled on the spot. It's dead to me now.
The take-away for game designers: The hook is the ability to walk around as if the world of Pokemon was this world. This is orthogonal to the depth of the game's mechanics and the casual/hardcore dimension. There is tremendous fun in anything that aids in pretending the world you're walking around in is the real world. Isn't that the main point of most childhood toys -- aids to "let's pretend?" Isn't that where the most pure joy comes from?
One should be able to effectively do this with any franchise or property that people care about. How about "force ghosts" for Star Wars? Star Trek: The Next Generation style stealthed "observation posts?" (As in the "Who Watches the Watchers" episode. [1]) Chronicles of Narnia? Bleach? Any wish fulfillment where someone might have hoped against hope that the world in the book/movie was somehow real. Finding such properties isn't hard, as this wish fulfillment trope is widely used in fiction. (I wonder if an augmented reality gold rush is going to cause a "burn out" of this trope?)
My local pub is a pokemon gym, so they got something right at least. Planning on going for lunch there tomorrow because of that, so I wouldn't discount the potential opportunities for local business advertising.
The real question is how do businesses get their location in the game? My local is older than the USA so I can imagine how it's a point of interest, but your average high street store?
Maybe they could sell micro-lures that have a very limited proximity. Instead of being a broad region, you have to actually get very close to the shop.
It's roughly pulling from the Ingress dataset. The Ingress portals were user submitted (there are some hilarious examples of things like ashtrays or bad graffiti being landmarks already).
Long-term success for Pokemon Go is in the opposite direction of more complex gameplay. Gamers - people who enjoy plumbing the depths of complex game systems and using their knowledge and skill to gain an advantage over the system and/or other players - are screaming for it, but they'll tire of it eventually, and adding it will put off the much larger casual audience. As Niantic representatives have already stated, people who want to play traditional Pokemon games can go play them.
Niantic's best move is to keep the hook baited for people who like the simple novelty of walking around to collect stuff and interacting with an augmented version of the real world and will casually integrate it into their life, like many have already done with fitness trackers. This kind of integration is now the gold standard for casual games - prepare to see a lot more apps/games with a GPS/maps component.
The biggest "gameplay" updates for PG aren't going to increase game system complexity, they're going to be more reasons for casual players to continue looking at their screens as they walk around (and gather in groups to continue to attract press attention). Random events, more stuff to collect, opportunities for personalization, a few buttons to press to casually influence the environment. The biggest updates will involve "business accounts" for those who want to own a piece of virtual property, advertise, attract players to a physical location, etc.
AR/GPS may well prove to be an awesome platform for "real", complex games, but Pokemon Go is not going to be one of them.
Niantic's best move is to keep the hook baited for people who like the simple novelty of walking around to collect stuff and interacting with an augmented version of the real world
Why can't Niantic create an infrastructure for both groups? Trading would give both types of players a place in such a world.
They would have to buy thru Google since it's a Google spin out. However, Google SDK isn't present in the app now. Unity SDK is in for the game engine and it's the same SDK that can serve ads. https://medium.com/@kevinleong789/what-sdks-does-pokemon-go-...
If you access the article from a Google search results page, the paywall disappears. Just search for the title of the article in Google and click on the top result.
I have learned to trust my observations. If one day was raining and the next nice, I could understand, but there were both lovely days in the middle of the week.
Two days of observation with zero control does not seem sufficient to make a definitive statement on the product. I've been going on walks with my doggo every night this week; the amount of people I've seen playing pokemon has remained fairly constant during that time frame.
I think you need a job in the government. Then you can collect data for 10 years to decide the people are not really using dial up connection as much as they used to.
If the number had gone from 40 to 20, that is within a understandable deviance. But when the number goes from 40 to 1, I think the bubble has popped. You may not agree, but I did not think that data collection was a requirement for posting here. Perhaps 40 years in the tech industry was enough for an educated opinion.
Well, a local business might have figured out its Pokemon Go strategy and lured those players from the park to their establishment.
I actually would hope that people don't always go to the same place regardless of advertising just so the activity is spread over different areas for varieties sake. Plus, having people keep going to the same space is going to annoy the neighbors.
People have been digging through the game's data/files or whatever and have found strings referencing McDonalds. I think it's safe to say that they have planned promotions.
(I've not installed Go, and don't intend to, so it may have some actual game in there beyond collecting and tagging locations. Everything I've read seems to indicate it's as shallow as Ingress with a graphics change).
By the time they have a strategy and have included locations the moment will have probably passed. I also wonder how non-playing folks at a sponsored gym (say) will feel about the foyer or cafe being full of kids playing phone games. At least some attempts will carry negative as well as positive consequences.