 |
|
|
|||||
FIFA's first true soccer sim after the end of its EA partnership will be available exclusively on Netflix, the streaming service announced. This "reimagined FIFA football simulation game" will be developed and published by Delphi Interactive, and be available to Netflix subscribers next year, right in time for FIFA World Cup 2026.EA and FIFA maintained a nearly 30 year partnership creating soccer games before they parted ways in 2022. EA continued its soccer series afterward as EA FC, but despite being in talks with "leading game publishers, media companies and investors" about "a major new FIFA simulation football game title for 2024," a FIFA-backed competitor has yet to materialize. Instead, FIFA has mostly supported arcade soccer games in the last few years, like FIFA Rivals from Mythical Games and FIFA Heroes from ENVER.While the game Delphi Interactive is working on is pitched as a "simulation game," based on what little detail appears in Netflix's announcement, it doesn't sound like it's targeting hardcore soccer fans in the same way EA's games do. Instead, this new FIFA title is designed to be "a game that anyone, anywhere, can pick up and instantly feel the magic of football," according to Delphi Interactive CEO Caspar Daugaard. The game will also be designed to use a smartphone as a controller, possibly limiting how demanding or complicated gameplay can actually be.This new FIFA game will be Delphi Interactive's second project as a studio after working on IO Interactive's 007 First Light. Backing approachable games that can be controlled with a smartphone is part of a new approach Netflix has taken with its interactive titles in 2025. The company has either cancelled or handed off its more ambitious game projects and studios, and zeroed in on party games and adaptations as its main focus.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/the-first-post-ea-fifa-soccer-sim-will-be-a-netflix-games-exclusive-204321196.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
When it comes to convenience, its hard to beat Amazon. And that rationale isnt limited to consumers: Many local districts shopping for supplies with public funds apply the same logic. But the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) published a study earlier this month (via The American Prospect) that illustrates the cost of that bargain. It suggests that Amazons dynamic pricing has led many schools and other localities to overpay for supplies.Public schools and local governments have historically bought supplies by soliciting competitive bids from local suppliers. Those vendors then respond with fixed price lists, delivery timelines and other terms. This competition all out in the open, part of the public record encourages low prices and transparency.On the surface, ordering from Amazon appears to offer competition, too. After all, the platform includes third-party vendors fighting for your dollars. But turning taxpayer funds over to Amazons algorithms isnt quite that simple. Thats because the platforms dynamic pricing (algorithmically driven real-time changes) is inherently opaque.According to the report, Amazons contracts with public entities dont include fixed price lists. Instead, they include language built around swings. This contract has a dynamic pricing structure in which the price for items listed on the online digital marketplace is driven by the market, Amazons contract with Utah reads. This contract will not need to be amended when prices fluctuate.Below are some examples of wild price discrepancies for these districts. All of ILSRs examples are from localities buying supplies from Amazon Business with public funds in 2023.A City of Boulder, CO employee ordered a 12-pack of Sharpie markers from Amazon Business for $8.99. On the same day, a Denver Public Schools worker ordered the same markers for $28.63.Amazon charged Clark County, WA, $146,000 for 610 computer monitors. On another day, that same order would have cost $24,000 less.Pittsburgh Schools bought two cases of Kleenex for $57.99 each. On the same day, Denver Schools paid $36.91 for a single case.On a single August day, Denver Schools placed two separate orders for bulk cases of dry-erase markers. One cost $114.52. The other was $149.07.In March 2023, Denver Schools paid $15.39 for a Swingline stapler (sold by Amazon). A few days later, the same school system paid $61.87 for the same product (sold by a third-party seller).Even in that last example, ILSR says Amazons algorithms are the culprit. It might be tempting to blame the seller for putting a $62 price tag on a stapler or the employee for not noticing the cost, the nonprofit argues. But that overlooks Amazons pivotal role in the transaction and the profit it makes. Amazons algorithms steer shoppers attention, selecting featured products and organizing search results. The platform routinely prompts users to buy it again, even when the price has jumped. For busy public school employees, its all too easy to simply click the buy button, under the assumption that Amazon is surfacing the best option.Amazon CEO Andy JassyNoah Berger via Getty ImagesOne portion of the study looked at repeat orders for 2,500 high-frequency items. (These included Amazon-brand copy paper, Elmers glue, BIC pens, Lysol cleaning wipes and Crayola crayons.) In total, the jurisdictions in the study spent $3 million on those items. But based on the lowest prices Amazon charged during that period, they would have paid only $2.5 million. Across those same items, one school district could have saved 17 percent (about $1 million) if it consistently received Amazons lowest prices.What would fair market value have been for those items? Well, its hard to say because the algorithms are steering pricing silently in the background. A more thorough study that included the same items, bought exclusively through the traditional procurement method, would tell us much more. And recent history has taught us that trusting Big Techs algorithms to serve the public good (rather than its own bottom line) is a fools errand.In at least some cases, the practice routes public funds away from local vendors and toward overseas ones and, of course, Amazon itself. In Berkeley County, WV, the school district spent $1.3 million on Amazon Business in 2023. What portion went to sellers in the state? A measly $142.On top of all of that, the practice has snuffed out many of the smaller vendors that traditionally competed for these contracts. The disappearance of these small and mid-sized businesses weakens local economies and tax bases, the report concludes. And it leaves governments increasingly dependent on Amazon, paving the way for the kind of monopoly control that ensures higher prices, poorer service, and less innovation.In a statement sent to The Guardian, Amazon disputed the studys conclusions. Pricing research is notoriously difficult to conduct accurately and typically lacks reliable methodology, including cherry-picked product selections, mismatched product comparisons and comparing in-stock items with products out-of-stock at competitors,ILSRs report drew in spending data from 128 local governments (including cities, counties and school districts) and 122 state agencies. It also gathered contract documents and interviewed public officials, procurement experts and vendors.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/study-links-amazons-algorithmic-pricing-with-erratic-inflated-costs-for-school-districts-202047988.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
Last year, Meta announced that it was opening up its VR operating system to other headset makers, starting with ASUS and Lenovo. Now, it seems that Meta is pumping the brakes on the effort and those third-party Horizon OS headsets might never actually launch.The company has "paused" the program, Road to VR reported. Meta confirmed the move in a statement to Engadget, saying that it's instead focusing on "building the world-class first-party hardware and software needed to advance the VR market." ASUS and Lenovo didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Both companies have said little about the headsets since they were first announced in 2024. ASUS' was going to be a "performance gaming" headset under its Republic of Gamers (ROG) brand, while Lenovo's was intended to be a mixed reality device focused on "productivity, learning and entertainment" experiences The shift isn't entirely surprising. Meta Connect was very light on virtual reality news this year as smart glasses have become a central focus for the company. Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that Meta was planning significant cuts to the teams working on virtual reality and Horizon Worlds. The company said at the time it was "shifting some of our investment from Metaverse toward AI glasses and wearables given the momentum there."Still, Meta is seemingly leaving the door open for third-party VR headsets in the future. "Were committed to this for the long term and will revisit opportunities for 3rd-party device partnerships as the category evolves," the company said.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ar-vr/meta-is-pausing-third-party-vr-headsets-from-asus-and-lenovo-193622900.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||