French Mayor Decries "Settlement" of Virtual Pokemon in His Town

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

French Mayor Decries "Settlement" of Virtual Pokemon in His Town

pikachu-laughing-gif-320

The mayor of a French village is demanding that Niantic remove all Pokemon from its "territory."

Bressolles is a small village of about 800 residents located northeast of Lyon, and its mayor is voicing his displeasure with Niantic, the company behind Pokemon GO. Speaking with the Associated Press, Mayor Fabrice Beauvois called out the "anarchical settlement" of Pokemon creatures in the village.

The mayor also sent a decree to Niantic, in which he says that looking for Pokemon puts both drivers and pedestrians at risk due to people watching their smartphones, and also that it can lead to groups forming at night. He also was upset that Niantic didn't ask for permission to settle their Pokemon in the village. "When a cafe or a restaurant owner wants to open a business in any French town, they have an obligation to request prior authorization to the mayor. The rule applies to all people wishing to set up an activity or occupy a space on a public property. So it applies to Niantic as well, even though their settlement is virtual," the mayor said.

If you think this sounds strange, just wait. It gets worse.

The Mayor went on to say that Pokemon GO is now spreading in a "contagious" way, and that is may become a "dangerous addiction." He also said that "They (meaning the Niantic developers) use the entire planet as a playground."

Niantic has not responded to the demand, or made any comment on the situation as yet. Recently, the company has already removed Pokestop from sensitive locations like the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, but it remains to be seen how they'll feel about removing the Pokemon from an entire village.

It's a strange situation, especially since Pokemon don't actually exist. Maybe the mayor can ban aliens next.

Permalink

I do wonder if there's actually any legal ground to stand on when he has such sparce knowledge of the game as to think that the Pokemon live in his village.

Or maybe it's a lost in translation thing.

I emphasize with his desire to ban the game, it's just too bad the route he takes to argue it is such complete nonsense showing a complete disregard for technology and reality.

In other news the Mayor married a Wheel of Camembert before declaring that the earth is flat and the law of gravity was now more of a guideline than a rule

Kind of why we need younger people in some kind of power, to be like "stop being silly, do you realise how crazy you sound right now?".

I think the younger generations suffer from the older generations, not understanding what's going on.

Quellist:
In other news the Mayor married a Wheel of Camembert before declaring that the earth is flat and the law of gravity was now more of a guideline than a rule

Seriously. I had this in my head the whole time:

That gif. So nostalgic.

Kibeth41:
I do wonder if there's actually any legal ground to stand on when he has such sparce knowledge of the game as to think that the Pokemon live in his village.

Well knowledge of a subject isnt nessessarily required in lawsuits about it.

Also if it is part of town law then he might have grounds, though i wouldnt know if it would stand up in the French or European high courts.

gigastar:
That gif. So nostalgic.

Kibeth41:
I do wonder if there's actually any legal ground to stand on when he has such sparce knowledge of the game as to think that the Pokemon live in his village.

Well knowledge of a subject isnt nessessarily required in lawsuits about it.

Also if it is part of town law then he might have grounds, though i wouldnt know if it would stand up in the French or European high courts.

Well, it would be if the basis of his lawsuit is that he wants to be rid of the non-existent "settlement" of Pokemon. If we can sue based on misunderstanding a product entirely, then I could sue Activision for being behind a permanent, illegal world war.

Besides, it doesn't even seem as if he only wants to remove Pokestops and Gyms. He literally wants Pokemon Go to be removed from his village specifically.

He wants to ban the usage of an online game in a singular village. What's next? He's going to stop 800 people from playing World of Warcraft?

gigastar:

Kibeth41:
I do wonder if there's actually any legal ground to stand on when he has such sparce knowledge of the game as to think that the Pokemon live in his village.

Well knowledge of a subject isnt nessessarily required in lawsuits about it.

In fact, in most cases the less knowledge you have the better the chances of winning the lawsuit. It's not your job to apply basic common sense to a situation, it's a company's job to tell you every possible conceivable thing that has to do with their product, otherwise you can sue the pants off of them.

For instance: if a Superman costume doesn't expressly say "Does not allow you to fly" and you jump off your roof, guess who just won the lottery! :D

OT: Seriously though, wouldn't flocks of people trekking to your small village be a good thing? I'm no economic expert, but generally cities being flooded by out-of-towners tends to mean a lot of fresh money rolling in.

Pokemon Go is an interesting lesson, in that it pushes the reality of digital media as being something that can carry a value and have real life consequences.
Software piracy, as an example, has always been an odd duck in what kind of value it has or how it affects the world, but that's been an (overblown) issue for companies moreso than anyone else.

This affects everyone.
I was in Athens a few weeks ago and every major spot was heavily crowded with teenagers staring at their cellphones. Even on Paros (island) you'd see groups of people playing the game, clogging up small passageways.
It was a curiosity at first, but it got old fast and became sort of a nuisance I'd prefer to avoid. I was on vacation, so games was the last thing I wanted to have on my mind.

Is the notion that his village is overrun with creatures preposterous? Yeah, and we can laugh at his ignorance on the topic, but while they don't technically exist, the behaviour that they cause in people is very much real.
Also remember that while we're all "in on it" here on this site, most people don't really know what's going on, but they can sure as shit see that it has an effect and influence.

In my opinion, any area should be able to declare themselves free of these things. Better yet, as the mayor suggests, these apps or games should have to apply for permission. Practically, you'd make a system that apps would have to synchronize with, where the different cities/villages/governments have already declared themselves as augmented reality free zones (otherwise every place would have to complain to every individual app out there that gets made from here on out, which isn't feasible).

This may reek of

image

but he does have a point about driver safety and roaming groups of teenagers at night. I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up getting regulated at some point.

I mean.... Is the game a case where it's making certain areas more dangerous than they were previously? Yes, that is undeniable. Should the town be allowed to have all the Pokemon removed from it if they want so they don't have to worry about morons walking and driving around looking for digital Pokemon? Of course they should. Is the mayor correct in saying Pokemon are "settling" in the village? No, that is dumb.

I get what he is saying, but he could have said it in a lot better way. I'm just glad it's dying down. That first couple of weeks were unbearable. Fuckin' adults wandering into the street at 10:30 at night in front of my car as I drive home.

Geez, what the heck is happening in France? Somebody should check on those people. I suppose it's good to know that the French have their own versions of Fred Upton, but combined with banning swimwear, I'm starting to worry.

I thougt they filmed Hot Fuzz in Great Britain. The more you learn.

This is just one of the growing pangs of the world transitioning to AR. 'Course the old folks aren't going to get it, this is beyond some of even their science fiction from the 50s and 60s. I'm glad to see that Pokemon GO is doing what I'd hope it'd do: force governments to confront the reality that is AR and start dealing with the issues that arise from its use.

Quellist:
the law of gravity was now more of a guideline than a rule

Well, really it is. If you can find a way around it, nobody's going to arrest you.
Just let me know when you find out how to disregard it, because there's some trick I'd like to try out.

Well, he MAY just not want people running around and catching imaginary animals in his town. If that isn't what he means, then he's bonkers, though.

Baresark:
I mean.... Is the game a case where it's making certain areas more dangerous than they were previously? Yes, that is undeniable. Should the town be allowed to have all the Pokemon removed from it if they want so they don't have to worry about morons walking and driving around looking for digital Pokemon? Of course they should. Is the mayor correct in saying Pokemon are "settling" in the village? No, that is dumb.

I get what he is saying, but he could have said it in a lot better way. I'm just glad it's dying down. That first couple of weeks were unbearable. Fuckin' adults wandering into the street at 10:30 at night in front of my car as I drive home.

Except the Mayor isn't the one who gets to decide if the town should be an AR-free zone or not.

The individual landowners do.

The Mayor isn't even within his rights to decide the public areas should be Pokemon-free - that's up to the citizens and ultimately the French state.

Smilomaniac:
Pokemon Go is an interesting lesson, in that it pushes the reality of digital media as being something that can carry a value and have real life consequences.
Software piracy, as an example, has always been an odd duck in what kind of value it has or how it affects the world, but that's been an (overblown) issue for companies moreso than anyone else.

This affects everyone.
I was in Athens a few weeks ago and every major spot was heavily crowded with teenagers staring at their cellphones. Even on Paros (island) you'd see groups of people playing the game, clogging up small passageways.
It was a curiosity at first, but it got old fast and became sort of a nuisance I'd prefer to avoid. I was on vacation, so games was the last thing I wanted to have on my mind.

Is the notion that his village is overrun with creatures preposterous? Yeah, and we can laugh at his ignorance on the topic, but while they don't technically exist, the behaviour that they cause in people is very much real.
Also remember that while we're all "in on it" here on this site, most people don't really know what's going on, but they can sure as shit see that it has an effect and influence.

In my opinion, any area should be able to declare themselves free of these things. Better yet, as the mayor suggests, these apps or games should have to apply for permission. Practically, you'd make a system that apps would have to synchronize with, where the different cities/villages/governments have already declared themselves as augmented reality free zones (otherwise every place would have to complain to every individual app out there that gets made from here on out, which isn't feasible).

That, or they could not do what you suggest, which is the easier and better option.

You may want to not see people playing games... in which case I recommend finding places with no people in them. The people have the right to play games, and you may want it taken away, in which case it's up to the government to decide what the correct way to do things is - which is overwhelmingly likely to be "people will complain about those damn kids and if you do anything but ignore them while refusing to take sides you've just decided to participate in this dumb, petty fight".

insanelich:

Baresark:
I mean.... Is the game a case where it's making certain areas more dangerous than they were previously? Yes, that is undeniable. Should the town be allowed to have all the Pokemon removed from it if they want so they don't have to worry about morons walking and driving around looking for digital Pokemon? Of course they should. Is the mayor correct in saying Pokemon are "settling" in the village? No, that is dumb.

I get what he is saying, but he could have said it in a lot better way. I'm just glad it's dying down. That first couple of weeks were unbearable. Fuckin' adults wandering into the street at 10:30 at night in front of my car as I drive home.

Except the Mayor isn't the one who gets to decide if the town should be an AR-free zone or not.

The individual landowners do.

The Mayor isn't even within his rights to decide the public areas should be Pokemon-free - that's up to the citizens and ultimately the French state.

Well, no that is not entirely correct. A mayor of a town can make decisions to help make that place safer. Public land is often times under the control of public officials. Roads, parks, police stations, ect., those are public land and public officials have a duty to help keep those places and the surrounding area clean and safe. But I'm not here to get in a debate over this stupid game. I get where he is coming from, his message is poorly worded though was my point. Lets also not just assume that everyone loves this game and sees it as a net positive. I see it as a hindrance when idiots are playing that and walking in front of my car. All those videos everyone thought was so funny about traffic getting stopped, I found them offensive, the people are that self involved and are literally incapable of monitoring what is going on around them.

RJ Dalton:

Quellist:
the law of gravity was now more of a guideline than a rule

Well, really it is. If you can find a way around it, nobody's going to arrest you.
Just let me know when you find out how to disregard it, because there's some trick I'd like to try out.

That is easy... just throw yourself at the ground and miss.

insanelich:

That, or they could not do what you suggest, which is the easier and better option.

You may want to not see people playing games... in which case I recommend finding places with no people in them. The people have the right to play games, and you may want it taken away, in which case it's up to the government to decide what the correct way to do things is - which is overwhelmingly likely to be "people will complain about those damn kids and if you do anything but ignore them while refusing to take sides you've just decided to participate in this dumb, petty fight".

I'm not super salty and going "get off my damn lawn", which is why I wrote I'd prefer to avoid it, rather than "wanting it gone from existence as it is a plague to all human kind".
But for instance, if I decided to go to one of the bigger parks in my city to enjoy a nice summer day and read a book there, chances will be that it's crowded with pokemon go players, with no interest in where they are and probably more than a few people without the common courtesy to be mindful of others.

Now, I'll admit this: Part of why it bothers me is because I don't jive with the game. I just don't like it and on the trip I described, we had two people being completely anti-social and had their faces glued to their cell-phones at all times, no matter where we went. If I did like the game, I'd obviously have a different mind about it.
Seriously, one of them up and fucking left the dinner table to go challenge a gym (or whatever) at different intervals, while we were at a restaurant.

I'm not saying everyone is an obsessed jerk or constantly at it, I'm saying this is a consequence and in context to what I was describing, it's definitely worth considering if there should be anything done about it down the road, if this catches on as an ongoing thing and not just a short-lived fad. People pay shitloads of money to go on vacation, so maybe sight-seeing spots and villages with historical importance want to be exempt from having hordes of obnoxious cell-phone users.

This doesn't have to be petty at all, it's about understanding the viewpoint of other people. If I dismissed people playing Pokemon Go, I'd flat out state that it should just be banned, but obviously I don't.
I like smoking, I like driving my motorcycle and I like playing paintball, but I also mind my behaviour and don't involve anyone who doesn't want to be subjected to my choices.

Smilomaniac:

insanelich:

That, or they could not do what you suggest, which is the easier and better option.

You may want to not see people playing games... in which case I recommend finding places with no people in them. The people have the right to play games, and you may want it taken away, in which case it's up to the government to decide what the correct way to do things is - which is overwhelmingly likely to be "people will complain about those damn kids and if you do anything but ignore them while refusing to take sides you've just decided to participate in this dumb, petty fight".

I'm not super salty and going "get off my damn lawn", which is why I wrote I'd prefer to avoid it, rather than "wanting it gone from existence as it is a plague to all human kind".
But for instance, if I decided to go to one of the bigger parks in my city to enjoy a nice summer day and read a book there, chances will be that it's crowded with pokemon go players, with no interest in where they are and probably more than a few people without the common courtesy to be mindful of others.

Now, I'll admit this: Part of why it bothers me is because I don't jive with the game. I just don't like it and on the trip I described, we had two people being completely anti-social and had their faces glued to their cell-phones at all times, no matter where we went. If I did like the game, I'd obviously have a different mind about it.
Seriously, one of them up and fucking left the dinner table to go challenge a gym (or whatever) at different intervals, while we were at a restaurant.

I'm not saying everyone is an obsessed jerk or constantly at it, I'm saying this is a consequence and in context to what I was describing, it's definitely worth considering if there should be anything done about it down the road, if this catches on as an ongoing thing and not just a short-lived fad. People pay shitloads of money to go on vacation, so maybe sight-seeing spots and villages with historical importance want to be exempt from having hordes of obnoxious cell-phone users.

This doesn't have to be petty at all, it's about understanding the viewpoint of other people. If I dismissed people playing Pokemon Go, I'd flat out state that it should just be banned, but obviously I don't.
I like smoking, I like driving my motorcycle and I like playing paintball, but I also mind my behaviour and don't involve anyone who doesn't want to be subjected to my choices.

Yet apparently your mistaken belief that your understanding of what's polite is universal is something you do want to impose on others.

Here's information you may find helpful: Politeness isn't a fixed concept and in fact entirely depends on the people present, their cultural backgrounds and their expectations of acceptable behavior and interpersonal relationships. You bring up the restaurant example. Whether that's impolite or not depends on the people whose company he was sharing, and you don't have any right to have your opinion about it listened to.

A lot of people are upset when obnoxious strangers appear in places they want to be and spend their leisure time wrong and impolitely, to the point where there's even a name for it - they're called tourists.

Baresark:

insanelich:

Baresark:
I mean.... Is the game a case where it's making certain areas more dangerous than they were previously? Yes, that is undeniable. Should the town be allowed to have all the Pokemon removed from it if they want so they don't have to worry about morons walking and driving around looking for digital Pokemon? Of course they should. Is the mayor correct in saying Pokemon are "settling" in the village? No, that is dumb.

I get what he is saying, but he could have said it in a lot better way. I'm just glad it's dying down. That first couple of weeks were unbearable. Fuckin' adults wandering into the street at 10:30 at night in front of my car as I drive home.

Except the Mayor isn't the one who gets to decide if the town should be an AR-free zone or not.

The individual landowners do.

The Mayor isn't even within his rights to decide the public areas should be Pokemon-free - that's up to the citizens and ultimately the French state.

Well, no that is not entirely correct. A mayor of a town can make decisions to help make that place safer. Public land is often times under the control of public officials. Roads, parks, police stations, ect., those are public land and public officials have a duty to help keep those places and the surrounding area clean and safe. But I'm not here to get in a debate over this stupid game. I get where he is coming from, his message is poorly worded though was my point. Lets also not just assume that everyone loves this game and sees it as a net positive. I see it as a hindrance when idiots are playing that and walking in front of my car. All those videos everyone thought was so funny about traffic getting stopped, I found them offensive, the people are that self involved and are literally incapable of monitoring what is going on around them.

That's a king you're thinking about. Or possibly you're thinking of SimCity. In France, a mayor is a mostly symbolic position at the top of the local organization, and his job is usually mostly diplomacy and public relations. The authority to pass such regulations lies within the council, and where the Mayor is a member of the council, he's not an absolute ruler.

insanelich:

Baresark:
snip

That's a king you're thinking about. Or possibly you're thinking of SimCity. In France, a mayor is a mostly symbolic position at the top of the local organization, and his job is usually mostly diplomacy and public relations. The authority to pass such regulations lies within the council, and where the Mayor is a member of the council, he's not an absolute ruler.

You are doing some straw grasping here. Lets not pretend like it's outside a mayor's purview to worry about the overall safety of a town they were elected mayor of. I never stated at all that they have absolute power, but he certainly is well within his power to try and move the public officials of said town towards something he/she sees as safe. But you shouldn't also be under the impression he isn't speaking for the general citizens of the village with a population of 800. You are just assuming that he is acting outside the interest of the people who elected him, which we don't know if he is or not. He also certainly didn't demand that the Pokemon be removed, he simply requested Niantic listen to what he sees as a valid safety issue in his town. And yes, whether you like the game or not, it has created quite few precarious situations that could easily be avoided if one of two things happened. The first being that people put down a stupid game for purpose of walking across streets and stop suspending their common sense in the name of hard to find Pokemon. OR, Niantic actually took the care to make sure Pokemon and associated gyms and Pokestops weren't put into a place that could cause harm to the people playing or the people around it.

Like it or not, the Mayor is not wrong or outside his power to request Niantic actually take more care in their placement of Pokemon. Also, speaking about public safety concerns only speaks to his job as public relations persons since under his thought he is most likely actually worrying about people far more than he is raging against kids and their games. Only on the internet can you take an appeal for better safety as a slight against a game and not be considered insane.

Baresark:

insanelich:

Baresark:
snip

That's a king you're thinking about. Or possibly you're thinking of SimCity. In France, a mayor is a mostly symbolic position at the top of the local organization, and his job is usually mostly diplomacy and public relations. The authority to pass such regulations lies within the council, and where the Mayor is a member of the council, he's not an absolute ruler.

You are doing some straw grasping here. Lets not pretend like it's outside a mayor's purview to worry about the overall safety of a town they were elected mayor of. I never stated at all that they have absolute power, but he certainly is well within his power to try and move the public officials of said town towards something he/she sees as safe. But you shouldn't also be under the impression he isn't speaking for the general citizens of the village with a population of 800. You are just assuming that he is acting outside the interest of the people who elected him, which we don't know if he is or not. He also certainly didn't demand that the Pokemon be removed, he simply requested Niantic listen to what he sees as a valid safety issue in his town. And yes, whether you like the game or not, it has created quite few precarious situations that could easily be avoided if one of two things happened. The first being that people put down a stupid game for purpose of walking across streets and stop suspending their common sense in the name of hard to find Pokemon. OR, Niantic actually took the care to make sure Pokemon and associated gyms and Pokestops weren't put into a place that could cause harm to the people playing or the people around it.

Like it or not, the Mayor is not wrong or outside his power to request Niantic actually take more care in their placement of Pokemon. Also, speaking about public safety concerns only speaks to his job as public relations persons since under his thought he is most likely actually worrying about people far more than he is raging against kids and their games. Only on the internet can you take an appeal for better safety as a slight against a game and not be considered insane.

I'm afraid you're just plain wrong.

He's not authorized to make unilateral decisions without the council. This includes requests to Niantic. And he's a ranting about problems that do not exist because he's not familiar with the issue at hand. And he's also complaining about the behavior of people that no doubt mostly include people from the town he's in, because there's little odds strangers would come to a town of 800 people to play Pokemon - because more populated locations have more stops.

And you're also not familiar with the game mechanics, as your post, quoted above, proves.

I have almost hit a couple people who walked out in front of me with their head stuck in their phone. Girl was on guys shoulder and neither of them was paying attention to the road. I do think Pokemon Go is a public safety hazard.

insanelich:

Yet apparently your mistaken belief that your understanding of what's polite is universal is something you do want to impose on others.

Here's information you may find helpful: Politeness isn't a fixed concept and in fact entirely depends on the people present, their cultural backgrounds and their expectations of acceptable behavior and interpersonal relationships. You bring up the restaurant example. Whether that's impolite or not depends on the people whose company he was sharing, and you don't have any right to have your opinion about it listened to.

A lot of people are upset when obnoxious strangers appear in places they want to be and spend their leisure time wrong and impolitely, to the point where there's even a name for it - they're called tourists.

You're displaying some personal inability you have to relate to people with whom you disagree with and it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Here's a bit of advice for yourself; If you're going to reply to people, stick to what they're saying, don't just project your issues on to them. Don't bother pretending as if you're giving them advice either, you're being passively aggressive, condescending and unwilling to have a civil discourse.

Deal with the fact that people have different opinions from your own and try to understand why, instead of preaching at them with how they should behave, think or act. I already considered the opinions and actions of others in relation to the topic, so I'm bringing my perspective to the table with those things in mind. If you can't handle that, don't reply.

Smilomaniac:

insanelich:

Yet apparently your mistaken belief that your understanding of what's polite is universal is something you do want to impose on others.

Here's information you may find helpful: Politeness isn't a fixed concept and in fact entirely depends on the people present, their cultural backgrounds and their expectations of acceptable behavior and interpersonal relationships. You bring up the restaurant example. Whether that's impolite or not depends on the people whose company he was sharing, and you don't have any right to have your opinion about it listened to.

A lot of people are upset when obnoxious strangers appear in places they want to be and spend their leisure time wrong and impolitely, to the point where there's even a name for it - they're called tourists.

You're displaying some personal inability you have to relate to people with whom you disagree with and it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Here's a bit of advice for yourself; If you're going to reply to people, stick to what they're saying, don't just project your issues on to them. Don't bother pretending as if you're giving them advice either, you're being passively aggressive, condescending and unwilling to have a civil discourse.

Deal with the fact that people have different opinions from your own and try to understand why, instead of preaching at them with how they should behave, think or act. I already considered the opinions and actions of others in relation to the topic, so I'm bringing my perspective to the table with those things in mind. If you can't handle that, don't reply.

I'm under no obligation to relate to your viewpoint, nor to respect it. You have no power to dictate my behavior. There seems to be a bit of a running theme going on in here.

You've considered the opinions and actions of others; but you only consider them in the context of how yourself, with your personality and cultural background, would feel about them.

Unless you're just trying to make the most ironic post ever and are unwilling to break kayfabe; in which case I salute you.

This topic isn't quite as dumb as it sounds. Whether or not virtual "presence" can infringe on material property rights is actually a very interesting question.

I mean, say a company put a giant AR advertisement on the side of a building you own, and anyone walking by with Google Glass or something could see the ad. The ad's not really there, so this isn't a case of vandalism, but at the same time they're using your property without your consent. Would you have any basis to sue them or get them to take it down?

Or maybe it's not an ad; maybe it's just a gigantic penis, and everyone with Google Glass now associates your building with a Godzilla dong. Is that defamation, considering that no actual Dongzilla exists, and only users of Google Glass who specifically enable Dongzilla-viewing can even see it?

And more to the point of this topic - if Niantic spawns pokemon on or near your property, and those pokemon attract players, and now these players are walking outside your house in the middle of the night...what kind of tort would that even be? Inciting someone to trespass? I don't know!

RJ 17:
OT: Seriously though, wouldn't flocks of people trekking to your small village be a good thing? I'm no economic expert, but generally cities being flooded by out-of-towners tends to mean a lot of fresh money rolling in.

It depends. Any area that attracts Pokemon players is going to get an economic benefit (they'll use the stores and cafes there while they're Pokemon-ing), but some small towns get all Hot Fuzzy about it - the homeowners don't like crowds of strange people and don't give two shits how much more money the general store is making.

Shit, even that raises a good question. Could Niantic start making deals with franchise owners to spawn rarer Pokemon near their store locations in the hopes of increasing foot traffic?

Like, say McDonalds goes to Niantic and says "we'll pay $X if you spawn Vaporeon at our store locations." Why aren't they doing this already?

...are they doing this already!?

bastardofmelbourne:

Shit, even that raises a good question. Could Niantic start making deals with franchise owners to spawn rarer Pokemon near their store locations in the hopes of increasing foot traffic?

Like, say McDonalds goes to Niantic and says "we'll pay $X if you spawn Vaporeon at our store locations." Why aren't they doing this already?

...are they doing this already!?

Some net savvy store owners are doing this already, buying and deploying lures which increase the chances of Pokemon appearing near their stores. Not all the stores of a major franchise en masse (as far as we know) but a similar concept.

I read the article title as 'French Mayor Decrees Settlement of Virtual Pokemon in His Town'.

That was worse. This is funnier.

I think the guy is a little bit control freaky.

Now, if he were the mayor of the town of 34 with over 2000 pokemon catchers per DAY...(Link is dutch, you'll have to find a translator)

You do have to hand it to Nintendo. They managed to create some newfangled thing that all the kids are into nowadays that has them literally encroaching on old people's lawns.

*looks up where Bressolles is along with its population*

Aaaww it's a quiet little rural french town which time has forgot, there's quite a few of those around and their relation with technological progress tends to be...interesting xD

To the average villager from there, pokemon must seem the equivalent of a satanic infection, invisible monsters that roam the village that you can only detect via strange devices such as ipad (i guarantee you this is one of those places where kids have to travel to a major city nearby to get stuff like cellphones and vidya games).

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here