Is seems that, at least for parents, a level of trust might be impacted by exposure to on-line medical information. A study presented at the 2017 Pediatric Academic Societies suggests that doctor / patient trust and the drive to a second opinion–in a digital age–might be more fragile than we thought. In this study, 1,374 parent participants were presented with a vignette of a child who ‘has had a rash and worsening fever for 3 days.’ The participants were divided into three groups and the first two were presented with information related to the symptoms as computer screen shots.
Group one was presented with screen shots of clinical information on scarlet fever.
Group two was presented with screen shots of clinical information on Kawasaki Disease (a condition that causes inflammation in the walls of blood vessels).
Group three received no internet screenshots.
After which, all three groups were informed that that physician had diagnosed the child with scarlet fever and then asked to rate their level of trust in the diagnosis from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Completely). Parents were also asked to rate their likelihood of seeking a second opinion regarding the diagnosis, from 1 (Extremely Unlikely) to 7 (Extremely Likely).
With permission. Ruth Malanaik
Source: Ruth Malaniak MD
The results suggest that prior exposure to information can ‘prime’ a parent to have a unique bias. This bias can impact the trust that has been established with a physician and even change the care pathway. And this result was supported statistically–the three cohorts significantly differed in reported trust in the doctors’ diagnosis (p < .001) and reported likelihood of seeking a second opinion. The authors concluded:
After reading online search results, parents were more inclined to trust their doctor’s Dx (diagnosis) when online information supported their doctor Dx and less inclined when information contradicted the doctor. Parents were also more likely to seek a SO (second opinion) if internet results contradicted the doctor Dx. Although it is imperative that parents participate in the medical decision-making process, conflicting online information could in some cases delay necessary medical treatment. Physicians must be aware of the influence the internet may have on parents and ensure adequate parental education to address any possible concerns.
While this ‘artificial’ scenario may not accurately reflect everyday life or clinical practice, the results seem to indicate that exposure to clinical information on-line may ‘prime’ parents to particular point of view and predisposition to action. I’m reminded of work done by John Bargh, a social psychologist who studied how people, given prior exposure to information, can have that point of view reflected in their subsequent opinion or actions. This concept was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in his best selling book Blink.
In this study, we can see how information obtained on-line can directly impact the caregivers’ perceptions of decisions and recommendations of a physician. Dr. Ruth Milaniak MD, the lead investigator of this study, supports this observation and offers some important advice.
Every time I speak with my patients, I always have in the back of my mind what on-line influence may have already impacted our dialogue. The internet is emerging as ‘the elephant exam room’ and we as clinicians need to understand this and communicate with patients and caregivers accordingly.
In an era where doctor / patient communication can be time-limited, the role of on-line support may play and increasing role. And as more and more, patients look to Dr. Google as a primary source of medical information, the key question that emerges is if that ‘digital information’ helps or hurts clinical care.
Follow me @JohnNosta for a more informed and healthy future.
VIKINGMAIDEN88 IS TWENTY-SIX years old. She enjoys reading history and writing poetry. Her signature quote is from Shakespeare. I gleaned all this from her profile and posts on Stormfront.org, America’s most popular online hate site. I also learned that Vikingmaiden88 has enjoyed the content on the site of the newspaper I work for, the New York Times. She wrote an enthusiastic post about a particular Times feature. I recently analyzed tens of thousands of such Stormfront profiles, in which registered members can enter their location, birth date, interests, and other information.
Stormfront was founded in 1995 by Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan leader. Its most popular “social groups” are “Union of National Socialists” and “Fans and Supporters of Adolf Hitler.” Over the past year, according to Quantcast, roughly 200,000 to 400,000 Americans visited the site every month. A recent Southern Poverty Law Center report linked nearly one hundred murders in the past five years to registered Stormfront members.
Stormfront members are not whom I would have guessed. They tend to be young, at least according to self-reported birth dates. The most common age at which people join the site is nineteen. And four times more nineteen-year-olds sign up than forty-year-olds. Internet and social network users lean young, but not nearly that young. Profiles do not have a field for gender. But I looked at all the posts and complete profiles of a random sample of American users, and it turns out that you can work out the gender of most of the membership: I estimate that about 30 percent of Stormfront members are female. The states with the most members per capita are Montana, Alaska, and Idaho. These states tend to be overwhelmingly white. Does this mean that growing up with little diversity fosters hate?
Theresa May has refused to rule out censoring the internet like China.
The prime minister has looked to introduce sweeping and deep changes to the way the internet works, in what she claims is a necessary move to prevent terror. Those have included restricting the kinds of things people can post online and forcing internet companies to weaken security so that intelligence agencies can read their messages.
Many of those plans have been criticised by internet companies, who argue that such undertakings would require them to put their customers safety in danger and undermine their businesses. It might not even be possible to comply with such rules, they have argued, since laws in other countries explicitly prohibit such measures.
London Bridge Terror Attack
Now Ms May says that she won’t rule out simply “taking down” the “rogue internet companies” like China has.
May’s internet plan ‘could make life easier for terrorists’
“I think what we need to do is see how we can regulate,” she told the Evening Standard, in response to a question on restrictions on the internet.
The prime minister was then asked if she would rule out “Chinese-style cyber-blocking action”.
She only said that she would “work with the companies” and gave no explicit commitment that she wouldn’t introduce censorship and restriction regimes like the ones that operate in China.
In 2015, Tom Wheeler’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed that the Title II provision of the 1934 Communications Act applied to the internet. In short, the FCC considered the internet a public monopoly and, by extension, should be subject to the 80-year-old policies designed to regulate the telephone monopoly, Ma Bell.
Colloquially, we refer to this invocation of Title II as “net neutrality,” the FCC’s official position since 2015.
The rationale behind this policy is rather elegant in its simplicity: that internet service providers shouldn’t be permitted to discriminate against content owners by leveraging their ability to speed up or slow down consumer internet speeds.
The U.S. is now more than two decades removed from its last substantive overhaul of policies governing the nation’s communications infrastructure and resources. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, paved the way for the access, innovation and spectrum optimization necessary to bring us to the modern user-value economy.
But few lawmakers in 1996 could have grasped the enormity of a 2017 internet. An internet capable of serving billions of latent-free 4K UHD streams wirelessly to VR goggles on our faces. An internet, in fact, whose spectrum is today almost entirely consumed by video.
And lawmakers most certainly couldn’t have envisioned such scale in 1934, which is why this lack of clarity serves in tentative support of Title II as a modern standard of regulation.
Enter Ajit Pai, the new Republican sheriff at the FCC. If you’ve ever wondered what modernized laissez-faire looks like, you’re about to see it.
Related: FCC’s Ajit Pai Launches Effort to Repeal Title II
Pai has not minced words when it comes to reversing net neutrality in pursuit of an “open and free” internet. You need look no further than the Netflix-Comcast relationship to understand what an “open and free” internet will look like.
This could substantially augment the business of network carriage, positioning ISPs as industry toll booths across rapidly expanding lanes of traffic. Audiences that once “tuned” to TV programming in a “one-to-any” broadcast feed are finding their ways into the “one-to-device” economy of unicast streaming through connected TVs and linear streaming apps.
Simply put, a metered internet provides content distributors—specifically, content distributors that own the “last mile” of spectrum to the consumer—with leverage against the carriage fees the programmer currently collects from the distributor. This is an enormous chunk of most people’s $200-plus monthly cable bill.
In an “open and free” internet, the distributor can theoretically charge the programmer for dedicated bandwidth to ensure a satisfactory streaming experience, which in turn makes content cost-neutral to the distributor. That is, of course, if the distributor happens to also be the ISP.
If we look to the pre-network-neutrality precedent set by that Netflix and Comcast deal, where Netflix was able to structure a better consumer streaming experience across the Comcast footprint, the model suggests that an environment capable of supporting true a la carte may be knocking on the door.
A profound shift in the balance of power between content and distribution will be the necessary consequence of eliminating Title II’s governance of the internet. For better or worse, three sectors of the media landscape will be affected:
First, this is a boon to traditional cable operators who also serve as most people’s ISP, via coax, fiber or wireless spectrum—the incumbent Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs). They are content gateways through which consumers’ access, cost and quality of content engagement will be determined by the content originator’s metered internet terms, payable to the ISP/MVPD.
Such cost-neutralization of carriage for the traditional MVPD represents enormous advantages over virtual MVPDs, an industry effectively created by the FCC in 2014 when it reclassified the definition of MVPD to exclude any physical distribution infrastructure.
While virtual MVPDs may offer content access rivaling the incumbent MVPDs, they too would be subject to the costs of a metered internet, again, payable to the ISPs. No doubt, this would be a margin-crusher that would favor the incumbent MVPDs in a content price war. The FCC has yet to comment on how exactly this promotes competition.
Finally, there are the programmers whose very existence depends on bundled carriage revenues. Without the ability to offset the neutralization of carriage revenue with robust monetization of audience, the elimination of net neutrality may very well thin the herd of linear programmers. Who’s got time for bad TV anymore?
In the end, Ajit Pai’s vision for an open and free internet will likely result in outcomes marginally favorable to consumers. Content distribution is democratizing at an unbelievable rate, while audiences continue to balkanize across platforms and devices. So while consumers will soon be able to price shop providers in earnest, diversity in programming itself may be the first casualty of a new, open and free internet.
Randy Cooke is VP of programmatic TV at video ad inventory marketplace SpotXchange.
‘The attack serves, among other things, as a warning that nothing and nowhere is really secure.’ Photograph: Yui Mok/PA
Europol and the NHS are both warning people going back to work after the weekend to start up their computer with care. The cyber-attack on the UK health service, which also brought down systems in at least 150 countries, is an illustration of the vulnerability of the networks and software on which societies and economies now depend. In an ironical twist, it appears that the unknown writers of the “WannaCry” malware had themselves left a security holein their creation, which allowed the attack to be halted once their mistake was discovered.
We do not yet know how much damage WannaCry caused. People may have died; trauma units have been shut down and operations postponed. The attack serves, among other things, as a warning that nothing and nowhere is really secure.
The crucial weakness in Microsoft Windows that allowed the infection to spread had been identified years ago by the National Security Agency in Washington (and no doubt shared with Britain’s surveillance agency GCHQ). It seems to have informed no one else. Had it seen its duty primarily as defending friendly computer networks, as Edward Snowden has suggested it does, it might have issued a warning. It did not. Only when the hacking toolkit was itself stolen and published on the web did Microsoft respond with a patch that offered protection.
Up-to-date computer systems were safe, but many others were not. The NHS, which has tens of thousands of computers running the obsolete Windows XP system, had not renewed its support contract with Microsoft. Despite the demand of the national data guardian, Dame Fiona Caldicott, they had not been upgraded. It’s clear from Dame Fiona’s letter that some of the system’s insecurities are the results of its users working their way around measures they find obstructive; but some must also be the result of financial pressure, which does not just affect the cost of software licences but the enormous expense of retraining and supporting users. The blame for software failures is thus widely distributed.
However, the costs fall entirely on the victims. In no other industry could the manufacturers take so little legal responsibility for the safety and reliability of the goods they sell. If the NHS had bought a fleet of ambulances whose only flaw was that the left front wheel fell off every time it hit a pothole, the makers would be sued. But if the manufacturer were a software company, it would simply charge extra for upgrading the wheels.
Computer software is difficult and complex. In the case of some neural networks, not even the programmers can trace, still less understand, how the conclusions emerge from the inputs. Yet we live in a world that depends on it. The connectivity that makes us vulnerable also knits the economy together. The strong encryption that is used to lock the files so that a ransom can be paid also underlies the security of a properly administered banking system.
The assault on the NHS is part of a growing pattern of international lawlessness that shows how optimistic were the libertarian dreams of the early internet culture. What has emerged instead is a kind of feudal system, where not just individuals but even powerful companies, banks and government agencies in their operations in cyberspace are no more than unarmed peasants dependent on Microsoft, Google or the other great baronies to protect them from the robbers and bandits waiting to exploit weakness. In exchange for this vital protection, they own our virtual lives. All of the obvious measures to guard us against the next attack – which is certainly coming – must be taken.
This is not the first ransomware attack on the NHS but it must be the last one that is successful. Though it will cost money, it is essential that the government takes digital security as seriously as it takes hygiene in hospitals. In the long run, however, we must also work for democratic control over the wider system of digital feudalism.
Consumer Internet startups, the hottest ticket in Indian startup ecosystem for the last decade, appeared to have hit a massive speed breaker in 2016. Funding slowed down drastically. In the ecommerce sector alone, funding fell to $1.94 billion in 2016 from $4.7 billion in 2015, as per data from Venture Intelligence. Many were forced to shut shop. Tracxn counted over 314 consumer Internet startups which shut down in 2016 compared to 215 the previous year. Those who survived saw their valuations fizzle out; even the biggest startups were not able to get through without anguish.
This bleak scenario led to many observers questioning the legitimacy of India’s consumer Internet story. They had data to back this hypothesis as funding began shifting away from consumer-Internet startups. But there is one singular aspect of the analysis that caught my eye – a few people started questioning the very existence of India’s big consumer Internet market.
A chart published in The Economist last month said that ecommerce sales in India were flat in 2016, after doubling in 2014 and trebling in 2015. The report accompanying the chart noted that of the 200 Mn-250 Mn Indians with Internet access and credit or debit cards; only a small proportion of this were inclined to shop online. Although this part may be true.
ATTENTION, HUMANITY: I may or may not have very good news for you regarding Spider-Man stars Tom Holland and Zendaya.
So, here’s the deal: According to People, Zendaya and Tom Holland are ~*~DATING~*~.
Here’s some exclusive footage of me when I first read that news:
But again, none of this is official. An anonymous source told People:
They started seeing each other while they were filming Spider-Man. They’ve been super careful to keep it private and out of the public eye but they’ve gone on vacations with each other and try and spend as much time as possible with one another.
And a second source added:
They’re both really ambitious and they challenge each other — but, most importantly, they make each other crack up. They seem to have a really similar sense of humor and love joking around together. They have great banter back and forth.
Now, as a person whose only hobby is watching hot, smart people kiss, I was very excited about this prospect!!!
But so far, Zendaya and Tom are mostly laughing off the rumors. Zendaya just tweeted:
And Tom even posted this lovely Instagram yesterday — captioning it #lonerlife. Does a boy with a girlfriend use the hashtag #lonerlife?
STILL. I can’t help but notice that their tweets aren’t really a denial. They’re just kinda… laughing at it?
And if it WAS true, Zendaya and Tom would actually be following in the footsteps of their Spider-Man predecessors. Dating your Spider-Man co-star is a tradition dating all the way back to 2002.
Well, true or not, you have to admit this pairing would be cute as hell. ADD THIS SHIT TO YOUR VISION BOARDS, PEOPLE.
THE WEB’S FAVORITE file format just turned 30. Yep, it turns out the GIF is a millennial, too.
At the same time, 30 makes the GIF ancient in web years, which feels a bit weird, given that the proliferation of animated GIFs is a relatively recent phenomenon. Today, Twitter has a GIF button and even Apple added GIF search to its iOS messaging app. Such mainstream approval would have seemed unthinkable even a decade ago, when GIFs had the cultural cachet of blinking text and embedded MIDI files. But today they’re ubiquitous, and not in some nostalgic sense.
Animated GIFs have transcended their obscure 1990s roots to become a key part of day-to-day digital communication. Some, like Orson Welles clapping or Michael Jackson eating popcorn, have become instantly recognizable shorthand. Others, like Sean Spicer disappearing into the bushes—itself a remix of a popular Simpsons GIF—serve up political satire. The GIF does double duty as both expression and as badge of digital literacy. Not bad for an image standard that pre-dates the web itself.
Today GIFs are synonymous with short, looping, animations. But they got their start as a way of displaying still images. Steve Wilhite started work on the Graphics Interchange Format in early 1986. At the time, he was a programmer for Compuserve, an early online service that let users access chat rooms, forums, and information like stock quotes using dial-up modems. Sandy Trevor, Wilhite’s boss at Compuserve, tells WIRED that he wanted to solve two problems.
The first was that Compuserve needed a graphics format that worked on all computers. At the time, the PC market was split between several companies, including Apple, Atari, Commodore, IBM, and Tandy, each with its own way of displaying graphics. Compuserve had used other graphics formats of the era, such as NAPLPS, but Trevor thought they were too complex to implement. So he tasked Wilhite with creating a simple format that would work on any machine.
Second, he wanted Wilhite to create technology that could quickly display sharp images over slow connections. “In the eighties, 1200 baud was high speed,” Trevor says. “Lots of people only had 300 baud modems.” The average broadband connection in the US is more than 40,000 times faster than even those blazing fast 1200 baud connections, so Compuserve needed truly tiny files.
The web’s other major image format, the JPEG, was under development at the time. But it’s better suited for photographs and other images that contain high amounts of detail and won’t suffer from a small amount of distortion. Compuserve needed to display stock quotes, weather maps, and other graphs—simple images that would suffer from having jagged lines. So Wilhite decided to base the GIF on a lossless compression protocol called Lempel–Ziv–Welch, or LZW.
Wilhite finished the first version of the GIF specification on May, 1987, and Compuserve began using the format the next month. This was two years before Sir Tim Berners-Lee announced his World Wide Web project and six years before the Mosiac browser made the web accessible to less technical users. But it was the web that made the GIF what it is today.
The GIF was perfect for displaying logos, line art, and charts on the web for all the same reasons that Wilhite first developed the format. And because portions of an image could be transparent, meaning an image could blend into the background or be fit together with other images in interesting ways, it enabled web designers to create more complex layouts. But the most important thing about the format was that Wilhite had the foresight to make it extensible, so that other developers could add custom types of information to GIFs. That enabled the team behind the Netscape browser to create the animated GIF standard in 1995. “I didn’t ask Steve to put in as much extensibility as he did, but I’m glad he did,” Trevor says.
Soon, “under construction” GIFs adorned practically every site on the web. The “Dancing Baby” becoming one the web’s first true viral video sensations. The dancing 7-Up mascot “Cool Spot” also made a unconscionable number of appearances, making it perhaps the first viral #brand GIF.
The file format also became the center of one of the web’s first patent disputes. In 1994, IT giant Unisys claimed to own the LZW protocol that Wilhite used in the GIF specification. The company threatened to sue anyone who made software that could create or read GIFs without paying for a license. Unisys’s LZW-related patents expired in 2006, but the ordeal of dealing with the company left a lasting impression on Trevor, who now works as a consultant helping tech companies avoid running into patent suits.
The animated GIF epidemic ended about as quickly as it started. As web design professionalized, those under construction GIFs disappeared. Animators and artists, meanwhile, moved on to more sophisticated media like Flash and later HTML5. But the format survived on web forums and sites like 4chan, Reddit, and Tumblr.
Adam Leibsohn, the COO of the GIF search engine Giphy, calls the GIF an “insurgent format.” It enables people to publish moving images in places they weren’t necessarily intended, like someone’s signature on a forum. “The easiest, simplest thing wins,” he says.
As people realized they could stick tiny, looping bits of animation into web-based conversations, GIFs became a new form of expression. Clips of people clapping, slamming their heads on a desk, or dancing replaced text, and new, more artistic GIFs emerged as a form of micro-entertainment. The rise of smartphones made this form of visual communication all the more appealing.
“We’ve reduced our shorthand to things like ‘lol’ and ‘wtf’, things that aren’t very expressive,” says David McIntosh, CEO of the GIF search service Tenor. “With GIFs you can express a wide range of emotions.” About 90 percent of the service’s search terms are related to feelings, he says.
It’s hard to say exactly when the GIF re-entered the mainstream web experience. The Nieman Journalism Lab called the 2012 Summer Olympics a “coming-out party” for the animated GIF. That same year, Oxford Dictionaries named “GIF” the word of the year. By early 2013, GIFs were showing up in museums and marketers wanted in. That year Steve Wilhite was awarded a life-time achievement award at the Webbys, where he stirred up a mini-controversy by telling the world that GIF is pronounced like the peanut butter brand Jif, not like “gift.”
At the time, it was easy to see GIFs as a passing fad, a throwback to the 1990s along with the “soft grunge” trend. It seemed like surely something newer like Vine or Snapchat would replace GIFs. But all these years later, Vine is gone and the GIF is still with us.
Part of that success owes itself to web obsessives, who have built up an enormous inventory of GIF files to choose from. When you want to express dismay or joy or any other emotion, all you have to do is go to Tumblr, Giphy, or Tenor and you can find a ready-made loop. You can think of it as an expansive visual vocabulary built over the years.
And while newer formats might bring more options, Tumblr head of creative strategy David Hayes says that the GIF’s technical limitations are actually its strength, not its weakness. After all, artists have long used constraints to spur creativity. “The GIF has constraints that will continue to challenge people,” he says. “You have to make trade-offs with the file size, the frame rate, and the intensity of color.”
Instead of asking what’s next, Hayes says, perhaps we should ask whether the GIF is the end-point for visual language. Let’s give it another 30 years and see what happens.
Hi, my name is Louis Anderson-Rich and I am an archive rave addict.
Right, I see by the way your face has scrunched up that you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about so let me cut to the chase. Basically, like people who have been duped by Nigerian money scams, Yahoo Mail users and Bad Luck Brian, the Internet has sucked me in and fucked me over. Not in, like, a malicious way or anything but… The Internet is just such an addictive place isn’t it? And I have an addiction – I just can’t stop watching videos of old raves on the Internet.
Whether it’s old episodes of The New Dance Show or videos of people losing it in a Doncaster warehouse, Sven Vath chewing his face off at Love Parade or Underground Resistance blowing people’s minds in 1992, I cannot fucking get enough. Just look at the sheer optimism in these videos. Here are people discovering dance music when it was a never-before-seen, cutting-edge youth revolution. And of course there’s all the sick 90s gear.
If I said “YouTube hole” to you, it might help you understand. We’ve all been trapped down one in the past, staring at a screen as if to see who blinks first. They’re characterised by recommended videos that are just too tasty to not click, and if you’ve told yourself “just one more Carpool Karaoke video” before inevitably missing your bus stop and cursing James Corden’s slimmed down face then you know what I’m talking about. But I’m at DEFCON 1 with this shit.
The launch of Friday the 13th: The Game has gone about as smoothly as, well…a kegger at a certain abandoned summer camp. The PC and PS4 have been beset with server issues, the Xbox version launched without the game’s day one patch, and the game is, generally speaking, a buggy mess on all platforms. But hey, at least Gun Media and developer IllFonic are trying to do something about the situation, issuing patches for both the Xbox One and PC. Like a nubile skinny dipper trying to escape Jason in the woods, these updates probably have a hopeless task ahead of them, but let’s check out what they contain all the same.
The Xbox One patch mostly seems to bring the game in line with the PS4 version of Friday the 13th. Basically, it’s the day one patch the Xbox somehow didn’t get at launch:
Xbox One Update
New intro cinematics for Tommy Jarvis spawn, Game Intro, and Game Outro.
Fixed crash for VoIP that would during gameplay
Fix for out of memory crash with a bug in the texture system bloating out textures after playing a couple of rounds.
Fixed getting stuck when interactive with drawers.
Fixed getting stuck when climbing through windows
Fixed camera getting stuck when interactive with doors, windows and drawers.
Fixed Jason getting stuck in a chop loop when breaking down doors.
Fixed Jason getting off aligned when breaking down doors. He will no longer keep popping back in a new position.
Fixed environment and grab kills being off.
Fixed environment and grab kill jittering.
Made knife pickup grab animations more accurate.
Fixed some knife pickups from not working.
Fixed the shotgun and flare gun sometimes not firing.
Fixed weapon swapping from floating.
Fixed firecrackers going through the world
Fixed physics on car. No longer can a group of counselors push it around.
Fixed getting in and out of a car where animations would get off sync.
Fixed players standing up in the car.
Fixed pocket knife not working when getting pulled out of the car.
Fixed more than one player being able to get into the driver’s seat at the same time.
Fixed physics on boat. No longer can a group of counselors push it around.
Fixed getting in and out of a boat where animations would get off sync.
Fixed players standing up in the boat.
Fixed more than one player being able to get into the boat driver’s seat at the same time.
Fixed HUD getting stuck when getting in and out of Armour.
Fixed blood getting stuck on screen when dying.
Fixed blood getting stuck on screen when coming back as Tommy Jarvis.
Fixed repair mini-game getting stuck on screen when getting hit with a weapon while doing the mini-game.
Fixed exploit where users were able to go into combat stance and then sprint sliding around the character but not burning any stamina.
Fixed Jason sliding around when getting stunned.
Fixed counselors sliding around when playing the falling animation.
Fixed Jason grabbing someone out of a car and them becoming a ghost.
Fixed driving the car getting out of sync with the server / host then teleporting the player back to where they got into a car.
Made session invitations a lot more reliable.
Fixed crash where you would exit a match and then start a new Private Match.
Added movable hair to the female characters.
Optimized all maps to have a nice performance increase on Xbox One when action gets intense.
Did a warmer lighting pass to increase visual quality.
Fixed crash when getting grabbed by Jason.
Meanwhile, the PC update seems to be a bit more substantial. It makes some changes to how profiles are saved, tunes up the audio, and improves Jason and Counselor spawning.
To optimize the database further, we have moved character profiles to the save file system, persisting in the cloud instead. However, this means that:
Counselor Perk and Clothing selections will have to be assigned again.
Jason grab kill selections will have to be assigned again.
Added a Random option in the lobby.
Turned intro volume down.
Increased effectiveness of Jason and Counselor spawn preference options. Shuffling the possible Jason list 3x as much to help randomness.
Disabled inhale sound effect for breathing while in a hiding spot.
Made dead body stingers less obnoxious: Ignored while being pursued by Jason; 10s cooldown; Will not fire for witnessed nearby deaths.
Fixed issue where you have infinite stamina.
Fixed a few areas where the player couldn’t reach with Jason. Also fixed a stuck spot on Packanack.
Fixed perk roller UI sometimes getting stuck if there is an error talking to the database.
Fixed session heartbeat requests to be more resilient to service failures.
Fixed some bugs with incremental Steam stats achievements. NOTE: These do not always update while the game client is open, sometimes taking until you exit the game before Steam shows progress.
Fixed character hair stretching at lower frame rate.
Fixed inverted mouse look and mouse sensitivity options not working on the input settings UI.
Fixed Jason not always aborting the knife throw when stunned.
Fixed a case where it was possible to get stuck in a knife throw.
Fixed some visibility issues with the door interaction icons.
Fixed some placement issues with dropped items.
Fixed Jason’s mask floating when knocked off.
Fixed Jason not always cancelling shift or morph if they hit a car in reverse.
Fixed an issue with the hiding spot exit code.
Fixed Counselors potentially getting stuck inside of a wall if hit while climbing through a window at the perfect time.
Fixed Rotate Minimap With Player not updating when changed until a map change.
Fixed some server specific crashes.
Fixed people being able to share settings save games.
The PS4 version of Friday the 13th hasn’t received a patch, which is unfortunate, as it’s arguably the version people are having most trouble with. Players continue to report excessively long wait times for games on PS4 over a week after launch. Xbox One and PC are having similar problems, although to a somewhat lesser degree. But hey, if you do manage to connect to a game, we do have some handy tips for how to slaughter campers most effectively!
Friday the 13th: The Game is available for PC, Xbox One, and PS4. You can check out limited impressions of the game, right here.