Platform Wars Update: Epic Store Losing $330 Million Per Year To Acquire Customers
from the oof! dept
It's been a while since we've checked in on how the PC gaming platform war is going. If you'll recall, the Spring of 2019 saw a new entrant into this ongoing battle, with Epic releasing the Epic Store. Epic's plan appeared to be essentially a PR battle at first, drawing in the public by proclaiming that Steam's revenue splits with developers and publishers were bad for the gaming industry and by drawing in publishers and developers with a better version of those splits for them. On top of that, Epic used those splits to gobble up a bunch of exclusive or timed exclusive releases of games, which ended up pissing off many in the gaming public and, of course, Steam. Then came Epic's free game releases, where the platform worked out deals with publishers to offer up AAA game titles for literally no money as a method for getting gamers to adopt the platform.
All of this didn't come with zero fallout from what Epic was doing, of course. The public doesn't like exclusives generally. Crowdfunding got weird due to the exclusivity. And the launch of the Epic Store in the early days was not without its hiccups, either. Now that we're 2 years on, how has this all shaken out?
Well, Epic is getting a decent chunk of market share with its tactics, even as the platform takes on major losses in doing so. The reason for those losses? Well, largely they have to do with all of those free games and timed exclusives. And we have Epic's battle with Apple to thank for the information.
The raw numbers, as reported in a "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" document Apple filed last week, show massive incurred and projected losses for Epic's game download hub, which launched in late 2018. Documents and testimony from Epic itself show a $181 million loss for the store in 2019 and projected losses of $273 million in 2020 and $139 million in 2021.
You might think Epic is incurring those losses because it only takes a 12 percent cut of third-party game revenues, compared to the industry-standard 30 percent cut on other digital storefronts. On the contrary, though—in its own court filings, Epic says that 12 percent revenue chunk has been "sufficient to cover its costs of distribution and allow for further innovation and investment in EGS."
The main driver of EGS' losses, instead, is Epic's generous program of "minimum guarantees." These encompass the advance payments Epic has used to attract so many timed exclusives to its storefront and seemingly also cover the free games Epic makes available to Epic Games Store users every week.
Now, while this isn't precisely the type of method for using "free" as part of a business model as we've talked about in the past, it's close enough to count. The upshot of all of this is that commentary from Epic's folks makes it clear that they're well aware of these monetary shortfalls... and are largely just fine with them. The whole point of all of this is to make as big a dent in market share in a short time period as possible. And, of the two ways Epic saw to do that, taking on initial losses like this was the better option.
"There are two ways to bring users into something," Epic Games co-founder and CEO Tim Sweeney told Ars in 2019, just after the launch of the Epic Games Store. "You can run Google and Facebook ads and pay massive amounts of money to them. But we actually found it was more economical to pay developers [a lump sum] to distribute their game free for two weeks... We can actually bring in more users at lower cost by doing all these great things for great people rather than paying Google and Facebook."
That effort is starting to work. Last June, Sweeney told PC Gamer that EGS had about 15 percent of the PC gaming market. That's not great, but it's not bad considering the near-monopoly power Steam has in PC gaming downloads (Sweeney estimated Steam's share at 90 percent in 2019, though that could be a bit inflated).
In court documents, Epic went on to note that it expects its storefront to start turning a profit in 2023, so it looks like it has some runway there as well.
So, what does this all mean? Well, at the very least it's an interesting experiment in using free loss-leaders to gain customers and give them reasons to buy elsewhere on the platform. Epic hasn't pulled some magic trick to suddenly unseat Valve's Steam platform as of yet... but it's also apparently playing the long game here.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: epic store, platform wars, steam, video games
Companies: apple, epic, valve
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This reminds me of the mid 2000s when Blockbuster tried to leverage their stores and overly-generous account benefits to court Netflix's customers, but they gave away too much for free.
And I kind of hope they go away because their practice of paying for exclusive releases was anti-consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm no
You can bet your shorts that epic's market share isn't what they say it is. Gamers are generally loath to use that "store" being that after 2 years, it still doesn't have a shopping cart. Due to the lack of a shopping cart, buying several items will lock the account. Reports of accounts being hacked happens on a daily basis too.
Add in exclusives are driving piracy back up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Umm no
Well I can only offer my personal opinion but I was never endeared to Epic because the reason I went PC was to get away form exclusives and yet here they are again and it pisses me off.
But then they went and made it personal for me by having the entire Kingdom Hearts series which I've waited to come to PC for years an Epic exclusive.
This, needless to say has only intensified my hatred of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Umm no
"I was never endeared to Epic because the reason I went PC was to get away form exclusives and yet here they are again and it pisses me off."
This, right there. The PC gamer is all about flexibility. Those who aren't instead become console gamers.
And that's why exclusivity or lock-in business models have always incentivized a great many pirates rather than push people to install a client built by a company with a horrible reputation among gamers. Valve at least launched Steam without the baggage of being one of the least popular brands this side of EA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Well, at the very least it's an interesting experiment in using free loss-leaders to gain customers and give them reasons to buy elsewhere on the platform."
I'm not sure about that. The main reasons why they had to resort to loss leaders in the first place is because the store was so feature-poor compared to its competitors and people were loathe to install yet another launcher. Giving away free stuff to entice people to a platform is not a bad business method. But, you have to give them some other reason to be there. If you're trying to keep customers through exclusives and freebies and nothing else, you had better hope those exclusives are very compelling, else you'll lose customers the second they have another option or the freebies stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic store this year
Both epic store and my project has over 100 computer games, but epic store is making 330 million loss. So I'm that much more successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic store this yea
I'm pretty sure they had more than 350 downloads and 0 actual users though, champ. Not to mention that this is all about setting up a platform, which is not what you did for your games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic store this yea
"So I'm that much more successful."
Cute. In the same way that I'm not losing any money on running a hotel and thus am far more successful than Waldorf-Astoria in covid times...
I'm pretty sure that profit comparisons where one side requires division by zero aren't valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic store this
I can put the money required for the support of my virtual cat to the pot, so it's not really zero anyway. Also if you count the salary for all the work done for the 100 games, during last 8 years, then the situation looks a little different. But zero it isn't anyway.
But anyway, the loss I'm making is nowhere near 330 million...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Saying you're not making losses because you have no money to spend beyond a London bus ad and a dead wordpress review is hardly worthy of praise, Pukeinen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic store this yea
Hey TP, here is some real competition to meshpages; and with a bit more development, it will be useable by children. Oh, also it is open source as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic store this
Real competition? They let AI create their content instead of burdensome manual work... that doesn't feel like the quality work that we expect from our vendors.
Further issue is that noone bothered to ask for a link to my 100 computer games. I clearly mentioned that those exist, but noone here wanted to know how well I can compete against epic store with my 100 computer games...
Well, I'll save you the trouble and announce the url anyway: http://tpgames.org/games100.html
Basically to get 70 high quality products, authors need to do 100 lower quality code pieces. And now you've seen the lower quality ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
still not seein’ any high quality ones from you, toilet paper man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It still beats your pirate movie collection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hint: if you have to lie about the person you are talking to in order to make a point, you have already lost the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
there's embedded two important points:
1) if he has pirate movie collection, i already win in copyright area
2) if he doesnt have one, I win in amount of content
either way, I always win. And you've given no reason to assume he has anything better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"if he doesnt have one, I win in amount of content"
If he doesn't have one, not only have you objectively lied about him in order to make a "point", you still don't know how many products he's bought legally so you don't "win" except in your deranged little mind.
Also, you specified movies, but all you claim to have created is incompetently designed websites, utility software with zero customers and videogames nobody plays. Unless you've now claiming to have directed a bunch of movies, he still "wins" in terms of content assuming he has a library of movies larger than zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That pattern isn't popular enough, and also the big competition isn't against legal vendors. It's the illegal pirates that are the big problem which you need to compete against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That pattern isn't popular enough"
You could explain the pattern to us, rather than lying about the movie collections you imagine other people have.
"It's the illegal pirates that are the big problem which you need to compete against."
No, it's really not. In movies alone, I own nearly 1000 DVDs and Blu-Rays, and I subscribe to 4 streaming services. I have no need to pirate because I legally have access to more entertainment than it's possible for me to watch in my lifetime, and even that's assuming I don't read books, listen to music or play videogames (and I do all three).
Your problem isn't piracy. It's that you'¡re incompetent at selling in a crowded marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The children that are the target group for all gaming related products on the planet, do not have money to buy 1000 DVD's.
All the grownups who are still playing games should get better and more useful hobby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The children that are the target group for all gaming related products on the planet, do not have money to buy 1000 DVD's"
Why would it matter if the target group for games have money to buy DVDs? They're completely different markets.
I mean, it's pathetic that you have to lie about your target audience and the entire industry to make a point, but you're not even competent enough to identify them in the first place.
"All the grownups who are still playing games should get better and more useful hobby."
I love the bipolar nature of your arguments. One minute you're whining that nobody's asking where to find your games. The next you're telling us that we're wasting our time if we play any game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it's your pattern that you keep checking facts from my story. I expected you'd check if the 100 games would exist. It would be completely ridiculous for you to accept that claim without even attempting to verify it.
The url wasn't mentioned because you should be playing the games. Your task is to verify that my claims are valid. And when I give outrageous claims, stuff like I have 100 games available, I expect you to scream loudly before accepting it as true statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It would be completely ridiculous for you to accept that claim without even attempting to verify it."
Not really. Whether you have those games or you're lying about them has no bearing on any of the arguments being made here, and certainly won't change my opinion of you one way or another.
"Your task is to verify that my claims are valid"
Not really. You claim to have 100 games I will never play, and you also attack me for having gaming as one of my hobbies. I don't give a shit if your claim is real or not, it's irrelevant to anything said here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Ha ha, what a pathetic loser you are, playing video games! …please please please try my games, please.” — tp, probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The pattern is very simple:
1) Effort = amount of content * time to create the required quality
2) after some treshold (i.e. when you need to start creating teams)
larger effort means more money needs to be invested to the
operation
3) minimum wage and workplace safety regulations are saying
that operations that do not follow (2) when they have large
effort in (1) are illegal operation(s).
Note that this pattern basically says operations like free software, wikipedia, youtube, building of the pyramids are basically using illegal patterns to increase the work amount they can use for the project. This is why creation of pyramids can be called "slave operations", and history will show that many other projects that sound plausible will turn to fall into the same trap.
How this relates to movie collections is that the piracy movie collections are using the same pattern:
1) they require someone else does large amount of effort
2) they fail to pass along the money required to run the project
3) they don't care about existing laws and regulations
So the pattern is very simple. It just finds problems from existing projects and practises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I notice that your deranged definitions make volunteer work or hobbyists "illegal", and you're still completely incapable of sticking to one point. Are you whining about movies or software? They're very different things and it's strange that you've invented an argument that addressed a completely different industry to the one which you freely devote your time.
Once again, I'm glad not to live in the insane universe you have built for yourself, so that I can enjoy the many advantages the real world gives us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't invent it. It is clearly stated in copyright law. And as such, it applies to many kinds of copyrighted works, including movies and software. Any time where you can find large effort amounts without the necessary money transfers, the principles can be applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I didn't invent it"
Yes you did.
"It is clearly stated in copyright law"
In no part of copyright law does it say that hobbyists and volunteers are acting illegally. In fact, it even explicitly allows people to create licences other than the default copyright licences in order to allow the end product to be shared more freely.
I know that part of your argument depends on the idea that CC and GPL licences must be illegal, but it's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not the licenses itself that are the main problem with the CC and GPL. It's the practices surrounding it that are the big problem. Basically we consider their decision to leave compensation to "not implemented" status as illegal practice. There is clear requirement to pay salaries if the amount of effort crosses certain threshold. And many of the projects are nowhere near that threshold. The situation is much worse than you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep on dreaming that work done justifies payment, it does not. You have to produce work that other want to have any chance of payment. If nobody wants what you create then you get no money. If people really like what you create, some will try to find ways to pay you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't the case here. Free software, wikipedia and youtube has millions of users who "want" the product, still they cannot get compensation working properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"still they cannot get compensation working properly"
It is working properly. That you don't like what everyone else has agreed on does not make it wrong, except in the eyes of one delusional failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There is clear requirement to pay salaries if the amount of effort crosses certain threshold"
No, there really isn't. Volunteer work is still legal. If I opt to update an article on Wikipedia or TMDB, I'm offering my services for free. In the same way that you don't expect to pay for the open source libraries and technology you use in your own projects every day.
Do you have arguments that relate to the real world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if you offer your services for free, it does not remove your responsibility to obtain money from the marketplace. You have just wasted some of your time for useless activity, and then you still need to find a way to get money from somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no responsibility to earn money from anything.
Maybe to put food on the table, but as far as the marketplace is concerned, it couldn't care less if you got nothing out of your labor.
Don't broadbrush everyone just because you're speaking from experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"your responsibility to obtain money from the marketplace"
No such responsibility exists.
"You have just wasted some of your time for useless activity"
It's not useless to me, and not everyone measures value in monetary terms.
"then you still need to find a way to get money from somewhere."
I work for a living. If I choose to spend my free time doing something for other reasons, be that volunteering at a charity or offering some article updates on the internet, that's my choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I write a book and publish it under the license known as CC Zero — the equivalent of a public domain declaration — would you say I’ve committed an illegal practice? I mean, I know I would piss you off by adding to the public domain, but I want to know if you think I would also have broken the law by doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It depends how much effort you spend writing it. It crosses the illegal line when the lack of compensation is preventing you from getting your living. I.e. if you spend enough time to create the book that you have no time for performing your day job. This is called "mixing of free time and company time". When that happens the activity becomes illegal. This is usually mentioned in the work contracts, i.e. they have section which mentions how much time you need to reserve per week for company time. And if you cannot keep that time allocation promise for any reason (including book writing operation), then the activity becomes illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What law do I violate, and how do I violate it, if I choose to self-publish a book under the CC Zero license? Make some fucking sense here, toilet paper man, because even if I self-published a book under an ordinary copyright license, I’m still not legally/morally/ethically entitled to make a single god-fuckin’-damned penny from that book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It crosses the illegal line when the lack of compensation is preventing you from getting your living"
So, you're saying that writing for fun is illegal, it has to be done with a profit motive? It's illegal to offer your own book for free when you publish it?
Again, I'm glad not to live in the strange world you live in, where we would have been robbed of many great books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It still beats your pirate movie collection."
Most pirate movie collections tend to include all the major blockbusters and classics so what you just said is that 100 games made by you is somehow better than every great movie made in the last forty years or so.
That's some claim you've got there, tp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic store
"Real competition? They let AI create their content instead of burdensome manual work"
So, they're way more efficient than you, which is why people aren't waiting years for you to create a website? I don't see the downside except for maybe the quality of the output - and your demonstrated output is laughable.
"Further issue is that noone bothered to ask for a link to my 100 computer games"
You've given nobody any reason to do so. The couple of links you already provided obviously don't lead anyone to wish to investigate further, and your random blathering hasn't even explained what the games are, let alone why anyone should be interested.
"Basically to get 70 high quality products, authors need to do 100 lower quality code pieces"
That's you, not professionals. You know, the people you have told are not the target audience for your products because they're "incompetent"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently he couldn't be fucked to hire another London bus to put an ad on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meh, not even that's necessary. He could go a long way if he acted like a normal sane human being and just went "hey, this is a game I'm really proud of. It's a game where you do X, and the objective is Y". Even if he's just pushing some bland entry in an overstuffed genre, people might be willing to have a look, at least, and if the game really is doing something new then he'd gain some people who might want to spread the word for him.
Instead, we get vague boasts that aren't interesting enough to investigate further, then attacks for not being interested in the product he failed to sell. I'm not sure what the term for the reverse of successful marketing is - where you go out of your way to stop people being interested in your product - but he seems to be the poster boy for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic st
they are obviously my effort to compete against pirate movie or game collections. I've chosen amount of content metric needs to compete with ordinary pirates collection...
it also wxplains that you cannot compete simultaniously with quality and amount of content, so anyone(single person) who has both of them implemented, is doing something illegal. this is why the screaming about quality is completely misplaced once they see how much content I have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epi
"they are obviously my effort to compete against pirate movie or game collections"
But not against games or movies that are competently made and sell millions of copies per year.
"it also wxplains that you cannot compete simultaniously with quality and amount of content, so anyone(single person) who has both of them implemented, is doing something illegal"
So, you're saying that Disney+ and XBox Game Pass are illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than
You missed the keyword "single person"... Disney+ is bigger effort than what one person is able to implement. Same probably is true for XBox Game Pass..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful
Ah, I get you. So, since you're saying that it's impossible for a single person to legally develop a high number of high quality games, you're admitting that your 100 games that you churned out in a short period of time must be not be high quality?
Instead of looking at your self-admitted trash, I think I'll wait for the likes of Johnathan Blow to bring out another high quality game and use your other competitors while waiting for those, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more success
Yes. How this number 100 was decided was because in 1994 I released a commercial computer game in amiga system which had 100 levels. To bring the difficulty level slightly more difficult, the "100 levels" was turned into "100 computer games" for the next project. There was just some quality requirement that the games all needed to be "different", i.e. 100 copies of the same game was not acceptable, but there should be 100 games that looked and worked differently -> to keep children engaged with the gameplay.
Now the 100 games project implemented these requirements:
1) number of games must be 100
2) the games all need to be different / work in different way
3) it needs to be able to compete with children's piracy collections
4) it needs to be ready before finland's 100 year birthday
See there's several reasons why this was done in this way. The quality aspect obviously needed to be dropped or else the project would be impossible to implement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more suc
It doesn't really matter how you came up with an arbitrary number of games to make or that you picked an arbitrary time limit to do so. What matters is whether there's any reason for people to play them. You have not provided such a reason, so nobody was asking where to find them.
It's cool that you found a personal project to keep you busy over the years, but you don't really give a reason for anybody else to care in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more
I could be spraypainting the neighbours walls with graffiti without this project. That's what the grownups thought when we bought spraypaint for a bike. So happily this project saved us from this fate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million
So in your limited mind it was either "write shitty programming" or "vandalize public property". I swear, someone's been contaminating the water you drink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 mill
It's called "gaming industry". Their task is to keep children from vandalizing public property and encouraging some of them to write shitty programming. There's no other reason for gaming industry to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330
Or they could take up literally any other hobby aside from vandalism. But as someone who actually works in the game industry and rubbed shoulders with concept artists to animation riggers to level designers to UX artists to QA testers, thanks for confirming once again that you don't know what they fuck you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million
"I could be spraypainting the neighbours walls with graffiti without this project"
That's a personal issue for you, and I'm glad your projects keep you off the street in that case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 mill
We will have to treat all claims as true, and dismiss the claims only if the claims have no legal merit even after the claims were accepted as true.
So why wouldn't I believe those people? It can be turned into perfect game development operation.
The real test to those issues in the complaint will be when the factual statements mentioned are being argued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, we don’t. No one has an obligation to discredit or take seriously any claim until the claimant first provides evidence. Since you never provide evidence of your claims, we never have to take your claims seriously — which is why we keep mocking ridiculous bullshit like “you must absolutely create 100 crap games before you can ever make 1 good game” and “people who have big movie collections can only ever be pirates”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i never said anything about creating 1 game...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
True, because as far as your testimony goes you've been in talks with a publisher in love with NDAs for seven years just to teleport 0 animations to computer screens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It just happens to be the biggest game publisher on the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please provide proof of your claim and the necessary citations required for verifying your evidence. Otherwise your claim is “my dad works at Nintendo”–level preschool playground bullshit.
Or did you think anyone here would believe your claim without a second thought?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330
"We will have to treat all claims as true, and dismiss the claims only if the claims have no legal merit even after the claims were accepted as true."
No, tp, because Russel still demands you show him the bloody teapot orbiting Mars.
If you make a claim then you have to prove your claim. That's how the real world works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm
Teapot: https://meshpage.org/307
Mars: https://meshpage.org/322
orbiting: https://meshpage.org/347
See, put these together and you get a teapot orbiting mars.
I couldn't implement "bloody", since it isn't nice for children to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So,
I'm wondering - are you so uneducated that you haven't heard of Russell's Teapot, or are you actually so deluded that you think that providing links to fictional things proves something in the real world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how the fuck are you still alive in this world, holy shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The overwhelming majority of people who get into coding don’t get into coding for the sake of keeping themselves from destroying property/lives. Much like people who claim the Bible is all that keeps them from endlessly raping and killing people, you’re a legit sociopath if coding video games is all that stands between you and committing lawless behavior.
To steal a bit from Penn Jillette: I don’t code, and I vandalize all the buildings I want…and the number of buildings I want to vandalize is zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you're way outside your expertise area. The situation is significantly worse than you think. There's like 3 levels between what you're thinking than what the real situation is. The coding process is completely "automatic". You need to understand that it's significantly worse status than what you were thinking about. It's not that "coding video games stands between you and lawless behaviour". Its more akin of "there's no thought process involved in the coding process, when the whole thing is completely automatic". Note that if this pattern is continued further, the hunans will turn to robots. In fact, some of the people involved are already switching constantly between robot and human statuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You don't want to go down the road of the Hindu cyborg tranny, Tero. Or Tumblr will have a field day with you.
Actually, now that I think about it, do. They can SJW you and your shitty excuse for an engine out of existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…fucking what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
at least you're honest that the description is outside of your expertise. Basically it went over your head. You shouldn't ask difficult questions if you cannot handle the responses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the thing you said to garner that reaction is what we would colloquially refer to as batshit insane. Make some fucking sense, toilet paper man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I already said you're at least 3 levels off with this analysis. Its like alot worse than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you're calibrating from a perspective of negative IQ, you're going to be 3 levels off from everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic store
More they let people work on the story telling, while handing the boring detail work off to the computer. That is the difference between enabling story telling and training the next generation of animators so that they can do the grunt work for someone else story telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epic st
They told us in the university that AI is always the stuff that computers still cannot do. When chess playing was beyond abilities of most computers, it was called artificial intelligence. Then it shifted to "go" and other more complicated games. Now once computer managed to do those, again the scope of the artificial intelligence was moved to only contain stuff that computers cannot do.
Now someone figured out that complex state spaces and animating 3d models based on some fuzzy algorithm is not possible for computers to do. And they keep claiming these practises are what AI is all about.
If this AI revolution is going to make life of humans easier, why not move the scope of AI again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than epi
Whatever you got in university, it sounds like you were trying to qualify for a degree in underwater basket weaving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful than
at least that would have been better career choice than software...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more successful
I can honestly say this is true - everyone here wishes you'd have taken up basket weaving as a career, so that your delusions wouldn't bother this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more success
So you're still disgruntled that I would support copyrights and avoidance of illegal activities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more suc
Only that the things you talk about only exist in your mind, which is slightly annoying to those of us capable of dealing with the real world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more
I'll just encode the the stuff directly from my mind to my web page, and then it'll be part of the real world. When you visit my web property, you'll get surprices after suprices and that keeps the site fresh and interesting to use.
You didn't think that it's possible to get them implemented?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million
"to my web page, and then it'll be part of the real world"
The real world and the internet are not always related.
"You didn't think that it's possible to get them implemented?"
Not without all the open protocols, open source software and libraries that you use to get that stuff visible and the open source browsers people use to view it. So, you claiming that such things are "illegal" because some of the people involved have volunteered their own time to make it all possible is just ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 mill
Well, the walled gardens are also available in the real world. You cannot get your software working without relying on the walled gardens.
Also, I wouldn't call chrome as open source software, when google is controlling 98% of the release builds and not allowing community to decide the featuresets. The open source chromium tree is just tiny part of the whole chrome ecosystem.
Apache seems to be true open source software.
The open protocols are mostly being closed as we speak, with commercial interests closing loopholes that allow opensource developers to interact with the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330
"You cannot get your software working without relying on the walled gardens."
Objectively false, but I'm sure you have some insane redefinitions of words to try and prove some point.
"Also, I wouldn't call chrome as open source software, when google is controlling 98% of the release builds and not allowing community to decide the featuresets"
Do you understand the difference between Chrome and Chromium? Why did you single out that one browser, when many more exist that are both open source and unrelated to Chrome?
"The open protocols are mostly being closed as we speak"
I'd love for you to explain that, but I doubt there's any factual information that you're not twisting beyond recognition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330
"The open source chromium tree is just tiny part of the whole chrome ecosystem."
Then, why start blathering on about Chrome when even you admit there's alternatives using its engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm
The users are not using those alternatives. There's like 1000:1 users for chrome compared to chromium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So,
I'd say something about you exaggerating figures for effect, but it's more likely that you either a) haven't looked at actual figures or b) are desperately ignoring browsers that use Chromium as their backend and only looking at figures for a vanilla Chromium build.
In reality, it's more like a 70% marketshare to Chrome with other Chromium-based browsers taking up another 15% or so. Chrome is still a dominant browser, but the open nature of Chromium means other can and have built on it in their own way, and decisions made by Google about how to build Chrome on top of Chromium don't affect the other browsers.
I'd have thought a "master coder" such as yourself would be interested in real figures and not being out by several orders of magnitude but, hey...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't count microsoft's edge or opera or brave as open source, when the companies alone decide the featureset. It's similar problem than with the main chrome branch. It's not open source or any other hippie/hobbyist technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chromium itself is open source. What developers decide to add (or subtract) from Chromium doesn’t make the engine any less open source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more suc
You support lawyers who broke the law just to sue grandmothers and enrich pornography producers. Humans as a whole consider those practices morally indefensible.
Frankly, it matters little whether you take up basket weaving or continue with your failure of a modeling program, so long as you do it underwater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million more
The lawyers will do whatever their clients are requesting. Just like the rest of the world. If they don't do that, they wont get paid, and their food supply will be cut. Lawyers need to do dubious moral actions, simply because their clients are some kind of scums who keep lawyers in short leash, and drop bonus money injections only when lawyers are contributing to the well-being of the scums.
You shouldn't blame the lawyers if they follow their client's request, since you're doing the same recardless of how morally corrupt those practices are. It's the money that causes all these issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 million
It's funny you should say that, because part of the reason that led to Prenda Law's downfall was because it turned out that Paul Hansmeier and John Steele didn't do what their clients requested. Enforcing copyright was one thing, but the lawyers did so in a way that ended up implicating the porn studios they claimed to represent. The same happened when Hansmeier tried running his ADA lawsuits; most of his "clients" didn't even know they were being represented.
You know the Nuremberg defense doesn't absolve people of responsibility, right? Who am I kidding, you frankly couldn't care if copyright lawyers had to shoot up a kindergarten and feast on the corpses.
Then stop asking the government to fund your goddamn mansion, you Finnish fuckwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330 mill
That's not acceptable. I worked hard for the mansion, so nothing is going to take it away. Not you, not fbi, not the president, not pirates and definitely not the government.
You don't seem to trust that hard work is what allows all these gadgets and products you use every day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hard work, in and of itself, doesn’t entitle you to a goddamned fucking thing. Get over yourself, toilet paper man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm 330
Let me play you a sad song on the world's smallest violin.
Plenty of other programmers work as hard as you, if not more. Regardless of whether they're attached to larger companies, developers or studios, or whether they're independent. The going rate for a veteran programmer is certainly not a mansion, especially one provided by the government on taxpayer funds.
I know Scandinavians are pretty big on welfare, but no one is going to think coders get mansions based solely on how hard they think they worked. Otherwise your dinky little sector of Europe is going to run out of space.
It can't be "taken away" if nobody's going to bother funding or building it, dummy.
I trust that hard work contributed to the technology we use. Your problem is that I don't trust any of that work was yours. Of course, back in 2015 you were asked to prove that your tech was responsible for the display mechanisms on mobile phones as you claimed, to which you gave no answer, and since then all you've been able to come up with is a browser-based Unity ripoff supported by one London bus ad and a negative review by a teenager.
Unfortunately for you, the government is also clamping down on Njord Law, so your copyright worship is not going to win you any more support. But that's what you get for being a troll-sucking scumbag, Pukeface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, I'm
if this is true, you shouldnt be bashing people who do hard work. Otherwise you might find that the tech you wanted wasnt actually available when the authors decided that you dont deserve the right to use the tech. or the price might go up to level you cannot afford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So,
Hard work is meaningless unless you do something valuable with it. Similarly, the value of the end product is not determined by the hours worked.
A prisoner on an old school chain gang breaking rocks is working very hard, but they're not actually producing anything useful. Meanwhile, Robert Louis Stevenson wrote the original Jekyll and Hyde in a weekend, and it's been one of literature's most enduring and popular classics since. Hard work != value. In fact, there's plenty of studies showing that employees who work 60 hour weeks can often be less productive than those working 40 hours.
All that matters is the end product - and if yours has been found lacking compared to others, that's not a commentary on how how we think you worked. It's just that you wasted a lot of that effort. That happens, most businesses fail in the first few years and the people running them were usually working their asses off at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you don't understand the real problem. Once the work has been done in the first few years, the technology becomes ready. Once it's ready, it no longer needs huge investments for development, and the effort can be channeled to other activities like marketing and maintainance and customer service. But if you think that marketing department is creating all the value when customers are purchasing the product, you fail to account for the whole history of the product. Those good sales figures simply wouldn't be possible without the hard work that was done in the first few years of the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
marketing doesn’t mean dick if the product sucks, toilet paper man
and hard work doesn’t entitle you to a mansion, or else my mother would be living in one right now
get fucked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"marketing doesn’t mean dick if the product sucks, toilet paper man"
Sadly, there's a lot of proof that isn't true, unless you think that McDonalds got to where they are on the awesome haute cuisine they offer.
But, as he's ably demonstrated, tp fails hard on the marketing as well as the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bitch please, people can read your own fucking comment history. You've got 100 shitty games you admit nobody plays, you've got a "Made in China" version of Unity that has zero users, and it took you seven years to hook up with an NDA-obsessed publisher - and you haven't even "teleported any animations" yet. Your tech is far from ready.
What marketing? Aside from a Reddit thread three years ago, a GitHub that you don't open to the public, and a website that took you years to make it look barely passable, you haven't done anything meaningful marketing-wise. As for the customer service, all the customer service you've been doing is coming to Techdirt to mock gamers and professionals in the coding and animations industry, and you expect to be financed for being an asshole.
Customers are not nearly this shallow as you like to make them out to be. You can have absolutely amazing marketing, but if your product is dogshit, your marketing won't matter. Neither will the amount of effort you put into the product matter. Seriously, you're acting like the kind of movie producer who wants people arrested just because they left a bad IMDB review on his film. (Which actually explains a lot...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, there's ludumdare starting in 2 days, so if you want to compete who can create higher quality product in 3 days, there's your chance. Try ldjam.com and you'll be in. You might have minor problems with the tech though, the jam expects that your tech is actually working, so they didn't give you more than 3 days time to create a complete computer game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the one obsessed with begging the government to fund a free mansion for him, Pukeface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said government needs to fund a mansion. The whole point has been that government would prepare some mansion plans with my builder tool. It doesn't need any funding or movement of green pieces of paper or spending your monopoly money. It just requires that government allocates some of their resources to my mansion. While I know government operations are always overstaffed/overbudgeted and always late, I'm not demanding anything impossible.
Given that you're a pawn of the government, I expect you to get your lazy ass and do something for the mansion plan. You're the wheel that has been jammed and breaking the otherwise well oiled governmental machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you don’t deserve to have taxpayer funds used for building your dream home because you think you deserve it, toilet paper man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lmao, on what basis? That you spent years developing software that you're too tight-fisted to spend money to properly promote? Maybe if the government you had in mind was more akin to Maoist China and "The Great Leap Foreword" where pointless industrialization was supported by the ruling party, but if you can't even get a teenager with a Wordpress blog to care you sure as hell are not going to get the Finnish government to use your bloatware.
Right, you always fall back on this don't you? You keep going on and on and on about refusing to have your mansion taken away like property, then backpedal by claiming you're not referring to an actual mansion, but plans... which you still expect people to work towards for the fuck all you've contributed. Which you mention in literally the next sentence:
We're in the middle of a fucking global pandemic and climate crisis, on top of the economic fallout those two things cause. Nobody has time, resources, or motivation to be set aside for some asshole and his personal masturbation project.
You know how I know you haven't actually approached your government about this? The fact that you haven't been laughed out of existence about how muleheaded and ignorant your plan is to do absolutely nothing worthwhile and get paid for it. And sorry to disappoint you, I don't work in your government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't true. There's this famous debt-counter which counts the amount of debt usa is collecting all the time. This counter says that you actually work for my government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you are bugfuck insane, holy shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silly toilet paper man, thinking a game made for the ldjam needs to be coded from scratch
even the rules for the jam say otherwise:
compo rules are stricter, as they should be, but jam rules are far more permissive
or did you think we wouldn’t look
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's significantly more burdensome to create a game in 3 days, if you
1) need to learn some framework
2) create the graphics from scratch
3) create the game
basically the step (1) gives you huge disadvantage, if you don't build your own tech. The trick with creating the stuff from scratch is that you don't need to learn someone else's framework, when you have one of your own. Next year, the framework selection will be completely different when new competition has arrived and its giving better result. And so you need to repeatedly do step (1) again, and it'll kill your quality like no other. Worst case you learn wrong framework and it drops their html5 support, like unreal engine managed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, you poor naive child. You actually think people give a shit about the work you put into your game engine. No wonder you haven't actually won anything or garnered any users for your malware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the counter to that trick: Learn the framework before the jam. You ever hear of hobbyists and “free time”, or do you think those are illegal where you (or anyone else) lives?
No, it won’t. Successful frameworks and codebases will still be around; new ones may pop up, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be worth a damn in the long run. Frameworks that were popular during the last jam didn’t disappear in the time between that jam and this one.
No, you don’t.
From what I understand, Unreal dropped HTML5 support as a default part of the engine but third parties have kept it alive as an add-on/extension. Try again, toilet paper man.
And as long as the framework produces a playable game by the standards of the jam, it isn’t a “wrong framework”. It’s only a framework you can’t bring yourself to learn because other people made it and you hate other people to the point where you wish you could Thanos-snap them out of existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, he just thinks that everyone who doesn't code like he does is a loser who plays games or a vandal who spray-paints their neighbor's house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, did you do any game for ludumdare, so we can compare the results?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not everyone who makes a game submits it to ludumdare, but not everyone who makes a game demands a mansion from the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There's no good reason for government to reject the request. Implementation should be easy: they just find one person willing to try the tool that I have built from the geographic area that they're controlling. Just one person. Willing to try a tool that was completely implemented by some troll.
It's completely broken government if it cannot implement such a simple request. All the preparation work was already done, they just need to assign someone to look at the tool. Even one person can change the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep thinking that skirting between a 3D modeled mansion and an actual mansion with garden gnomes in the front yard is supposed to position you as some sort of argumentative genius. Hint: It's not. It's really not. The government is not bound by law or otherwise to reward you for the work you think has value, and the government is not bound by law or otherwise to get someone to care. You'd think that after seven years of working with a game publisher, you'd know this, but instead all you do is come to this site to gripe and moan about why you're not getting the respect you think you're entitled to.
By your own terms and conditions, that's not a government worth trusting. And you expect people to trust in the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Well, there's ludumdare starting in 2 days, so if you want to compete who can create higher quality product in 3 days, there's your chance."
Another of your false arguments - the fact that your potential customers can't create a better product on their own is not proof that your product is something that deserves to be bought.
"the jam expects that your tech is actually working"
How dare a competition to create a playable game require that the resulting game is playable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The whole sales argument of builder tool is that it is so simple that even children can get computer games done with it. I.e. they can get better product if they choose my builder tool. If they don't, then good luck for them, maybe they'll change their mind once their games fail to materialize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The whole sales argument of builder tool is that it is so simple that even children can get computer games done with it."
Yes, and sales pitches mean nothing if the product doesn't sell as a result of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But you don't understand the real problem"
Because you've failed to explain it in a way that anyone else can understand.
"But if you think that marketing department is creating all the value when customers are purchasing the product"
I didn't mention marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So,
I can trust hard work was contributed, it doesn't mean I can't criticize hardworking people if they behave like the dickhead you are.
Oh no, I don't get to use Meshpage, the free-to-use groundbreaking browser technology used by a grand total of 0 people. Hold my beer while I try to eke out a drop of sympathy without herniating myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We could also make your iphones cost more. Like increase the price 10 fold from 130dollars to 1200 dollars per phone. wait... Seems that already happened.
Apple just took the credit for that nice marketing genius...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you look up to other scam artists, get angry that you weren't able to pull off their marketing cons as effectively as they do, then take it out on us?
Joke's on you, I don't use Apple tech. But nice try at putting yourself on Apple's pedestal, as if people can't tell the difference between a global tech conglomerate and some nobody from Scandinavia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We just provided the cheaper stuff that prevented apple from increasing their prices. Once we got tired of supporting your communication habits, we just let them increase the prices. Now they're struggling with the money pile -- according to techdirt, companies are supposed to reserve only 2 months worth of cashflow to their cash reserves, and the rest should go to the investors. If they increase the prices, they have big problems what to do with all the money? They can't give it to investors without breaking the stock valuation, and they can't spend it because it takes too long time, and they can't donate it away because noone will accept 2 billion worth of extortion money. And the price increase will cut out poorest chunk of their customers. Now they have trillions of money sitting in bank account, with negative interest rates...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apple makes their stuff in China, genius. Cheaper stuff doesn't prevent anyone from increasing prices, if anything it convinces them to raise prices on higher markup. Also nobody believes you have a "We", you keep going on about how people who work in teams are stupid.
I mean, you've lied before, but this has got to be one of your worst ones to date.
Also this, as proof once again you have no idea how the real world works, if you think that the richest people on the planet have trouble when it comes to spending or donating their insane amounts of cash.
And at that point, other developers realize that there's an underserved market they can develop cheaper products for. If a company chooses to overprice their stuff out of range of a market, they really only have themselves to blame if someone else cashes in on the opportunity that they created with their foolishness.
And? Everyone knows that rich people and banks have a very intimate relationship to make sure their money stays out of everyone else's hands. Unless you get some rich asshole to be your Sugar Daddy, you're not getting that mansion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We just provided the cheaper stuff that prevented apple from increasing their prices."
One second you're whining about how much more expensive iPhone have gotten since their launch (even though you had to lie about the starting price). The next you're trying to claim personal credit for stopping them from increasing prices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, if you keep bashing the people who actually do work, the support you've been enjoying will be removed, and iphone price increase is one example of that stuff happening.
We just could manufacture the devices a lot cheaper than what global congolomerates like apple can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…fucking what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People don't bash people for their hard work, they bash people for being an obnoxious turd that overestimates the value that they actually contribute.
Everyone here is already vastly familiar with your intense hatred and distaste for working in teams. The idea that you as an individual have contributed to the rise and fall of mobile phone costs at any point is completely, utterly laughable, not to mention an obvious lie.
You could remove all support for Meshpage right now and literally nobody would be worse off. Because as you said, you have zero users. So go ahead, end Meshpage support. But we all know you won't because you're too much of a self-centered coward to put your money where your mouth is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is because you don't yet understand what it is designed to do.
Did you think we built it just to show people cool looking 3d models?
Maybe you missed the fact that there will be gap of over 100 million devices in the market and the phone companies are enjoying huge demand, and once the would-be customers find alternatives to those devices, half of the world's companies that are anywhere near that area are going to burnout while fullfilling customer requirements. Meshpage prevents that from happening, since it provides the next requirement after the burnout happens.
It's not yet time for the technology, but we'll get there. it cannot be prevented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what in the actual godforsaken catshit are you talking about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This is because you don't yet understand what it is designed to do."
That's the problem - nobody does. You are incapable of explaining what benefits are provided without going on long rants about how unfair it is that your competitors have uses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying it's not a big benefit if it prevents half the world's phone companies from getting burnout?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be a neat trick since I was responding to your comment in response to a comment about Meshpage, which has fuck all to do with phones AFAIK.
But, since you're incapable of explaining what your supposed phone tech dopes either, the same comment applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you seen many of the phone models that have this cool 3d models? No you haven't, there's one android robot rotating in each android phone, but they're basically not using 3d tech anywhere..
At some point, the 3d tech will be customer requirement, which they cannot avoid. It must be implemented. Who do you think they will call?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No you haven't, there's one android robot rotating in each android phone, but they're basically not using 3d tech anywhere.."
Weird, I've seen lots of Android games that use 3D graphics. Where have you been looking?
"Who do you think they will call?"
Someone competent and sane? So, not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You said multiple times it was meant to "teleport animations" around the world while avoiding getting into trouble with copyright law, using a legal basis based on the warped logic of the RIAA. It's not like you've provided any other explanation to the contrary. What we do know is that you've spent about a decade on this trash and only managed to get one publisher vaguely interested, yet still failed to produce a working game within seven years. If nobody understands what your work is designed to do, that's your responsibility.
Crunch time and worker burnout do not work the way you seem to think they work. People get burned out because their superiors refuse to spend money on subcontracting work to a wider pool of workers. Meshpage existing is not going to suddenly alleviate the workload of the most overtaxed people in coding and development.
For someone so certain of his success, you get very insecure when you're told that the government is not going to use your software or give you resources for you perceived work.
I think there is neither a "we" nor a "cool looking". You already made it clear, you don't work with a team, Tero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice thing about trusting government is that it kinda requires you to trust other people. Even though the people are annoying and it's impossible to make them do whatever hoops you want them to jump, you still need to trust them to do the right thing when given a chance.
Anyone on the planet can decide to do what is best for the government and thus become government's elf. This allows me to trust the government, when I know there still exists good people and it only takes one person to say there's enough horror in the world and this mansion problem needs to be fixed. While it has not yet happened, I still trust that government will do the job we expect from them. Given that millions of people exist, they can't all be evil, now can they? It's as if you'd reveal that santa doesn't exist.
Of course people in USA doesn't really trust the government. We just need to fix that problem. It's signicant problem that can be fixed, if we just explain the reasons why government can be trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that time and time again, you've already made it clear that you don't. You've spewed enough personal anecdotes about how people involved with your project don't run it the way you wanted it too, so you justified taking everything offline where nobody can see it.
Short of you entering government to requisition resources to fund your own mansion, this is not happening. You're not someone along the lines of Mahatma Ghandi or Greta Thunberg trying to fight for some greater good. You're a self-centered dickhead who thinks that working on a "made in China" Blender equivalent entitles him to demand blowjobs from everybody.
Admittedly, if you did go into government to fight for your own mansion and embezzled funds for it after absolutely no taxpayer thinks funding your vanity project is worthwhile, that'd get you arrested, so there's a nice thought.
Generations of politicians have tried and failed. You're now seeing the result of a government that wildly mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic and gave benefits to large corporations that, for the most part, failed to trickle down to consumers and employees. The US government has proven, time and time again, that it's by and large a self-serving mechanism intended as a playground for the rich and powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Like I said, if you keep bashing the people who actually do work"
I've bashed nobody important.
"the support you've been enjoying will be removed"
Support for what? Again, you vaguely whine but you never bother explain what the hell you're talking about.
"iphone price increase is one example of that stuff happening"
So, "support" has been removed in the past? Specify what and when. iPhone prices have largely increased due to the vast number of new features and tech introduced into flagship models, but I'm unaware of it increasing because something was removed. Now's your time to shine - give actual details of what you're blathering on about.
"We just could manufacture the devices a lot cheaper than what global congolomerates like apple can do."
We do, which is why I can buy a €100 phone that does most things an iPhone does right now. Chinese brands for sure, but for the most part an Oppo or Xiaomi device does everything the average consumer wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shouldn't they be improving their offering instead of increasing the price? Price increase is somehow going to wrong direction....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Shouldn't they be improving their offering instead of increasing the price? "
If you think iPhones haven't improved in that time I'm not sure what to say, since it's another aspect of reality you seem to be avoiding.
"Price increase is somehow going to wrong direction..."
..and if you don't like that you have a huge number of alternatives to choose from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but how long will it last? How sustainable their operations are when customers keep demanding more, more, more, more, more, more 100 million times...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
long enough that you will never be needed, toilet paper man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, yes, feature bloating. Which might be a problem if not for the fact that customers of mobile phones and 3D modeling software have not been making these "100 million" requests and improvements. Mobile phones have not changed all that much since the days Apple first invented the smartphone business as we know it, beyond cramming in faster processors and smaller but stronger components.
And if your point is to damn the larger companies for being unsustainable due to features, Meshpage automatically fails on that front. Especially since you've boasted that in order to comply with RIAA requests, you'll delete features off your own software to make Meshpage less useful. Once again, none of this makes your work worthy of government resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
deleting one feature when i already have over 600 features implemented doesnt really harm the popularity of the software one bit, there's still 599 features to explore. Less useful doesn't seem to be happening like you think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"deleting one feature when i already have over 600 features implemented doesnt really harm the popularity of the software one bit"
If you do it? Sure, a product with zero popularity won't lose much if you start dicking around with features nobody uses.
"there's still 599 features to explore"
Again with the obsession over quantity over quality. What does the feature do? How many people depend on it? 599 features doesn't matter if you just removed the unique feature that people use your software for (hypothetically, in the case of a competent developer).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess you complained about removal of feature that allowed widespread piracy of hollywood movies... Only pirates are going to use it -> do you really want your software to be used by criminals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Windows can be used to copy any sort of digital content. So can iOS, Linux, and basically any operating system.
How do you propose we rip out that core functionality of every operating system since operating systems were a thing without actually destroying the operating system itself?
Software can be used for good or for ill. Software doesn’t (and can’t) care which. That you’re pushing to have base-level functionality removed from all applications because that functionality can potentially infringe copyright is fucked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't true. End-user facing user interfaces have legally stricter standards that need to be followed than some hacker-only commandline tools that are only used by computer experts. Basically the same level of copyright requirements that computer experts are expected to follow, cannot simply be imposed to ordinary end users. Ordinary end users could be small children or teenagers who are still learning about proper approach to do copyrights properly. Thus the user interfaces have significantly stricter rules that need to be followed than whatever you can put through professional computer experts.
This is why browsers and other user interfaces that communicates with real end users are building advanced copyright enforcement practices. Anyone that can build those user interfaces are expected to be able to build copyright systems too and it's just laziness of the developers/companies if they fail to implement those good practices. Even good practices are not enough for RIAA/MPAA, but you're supposed to use "best practices" instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only you could take a basic common sense idea such as "ordinary PC users favour a GUI interface", and turn that into some kind of legal requirement for copyright purposes.
Yet again - I'm glad I don't live in the world you live in, it sounds so depressingly draconian and complicated. I prefer the real world, where I'm free to use a shell any time I want, and there's actual UX experts designing the front end for others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can consider it product safety issue. I.e. if your product is designed for pirates to distribute files on the internet, the legal liability that it imposes to users is breaking the product safety regulations. End users who just normally use the products shouldn't be dragged through courts for 300k damage award issues simply because the vendor decided that they support pirates more than regular users. This product safety issue is clearly something the companies who try to offer services to general public need to look into before selling the product to customers.
This product safety issue is good defense to claims of copyright infringement in situations where some vendor's product was initially configured for copyright infringements. Products that provide user interfaces to end users are especially vulnerable to this issue.
It is simply not acceptable that a bittorrent client distributes pirated material automatically without end user's knowledge or approval.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is an application supposed to know whether any given material infringes upon someone’s copyright? Hell, your program — the one you claim will be able to prevent any and all copyright infringement in any and every context from the moment anyone starts using it — wasn’t even able to tell you that you infringed upon copyright when you displayed works based on the Five Nights at Freddy’s franchise that you had no legal right to display.
Corollary: How is an application supposed to know whether any given piece of copyrighted material is being copied/pasted/etc. under Fair Use guidelies or under exceptions to copyright law? Someone who moves a legally purchased DRM-free ebook from one legally owned device to another by reformatting the ebook from .mobi to .epub — are they violating copyright in a way that deserves (as I’m sure you believe) a death sentence carried out by guillotine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if you cannot figure out any other way to do this, you can always ask the end user. During 1800s when computers didn't exist, the copyright checks were done manually and noone had any problems determining if the material was infringing. This same thing can be used even today. If you don't trust the end user to do it correctly, pass the request to nearest trusted person, in the end maybe lawyers will sort the mess they caused with their laws, and eventually it's judge's decision which stuff is actually legal to use. And you can easily get their attention by filling some legal paperwork, so there's no reason to avoid this approach. You might not like that it's slightly burdensome and the cost of summoning the legal experts might give them some lawyer's fees awards, but otherwise this is just the recommended practice.
Thus there's no reason to complain that your software cannot determine if some material infringes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is the average person supposed to know, with the absolute unyielding certainty of God Herself, whether a meme they saved off Twitter infringes upon a given copyright? Hell, you didn’t even know that you had infringed the copyrights held by Scott Cawthon until you got told, you copyright law–worshipping buffoon.
This isn’t the 1800s. The average person these days owns the most efficient copying machine ever in the palm of their hands on a regular basis. How do you reasonably expect anyone to manually check whether every mobile phone, laptop, and desktop computer in the world is storing any content, no matter how little, that infringes upon any given copyright anywhere in the world?
You are literally the only person who believes checking every computing device in the world for even one small byte of data that could infringe upon any given copyright anywhere in the world is “recommended practice”. You’re likely outnumbered in the opposition by at least a couple billion people — all of whom, of course, you’d kill if you could because you hate humanity with a vengeance.
I’m not complaining about that. I’m grateful that the software I use on a daily basis can’t detect whether something I type or draw or copy-paste infringes upon a given copyright — not because I infringe all the live-long day, but because I’d rather not be told that, say, copy-pasting even one letter from your comments into my comment is infringing upon your copyright (which it technically is, but you won’t find a judge in the world who would rule that my usage isn’t Fair Use).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"if you cannot figure out any other way to do this, you can always ask the end user."
OK, the end user either doesn't know or lies to you. What then?
"During 1800s when computers didn't exist, the copyright checks were done manually and noone had any problems determining if the material was infringing"
Yes, under the completely different copyright laws at the time, with far fewer types of media in existence and billions of copyrighted works not yet created, it was easier to deal with copyright with the small amount of people publishing in a specific area.
Why, it's almost as if the world has changed somewhat in the intervening years and it's astoundingly idiotic to compare the situations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Computers are supposed to make all the burdensome tasks alot easier since you can automate these stuff. Still your claim is that computers are not really helping with simple copyright checking task.
Maybe we need better software developers, if the existing ones cannot get simple copyright systems to work properly. Basic legal requirements and they simply cannot get it to work. They claim these computers are actually helping, but all they do is slurp people's time for useless tasks like playing games, when the software developers could make the computers do actually useful tasks like filtering out copyright infringements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Computers are supposed to make all the burdensome tasks alot easier since you can automate these stuff"
... and they would if anyone had bothered setting up a central registry to check with, where people need to register their copyright before it's active.
However, since your heroes demanded that copyright now be automatically applies without having to tell anyone that your work exists, it's now impossible to do accurately.
"Basic legal requirements and they simply cannot get it to work"
You're right, putting something into law does not allow literal magic to occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can help, sure. But they can’t make an infinitely large, searchable-at-the-speed-of-light database of all copyrighted works ever to help prevent any infringment of any kind from ever taking place. I mean, do you think there are a fixed number of copyrighted works in the world? Even if there was, do you think that number would be small? Do you think the amount of information that would need to be checked — in every application from Notepad++ to GIMP to Blender to Aseprite to Adobe AfterEffects, by your standards — could be held on the average computer, data server, or server farm? And would the checks be limited to full works only, or would the checks also apply to parts of full works?
That’s because magic isn’t real. To do the kind of instant copyright checks and instant infringement prevention you’re talking about would require more storage space, processing power, and time than is humanly possible. I mean, if Firefox can’t even stop me from copy-pasting part of your comments into my own — a clear infringement of the copyright you hold on your comment, even if I have a Fair Use defense — what makes you think every application on every computer everywhere in the world can do your magical copyright check against every copyrighted work ever made anywhere in the world within seconds? What in the actual godforsaken horsefuck makes you think your system is anything but a religious devotee’s fanatical pipe dream driven by pixie dust and puppy farts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're focusing on just one specific implementation of the requirement. There can be other ways to implement it. Like for example, not allowing any copying to happen at all, or not allowing text input at all. Those are clearly possible implementations of the requirement and your focus on the single broken implementation filters out that alternative when you focus on some stupid idea that you are required to allow all legal content. There is no such requirement that you should allow all legal content. So the check can be significantly simpler. No global database is needed. No collection of all possible copyrighted works is needed. It doesnt even need to work on every computer on the planet. It just need to filter out copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re the one who created the idea of an infinite copyright check in every application that can possibly be used to infringe. I’m laying out what that idea would require to exist in a way that fits your impossible standard of “prevent all infringement everywhere before it ever happens”.
You believe, with the fervor of a religious fanatic, that an application like Notepad++ has to filter out copyrighted content. I’m only asking the one question you have never answered: Without access to an obviously supernatural copyright database that stores all copyrighted works in their entirety, keeps growing in pace with the number of copyrighted works in the world, and can be searched in its entirety within seconds — i.e., the very kind of copyright filter you suggest could be made by human hands — how is an application supposed to know, with the absolute omniscient certainty of God Herself, whether any given input infringes upon any given copyright anywhere in the world? Hell, your own program didn’t even stop you from infringing on Scott Cawthon’s copyrights, so how do you expect Notepad++ or GIMP or Blender or even Microsoft Windows to do it?
And as I’ve alluded to before, tearing the equivalent of a beating heart out of an application like Notepad++ — i.e., destroying the core functionality of a text editor — would make that application completely useless. How could anyone use Notepad++ for any 100% legal purpose if the application won’t even let anyone type any text into a blank document?
By your logic, there’s no reason to allow any lawful content because by doing so, there is still a chance that someone could infringe upon a copyright even by accident.
By your own logic, modern computing couldn’t even exist because allowing people to access or create lawful content also means allowing them to access or create unlawful content. By your own logic, you wouldn’t be able to comment here (because this site wouldn’t exist). Hell, by your own motherfucking logic — the logic you believe should apply to everyone in the world with no exceptions whatsoever — you wouldn’t be able to create, refine, and distribute Meshpage.
That’s the world you say you want. You have yet to acknowledge otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, copyright infringement is possible if you have enough money to pay the damage awards. 300k damage award per infringement isn't too big problem for companies that earn billions of green pieces of papers per year... But of course if you display indifferent attitude towards copyrights in the marketplace, the people who created the content might want their share of the profits and will sue you for the damage awards. Those small streams of lost profits will quickly grow to become large enough for even largest companies to take notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your whole fucking point has been that infringement must be stopped, in every possible context, at all costs — even if that means tearing out the core functionality of a text editor and rendering it useless. Now you’re blathering on about fines and shit.
You don’t know what the fuck you’re saying any more. You don’t even know what point you’re trying to argue for or against. What the fuck, toilet paper man, I thought you were supposed to be the superior person; turns out you can’t even keep a coherent thread of discussion going for more than a single comment.
Please seek some professional help for your untreated mental illness(es). I’m sure your government will help pay for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"There can be other ways to implement it. Like for example, not allowing any copying to happen at all, or not allowing text input at all"
In other words - if you need to implement your insane version of copyright, all you have to do is make your application completely useless for its intended function.
Also - completely unavailable to anyone, since any online application requires copying in order for it to load.
I suspect this is your end game. You have failed so completely in the marketplace, your only way to "win" is to ensure nobody can create a working application.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They did implement these limitations to skype and still my mom is using the system like it's best thing since sliced bread..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, Skype has gone way downhill since Microsoft bought it (not designed, as you lied earlier), and a lot of people have moved to other things. That's fine, it's a competitive market and people have an increasing level of choice if the incumbent default choice starts to look poor in comparison.
You're lying about what design choices have been made, and utterly deluded about what's even possible, let alone desirable, when it comes to your insane version of copyright enforcement. But, people still have a choice and they are free not to choose the idiot who will destroy his own product to save someone else's movie (that people aren't trying to share in the first place).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Vendors who are serious about providing a product to a customer market will need to implement this kind of features. Basically it is required by the law. It is responsibility of every company to follow the law as well as it is possible. All the companies who do not care about other people's products (==the movies) can be sued for it. The trick is to make the whole system work, not just your own small area. The laws were designed to require everyone to support the system and providing the best service to clients without breaking the business case for all your competitors. Doing copyright infringements of someone else's copyrighted material is similar kind of failure than if you'd burn a factory that your competitors are using to develop products. While your company might benefit from the burning of the competitors, the system as a whole will lose.
The whole system needs to be correctly implemented, not just your own area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this was what the law actually said, your poor excuse of a project would have been shut down long ago, based on your comments that Unity and Blender have to be destroyed so you can enter the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should learn how quote marks work. Basically the quotes need to be accurate, otherwise you might by lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've already quoted your prior commentary on your personal hatred for the public domain, Pulkinnen. You don't want to play the citation game. You'd lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Every time you post you make it so much easier to shit on Meshpage. I'd feel guilty if you didn't paint such a whopping "kick me" invitation on your own ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even mighty youtube doesn't allow 3d models to be posted. So no vendor currently allows all legal content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is rich coming from the guy who insists that he can't be compared to entire countries or communities of designers or programmers.
Even your mighty RIAA doesn't allow 3d models to be posted, so why the fuck should I care about YouTube?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
" I.e. if your product is designed for pirates to distribute files on the internet, the legal liability that it imposes to users is breaking the product safety regulations"
No software is designed specifically for pirates, and the entire basic function of the internet is to copy files, so I don't think you understand the reality of your own argument again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this "copy files" just happens to be illegal operation reserved exclusively to the copyright owners.
This is why browsers need to do tons of security checks like sandboxes, limitations for saving the material to your own hard disk, cross-site content download limitations, cache files need to be encrypted, back key needs to delete the downloaded material instead of letting pirates to distribute it further etc...
Basically since browsers are providing user interface, they have stricter copyright limitations than the ordinary commandline curl -tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And this "copy files" just happens to be illegal operation reserved exclusively to the copyright owners."
LOL, so yet again if you apply your own insane standard, you have declared yourself to be a criminal and your software to be illegal.
"security checks like sandboxes"
Yes, security checks... which have nothing to do with copyright.
"cross-site content download limitations"
Again, for security, not for copyright
"cache files need to be encrypted"
Again, for security, though you can easily browse and extract files from the cache with the right tools.
"back key needs to delete the downloaded material instead of letting pirates to distribute it further"
I'm not sure what you're blathering on about here. The only thing I can think of is that you think that the decision to change the backspace function in Chrome is somehow related to copyright, but that would be insane even for you. Can you explain what you're talking about?
Do you have any real copyright things to mention, instead of listing basic security features and figments of your imagination and pretending they're related?
"Basically since browsers are providing user interface, they have stricter copyright limitations"
They really don't. You can access any file with a browser that you can with curl. You might not be able to display it, but you sure as hell can copy it.
I know that dealing with the real world isn't your strong suit, but you're also not going to get very far by lying about common tools to people who use them every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright features were already implemented in original netscape navigator, i.e. when "download" keyword was evil in 1990s and pirates were downloading large amount of pirated content with the same feature than what browser vendors decided to use as a base for their browser tech... I.e. their plan is to do piracy with browser tech, but legally. So they needed a feature that makes ordinary piracy download feature legal. And their cunning plan was to download the data, then only DISPLAY it to users, never distributing or performing the material, and then deleting it afterwards so that it cannot be further distributed. And all this needed to work in browser sandbox which cannot be hacked by the people who create web sites. This is how BACK key was born... it simply deletes the downloaded data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, the answer to my question was, no, you can't explain what you're talking about, at least not in any relationship to reality or sanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you actually think the Back button in web browsers is a function of copyright defense instead of navigation
holy shit you are completely disconnected from reality
you’re no better than a QAnon adherent
please seek help for your untreated mental illnesses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is why I was poking for an actual answer. I thought, there's no way he's actually dumb and insane enough to believe that basic navigation that has existed from almost the birth of the web must be a form of copyright, he's just misremembered something he saw about Chrome's semi-controversial decision to change the backspace kep functionality.
But, no, it seems he is that dumb and insane. Well, it does help explain why his UI design is so incompetent if he thinks that basic navigation is a form of copyright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copyright has existed longer than web. So whoever designed basic navigation to web browsers had to follow the same copyright rules than what you're struggling with. Either you're accusing them of not following copyright/being criminal/stealing from the authors or you need to accept that the implemented features are implementing copyright's limitations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They genuinely didn't. Pretty much everyone campaigning for harsher penalties for copyright infringement regularly makes the claim that copyright laws, when created, were incapable of conceiving the Internet's infrastructure of data transfer, therefore copyright has to be super-empowered to rein in the power of the Internet. This happens even now. Nobody was "following the same copyright rules" when Netscape was a thing in the late 1990s.
Or here's a third option: saying that the Back function of a web browser is to prevent copyright infringement is dumb. It's the equivalent of walking from Location A to Location B, then having the ability to walk back to Location A because not being allowed to do so would infringe the copyright on Location B. But hey, you're the genius who thinks people build subway systems so they can make money on selling the maps of their system instead of, you know, transporting people via subway trains, so chalk up another reason why you're not advising government policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You cannot argue against the facts:
1) none of the pirates in 1990s started deleting their piracy collections, unless they were trying to hide their tracks
2) now that browsers implemented the feature, everyone is now constantly pressing BACK key and deleting their downloaded material
This innovation in copyright area is very much implemented by browser vendors. Noone else saw it important enough to get it implemented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How the fuck can someone be educated enough to design a website, yes so painfully stupid that he thinks the back button deletes things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
how can users who have used web sites longer than two weeks be stupid enough to miss the fact that browsers keep loading the same data from network over and over again since the previous version was deleted when clicking back key?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, each dumb response just highlights how clueless you are...
You've already mentioned caches, so I presume you know they exist even though your response seems to suggest that you don't. But, you have to be astoundingly ignorant not to understand that caches of content have timeouts. If you click back immediately, the cache is loaded. If you come back some time later then you're going to want the latest version of the page, not the outdated version stored on your computer, so it gets the latest one. Dynamic content is different, of course, but the need to reload there is due to practicality.
All of this is logical, none of it bears any relation to your claims and absolutely none of it is related to copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the browser keeps loading the content again, the server is allowed to reject the request in case the user didn't pay the extortion money to the author of the page. The constant reloading of the content is designed to enable this payment system. And copyright is at the core of these kinds of payment systems.
=> so reloading the same content over and over again -feature is absolutely necessary for copyright maximalist to be able to get their money from the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"When the browser keeps loading the content again, the server is allowed to reject the request in case the user didn't pay the extortion money to the author of the page"
The fact that you not only believe this, but think about it only in terms of money is interesting. Insane, but interesting.
"The constant reloading of the content is designed to enable this payment system."
You have a tendency to ignore most of a conversation in order to focus on some irrelevant point, but it's still weird that you went immediately from a false claim about the back button to a false claim about reloading, without addressing the actual issue about the fact that caches are a standard part of browsers that are unrelated to copyright.
Even so, nobody has to pay for reloading a site. I've seen some horribly designed sites that try to get you to do so in order to inflate their ad impressions, but they generally don't last long when the ads are their main focus. Like software that's designed to prevent their users from doing things.
Oh, and try a little experiment... Go to the front page of Techdirt. Click on an article. Then disconnect from the internet and click back. You notice how you see the front page afterwards? That's the cached version you claim doesn't exist. Try it on other sites, it's strange how many of them prove your previous assertions wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Caches don't need to be accounted since copyright law has carved explicit exception in the law to allow those buggers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you admit that the back button has fuck all to do with piracy because all it does is load a page from the cache if available?
Or, is this where you continue your crusade to torture facts and the English language in order to keep showing people that you don't have to be intelligent to make a website?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you're thinking of different use case. The case isn't "press back key and get the page from the cache" kind of thing...
It's more like "press back key, then click the link to get back to the same page" => it reloads the page because back key deleted the previous page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's more like "press back key, then click the link to get back to the same page" "
So... you're such an ignorant fuck that you don't know how the back key works. Gotcha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You start to realize that Tero's issue isn't simply the language barrier. He'll very readily flip-flop between the definitions and scopes of his "mansion" that he wants the government to build, despite comments going all the way back to 2015 where he makes it clear that yes, he expects a mansion for his efforts like the kind in Minecraft, and he expects the government to dedicate resources to it.
Personally if someone invented a Back key that could delete the Meshpage site I'd be all for it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The current implementation of back key deletes all the copies other than the original copy at my hosting provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah fam, I meant the whole thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say that like he's educated enough to design a website. If he was educated enough to design a website, he wouldn't have started out with a blank page using Times New Roman as the default font and used HTML standards they teach in middle school.
Even now he thinks linking to a GitHub 404 page and a Wordpress review trashing his joke of a demo reel on a London bus is an "endorsement".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody deleted these because nobody in the 1990s was doing "piracy" via the Internet. It was through very limited storage media like floppy disks or just recording stuff off the radio, which is why copyright fanatics like you were dropping campaigns like "Home Taping is Killing Music" and "Don't Copy That Floppy" left right and center. And nobody deleted those things because frankly, mixtapes and trading disks was the norm. Hiding tracks wasn't necessary because the RIAA's "sue 'em all" method didn't start gaining traction until the early 2000s.
People press the "Back" key because it's easier to go to a previous menu and visit other pages or check on a Wikipedia article that was previously clicked. None of this has anything to do with "deleting downloaded material". Nobody thinks that the act of pressing the "Back" key has any meaningful effect on downloaded material, not even your heroes at the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes it is. Software doesn’t the sentience required to have feelings. That means software literally cannot care whether someone uses it for unlawful purposes. Any attempt by software to simulate caring about such things is an act of a programmer, not the software itself.
By that (asinine) logic, no operating system could ever exist because any operating system allows end users to copy-paste files — even command line–based OSes such as MS-DOS.
But that is exactly what you are saying should happen. You’re the one talking about ripping out base-level functionality out of everything from web browsers to graphics programs to an entire goddamned operating system out of a religious fealty to your golden gods at the MPAA and RIAA that likely borders on some form of sexual psychosis.
No, they’re not — at least not in the sense that they’re trying to rip out functionality like viewing images or copy-pasting text. Even Microsoft isn’t stupid enough to prevent people from copying files from one folder to another on a local hard drive, let alone from the hard drive to OneDrive (or Google Drive or whatever cloud storage service someone uses).
You might see them make more small concessions to DRM. You’ll never see them destroy core functionality for the sake of appeasing the people you consider your leash-holding godkings.
No, they’re not.
No, it isn’t.
By that standard, your program couldn’t exist because it allows for people to infringe upon copyrights in the exact same way you infringed upon copyrights held by Scott Cawthon.
By that standard, the web browser you use to view this website couldn’t exist because it allows for people to infringe upon copyrights by copy-pasting text, saving files, uploading files, and other common functions that can also be used for explicitly legal purposes.
By that standard, the operating system that runs your computer/mobile device couldn’t exist because it allows for people to infringe upon copyrights by copy-pasting files and running applications that also allow people to infringe upon copyrights (even if the apps have plenty of explicitly legal uses).
Your standard would render all of modern computing irrelevant. Your standard would wipe out Windows, iOS, every variant of Linux, Android, and literally every other operating system in existence. Your standard would prevent you from even coding your program, never mind using it to create anything that doesn’t infringe upon a given copyright.
That is — without question and according exactly to the words you’ve posted and the ideas you’ve expressed — the world you want and in which you believe the entirety of humanity should live. You are alone in that desire…which I imagine is nothing new to you, since you already wish the rest of humanity was eradicated from the face of existence.
go fuck yourself, toilet paper man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
this isn't true. The software is allowed to exist during its development even if it has copyright problems. Its just that the vendors should not promise too much to their customers. If they promise that the software is completely free of copyright problems, then their copyright practices need to be best in class. Resolving these problems is easy: just do not promise too much. If your software is next evil since piratebay, you need to let your clients know the real status instead of hiding it under your matress...
This is the reason why my software is available for download, but my web site never gives user a license to use the material. So only pirates who do not care about copyrights are allowed to use the software since valid licenses are not available.
So why do I not give licenses? Its simply that I cannot be sure that when my clients use the software that I don't accidentally pass legal liability to my clients. Another reason is that I actually want to receive emails asking for licenses, i.e. users who want to use it will need to perform slightly more burdensome operation with their email client. I worked hard for the product so sending 1 email asking for licenses isn't onerous requirement.
Guess how many people bothered to ask for a license?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A dev that promises base functionality in, say, a word processor such as LibreOffice Writer is already “promis[ing] too much” by your standards because base functionality allows for copyright infringement of ebooks by way of copy-pasting text into a blank LibreOffice Writer document.
An operating system such as Windows that promises base functionality has done the same, since the copy-paste function can be used for wholesale copyright infringement. And that doesn’t even get into the fact that Windows runs the whole computer, meaning it allows for the installation and operation of applications that can be used for infringement.
How can a word processor be a word processor when you can’t even type in it because typing in it is the core functionality that allows for infringement to occur? How can an operating system be an operating system when you can’t do anything in it because the operating system itself is the core functionality that allows a computer to open applications — including built-in OS-native applications such as a file explorer and a plaintext word processor — where infringement can occur?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's many different ways to solve the dilemma. Microsoft had the same problem when they designed skype, i.e. their system would allow copyright infringement of the material since it transfers data between computers. Their solution is to connect the network interfaces directly to input devices like cameras and microfone. And not allowing files directly from the filesystem. I.e. skip the filesystem and your system becomes slightly more secure and easier to avoid copyright infringements. Then once you have the basic security up and running, you can provide limited file upload/download feature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Microsoft had the same problem when they designed skype"
Microsoft didn't design Skype, dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
you magically avoided the real issue. If microsoft can get copyright checks working in skype, why can't you do the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Preventing all files from being shared isn’t a “copyright check” — it’s lighting an apartment building on fire to kill a single ant. (Feel free to replace “ant” with “person”, since you probably like bugs better than people.)
And for the record: you can share files in Skype, and I haven’t seen dick on Skype having any kind of upload filter. Funny how you, a self-proclaimed “master coder”, can’t even be bothered to spend even five seconds checking whether your assertions are true. Do you not know how to use search engines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The copyright check doesnt need to be in form of upload filter.
Basically it is enough that skype's video stream sending does not allow users to distribute hollywood movies. There's several techniques that they use:
1) video stream is coming directly from webcam, you cannot link it to existing video files
2) recipient cannot save the video stream to their hard disk
3) the video stream is immediately deleted after recipient has seen it, and there wont be lingering copies available afterward.
4) so even if the sender managed to use analog hole to record
hollywood movie with skype, the recipient cannot get digital file
from the skype's system => it would require use of another video camera recording the computer screen to get a digital file out => the quality will be much worse than what pirates can withstand.
This is the level of copyright checks that are currently the best practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ITT, multiple times: people explaining patiently to the self-proclaimed master internet coder the basic concepts of software and the internet. Amazing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, if you have to miss the point entirely and resort to falsely claiming people criticising your incompetence are pirates, it just makes you look even dumber than you already do while ensure you lose the argument. Do you have real world comments to make, or are we back to your impotent fantasies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, considering you've made it clear that in order to prevent users from potentially making Mickey Mouse shapes, you're very open to deleting the feature that lets you make circles in Meshpage.
By your own metrics of "avoiding infringement", as it were, it won't be hard to scupper your own work by removing enough features such that any meaningful modeling becomes impossible. But that's hardly my problem, or anyone else's, as they'll simply move onto Unity or Blender where these features still exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
then by your own standards, disney can just sue unity and blender for encouraging people to do copyright infringement with circles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that's by your standards. Nobody else is dumb enough to be saying such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They could, but Disney doesn't. Because in the real world, suing users and tools for minor offenses that might occur is useless. It wastes resources chasing after people who can't pay the damages that often show up in copyright law as a scare tactic, and in recent years judges have become very wary about copyright plaintiffs like you wasting their time with overly broad and frivolous complaints. It'd be like suing the construction company that built a road over which gangsters drove their car on.
But unfortunately for you, those aren't my standards. Those are yours. Because in your muleheaded approach to placating the MPAA, you regularly cite the supposed impossibility of your software to commit copyright infringement as an advantage over your competitors. While using someone else's copyrighted character for your tech demo, and by your own admission, without permission.
By your own standards, Meshpage is illegal. By your own support of copyright law, you should be arrested and your life's work destroyed. But we all know you won't do it, because you're too chickenshit to actually apply copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This would assume that I had failed to implement stuff that allows me to fix any copyright problems in the site? But I have good support for removing content from the site, so any time users of my site can find problems in that area, one button press in the admin console magically fixes the problem. There is even multiple levels of admin features, some providing deeper rejection. In case of valid DMCA notices, the deep features can be used to permanently block the material, and if someone else than owner of the material notices problems, we can use the shallow rejection, which moves it off the front page.
See, all proper web site authors who keep improving their offering and consider copyrights properly, will build mechanisms to handle DMCA notices and other "red flag knowledge" stuff properly. The fact that some bigger sites like twitch had not yet done so, is indication that there still exists communities where copyrights are not given enough priority over other user-facing features.
Basically everyone using these services should be constantly scanning the material they see and find hidden copyright problems. And then reporting the found problems to discussion areas where authors of the sites can find them. This will improve the reliability of the whole internet, and remove rightsowner's possibility to legally harm internet ecosystems. Techdirt has shown that while they're grumpy annoying bitches, they still can do the right thing when I provide the correct information to them. While they do it for wrong reasons -- not for improving and helping the site authors -- but for accusing and bashing the quality of the sites -- the end result is still working. Getting this level of trolling operation to do the right thing is significant archievement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’ve literally said that “best practices” for copyright vis-á-vis computer applications must prevent the end user from infringing in the first place. By the standards you set, your own program failed miserably when it allowed you to infringe upon the copyrights held by Scott Cawthon and didn’t inform you that you had infringed upon those copyrights.
YOUR OWN MOTHERFUCKING STANDARDS WOULD HAVE MADE YOU A CRIMINAL.
And since you apparently think infringers should be put to death or some shit…well, imagine what would’ve happened to you by your own standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is why eating your own dogfood is more dangerous than you'd initially estimate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet, you did exactly that by displaying models that technically violated copyrights held by someone else. How did it taste going down — you know, the fact that your own standards made you no better than the “pirates” you’ve decried for years? Are you afraid, pitiful acolyte, that you’ve failed your gods at the MPAA and RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When gods get angry, there is several consiquences:
1) nothing particularly happens -- this could be very burdensome for people who keep waiting for earthquakes and floods from the gods
2) there won't be an answer from the gods -- even repeated screams for help wont be answered by the gods.
3) the walls are crashing on you -- when your nerd-self succeeds staying inside too long time, the walls around and the space between the walls is getting smaller and smaller. It's as if you'd need to live half year in a space-x sponsored international space station
4) gravity still exists, even though your gods would say otherwise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, what a crying shame your government won't let you steal money from people just because you think coming up with an Unreal Engine ripoff entitles you to their money.
I remember when you, out_of_the_blue, Hamilton, antidirt and MyNameHere were frantically begging for Shiva Ayyadurai to destroy this website. Consider your prayer unanswered.
Every so often you demonstrate a modicum of self-awareness.
Fair use still exists, even though your gods would say otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unreal Engine ripoff. That must be like biggest endorsement for my technology that we've heard from techdirt. Might be that you haven't really used my tech too much, if you keep handing out such endorsements so easily.
Currently newest feature in my technology is for firefox users to be able to enjoy advantages of pthreads. How is unreal engine implementing that feature? Are they still in process of implementing it, or was it already available years ago?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So your tech doesn't work like Unreal or other game engines, and therefore if it's not an endorsement, your stuff is actually weaker then? You really have no idea how the English language works. But then if you did, you wouldn't keep wearing that trashy teenage wordpress review like a badge of honor.
Considering that you've boasted, and continue to boast about your sum total of zero users, I'm hazarding a guess to say that absolutely no Firefox users care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not possible to create similar kind of demos than what unreal engine developers are displaying in youtube with my technology. It's simply not possible to get that rendering quality. Maybe they have tons of pre-made assets that they are proudly displaying, but my position is that my engine is nowhere near that....
But maybe your engine is in much better shape, so you wouldn't have that same problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So here we finally get to what you should have admitted since Day One that you started shilling your own ripoff: your stuff isn't used by the wider industry because it simply can't compete. You literally have to beg the government to boot Pixar's own engine out of the market just so you can teleport your own animations to computer screens for a grand sum total of zero users.
I'll contend that showing prerendered shit for demos is a common industry practice which I personally find... meaningless at best, and exploitative at worst. Then again, coming from you who used someone else's copyrighted model in his demo you're not in any position to start throwing stones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since smaller stones are forbidden, I'm going to be throwing large boulders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't have the balls to do even that, Tero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, but how long will it last?"
That's for the market to decide, not a failed coder trying to push his useless product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
no, the vendor who creates the product will decide. markets have nothing to say about those decisions. companies will drop their support on a whim and products simply disappear from the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"markets have nothing to say about those decisions"
As usual, incorrect, but I'm talking about the real world again. Where the rest of us live, customers will react to things like features they use being removed and may start using competitors.
"companies will drop their support on a whim and products simply disappear from the market."
What's funny here is that you're accidentally correct - yes, if companies drop features on a whim, then the less valuable product will eventually disappear from the market as customers move to other products with the features they need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Example: I have heavily considered switching to a non-Firefox browser in the past couple of days after the latest Firefox update changed and removed several entries from the right-click context menu (notably the “View Image” and “View Page Info” options).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The existence of Firefox in the first place proves the point. Most people had no real choice other than Internet Explorer 6 after Netscape died and Opera somehow failed to capture mainstream attention. Then, Firefox was reborn from the ashes and it was such a wild success that Microsoft was forced to change their plans to only include future versions of IE with OS upgrades. Then, after some great deal of success, Chrome came along to entice users away from Firefox.
The proof of the point is within the very type of problem tp depends on in order or people to even view his crappy site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They never used the feature, since I knew the problem beforehand and didn't allow the broken features to be implemented in the first place.
Had I not done that, the situation would be as you describe. The copyright-problematic feature would be used by some of my 0 users, and when rightsholders require removal of the feature, I would have to comment out the feature and all existing users will have to learn different way to do it. But since I never had it implemented, since I actually knew it beforehand that it is copyright-dangerous, I never allowed the feature to my featuresets.
See being upfront and filtering out "useful features" before they explode to your face is actually useful thing to do. This is why youtube-dl had huge explosion in the press because they had allowed features that are not actually very legal, and when rightsholders call the bluff, their press contacts are going crazy and now everyone on the marketplace thinks they're bloody pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Youtube-dl had features, period. Whether the features were “legal” is irrelevant because no court has ever decided whether those features are legal — or whether everyone who uses/has used those features violated any laws. After all, the same functionality that can download a copyrighted film can also download a public domain film such as the original Night of the Living Dead.
Notepad++ can allow people to retype an entire book as a .txt file or read books that have been converted to .txt format. Should Notepad++ devs eliminate the read/write functionality from the program, thereby rendering it obsolete and useless to everyone who uses the program as a text editor?
Your obsession with following copyright law in ways that suggest you’re going way overboard with your obsession tells me you literally believe any functionality that any application could ever be used to violate copyright should be deprecated and eliminated — which would make computers and mobile phones useless…especially for you, since you would no longer have the ability to code (no coding program would allow you to potentially violate copyright by allowing input), share what you’ve already coded (no browser would allow you to view anything because you could find a way to make copies of copyrighted material you view in the browser), or communicate with anyone about what you’ve coded (no communications program or protocol would allow you to input any text or attachments because you could be sharing copyrighted material).
In your quest to literally abolish the public domain and metaphorically suck the RIAA’s dick, you’d end up fucking yourself over so badly that your ignorant ass would be left wondering “wha happun” as your computer becomes an overexpensive paperweight. And then how would you get your mansion, you sociopathic son of a bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is why real market research is needed. You have to examine how users use existing products. If download feature is mostly used for piracy purposes according to your market research, the feature needs to be removed. If it is mostly used for downloading public domain works, you can allow it. Guess which side is winning? users are like fleeing away when they hear its over 70 years old and the download feature is mostly used for copyrighted works.
While pure download feature is dangerous, there is always alternatives that are not as bad. For example URLs are pretty safe to "download", since there's is built-in assumption that whoever posted the material is giving everyone in the world at least implicit license to view the material. Browser vendors manage to make this magic happen by inserting delays to the content publish operation, i.e. uploading content to the web server requires explicit actions by the user, and there's always had warnings in the operation that the upload might violate copyright if you fail to license the material you upload. Attempts to automate this content upload feature are considered copyright-dangerous, even though the user experience/user interface isn't exactly fine-tuned to be easy for users to use.
This is how it should work. When there is existing ecosystems that can get these copyright-features to work, we can rely on the feature to work properly, and can implement download feature with safety that the feature wont be used for piracy. While misusing the feature is possible, most of the URLS on the planet has been correctly implemented and rightsholders are using DMCA takedowns to remove the urls that do not follow the copyright rules. Thus download feature via URLs is safer than pure download feature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again: By that logic, if a feature such as the bog-standard copy-paste function in an operating system is “mostly used for piracy purposes”, your only solution is “remove it”. What the fuck.
The side that says “the functionality is a key component of our program and whether people use it to pirate works is irrelevant if the functionality is also used for lawful purposes”. You might have some sort of point when it comes to programs designed primarily and specifically to infringe copyright. But when a bittorrent client can be used for lawful and unlawful purposes in equal measure, robbing those who use the client for lawful purposes of the client’s primary function because people may use it for unlawful purposes is sick sociopathic shit. But then again, you’ve never cared one whit about humanity, so I don’t imagine you’re going to start now.
Were someone to need to download a PDF to their computer but couldn’t because every web browser and FTP client and bittorrent client no longer download files because you and you alone convinced the entire motherfucking world that said functionality was too “dangerous” to copyright owner interests, what “alternative” could they possibly have that you would consider “acceptable enough” to please your glorious golden gods at the RIAA and MPAA?
URLs are text; they are not a substitute for the actual file(s) located at the server to which the URL leads.
I have never had a single web browser ever give me this warning. Individual websites have implemented such pop-ups or similar warnings on the upload form/page itself, sure, but a browser itself has never done that to me.
You can count on such features showing up in the year Two Thousand Forty-Never.
No one can guarantee that every download ever will never infringe upon someone’s copyrights. The holy deities of the RIAA and MPAA at whose feet you worship haven’t done it even after decades of time and billions of dollars spent to make it happen. If your chosen gods — the supposedly omnipotent entities to whom you would sacrifice every other human on the planet — can’t do it, what in the everloving eternal fuck makes you think you, a jackass with a grudge against humanity and an entitlement complex the size of this galaxy, could ever hope to do it on your own? (Don’t say “we” or reference other people, because we all know you hate everyone else in the world and would rather die in a volcano than work with even one other person on anything ever.)
Ah, yes, the DMCA — the guilty-until-proven-innocent extrajudicial system that people and corporations alike routinely abuse to silence speech they don’t like and destroy content made with Fair Use principles.
Tell me: Are you actually a fan of people having no due process when it comes to copyright? And would you still be a fan of the DMCA if Scott Cawthon used it to take down that Five Nights at Freddy’s model on your Meshpage website, which I am absolutely sure you made without his permission?
That’s right, bitch: You violated copyright. How does it feel to be the very thing you hate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
when it helps me implement features that are critical to my software's behaviour, sure.
never heard of scott cawthon or five nights at freddys... is he somehow well known?
I don't think i need his permission...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering how he literally made one of the most famous and successful independent games (and gaming franchises) of the past decade by himself? Yes, he is.
…except to you, because you’d rather kill the rest of humanity with your bare hands than care about even one person other than yourself.
Technically, if you’re going to make a derivative work based on his original works — which is exactly what you did — you do need his permission. If you don’t have it, you’ve violated the copyrights he owns on the FNAF games and the franchise itself. He would be within every legal, moral, and ethical right to use against you the same DMCA process you revere with the fervency of a cult member who drank the cyanide-spiked Flavor-Aid and went back for seconds.
You violated his copyright. You might have a defense of Fair Use — oh look, another thing you hate with a passion that defies all known logic and reason! — but to get that far against a DMCA takedown, you’d have to file a counternotice and let Scott take you to court for the final determination on whether your defense is legit or bullshit. That’s because the DMCA assumes you’re guilty from the get-go, even if you’re not. And hey, you admitted that you’re a fan of that lack of due process, so you can’t logically be angry that Scott would dare to paint you as an infringer of copyrights (which you totally are) and use the “fuck your civil rights” DMCA takedown process accordingly (which he totally could).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This FNAF explains what is the issue. My solution when there is doubts about ownership of some material in my web site: I just remove the material from the site. See what happened to the easter bunny? It just disappeared. Easter went by and the model is no longer needed. And once there is any doubts, removal is easier way to handle the issue. All my users still have over 70 models to choose from, so they probably wont notice if some random bunny disappears from the list.
Just need to find some other way to display my engine's ability to do skeletal animations. Any suggestions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah: animated WebP images or WebM videos. I know they’re “1970s tech” to you (despite the formats being relatively new to the scene), but nobody is going to give a shit because people already look at images and video on the Internet anyway. Hell, you can probably find demo videos for skeletal rigging/animations in Blender on YouTube — y’know, if you cared to look at the work of another human being instead of wanting to kill them for using open source tools or sharing their knowledge or just existing, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So since these "features critical to your software's behavior" are not unique to your software, everyone from 3dsmax to Blender to Unity is entitled to drag you to court and force you to pay expensive legal fees just to explain yourself.
I'll give you a hint, that series gets almost as much attention as Minecraft amongst kids.
Unfortunately that's not how copyright works. That's not even how your definition of copyright works. What permission you think you need doesn't matter to copyright law. The fact that you have used your software and your features to replicate someone else's work without permission means that, by your own rules, you have to take down all features that could contribute to infringement.
You're really terrible at thinking things through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you understand the issue. I'm relying on accuracy of their CC+attribution license in competing 3d model website called sketchfab. Now that you managed to mention that whoever posted it to sketchfab might not be the original owner of the material, I can easily remove the model from my site. But since you never mentioned the problem to my competitors, they're actually the illegal vendors of the material and my site has resolved the issue admirably.
But your characterisation of the history of the model is slightly wrong. I explicitly didn't "replicate" someone elses work, but instead licensed the work from existing 3d model repository under CC+attribution license. Your claims basically say that the people who posted it to the competing site are posting it without proper permission. This kind of trust-chains can easily break and once more information is being revealed about the true nature of the copyrighted works, the sites that publish material are gaining deeper understanding of the real status of copyrights in the marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"is he somehow well known?"
Way more famous and successful than you. Look him up, it might give you a clue as to what competence looks like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not as much as you might think.
The funny thing about copyright fans is that they'll scream and howl about every instance of perceived infringement - but they'll gladly use audio and photos for their own "copyright is teh good" websites without citations or crediting the original creators. Then they'll hem and haw about their "good faith" "mistaken" usage while refusing to acknowledge that any penalties are owed.
Because a copyright fan is a pirate who doesn't have the balls to admit their mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"For example URLs are pretty safe to "download""
How the fuck have you managed to be employed as a programmer and built a functioning website without known what a URL is?
Hint: it's an address, it doesn't tell you anything about what's at the other end until it's resolved, and the target can change without the URL changing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't need that information. The social contract that says that you're not supposed to "upload" copyrighted content to your web server is already enough. It doesn't need to touch the technical definition of how urls resolve to ip addresses and how bits flow over the internet. They could be some kind of pipes and I couldn't care less...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was it enough to prevent you from infringing upon the FNAF copyrights held by Scott Cawthon? 🤔
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the real solution for copyrights comes from multiple complementary practises: licensing practises, information gathering, market research, content rejection&removal, careful development practises, attribution/author contacts, content analysis, budgeting, financial analysis, etc..
just one practise alone cannot solve the problem, but multiple approaches are needed... how well you think this stuff works on projects who don't bother with proper copyright analysis, when its possible to find problems even in projects that invested time and effort to analyze this problem area?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like, say, the project of someone who showed off two models based on the FNAF franchise without double-checking whether they infringed copyright? 🤔
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
copyright checking is always "ongoing process". A new piece of information can break your existing analysis, if you relied on someone else's copyrighted material. A claim of ownership can break your pattern even if you executed copyright checking properly 2 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet you’re out here implying that copyright detection must be perfect from the get-go or the application is illegal and its devs and users are criminal scum who must be jailed (or worse) for daring to infringe (or allow infringement) even by accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's just this damage awards of 300k per infringement... so that damage award gives you small incentive to get the feature working properly..
Govt just loves these kinds of damage awards:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or tear it out altogether to make goddamn sure that the feature can’t be used to infringe upon any copyright anywhere in the world in any way possible.
I mean, if a text editor like Notepad++ allows people to open text files and/or input text, that would let people infringe upon copyright. Without the supernatural ability to create an infinitely large and searchable-at-the-speed-of-light database of all copyrighted works ever to test any and all text that a user could put into the application, what could Notepad++ devs possibly do to meet your indescribably insane standard of “prevent all users of your app from infringing any copyright ever” without ripping out the functionality that allows users to open text files, type text into a text file/blank document, and save documents as text files — i.e., the core functionality of a text editor application?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't required. You can instead pay the damage awards of 300k per infringement. So there has never been any absolute requirement to prevent all copyright infringements.
You just need to be richer than Bill Gates to benefit from the 300k per infringement limitation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I knew the problem beforehand and didn't allow the broken features to be implemented in the first place."
So, you were lying when you advertised it with 600 features since you never implemented one of them? Your software isn't capable of what you are saying it is, therefore you stand to be sued for false advertising. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly for your argument, I don't use the number 600 in my adverticements. While I have slightly more implemented to ensure that dropping one feature doesn't kill the whole story, I still don't like to boast with the number of features I have available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I still don't like to boast with the number of features I have available."
You're unable to competently describe any of them, so the number doesn't matter so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just mark you as idiot if you cannot immediately figure out how to use the features. The software structure is so simple and nice design with 2^600 different alternative configurations in the feature list, that anyone who isn't an idiot can immediately figure out how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I just mark you as idiot if you cannot immediately figure out how to use the features"
I don't want to use them. I want the blithering idiot who wrote them to explain what they do and why people would use them without misusing words like "teleport" to describe things that his competitors already do.
If you're incapable of even describing the functionality of your software to a normal human being, why would anyone use it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you can explain (step-by-step instructions) how to get rotating 3d models to a web page without using my tool? If the steps have more than 5 steps, then it works worse than my web site. Now prove your claims or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Maybe you can explain (step-by-step instructions) how to get rotating 3d models to a web page without using my tool?"
I can explain how a normal person who writes software that adheres to standards would do it, as it's done millions of times a day. I can't explain what the hell your proprietary mess that you refuse to explain in terms used by anyone else actually done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My proprietary mess uses the following steps for publishing the 3d models to web server of your choice:
DOWNLOAD: You download the builder tool
CREATE: Create your powerful message for your teleporter with the tool
CODEGEN: You get piece of c++-like code representing animation
PUBLISH: place 3d engine to your web server
ENJOY: Then open the animation in your browser
See, this kind of step-by-step instructions are just missing in your "competitors" who supposedly can do that same thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"See, this kind of step-by-step instructions are just missing in your "competitors" "
You're not wrong there. They have the type of instructions that makes sense and are easy to follow, not obscure text written by a guy who can't bring himself to use the word "upload" to describe his uploading. Bonus - they work anywhere, not relegated to a system run by a guy who threatens to block you if you don't pass his unique version of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This claim requires a proof. You have still not provided URL to the instructions you're referring to. We cannot really compare these instructions without you first mentioning which of the 2 billion web sites you mean.... (and because you mentioned there is competitor(s), you need to provide many such examples)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mate, you couldn't prove 2 + 2 = 4 if a kindergarten teacher handed you the fucking answer sheet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We could also make your iphones cost more. Like increase the price 10 fold from 130dollars to 1200 dollars per phone. wait... Seems that already happened."
No, it didn't. No iPhone has ever been as cheap as $130 new. If you don't like the $1200 price for the biggest and best model right now, you can not only choose a cheaper model from Apple, you can also choose hundreds of competing models.
Why are your assertions always based on laughably obvious lies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
go peddle your delusions somewhere else, toilet paper man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see multiple Epic fails coming soon...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loss??
Is it a loss though?
If someone invest 330 million into a venture, is that a loss? Of course not, it only becomes a loss if the venture fails. The 330 million Epic has spent here, is an investment into future sales.
So in my opinion, calling it a loss is silly since I don't actually think the Epic store will fail. Sure, they are currently in the red, but within a couple of years they will have fixed that. Expect less freebies and more exclusives.
Personally, I don't use the Epic store since I don't like the whole exclusivity thing and I don't want to support it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Loss??
They are losing the money, that's why they're called "loss leaders". Whether or not the investment pays off depends on how many gamers agree with you and refuse to pay them anything, and how many are willing to overlook the problems with the platform in return for exclusives. Time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Loss??
But that's just a convenient label slapped on it. If their "investment" is balanced against a projected future revenue, it's not really a loss until the projection fails. If we say it's a loss, then all investments into businesses where you have a long lead-time to recuperate your investment is a loss.
Also, being a loss leader doesn't necessarily mean that they are loosing the money since they are buying market share and future sales with their investment which is the whole point of intentionally selling stuff below cost. It's where the term comes from, loss before lead, ie take a loss now that lead to more sales later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Loss??
"But that's just a convenient label slapped on it"
No, it's an accurate description of what they are doing. They are selling goods at a loss in the hope that they will lead to further purchases later on. Whether or not that tactic is successful remains to be seen.
"they are buying market share and future sales with their investment"
Not if the tactic fails as a whole. There are a lot of people mentioning that they have only installed the Epic launcher for the free games and have no intention of ever buying anything from them. If those people keep to their word, and they represent a majority of users, then this money is lost.
Yes, it's an investment - but investments can, and quite often do, fail. Let's check back here in 2023 and see which prediction was correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Loss??
So, lets talk accounting.
An investment is an asset you purchase, a thing of value, that you expect to derive income from, either because its market value rises and you can resell or it generates income you get a share of.
Loss leaders are not in either category. A loss leader is inventory you sell (or give away) at a loss in the hopes other sales recoup that loss. Rather than expecting the inventory to be more valuable to your customer than when you bought it or earning income by holding on to it, the expected income comes from other products entirely. Loss leaders are not investments, they are advertising, they are expenses.
And yes, all advertising and really most expenses could be considered, in the general vernacular, as investing in future sales, and therefore "investments". Lots of basic business advice will use those terms. But financially, advertising leaves you nothing of value, only the potential for sales in the future. Investments provide things of value, and while that value may become $0 if the investment doesn't play out, it often can be disposed of to recoup some of your investment. Not so with advertising and loss leaders. They function differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Loss??
It's a loss on the scale you suggest because we count things in fiscal years and quarters.
Everywhere else it's a loss because they are spending money on stuff and not making it back with a profit. Any venture starting off generally operates at a loss, and we call it operating at a loss.
Amazon, for example, operated at a loss for ages. We still say it operated at a loss despite later success in the extreme. Your framing sort of makes sense in a relaxed, philosophical sort of way, but this is how absolutely no one frames these things. So this is pretty much an argument based solely in semantics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Loss??
I agree. But the thing is, most investments that are long term isn't labeled in the form 'they are loosing money'. But that's economics for you, inconsistent nomenclature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loss??
I doubt you could find an economist who would agree with you that what Epic is doing is not considered incurring losses. Certainly not an accountant. This is more a case of you using terms differently than most people are using them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Loss??
A planned loss is still a loss. It can only go 3 ways - profit, break even or loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if you want to launch a platform, you kind of need exclusive content ti bring in customers and to be willing to back it up financially. Like it or not, Epic are in it for the long haul and will probably succeed in the end based on the fortnight playerbase alone. People may well believe PC players will never accept them, but PC players accept punitive DRM so they'llaccept must things for prettier graphics. They may grumble about it, but the games still sell, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What was this even responding to? Your comments dont seem to respond to the article, and you aren't threaded so its impossible to know what this is in responce to, though its obviously in responce to something.
There are other ways to get into the market aside from 3rd party exclusive content. Had their storefront had standard functionality at launch and if they required the epic store for first party releases like Fortnite as Valve and EA and Ubisoft have, "The fortnite playerbase alone" could have easily made a huge footprint. A steady diet of sales and freebies could have most of what they already have with much higher goodwill. (its a big reason why GOG and CD Projekt Red is so well defended these days despite their issues as a publisher.)
Also Humble launched a sales platform without exclusives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well... you could offer a better product (service) instead of doing all the other manipulative stuff. I realize that's not how capitalism is actually done, but one certainly does not need exclusives. Your comment about DRM illustrates nicely how the markets are corrupted, not how things need to be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just what online video game market needs.. another EA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it customers, though?
I have amassed quite the Epic library. I've even played a few of those games. But I've bought zero. The only things I would have bought were exclusive which pissed me off, so I got it on PS4 for less anyway.
Am I defined as a customer because I have and use the account? To me, if I have not given them money, I am not their customer. No?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also have a large library of games on my Epic account. Every one of them was free though. Generally if there's a game I want to buy, I get it on Steam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, you are a customer. You signed on to their service and purchased games at the advertised price. The fact that the advertised price was $0 doesn't change the fact that you are a customer.
Now, whether or not you and the huge number of other people who have done the same as you can be converted into paying customers? That's the issue at hand here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PC games and EPIC
Generally I don't play games on pc. But what EPIC is trying is to lure customer base based on mobile. If the game catches on either of the platform it will run better on Windows 10 or Android. So the best way is to divide a big game into bit parts, so that it can make apps for each section. That way it can boost sales.
https://www.windowstechit.com/4534/windows-10-gaming-benchmarks-3d-mark/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]