41–50 of 53 posts
Why not just check the request URL, and if it doesn't match your domain, or a domain of your affiliate, display an invalid domain screen instead of the game? Toss in a frame breakout script for good measure. Doesn't seem like a very difficult problem to fix.
Of course, maybe they could've embedded a "phone home" check or something.
Am I the only one who came up with the solution "embed the ads in your game" while reading the description of the problem? Of course, my excitement of having guessed this plot twist faded when I read on about how this was patented. Oh well, I'm sure the real genius was in the Romulan-like cloaking technology they invented to hide the ads in the games.
It's also a poor solution! Getting people on your site is much more important than getting people to play your game, because some % of your visitors will return to check out what else you've done. If it's on other sites, they'll return to check out what else is on that site - not your games. Ads pay out little but you can make decent money out of a site with traction. We don't even bother with ads on a lot of games a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also a poor solution! Getting people on your site is much more important than getting people to play your game, because some % of your visitors will return to check out what else you've done. If it's on other sites, they'll return to check out what else is on that site - not your games. Ads pay out little but you can make decent money out of a site with traction. We don't even bother with ads on a lot of games a…
His company sounds much bigger and more successful than yours. Maybe you should take a lesson instead of critiquing what works.
In terms of success? They took VC and grew very well, we bootstrapped our way to 5 employees without taking a dime. Total investment under a thousand dollars and profitable after a few months. In terms of raw game play counts, I'd bet money on us being ahead.
All in all, I'd rather be in their position not mine, but I guarantee you, the strategy outlined is not the reason why. And their greater success does not mean that I should not be allowed to have an opinion on what I've been doing successfully myself for years!
By the way, if one must always learn from more successful companies, it would be hard to argue the case for Zynga to switch their monetization strategy over to ads.
I am glad they found a way to make money from the pirated content, but patenting that method was dirty.
Anyhow, I'm glad they found a way to deal with the problem. It's good when people are able to work things out on their own.
Am I the only one who came up with the solution "embed the ads in your game" while reading the description of the problem? Of course, my excitement of having guessed this plot twist faded when I read on about how this was patented. Oh well, I'm sure the real genius was in the Romulan-like cloaking technology they invented to hide the ads in the games.
It's also a poor solution! Getting people on your site is much more important than getting people to play your game, because some % of your visitors will return to check out what else you've done. If it's on other sites, they'll return to check out what else is on that site - not your games. Ads pay out little but you can make decent money out of a site with traction. We don't even bother with ads on a lot of games a…
i was on their side until the bit about patenting this. but what does their patent mean? if i deploy this solution for my own games, or make a business deploying it for others, will they come after me?
Agree. Software algorithms should not be patentable.
Also, other games, simply refuse to load if they are executed within the context of another domain (even blocking localhost). I've seen it with Desktop tower defense. Can't tell I appreciate it, but it should help fighting theft. Though, is it really that hard to crack? (wrt to code obfuscation) Any experience from flash developers?