Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 255 posts

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#141

Post by Marsymars »

gspencley wrote: post #85
hedora wrote: post #45

We need copyright reform for cases like this. In particular, copyright infringement damages should be capped at a small multiple of lost sales. That way, when a copyrighted work goes of market (or is no longer sold at a reasonable mass-market rate), there would be no penalty for redistributing it. (Derivative works might need to be handled differently, since the above effectively invalidates the GPL, though not Apach…

I have a nuanced take on this. Say, hypothetically, that I am the creator of a song, book, video game or whatever. One day, for purely selfish reasons that I don't need others to understand, I decide that I no longer want to offer my creation to others. Do I forfeit any and all rights over something that I personally produced; that I invented, designed, fabricated and brought into existence; just because I once offer…

I see that creator's right as existing if you never release your works to the public in the first place.

If you want to benefit from the temporary state-enforced monopoly on your works, you must submit to what the state/society determines are the fair conditions in exchange for said monopoly.

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#142

Post by JohnFen »

lsaferite wrote: post #49
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sure, when given the choice, most people prefer "free" to "costs money".

Just to point out, the game isn't free.

I really, really wish everyone would stop abusing the word "free" in that way. "Free" means "without cost", but money is only one form of cost -- so not charging money does not automatically make the game "free".

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#143

Post by mschuster91 »

ye-olde-sysrq wrote: post #97
cld8483 wrote: post #11

They can't compete with what they once were, so they bury the past. I suspect many industries are like this. If classic movies were played alongside new Hollywood releases, the new movies would probably be choked out. Accordingly, Disney will even restrict the availability of their old movies on DVD. They can't stand competing with their former great selves.

I don't think Disney can quite be put in the same breath. (disclaimer: shareholder, though not in any grandiose quantities) I always imagine Disney as basically 3 apparatuses: 1. A squeaky-clean princess printing machine that reliably churns out 50 billion dolla- I mean, a new Disney Princess franchise every 5-10 years. No expense is spared on making the movie a lavishly animated, voiced, scripted, and instantly trea…

> But at the same time, I think they honestly do contribute more to artistry and enduring culture in the West than lots of other companies with even-worse legal departments do.

Counterpoint: they saturate the market with so many MCU, Star Wars and other high-profile (Avatar!) content that it is all but impossible for anyone else to get enough people into cinemas or onto streaming.

Like, people only have so much money and time to set aside for entertainment, cinema is one hell of an expense as it is [1] and now, when alone the MCU pumps out four movies a year, there is no budget left for anyone but them. Streaming? The same. There's an insane amount of high quality content on Disney+, and they got all the "cool and popular" stuff.

On top of that, Disney's treatment of, say, VFX studios is fucking up the market there as well: the more market share Disney has on the client side, the less choice studios and other suppliers have. Either they accept the sometimes disgusting behavior from Disney (especially ridiculous deadlines) or they don't have other clients and shut down.

Between the Mouse just gobbling up everything they can, Netflix pushing for a washed-down uniform standard [2] and small cinemas closing down left and right, entertainment is in for dark, dark times. Disney needs to be broken up and since the movie industry didn't get the hint from the music industry that rightsholders should take care of offering access to multiple streaming services, government has to mandate that as well. The lack of competition hurts everyone.

[1] a typical MCU movie for two people will be anything from 50-100$, including tickets, 3D surcharge, long-duration surcharge, popcorn, soda, parking/public transport

[2] https://www.vice.com/de/article/ake3j5/warum-sieht-beim-netf...

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#144

Post by causi »

gspencley wrote: post #85
hedora wrote: post #45

We need copyright reform for cases like this. In particular, copyright infringement damages should be capped at a small multiple of lost sales. That way, when a copyrighted work goes of market (or is no longer sold at a reasonable mass-market rate), there would be no penalty for redistributing it. (Derivative works might need to be handled differently, since the above effectively invalidates the GPL, though not Apach…

I have a nuanced take on this. Say, hypothetically, that I am the creator of a song, book, video game or whatever. One day, for purely selfish reasons that I don't need others to understand, I decide that I no longer want to offer my creation to others. Do I forfeit any and all rights over something that I personally produced; that I invented, designed, fabricated and brought into existence; just because I once offer…

Beyond that scenario, the principal that I come at this from is that I, as a creator, rightfully recognize and defend my own rights to the things that I pour a significant portion of myself and life into

Does data deserve special rights in the first place? If I make a table and sell it I don't get to control whether the buyer sells it to someone else or lets someone else look at it and make their own identical table. Same for, say, a biscuit recipe. You might say there's a qualitative difference between those things and, for example, a book or a movie, but that difference only exists because we can't communicate our memories to each other. What if we could? I don't think what is morally right or wrong should depend on a technological inconvenience.

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#145

Post by milsorgen »

joenot443 wrote: post #103
tensor wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't play any iOS game with either ads or with a "free but micro-transaction model." If you look in the pay up front category on the app store, there are very very few games. It's too bad.

Tell me about it. I'm an iOS engineer at FAANG, but I've been shipping my own apps since 2011. It's depressing that there's no longer a market for paid, high quality, ad-free, fully packaged apps and games. I actually interned at a mobile games studio for a summer and it was made clear to me what the profit model was: pander solely to the whales, ignore the free users. Something like 70% of our revenue came from 2% o…

>It's depressing that there's no longer a market for paid, high quality, ad-free, fully packaged apps and games.

I can't tell you how crazy it is on Android, to find a killer app that does something that's exactly what I'm looking for and to see perhaps it has or is a paid version, usually for just a few bucks, and I to go-to the store page and see some ridiculously small number under downloads. People will put up with a lot of cruft for free. Even worse in terms of apps and games is that younger people I know don't bat an eye at most it whether it be ads or IAPs. A younger guy I talk tech with will happily pay to win in games he plays, or expensive cosmetics, and he doesn't consider it at all. It's just how things are and he enjoys it. Sometimes I tactfully ask, where is the game if you just buy X or Y? And I don't think he quite gets what I'm hinting at and he's one of the most tech savvy zoomers I know.

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#146

Post by cld8483 »

branko_d wrote: post #115
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should really call out Apple and Google for mismanagement here. Imagine if there was the option to play a game for an hour as a free trial, and then buy the game instead of having to plunk down $4.99 sight-unseen - or having your game in the Free category with the microtransaction shovelware around it. If I'm the developer who wants users to have any semblance of try-before-you-buy, the free category (with…

I always wondered why Apple can't implement something similar to Steam refunds. Quote from https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds : You can request a refund for nearly any purchase on Steam—for any reason. Maybe your PC doesn't meet the hardware requirements; maybe you bought a game by mistake; maybe you played the title for an hour and just didn't like it. It doesn't matter. Valve will, upon request via help.s…

For all their faults (Steam is glorified DRM), the people at Valve seem to actually understand gamers and have gaming in their own blood. Apple has never understood gaming and I doubt they ever will.

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#147

Post by JohnFen »

ye-olde-sysrq wrote: post #97
cld8483 wrote: post #11

They can't compete with what they once were, so they bury the past. I suspect many industries are like this. If classic movies were played alongside new Hollywood releases, the new movies would probably be choked out. Accordingly, Disney will even restrict the availability of their old movies on DVD. They can't stand competing with their former great selves.

I don't think Disney can quite be put in the same breath. (disclaimer: shareholder, though not in any grandiose quantities) I always imagine Disney as basically 3 apparatuses: 1. A squeaky-clean princess printing machine that reliably churns out 50 billion dolla- I mean, a new Disney Princess franchise every 5-10 years. No expense is spared on making the movie a lavishly animated, voiced, scripted, and instantly trea…

> An oracle-tier legal/financial arm that is essentially independent of 1 and 2 that just views itself as having a giant stack of copyrights and money and it needs to turn it into more money.

This is the main thing I think of when I think of Disney (I think of other things as well, but none of them are positive). That's why I give them the fewest dimes I possibly can.

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#148

Post by dgb23 »

joenot443 wrote: post #103
tensor wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't play any iOS game with either ads or with a "free but micro-transaction model." If you look in the pay up front category on the app store, there are very very few games. It's too bad.

Tell me about it. I'm an iOS engineer at FAANG, but I've been shipping my own apps since 2011. It's depressing that there's no longer a market for paid, high quality, ad-free, fully packaged apps and games. I actually interned at a mobile games studio for a summer and it was made clear to me what the profit model was: pander solely to the whales, ignore the free users. Something like 70% of our revenue came from 2% o…

Is that the only conclusion? There's a subset of users who are hungry for high quality applications and games. They will happily pay for substantial extensions and content upgrades. They will remember your name and see anything you release as worth considering. It's a smaller market of course but a sustainable one.

In terms of video games. I'm personally not a mobile gamer though. Maybe it's quite a bit different from desktop and console.

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#149

Post by hbn »

The mobile games industry is such a mess and it worries me that kids are only being exposed to video games that are 80% watching ads and begging for microtransactions. If this is the standard, they may never expect more.

On the other hand, I find solace that we still have games like Elden Ring coming out that are a one-time purchase, finely crafted experience that manage to sell like gangbusters.

Re: Rovio delists original Angry Birds from PlayStore because it's still too popular

#150

Post by [deleted] »

thriftwy wrote: post #30
petepete wrote: post #9

It's almost as if when given the choice people prefer games without microtransactions, even if they're older and have fewer features/powerups etc.

I would be just happy to pay for new, interesting and challenging, levels for Angry Birds "the thing" 1.0. But, when the gameplay is so absurdly easy you can beat everything with one finger, all the levels are pointless, and most of screen real estate is dedicated to selling you gems or ability to resume playing level after losing it, it just does not make any sense. You have to seriously be mentally retarded to play…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN