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

161–170 of 255 posts

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

#161

Post by JohnFen »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #66
acdha wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is definitely an element of conditioning here. People have grown accustomed to frenetic action and the studios like it because it’s easier than hiring good writers – especially since they’re hoping for global sales and humor, subtly, and nuance are hard to translate – but that’s a learned preference based on what dominates the market. If different things came back on the market people would get used to them, to…

Older movies are full of filler too, but it's generally less exciting filler - looooong shots of a car driving through the countryside or plot beats that could be 1 minute stretching to 10 without having any reason to be as long as they are. Over time movies have learned to cut a lot of fat.

> Over time movies have learned to cut a lot of fat.

Sometimes those scenes are fat. Poorly made movies are certainly not just a modern phenomenon.

But sometimes it's critical that those scenes are as they are.

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

#162

Post by philistine »

justeleblanc wrote: post #132
rchaud wrote: post #110

The mobile gaming landscape could have been completely different if Rovio charged a flat $10 for Angry Birds all those years ago. I'm sure they've made significantly more money by going freemium with ads, but in doing so they also poisoned the well of mobile gaming. Everything now is Pay to Win. Despite there being genuinely impressive games on mobile (Asphalt racing for one), the mechanics of how the game actually w…

It's not one company's decision ten years ago that shaped that whole behemoth of a market.

It is. It's just that the culprit is Apple. No demos, IAPs for free games, 70% cut on all transactions, those are the actions that shaped the overwhelming part of the mobile market into a casino-in-everything--but-name.

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

#163

Post by JohnFen »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #84
cld8483 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about conveying atmosphere and mood, not conveying plot-points as rapidly as possible. Same reason a book might spend two pages describing a lazy dog laying on a porch swatting flies with his tail, instead of cutting straight to who said/did what.

OK, so movies have gotten better at setting the mood without derailing the story's momentum.

I very much disagree with this.

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

#164

Post by permo-w »

scrollaway wrote: post #61
NackerHughes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only speaks of how severely the attention span of the average person has plummeted in recent decades. It's impossible to sit through a movie without enough dopamine-inducing distractions or MTV-style jump cuts every few seconds.

Your post has it all in just two sentences: Maximum cynicism, "kids these days", "movies these days", randomly bringing up MTV, whinging about attention span, bringing up dopamine. Really .. can you at least try to not be so cynical about the present? Everybody's walking around with a star trek device in their pocket that has all of the world's knowledge, can remote call anyone on earth, and can translate any languag…

you’re right, we are living in an era of incredible technology, and there are still plenty of good films nowadays, but you’re arguing with an imaginary figure you’ve invented. pretty much all they said was that attention spans are shorter nowadays - observably true - and that modern films cater to that - which the profit motive ensures

that isn’t “maximum cynicism” or “whinging” or even an attack on modern life

why are you jumping to such an argumentative posture? is this a debate you’ve had elsewhere that infuriated you?

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

#165

Post by stoicjumbotron »

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…

Can't believe this is the story with iOS as well. I thought Apple fared better as compared to Android when it came to paid apps.

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

#166

Post by JohnFen »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #101
yamtaddle wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of great modern movies have pacing similar to those older ones you don't like. It's not that they "leveled up" into some new form and obsoleted what came before—the other sorts of pacing remain entirely valid and in heavy use.

I'm not saying no one uses long shots or takes anymore and they aren't totally ineffective - I just watched Mandy over the weekend and it has plenty and they are used effectively but it's also a move that seems to have people regarding it in extremes - it's really a love or hate because of the choices they make. But what I'm trying to say is there are other tools in the toolbox now - I haven't heard anyone say that E…

> it's really a love or hate because of the choices they make.

Isn't that true of all movies?

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

#167

Post by cld8483 »

permo-w wrote: post #139
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 agree with the sentiment, but is Disney a good example? has Disney not recently had a pretty strong run of form critically and commercially?

If you're buying a DVD for your child, but only have the budget for one, would you buy Snow White, or Snow White 5: The Slushening? In most cases, the classic original is the no-brainer. The sequels to Disney movies are pale cash-grab imitations with far less cultural significance.

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

#168

Post by germinalphrase »

hesdeadjim wrote: post #93
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.

Apple Arcade provides a ton of value in this regard. No ads, no micro transactions, games like they used to be. Funny enough given this article, they have Angry Birds 1 remastered. It’s the only games I’ll let my six year old play on her iPad. It’s disgusting to me that her first experiences playing games would be one’s trying to get her to buy stuff or watch ads.

I have no affiliation, but Zoombinis is a nice kids logic game throwback. They have released an IOS port for a few bucks.

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

#169

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

JohnFen wrote: post #166
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying no one uses long shots or takes anymore and they aren't totally ineffective - I just watched Mandy over the weekend and it has plenty and they are used effectively but it's also a move that seems to have people regarding it in extremes - it's really a love or hate because of the choices they make. But what I'm trying to say is there are other tools in the toolbox now - I haven't heard anyone say that E…

> it's really a love or hate because of the choices they make. Isn't that true of all movies?

I don't think so - see my other example of EEAAO - it's not polarizing, I've never talked to someone who didn't like it.

I understand what you're saying - choices make it either loved or hated, but most movies don't have choices that split people that extremely.

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

#170

Post by JohnFen »

stuckinhell wrote: post #39
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.

This seems to be happening with many works of fiction. They can't compete so they remake or redo things with modern audiences sensibilities. These usually fail because people liked those works of fiction for their historical sensibilities. Even Roald Dahl is having his works censored and rewritten. I believe its due to reaching "Peak Content".

In all honesty, that's nothing new. Remakes and the like have been the bane of movies from very early on. It still sucks, though.

But it does make movie selection a little easier -- if it's a remake, there's a 90% chance that it's going to be terrible.

Post reply on HN