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

181–190 of 255 posts

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

#181

Post by pessimizer »

forevergreenyon wrote: post #114
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.

solution: don't give people that choice... this aligns all corporate-business incentives which are the only ones that matter when considering how to run stores. I'm really worried since it occurred to me that going forwards the only way to really change what any computer device does/can do is through app stores. No more programming languages; specially not 'open ones' for your own computer hygiene (or safety). heck,…

You say that now, but you'll love the Speakwrites. You can just talk into them and they'll write for you, with realtime correction of grammar and misinformation.

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

#182

Post by JohnFen »

mindslight wrote: post #112
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…

Reforming copyright length is more straightforward than trying to come up with some roundabout way to incentivize it. Angry Birds was released in 2009, 14 years ago. By its publisher's own admission, it has run the bulk of its financial value. Angry Birds should now be in the public domain, including source code that should have been escrowed as the creative work (distributed binaries are mere mechanical derivatives)…

> Copyright is not property

It distresses me greatly that we've forgotten this so thoroughly that you see people actually saying out loud that copyright is a property right. It most certainly is not, and was never represented as such until fairly recently.

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

#183

Post by jordemort »

duxup wrote: post #95
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.

Apple Arcade is great for that reason. No ads, no micro transactions, very high quality games.

I played Star Trek: Legends on Apple Arcade and it was deeply weird. It was a game that was clearly designed for a microtransaction model, with loot boxes, "rare" items, multiple in-game currencies and timers, etc - and in the Apple Arcade edition, exactly zero ways to spend money on any of it. Like a Chuck E Cheese with all the ticket machines set to free play.

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

#184

Post by cld8483 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #104
cld8483 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree, I don't think movies have gotten better in any regard except for the cost of special effects (cheaper than ever before, and so, used more often and generally with less thought and care.)

I guess it would behoove this stance to put some sort of limit on the span here - are you saying that first movie of the horse running is equally effective as the latest A24 art-house horror flick, because I doubt it, so I'd like some bounds on these sort of statements that movies have not improved? Also, keep in mind survivorship bias - we largely ONLY think of the great movies from the 50's and 60's but have plenty…

I have gotten more enjoyment out of watching some silent-era movies than modern release movies. Particularly, the 1916 20,000 Leagues is great. In general I don't think there is any real relationship between the age of a movie and the quality of a movie; quality movies are more or less evenly distributed through time. Sometimes film makers strike gold through some fortunate coincidence of inspiration, talent and luck, and most of the time they don't. And yes, that means most old movies aren't good; but most new movies aren't good either.

The passage of time doesn't play a role, because even though individual directors/actors get more experience with age, they also age out of the industry and get replaced with new guys. And besides, it is very often the case that movies get worse as a director ages. Compare The Godfather to anything Francis Ford Coppola has made in the past 30 years. Or Michael Mann's Thief and Manhunter to anything he's done in the past 20. Or Ridley Scott's filmography. There are many examples like this; experience counts for something but old men often lose their edge.

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

#185

Post by AlexandrB »

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.

This is strongly contradicted by how frigging long movies have gotten. Old action movies are often in the 90-120 minute range. New action movies - that are supposedly lacking that old filler - are often 3 hour slogs.

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

#186

Post by phillryu »

dgb23 wrote: post #148
joenot443 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fro…

For mobile gaming there might be some creators here or there scratching out a living like that but probably about 0.1% as many as you imagine, or as there seemingly should be considering how much money is in the ecosystem. The vast majority of that money is sucked up by big IP and older established apps and pseudo publishers/install networks that rip off the latest trends and blast them to their audience full of ads etc. Apple Arcade was trying to create a healthier walled garden within App Store but years later feels kind of like a big brand bargain bin the way it's been run. It's just very extreme winner takes all dynamics.

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

#187

Post by JohnFen »

jdlyga wrote: post #120

I lost faith in Rovio when they started advertising fake game footage on TikTok. They're just a clickbait company now.

I was disgusted by them when they came down hard on people making games similar in style to Angry Birds -- because Angry Birds itself is a ripoff of another game.

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

#188

Post by duxup »

jordemort wrote: post #183
duxup wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple Arcade is great for that reason. No ads, no micro transactions, very high quality games.

I played Star Trek: Legends on Apple Arcade and it was deeply weird. It was a game that was clearly designed for a microtransaction model, with loot boxes, "rare" items, multiple in-game currencies and timers, etc - and in the Apple Arcade edition, exactly zero ways to spend money on any of it. Like a Chuck E Cheese with all the ticket machines set to free play.

There are a couple games like that, they didn’t quite make the transition away from F2P smooth as others.

On the other hand, kinda nice too, provides an interesting perspective.

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

#189

Post by JohnFen »

humanizersequel wrote: post #42
tadfisher wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The owner of the gas station also sells crack cocaine on the side. The longer people stay to fill up their vehicle, the more likely it is they'll purchase some crack cocaine. Right now, most of their clientele fill up without leaving their car, but the ones with electric cars will stay for up to an hour. So, considering both the refueling business and the crack cocaine business, the best move is to rip up the gas pum…

You don't even need the sensationalist reference to crack — this is already plausible with gas stations being convenience stores (and sometimes much more).

Indeed. Modern gas stations make very little money selling gas. They make money by people buying the stuff in their store.

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

#190

Post by insane_dreamer »

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.

> Disney will even restrict the availability of their old movies on DVD

that's because they'd rather you sign up for Disney+

Post reply on HN