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

91–100 of 255 posts

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

#91

Post by ydlr »

ralusek wrote: post #71
thriftwy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can play chess and go with one finger...

Go requires at least two fingers. That is what makes it more challenging than chess.

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

#92

Post by acomms »

hedora wrote: post #82
apozem wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Accordingly, Disney will even restrict the availability of their old movies on DVD. I don't know if this applies to Disney given they just launched a massive streaming service containing almost all of their back catalogue.

What is this service you speak of? Disney+ only has a tiny fraction of their back catalog. (For instance, it is missing all of miramax)

They are referring to films created by Walt Disney Animation Studios. Also Miramax is owned by Paramount - so that would explain why it's missing.

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

#93

Post by hesdeadjim »

tensor wrote: post #58
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 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.

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

#94

Post by cld8483 »

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 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.)

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

#95

Post by duxup »

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.

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

#96

Post by dokem »

cloudking wrote: post #59

That's a shame, one of the first great UX for mobile games. Nothing until that release quite matched the feeling of pulling a slingshot.

Until I read your comment I was thinking about Flappy Bird, not Angry Birds. All the comments still made sense though.

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

#97

Post by ye-olde-sysrq »

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 treasured addition to any childhood. (Because they know every dollar there will throw off a thousand in merchandising and Disney World tickets)

2. Weird creative stuff. Pixar is in this bucket, imo. Soul and Inside Out and such were amazing, amazing movies but they're obviously not going to put merchandise on the shelves. But they still sell out theaters and help build (maintain) brand prestige.

3. 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.

So while (imo, this is subjective obviously) I think 1 and 2 are roughly as good as they ever were (and remember that Disney almost died multiple times due to not actually being very good for decade long stretches), 3 doesn't care about that and if some tactic with DVD supply or whatever will help juice sales, they'll do it because it's their job.

Disney gets a lot of flack, and rightly so! They're a big reason why copyright in the US is so fucked up, and I do hate them for that. 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.

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

#98

Post by JadoJodo »

wlesieutre wrote: post #70
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.

The "Top Paid" category isn't really the whole story, since there's no official "free demo" system in the app store. Instead, games are set up as a "free + microtransactions" and then the only in app purchase is "buy the whole game." But unless you look closely down at the bottom of the store page, you can't distinguish games like this from the microtransaction trash. PinOut comes to mind as an example, I'm sure ther…

I'm sure there are app devs that use this to offer a "free demo", but I suspect the bulk of them use it because IAPs aren't subject to Family Sharing the way that paid apps are.

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

#100

Post by dokem »

yieldcrv wrote: post #27

A decade ago mobile app gaming showed promise, no real hits but the medium showing that it has legs A decade later it is worse than anyone imagined, no real hits just a couple games from that earlier era because they’re the only ones you can play offline at all if I'm missing some gems let me know!

Also mobile web. Mobile web is 100% broken as far as i'm concerned.
Post reply on HN