4 ms·

Sorry, but AdBlock on a game like Angry Birds IS stealing. Rovio certainly has a lot of money, but other developers aren't so lucky -- and many are barely scra

Sorry, but AdBlock on a game like Angry Birds IS stealing. Rovio certainly has a lot of money, but other developers aren't so lucky -- and many are barely scraping by. Try investing nearly $5000 and seven months of your life in developing a game that's being ad supported, where your income relies on ads, and then watch people joke about blocking them. It sucks, trust me.

kevinpet 15y ago
You can argue that it's morally wrong, but it isn't stealing.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
chgriffin 15y ago
@somecallmetim i sympathize with your frustration. What do you think the solution is? What other ways do you monetize your games?
svmegatron 15y ago
I don't disagree with you, but drcube's point is a serious and valid one. It also smells like an opportunity for devs and/or ad networks to provide much better targeting. Ad-supported games for kids should be able to get kid-appropriate ads if the developer or the parent so choose. I haven't done enough ad-supported game development to know if that kind of thing is currently possible, but its something I would look into if a 5 year old were using my ipod regularly.
- SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
  It's a tricky problem, actually. My game as an example: Almost half of the users are under 18, but most of the other half are in the 18-35 range (according to Flurry metrics, which guesses what the age of a user is based on what OTHER apps on the device are reporting -- I'm not asking them myself). Unless I ask each user how old they are, I can't know whether or not to serve them ads. And if I DO ask them, then people often feel like I'm prying too much. ESPECIALLY if I'm asking if they are under 15 (and finding out they're under 13 would cause COPPA to kick in [1]). I already have the "no adult ads" selected in my ad provider, which is supposed to block singles ads, but I've seen them come up anyway. Presumably if I fed them an age that I'd gotten from a user they would be filtering the ads more, if only to target them better. Don't know. [1] http://www.coppa.org/ http://www.coppa.org/
jbermudes 15y ago
How is removing something that was given to you in a package stealing? If someone gave me a free magazine, but the magazine had ads, you're saying it'd be stealing to rip those pages out?
- SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
  Magazines are paid for the number of ads they distribute. And the ads DID make it to you, so even if you go through them all and rip them out, you ARE being exposed to them, if only briefly. And the ads can't be all destroyed unilaterally by installing MagazineAdBlock. If you block ads, you have NO chance of seeing them, and therefore I have no chance of making the $0.03 that's typical from a single click. And worse, if you block those annoying ads, then you have no motivation to BUY the version without ads! If everyone blocked ads, you would have no more free games to steal. If you don't want ads, buy games without ads. Don't try to hide behind bogus rationalizations. Blocking ads is clearly unethical, even if you don't want to call it stealing, because the developer intends to make money on his product and is giving it to you with the express understanding that it's ad supported.
  - jbermudes 15y ago
    HTTP is an inherently request-based protocol. The HTML file that I request from the server has links to ads. A stock browser will request those ad links. Ad block tells the browser not to. So it's more like if someone asks you "hey, I have free ice cream bars, want one?" and after you receive it he then asks "It also comes with this ad flyer. Want it too?" and you say "no, thanks" or take it and throw it in the trash immediately. Is it rude? Sure. Is it stealing? If the legality of the transaction was dependent on me accepting the ad, then that should have been negotiated before you sent me HTTP 200. But that's not in the HTTP protocol. If you don't like the protocol or don't think it's fair, don't use it.
drcube 15y ago
Is changing channels during the commercial break "stealing"?
dlss 15y ago
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1121596044/how-piracy-works http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1121596044/how-piracy-works
- SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
  He theorizes that pirates actually might promote the game. My Flurry numbers beg to differ. My "unlocked" version of the game was pirated on July 15. Almost 2000 new users ran it that day, and all but about 10 of them were pirated copies. So did I see my sales jump? I sold about 10 units that day, and 5 the next day. I don't think I've seen the numbers top 20 sales per day. If there are moral pirates out there, they didn't show up in sufficient numbers to make up for the devastation that followed. How about downloads of the free version? Over the next two days, it crashed from consistently getting 750-900 downloads a day to about 350 downloads a day. And because of that drop, it fell off the charts and continued to crash down to 100-200 downloads a day. So as nice as the theory is -- and as much as it might work for music, where the numbers are MUCH larger and there is some data supporting the theory -- it simply doesn't work for games. In fact, it pretty much killed my game, because of the way the market rankings work -- the crash in downloads meant it lost position, which meant even fewer downloads, and a death spiral ensued. So don't give me "piracy is actually good for your game!" when it killed mine. And it's still rated 4.5 stars, with tons of "Awesome game!" reviews, so don't tell me people don't like it.
  - dlss 15y ago
    So notch was talking about piracy and his own game (minecraft). He basically says publishers should approach piracy as part of a game's marketing plan -- kinda like the free version you talk about here. As for piracy killing your game... bull shit. Every game eventually gets pirated. All the games above you on the charts have been pirated. Why didn't piracy kill them?
    - SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
      They didn't all have premium versions to pirate? Angry Birds didn't. Some of the top games probably were noticed randomly by the right bloggers; a Russian blogger loved my game, and it's sitting in a nice comfortable position in the Russian Market ranking, for example. Angry Birds was probably featured in EVERY blog that deals with Android games. Some of the top games also have annoying but effective viral marketing components; I've so far avoided stooping to those depths. Some of them probably had better marketing plans. I'm a programmer, not a marketing expert. And if someone inside Google decides randomly to feature a game, then it's set. My game WAS featured on AppsLib, a secondary market, and after it was no longer featured it stayed on top of the free apps ranking at #2 for weeks. As in, the #2 downloaded APP, not game. Unless you know more than anyone else outside of Google about the actual algorithm Google uses to determine how apps rank, you have no clue as to what could have caused a game to fall -- but a huge fall happens the SAME DAY it was pirated. It's not proof, but it's a very suggestive correlation. Just because it doesn't match your world view doesn't make it garbage. What's indisputable is that the piracy DIDN'T give me a boost in sales OR downloads, which completely invalidates the "piracy is just another kind of marketing" theory. There's a lot of random luck involved in getting to the top organically, and the process is potentially fragile unless you've got a lot of cross-promotion you can apply from other apps. Or a lot of money to buy ads. I had neither.

kevinpet 15y ago

You can argue that it's morally wrong, but it isn't stealing.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

chgriffin 15y ago

@somecallmetim i sympathize with your frustration. What do you think the solution is? What other ways do you monetize your games?

svmegatron 15y ago

I don't disagree with you, but drcube's point is a serious and valid one. It also smells like an opportunity for devs and/or ad networks to provide much better targeting. Ad-supported games for kids should be able to get kid-appropriate ads if the developer or the parent so choose. I haven't done enough ad-supported game development to know if that kind of thing is currently possible, but its something I would look into if a 5 year old were using my ipod regularly.

SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
It's a tricky problem, actually. My game as an example: Almost half of the users are under 18, but most of the other half are in the 18-35 range (according to Flurry metrics, which guesses what the age of a user is based on what OTHER apps on the device are reporting -- I'm not asking them myself). Unless I ask each user how old they are, I can't know whether or not to serve them ads. And if I DO ask them, then people often feel like I'm prying too much. ESPECIALLY if I'm asking if they are under 15 (and finding out they're under 13 would cause COPPA to kick in [1]). I already have the "no adult ads" selected in my ad provider, which is supposed to block singles ads, but I've seen them come up anyway. Presumably if I fed them an age that I'd gotten from a user they would be filtering the ads more, if only to target them better. Don't know. [1] http://www.coppa.org/ http://www.coppa.org/

jbermudes 15y ago

How is removing something that was given to you in a package stealing? If someone gave me a free magazine, but the magazine had ads, you're saying it'd be stealing to rip those pages out?

SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
Magazines are paid for the number of ads they distribute. And the ads DID make it to you, so even if you go through them all and rip them out, you ARE being exposed to them, if only briefly. And the ads can't be all destroyed unilaterally by installing MagazineAdBlock. If you block ads, you have NO chance of seeing them, and therefore I have no chance of making the $0.03 that's typical from a single click. And worse, if you block those annoying ads, then you have no motivation to BUY the version without ads! If everyone blocked ads, you would have no more free games to steal. If you don't want ads, buy games without ads. Don't try to hide behind bogus rationalizations. Blocking ads is clearly unethical, even if you don't want to call it stealing, because the developer intends to make money on his product and is giving it to you with the express understanding that it's ad supported.
- jbermudes 15y ago
  HTTP is an inherently request-based protocol. The HTML file that I request from the server has links to ads. A stock browser will request those ad links. Ad block tells the browser not to. So it's more like if someone asks you "hey, I have free ice cream bars, want one?" and after you receive it he then asks "It also comes with this ad flyer. Want it too?" and you say "no, thanks" or take it and throw it in the trash immediately. Is it rude? Sure. Is it stealing? If the legality of the transaction was dependent on me accepting the ad, then that should have been negotiated before you sent me HTTP 200. But that's not in the HTTP protocol. If you don't like the protocol or don't think it's fair, don't use it.

drcube 15y ago

Is changing channels during the commercial break "stealing"?

dlss 15y ago

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1121596044/how-piracy-works http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1121596044/how-piracy-works

SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
He theorizes that pirates actually might promote the game. My Flurry numbers beg to differ. My "unlocked" version of the game was pirated on July 15. Almost 2000 new users ran it that day, and all but about 10 of them were pirated copies. So did I see my sales jump? I sold about 10 units that day, and 5 the next day. I don't think I've seen the numbers top 20 sales per day. If there are moral pirates out there, they didn't show up in sufficient numbers to make up for the devastation that followed. How about downloads of the free version? Over the next two days, it crashed from consistently getting 750-900 downloads a day to about 350 downloads a day. And because of that drop, it fell off the charts and continued to crash down to 100-200 downloads a day. So as nice as the theory is -- and as much as it might work for music, where the numbers are MUCH larger and there is some data supporting the theory -- it simply doesn't work for games. In fact, it pretty much killed my game, because of the way the market rankings work -- the crash in downloads meant it lost position, which meant even fewer downloads, and a death spiral ensued. So don't give me "piracy is actually good for your game!" when it killed mine. And it's still rated 4.5 stars, with tons of "Awesome game!" reviews, so don't tell me people don't like it.
- dlss 15y ago
  So notch was talking about piracy and his own game (minecraft). He basically says publishers should approach piracy as part of a game's marketing plan -- kinda like the free version you talk about here. As for piracy killing your game... bull shit. Every game eventually gets pirated. All the games above you on the charts have been pirated. Why didn't piracy kill them?
  - SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
    They didn't all have premium versions to pirate? Angry Birds didn't. Some of the top games probably were noticed randomly by the right bloggers; a Russian blogger loved my game, and it's sitting in a nice comfortable position in the Russian Market ranking, for example. Angry Birds was probably featured in EVERY blog that deals with Android games. Some of the top games also have annoying but effective viral marketing components; I've so far avoided stooping to those depths. Some of them probably had better marketing plans. I'm a programmer, not a marketing expert. And if someone inside Google decides randomly to feature a game, then it's set. My game WAS featured on AppsLib, a secondary market, and after it was no longer featured it stayed on top of the free apps ranking at #2 for weeks. As in, the #2 downloaded APP, not game. Unless you know more than anyone else outside of Google about the actual algorithm Google uses to determine how apps rank, you have no clue as to what could have caused a game to fall -- but a huge fall happens the SAME DAY it was pirated. It's not proof, but it's a very suggestive correlation. Just because it doesn't match your world view doesn't make it garbage. What's indisputable is that the piracy DIDN'T give me a boost in sales OR downloads, which completely invalidates the "piracy is just another kind of marketing" theory. There's a lot of random luck involved in getting to the top organically, and the process is potentially fragile unless you've got a lot of cross-promotion you can apply from other apps. Or a lot of money to buy ads. I had neither.