Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!


1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


mdwh

Member Since 27 Feb 2006
Offline Last Active Jun 24 2015 06:53 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: OS X "El Capitan" Aims To Offer Better Performance, Metal Graphics

17 June 2015 - 07:32 AM

 

... but your logic is all wrong. Even if Android makes less than iOS, a game on Android *and* iOS makes more than just iOS


I think you'll find your logic is a bit wonky here.

You've already said Apple give you a bunch of libs to work with, add to that a lower number of device and OS combinations to target you've got a relatively easy target area to hit to get your game out.

Android development, however, is a clusterfuck of bullshit and hate and generally takes more effort than the iOS version and for less return. Maybe it's a little better if you stay in Java land but if you are complaining about Apple's stuff then its logical to assume your theoretical developer is using C++ to at least cross platform as much as possible, at which point... ahahahahahahahaha.

So unless you are CERTAIN your Android version will make back the extra to cover the costs of development it might not be worth it. Higher revenue doesn't always equal higher profit after all.

However, as noted, mobile is a death march with most games and apps making basically nothing and certainly not enough to survive on, so even if you target both unless you've got a killer app AND you get lucky then you are unlikely to make any money regardless of where you publish your stuff.

 

 

I think the wonky logic is presenting opinion as fact, as so often happens when Apple is involved. I've got nothing against a company making their own API, but Android development is just fine in my opinion (I've done C++ as well as Java), for starters it can be done without only owning Apple hardware. IOS now has more than enough different devices with capabilities, sizes, aspect ratios, resolutions that the "only one device to target" benefit is _long_ gone; there are also still different OS versions (old devices just get labelled with an OS that has the latest version number, even if it doesn't have all the functionality of the real latest OS). (Perhaps people on Android can't spend as much, because things are only released for the minority of iphone users.)

Of course there are pros and cons to each platform, but with it hard to make money on mobile, that works in reverse too (is it worth the cost to port something to IOS, unless you are CERTAIN). As a consumer it's a good thing when prices are lower.

Though for people using game engines, my understanding these are mainly cross-platform already, and they can add support for all available APIs, making this a non-issue, and the debate about which platform to support is off-topic to this.

More generally though on API politics, I note how for years we've heard that one must support OpenGL because "MS is evil", "cross-platform is good in principal", "we can't possibly forget that 3% of Mac users". So it is not unsuprising that Apple get some of that flak that, especially when that 3% of Mac users is now a billion or more active Android devices. I remember fears of the death of OpenGL years ago with the disappointment over Longs Peak.

Maybe things are worse now for OpenGL on PC platforms, but it's not like the Mac 3% gaming share was huge in the first place.

"Nobody complains about an API being Windows only"

Did you manage to miss 10-15 years of DirectX vs OpenGL flamewars? :) It's hard to quantify who gets more criticism, but it's not uncommon to see people criticising Windows for being Microsoft, evil, anti-competitive etc - and then you find out they're an Apple users. Or how we get an uproar because something doesn't support the single digit percentage of Mac users, but only supporting the minority Apple phone users and ignoring Android is fair game (this most commonly happens with free applications for a website or service, so the revenue argument doesn't apply) - and heaven forbid someone should support the single digit percentage of WP users.


In Topic: So it begins... 'Update to window 10' says the new icon

04 June 2015 - 08:07 AM

* Older hardware not working on newer versions due to driver support is unfortunate, though something that happens with every new version of an OS. Do the pre-upgrade checks detect that they aren't supported? It's not them deciding to remove a feature, it's that your hardware isn't supported.

* I still have universal search in Windows 8, not sure what you mean here?

* DVD was removed because of software patents - it means everyone would have to pay for software patents even if only some people use it. Alternatively you can download something for free like VLC (which is hosted in a country where software patents don't apply). As someone who isn't a fan of software patents, I approve of this.

* "Previous versions" in the GUI has been replaced with File History, but I wasn't aware Shadow copies was removed altogether? My backup system still works with shadow copies (or claims to, at least).

* I haven't noticed any changes with my printer options between 7 and 8, but I'll have to double check.

I hope you don't play games, if you're shocked by a full screen. True, full screen isn't for everything (and I'm sure I remember threads here a few years ago where some people were claiming running everything full screen was the One True Way of the future, which I disagreed with, and it seems MS does too), but Windows Store apps will run in ordinary resizable windows in 10 anyway, so this is not a reason to stay with 7. And in fact it never was, as 8 doesn't stop you from running Windows 7 apps, the Windows Store apps are in addition. (Personally I use Windows Store apps where full screen isn't a problem - games, video, information/website-wrapper apps; everything else I use classic apps as before. No need to complain about anything.)


In Topic: Is it legal to play your own portable n64?

26 May 2015 - 09:42 AM

 

 

Keep an eye for agreement terms such as "though shalt not reverse-engineer our console," which would render all emulators of that particular platform illegal.

 

End user agreements can not override existing laws in a nation.

 

Yes they can override some existing laws. End user agreements are contracts. Contracts are designed for and permit giving up rights.

 

For example, a "Non-Disclosure Agreement" is a contract giving up freedom of speech in a specific area for a specific duration of time. And freedom of speech is a core tenent of the constitution, yet NDA's can very much override them - and that override is enforceable in court.

 

Many contracts are basically saying, "I recognize that law X exists, but I willingly give up my right to that in exchange for Y."

 

There are government laws that govern what can be in contracts. The primary issue is whether EULAs and TOS's are enforceable as contracts - some courts say yes, some say no, some say it depends on how they are presented. And the government can override contracts (including EULAs and TOS's) saying that they are unfair or overreaching.

 

AND there are government laws, ignoring contracts entirely, that make reverse engineering legal or illegal, depending on how it is carried out. But all that's an aside, and likely doesn't apply to the OP's situation. Again, in my non-lawyer opinion.

 

 

A key part of a contract is that both parties agree. I can't just say "Anyone replying to this post agrees to pay me one million dollars" when it isn't reasonable to assume that said person agreed to that. OTOH if someone clicks to buy something on the Internet, it is in typical cases more reasonable to assume they agreed to enter that contract.

Have there been specific cases about EULs or TOSs regarding emulation? It isn't as simple as a court ruling that all EULs are legal (or if it is, I'm moving there to collect my one million dollars).


In Topic: don't get too comfortable

26 May 2015 - 09:35 AM

 

A version of windows that worked with VR would be interesting.


No!!! Don't say this too loud or windows 11 will have an interface ideally suited to VR, and everyone else who isn't using VR will be stuffed. It's not like they didn't do this before with touch screens smile.png

 

Or rather, they'd add support for VR displays, whilst all the while working with other inputs too. But because they also change the size of the start menu or the colour of the start menu, a vocal minority will endlessly repeat how Windows 11 is unusable without VR displays, because they didn't like those changes.


In Topic: Is it necessary to license your game?

18 May 2015 - 06:20 AM

Yes, distributing without permission/proper licences is not a good idea. Not because of whether it's harmful, unethical, or analogies to criminal acts like theft that are nothing to do with this; but because that's what the law is.

Youtube may get away with it and no one here seems to complain about the ethics of that, but they do have more lawyers.

Now, selling a game without a license (or rather, selling the game) is another thing. This is very bad. You do not normally sell software, never, not ever (well, except when a big $$$ company buys it from you). Instead, you sell a license, which is a limited (usually non-exclusive) right to use that software. Use, not own.

This is usually explicitly stated in the lengthy lawyerese of the license agreement, and often part of the "by doing XYZ you agree..." clause on the sticker on the shrinkwrap (or above the download link), too.

If you don't do that, someone might argue that they bought the software (that is, all rights to it) instead. Which, although every sane person would agree that this is nonsensical, is technically true. Now, in states with cowboy laws, this would allow someone to successfully draw you to court (and win the lawsuit) because you later sold the game (which you no longer owned) to someone else.
It's a Good Thing to tell people what it is they're getting when they buy something. Though, I never recall lengthy legalese let alone "I agree" EULAs that have become commonplace in software, when buying a music CD or film on DVD. I don't think anyone could try to claim they own the rights of distribution or even the copyright based on that. (DVDs usually have the pirating warnings, but that's just repeating the law, not telling me what I've bought a "licence to use".)

PARTNERS