next »

[capn.lee]

That Wolfire is profoundly stupid enough to allow people to pay less than what is necessary to cover costs is a seperate (but related) issue.

stupid all the way to the bank

They are literally stealing.

we can argue about whether copyright infringement is as bad as stealing, I am prepared to discuss that with you. I'm not really up for defining words to you.[/elitism]

[Headless Man]

That Wolfire is profoundly stupid enough to allow people to pay less than what is necessary to cover costs is a seperate (but related) issue.

stupid all the way to the bank

When people are making money overall, it is bad and wrong to point out areas where they are losing money.  Losing money all the way to the bank.

we can argue about whether copyright infringement is as bad as stealing, I am prepared to discuss that with you. I'm not really up for defining words to you.[/elitism]

They are not copyright infringing on the money they owe.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think people will pay the minimum most of the time, regardless of any guilt or charity. immortal defense has been pay what you want (with the minimum high enough to cover fees) for about a year, and i also had a pay what you want sale about a year before that with no minimum but 1 cent; in both cases most of the sales were at the minimum price. i'm not sure if setting the minimum higher than 1 cent reduces sales or not, but i'd doubt it (if someone can pay 1 cent they can usually also pay 1 dollar, and if given the choice most of the people who would pay 1 dollar if 1 dollar were the minimum would pay 1 cent)

i think the 1 cent minimum is better for time-limited sales because it attracts more notice, whereas a minimum high enough to cover fees makes more sense when the game is permanently pay what you want (like my game and jason roher's games are).

[:^)]

I paid $5.44 for this current humble bundle. One dollar more than the average at the time. <shrug>

Digital distribution makes selling stuff interesting. I like.

I think this pay-what-you-want, DRM-free, unlimited downloads model is the bomb.
But that's probably only because I'm a bright, optimistic, young man.

[capn.lee]

i'm not sure if setting the minimum higher than 1 cent reduces sales or not, but i'd doubt it (if someone can pay 1 cent they can usually also pay 1 dollar, and if given the choice most of the people who would pay 1 dollar if 1 dollar were the minimum would pay 1 cent)

i think the 1 cent minimum is better for time-limited sales because it attracts more notice, whereas a minimum high enough to cover fees makes more sense when the game is permanently pay what you want (like my game and jason roher's games are).

certainly. humble bundle got a lot of attention for being pay whatever you want, but because it was a novelty, not because it is more beneficial than a set price.
I've seen a few attempts to jump on this by doing the same (not lumping you or jason rohrer in with these, by the way) only to see it fall on it's face in much the same way that other sites tried to mimic the million dollar homepage.

another big thing that worked for the humble bundle was having world of goo on there. world of goo got a lot of mainstream press and a lot of the press was treating that bundle as 'pay what you want for world of goo and get 4 other games (later, 5) for free'. That doesn't work too well for others wanting to get in on that action.

[s0]

I think it'd be better if it was a fixed price with a fixed percentage going to charity. Don't get me wrong, the pay-what-you-want model benefits me as a consumer and is probably better for sales but there ARE some ethical problems with it imo.

[moi]

I don't think the HiB guys worry about money anymore since they got a few hundred million billions from venture capital. their "humble tip" probably goes toward repaying the venture capitalists right now. WHO KNOWS?

[Zaphos]

we can argue about whether copyright infringement is as bad as stealing, I am prepared to discuss that with you. I'm not really up for defining words to you.[/elitism]

They are not copyright infringing on the money they owe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement *
Distinguishing copyright and theft is common, consistent with legal usage of the terms, and it's not 'stupid' to agree with court usage of terms that are fundamentally legal ones.  Obviously people do informally use 'theft' to mean copyright infringement now as well, so one might argue the informal definition of 'theft' now does include copyright infringement, but I wouldn't go angrily insulting people over preferring a narrower definition.

* in case you are the sort to dismiss wikipedia in general instead of checking the references cited by the article in question, please note: if you want to argue the factual accuracy of the info presented, you will need to dismiss not just wikipedia but also "Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. pp. 221" and "Dowling v. United States (1985), 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218."

[st33d]

People are going to be dicks about what's on sale regardless of the price.

The better quality it is, then the more "grey area" customers are going to stump up cash.

HB has been pretty solid on the selection of games in my opinion. I'd only add that the games on offer that I'd put the effort in to complete I'd already bought before the bundle came out. None of the others I've bothered to complete.

Makes me wonder if I'm making a subconscious value judgement. Because I'd definitely ace a free game. But a cheap or micro-transaction game? I don't really know...

[SirNiko]

http://jayisgames.com/archives/2011/07/you_are_games_letters_in_boxes_9_humble_indie_bundle_edition.php

JayisGames put up a Humble Indie Bundle 3 themed version of their letters in boxes series of puzzles. If you solve the puzzles and send in your final answer, you can win a HiB3 in a drawing early next week.

Even if you already have the bundle, or don't want a free one (because it's worth money), the puzzles are fun and themed to the five games in the bundle. I suggest giving them a go anyway.

I can only assume JayisGames was cool about donating well above the average when purchasing bundles for this giveaway.

[Oddball]

Markus has added Minecraft to the HIB3. It's only a temporary version though. Until August 14th I think. Guess it's time for me to see what all the fuss is about and finally try out Minecraft.

[phubans]

Yeah, more blood money for the indie elite. The rich get richer, alright.

[:^)]

Markus has added Minecraft to the HIB3. It's only a temporary version though. Until August 14th I think. Guess it's time for me to see what all the fuss is about and finally try out Minecraft.

Me too.

[deathtotheweird]

Yeah, more blood money for the indie elite. The fat get fatter, alright.

yeah haha. instead of putting his game in a pack, he's doing this kind of neat advertising. so if people buy his game from this little promo, he gets to keep all the money instead of splitting it up with the others. cake gets expensive.

GENIUS.

[Tanner]

woah
in that light, i dunno if i like that.

[Headless Man]

we can argue about whether copyright infringement is as bad as stealing, I am prepared to discuss that with you. I'm not really up for defining words to you.[/elitism]

They are not copyright infringing on the money they owe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement *
Distinguishing copyright and theft is common, consistent with legal usage of the terms, and it's not 'stupid' to agree with court usage of terms that are fundamentally legal ones.  Obviously people do informally use 'theft' to mean copyright infringement now as well, so one might argue the informal definition of 'theft' now does include copyright infringement, but I wouldn't go angrily insulting people over preferring a narrower definition.

* in case you are the sort to dismiss wikipedia in general instead of checking the references cited by the article in question, please note: if you want to argue the factual accuracy of the info presented, you will need to dismiss not just wikipedia but also "Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. pp. 221" and "Dowling v. United States (1985), 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218."

First, theft is not a 'fundamentally legal term', you big spaz.  Come on.
Second, the pirates (are you going to take me to task over the legal useage of this term too?) are stealing the money they owe.  If you sneak into a theatre you are stealing the price of a ticket. If you don't pay your employee their wages you are stealing their pay packet.  This is acceptable common useage.  Theft is a broad enough term that it covers all this stuff, quite independent of legal specifics.  

In the case of copyright, it's quite possible to infringe on somebody's copyright without actually withholding money you owe, because none is asked - as is the case in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_%281985%29 - so it gets it own little legal term to deal with the complexities of copyright.  In the HIB#3 case, certainly copyright is being infringed on, but we also have a situation where money is directly asked for and none is given, so it is stealing as well as copyright infringement.  Theft is an inexact term, and copyright infringement is too narrow to cover it.

The theft I am talking about, and the article was talking about, is specifically the theft or defraudation of the money that is owed for the HIB#3.  
It is shit-eatingly retarded to bring up legal distinctions where common useage applies.  Notch is fat, stupid, useless and Swedish.

[Zaphos]

Uh, I'll just stop talking to you I guess.  *backs away slowly*

[Headless Man]

Bye, cocksucker.

[Headless Man]

Sorry, I am way too mad about this.

[:^)]

Guess who's gonna get banned?