Fuck this place

[AMC-Campaign]

Sticks and stones, people. Stu's opinions may be a bit troll-like but the people who take the bait are no better. I'm not the biggest fan of controversy for controversy's sake - yes, it can be very "look at me" and can get tiresome if done frequently enough - but I'm equally annoyed by people who say the same things as everybody else: this bloody modern-day "peer pressure" where if, for example, you don't like Critically Acclaimed Game X you aren't part of the club/clique* is as tiresome as the deliberate atention-seeking. Just exhibit the opinions that you believe in, not the ones that you're forced to believe in.

*See also: the Nintendo DS. Now, I have one and there are a number of games for it that I like, but the number of times I have seen someone post an unintelligible screenshot of a Japanese game which then gets paraded as looking "quirky" and "different" (as well as the damned phrase "I don't know what it is but I want it now!") is extraordinary

[Rod_S]

Is anyone else noticing a trend here? Very broadly speaking, developers hate Stu, gamers love him...?

[defsdoor]

The ego was big enough to begin with......

[oddbob0]

Example - Stu posting up a bought version of a game on his site purely because they authors hadn't mentioned a previous Sensible game in the credits. Sorry guys, but that is so wrong I find it hard to believe he did it.

This is an awkward one for me, probably because the guy who's game it is was/is a very good friend of mine and has been since I was 11.

The first thing I said when I got sent a copy of the game was words to the effect of "fuck me, this reminds me of that Sensible game on a cover disk" - and its a game I must have barely glanced at first time round. But it is incredibly similar to the point of if I noticed, and I'm the most unobservant cunt on the planet - he's got a point.

Now, yeah - I don't think putting the game up for free download was the right thing to do, I also think its a bit of a cunts trick (and I've called him a cunt over it myself in the past), *but* I also think that the amount of sales effected by that action was, well, pretty much next to zero.

Demonstar didn't go under because Stu hosted their game, I'm 100% certain on that and dragging it up constantly when the publishers and/or Myke could have done something about it is a bit low. But no-one ever did, did they? Stu's not some unstoppable force.

If people were really that concerned about it, they could have chucked Myke the money and bought the game themselves. Its not like his website wasn't plastered all over the game and they didn't know where to find him.

But no-one did, did they? Instead it just gets dragged up whenever there's an argument about Stu and its something that happened 2/3 years ago - and I end up asking myself how many of the people that constantly drag this up on a principle actually supported Demonstar with what really matters to a struggling indie dev.

Don't get me wrong, I love Myke to bits as a mate - but seeing his game dragged up every single time there's an argument with Stu is fucking depressing in the extreme.

Move on people. Myke has, so can you.

*edit* this isn't expressly aimed at you sillytuna btw, just something I'm tired of in general

[amanset]

Fairplay failed due to, as far as I remember, a lot of it depending on people picketing games shops and handing out leaflets.

Now, imagine being a shopper in a standard city centre. Over there is the guy from the Red Cross. Over there is Amnesty. Over there is some cancer charity. And here are the guys who want cheaper videogames.

Lets be honest, they must have looked like right twonks. No-one could possibly take them seriously.

[sack]

You can't campaign for lower prices without working with the industry and Stu knew it.

Kinda related, but he did have a pop at the fruit machine industry too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2979142.stm

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazin ... 47,00.html

I don't know the outcome of this campaign but I'm sure a bit of Googling will reveal all.

Your argument about game prices vs content is a bit flawed when you look at some of the current releases for Ps2/Xbox compared to their identical 360 equivalents, and the differences in prices. Same games, higher prices on the 360 with zero extra content, and I don't accept pointless fluff like 'achievements" as being any kind of worthwhile value-add.

I seem to remember his main gripe with fruit machines was the fact the software controlled ther payout so in some cases if you emulated the software and took both options it looked a bit predestined.

the reason it is like that is because by law a certain percentage has to be paid out to be fair to the player and this is the only means of controlling things sufficiently to make that happen.

so I think he was missing the point with that one

[Jimaroid]

so I think he was missing the point with that one

Except for the fact of proving some machines were paying below the required minimum. Which was the point, so no.

[defsdoor]

And that - in Hi-Lo games theres no random. It decides you will lose before you choose and spins the opposite. But thats no shock - you only have to play them for 10 minutes and you can almost feel the coding logic behind the lights and buttons.

[gravy]

And that - in Hi-Lo games theres no random. It decides you will lose before you choose and spins the opposite. But thats no shock - you only have to play them for 10 minutes and you can almost feel the coding logic behind the lights and buttons.

I thought that was the complaint rather than fruities paying out less that 70% of their revenue in winnings.

If you've an external % enforcement like that then the code has to be detirministic. Even the Rev's solution is to have more "losing" games where the cheating is shifted to pre-determining what fruits pop up on the wheels rather than at the gamble stage.

And as far as I know the 70% rule is a voluntary guideline rather than something legally required.

[billynomates]

If you've an external % enforcement like that then the code has to be detirministic.

Surely not? Example - roll a d6, win on a 6. Payout is approx. 17% over time, yet the roll of a single die is not deterministic.

[gravy]

If you've an external % enforcement like that then the code has to be detirministic.

Surely not? Example - roll a d6, win on a 6. Payout is approx. 17% over time, yet the roll of a single die is not deterministic.

Over what time frame is the important part. My understanding is that the machines have to pay 70% of their earnings over a particular period.

It's entirely possible if completely random that a machine would pay out nothing for ages OR try and pay out more than it's taken requiring whoever's hired the machine to put more money in.

[billynomates]

If you've an external % enforcement like that then the code has to be detirministic.

Surely not? Example - roll a d6, win on a 6. Payout is approx. 17% over time, yet the roll of a single die is not deterministic.

Over what time frame is the important part. My understanding is that the machines have to pay 70% of their earnings over a particular period.

It's entirely possible if completely random that a machine would pay out nothing OR try and pay out more than it's taken requiring whoever's hired the machine to put more money in.

It's possible, but the confidence interval is probably such that the odds on not paying out whatever% over whatever time are negligible.

[defsdoor]

The problem is that fruit machine are more complex than that. Just add the ability to gamble and the machine has to start factoring in that, and therefore take away any randomness on winning a gamble else it will give you either too much or too little.

You can tell - most machines aren't even the slightest bit subtle about it. The only way to win is to watch someone else lose a lot then jump in and pick up as the percentages get back in line. The timeframe for the % isn't set either. Gravy - the % is a legal thng iirc - it determines what kind of machine it is - where it can go (chippy,arcade etc..). In private clubs I believe the % can be lower but the awards higher.

I used to play them a lot when I was young and on the dole. Once I collected my dole and put every penny of it into a fruity. I felt gutted, ripped off and generally depressed and have never touched one since.

Odd that they are called Amusements With Prizes machines.

[gravy]

The timeframe for the % isn't set either. Gravy - the % is a legal thng iirc - it determines what kind of machine it is - where it can go (chippy,arcade etc..). In private clubs I believe the % can be lower but the awards higher.

To be fair the bit about the % payout not being a legal requirement is what I got from Stu's site and that could just be a load of bollocks:

http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/fruit/aims.htm

[gilesgoat]

From another point of view "Why people waste time and money playing
slot machines ?"

If you really want to play a game where real possibility to win and skills
are involved then play poker, but not an electronic one, a real one on a
real poker table.

To be precise, I believe that all gambling is basically a "throwing money in
the bin for fun".

I think that was someone that became (in)famous for a sentence (was
a professional gambler I think) that said "It's immoral that chickens should
continue to keep their money in their pockets".

Forget slot machines, they are there to empty your pockets not to make you win.