Unreal Engine Delta Zone [v21.0] [DEVOLUTION]

[D-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N]

Are you going to put some sort of password control on that regardless? Because the impression I'm getting is you put that shit on all the builds, and that's sketchy as shit. Why the hell do you do shit like that if you provide a download link to your patrons anyway? You're giving it to your patrons for free also, they're paying you to continue the development, they're not buying the game as a product.

When I say it's uncensored for free, it means you will get game build and password to play it uncensored.
Login is still the same from release 01 (only some small upgrades to it), it works very well for patrons, so no need to change it.

 

[D-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N]

lol, I was wondering what happened to this game just yesterday. happy to see it didn't just quietly die.

The opposite is the truth, it's getting more traction, and with a better budget, I'm working to get some pro animators on board to have even more monthly content.

 

[D-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N]

Patreon gives more money. Unless off course you are trying to sell the uncensored version of the game. That just means the dev is completely new here.

Game looks promising though. I dig the graphics quality.

@Dev:First time i see this project. I see you have a small incomeready to do this full time. That's very good.
Maybe you could also set some goals. I know that Wildlife (Adeptus Steve) has always set new Goals for themselves and they are steadaly growing now with 100k per month and a small Studio.

How many people are currently working on this project?

Yes, I do this full-time + my spare time already for a year and a half, basically, before I had income, I borrowed money until I launched Patreon and now when I'm slowly getting in positive numbers, I'm looking for some industry professionals to expand.

I do have goals and plans for the whole game at the moment, but still improving plans as I develop the game.

 

[Jadensy]

Yes, I do this full-time + my spare time already for a year and a half, basically, before I had income, I borrowed money until I launched Patreon and now when I'm slowly getting in positive numbers, I'm looking for some industry professionals to expand.

I do have goals and plans for the whole game at the moment, but still improving plans as I develop the game.

I admire you having a plan for the future of the game's development and i hope one day soon i'll be able to support you in your endeavor.

 

[invisible]

When will you be moving over to Subscribestar, because the moment this game goes big those people at Patreon will be up in your face and start to set rules on your game and this kills the creativity.

 

[YoshiEnVerde]

so you're saying you have to prove you were deleting your browsing history innocently for it not to be considered a crime? So it's a felony to delete your browsing history unless you can prove you weren't doing it to destroy evidence? Illegal until proven otherwise is means it's by default illegal. There was no signed contract with required to purchase a CD with XCP copy protection, and the blanket adhesion contract didn't say it contained a rootkit. If you think adhesion contracts are worth following then you're a fucking retard, and if you don't, then they have no power over you. The law is a list of demands from the government upon the public, if they can't back up their threats they're not worth the toilet paper they're written on. The laws on this topic are insane and only ever enforced arbitrarily, so the point of them is to provide a beatstick for the government if they find someone they don't like. The fact that some judges are sane enough to not apply the law as written doesn't mean that the laws aren't fucking insane as written, and if you have to rely on judges not sticking to the letter of the law, you're probably fucked. I can tell you didn't even skim the sources I linked, since they contained specific examples and precidents for what I was saying. The dmca says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected" No definition is given for "effectively controls access" and the courts have made it clear that basically anything counts, there is no fair use exception, and you don't even need to know you were doing it. Paywalls effectively control access, and deleting your cookies makes them not pop up, so it's a felony to delete them QED you strawmanning fucktard.

Spoiler: Initial Response:

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Edit because of adding the next bit:

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Second edit:

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Pogo123]

looks interesting but how performance friendly is this game and can i customize the female character? (would like to give her a bit more curves ^^)

 

[DKOC]

Yeah, that is how I read those links you provided.

So, watching porn and deleting your history isn't a felony. But... if you watch ch!ld porn and delete your history, it is a felony, because it is illegal to watch ch!ld porn and deleting any history of it, means you are deleting evidence of your wrongdoing. Generally the way those links are written, you have to have been doing something illegal in the first place, and then deleting the evidence of it, is a felony. So, if you watched porn when you were 16, that is illegal, because you aren't 18+.

With CDs and their protection the legality is somewhat questionable, but, there are those End User Legal Agreements, (EULAs), that you have to agree to before you start using whatever is on the CD, be it a program, music, or whatever. If you don't agree with the EULA, then it is illegal to use whatever is on the CD. If you do not agree to allow a rootkit on your machine, then you shouldn't agree to the EULA and get a refund. A rootkit or other software, such as potentially unwanted programs (PUPs), are considered legally as the "fine print" that you would have read about in the EULA, if you had read the EULA. If you don't read the EULA, then you have very little legal standing in disputes over it.

Its like with EA's Origin, back when it originally released, where they could sell your credit card information to anyone they wished, if you agreed to their EULA. So... a lot of people, myself included, refused to buy EAs products because we'd have to install Origin to do it. They might have changed that, but dunno.

I've also never heard of deleting cookies circumventing paywalls. All that does is prevent sites from finding you, but the moment you try to revisit them, those cookies get added back.

=====

Also I think the Dev blocked me, so they don't read my posts. Oh well.

 

[fblurblblarghl]

Spoiler: Initial Response:

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Edit because of adding the next bit:

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Second edit:

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

I'm starting to suspect that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying on multiple levels, and that we aren't even arguing the same points. Deleting your cookies circumvents any paywall that is set to pop up after a certain number of visits to a website, these paywalls being stupid and easy to accidentally bypass doesn't mean that it's not illegal to circumvent them under the DMCA, and because the DMCA's anti circumvention provisions have no scienter requirement, it's illegal to bypass a paywall regardless of whether you know it or not. There are broad exemptions to the prohibition against deleting cookies, but guilty until proven innocent means that until you've gone to court and proven that you're innocent, you're guilty. You seem to assume that if something seems similar to something you are familiar with, then your knowledge that you already have is sufficient to cover all circumstances with the topic. Individuals have been prosecuted under SOX, for example Khairullozhon Matanov who was friends with the Boston marathon bombers and cleared his browser history a little while after having a conversation with the cops where they allege he lied to them. He went to jail for two and a half years for deleting his browser history, and he wasn't even accused of any crime other than deleting his browser history. I suspect you may be under the impression that the law as written isn't insane because it's rarely applied insanely in practice, but this is a mistake. I do agree that this is a tangent that is unrelated to the discussion though, so I'll also leave this here:

My core point which seems to have derailed this whole conversation was that the laws about computers are arbitrary and insane and saying one specific thing is against the law when nearly everything can be construed as illegal by some interpretation of the law is just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, so try your best to anonymize your traffic and don't rely on "I wasn't doing anything wrong" to get you out of trouble, especially since the costs of being prosecuted are pretty high even if you win.

PS. You may want to edit your last post, I suspect that the set of people with that specific set of qualifications is small. Fix your spelling too, if you commonly misspell certain words a bot could later tie your posts here to your identity within higher probability bounds than otherwise.

 

[DKOC]

Maybe, you could give an example of a site where deleting cookies circumvents its paywall? Because I don't know of any that allow this, and I'd actually like to know of one so I should avoid making purchases there. Because if the paywall is circumventable, then other forms of security might be too.

 

[fblurblblarghl]

Maybe, you could give an example of a site where deleting cookies circumvents its paywall? Because I don't know of any that allow this, and I'd actually like to know of one so I should avoid making purchases there. Because if the paywall is circumventable, then other forms of security might be too.

Have you ever gone to a site that says "you've read more than your allotted articles this month, so pay up or fuck off?" well that's avoidable by deleting your cookies, and deleting those cookies is circumventing an access control, wired and the nytimes both do it, as does bloomberg from what I've heard, but I've never seen it personally. As for the sony rootkit, how many times do I have to point out that it wasn't mentioned in the EULA, even if it's illegally applied, the DMCA anti circumvention protections still apply to any software which controls access, it's still technically illegal to remove it even if it was stuffed in your computer illegally, which it was. The very existence of circumstances where it might be illegal to delete a computer virus proves my point, which is that the laws surrounding computers are insane. If you are deciding to draw an arbitrary line in the sand where you will follow the law, then go ahead, but this whole thing is just me trying to explain that saying "that's illegal" about what I do inside my computer is a bad argument. Also what are you doing telling me something is illegal on a pirate forum? I thought we all hoisted the black flag long ago.

 

[DKOC]

OK those sites. Yeah I tend to avoid them anyway, but usually for different reasons.

I wasn't aware of the Sony Rootkit issue until I looked it up, and you are right it wasn't in their EULA... but, that was back in 2005. I doubt they would be able to get away with that in modern times.

Most computer viruses are created illegally, so removing them shouldn't be a felony. The exception would be if say you were targetted by the US military with a computer virus because you hacked their servers, and you deleted the virus, might be a felony. But in that case, you illegally hacked there servers so... yeah.

Everything can be illegal and can be legal in the correct circumstances. As a raw example, you taking a picture of your kids playing in the bathtub is legal, but anyone else possessing that picture is considered "ch!ld porn". I wasn't saying that you can't do illegal things on your machine... almost everyone does. I was just pointing out specific instances of illegality that people generally ignore as being illegal. You do you.

Actually game piracy is a bit of a legal grey area, moreso than other things. Because it is difficult to prove damages are done to a party, when you pirate their product. Sure they lost sales, but in most cases, the pirator wouldn't have bought it anyway. And as a lot of pirates pirate to demo products, if you really want to avoid piracy, you provide demos to customers. Game companies used to do demos constantly, and back then, piracy was quite low. Nowadays, game companies rarely do demos and piracy is at its peak.

 

[fblurblblarghl]

When I say it's uncensored for free, it means you will get game build and password to play it uncensored.
Login is still the same from release 01 (only some small upgrades to it), it works very well for patrons, so no need to change it.

Do you mind if I take a swing at removing the censorship without the password? I find the idea of thinking I need permission to do something already within my own computer extremely distasteful. While admittedly I will not become a patron anytime soon regardless of whether I decide I like your game, that's because they do not accept any payment method I'm willing to use with them. I figure checking to see if the effort you are putting into this censorship system might be a nice way to support the project. If I do find a way to do it without the password, do you mind if I share that here so people can use a more convenient version? After all it sounds like you are just doing that to reduce the effort required to release the free builds. Admittedly I have no experience with modding games or removing password locks, but I'd really like to try your game, since it looks pretty cool. I figure if you're cool with me taking a crack at your password censorship system I'd at least download the game and take a look, fiddling with a problem you've never tried to solve before can be pretty fun on its own after all.

 

[fblurblblarghl]

OK those sites. Yeah I tend to avoid them anyway, but usually for different reasons.

I wasn't aware of the Sony Rootkit issue until I looked it up, and you are right it wasn't in their EULA... but, that was back in 2005. I doubt they would be able to get away with that in modern times.

Most computer viruses are created illegally, so removing them shouldn't be a felony. The exception would be if say you were targetted by the US military with a computer virus because you hacked their servers, and you deleted the virus, might be a felony. But in that case, you illegally hacked there servers so... yeah.

Everything can be illegal and can be legal in the correct circumstances. As a raw example, you taking a picture of your kids playing in the bathtub is legal, but anyone else possessing that picture is considered "ch!ld porn". I wasn't saying that you can't do illegal things on your machine... almost everyone does. I was just pointing out specific instances of illegality that people generally ignore as being illegal. You do you.

Actually game piracy is a bit of a legal grey area, moreso than other things. Because it is difficult to prove damages are done to a party, when you pirate their product. Sure they lost sales, but in most cases, the pirator wouldn't have bought it anyway. And as a lot of pirates pirate to demo products, if you really want to avoid piracy, you provide demos to customers. Game companies used to do demos constantly, and back then, piracy was quite low. Nowadays, game companies rarely do demos and piracy is at its peak.

Piracy isn't really a legal grey area so much as a legal retarded area, the laws about it are pretty clear, but also so broad they're impossible to follow, so the courts have (generally) tried to apply them in ways that aren't (completely) insane, which has restricted their scope by precedent. I get what you were going for, but I was saying what I will do once something is on my computer (any goddamn thing I want/can figure out how to do), not what some lawyer says I'm allowed to do (whatever is in their companies business model). I dislike DRM for similar reasons to why I dislike providing ID for purchases or when companies require ID badges, they're about proving you're not committing a crime, instead of presuming you aren't until you can be proved to be.

As a thought experiment for an example of why intellectual property is a fundamentally flawed concept, think about an arbitrary copyrighted video. With this video you are forbidden from copying it, and forbidden from making any derivative works. You can't copy the video in any format. You also cannot encrypt the video then legally copy the encrypted file, and the same applies to compression. Remember that any data in a computer can be expressed as an integer, and compression and encryption are simply mathematical operations, with compression simply being the application of reversible mathematical operations which lead to a smaller number, and encryption is a way of basically turning any number into another number which a person who doesn't know the key cannot tell was the original number. From these principles we can construct circumstances by which the set of all real numbers is illegal to copy under this copyright. So what do you actually "own" when you own a copyright? What right do you actually have over any specific permutation of data? It seems to me what is actually illegal is "thinking you are copying"

 

[*POP!*]

Isn't there an off topic somewhere?
I am pretty sure there is an off topic somewhere.
Maybe use that instead of posting text walls about DRM and cookies here. As highly educational your debauchery might be, that's not what i come here to read for.

 

[fblurblblarghl]

One: Can you give me anything newer than 2016 for the SOX issue? I can't find anything outside of a few years around that (2013~2016), and as far as I can tell, the issue was teh feds actually overreaching their reading of the law. That happens a lot. Overreaching, not because of the whole felony/crime thing, but because SOX explicitly declares that it's purpose is to keep both enterprises and individuals from commiting financial fraud.
I can't find anything newer than that case, and everything I find for that, and before that, looks like the classic cop trick of arresting somebody for no reason, then charging them with resisting arrest/obstruction of justice/breaking federal equipment when they fight back the illegal arrest.

Two: The whole cookie deletion being a crime I can't find anywhere outisde of the few links you provided. And only as speculation, based on the exact same 2016 case. Again, under the same set of overreaching of laws: They alleged he deleted evidence of a federal crime related to terrorism. Nothing on reading extra documents on an online journal.
I've never consumed such a site, so I never think of those. I can tell you that yes, in such a case, if you were doing that? It would probably fall under a crime. I don't know if it would be a felony though, because it would fall under a completely different law (Copyright), and that would be probably some kind of tort under civil law (you're hurting their bottom line by not paying what you should by circumventing their DRM-ish attempts). In such a case, well, you ARE commiting a crime by deleting the cookies intentionally to read extra. Any other reason is easily winnable at court (again IANAL, so YMMV).

Three: Your interestingly insistence on guilty before proven innocent is jarring. Mainly because the whole innocence/guilt thing is very complex, and no, it's always innocent first. This is like talking with a FLERfer about the scientific method. It is first the due process of the people bringing their charges against you to prove there's cause enough to believe you might be guilty of the crime. Then, it's your responsibility to show them they are wrong. That's how it (generally, more or less) goes: They say you did something bad, you plea innocent, they try to prove you're guilty, you try to prove they're wrong, the judge and/or jury decide where the sword falls. The law is explicitly and markedly on the defendant's side, and the prosecuting side has to prove a lot more than the defendat's for most things.

Four: I don't really bother too much to hide my electronic fingerprints. Fact is, I have a lot of other things that would allow a big agency/state agent to identify me if they wanted floating around the internet, to bother obfuscating how I write the half dozen post I throw in a minor porn forum when debating the applicability of SOX to how much porn you consume. That includes a very big electronic presence going back decades.

Five: The rootkit thing, I've said the exact same thing: being in the EULA, or not, is irrelevant to Copyright and laws. That kind of thing was rampant at the turn of the millenium. And no, sorry but you're completely wrong on your interpretation of case law from 20 years ago.
If the rootkit had been illegal to be installed into your computer, then you had two recourses: suing Sony (I know), or deleting the whole product. The fact that you commited a crime, because somebody else commited a crime against you is not a valid legal excuse, unless your actions fall under another law that states it's not a crime to commit them (for example, killing someone in self-defense).
And, also related to that: I do know how ridiculous the whole DRM part of the DMCA is. It's "designed" to cover everything, from a physical button, to an AI that self-governs a server. Anything. And it was pretty much written by the companies that use such DRM. You still have two options outside of pirating the software: sue them if it's illegal, don't use it if you don't care for the DRM.

And yes, I understand the irony of saying such a thing in a pirated porn forum, but at least I won't be a hypocrite and say that I'm not breaking a law because it wouldn't be a crime if the law didn't exist, if I were to get caught breaking a law, that is.
That's how laws work: They set the rules. You don't like them? They are unfair? Do something to change them, instead of complaining in a porn forum

Wait, so you agree with me on every point and have seen that you were mistaken then? I've repeatedly stated that my point is that the laws are retarded, not that things aren't illegal. I am aware that the principle of being innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to the American justice system, and that is why I'm pointing out that if you have to prove you did something under some exception in the law when accused, that thing is illegal in general, exceptions in the law don't actually change that. So deleting cookies is generally illegal, but you can usually defend yourself in court pretty easily. Although you are wrong when you say that it's only illegal if you do it intentionally to bypass a paywall, there is specifically no requirement in the DMCA's anti circumvention clause that a person be aware they are circumventing the DMCA. I am aware that it's not something that you are likely to be prosecuted over, and if you are you have a decent chance of getting off free, but that doesn't mean it's not a bugfuck insane situation where the law is written in such a way that anyone can be prosecuted at any time.

As to point 4 I feel your statement can be reworded "if a nation state's intelligence service can spy on me if they decide to pay attention to me, I shouldn't bother taking any steps to protect my privacy in general" which to me sounds similar to saying "I can't stop the army from flattening my house with an artillery barrage, so why bother closing my door?" You can secure yourself against most threats with pretty simple measures, and your data isn't just a threat in the hands of a determined national intelligence agency, and you can't actually know what will become dangerous in the future, or what threats will emerge and have access to all the records already collected. Which is irrelevant to the simple fact that privacy isn't just something that is desirable because you've done something wrong, people close the bathroom door when they take a shit even though they aren't doing something wrong after all.

I disagree with the idea that working to change the laws is the only thing that should be done about them, I think that for individuals the appropriate response is to take defensive measures against them, in addition to supporting organizations which have a chance to do something about them, like the EFF. I didn't mean to argue about this on this forum, but I just used those as examples of why the laws on the internet are silly, and because people were naturally incredulous that the law could be as retarded as I said it was, it became a topic of discussion. My core point of "if something is inside my computer, I'll do whatever the fuck I want with it" stands regardless of whether the law on the topic were coherent, I only mentioned it because some people might find the fact that it isn't to be convincing.

 

[XxLolxX1]

For a 0.3 it looks great, it would be nice to have some Note or something on what you need to do or what you can do in the update ( in the menu maybe ? ), the "stages" at the beginning of the level is nice it just doesn't tell you what to do / what you can do for now. ( If there was I wasn't able to find it so disregard all that )

 

[Mordona]

Three: Your interestingly insistence on guilty before proven innocent is jarring. Mainly because the whole innocence/guilt thing is very complex, and no, it's always innocent first. This is like talking with a FLERfer about the scientific method. It is first the due process of the people bringing their charges against you to prove there's cause enough to believe you might be guilty of the crime. Then, it's your responsibility to show them they are wrong. That's how it (generally, more or less) goes: They say you did something bad, you plea innocent, they try to prove you're guilty, you try to prove they're wrong, the judge and/or jury decide where the sword falls. The law is explicitly and markedly on the defendant's side, and the prosecuting side has to prove a lot more than the defendat's for most things.

Slight correction for benefit of the doubt that quoted person might not be from a "normal" 1st world country. There are some backwater countries.. like Mexico that pretty much practice guilty till proven innocent still.

 

[Squirtward94]

Came here looking for game related commentary and impressions, not a repeat of my degree in criminology and policing LUL

 

[fblurblblarghl]

Slight correction for benefit of the doubt that quoted person might not be from a "normal" 1st world country. There are some backwater countries.. like Mexico that pretty much practice guilty till proven innocent still.

If you had actually read my post which he was replying to you'd realize that what I said was that if something is illegal except under certain circumstances, that activity is illegal until it's proven legal. While the courts in the united states presume innocence of a crime, if there is an exception in a law where an activity which is normally illegal is made legal under certain circumstances, then the burden of proof to prove that the person did the act is upon the accuser, but the person defending themself under an exception to a law has to prove they were covered by it. This makes it so that no matter how broad the exception is, in those cases it is essentially guilty until proven innocent. I was not saying that is the normal rule the courts in the United States operate under, and certainly not saying that is how they should operate, I was highlighting the weird insanity of certain parts of American law.

think of it like with sets in math, normally the proof must be constructed that your actions fit within a set of actions defined by the law as illegal, and any law with exceptions still requires a proof for that, but then to defend yourself instead of just showing their proof to be invalid, you have to construct another proof that your actions were within a subset of the illegal set that is allowed.