RPGM Growth Gambit [v0.425] [Orachi]

[derpy124141]

Cool story, piracy is a thing and will continue to be so. If you can't accept that reality sorry, you're delusional.

Also it is a "valid" example, it was the similarity to it, not the number side of it. You saw it that way, that's not what I meant by it.

Also your stolen car example is apples to oranges. You're comparing a real world object that most of the time costs 1000's of dollars if we're talking about putting one together yourself with all the parts depending on what you're using.

Versus a game that is using A.I. and having something generated, edited and predrawn or not. My distaste for A.I. drawings is my own opinion, that's that.

I can't see how much is being made per month since that's privated, but if I'm to go by their other developer friend, it's $1000+ a month. Not a small number in the slightest, especially for a niche fetish game. Tons more then the average american working a 9-5 job makes per month, that's for sure.

Not delusional, I'm just try to see it from his perspective.


You don't have to spend 1000's of dollars to get it working as you can just get the parts from the scrapyard for free.
But I was more talking about time investment.

AI or not, It's a game not a gallery there is programming involved into it.

Secondly, company vs solo dev is about manpower not money.

Thirdly, Anime was pirated over seas cause it was cool and no one could read or buy it. While he has just buy option on Itch io.

Lastly, We don't know where he lives or how much money he actually gains, just assuming he is from USA and gains XXXX amount of money is again... a bad habit.

 

[Sarojin]

Not delusional, I'm just try to see it from his perspective.


You don't have to spend 1000's of dollars to get it working as you can just get the parts from the scrapyard for free.
But I was more talking about time investment.

AI or not, It's a game not a gallery there is programming involved into it.

Secondly, company vs solo dev is about manpower not money.

Thirdly, Anime was pirated over seas cause it was cool and no one could read or buy it. While has just buy option on Itch io.

Lastly, We don't know where he lives or how much money he actually gains, just assuming he is from USA and gains XXXX amount of money is again... a bad habit.

I am going by something that I can use as a reference point that I know of, and as have pointed out I'm basing it off of something I'm assuming, AKA DO NOT KNOW. Kinda made that clear upfront, never once said this was "fact"

When you don't know something for sure you make this abundantly clear, as I have.

Just because you don't mention every single part of something doesn't mean you're "denying" that aspect of said thing.

Why in god's name would I even think of comparing an indie dev to a AAA company, aka going by the numbers? I was going by the similarity in that said thing/s are being pirated and still successful, nowhere did I mention or even mean numbers/presence.

I think you should look at yourself in the mirror, because you've got like most other people a "bad habit" of assuming the meaning of what someone is saying. I don't know how many times in two different ways I've posted something and someone just assumes that I'm saying they can't have an opinion, lol. It's also funny because I said I can understand how the developer would react/feel about this, literally typed that and completely missed it, probably because the post was "too long", aka didn't read.

This is why I hate the internet versus in person, where you can see body language and get the tone of someone's voice. Unfortunately sometimes even if you try to make it as obvious as possible through the keyboard, people will still misunderstand you.

As this is 1 off topic, and 2 you're being super disingenuous now. Conversation is over.

 

[selius]

so this is the free version? no wonder it feels so bare

 

[Monosomething]

But anyway how about that?

Spoiler

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

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Performance Artist]

Insert Domain Expansion ripoff

Anyway I tried to give it my best faith and best shot as I could, but its way too tedious for very little variants of AI art and some minigame doesnt really have a reasonable solution on top of tryhard limited saving as expected of my kin.

Eg. Like the one white dragon girl's minigame where I gathered all the material needed to access the church, wait until portal opened and turn a lever on, apparently the minigame doesnt end there as you need to find that portal outside, where she will gradually increase her speed overtime even when you are inside hiding there.

Imagine having a meltdown over this...geez.

 

[alex9995]

Oh! From what I see the same thing is happening here. Does this game have anything to do with Growing Rivalry? apart from the same fetish of course

 

[Gabriel2803]

Oh! From what I see the same thing is happening here. Does this game have anything to do with Growing Rivalry? apart from the same fetish of course

The two creators are friends on a server and their commonly frequent each one game server, they also share the same view on piracy and not being the best at handling it.

 

[WhyThatLogin]

I've seen countless people on piracy sites asking themselves "are we the baddies?" and it's unnecessary. Private property stays private property and as such is guaranteed and enforced by the law. Simple as that. Property law doesn't care for anyone's morality or worldview (neither the thief's nor the proprietor's). It has its own purpose for existing the way it does, but I don't want to go into that here and it's not relevant to my point. Either one accepts and follows the law or not and everyone has to decide that for themselves.

The meltdown of the proprietor is one that is supported by the law (who, as I said, doesn't need to care about morality or form of the property, to enforce it) on that basis, yet it is also false, when it comes to the particular form of property in question.
As the number of any such given commodity is practically infinite, there is no loss in potential commodity sold and no additional cost to replace the stolen commodities. And as there is no guarantee for purchase in any scenario, the thieves aren't simultaneously lost customers. The logic any angry proprietor of an infinitely available commodity operates on to produce their meltdown and ire towards the thieves though, presupposes that both of the aforementioned scenarios are false. And while, for the proprietor of a physically limited commodity, the first scenario at least is indeed false and it is therefore only rational for them to try to prevent thieves from stealing their commodities, the same does not hold for the proprietor of the infinitely available commodity. Therefore the rage of such a proprietor is false, in the sense of irrational.

I guess the best counter would be to search for statistical validation of the assumption that thieves are lost customers more often than not. Though, even then, that would of course only be statistics.

 

[Ricstab]

So we ain't getting v0.6?

 

[Sarojin]

So we ain't getting v0.6?

Did you see the knee jerk reaction from the developer with this free version which he thought just because it was put on a piracy website was the paid version? All this from a person taking a screenshot on a phone of this thread, and he knee jerk reacted to it. So yeah, no not a good idea.

Also unless his echo chamber is talking about a different website, they're perpetuating that the paid version got leaked, on their discord when it didn't (they're talking about it on the discord not that it got leaked on the discord server). No one has corrected that yet on their discord server.

This is why you don't just take the word from someone, you double check and look yourself.

 

[alex9995]

I've seen countless people on piracy sites asking themselves "are we the baddies?" and it's unnecessary. Private property stays private property and as such is guaranteed and enforced by the law. Simple as that. Property law doesn't care for anyone's morality or worldview (neither the thief's nor the proprietor's). It has its own purpose for existing the way it does, but I don't want to go into that here and it's not relevant to my point. Either one accepts and follows the law or not and everyone has to decide that for themselves.

The meltdown of the proprietor is one that is supported by the law (who, as I said, doesn't need to care about morality or form of the property, to enforce it) on that basis, yet it is also false, when it comes to the particular form of property in question.
As the number of any such given commodity is practically infinite, there is no loss in potential commodity sold and no additional cost to replace the stolen commodities. And as there is no guarantee for purchase in any scenario, the thieves aren't simultaneously lost customers. The logic any angry proprietor of an infinitely available commodity operates on to produce their meltdown and ire towards the thieves though, presupposes that both of the aforementioned scenarios are false. And while, for the proprietor of a physically limited commodity, the first scenario at least is indeed false and it is therefore only rational for them to try to prevent thieves from stealing their commodities, the same does not hold for the proprietor of the infinitely available commodity. Therefore the rage of such a proprietor is false, in the sense of irrational.

I guess the best counter would be to search for statistical validation of the assumption that thieves are lost customers more often than not. Though, even then, that would of course only be statistics.

I'm not going to lie to you, I didn't understand after the first part (my native language is not English). So surely much of what I write now is wrong.

But, are you saying that in terms of losses in this product, there are none? Why wouldn't the game be bought from the first moment?

 

[WhyThatLogin]

I'm not going to lie to you, I didn't understand after the first part (my native language is not English). So surely much of what I write now is wrong.

But, are you saying that in terms of losses in this product, there are none? Why wouldn't the game be bought from the first moment?

I did not quite understand what your question is, but I will try to elaborate on the two scenarios (note: this is not the full argument expressed in my original comment, but maybe it helps understanding that one better):

1. Let's take a company that produces cars for example. If a thief steals one of the cars, the car is gone. The commodity is a physical object and as such, requires additional costs to reproduce (maybe the company has insurance, but that also costs money). In the calculation of the company, that stolen car therefore appears as a loss. The same as if it simply didn't sell. The same is not the case for the owner of a digital commodity, as that one is infinitely reproducable (copy+paste) at no costs for the owner and therefore cannot appear as a loss.

2. There exists the assumption among proprietors that if a thief wouldn't have been able to steal a commodity, they would have bought it. Therefore they are a lost customer. This assumption is false, because there exists no guarantee for purchase no matter where and no matter when. Interest in any given commodity does not automatically lead to buying said commodity, as there are lots of factors the potential buyer has to consider besides mere interest in said commodity (that should be clear to everyone, as that is an everyday occurrence).

Just to be clear: My argument is not one about morality, as I hope I made sufficently clear in my previous post.

 

[alex9995]

I did not quite understand what your question is, but I will try to elaborate on the two scenarios (note: this is not the full argument expressed in my original comment, but maybe it helps understanding that one better):

1. Let's take a company that produces cars for example. If a thief steals one of the cars, the car is gone. The commodity is a physical object and as such, requires additional costs to reproduce (maybe the company has insurance, but that also costs money). In the calculation of the company, that stolen car therefore appears as a loss. The same as if it simply didn't sell. The same is not the case for the owner of a digital commodity, as that one is infinitely reproducable (copy+paste) at no costs for the owner and therefore cannot appear as a loss.

2. There exists the assumption among proprietors that if a thief wouldn't have been able to steal a commodity, they would have bought it. Therefore they are a lost customer. This assumption is false, because there exists no guarantee for purchase no matter where and no matter when. Interest in any given commodity does not automatically lead to buying said commodity, as there are lots of factors the potential buyer has to consider besides mere interest in said commodity (that should be clear to everyone, as that is an everyday occurrence).

Just to be clear: My argument is not one about morality, as I hope I made sufficently clear in my previous post.

Yes, I was asking why I didn't understand it.
But I am at the point that you say in that the person who did not want to pay it from the first moment was not going to do it, so he is not a potential client.
I was asking why I thought what you said was interesting but I didn't understand it.

 

[Distendo]

I've seen countless people on piracy sites asking themselves "are we the baddies?" and it's unnecessary. Private property stays private property and as such is guaranteed and enforced by the law. Simple as that. Property law doesn't care for anyone's morality or worldview (neither the thief's nor the proprietor's). It has its own purpose for existing the way it does, but I don't want to go into that here and it's not relevant to my point. Either one accepts and follows the law or not and everyone has to decide that for themselves.

The meltdown of the proprietor is one that is supported by the law (who, as I said, doesn't need to care about morality or form of the property, to enforce it) on that basis, yet it is also false, when it comes to the particular form of property in question.
As the number of any such given commodity is practically infinite, there is no loss in potential commodity sold and no additional cost to replace the stolen commodities. And as there is no guarantee for purchase in any scenario, the thieves aren't simultaneously lost customers. The logic any angry proprietor of an infinitely available commodity operates on to produce their meltdown and ire towards the thieves though, presupposes that both of the aforementioned scenarios are false. And while, for the proprietor of a physically limited commodity, the first scenario at least is indeed false and it is therefore only rational for them to try to prevent thieves from stealing their commodities, the same does not hold for the proprietor of the infinitely available commodity. Therefore the rage of such a proprietor is false, in the sense of irrational.

I guess the best counter would be to search for statistical validation of the assumption that thieves are lost customers more often than not. Though, even then, that would of course only be statistics.

You're still shortchanging him of his compensation for work done. Your second argument is muddled - both forms of property receive legal protection.

This is separate from my views of creator's breakdown.

 

[Distendo]

Yes, I was asking why I didn't understand it.
But I am at the point that you say in that the person who did not want to pay it from the first moment was not going to do it, so he is not a potential client.
I was asking why I thought what you said was interesting but I didn't understand it.

His points are that:

1) Theft of intellectual property does not cause the owner to incur loss to produce another copy for sale
2) Not all thieves are otherwise customers - some are unable or unwilling to pay

In my opinion, both points are muddled. Widespread piracy discourages purchase, and those who do end up taking a moral stand. Taking someone's work when he's asking for money in return, regardless of whether that creates opportunity cost (such as an artist having to paint again), is to make the person lose out on his due reward for work well done. A bit like a boss who doesn't give you your bonus, after working hard to exceed expectations.

And if the work is no good, why use it? And if it is good and you're not willing to pay, then you're 1) a poor student or 2) an adult with too much free time on his or hands or 3) you actually have the money but are unwilling to part with it.

At the same time, I find this creator obsessively naive. If he's charging for his work, that's called running a business. You have to take measures, or write off the loss, or otherwise turn it into a plus for yourself.

I do agree with WhyThatLogin on his very first point - that everyone must make up his or her mind whether or when piracy is a bad thing.


P.S. I hope the English isn't too difficult to understand. I have tried to avoid strange words; those included should mostly be understandable from guessing or from the sentence.

 

[Assssg]

how does one cheat this?

 

[selius]

with mtool

 

[Sarojin]

how do use the mtool and where do i find it

Literally type it in a search engine.

 

[Assssg]

thanks and i figured out how to use it

 

[Assssg]

i wonder if tower of damnation will get put here.