Slashdot Mirror


Latest Humble Bundle Hits $1 Million

dylan_- writes "The Humble Frozen Synapse Bundle — where you pay whatever you want for a collection of games — has just hit the $1 million mark with 1 day and 9 hours left to buy. The games are DRM free, available for Windows, Mac and Linux, and include a donation to the EFF and Child's Play charity. As with previous bundles, Linux users are the most generous, paying an average $9.18, Mac users come in second paying $6.58 leaving Windows users lagging behind, paying $4.11 on average." These stats are presented right on the page dynamically, so you might see slightly different figures — the dollar figure should only be moving one direction, though.

276 comments

  1. And by ledow · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Credit Card Transaction Fees: $999,999.99

    1. Re:And by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      You can pay via PayPal or Google Checkout IIRC. Not sure what fees those guys charge.

    2. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would rather give the CEO of MasterCard a BJ than use PayPal. Google checkout is cool though.

      Fuck PayPal.

    3. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, Amazon charges the least if you pay less than $10. They all charge the same ($0.30+2.9%) from $10 to something like $3500. That's with a normal account, though, I don't know if that changes for business accounts or whatever.

    4. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gave the CEO of PayPal a BJ and hurt your feelings on a prior deal...?

    5. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at that total amount, PayPal rates would be between 1 and 2% of the total, plus 30c/transaction.

      at a guess.

      https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/merchant

    6. Re:And by !coward · · Score: 1

      Credit Card Transaction Fees: $999,999.99

      Really hope they don't get too screwed by PayPal and Google Checkout.. Got this last week (some story about a game, SpaceChem, being like programming here on slashdot brought me to their page and I was hooked).

      Funny, I thought I was being cheap for offering $10 -- and still do, actually. Not sure about the rest, haven't tried them yet, but Trine, SpaceChem and Shadowgrounds alone would be worth more than that.

      Still, it's great to see developers doing stuff like this: it's a great way to advertise their products and a fine way of getting people to pay something for the games.

    7. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, why do you hate PayPal? 9 times out of 10, I find that most people who are upset at PayPal are upset over a misconception. The last time I asked on Slashdot, people insisted we've never had a dispute resolution proce

      Full disclosure, I work for eBay/PayPal. I wouldn't work for a company I felt was evil.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    8. Re:And by happylight · · Score: 1

      I want to know how many people paid only 1 cent (and thus is actually costing them on fees).

    9. Re:And by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      I hate them because of their large fee, especially when purchasing something on eBay. First we bend you over with a insanely huge eBay fees, then we rape you some more with some vague PayPal (eBay) fees. I will not use eBay or PayPal anymore to buy or sell items. Make the PayPal fee a fixed 50 cents per transaction and I'd use it. Until then I'll just send payment in the mail.

    10. Re:And by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      The only way to get them to stop taking money from my Credit Card was to cancel it. No matter what proof i presented that the money should never have been deducted.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    11. Re:And by CapnStank · · Score: 1

      My personal experience is the lack of effort to do anything about transactions gone wrong. I had an issue with the vendor and was told that since it was not done through ebay they couldn't do anything for me. "You're S.O.L. for $300" is what I got from Paypal... with a credit card I could at least have fought the charges but Paypal takes your money with the guise of a credit card company while providing next to zero actual resolution.

      I've learned my lesson and this isn't a "whine" post but I'm just pointing out what you asked for.

    12. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Large is a pretty subjective term.

      As stated by someone else in this thread, PayPal fees are pretty much exactly the same as you'd pay from other services. And often they are less than fees you'd pay on a merchant account if you're a small business.

      If you're simply upset that fees exist in general, I don't know what to tell you, as I'm not aware of a transaction service that charges precisely no fees.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    13. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I have no way to dispute your statement. If it happened, that is pretty shitty.

      While I'm a Software Engineer, our side of the company supports Customer Service. So I deal with that side of the business exclusively. I know we handle chargebacks every single day. I'm curious if you followed the chargeback process documented on the site.

      https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=security/chargeback_guide

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    14. Re:And by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      A big part of this is how vague they are about the fee. Let's say I want to pay $150 to a person for an item I bought. There is no simple way to do this with PayPal. I must go search to find what PayPal's fee structure of the day is or use a calculator from a third party to figure the amount I need to send. That's just plain asinine. Why does PayPal want to hide their fee instead of making it very cisible for everyone? Why is the fee a percentage of the money sent? I would imagine they have a fixed transaction cost. It doesn't cost me more to send a check for $1 or $1000. So why have some integrity and charge a fixed fee for the service? $.50 per transaction, that's more than banks needed for credit card/debit card transactions to be profitable. Heck, even $1. A simple fixed fee would make sense. Regardless, you asked so I'm telling why I hate eBay and PayPal and what it would tkae for me to use PayPal.

    15. Re:And by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Paypal hatred comes up most frequently in charitable donation / hosting fee contribution threads, I have noticed.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    16. Re:And by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Damn, I paid $30 for Trine when it came out and thought it was worth it. Didn't think they had decent games in the mix..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    17. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I've had to deal with dispute resolution with PayPal only once. My mother was the victim of a phishing attack and I tried to help her out. We contacted PayPal, and they got all her money back in 3 days and then went after the phishers.

      I currently work in the customer service division at PayPal and I can tell you with absolute certainty that we do dispute resolution on non-eBay transactions.

      https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/general/PPDisputeResolution-outside

      Now, there could be several mitigating factors, such as if you waited too long to dispute the transaction, or if you weren't willing to do your part to provide evidence. But that would be standard practices for any company. What you're really saying is that a vendor screwed you over, and somehow you think that is PayPal's fault.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    18. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watching it for ten minutes when the pace was slower I've seen at least 30 people paying $0.01
      But then again I've seen a couple of people (under 5) give $50 or more.

    19. Re:And by Amouth · · Score: 1

      that really depends on how you are "sending" the money.. if your using your CC/Debit to send it paypal can't control the fee because they have to at min pass through what they will get charged when they pull money from your card.

      If you think their fees are odd you really should look at actual merchant accounts.. the fee structure there is insane and you can't make it simple or even show the end users the fees because you are bound not to.

      just remember any time you have a "cash back" card.. the CC company isn't giving you money from their share.. they still charge that merchant the same fee + the cash back amount + a fee for processing the cash back amount.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    20. Re:And by emorphien · · Score: 4, Informative

      The situation TheTurtleMoves described is one of the biggest issues with PayPal I hear about fairly regularly. They don't like something, they get a complaint, they'll yank money out of a linked account without even a pause to investigate, question it, contact you, etc. Everyone I've talked to in that situation then faces an uphill battle in which they try to convince PayPal to look again and handle the situation responsibly and fairly. Apparently contacting Paypal and getting a useful response is a miracle in and of itself.

      --


      Presently here, but not there.
    21. Re:And by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      1) The dont give a shit about the customer

      2) They hold your money ransom for 180 days (in some cases more), just because their fraud system went crazy. (I know a number of sellers this has happened to, so dont give me the, it does not happen very often). This is where the "never leave money in you paypal, withdraw as early as possible" comes from too.

      3) They almost always rule in favour of the buyer, irrespective of proof of shipment of the product. Their "resolution" sucks.

      4) They have a lot automated process that cant be overridden. Whats worse the system automatically pull money from linked bank account/credit card when ever it likes too (even if the fee has been disputed and even if the paypal rep agrees with the dispute). This used happen alot in early years, not sure how frequent it is now.

      For more, do google for paypal sucks

      All in all, paypal has burnt a lot of sellers and buyers.

    22. Re:And by yakatz · · Score: 2

      The reason I hate PayPal is that there is no transparency or even apparent logic to account freezes. I have worked with a number of non-profit organizations and small businesses that have had their PayPal accounts' frozen for reasons that were never explained. Then when we supplied the requested documentation, it was rejected with no apparent reason.
      Discover Card recently teamed up with PayPal to allow sending money between people, but it fails randomly with no errors and even Discover Card's tech support has no idea what is wrong. (It turns out that the problem was that within that week, PayPal had suspended personal payments to that country with no reason given.)

      I am generally opposed to government regulation of business, but if PayPal wants to act like a bank by holding on to people's money, it should be regulated like a bank.
      The only reason I continue to use PayPal is that there is no comparable alternative. If there was, I would stop using PayPal.

    23. Re:And by chis101 · · Score: 1

      1. Several years ago I made a purchase from eBay for $120. The product never arrived, so I opened a dispute through PayPal. The seller never responded to the dispute, so it defaulted to being resolved in my favor. I got back $95, with a message that

      "the balance of the claim is due to you directly from the seller. Please be assured that we will make our best effort to recover the balance from the seller on your behalf."

      I only received this amount because

      Our investigation will be made on a best-effort basis and PayPal cannot guarantee funds recovery. For transactions that do not qualify for PayPal Buyer Protection, eBay will provide Standard Purchase Protection for $200.00 USD coverage with a $25.00 USD processing fee.

      As eBay owns PayPal, I consider this still getting screwed by PayPal. Since the seller simply was not responding to any inquiries, I never saw that $25. If I had been able to use a credit card, I could have disputed the charge and had no problems.

      2. You have to keep a bank account linked with PayPal. There is no way to default paying by credit card, you always have to go through a manual process to select Credit Card (at least they did away with several of the warning messages during this process). This makes it a hassle to pay for things when you don't want a direct withdraw from your bank account (which is 100% of the time). Also, a side effect of being required to keep a link with a bank account: My parents' PayPal account got hacked, and since their checking account was linked with their PayPal account, their checking account got cleared out (which was terrible timing, because they had just transferred over $10,000 to checking to pay for a new roof, so they had a significant amount of money in checking that disappeared, AND their roofing check bounced). PayPal investigated and refunded the money after a week or two, but they were missing actual money (as opposed to a line item on a credit card bill that would have been resolved before actually having to pay it) and had a long period of uncertainty as to whether PayPal would deem them worthy of having their money returned. If PayPal didn't require this bank account link, they have simply called their credit card company and reversed the charge.

      3. Try selling something on eBay (owner of PayPal). They strongly encourage the use of PayPal as a payment method, so you get stuck with listing fees, selling fees, AND PayPal fees. My mom tried to sell something on eBay all by herself (which, I admit, things rarely go well when she tries to do something computer related without help). This means I have to try to explain to her why she has to pay 3 separate fees for a single transaction (and I still can't explain to her why she now has a PayPal credit card... I have no idea how she managed that, and neither does she).

    24. Re:And by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      I used Paypal a handful of times, and never had a problem. Bought some business cards through Paypal. But the stories were worrisome. There are bad stories about every large business, but the horror stories about Paypal seemed more numerous and worse than average. Don't bank your money with Paypal, they might freeze the works over one dispute about less than 1% of it. I quit using it, and after a few years, the account was closed. I forget whether Paypal threatened to close it and then did, or whether I closed it in response to a message from Paypal.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    25. Re:And by North+Korea · · Score: 0

      There's another side to the disputes too. It generally screws over merchants and sellers, especially if they're selling digital services. It's a quite common practice for fraudsters to buy something digital and then either make a dispute or do chargeback. The seller can't really do anything else than accept it and pay additional money to cover fees. So not only the seller gives away the item/service for free, he actually loses money. Challenging it can easily lead to your account being limited or blocked, so if you rely on those transactions in your business you generally just have to take the loss.

      However, such thing is much harder thing to pull out with other services like Moneybookers, WebMoney, Liberty Reserve and the now-gone ePassporte (and various others). All transactions are final, so it doesn't screw up the seller. That's why sometimes merchant require buyers to wait several days to get their digital goods or services if they're paying with PayPal.

      Another thing about PayPal really are the fees. They might be ok for single purchases, but they stand to go really high if you take in lots of money, or for example get your payments via PayPal. This is especially true if you work with something like affiliate marketing and the companies pay their commissions via PayPal to international affiliates. If you generate the normal wage amount of commissions, lets say $3000 a month, the fees take $100-200 out of that. Other payment options do not take that much. For example ePassporte took $0.30 per transaction. That's why I generally use other services than PayPal, but sellers most likely have to use it as sadly PayPal gained the marketshare in western world, especially US.

    26. Re:And by shentino · · Score: 2

      According to their guide here:

      https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=security/chargeback_guide#

      They leave final resolution of the chargeback at the discretion of the buyer's bank.

      So it's not a case of them just being dicks for no reason.

      They're just pussies who won't stand up to the buyer's credit card processor.

    27. Re:And by bberens · · Score: 2

      Generally speaking I don't mind paypal or ebay. The combination of the two, and specifically the fact that ebay makes it incredibly difficult to impossible for you to accept an alternative option to accept credit card payments is evil because it abuses their monopoly position in the online auction market. Letting 1 or 2 other options in would completely erase any concerns I have about ebay or paypal.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    28. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory, the credit card provider could have screwed you for $50 rather than the $25 that PayPal screwed you.

      In practice, I've been in the same situation as you for both a PayPal purchase and a similar situation with a purchase directly via my credit-union provided check card: PayPal screwed me for $25 whereas the credit union refunded every penny, crediting me the amount before they had even recovered it from the merchant's bank.

    29. Re:And by North+Korea · · Score: 0

      Oh and I forgot to note that PayPal generally gives out way too much personal info. If you want to know someones real name, all you need to do is send that email $0.01 and it will be conveniently shown to you. I guess it would work for all emails you have (but don't know who they are) if they just use PayPal with the same email. Sometimes it's good to know the other parties name, especially if doing business, but it should be an option.

      Best system I've seen is with WebMoney, where user have reputation score based on their activity amount, users can write about problems in their profile (and account owner can answer publicly) and you can set yourself what information is public and what is private. For example, here's account that Valve (and others) use to process payments: http://passport.wmtransfer.com/asp/certview.asp?wmid=362311291686 . It has a high business level, has been verified and ok'd to have real info via notarized documents (but still the actual information can be private) and complaints are public. This gives the option to the user to decide if he trusts the other party or not.

      Maybe it's a cultural thing too, but both Europe and Russia have a history that makes people understand how important it can be protect your private information. PayPal system is really limited compared to WebMoney, but sadly it's only used mostly in Russia and other CIS countries.

    30. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #2 - that is false. You DO NOT need a bank account linked to PayPal. Actually, I have *never* added a bank account to PayPal. It only applies when you have a balance and want it directly linked out. Whenever I've had a balance, I've just spent the balance.

      #3 - welcome to the world of CC processing?? *Everything* in the store has a nice markup to account for CC fees. CC companies will even have in their agreement that prices cannot increased due to CC fees. Some businesses will give you a cash discount, but not many. Basically, all prices are inflated because of these fees and PayPal is not unique.

      Not to be insulting, but the problem is your mom doesn't read before making a decision. That's a larger problem than not being good with computers. Actually, most people that are not good with computers are people that do not care to read a set of options, they just want an answer.

    31. Re:And by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Crassly stated but the comment is deserved by paypal. I wince everytime I'm forced to use it; BECAUSE PAYPAL IS SO GREAT! Stupid retailers...

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    32. Re:And by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      PayPal has customer service!? I got the impression from my dealings with PayPal/Ebay that they will yank money from me without a second thought. When I had a regular merchant account and charge-backs were lodged all I had to do was throw away the stupid paper they sent me and forget about it. With PayPal the charge-back gets yanked from my account! Charge-backs are the credit card company's problem, not mine. They (card issuers) are supposed to insulate the merchants and users from risk, that IS THE ADVANTAGE of using those cards. Everyone pays fees to pad that risk and make a still very profitable business for the credit card companies. PayPal isn't a merchant account, it is a heist.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    33. Re:And by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      It's a percentage because they have some liability for every transaction, just like credit/debit cards do. Their transaction costs are fixed, but their financial liability isn't. They also lose money on small transactions.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    34. Re:And by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Paypal's fees are higher than the typical merchant account.

      A merchant account's base rate is about 2.5% (it varies but some sites get bad deals, upward of 15% for pornographers and other niche markets with high chargeback rates, and AmEx is usually a little higher, sometimes 3.5%, debit cards are a bit lower, but corporate Visa/MC are usually significantly higher than AmEx) plus anywhere from 10 to 25 per transaction, which is a killer for a $1.00 item with less than 30% markup but still quite profitable for products with a higher margin. What they should do if they didn't from the start is have a $1.50 minimum so they're guaranteed to at least not lose money from the transaction. Merchant accounts generally forbid minimum purchase amount policies (so if your favorite coffee shop has a $10.00 minimum purchase for credit/debit cards, call Visa/MC to complain about the vendor - and I don't understand why coffee shops with a 90% gross profit margin have that policy) but having your lowest selling price for all payment methods at $1.50 gets around that rule.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    35. Re:And by kimvette · · Score: 1

      You keep misspelling feeBay. ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    36. Re:And by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      I dont like paypal because they put a 21 day hold on my money when I sell on eBay. Why should they get to draw interest on my money for 21 days? I have a perfect ebay rating and have never had a dispute.

    37. Re:And by galanom · · Score: 1

      Both PayPal and eBay charge "large" fee for small transfers, like $5. eBay takes IIRC 8.75% and PayPal has a minimum charge.
      So when you're buying a gadget from the Chinese, it is a rip off.

      But for larger transfers, say $500, fees are minimal.

    38. Re:And by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      That's if you qualify for a merchant account. eBay/Paypal are the perfect combination of companies because many sellers don't qualify. ANd if they do, Paypal fees can be lower because they don't meet the minimum transaction amounts (quantity of transactoins, quantity of money) that a good merchant account has.

      So Paypal can be evil just because they're the only game in town - it's either bend over to the banks, or bend over to Paypal.

      Basically, if you're Joe Blow, you can't accept a credit card (which kills online auction sites like eBay). If you run a small business, you can get sideswiped by merchant accounts (some of the cards can have quite high fees - like those "infinite" cards).

    39. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      800 numbers, email addresses and contact forms are all easily found on the site. As a customer, I've never had trouble contacting the site. I also continue to email PayPal's phishing department with any phishing attempt I see come into my personal email. I get responses back from them usually within minutes.

      We may get more email than any single company in the world. I know that we have the single largest Kana email installation in the world, and that is used by all the Fortune 500 companies. We receive a ridiculous amount of spam and phishing attacks. Despite that, our email turn around is actually quite good. We typically respond to all customer email within a day.

      We measure our phone handle time against banks, and again we typically do well by those standards. Take that as you will.

      Personally, I hate calling into any call center and dealing with an IVR. I'd rather speak to a human immediately. I get the frustration that anyone has to feel calling into a call center and taking some time jumping though menus to speak to a human, just to argue that you want money back. But I wouldn't say it is impossible to get a hold of PayPal.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    40. Re:And by chis101 · · Score: 1

      #2 - that is false. You DO NOT need a bank account linked to PayPal.

      I just tried unlinking my bank account from PayPal... My account is now unverified and has a spending limit unless I either re-link an account, or sign up for a PayPal credit card (my Confirmed MasterCard is not enough). I haven't spent the time to dig through their menus to see if there is a way around it, but it appears that for most purposes I need to link my account with PayPal, but you are correct, I can make limited use of PayPal without giving them full access to a bank account.

    41. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 2

      Some of that stems from stories of PayPal supposedly freezing accounts with no notice whatsoever for charities, and often in Slashdot threads for FOSS projects.

      In every case I investigated, PayPal did send notice, and we are required by law to obtain proof of non-profit status. If a non-profit doesn't provide that proof within a certain time frame, we are bound by law to freeze the account until they provide it.

      For example X.org made a huge stink over that very issue, swearing to the world that PayPal never contacted them and offered them no way to get access to their account again. All the typical Linux/FOSS/technical sites made a stink about it. When it came out a few days later that PayPal had contacted X.org and they dropped the ball, no one reported on that.

      The problem is that we hear complaints from angry people separated from their money, but we don't hear the other side, or any particular details. We don't hear the final outcome of these situations. So it is very hard to find if these claims have validity.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    42. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Buyers and sellers are both customers. You're insisting they only care about one, but never care about their customers. Logically, that doesn't make sense.

      I've also heard the claim, that they always side with merchants and never side with buyers. However, both statements can't both be true.

      And as someone else already posted, you seem confused about the chargeback policy and process. Sounds like your bank/credit card provider ruled against you, so you've decided that PayPal must suck because of it.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    43. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Your two paragraphs are opposed to each other.

      PayPal is heavily regulated. I have to go through rigorous compliance training, even though I don't work in customer service or touch transactions. Non-profits are heavily regulated, and PayPal is required by law to make sure non-profits have all the right paperwork on file, or freeze their accounts. That is your government regulation at play right there.

      You're upset PayPal is acting in accordance with government regulations while calling for more.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    44. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I've had my credit card stolen and phony charges were applied. I was charged a $75 fee through the credit card to reverse the charges.

      I don't use eBay much (even though I'm an employee) but I think so long as you ship to a verified address, or purchase through a verified merchant, you get the full buyer protection. With non-verified accounts, you get limited protection.

      My PayPal account defaults to paying with my PayPal credit card. It took all of 5 seconds to set-up. I just purchased the latest Humble Bundle mentioned in this article with my PayPal credit card.

      My mother's bank account got wiped through a phishing attack as well. PayPal worked with her bank to get all her funds restored on credit cards and her bank account with 3 days, and started the legal process to go after the phishers.

      You don't have to use PayPal for an eBay transaction. They are going to encourage using PayPal because it is their service.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    45. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Any money I've got through an eBay sale, or through my website I've been able to pull over to my bank account immediately. There is no blanket policy of holding funds for 21 days.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    46. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      If a customer files a charge back, then the credit card company doesn't get the money. Why should they give you money when they didn't receive it?

      When there is a charge back with a credit card company, there is a dispute process with that credit card company. If you the PayPal transaction was tied to a credit card, then PayPal accepts the final decision of that credit card company. You have the opportunity to fight the charge back. If you decide not to, that is your decision.

      PayPal never insinuates they are an insurance policy against charge backs. And there can be a valid reason for a charge back. You could set up an account and ship bad products, or not ship at all. Should PayPal be on the hook to eat all the money simply because you think they should eat all charge backs?

      I think you don't understand payment processing at all.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    47. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't think they contradict...

      The reason I hate PayPal is that there is no transparency or even apparent logic to account freezes. I have worked with a number of non-profit organizations and small businesses that have had their PayPal accounts' frozen for reasons that were never explained. Then when we supplied the requested documentation, it was rejected with no apparent reason.

      The GP is complaining about lack of transparency. A regular bank (in the United States at least) can only freeze accounts with a court order (or other government intervention, ..cough.. ..DHS.. ..cough..).

    48. Re:And by billcopc · · Score: 2

      The Paypal fees are based on the fees charged to them by the credit card companies. There is simply no getting away from that, since Visa/MC insist on getting their points. The big plus with Paypal is they cater to small transactions, and they even offer an alternate fee structure that benefits those who primarily deal in microtransactions under $5. Good luck convincing the bank to open up a micro merchant account! The last time I accepted credit cards directly, I had to place a $10k security balance (to cover chargebacks!?), and while my per-transaction fee was slightly lower (2.2%), there were monthly fees for the account itself ($50), plus annual fees for the swipe readers and a separate fee for access to the e-terminal ($1800/yr). So I was paying about $2400 / year in bank fees just for the privilege of accepting Visa/MC, and I still had to pay 2.1% + 25 cents on each transaction.

      With Paypal, they require no security deposit at all, no monthly/annual fees, and almost anyone can sign up (excluding some countries). As a consultant, I offer Paypal as an option to my clients now. Unless you're selling $250k a year, Paypal actually ends up being cheaper than having your own merchant account!

      What most people consider evil is Paypal's policies when things go wrong. Some of this is due to poor communication. In one instance, I had received a large payment that presumably bumped my account past some threshold, so Paypal froze my account - not just the payment itself, but my existing balance as well - until I emailed in some photo ID and proof of address. It was the fact that they sprung it on me at the last minute that really set me off. The funds were quickly released once they had the info, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place. Had they asked for this up-front when I upgraded to a business account, it would have saved everyone a bit of grief. Their phone support reps were also rather clueless, just by the tone of voice, I could tell I was talking to some disaffected students at the other end, they knew even less about the company than I did. So Paypal needs a lot of work on that front... I wouldn't call them evil though. Ten years ago, sure, they were a trainwreck, but today they are far more well-behaved. If they're good enough for Steam, they're good enough for me.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    49. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      About two years ago my daughter broke my PS3 BluRay laser. She was shoving change in the disc slot. Otherwise, the PS3 worked. You could stream Netflix or home theater content. You could play games installed to the hard drive, access PSN, etc.

      I listed it very clearly on eBay that what it could and couldn't do. Someone bought it from me, and then immediately disputed the purchase through PayPal. They said that I didn't make it clear it was out of warranty. If it was in warranty, I would have had it fixed/replaced. They apparently though they could buy a cheap broken PS3 on eBay and get a free replacement via Sony.

      I showed my listing, that I shipped the PS3 and that the buyer received it. PayPal sided with me as the seller. So I don't accept the notion that PayPal always sides with the buyer, or that they don't have a dispute process since I've used it myself.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    50. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      You're mistaken.

      http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/home/2006/09/patriot_act_and.html

      The Patriot Act (and several laws passed since then) really heavily regulate financial transactions to non-profits, because they've been used to launder money for terrorists. Banks are bound by the same laws as PayPal, and are required to freeze accounts if paperwork isn't on file. In this case, they notify you what paperwork is missing. When X.org's account was frozen, I know this was the case. And it later came out they were notified repeatedly, and dropped the ball by not submitting paperwork.

      And they can be required to freeze accounts for suspicious activity, and in those cases, PayPal is not allowed to tip off the customer that they are under investigation for suspicious activity. Again, government regulation is what is screwing you here.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    51. Re:And by yakatz · · Score: 1

      This is not just about non-profits, it is about summer camps, boy scout troops, bake sales, high-school yearbooks, freelance artists and software developers, and personal gifts to family members half way around the world. This is about transparency.

    52. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Show me a documented example where they froze the account of a Boy Scout troop with no explanation.

      And the Boy Scouts are a non-profit, as are most summer camps and schools.

      You continue to miss the point that government regulation specifically mandates that in certain scenarios you not tip off the person being investigated. You're saying regulation would prevent this behavior, when regulation is causing it.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    53. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me a documented example where they froze the account of a Boy Scout troop with no explanation.

      And the Boy Scouts are a non-profit, as are most summer camps and schools.

      Does it have to be in the New York Times to be verifiable or can you take my word that it happened.
      Either way, the Boy Scout Councils may be non-profit, but individual troops are not unless they have their own registration (in technical terms, the chartering organization must be non-profit). Most summer camps I know of are for-profit and a yearbook that has independent finances from the school must also register as a non-profit by itself.

      If PayPal requests documentation for a SSN, any government issued ID with the SSN on it (i.e. medicare card, DOD card, other state/federal-issued cards) should be sufficient. I even called customer service to ask, was told those are fine, then had each rejected in turn. If PayPal requests a government-issued photo id, any government issued ID with a photo on it (i.e. university id, state non-driver id card) should be sufficient. I even called customer service to ask, was told those are fine, then had each rejected in turn. (did this paragraph sound familiar?)

    54. Re:And by yakatz · · Score: 1

      Sorry, accidentally hit AC. If you don't mind, reply to this one so I get email notification.

    55. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All transactions are final, so it doesn't screw up the seller.

      Sure, but it puts the buyer entirely at the seller's mercy, so as a buyer, I would never, ever, ever use something like Liberty Reserve or Moneybookers, and if a seller required them, so much for that seller.

    56. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      A Google search for "site:www.nytimes.com Boy Scout PayPal" finds no such examples.

      I have news alerts for eBay and PayPal. I do my best to keep track of my employer in the news. I've never once seen a documented case in the news of PayPal freezing funds without telling someone as you describe happens all the time, even though I do know that government regulation does mandate such behavior in the right scenario.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    57. Re:And by CapnStank · · Score: 1

      Yes the vendor did screw me but it was in such a way that if I had paid through a real bank or credit card service I wouldn't have been bent over.

      I'm over being sour about it and moved on. I just reiterate that my experience with PayPal was that they could do anything. The situation was that I paid for certain items and the vendor sent the wrong stuff, refusing to accept that they were in mistake because "their records" showed everything correctly (shipping screwed up). When I contacted PayPal the agent said that I was out of luck because the vendor only has to provide a proof of shipping to refute any claims I had against them. The agent supposedly tried to contact the vendor but received no response and then said "well, I guess that's that."

      Again, all fairness to you, the agent was very helpful and kind. You deal with numerous issues daily and I can't expect my hand to be held along the way (shit happens) but I was upset with the response of "they provide shipping notice -> you lose". There was no "acceptable" record of what the items I was promised was because the contact leading up to the transaction was not on ebay and was done though a web forum.

    58. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I initially misread you. I thought you were implying that there was a New York Times story.

      Something documented by a reputable news source would suggest (I would hope) that investigation was done to verify the story is legit. If such behavior happened all the time, then it isn't unreasonable that someone was able to get a story in the news. The New York Times did have a story about fraudulent sales through one particular online eyewear company I discovered in searching for PayPal stories.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    59. Re:And by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2

      About two years ago my daughter broke my PS3 BluRay laser. She was shoving change in the disc slot. Otherwise, the PS3 worked. You could stream Netflix or home theater content. You could play games installed to the hard drive, access PSN, etc.

      I listed it very clearly on eBay that what it could and couldn't do. Someone bought it from me, and then immediately disputed the purchase through PayPal. They said that I didn't make it clear it was out of warranty. If it was in warranty, I would have had it fixed/replaced. They apparently though they could buy a cheap broken PS3 on eBay and get a free replacement via Sony.

      I showed my listing, that I shipped the PS3 and that the buyer received it. PayPal sided with me as the seller. So I don't accept the notion that PayPal always sides with the buyer, or that they don't have a dispute process since I've used it myself.

      ****

      I've had to deal with dispute resolution with PayPal only once. My mother was the victim of a phishing attack and I tried to help her out. We contacted PayPal, and they got all her money back in 3 days and then went after the phishers.

      I currently work in the customer service division at PayPal and I can tell you with absolute certainty that we do dispute resolution on non-eBay transactions.

      https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/general/PPDisputeResolution-outside

      Now, there could be several mitigating factors, such as if you waited too long to dispute the transaction, or if you weren't willing to do your part to provide evidence. But that would be standard practices for any company. What you're really saying is that a vendor screwed you over, and somehow you think that is PayPal's fault.

      I'm officially calling you a shill on this one. Get your story straight.

      I don't have a huge beef with ebay or paypal, though I do think both charge higher fees than are necessary for a reasonable profit. Fortunately for ebay I don't get to define what is a reasonable profit for them, their shareholders do. I'll even say that you are likely correct that some people have misplaced their hatred. To say their customer service is "good" against all the naysayers, however, is ridiculous.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    60. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Google search for "site:www.nytimes.com Boy Scout PayPal" finds no such examples.

      You need a sarcasm detector...

    61. Re:And by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Mostly because paypal is known to arbitrarily lock legitimate accounts with large balances with no legal recourse for recovery of funds.

      Not to mention the ease with which it can be used to defraud people, again with no legal recourse for recovery of funds.

      So yea, ebay/paypal is evil.

    62. Re:And by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I've done $10 for each of the indy bundles, but haven't actually played any of them.. just supporting the concept and devs.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    63. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Please provide me one documented case of each.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    64. Re:And by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I believe the pay is a percentage of the money sent BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE CREDIT CARD PROCESSOR CHARGES.

      I believe if you use bank transfers, the fees are lower.

      Remember, Paypal was at least originally (and largely still is, IMHO) a way for "the little guy" to be able to accept credit card payments _at all_, for non-outrageous (in most people's opinions) fees, because Paypal is the one aggregating lots of charges, so they get to pay the "big guy" lower processing fees. They then add a fee on top of that, since they have to make money too.

      No, I don't work for them.

    65. Re:And by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't matter if I did. Numerous other people here have mentioned their own experiences and your only response has been to paraphrase: "It never happened to me that way, so you must be mistaken".

    66. Re:And by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I just tried unlinking my bank account from PayPal... My account is now unverified and has a spending limit unless I either re-link an account, or sign up for a PayPal credit card (my Confirmed MasterCard is not enough).

      See, you don't have to have a bank account linked to PayPal. You can sign up for their credit card. It's obvious!

      I have been an eBay user paying through PayPal for a very long time. Seven years, ten years, something like that. Same credit card (with renewals, of course) for all that time. I eventually hit my $10,000 spending limit.

      The nice people at PayPal told me that I MUST give them a direct pathway into my bank account or use their credit card AS A FRAUD PREVENTION METHOD. Many many years of using the same credit card, spending $10,000, and they are telling me that the real owner of the card (me) wouldn't have noticed fraudlent charges long ago and reported it? That's insane.

      Fortunately I had an old credit union account with just $5 in it that I could devote to these shysters so if they decide to drain my account for some reason it will fail. They wanted the password so they could see the account online themselves; I had to get the CU to reactivate it just for PayPal. The "small amount" they were going to deposit? Hmmm, someday, maybe.

      I'm stuck having to go through the long process of changing the payment method each and every time I use PayPal to buy something; there is no way to set it, even though it is my money and my accounts they want access to. PayPal, you've verified my identity and authenticity, there is no reason you need further access to my bank account and no reason you shouldn't allow me to go back to paying with my credit card by default. Since you keep demanding this, it's clear that you lied about the reason you wanted it in the first place. Ethical company, my ass.

    67. Re:And by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Merchant accounts generally forbid minimum purchase amount policies

      This used to be true, but no longer is.

      http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-minimum-payment-purchases-law-1282.php

    68. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Apparently contacting Paypal and getting a useful response is a miracle in and of itself.

      hear, hear.

    69. Re:And by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

      I sent $5 to an indie musician via PayPal, PayPal responded by immediately freezing my account. I have a static IP address and a strong password, there was nothing to suggest the transaction was fraudulent.

      PayPal automatically opened a dispute, I sent a message to PayPal explaining what happened and asking them to let the transaction go through and only after several days did they unfreeze my account and cancel the transaction.

      I need PayPal to be able to receive funds, but now I'm afraid that if I use it how it's intended that my account will be frozen again. I can't create a 2nd account because that's a breach of ToS.

      I don't think PayPal is evil, it's just annoying to deal with.

      --
      I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
    70. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notch and Minecraft.

      http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/09/10/1713217/paypal-withholding-indie-game-devs-600000-account

    71. Re:And by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I always get the impression that people here have suffered when they tried to use PayPal either as an alternative to a business bank account, or simply for selling large quantities of things privately. As someone who has only used it for buying on eBay, I have never had any problems, but I have never got involved with how much selling fees etc are.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    72. Re:And by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Paypal hatred comes up most frequently in charitable donation / hosting fee contribution threads, I have noticed.

      I don't see why you wouldn't just pay with a credit/debit card directly if you want to make a charitable donation, I thought people only used PayPal on eBay?

      If whoever you're paying can't be bothered or can't afford to set up acceptance of credit/debit card payments, you have to wonder what sort of organisation they are.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    73. Re:And by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm officially calling you a shill on this one.

      Don't be stupid, he's already said he works for PayPal, which would pretty much break the first rule of shilling, wouldn't it?

      Or perhaps you don't actually know what the word "shill" means, but are simply repeating it as it's such a popular slashdot insult.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    74. Re:And by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Ethical company, my ass.

      Don't use them then. People have no problem boycotting Sony, Apple (just me, I suppose) or Microsoft, what law says you have to use PayPal?

      I believe it's compulsory if you want to use eBay here in the UK, but so what? If it offends you that much, don't fucking use eBay either.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    75. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      PayPal is too eager to block accounts. It didn't happen just to Wikileaks. Many people and organizations receiving donations suddenly find their accounts blocked. PayPal has time and time again proven to be too unreliable to be the payment infrastructure we need.

      Mind you, Mastercard and Visa are only marginally better. They too play politics with people's financial needs. Unfortunately we don't really have anything better right now. European banks are working on something that should work in the entire EU, but that's still not good enough. We need reliable world wide payment infrastructure, and we still don't have it.

    76. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of a transaction service that charges precisely no fees.

      I am. My bank, much as it sucks in many ways, doesn't charge fees for transferring money to another Dutch bank account.

    77. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Why do those accounts get frozen in the first place?

    78. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Have you sued them already?

    79. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I think they are evil. Freezing accounts should only happen for a really good reason. They should know that freezing accounts will hurt businesses.

      If they think something suspicious happened, they should alert the police, not steal the money involved.

    80. Re:And by gmack · · Score: 1

      There are some easy ways to screw a customer that gets around the TOS. What happened to me was that I was charged for a 1 month subscription to a website that ended up requiring non functional software to access the site. Ended up being told that I was out of luck because that kind of transaction is non refundable.

      Thankfully there wasn't much money at stake but I sharply cut back my Paypal usage after that.

    81. Re:And by gmack · · Score: 1

      #4 is why I have an account dedicated to PayPal that I only transfer money into when I make a purchase.

    82. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Except that is a reasonable policy. If I pay for a subscription, and want a refund on the subscription later, the payment processor can't arbitrate whether or not I got benefit from the subscription.

      Is Amazon evil for not accepting returns on Halloween costumes? There are circumstances where it makes sense to place restrictions on refunds otherwise you'll get taken advantage of. PayPal has an obligation to protect both seller and merchant.

      So there is a website you couldn't access without certain software, which in and of itself is pretty fucked up. But somehow that is PayPal's fault?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    83. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks (whether you agree with them or not) encouraged people to steal and leak confidential data. If PayPal enables someone who might be breaking the law, then PayPal can be held liable. And while no one from Wikileaks has been charged in a US court (which would be pointless because they won't be extradited to the US), it doesn't matter.

      PayPal is legally bound to act on anything they suspect might be illegal. Again, government regulation is at play here. Every bank and payment processor is bound by the same legislation.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    84. Re:And by gmack · · Score: 1

      It is not a reasonable policy. Imagine if you went to rent a car and was handed the keys on the first day tried to drive the car out of the lot only to discover it doesn't start. Then imagine being told that sorry we rented you the car for a week but never said it would drive. I was sold a subscription I had no possible way to access and no way to know that before paying for it. I got no communication at all from the guy who sold it to me and asked for a refund after two days of not even a single word from the guy.

      If Amazon sold me a Halloween costume that wasn't fit for purpose (wrong size, damaged goods etc) I would demand my money back I could understand why they wouldn't return the goods if there were no defects but afik even Amazon isn't evil enough to stick anyone with defective goods based on policy.

      Essentially I got sold a product that didn't exist, had I used my credit card my bank would have pulled the money and I would have gotten a refund.

    85. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      You don't leave a car rental lot without a working car. Website subscriptions are tough. If you contested the charges within an hour if you immediately discovered you couldn't use the site, you'd probably have a good case. If you wait a day or more, then someone may feel you tried to access paywall content for free by demanding a refund.

      People usually wear Halloween costumes for a single day. I don't know of anyone who accepts returns on them otherwise a good chunk of people would wear them the once and then demand a refund. You can't understand why a business would have such a policy?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    86. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks may have published the data, but they didn't encourage anyone to steal classified data. They may have published it, but so did the New York Times, who didn't get blocked. Meanwhile other organizations that can be considered to encourage illegal acts (like the KKK) don't get blocked, and nobody holds their payment processors accountable for it. Plenty of criminals have bank accounts and credit cards.

      Had there been a court order that Wikileaks assets had to be frozen, then PayPal would have been entirely correct. But as far as anyone knows, they did it entirely out of their own free will. And that makes them unreliable.

    87. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Two reasons come to mind, but these obviously don't cover all scenarios.

      1 - You are a non-profit and open a PayPal account to accept donations. PayPal then is required by law to verify your non-profit status within a certain time frame. If they don't receive proper paperwork, they have to freeze your account.
      2 - If something looks suspicious, and there is any reason to think that money might be laundered, then PayPal is required by law to file a report. That might lead to the account being frozen while an investigation takes place.

      For instance, if a non-profit suddenly receives considerably more money than they did before, or changes their payment habits, or starts sending money overseas when they didn't before. These all could be legitimate transactions. But they may need to be investigated. Again, this is mandated by government regulation.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    88. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Leaking classified government data is always against the law. Asking people to provide it is encouraging people to break US laws.

      The New York Times didn't ask people to steal the data in the first place. The reported on something that was now already in public circulation.

      PayPal doesn't take stands on political or moral beliefs for the most part (though you can't use PayPal to pay for porn or gambling), so you can donate to an organization, whether or not people agree with the beliefs of that organization. I don't make it a point to check out the KKK's web page. But if you see any examples they encourage people to break the law, and they accept PayPal, then report it and they may get their account suspended.

      PayPal's TOS state that if you encourage people to break the law (which Wikileaks did) then your account can be frozen. PayPal enforced TOS that Wikileaks agreed to.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    89. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      And yet I never hear about these kind of problems with normal bank accounts or credit cards. There definitely is something about how PayPal operates that enables these kind of fuckups.

    90. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Leaking classified government data is always against the law. Asking people to provide it is encouraging people to break US laws.

      But Wikileaks is not located in the US. How can you break the law of a place where you're not?

      But moreover, does PayPal really block everybody who breaks the law? I really doubt that. Consider that Microsoft has been convicted (unlike Wikileaks) of breaking EU law. Consider the many other large organizations that are clearly involved in a wide variety of illegal activities, yet get to do business just fine. Why? Because they're too big to harass.

      Has News Corp been blocked yet?

      The New York Times didn't ask people to steal the data in the first place. The reported on something that was now already in public circulation.

      The New York Times, like The Guardian and Der Spiegel, worked closely with Wikileaks to redact and publish these cables, and is guilty of everything that Wikileaks is guilty of. The only reason reason not to harass the NYT like PayPal harassed Wikileaks, is because the NYT is too big. PayPal would immediately have a losing lawsuit on their hands.

      PayPal doesn't take stands on political or moral beliefs for the most part (though you can't use PayPal to pay for porn or gambling),

      Even when both you and the porn/gambling site are located in countries where it's legal? Then PayPal does take a stance.

      PayPal's TOS state that if you encourage people to break the law (which Wikileaks did) then your account can be frozen. PayPal enforced TOS that Wikileaks agreed to.

      Who has determined that Wikileaks encourages people to break the law? How do you determine that? As far as I'm aware, no judge has determined that determined that Wikileaks has done anything illegal, or encouraged anyone else to commit any crimes. No prosecutor has filed any charges. The harassment of Wikileaks has been entirely extralegal, and PayPal, Visa and MC allow themselves to be used as the US government's extralegal enforcers. There's no justice in it if there's no court of law involved.

    91. Re:And by gmack · · Score: 1

      The proper way to deal with these things is to deal with the seller first and I tried to do that but anyways from the response I got was that I didn't have a case under any condition.

      Many people accept returns but only for defective products. If I ordered size large and was sent size small or I got something damaged I would expect a repair or refund and the law would pretty much back me up on that.

    92. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      But Wikileaks is not located in the US. How can you break the law of a place where you're not?

      They encourage people in the US to break US law if they're asking people to give them confidential government data. Even data from private corporations is protected by law as intellectual property. Leaking company files can be prosecuted as theft. There is no point in trying to prosecute Assange, as he isn't in the US and can't be held accountable by US law. The those who steal the data in the first place are breaking US law.

      Encouraging people to do that is a violation of the TOS.

      Even when both you and the porn/gambling site are located in countries where it's legal? Then PayPal does take a stance.

      I agree. And that's why I called that out. PayPal doesn't take a stance on most issues, but it has chosen to do so on some. But if they refused to allow people to take donations for an organization simply because they don't agree with the views of that organization, then you start walking down a very slippery slope.

      Who has determined that Wikileaks encourages people to break the law?

      I've explained this a few times now, including again in this post. Asking people to steal data is encouraging them to break the law.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    93. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing here, but because of the amount of money coming into an account that didn't have massive amounts of money coming in before, and because it is coming in from multiple countries, it got flagged as suspicious. PayPal is required by law to report cases like that to the government as part of money laundering prevention. If the government upon receiving the report decides to investigate further, PayPal is forbidden by law to let that party know they're being investigated. Yeah, government regulation! Banks have the same stipulations, and in my experience they're worse with them.

      When I got laid off years back, my father in law lent me some money to pay my mortgage that month. My bank held the deposit for over two weeks because they had to investigate an unexpected deposit as being suspicious. That was one transaction, which was less than one of my paychecks but someone decided it was suspicious. That's all it takes. And everyone is trained to over-report as opposed to under-report, because you can get thrown in jail if you fail to report.

      I ran a security company about 11 years back. We changed banks and payroll services (through that bank, Wells Fargo). We deposited about $200,000 into the payroll account for our first payroll, which Wells Fargo promptly held for being a suspiciously large deposit. We were transferring it from another Wells Fargo account at the same location for the payroll service they were maintaining. Every payroll check bounced and they had the gall to come after us for the fees. Thankfully they dropped all those when we pointed out they caused the whole situation.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    94. Re:And by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      Thats not the case with me last month they started putting a 21 day hold on my money. I have a perfect ebay record and have never had a dispute. You can choose not to believe me if you want but I have no reason to lie. This policy started last month. Have you sold anything on PayPal in the last month. May be you were not chose because you work for them.

      This is from PayPal's website

      When some sellers receive payments, we may hold the money in a pending balance for up to 21 days to help make sure that there are funds in the seller's account to cover potential refunds or claims. The funds may be released early if PayPal determines that the transaction has been fulfilled and customers are satisfied.

      While funds are pending, the money belongs to you but isn't available to spend or withdraw.

      If payments on your account are held, we'll notify you. PayPal will re-evaluate your account every 35 days and decide whether or not to continue holding payments. If we decide to stop holding future payments, we'll contact you.

    95. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      But Wikileaks is not located in the US. How can you break the law of a place where you're not?

      They encourage people in the US to break US law if they're asking people to give them confidential government data. Even data from private corporations is protected by law as intellectual property. Leaking company files can be prosecuted as theft. There is no point in trying to prosecute Assange, as he isn't in the US and can't be held accountable by US law. The those who steal the data in the first place are breaking US law.

      Encouraging people to do that is a violation of the TOS.

      But Wikileaks doesn't encourage people to steal data. It merely provides a platform for publishing information that needs to be public.

      Who has determined that Wikileaks encourages people to break the law?

      I've explained this a few times now, including again in this post. Asking people to steal data is encouraging them to break the law.

      But Wikileaks doesn't ask anything like that. And with PayPal acting as its own judge in cases like these, it makes itself an unreliable payment processor. Especially for international payments, because not every country has the same laws as the US.

    96. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Their material is 100% submitted by others, and they have a submissions page where they tell you how to give them stolen data. But they're not encouraging people to steal data? It is the entire purpose of their site. You can't be serious.

      And perhaps you missed the first 10 times I said this, but the law mandates that you take action if you have any reason to be suspicious. And failing to report is a crime itself.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    97. Re:And by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I don't see any reference to stolen data on their submission page.

      In any case, if you think there's anything suspicious, then of course you should report. But if you block an account without a court order, then you're not reliable payment infrastructure, because nobody will ever truly be able to count on you. Perhaps you're unreliable because the law forces you to be unreliable, but that doesn't change the fact that you are. And we need international payment infrastructure that is reliable. More so than PayPal or credit cards have proven to be.

    98. Re:And by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Leaked confidential data is inherently stolen. It is a crime to release government confidential data, and private data is protected by law as well.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    99. Re:And by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Don't be stupid, he's already said he works for PayPal, which would pretty much break the first rule of shilling, wouldn't it? Or perhaps you don't actually know what the word "shill" means, but are simply repeating it as it's such a popular slashdot insult.

      I've been unable to respond to this until now but I know exactly what a shill means. I also know that the wikipedia definition you list isn't the only definition. Try this second definition: http://www.yourdictionary.com/shill

      The GP repeatedly said he/she was proud to work for EBay but would like to hear why people dislike the company. When people responded with their reasons he/she argued that they must be incorrect then listed several DIFFERENT so called "personal experiences" as the only experience the GP had had dealing with said company. Those are out and out lies, as far as I'm concerned, which is why I called the person a shill.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  2. I'll probably get this one, too... by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1

    Even though my Mac wouldn't play anything from the last bundle. /shakes fist at OS 10.4

    --
    sig not found
    1. Re:I'll probably get this one, too... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Don't feel bad, I could only run half the games in the last bundle I got on Linux with nvidia.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I'll probably get this one, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to use bootcamp, install Linux on your Mac (ironically, as a gaming install!!) and you can play all of them that do not require 3D acceleration; possibly that as well, if you have the hardware and the proprietary ATI (or NVIDIA??) graphics driver works.

      Unless you're on a PowerPC machine... in which case I have much sympathy for you and am posting this under the same circumstance... 1.67GHz G4 PowerBook laptop, running Ubuntu 9.04 :-(

      I haven't the courage to see if anything newer works better, as I've got everything working except 3D acceleration (which is useless anyway since there are no Linux PPC builds of proprietary games). However, Opera 10.63 does install natively and bring HTML5/WebM support (sorta) which is nice for YouTube.

    3. Re:I'll probably get this one, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Install Windows, problem solved.

    4. Re:I'll probably get this one, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feel bad, I could only run half the games in the last bundle I got on Linux with nvidia.

      Have gotten every game working on Linux . Also using Nvidia.

    5. Re:I'll probably get this one, too... by Windowser · · Score: 1

      Install Windows, problem solved.

      If you think installing windows solves problems, you've got it all wrong

      --
      Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
    6. Re:I'll probably get this one, too... by Tomato42 · · Score: 1

      I was able to run all past games on Linux, using Intel...

    7. Re:I'll probably get this one, too... by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Tips? Trine's still throwing sound errors.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  3. Re:torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yea I did the same thing with your wife, she is too stupid to understand how prostitution works.

  4. Most generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's see the aggregate totals, the distribution curve, a blind average would be like me asking people's current temperature outside and assuming it is relevant to the Earth's.

    1. Re:Most generous? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling Notch's $2000 donation might skew the results a bit.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:Most generous? by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      A quick look at the pie chart on the link shows that about 66% of the 212,018 buyers are windows users. With the remaining split more or less 50 50 between the linux and mac users.

    3. Re:Most generous? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Yepp, that was the first thing that sprang into my eyes. In other words: if you offer a game also for Linux and Macs you can get +50% revenue.
      So why are so few game companies doing it?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Most generous? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      2k out of 1M is hardly worth consideration.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Most generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The million dollar mark is for the whole, not for one particular platform. That's where the summary's averages camerom.

    6. Re:Most generous? by tepples · · Score: 1

      For one thing, game companies are already stretched trying to support three platforms (Windows, Xbox 360, and PS3) and don't want to add two more.

    7. Re:Most generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it means if indie developers offer a bundle of games at a pay-what-you-want price, they can get +50% more net proceeds, only some of which actually go to the game developers.

      this may or may not have anything to do with how much success major game publishers would have employing a similar strategy.

    8. Re:Most generous? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      I don't think it really works like that. I have bought all the bundles (1-3, FB, FB-Syn) and always gave much more than average. Yet, I have played in total exactly one game in all those bundles. That game was World of Goo and you'll notice that it was in HB1.

      Now, why exactly did I pay these games? Well, first it is to encourage cross-platform gaming. I am voting with my dollar (Euro actually, which makes these bundles more affordable to me in the first place). Second, you are supporting the EFF and Childs Play. Whether this is worthwhile, is another thing. Third, I simply like the concept of "pay what you want". Last, but not least, I still hope that someday I'll find the time to play... I have work, I have family, I have responsibilities.... I don't really have time to game. Perhaps if some day I get unemployed or so, but then I'd probably worry to death.

      So, if many people in the Linux (less so in the Mac) segment thought like I did, there is no guarantee of a +50% increase of sales if Linux or Mac are supported. I sure hope we can dupe game publishers into thinking that, but I don't really think it will happen. Support from the game publishers is a validation of the Linux platform, that's why I think it is important.... Me? Playing the games? Probably won't happen.

      Once, major publishers start to sell Linux games, it is very likely that I will buy as many Linux games as I did buy Windows games in the past 10 years... That would be zero.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    9. Re:Most generous? by North+Korea · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Because if it would be more widespread practice, they wouldn't get that. It's mostly just one time thing where elitist Linux geeks (those using on desktops, I actually use on servers too) want to show off when they once have the change. Also, the games being indie helps as it kind of good target audience. With more mainstream games, not so much.

      On top of that, Linux is a support nightmare. The drivers are horrible, the system underneath is a moving target that changes A LOT between different Linux distros and with multiplayer games Linux users would cry aloud about some anti-cheat software like PunkBuster, VAC or Blizzard's one scanning their system while playing.

      There's also no good distribution platform for Linux, like Steam. And no, apt-get or yum won't work. Considering all these, it's just not worth the effort.

    10. Re:Most generous? by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      Damn, the one time I don't have mod points.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:Most generous? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Still the pie graphs show around 15-20% each for Linux and Mac payments, so the totals for them are well over the $100K mark. One $2k donation probably isn't going to skew the average *that* much. I'm sure it helps a lot and probably helps put the Linux average so high over the Mac average, but both are averaging *way* better than Windows.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    12. Re:Most generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due to CLT, the distributions of the contributions from users of all OSs are Gaussian.

    13. Re:Most generous? by malilo · · Score: 1

      Replying to say I agree 100% with this. I actually don't really play games, I am way too busy with work and school. But I like supporting the EFF, I like supporting indie software developers of any kind, and I like the pay what you want DRM-free model. I too am "voting with my dollar": MORE OF THIS PLEASE!

      Now, I did play Crayon physics on a long plane ride where I was too burned out to do more work, and I had my whole aisle and people behind me fascinated with a game that creative and smooth-running on linux. I'm sure there's more and I hope maybe over my next vacation I can enjoy them.

      --
      "sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
    14. Re:Most generous? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Desura is now in public beta for Linux...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    15. Re:Most generous? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      You should try at least Frozen Synapse. Its a great game really. Wish i thought of it. But yea its a time hole, played for 4 hours strait in the weekend. The last time i did that was when q3 came out.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    16. Re:Most generous? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Mainstream games that have a linux port, i buy. I don't even need the port to be supported, i'm a linux user, we can do the support thing in a forum or on our own most of the time. It is however a pretty small list of games that do this. Pity really, i just don't boot to windows anymore, and hence don't play many games.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    17. Re:Most generous? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Frozen Synapse segfaults on my Ubuntu 10.04 LTS x86_64. Googling the problem didn't yield much information, so I just gave up. As this is my only machine that is currently "installed as I like it" and one of the weakest (Atom D525/2GB RAM/Intel GMA), it really isn't all that high up into my priority list. As a matter of fact, I should finally get around installing my Dell L502x with Core i7 (4 cores) instead of playing games. Bought it in June because of an insane -50% coupon I got, but I have just only unboxed it and let it lie there. It also will take much more time to setup because it is one of those "NVidia Optimus" chipsets without hardware multiplexer, so I'm bound for a painful experience. That's most likely why I didn't install it to my taste yet ;-)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    18. Re:Most generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hi, I'm an indie game developer supporting Linux. Supporting all the different distros isn't really that bad, you just have to avoid depending on anything distro-specific. That means including ALL dependencies (except hardware specific stuff like opengl, obviously). There's really nothing special about this, you do the same thing under Windows. You do have to watch your glibc version dependency though (since distributing or statically linking glibc is a bad idea), which is a little more work, but not really that bad. Best is to set up a chroot or VM with gentoo or something and do all your building in there. After the initial setup you can just do builds like normal and it all works out. That little bit of initial effort saves you a LOT of pain in the long run.

      Also, Linux is about to get a good Steam-like game distribution platform: Desura.

    19. Re:Most generous? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Fair point about the DRM... I also like the fact you get extra Steam/Desura keys for the bonus games if you paid more than average. Gave those to my sister every time and she was happy.

      I played some Crayon Physics too, now you mention it. I stopped because my old Wacom Intuo3 A4 started acting up. Not the games fault, the Wacom simply is defective. It's less fun with the mouse... ;-)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    20. Re:Most generous? by North+Korea · · Score: 0

      Fair point about the DRM... I also like the fact you get extra Steam/Desura keys for the bonus games if you paid more than average. Gave those to my sister every time and she was happy.

      Aaaand that was illegal. It clearly states they're only for your own use.

    21. Re:Most generous? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      If you do your job right, then you don't need to stretch to support them.

      Use APIs that are common between them and 95% of the job is done.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    22. Re:Most generous? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      What would I do with steam keys twice? I buy HB1, get steam key, then I buy HB2 and get another steam key for HB1 and the steam key for HB2. It's the extra steam key I gave away. To my sister... For free. I did not resell it to some stranger on eBay. To me that's still personal use. Would you have complained had I said 'wife' instead of 'sister' because that would even have been the same household.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    23. Re:Most generous? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... and if he doesn't use them himself? You realize that's transfer of ownership, and you can't just disallow that?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    24. Re:Most generous? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Same here, on an intel chipset. On my desktop (nvidia) it works without a hitch, same distro, same versions of everything.

      I blame shitty "integrated" graphics (yet again...)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    25. Re:Most generous? by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 1

      They haven't provided enough data to make that kind of conclusion. I wish they would release more, but if I ran the thing I definitely wouldn't. If the humble bundle people are intelligent at all they know how much of a competitive advantage this sort of market research can give them.

      Some tl;dr about why this data can't be used to estimate potential revenues:

      The data they've shown can only be used to make a make a conclusion if you can show the following:
      1.) the people who bought the bundle are representative of potential customers as a whole,
      2.) the charity aspect does not affect sales or prices, and
      3.) it is possible to engage in perfect price discrimination, i.e. choose the highest price that all customers are willing to pay.

      I don't think the first two are correct, but they might be reasonable assumptions. The third point is completely impossible. The reason this is a problem is because the mean is strongly influenced by outliers: if the mean price is being inflated by a very small number of extremely generous people, it will be much higher than the profit-maximizing price in general. If the sales prices are skewed left, you'll make a lot more money by lowering the price than you will by catering to a few rich people, but the total amount of money isn't going to match the estimate you see here. You'd need to follow rich people around all day, forcing them to pay $2000 for every game they buy, and that's not realistically possible.

      Some more considerations: modern games can be developed relatively cheaply because they rely on middleware, but sometimes those packages require the purchase of additional licenses for other platforms. Each new platform also adds a lot of QA and support costs, especially for a platform like Linux which is so nebulous. (It's nice to say that the Linux community will support the game for you but you can't rely on volunteer tech support. You can't even endorse it, because that might be illegal - e.g. AOL CL class action judgement.)

    26. Re:Most generous? by North+Korea · · Score: 0

      Then he should have transferred the whole HumbleBundle account, not just Steam keys. They're given so that users can install them on their favorite platform, not give out them away for others while still using them elsewhere, ie. you use in Steam and give the Desura keys to friend.

    27. Re:Most generous? by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

      I have an intel 3100 graphics chip in my netbook, and a dual-core processor... frozen synapse runs great once you turn off the useless background stuff.

    28. Re:Most generous? by morari · · Score: 1

      Time to drop PS360 support then? :)

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    29. Re:Most generous? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Not as long as PS3 and Xbox 360 are bigger markets than Mac and Linux. See this comment.

    30. Re:Most generous? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      The question that then arises is: are you using 64-bit Linux? The binaries are 32-bit Linux, and if it's another platform we simply can't compare at all.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    31. Re:Most generous? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Then it doesn't make sense to give the HB(n-1) with the HB(n) to people who bought the HB(n-1) under the same account! Do you think they'd rather have two sales for 0.01$ instead of one sale for 25$ where I give the unused keys away? Unused, it's not as if I'm going to use them too! If they have a problem with what I did, they can contact me right away... (It's not hard, my account is easily findable given my slashdot username) I'll give them 0.01$ for each bundle and and give those keys to my sister. Then it's a sale and I can gift the whole HB(n) as I wish to my sister.

      If this is illegal, I don't want to do business with them ever again.

      As said, they can contact me and reclaim what's theirs.

      Personal use, by the way, usually implies "for use within the family". As far as I know, my sister is family.

      You might not understand that, but I frankly think you're a horrible troll.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    32. Re:Most generous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet it may not be just one such large donation, it may be several people making large donations under one banner.

      Which is good on them, but does skew the figures.

      That the above poster was applying it to the whole total was just a sign of why such statistics are not good to rely upon without examination.

    33. Re:Most generous? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      In my case, my desktop is 64-bit and runs it fine (this is the one with a real video adapter). The laptop has the intel "graphics" hardware, and is 32-bit.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    34. Re:Most generous? by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

      64-bit has compatibility libraries and whatnot for 32-bit binaries. It's really useful.

    35. Re:Most generous? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are installed by default on Ubuntu and there is no documentation about what might be missing. Try again.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    36. Re:Most generous? by olman · · Score: 1

      Oh my.

      Customer segment A buys 1000pcs of a product with $8 profit/sale
      Customer segment B buys 20000pcs of a product with $2 profit/sale

      Which one made the company more revenue?

    37. Re:Most generous? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yepp, that was the first thing that sprang into my eyes. In other words: if you offer a game also for Linux and Macs you can get +50% revenue. So why are so few game companies doing it?

      Well, it's just possible that the extra revenue also incurs such significant extra costs that the net contribution to profit isn't worth the effort.

      But I'm sure the dummies running game companies never thought of that.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. How long will this continue to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people are buying this to either 1. Make themselves feel better about supporting indie games 2. because the idea is novel I'm sure a few actually like the games. But I tried it out once and most of the games were pretty bad. Either way they should slow down the number of bundles they're releasing. The novelty factor is dropping quickly.

    1. Re:How long will this continue to work? by oakgrove · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most people are buying this to either 1. Make themselves feel better about supporting indie games 2. because the idea is novel I'm sure a few actually like the games.

      Do you have any corroborating evidence to support this?

      But I tried it out once and most of the games were pretty bad.

      But I tried it out every time and most of the games were pretty good.

      Either way they should slow down the number of bundles they're releasing. The novelty factor is dropping quickly.

      Breakdown of sales figures:

      Humble Indie Bundle #1: $1.27 million

      Humble Indie Bundle #2: $1.8 million

      Humble Frozenbyte Bundle (note the lack of "Indie" in the name): $700,000

      Humble Indie Bundle #3: $2.17 million.

      Contrary to your uninformed assertions, it looks like sales are on a phenomenal upward trajectory considering the nature of the enterprise. I'm sure they'll take your opinion into account before they make their next move though.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    2. Re:How long will this continue to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Frozen Synapse is an excellent game, well worth it when I paid $20 for it when it came out. Trine is also excellent and has won a bunch of awards. All of the bundles have had some pretty good games, usually mixed in with a few mediocre to crappy games. Yea, none of them are Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto, but that doesn't mean they're not good. And considering the piles of money they've been making, I don't foresee a decrease in the number of bundles forthcoming. I don't think it was ever intended to be a "novelty".

    3. Re:How long will this continue to work? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Actually, the bundles have typically had games that I have either purchased, or was going to purchase. So for me, the games are pretty good.

      I look at it like Steam's Christmas sale last year, though. If they keep having sales, why would anyone purchase at full price? Just wait for the inevitable sale.

      Worse yet, some of the games aren't even launched yet... You'll lose all the money from the people who just have to have it at launch.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    4. Re:How long will this continue to work? by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Humble Bundle Games are bad? World of Goo, Gish, Braid, Osmos, Crayon Physics Deluxe, Frozen Synapse, SpaceChem, Trine? Have you ever played them?

      I had bought all of those listed above BEFORE seeing the bundle (in the case of Trine, 8 copies for friends, etc.). They're not top-of-the-range, graphics-card-pushing FPS from a top-name publishers, sure, but they're top-selling, professionally-produced games that were selling enough units on their own without the bundles.

      Even this one's main game - Frozen Synapse - was on my computer and my brother's before it got close to the Humble Bundles. Sure, there's some crap in there too, but the majority of the games are extremely good, and already selling well in their own right via Steam normally. That's how they can afford to just let them be sold off, or open-sourced if HB makes enough money (in the case of Gish, etc.). Hell, I bought Gish god-knows-how-long ago - it must have made its costs back before the HB even existed.

      The reason these things are popular is because it's a damn good deal - even if you assume the normal prices are way over-inflated (which they aren't), getting those games for even $10 is a bargain - there's HOURS of decent playtime in there for less than a 6th the price of a single full-price game. Redeemable on Steam, too, so no downloading and installing (just automatic double-click-and-wait).

      I never mind supporting indie games anyway (hell, I paid way over what the bundle costs for the games inside it before it even existed), and the idea is novel but not unique (honesty boxes - they're even used in car parks in some places in the UK). People are buying it because the perceived value for money is enormous.

      I just wish they would stop adding things in after - save that for the next bundle!

    5. Re:How long will this continue to work? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I've bought each previous bundle, and while I still support the concept, this is the weakest bundle (assuming you own the previous ones).

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:How long will this continue to work? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Goo is great. Gish is ass. Braid is meh at best. Osmos is fantastic. And wasn't there one more game in that bundle that sucked? Was that the one with Lugaru? What a tech demo that was.

      I find the bundles to be highly hit and miss. But at these prices, I can take a chance, and the developers get a little money they might use to fix the game or make something better.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:How long will this continue to work? by slim · · Score: 1

      Braid is meh at best.

      You lose the game of game criticism.

    8. Re:How long will this continue to work? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Huh? Like every Bundle there's one or two games (Trine and Frozen Synapse in this case) that were successfully sold at $30+ dollars before their release. Then there's a few... I'm reluctant to say lower quality because they are often quite enjoyable, lets say less mainstream games that are, so far as I'm concerned, a free bonus. I got the #3 bundle for Crayon Physics and VVVVVV and ended up playing Hammerfight for hours. I won't be surprised if the same happens here.

    9. Re:How long will this continue to work? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      All games drop in price eventually, why do PS3 and 360 games sell for $60 when everyone knows they'll be available for $30 this time next year?

    10. Re:How long will this continue to work? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I think the day this bundle started, there was only a single game. All the other bundles have had 5 games.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    11. Re:How long will this continue to work? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Shadowgrounds is actually pretty damn fun.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:How long will this continue to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but he's right. Braid really wasn't all that good.

      Of all of the games in all of the Humble Bundles, only Trine stood out as something I'd actually pay money for. If they sold it alone for $1, I would buy it right now, otherwise I'll stick to the superior free and $1 games in the Android market.

    13. Re:How long will this continue to work? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      wtf!? Gish was AWESOME! Let me guess, you never got the hang of jumping, did you? There's a lot of finesse there and if you don't have it, you can barely move around.

    14. Re:How long will this continue to work? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I guess Braid is for people that realize that the SET YOUR OWN PRICE model allows you to pay $1 and get Trine.
      Well, it did while the event was going on at least...

    15. Re:How long will this continue to work? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Shadowgrounds was part of the previous bundle. If you purchased the previous bundle, then this bundle is only 3 games, and the smallest bundle to date. And initially it was only 1 game, which really isn't a bundle.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    16. Re:How long will this continue to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people who are buying the bundle are also developers themselves, so they are self-selecting group. The reason they need the bundle is that those games couldn't sell on their own. Usually you go to a bundle or sale if the game isn't selling at it's normal price.

    17. Re:How long will this continue to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it doesn't now, so your point is irrelevant.

    18. Re:How long will this continue to work? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Not only did I not get the hang of jumping, but no one even tried to explain it to me. Being a good game is more than having good mechanics. After I swim through a crap menu, and arrive in awful-graphics land, if you want me to figure out some awesome new game mechanics, you're going to have to lead me by the hand from step to step like World of Goo did. Oh sure, sometimes I'm going to just get it. But I'm no stranger to timing jumps precisely, I grew up with a Nintendo too, and I beat Ninja Gaiden, and Strider :p

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:How long will this continue to work? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Where is your evidence for either of your claims?
      Firstly, way way too many copies our sold to account a big percentage to developers and the game sold through the bundles are some of the most successful indie games out there.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    20. Re:How long will this continue to work? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      If you had said that a bundle of 5 ps3 games would definitely be available for whatever I wanted to pay, even $.01, that analogy might hold.

      As it stands right now, they helped launch and explosion of Indie games, and the market is eating it up. But if they devalue them by setting an expectation of these bundles, it could set the whole thing back again.

      (To be fair, Steam helped a lot, too, with their 5 for $5 bundles last Christmas... And repeating that event would be just as bad.)

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  6. Proportional? by fussy_radical · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that the average price donated is inversely proportional to the number of games available on that platform.

    1. Re:Proportional? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      And the money the user would have left over after paying for their operating system.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Proportional? by SpinningCone · · Score: 1

      Volume discount. Windows users represent 70% of the payments. ;-)

    3. Re:Proportional? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      They should release a bundle with 0 games.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    4. Re:Proportional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volume discount. Windows users represent 70% of the payments. ;-)

      And 99.9% of the piracy. ;>

    5. Re:Proportional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would have to be linux only.

    6. Re:Proportional? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I think it's because of the reason they're paying. These numbers don't reflect how much Windows, Mac, or Linux users are willing to pay for games. The numbers reflect how much they are willing to support a particular cause. It's like making a campaign donation.

    7. Re:Proportional? by westlake · · Score: 1

      And the money the user would have left over after paying for their operating system.

      By the time product reaches retail shelves the OEM price of Windows is effectively $0. Economies of scale and all that. Walmart with its enormous purchasing power could never make the Linux PC competitive --- and it wasn't for lack of trying.

  7. Re:torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are better than those paying $.01, which actually costs them Paypal fees exceeding the purchase price.

  8. I got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the last one...The games are pretty fun and it's nice to see Linux titles!

  9. Here he is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Here he is... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Difficult question: If I were to, hypothetically, make a joke about outsourcing right now, would that be racist?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  10. Pretty fun by jimmifett · · Score: 1

    Frozen Synapse is highly addicting. I love posting my victories on youtube and replaying my loses to study mistakes. Definately try all the various game modes.

    I actually find Light Extermination more challenging than Dark Extermination. In Dark, you need to have line of sight to know an enemie's exact position. In Light, all positions are known and it's more an exercise of System Mastery than luck in discovering your enemy first. You work each 5 second turn to squeeze the most optimization from your turn. More like chess... with rocket launchers...

    I bought 2 bundles. The charity and devs got the lion's share. I gave EFF pennies, I respected them until recently. Very disappointed in their open wifi access point commie nonsense. Those pennies are acknowledgement of the handling of GURPS Cyberpunk, back before they drank the koolaid.

    1. Re:Pretty fun by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      The game is ok. It needs more feedback over what area is being covered with what sort of suppression. Sometimes the 3D gets in the way of that, but it's not too bad. It could also be a little more clear and discreet about the differences of the weapon types. A visible range limit for the shotguns would be nice. I found snipers to be worthless. The story is a little crufty with too many names and a lot of chatting that's hardly coupled to the gameplay. Still, the concept is fun and it IS pretty addicting.

      Wait, what's wrong with having open wifi? You are really bitching about "commie koolaid" after participating in a charity event? Really?

    2. Re:Pretty fun by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Yea i was thinking Frozen Synapse would be a great pure 2D game. With just a little more tactical info. I ignore the story.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    3. Re:Pretty fun by jimmifett · · Score: 0

      The story IS rather bland, I skip most of the conversation and get straight to the scenario. I don't find the 3D too bad, I just move the map around until I can accurately position my waypount marker exactly where I want it.

      Range info would be great, perhaps as a cutoff line arcing the field of view lines. Likewise, rifles and snipers rifles would be nice to have optimal range arc lines on thier FoV lines. An explosion radius for Rockets and Nades would also help. Perfectly playable without it, I've gotten used to guestimating the ranges.

      My problem with the Peter Eckersley wifi article on EFF is the "open wifis are the 'socially responsible' thing to do". I pay for my access and my convenience to have wireless devices use my access from the pool of time in my limited life span devoted to providing a service for others in exchange for something useful. I have no social obligation to share the fruits of my efforts with others that could choose to have the same service and convenience I have paid for if they so desired.

      I choose to give to charity because I get satisfaction of knowing I contributed to a worthwhile cause I support, which for myself, I feel is an equal exchange. Additionally, I get a large bit of oversight into how my donation is apportioned, better than I can say how my tax money is redistributed. The *choice* to participate in a charity is infinitely better than any concept of "social responsibility" that says I should give things I have earned away. If/When EFF loses the "socially responsible" nonsense, they will be back in my personal good graces and receive more of my support again.

    4. Re:Pretty fun by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      My problem with the Peter Eckersley wifi article on EFF is the "open wifis are the 'socially responsible' thing to do". I pay for my access and my convenience to have wireless devices use my access from the pool of time in my limited life span devoted to providing a service for others in exchange for something useful. I have no social obligation to share the fruits of my efforts with others that could choose to have the same service and convenience I have paid for if they so desired.

      Right. "I've got mine, piss off you rabble". Sharing with your neighbors is indeed the altruistic thing to do. But you actually CAN'T go pay for wireless service when around town. Well, not at any reasonable rate. So this argument stands in suburbia, but falls apart in the city/campus/office/whatnot where your signal could be used by people away from their own connection.

      But you don't REALLY just want the rabble to piss off, you understand charity:

      I choose to give to charity because I get satisfaction of knowing I contributed to a worthwhile cause I support, which for myself, I feel is an equal exchange. Additionally, I get a large bit of oversight into how my donation is apportioned, better than I can say how my tax money is redistributed. The *choice* to participate in a charity is infinitely better than any concept of "social responsibility" that says I should give things I have earned away. If/When EFF loses the "socially responsible" nonsense, they will be back in my personal good graces and receive more of my support again.

      The Internet isn't worthwhile?
      You have no oversight for what YOUR OWN ROUTER forwards on?
      It's arguable that rich people such as, well, pretty much everyone in the USA has a social responsibility to be charitable. It's one of those social glues that keeps us all together and balances out bad luck and such. It's part of, you know, "Be nice". That said, you still have a choice to be a dick. So, let me restate that: just because something is a "social responsibility" doesn't mean you're forced to do it. There's no contract, law, or power that will take your cash or force open your wifi. And the EFF isn't arguing for that.

      Peter Eckersley wants to shift culture so you'll feel guilty about not sharing. He doesn't want to take away your choice. To work towards that he specifically want to abolish the idea that having an open wifi connection is a legal liability, which I agree is bullshit.

      The EFF also wants your cold hard cash. Entirely because they're lawyers that aren't dicks. A lot like Child's Play, which presumably you donated to with the bundle. So you feel fine with giving CASH, but not your unused bandwidth?

    5. Re:Pretty fun by jimmifett · · Score: 1

      Right. "I've got mine, piss off you rabble". Sharing with your neighbors is indeed the altruistic thing to do. But you actually CAN'T go pay for wireless service when around town. Well, not at any reasonable rate. So this argument stands in suburbia, but falls apart in the city/campus/office/whatnot where your signal could be used by people away from their own connection.

      Reasonable rate is determined by the person wanting said service. It may be available for a price they are unwilling to pay. It's their choice not to pay, and not have the service of that provider. City/Campus/Office wifi and bandwidth is still paid for by someone. For the city, this is via tax dollars, for the campus, via tuition, for offices, by the business itself. It is the decisions of those entities whether or not to allow universal access onto thier networks. I should not expect access unless I am paying taxes for the city municipal wifi, or a student of the university that is paying for the campus wifi, nor should I expect access to be handed out freely simply because I exist and have a wifi capable device.

      But you don't REALLY just want the rabble to piss off, you understand charity:

      I take the term rabble to infer a hostile group or mob. Perhaps my definition is different than others, I don't often consider my fellow person a member of 'rabble'.

      For me, charity is the giving of time/effort/money (the combination of time and effort in easily transferrable form) of my own free choice for emotional/pyschological gratification, hence, I am receiving something of perceived value (at least to myself) for my donation.

      The Internet isn't worthwhile?

      Is a car? Is fuel? Is paper, pen, and ink? Is television? Is Radio?
      All these things are worthwhile to someone. They are also all paid for by someone. The person paying the bill chooses whether or not that product or service is freely available or not, and under what conditions, exceptions, and warranties apply to said product or service.

      You have no oversight for what YOUR OWN ROUTER forwards on?

      I have plenty of oversight in that I do not external wireless connections from those I do not explicitly grant permission to use my service.

      It's arguable that rich people such as, well, pretty much everyone in the USA has a social responsibility to be charitable. It's one of those social glues that keeps us all together and balances out bad luck and such. It's part of, you know, "Be nice". That said, you still have a choice to be a dick. So, let me restate that: just because something is a "social responsibility" doesn't mean you're forced to do it. There's no contract, law, or power that will take your cash or force open your wifi. And the EFF isn't arguing for that.

      The word responsibility has great meaning to it. Often, this is taken to be synonomous as "requirement". Social Responsibilities often become law. It is my social responsibility to pay taxes to pay for police, courts, and necessary government entities. It is my social responsibility to report for jury duty so that the justice system can operate. It is my social responsibility not to take from my fellow man via force or fraud. It is my social responsibility to not harm or kill my fellow man. These are social responsibilities, or requirements if you will, that society requires to exist. Sharing my wifi is not a requirement of a society to exist.

      Peter Eckersley wants to shift culture so you'll feel guilty about not sharing. He doesn't want to take away your choice. To work towards that he specifically want to abolish the idea that having an open wifi connection is a legal liability, which I agree is bullshit.

      No culture should be trying to instill shame or guilt on an individual for an activity they choose not to participate in or could not have participated in that does not cause harm or deprive another huma

    6. Re:Pretty fun by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      You have no oversight for what YOUR OWN ROUTER forwards on?

      I have plenty of oversight in that I do not external wireless connections from those I do not explicitly grant permission to use my service.

      Yeah, you have that. You also have the oversight to whitelist, blacklist, cap, throttle, screen, log, and reverse all the images mid trip. Duh. You have a lot more oversight about how people use your wifi connection, even an open one, then you have over how your taxes get used. This was one of your issues with leaving a wifi signal open, right? You want some oversight to the charities you give to? It's literally YOU giving it out. YOU get to choose the terms. Jesus dude, I thought this was bloody obvious. Why am I spelling this out?

      The word responsibility has great meaning to it. Often, this is taken to be synonomous as "requirement". It is my social responsibility to
      -pay taxes to pay for police, courts, and necessary government entities.
      -report for jury duty
      -not to take from my fellow man via force or fraud.
      -not harm or kill my fellow man. These are

      LEGAL requirements. Those are known as LAWS. By breaking those you are a CRIMINAL. The EFF doesn't want your wifi to be open by law. In fact, I imagine they'd fight that sort of bullshit. Breaking a social responsibility just makes you a dick.
      Ok, let me put it this way. Mother Teresa begs you to donate a buck and help take care of a lepers. Why? Because it's your "social responsibility". Feeding your kid is a legal requirement. Getting them to stop screaming in the grocery store is your social responsibility. Are you done playing word games?

      I don't expect them to be concerned that I did not donate to them more than a couple pennies, nor do I plan to encourage anyone else to do as I did

      Except for, you know, posting about it on Slashdot and this conversation we're having here where you try to convince me that EFF is in the wrong for wanting more open wifi.

      Bandwitdh is traded to me in exchange for my money

      Except you're not giving away something that has value to you. You are not depriving yourself of value. Users don't pay for per gig. Unless you're a business with a contract. Under the typical residential system, you pay for a vague promise of a connection, somewhere between zero and an upper rate. You can utilize that connection however much you want, maybe up to a cap of some sort, but that depends. If you have an unlimited connection or don't usually don't come anywhere near your cap, you have already paid for a bunch of bandwidth that you simply aren't using, and the ISP pockets the profit. In the ideal theoretical free market, another ISP comes in and they battle over the averages driving down the cost so the use is reflected in your bill, but that's a bigger load of bullshit then I'm willing to feed anyone at this point.

      So what's you've got your panties in a twist over and what you're standing on defensively claiming as your hard-earned property, is in fact surplus.
      That wouldn't otherwise be used.
      That's trivial to give away.
      If anyone wants it.

      For me, charity is the giving of time/effort/money of my own free choice for emotional/pyschological gratification, hence, I am receiving something of perceived value (at least to myself) for my donation.

      . . . yeah . . . like the gift of open wifi. I'm helping my fellow netizen connect when they're outside their normal ISP's service.
      Like I said, it's altruistic. You know, like giving to charity.
      . . . I'm not sure where the disconnect is happening. I think perhaps we're on the same page and we're just bickering for the fun of it. Let's stop.

      Isn't Frozen Synapse fun? We should play together. Let me just hop on this wifi over here...

    7. Re:Pretty fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you stop mooching off of people and get a fucking job so you can pay for your own stuff? Nobody owes you anything and your idea of what is a "social responsibility" is just that, YOUR idea, YOUR opinion.

      If someone else wants to take the risk and open their wifi, they can go right ahead, but they'd be fools. Wait until their public wifi gets so clogged by bandwidth hoarding/connection hoarding neighbors that they can get any work done. Wait until those neighbors run their bandwidth allowance way over their cap and they get stuck with a huge bill from their ISP. Wait until the feds come breaking down their door because they tracked piracy, child porn, death threats or terrorist activities back to their IP.

      In my own opinion, sharing your wifi is not only stupid, but horribly irresponsible.

    8. Re:Pretty fun by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      Uhhh. I'm a software engineer with a pretty decent job. I'm the one that isn't stressing over the cost of the filthy rabble touching my wifi. Oh, HAH! You thought I was just some poor mooch!
      Swing and a miss there I'm afraid. Don't worry about it, happens to all of us.

      your idea of what is a "social responsibility" is just that, YOUR idea, YOUR opinion.

      Actually, it's Peter Eckersley's idea and opinion. But it's one I share. Other people also share this opinion. Some, merely because the EFF said so and they're awesome people. Some because it makes the world a better place. Together we're shaping the culture of tomorrow and how personal equipment is dealt with by society.
      And you on the other hand, don't want people to be neighborly and helpful. Because... you don't like freeloaders or something. And a bit about child porn. And that's just, like, your opinion. Man.

      Wait until their public wifi gets so clogged...

      It's MY router, it doesn't respect network neutrality at all. It's biased as all get-out towards my own data. I don't experience their activity. Because I know how to set up a router.

      Wait until those neighbors run their bandwidth allowance way over their cap...

      This one is indeed a worry. For you poor sorry slobs who have a cap. But again, My router, my rules. If it was an issue, I'd have daily caps on the open wifi.

      Wait until the feds come breaking down their door because they tracked piracy, child porn, death threats or terrorist activities back to their IP.

      Yeah. This is the one where the lawyer from the EFF steps in and calls bullshit. I knew I liked those guys for a reason.
      My router has logs, I'll share them if they have a warrant.

      Come on Jimmi, don't be a coward. Who else would be interested in a thread this deep?

    9. Re:Pretty fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's MY router, it doesn't respect network neutrality at all. It's biased as all get-out towards my own data.

      So you really don't want to share your connection. Got it.

      This one is indeed a worry. For you poor sorry slobs who have a cap. But again, My router, my rules. If it was an issue, I'd have daily caps on the open wifi.

      Most people in the world now have caps on their connections. And again, you really don't want to share your connection.

      Yeah. This is the one where the lawyer from the EFF steps in and calls bullshit. I knew I liked those guys for a reason. My router has logs, I'll share them if they have a warrant.

      Yeah, good luck with tracking down some random MAC address that may or may not be spoofed and convincing the judge that you were only being "socially responsible" when they decide to toss you into a federal prison.

    10. Re:Pretty fun by jimmifett · · Score: 1

      Come on Jimmi, don't be a coward. Who else would be interested in a thread this deep?

      You are mistaken in beleiving I was continuing this thread as an anon coward. I'm sure you note the clear change in written tone. I had taken your advice and let the thread drop, as you quite clearly have your own position and philosophy that is antipodal to mine in regards to open wifi as a "social responsibility".

      However, since you decided to bring me back into this with accusations of cowardice, I will continue my original train of thought and hopefully be done with it.

      As you say earlier, there is a difference between social responsibilites and legal law. However, one is often the basis for the other. My contention with the EFF article is based entirely on the "socially responsible" aspect of it.

      As an exercise in logic, let us invert the wording of "socially responsible" such that it still has the same meaning...

      To not have an open wifi access point when I could provide one would thus be "socially irresponsible", as it is quite a boolean statement. One is either responsible, or irresponsible, there is no middle state of this binary existence. By not offering up freely my access point, bandwidth, and eletrical costs to provide a signal I am fully capable of generating to any taker, I am to be considered a non-responsible member of a society that values open wifi as a responsibility of it's citizens. Because I possess the means and ability to eminate and receive wifi signals and forward data back and forth across my connection, I would be detrimental force upon society if I did not openly exercise my ability to do so with an anonymous population.

      If it is the author of the article's goal to have this kind of society where my withholding of service I myself pay for, from others that are not compensating me in some fashion (via monetary or derived emotional satisfaction), where I am thus painted as villainous or at the least anti-social for not offering up the fruits of my time and effort, than that author and any group that consciously stands behind him and his concept of social responsibility can quite simply go to hell.

      Let us further apply this concept of social responsibility to other avenues. Is it socially irresponsible to not give tithings to one's church? I contend that anything I give to a church/temple/whatever is a donation that I may choose to give or withhold of my own volition. If I have the means to give, and I choose not to, am I thus socially irresponsible?

      If I lived in a certain country in europe during the mid 20th century, and it was my "social responsibility" to turn in any undersirables to the secret police, and I had knowledge of the location of said individuals, would I be socially irresponsible for not divulging their location?

      Yes yes, Godwin's Law and all that, but instead of outright dismissing this case using Godwin's Law as justification without analysis, let's look at it's lesson.

      Here was a society that enough people believed doing such a thing was considered the expected duty to be performed by upstanding members of their society. This social responsibility was also made law, and those that withheld information, yet did not aide the victimized group, were still socially irresponsible and subject to scorn from thier peers as well as legal implications.

      To be an outcast and punished for withholding access to information.

      "All information wants to be free" is often heard. I am willing to guess that information in this case had no desire to be free and wanted to kept as quiet as possible, but that is a different discussion.

      Lets offer up some more examples, you mention surplus.

      Is it socially responsible to offer up surplus ammunition, guns, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, sonic electronic ball breakers, knives, and sharp sticks in a basket on the corner to any passerby?

      I have them surplus. I make them freely available. I may log who takes them, but I should not be responsible for

    11. Re:Pretty fun by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Well, when you give to charity, do you empty your bank accounts?

      My goodness, it's as if you live in a binary world where everything is black and white, all or nothing.
      Similar to... a... certain... ...someone.
      So why do you only swear when posting anon? Do you think people are really going to go through your slashdot history?

      (And why do I have to find the perpetrator to prove my own innocence?)

    12. Re:Pretty fun by jimmifett · · Score: 1

      I am not whomever the anon person is. I don't often need swearing to write large pretentious stick-in-the-mud responses. Dry humor is much more fun to work with. Besides, I'm of the John Hancock school of thinking: If I have something worth saying, I'll put my name writ large so even a king with bad eyesight could read it.

      As for proving your innocence, I don't see the need. I'm don't see guilt of anything more egregious than the simple mistaking of someone else's posts with my own long winded diatribes. If you insist that I am the anon person, good for you, have fun with that.

    13. Re:Pretty fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but then again I don't do charity. You want money? Get a job.

      Because unless you can find the person who conducted the criminal activity over your connection and prove that they were the one who actually did it, you are solely responsible for all of that activity.

  11. Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Liambp · · Score: 2

    I picked up the bundle in order to play Frozen Synapse but I got several other games thrown in because I made a decent contribution. I never heard of most of the games but I have spent the last week playing them. SpaceChem in particularly is extraordinary. It is an extremely challenging puzzle game where you must build complicated machines out of basic building blocks in order to synthesise chemical compounds. It sounds naff but it is incredibly addictive. Beware though the challenges are very tough but I reckon it would suit the the nerd quotient of the average slashdotter.

    1. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by rotide · · Score: 1

      I'll second this. Extremely addicting. The hours just melt away with this game. For better or worse, the game is extremely challenging. Some of the levels just tie my brain into knots!

    2. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in the same boat here. I bought it just because it was available but wasn't that impressed until they added SpaceChem. It is amazing.

    3. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      You got games that weren't included in the bundle?

      If you gave $.01 or $1000, I thought the game bundle would be the same.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    4. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With Humble bundles there are usually a few bonus games thrown in for paying over the average amount. At the moment the bouses are Trine, Shadowgrounds, Shadowgrounds: survivor, Splot, and Jack Claw.

    5. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by happylight · · Score: 1

      If you paid higher than the average you get other games thrown in.

    6. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there basically the regular bundle and regular bundles + another bundle on the condition that you spend greater then average purchase price. It's a smart system to encourage more spending (self-regulating in a way) and the you do get basically 2 sets of games.

    7. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, this time there was a bonus for those paying more than the average contribution up to that moment.

      I got the bundle last weekend and I'm really enjoying Trine. Later on will try the puzzle games as well. Another thing worth mentioning is that the soundtracks for these games are quite impressive.

    8. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get the Frozen Bundle (Bundle #3, though not officially #3, ie Trine and Shadowgrounds games) if you match or exceed the average donation amount. It's a nice bonus for those who've skipped or missed it the first time around.

    9. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you pay more than the average, the access code you receive also allows access to the previous bundle, in this case the "FrozenByte Bundle"

      Frozen Synapse = Frozen Synapse, Spacechem & Trauma
      FrozenByte = Trine, Shadowgrounds, Shadowgrounds: Survivor, Splot (beta) & Jack Claw (abandoned)

    10. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you beat the average they threw in a few extra games.

    11. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bundle is actually just one game: Frozen Synapse. If you pay above the average contribution though, you'll get a whole bunch of bonus games, among them SpaceChem.

    12. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you paid more than the average price, they threw in the previous bundle's games as well.

    13. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, very nice! I got the first bundle and have been meaning to buy this one.. guess I better take care of it tonight.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    14. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now the deal is you get the basic bundle of 3 games for the base price of whatever you choose, but if you pay more than the average (currently $4.76) then you get a bonus bundle with 5 other games (one of which isn't yet finished but you'll get the game once it's complete, and another game is just a prototype of a game that was aborted mid-development)

    15. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by BForrester · · Score: 1

      From the site:

      If you pay more than the average of $4.77* you will also get the entire Humble Frozenbyte Bundle as well.

      *This value updates. The value here is as of the time of posting.

    16. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They include the previous bundle if you pay above average ;)

    17. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this, but if you pay above average, you get bonus games.

    18. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by gatzke · · Score: 1

      Space Chem has a idiotic UI. The mouse control is super laggy and you can't maximize the screen. It feels like a crappy flash game, but even flash I can scale in a browser.

      The puzzles may be awesome, but if I can't get the controls to control, what good is a great puzzle?

      First game tried: weak.

    19. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by tweak13 · · Score: 1

      I think the controls are just fine, my mouse doesn't lag, and while you can't get any window size (which is annoying) you have many resolution options available as well as fullscreen.

      I remember having a few problems back when the demo first came out, but the finished product has worked quite well for me.

    20. Re:Brilliant Games especially SpaceChem by gatzke · · Score: 1

      I found fullscreen mode buried in options, thanks. However, the UI is still laggy for me.

      The graphics are terrible! Gray on gray so you can't see what you are doing when you are placing pieces, icons that look like they were created by a middle school kid.

      The whole thing has a feel of a really bad flash game that does not work quite right.

      If this is one of the better games in this pack, I am sad that I gave them anything at all.

  12. Payments reflects platform and TCO? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Perhaps Windows users pay less because they are on a platform which has the highest cost associated with ownership/maintenance. You can do very little with a stock windows install other than run notepad and get on the web. They pay for *everything*.

    Macintosh has a subset of FOSS which works with it (libraries not always compatible) so there are add-on software costs incurred (iTunes downloads).

    Linux users are more comfortable giving a little more because they spend next to nothing on out-of-pocket software costs. Anything you need is usually readily available via the package manager (Libre Office, Firefox, Tbird, Sunbird, etc, etc).

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      or more likely, Windows users pay less because they have access to the ocean -- by far the greatest variety of affordably-priced software available to them already. Mac users live in a much smaller pond, and so they're willing to pay a bit more when they get a rarer chance to actually play something on their platform. And Linux users, once they've picked their jaw back off the table on finding somebody offering games for their platform, are the most willing to part with their cash in the hopes of seeing their relatively tiny puddle expanded.

    2. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can do very little with a stock windows install other than run notepad and get on the web. They pay for *everything*.

      Because there's no Libre Office, Firefox, Tbird, Sunbird, etc, etc on Windows?

    3. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1, Informative

      TCO? Really? I like your nick, man. Heh.

      It's supply and demand. Windows users have a huge catalog of games, Mac is in second place, and we all know where Linux sits. Of course Windows users are going to pay the least.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are completely wrong. Windows users do not pay for everything, such windows users' systems are rife with free software, via warez, plus tons of open source offerings for productivity and utility, even if most of it is repacked GNU or BSD stuff.

      OS X has almost nothing, and free stuff is through third party systems copying Linux repos, not using the OS X standard for package management. Most OS X users cannot cope with that and are the ones having to buy even the smallest utility.

      Windows gamers can get what they want, when they want it, for nothing. OS X and even less so, Linux users, get almost nothing in the grand scheme of things when it comes to gaming.

      OS X users will pay the most for software, Linux users have a plethora of applications in their distros, and windows users are pretty much all copyright infringers.

    5. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Windows has a ton of old AAA titles that have hit the bargain bin so the plenty games you can get for $5-10 drives price down. After all the games are already written, so there's no point in not selling them they just gradually go down in price to squeeze the last drops from the market. The other platforms, not so much...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Jaqenn · · Score: 1

      I didn't pay very much for the windows bundle because I already own all these games. Steam has crazy good sales all the time, and I already own everything offered in the current bundle except for Trauma.

      The money I threw in was paying for the games again because I like the bundle and I want them to run another one...but yes, I was stingy about it.

      --
      You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
    7. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah there is no free software available for Windows. Can you imagine the uproar if Libre, Firefox, TBird, Sunbird etc ever became available for Windows.

    8. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by slim · · Score: 0

      Mac users are used to paying for stuff. Look how many of them pay for TextMate -- I'm sure it's great and all, but the idea of paying money for a text editor grates on me. I guess, if you bought a Mac in the first place, you're in a self selecting group of people with money to throw around.

      Linux users are probably so grateful to be tossed a few scraps of gaming, they'll pay.

    9. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux users are more comfortable giving a little more because they spend next to nothing on out-of-pocket software costs.

      Some of us paid for our Linux. Yes, it was "for support" and a shiny box with a paper manual and some nice CD label instead of an ink one.

      Last I checked, much of the GNU user land is available for free to Microsoft Windows users, too. The Linux kernel, not so much. Certainly the major user applications like Libre Office or Gimp or Blender, if not the major desktops and their light office suites But the price is still the same: free.

      Perhaps we are more comfortable with rewarding creators in the manner they choose? (Cue bad jokes about F/OSS developers requesting to be paid in bug tickets.)

      I'm not sure you are writing about the Microsoft PC Tax, but my hat's off to you for quite a well written Troll if that is your point.

    10. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that all the free software you listed for Linux runs on Windows too, right? There is plenty of gratis software for Windows users.

    11. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Windows users pay less because they are on a platform which has the highest cost associated with ownership/maintenance. You can do very little with a stock windows install other than run notepad and get on the web. They pay for *everything*.

      Macintosh has a subset of FOSS which works with it (libraries not always compatible) so there are add-on software costs incurred (iTunes downloads).

      Linux users are more comfortable giving a little more because they spend next to nothing on out-of-pocket software costs. Anything you need is usually readily available via the package manager (Libre Office, Firefox, Tbird, Sunbird, etc, etc).

      /snort -- 1995 called, they want their opinions back.

    12. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by bakuun · · Score: 1

      It's funny how you make a point about how little free software is available for Windows, and then go on to list free software which is available for Linux - but miss the point that all software you mentioned also is available in Windows. For free.

    13. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      You do not have to spend money on software to be productive in Windows (well, beyond paying for Windows itself). There is plenty of F/OSS and free-as-in-beer proprietary software to make you very productive. Some of the commercial software can't be matched by any F/OSS or free-as-in-beer options though, such as Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom. If you shoot a lot, Lightroom will save you TONS of time compared to DPP or even RawTherapee, and Photoshop plays better with Lightroom and of course with Lightroom and Photoshop plugins than Gimp ever will.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    14. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They pay for *everything*.

      You're way the fuck wrong. Besides the fact FOSS software is also available for Windows, there are thousands of Freeware programs too. Now log-off and shove your head back up your ass, Linux dweeb.

    15. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by the_y_the · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Windows users pay less because they are on a platform which has the highest cost associated with ownership/maintenance. You can do very little with a stock windows install other than run notepad and get on the web. They pay for *everything*. Macintosh has a subset of FOSS which works with it (libraries not always compatible) so there are add-on software costs incurred (iTunes downloads). Linux users are more comfortable giving a little more because they spend next to nothing on out-of-pocket software costs. Anything you need is usually readily available via the package manager (Libre Office, Firefox, Tbird, Sunbird, etc, etc).

      You said it right there. If you can get on the web with Windows, then you can also get Libre Office, Firefox, Tbird, Sunbird, etc, etc, for free for Windows. I'm quite certain they have handy binaries for download and install for the various incarnations of Windows XP/Vista/7 out there.

    16. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by wisnoskij · · Score: 0

      lol,
      Let me guess you are a MAC fan boy, who apparently takes fan boyism to a a whole new level.
      "(Libre Office, Firefox, Tbird, Sunbird, etc, etc)" - Those all exist on Windows as well and many more.
      In fact I would say that windows has the biggest/best selection of FOSS. And while I personally have not looked for any MAC free software I can am fairly certain that Windows is far ahead in availability of free software in comparison to Linux.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    17. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      You do not have to spend money on software to be productive in Windows (well, beyond paying for Windows itself). There is plenty of F/OSS and free-as-in-beer proprietary software to make you very productive.
      True, but there's an awful lot of Windows users out there who either don't know it or don't believe it. Their motto is, "If you get it for nothing, it's good for nothing." And, of course, there are an awful lot of Windows shops out there that won't let anybody use anything that doesn't come from Redmond because of sweetheart licensing deals. If all you've ever used at work is proprietary programs, you're not going to be thinking in terms of F/OSS for home use even if you know about it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    18. Re:Payments reflects platform and TCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Windows users pay less because they are on a platform which has the highest cost associated with ownership/maintenance. You can do very little with a stock windows install other than run notepad and get on the web. They pay for *everything*.

      That hasn't been true for years. I run Win 7 and the only pieces of non-entertainment software I have paid for are AutoCAD and PLC programming software(which are provided by my work). I have graphics packages, office software, programming tools, code and drawing management systems etc. all of which is free and on Windows.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is don't assume that because someone uses Windows they are ignorant of FOSS. I love FOSS but why would I bugger about maintaining and learning about a second operating system when every job I have had for 10 years requires me develop on Windows for Windows? It's much easier to just stump up the extra £100 or whatever when I buy a new PC at home.

  13. I missed the last one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was pretty saddened that I missed the last one.
    I was in hospital at the time and came out a day after it finished.

    Glad to see they raised a million again. Hope it goes towards helping just as many in people, especially the kids.

    1. Re:I missed the last one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just grab a torrent. That's what I did. I sure as hell am not paying for amateur made games.

    2. Re:I missed the last one. by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

      "Indie" and "Amateur" are very different beasts. And one of the games from a previous bundle -- Atom Zombie Smasher -- is fantastic, even if it has simple graphics.

    3. Re:I missed the last one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nobody said that they were the same thing. If these were simply indie games that were professionally made, I might actually buy some of them. As they are, every one of them I've seen looked and played like they were made by amateurs.

    4. Re:I missed the last one. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, that reminds me, I need to check to see if they finally resolved the bug that kept Civ5 from crashing horrendously with my video card, and if they finally decided to include a hot-seat multilayer. You know, a professionaly made game...

    5. Re:I missed the last one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just have a shit video card.

  14. Not quite the same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bundle is the same regardless how much you pay. In this case the Humble Bundle people gave away another game for free to those people how payed more than the average amount. So yes, the Bundle is the same for everybody but you might get a bonus if you pay more than the average amount.

  15. And once again I don't hear about it. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I give them my email address every time, but they don't email me when a new bundle comes out. I actually missed the last one.

    One wonders how much bigger this promotion would be if they could manage to send email correctly.

    And yes, I checked my spam folder.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:And once again I don't hear about it. by tecker · · Score: 1

      Really? I got at least 3 emails from them. The "New bundle going"!, the "Hey, Trauma just got added FOR FREE!!!1!", and the "DOOD! SpaceChem is now in there as well hurry up!" email. You sure you gave them the right email address? Try re-registering or a different email (mine worked via gmail).

      --
      Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
    2. Re:And once again I don't hear about it. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, they asked me these questions and more when I complained to them, but I still get no email this time around. Mine didn't work via gmail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:And once again I don't hear about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get the emails either, but I follow them on twitter (@humble). It's pretty low volume, they won't spam you or anything. If you use twitter and are interested in the bundles, I recommend it.

    4. Re:And once again I don't hear about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also got multiple e-mails from them about this sale. I don't think it's a problem with them spending e-mail properly.

    5. Re:And once again I don't hear about it. by jandrese · · Score: 1

      For some reason their emails are always getting tripped up in my spam filter. I had to create an explict exception for them.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  16. Mean average is strongly influenced by outliers by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 2

    Notch single-handedly raised the grand average purchase price by a cent. That's a pretty big difference for one person.

    The mean is strongly influenced by outliers, which is why it's generally avoided in academic discussions about things like income. With the mean I can make a reasonable prediction about a *group* of buyers, but I can't make a reasonable prediction about a *single* buyer. For example, it's true that Linux users gave proportionally the most as a group, but you can't use the same evidence to say that Linux users are more generous in general.

    Example: suppose you are given a mean sale of $9.20 spread across 70,000 buyers. You could achieve this average if each of the 70,000 paid $9.20. You could also achieve this average if 322 people spent $2000, and the remaining 69,678 people only spent $0.01. The averages are the same, but the people in the first group are much, much more generous than the people in the second.

    The median is more constructive for this discussion. The median means that half of the people are above it, and half of the people are below it. If I know $9.20 is the median for Linux and $4.11 is the median for Windows, I *can* say that Linux users are generally more generous, because they are individually much more likely to pay more money than Windows users.

    1. Re:Mean average is strongly influenced by outliers by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Try this.
      Say all Linux people donated the same except for Notch with $2k.
      Assume $150k for the group and an average $9.20 each.
      How many people total X and the average without notch $Y?

      $150k=1*$2k + (X-1)*$Y
      $150k= $9.18 * (X)

      X = 163k people
      $Y = 9.06

      So he only changes it by 12 cents. Still not bad for one guy.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:Mean average is strongly influenced by outliers by meithan · · Score: 1

      I too agree that the fact that the mean can be strongly influenced by abnormally large (small) values implies comparing the *average* price paid is not that meaningful. As the previous poster commented, the *median* is a much more meaningful statistic in cases such as this.

      Based on this reasoning, I emailed the Humble Bundle support team asking whether they could calculate the median on the numbers. They just answered:

      "During a bundle we're usually far too busy to work with the data in real time, but we usually release a data analysis after we're done. So, hang in there or take a look around at previous information we've released such as this speech:

      http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014437/The-Humble-Indie

      Thank you for your continued support"

      So it seems we'll have to wait until the Bundle is over (not much left now) and they tally and analyse the results. I still predict the Linux median will be the highest.

      Just out of mathematical curiosity: is it possible to estimate the median for each group somehow, based on the information available (average for each group, numbers in each group, total amount paid by all groups)?

    3. Re:Mean average is strongly influenced by outliers by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 1

      No, you can't estimate the median with the given information.

    4. Re:Mean average is strongly influenced by outliers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You can always assume a certain distribution for the price paid, adjust it to the known averages, and then deduce the median from that. It'll only give you a ballpark estimate which can vary considerably depending on the assumed distribution.

      Meh, I suppose we'll have to wait until the Humble Bundle team releases the analysis.

  17. What common APIs? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Use APIs that are common between them and 95% of the job is done.

    Microsoft understood this and made it fairly easy to port games between Windows and Xbox 360. But what APIs are common between Mac and PS3, or between Linux and Xbox 360? Mac and Linux use only OpenGL; Xbox 360 uses only DirectX. PS3 was advertised as using OpenGL ES, but as I understand it, most games appear to use something much lower-level in order to get some measure of performance out of the odd architecture.

    Or were you talking about model-view-controller, in which a separate graphics engine ("view") is developed for each platform, but they share the same game logic ("model")?

    1. Re:What common APIs? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The unfortunate fact is the APIs are NOT common between computing devices and consoles. However, the blame for this rests entirely on the shoulders of the console manufacturer in question. Windows, Mac, Linux, etc (including more and more mobile OSes like IOS and Android from my understanding) all support things like OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL etc.

      The PS3 is just so different however, that it very well could be considered an outlier. That's the price to pay for going with something so... unusual? (looking at the slow PPC core, and the many cell "processors")

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:What common APIs? by tepples · · Score: 1

      However, the blame for this rests entirely on the shoulders of the console manufacturer in question.

      And if a major video game developer wants to sell its games, it'll have to work around any anticompetitive practices of the makers of the consoles that are in the homes of the intended customers. Given that consoles are a far bigger market than Mac and Linux, especially for "party" genres that use multiple gamepads, major video game developers will choose to put forth the effort for the greatest reward. Mac and Linux appear to be the domain of indie developers that can't afford the organizational overhead (e.g. "The office space is not shared with any other company. [...] The office space is not located within a personal residence.") of console development.

  18. That can't be right. by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that Linux users don't pay for anything. Just read the comments on any article anywhere!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  19. Been there. Done that. by westlake · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that the average price donated is inversely proportional to the number of games available on that platform.

    It is not altogether unfair to say that the Humble Bundle is beginning to look a little stale and predictable.

    The typical Humble Bundle game had a long run on the Windows platform --- and often sells at a discount. If it is the budget price that interests you most, there is Gog.com and other resources for the Windows gamer.

    What is more telling is that less than a quarter of the payments are coming from the Linux gamer whose contributions averages $5 more than the Windows contributor and $2 more than the Mac.

    That does not make a compelling case for the Linux port when the promotion ends and you return - as you must - to the retail market.

  20. Congratulations, perhaps? by fallen1 · · Score: 2

    I should have posted this much earlier, but how about sending out some CONGRATULATIONS! to the Humble crew for proving again that, by putting together a bundle of good games (with good game play), one can not only make a damn decent amount of money but can also do it without encumbering the user with DRM or other restrictions. For that reason alone, I'd buy the bundle every time.

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

  21. Re:torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is a good idea. I think I'll buy a bunch of copies for $0.01 and resell them for $1 each.

  22. And that's why PC gaming isn't dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Over 2/3rds of the donations are from Windows gamers, and that's why PC gaming still isn't dead, despite decades of desperate FOSSies and cultists wishing otherwise.

    1. Re:And that's why PC gaming isn't dead by thedarknite · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know how the stats are collated? I made my purchase at work on a Windows machine to play on Linux at home and am wondering if there is a significant percentage of other purchases doing the same thing.

      --
      A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
  23. That and they already own the games by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    So part of the problem here is that for most of these game son Windows, the only people buying them from this are ones who are cheapskates of some measure. Reason is the games were available long before on Windows for sale, but at a higher price. I bought Frozen Synapse when it came out for $25. After looking at it, that seemed a reasonable price to me so I picked it up. Being a big computer gamer, I'm used to paying plenty for games. They are my main form of entertainment, it seems reasonable to me.

    Well, this also means that I'm not going to participate in something like the Humble Bundle. I already own the games I want. I'm not paying again just to make a point. Even if I were to participate, I'd pay a lower amount since I figure they already got money from me.

  24. Paid $320 all to the EFF by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    Do the same!

  25. And it were uphill both ways by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    And initially it was only 1 game, which really isn't a bundle.

    You had it lucky. When I were a kid, we got 0 games in our bundles. And we liked it!

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:And it were uphill both ways by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      We had to imagine games in our minds, and only using black and white. Color imagination was too expensive.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:And it were uphill both ways by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      We had to imagine games in our minds, and only using black and white.

      You had black *and* white? Luxury! We only had black- and sometimes not even that.

      And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:And it were uphill both ways by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I can still see the Grues!

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  26. Opposite of my experience by phorm · · Score: 2

    I ordered some DVD's from eBay (the company that owns paypal and supposedly has a no-piracy policy).
    They arrived in a pretty box, but were obviously bootleg knockoffs. The subtitles varied widely between discs, and some you could see the scan-line and fuzz where they were copied from an old VHS with bad tracking.

    Paypal's response to my claim: The DVD's must be brought to a third-party (such as a pro or a video store) to verify that they were pirated. Nobody local was in any way willing to do that for less than the value of the video, so my case rather readily died and the seller continues to sell pirated DVD's.

  27. Notch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone else notice that @notch (the creator of minecraft) was the largest contributor in terms of donation? kudo's to him for giving back to other communities.

  28. I like it by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 1

    These bundles are really great, which is measured by their outstanding success. Somehow they always pick the greatest indie games. I hope so to see Limbo in the next one.

  29. Assuming a distribution implies assuming a median by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 1

    The median is, itself, a statement about the probability distribution for the data. You can't say anything intelligent about a median based on a probability distribution you assumed, because the act of assuming a probability distribution also assumes the median.

  30. it's funny.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is the only humble bundle that I haven't bought because I am just not interested in the games. I have bought all of the previous ones though. The only game that looks halfway interesting to me is jack claw.

  31. Congrats! by onezeta · · Score: 1

    Congrats! Here's to you for more success. I can't wait to see what's in the next bundle.