Slashdot Mirror
Kickstarter's Problem: You Have To Make the Game Before You Ask For Money
An anonymous reader writes with this piece about Digital Knights, the studio behind the Kickstarter campaign project Sienna Storm, which was cancelled this week after the team raised only 10% of their $180,000 target, despite a compelling concept (a card based espionage game) and a reputable team including the writer of the original Deus Ex, Sheldon Pacotti.
The team is now seeking alternative funding before reaching out to publishers, but in an interview given this week, Knights CEO Sergei Filipov highlights what he sees as a recent and growing problem with crowdfunding games: an expectation to see a working prototype. "It seems at least 50 or 60 percent of the game needs to be completed before one launches a campaign on Kickstarter," he says. It's a chicken and egg cycle some indie developers will struggle to break out of, and shows just how far we've come since Tim Schafer's Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter burst the doors open two years ago.
You get nothing, and are owed nothing, from the people you give money to.
That seems like a bummer. I guess to many people feel they are getting ripped off to much to be willing to take a chance.
This requires would-be developers to have significant skin already in the game (pardon the pun) in terms of time and resources invested. Better than "I have an idea, now give me money and I'll eventually build it for ya." Or all those similar-talking losers on Shark Tank and Dragons Den who think and idea with nothing else is worth big bucks.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Have ruined it for the other 5%. Constantly pushed back deadlines, incomplete/inferior projects being shipped, or else nothing at all being completed. I wouldn't invest a dime in a kickstarter project at this point after being burned several times. I'll just wait for the finished project which usually costs the same or 5-10% more with no risk involved
I have this idea for a super awesome game. It'll be better than Call of Duty XI, better grafx too. Gimme my $10M and I'll make it for you.
seriously, the prototype shows that you have commitment, and are putting your own investment in the game to demonstrate you have adequate ability to pull it off.
You *should* have a working prototype before you expect to get money.
Yes, it's difficult to build a prototype when you don't have funds. Welcome to the Real World, asshole. It's not easy to produce/market a new product. Kickstarter has made it *easier*, but it's not a magic bullet. It briefly *was* a magic bullet before people got smart and realized that giving money away for something that has almost no chance of ever being a real product was silly.
Perhaps people are wise to the Kickstarter business model of "heads we win and take all the profit when we sell out, tails you lose and cover our losses if it flops" and are unwilling to provide handouts for these people to use to run off and make their (in some cases, additional) fortune.
This is how funding works in the 'real world' when start up companies are looking for investors. At every stage of the company, investors expect a nearly finished product. When scientists write grant proposals, they are actually showing they've already done what they are asking for funds to do.
I get the impression that "reputable team" is kind of an exaggeration. Do these two people (Tony Evans and Sheldon Pacotti) really have much of a reputation? How many games are going to recognize their names as people with records of delivering versus just being another cog in the wheel?
With Double Fine, there's a lot of questions about how the money was spent - many of which have gone unanswered. For instance, Tim Schaefer initially said he would need $400,000 to make a full game. Granted, he arrived at that number using numbers from games he made in the early 90s, but then it spiralled out of control into a $3.3 million project. The numbers he HAS released show that he spent almost the entire initial amount - $400,000 - on "backer rewards".
The $3.3 million barely covered the first half of the game, and that was on top of another few million in crowdfunding that Schaefer did shortly before release date. They still don't have a released date set for the second half, other than "We're working on it and it might be out by the end of the year."
Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous did fine on KickStarter back when they were still using it. Eventually both stopped using KickStarter and started using their own methods.
Back in the early kickstarter days Star Citizen had, at most, some in game footage of a dogfight and some 3D renderings of a couple of ships. I don't know what Elite Dangerous had.
They did not have 50% of their game done... heck SC STILL doesn't have 50% done.
Then again, both heads were fairly well-known in the gaming circles for their past works.
I'm always amused when wanna-be novelists want people to give them $50,000 to write a novel in a year and discover that no one will give them money. The novel must be written first. Kickstarter is useful for getting ~$3,000 to pay for editing and publishing the novel, especially if the writer already have an established fan base.
Have your shit together before begging.
Yeah, like Castle Story...
The game is still in development more than 2 years after they raised almost a million dollars. They're not scammers, they are incompetent...
It takes more than a "compelling concept" to make a game - the developers have to deliver. Showing a working prototype increases backer confidence that the project will actually get finished. Given Kickstarter's recent history with badly managed projects (Yogventures, etc), it's ridiculous to blame the audience for wanting proof that their money won't be wasted.
BTW, A basic engine with placeholder assets is not "50-60% completed"; coding a simplified game engine and whipping up a few placeholder assets doesn't take half of a game's lifetime. Early projects like "A Hat in Time" showed off a prototype of *some* parts of *one* level and that was enough for me. It was enough for lots of backers, in fact, as evidenced by the fact that they reached their stretch goals.
One of the basic principles of not getting ripped off when giving to a kickstarter (people either want something for their money or don't want to give it to vapourware) is to ensure they have a product worth giving money to. Any idiot can come up with an idea for a kickstarter, not everyone can make it actually happen.
People have learned from the ifind 'scam'. They want proof something is possible before they will part with their cash.
If you aren't a known developer, people want to see some evidence that you have the ability to make good on your plans. Game development isn't simple, and many people are not prepared for what they are going to have to do to bring a successful game to market.
So Doublefine or inXile can get a good bit of funding with nothing but a design doc for a game because people have faith they'll be able to deliver since they are experienced game devs. New crews are going to have to show something to get people to trust them.
Particularly in light of past KS failures in that regard. I've backed a number of games on KS and two of them I knew were fairly high risk: They were being done by an individual who hadn't done a game before, and there wasn't any sort of demo up front, just some basic concepts. I decided to take a risk on it, but fully understood that failure was likely.
Sure enough, both are floundering/failing. One hasn't had any updates in months, the other does update periodically but it is still extremely rudimentary, despite being way past the planned launch date, and it is pretty clear the dev just doesn't have a good idea how to proceed from here.
On the flip side, the games by established studios have either delivered or are well on track (Shadowrun Returns was brilliant, Wasteland 2 ships next Friday, Pillars of Eternity is in beta, etc). Likewise the indy titles that had a demo and were a good bit along with development have delivered, like FTL.
So no surprise many people aren't willing to take the risk. They want a better chance of return so they stick with established devs or with things that have some proof.
Kickstarter barely cares what you try to fund anymore, and the other sites are even worse. It doesn't matter if your project clearly violates copyright laws -- or even the laws of physics -- you can post any project you want. This makes the entire crowdfunding ecosystem look incredibly shady.
That said, this has led to some pretty funny stuff over at Kickfailure.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Do these guys have any experience of game development? Producing a sample level is not so hard. Level design, tuning, bug fixing and all the little bits you need to do to get it ready to actually sell is a lot of work.
Why should people hand over money because you have a "great idea". A track record or a prototype seems a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for - and of course the person paying they money is the one who determines what qualifies as "track record".
Because if you didn't have to show you'd done anything, people would just say "give me a zillion dollars to make something awesome", and then simply not make anything.
It's not charity, it's an investment. And if you have nothing to invest in, you get no money.
Is the expectation people should just get free money from Kick Starter because they can craft a couple of good paragraphs? Because, if so, I know where I'd be heading.
Having a prototype at least (in theory) demonstrates you've actually got something real and the ability to deliver on it.
So, yeah, no prototype == no money sounds reasonable, unless you want to have a separate section for things which are entirely vaporware but otherwise sound cool.
But who the hell is going to hand over huge sums of money to someone who hasn't yet done anything?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
With Kickstarter, you're expected to produce what you get funded to do. Usually, what the backers get in return is a copy of the game, and little else. If the game sucks or doesn't sell, the backers are shit out of luck and the founders get a lot of bad press. That's about it.
Before Kickstarter, you had to seek out investors or venture capitalists. You know what they want in return? A monetary share of the profits with a value somewhat greater than their investment. You drop the ball and you end up in court. They want to see your account books. They want the source code and any assets you produced.
Guess what? Kickstarter's fad phase is over. Now you have to show your work. Too many projects didn't deliver, or didn't deliver on enough. Too many assholes have poisoned the well and people are going to be wary about drinking. I suspect Steam's Greenlight will do the same thing. Too many games get released as "early alpha" and then the devs get the money and stop development or development slows to a crawl. Greenlight now feels like "buy a prototype" and Kickstarter feels like "fund a pipe dream." People don't want dreams and prototypes. They want fully fleshed out games!
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
>compelling concept (a card based espionage game)
Maybe it wasn't compelling enough... apparently the "market" said no.
>recent and growing problem with crowdfunding games: an expectation to see a working prototype
Is that a kickstarter problem, or a "people-whose-money-you-want" problem, or your problem? It is possible that the golden age of easy money kickstarters was/is a short lived, one-time-only thing. Now the excitement has worn off, some people may have gotten nothing for their money (like paying to see a TED talk on how to dry your hands), and people are trying to be careful investors now where they can see value and potential results.
You got $180,000 pledged towards the goal, which isn't nothing. Maybe you're just not sexy enough. Could also be bad luck, poor timing, or lackluster marketing.
I have had several ideas for devices that could probably have very successful kickstarter campaigns, but the problem is that I do not have the money right now to build prototypes and I would need expensive testing equipment to make sure that it works as expected and things like that. I originally thought that was what kickstarter is for, but as I researched it I found that people seem to expect working prototypes before the kickstarter campaign which they expect to just be for the money to setup mass production. In my case it would be difficult to get the thousands of dollars for test equipment as well as probably spending another few thousand on building prototypes to make sure everything works as expected. I believe that you should be able to come to kickstarter with an idea and let people decide from there, but pretty much every campaign I have seen where that happened seemed to fail.
See: Star Citizen. Currently crowdfunded at $51.8M. You just have to have a showstopping idea, and a card game ain't it, especially at $180K. Stop pretending that the system is broken just because you got voted out.... you sound like a Republican.
Maybe a card-based espionage game isn't as compelling as you think it is. Just sayin'.
As evidenced by this.
I've donated hundreds to several Kickstarts for video games over the past 2 years.
In one case, the developer has outright lied, directly, to every kickstarter contributer, multiple times. Yet the fanboi's lap it up like it's ambrosia. In every case, the dates for delivery have been missed.
Ultimately, for me, the horrific experience of bait-and-switch that every single game goes through has permanently prevented me from ever using or contributing to Kickstarter ever again, nor anything remotely similar. The sad part is, given the freedom from publishers, every indie developer over-promises and under-delivers MORE than if a publisher was involved. Kickstarter is making the problem worse, not better.
Show me a finished product that I can purchase-to-own, and I'll pile (up to) thousands of dollars on your product. Anything else is crap and deserves to die the slow death that Kickstarter is dying.
Most developers that are using Kickstarter don't even have a public design document they're willing to publish and update monthly. That alone is a very telling problem.
Indeed. Kickstarter is not the initial funding to turn idea into prototype - that is always personal or corporative debt and always will be.
Kickstarter replaces the VCs as the means by which the prototype can become a marketable and distributable product.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Part of kickstarter should be that you've already taken a substantive risk on your own. Making a game demo with, for example, limited level/playtime is a good mark that you are capable of producing the rest.
Since there is no recourse once the funding takes place for funders, this doesn't seem unreasonable.
Thinking on these two kickstarters
Mighty #9, basically a game similar to Mega Man, it had some basic concept art and rough drawings, but I'd hardly call that anywhere near 50%
SpaceVenture, same deal. Concept art, some rough ideas. Mostly, from guys who are known to produce.
If you don't have a reputation already, and no prototype that's at least semi-functional, then really you've got nothing much to offer other than a promise and a prayer.
You have no way to show whether your idea is feasible. You have no way to know how much work is actually involved. I have no way to know that you won't be taking my money and using it to fund a Caribbean vacation or drug/drinking habit.
Seriously, for a computer game come up with an intro video that shows you can make it look good, and a few rough gameplay concepts that show you can make it *run*. You still have: level design, art design, storyboard design, voice acting as needed, sound production, etc etc. You're not even close to 50% at that point, but at least you can show that you can make *something*.
But, without reputation, you have to either have a great idea that's unique and desirable, *really* good marketing, or something tangible. Notwithstanding the dude that kickstarted potato salad, that's just weird...
As far as i'm concerned, any project I back on Kickstarter is an investment. While I would love to see a return on investment (and believe me, some of the projects I have back have gone on to do great things), its not always possible. There are far too many people out there backing projects that expect a 100% ROI every time. This is simply not possible.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan
This is a result of the growing dissatisfaction of the Crowd funding community not getting what they paid for in the agreement.
A perk of some kind for kicking in the cash is promised, and over time less than reputable (but possibly well meaning) projects are turning to this funding source, but not coming through with the goods.
I don't think its a lot to ask that the developer of the project whatever it might be (hardware/software...or any of the other things funded through crowd sourcing) have some tangible proof that they will have something to deliver eventually because the basic groundwork al ready exists.
I agree, except with the part about "people got smart". Attach a big name like Keiji Inafune and you can still crowd source an idea to a product that may never materialize and likely is going to not remotely meet expectations. To me, having Keiji Inafune and crew reboot Mega Man is like asking the captain and crew of the Titanic to man another luxury liner. Sure, they may or may not be responsible for running into that iceberg and sinking the ship, but perhaps we're at a point that a luxury liner isn't *the* way to travel?
It's a GOOD problem for people to have to actually put some work into a project on their end before coming to the community and asking for money.
Like has been said better by others above, ideas are a dime a dozen. People who have put forth a great deal of up-front effort on their own to get their idea to at least a presentable stage, even if it presently looks like crap, should have a better time getting funded. It shows that they are serious, at least basically capable, and can actually produce /something/.
Anybody who pays someone on KS, IGG, or any other crowdfunding project based solely on an idea pitch is pissing their money away in the vast majority of cases.
I have some plans to do crowdfunded projects in the near future, but I am not even looking into it seriously until I have something at least marginably playable so people to be able to get some idea of what is being done and where I want to take it. It also helps me get a basic idea of what kind of effort it is going to take to get the project realized and what it may cost.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
I think somebody's just upset because they didn't get funded.
Wah!
"We couldn't find somebody with deep pockets that we could sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hconvince that we had a 'great idea', so we tried crowd-funding, and we couldn't find a 1000 idiots we could sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hconvince to part with their money. Life is so unfair."
Look, buddy, the bottom line is "great ideas" are a dime a dozen. As a professional programmer who made a career out of slinging code, I've lost track of the number of "great ideas" people had that they wanted me to develop. They all claimed we'd be "rich", if only I would do all the work for them for free.
Without a demo, you're not showing you have what it takes to do the job. Even with the demo, you're not showing you have what it takes to handle the business side of things.
I mean, seriously, you want "angel investor" money for the "payout" of a "free copy of the game when it comes out?"
How many decades did people wait for the last "Duke Nukem", and that was from a reputable publisher who knew what they were doing!?
Why would anyone with a functioning brain cell trust your "great idea" to ever deliver?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I funded DCS: WWII and the third party developer folded. It's only by the good graces of Eagle Dynamics that any of us are seeing anything for our money. The DCS: MiG-21 by another third party on Indiegogo had some other nonsense where someone backed out and only thanks to a group within who didn't see any of the money from Indiegogo are they getting anything for their money. (I did not back this one and am not up on the full story). Also backed Torment: Tides of Numenera. Original date was December 2014. Now they're saying December 2015. I have my doubts that I'll even see it then. Also, after being screwed first hand twice and seeing another one in the same gaming community I'm done with kickstarting video games. I've gotten physical stuff (wallet, pressy) relatively close to promised dates. Yet video games are folding and delaying like nobodies business. There have also been other big failures in the news where people ended up with jack and squat. So, basically I blame this on the groups that had no hope of producing anything and still took peoples money. This is why people are weary.
most kickstarters that I've seen get big money, like the iPod dock & blender/boombox/coolerwere recursive projects...the 'thank you' gift is the product that the company you're supporting is trying to make
it's silly...but i'm glad kickstarter and the like exist...they should just adapt their message & rules just a bit to make this weird moebius strip of commerce and charity unnecessary
as far as gaming, if people want to donate money to an idea, screenshot, and prayer then I think they should be able to...
fyi, that ipod dock kickstarter i linked to above is an insane roller coaster & exhibit A of how kickstarter can be good and bad...the guy ended up barely breaking even after a new ipod design came out right during his production and he had to do several recalls...it was a disaster...
IMHO the Elevation Dock is an example of...something...i'm not hating but it's obvious most of these kickstarter millionaires have no clue what they are doing & spend more time on pictures and the video than product design at times...but that's my jealousy. If people want to throw money away for questionable 'innovations' then that's their choice...the system exists, not all kickstarter products will be crap
Thank you Dave Raggett
Well it _is_ sort of a problem. People that have never tried to do anything themselves have no clue how costly getting over some of the hurdles can be. Nor do they grasp how everybody at every stage wants everything already in place. In demanding the product be practically finished before it can be funded, Kickstarter is little different from banks that only lend to people who already have enough money to obviate the loan.
Research grants (in Academia) are the same way. When you apply for a grant, you almost have to have the proposed project all done, including
data and preliminary results. No one is going to get funding for some "blue sky" idea. That said, I am sorry Kickstarter is apparently heading in that
direction. I thought the crowdfunding minimized risk to the contributors.
Yes, nobody will fund their game.
One of their examples shows a motorcycle chase. But the user's option is to select straight ahead or turn right and follow. They're trying to do a canned cut-scene adventure. Those went out with Space Ace.
Tim Schafer's Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter burst alot of things allright. It got alot of money, yes, becausae we thrusted him when he said things like "With our experience, we know how much it cost to make a game, how long it'll take, etc, etc, etc." And in the end, they had to deliver half a game, later than expected, saying they need more funding through the sale of "episode 1" to be able to make the rest of the game because it was bigger than they envisionned. And the lenght of that episode is laughable, so if it's the half of a game, the complete game will be faaaar shorter than, say, Grim Fandango lenght, which is what people expected.
So, yes, we are getting wary of games that are still at the designing stage. But whose fault is it?
I agree ... and I'd further note that Kickstarter is NOT giving backers any ownership of the company (or profits from the game)! So seriously what do you expect!
This isn't an IPO for a company where I'm risking money in cooperation with the founders risking something. Kickstarter money is fundamentally a gift (this is exactly why the SEC isn't regulating it).
You've got a great idea and want to sell me ownership shares in your company? Ok, I understand that proposition.
You've got a great idea and a working prototype and you want me to gift you money? Ok, I understand that proposition too.
You've got a great idea and want me to gift you money ... because Kickstarter! Umm, no.
It's not unreasonable to see a prototype, or some work in the direction of the idea you're proposing. It's not unreasonable for people to expect some form of tangible proof that you can do what you claim you can do. This idea that it should be acceptable to place all of the risk on to the customer is ridiculous.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
A lot of it is risk vs reward. A game with a good portion of it done shows that their is a lot less risk. Not only on the game getting completed and released, but also on if you may or may not like the finished result. So more people are going to be willing to shell out. The reward for a kickstarter is often just the finished product and possibly some extra swag if you want to pay more. If all you have is some concept art, the risk is a lot higher that you may not like the finished product. It could be a fine and successful product, but maybe not something that you may like or disappointed they went a different direction than you expected. A traditional investor on the other-hand, doesn't have to worry on if 'they' will like the end product. Just that it sells well enough to get their money and hopefully a profit on return back.
There is nothing that is actually free. Yeah, a lot of people are going to have to show how serious they are by investing their own time and money into it first.
You can't get it risk free by doing kick starter and expect everyone else will absorb the risk.
I think the idea for kick starter is that you come up with something fantastic, you then start working on it.
You got this cool prototype that has a lot of potential, but you want to make it soar. To do that, you'll need funding for wages, to pay for your
expenses while you devote time to it, for licenses, for materials if it's not digital, for equipment to make it. Then you hit up kick starters.
If your ideas were fantastic enough to have absolutely nothing but an idea written on paper that will get you funding, you'd hit up a developer / corporation
who is willing to fund you.
Also, maybe a lot of people didn't think the concept was as good as you thought it was, and that people wanted to take that chance on it.
Pivot or die
Yes they need a working prototype. Even if it's printed crap from inkjets. These guys are whiny that they cant run their scam.
tons of other groups have funded their board games and card games via kickstarter and they had most of it prototyped and demonstrated before they ran the kickstarter.
This is how it is supposed to work.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The number people who can participate in "crowdfunding" as a gimmick, a fad, a thing to brag about eventually runs out (especially when most such projects wind up having no return and not even produce much of anything). Then the people who might invest in such a thing get alot more specific about proof that these fine ideas (dime a dozen) actuall not just have merit, but the people they are handing their money to will have some real chance of sucess.
A long time ago, a creature very similar to a chicken, but not quite a chicken laid an egg. The creature inside that egg had minor genetic differences from it's mother, and was... The first chicken.
The egg came first. Glad that's been settled.
Why? It's never stopped Peter Molyneux before...
Worst. Signature. Ever.
kick start clearly means to get something moving that is not yet.
When you have site full of these how do you expect people trust them.
Kickstarter is full of scams. And not very good ones either.
TFS suggests that "a card based espionage game" is compelling. I say it isn't. Collectible card game based games are actually not that uncommon already, and the vast majority of them have either overused or unexciting game rules (or some combination of both).
Besides that, a KS buy-in of only 488 people at an average of $35 each suggests that something more basic was to blame here. In other words, there was very little interest beyond those first couple of days, which suggests that the campaign was mismanaged. Did they try getting any publicity beyond their Day 2 press spree? Did they bother getting directly involved with the community, providing numerous updates in both text and video form throughout the campaign? And did they have a tier that got people the game only, with no other wingdings or wallpapers or soundtracks?
It doesn't matter if it's Kickstarter or traditional ways of raising investment capital: Unless they approach you to create something for them, you have to have something to show them to get their investments. You have to convince everyone that you can deliver.
Retro Game Crunch: http://retrogamecrunch.com/abo...
Sure, not as big-budget, but quite ambitious for a small team. And they delivered.
Proved that to kickstart successfully, you *don't* need to actually make the game first, you just need to show a mock up / animated artists conception of what you will make it look like.
(Yes, this is much less effort, but it is still some effort.)
This is really analogous to having a plan to show BEFORE asking for money. Really, it's not rocket science... (although, it does give me some ideas....)
Try Kickstarting A Novel
You mean like this ?
This proves it possible although (as in the case of Star Citizen, and the likes) it got successfully funded because the book has big names behind it: Zach Wiener and Boulet.
I'm always amused when wanna-be novelists want people to give them $50,000 to write a novel in a year and discover that no one will give them money. The novel must be written first.
The book COULD be not finished yet: ...if it comes from a known guy. Popular author which has already shown able to produce good work. Can have successful kick-starter (I have this great idea that I want to write about, but my current publisher considers it a bit riské and doesn't want to shell out all the money for it). ...if it again follows the "prototype" rule. Wannabe authors writes "Chapter 1" on his free time and decides that he want to get paid to make the rest instead of having a main job and doing the book on the side. Wannabe authors makes chapter 1 available. Interested reader notice that current work is better quality than the crappy fan-fic which pollute the interweb and that the wannabe authors shows promising qualities. Book might get funded.
-
Basically, any idea proposed by Terry Pratchet would get insta-funded, no matter how weird the premises.
-
- slight variation of the above: a blogger who has shown very good and promising writing ability. Nothing from the book exist yet, the authors hasn't written a book before either, but has repeatedly shown to be able to output massive amount of written material with a good sense of humour.
Notice that, both situation could also work with a publisher. The only reason to go for Kickstarter is if for some reason no publisher is interested in the material it self (the project is REALLY weird, or the main theme is controversial, etc.)
The main difficulties won't be finding potential funds for Kickstart (as in fact, the main difficulty won't be finding a publisher neither, if the project isn't too much weird).
The main difficulty would be the lack of experience in handling a publishing project.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?
I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?
I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?
"His only "legend in his own mind" was that he claimed that "his" hosts file could completely secure a windows computer. " - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday February 12, @11:19AM (#35186644) Homepage Journal FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in the YEAR 2011 years ago no less
I never claimed a HOSTS file can secure you completely... show me where I have? I want a quote, big talker... you'll never get it, because I never, EVER said that: HOSTS files are, however, a valuable layer of defense for the concept of "layered security".
* You couldn't produce proof THEN, & you certainly can't now (vainly *trying* to put words in my mouth I NEVER ONCE SAID!)
APK
P.S.=> Still @ your LIES, you transsexual weirdo? Ok, asking it again now nearly 5 yrs. later now in response to your bullshit lies again here quoted:
"APK - not only an expert on how the HOSTS file is the best way to secure your computer" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @07:06PM (#47932519) Homepage
Under your NEW sockpuppet account too no less: SEE my challenge to you above - where've I ever said they completely secure you? I never have, liar...
Of course, YOU ARE welcome to disprove my points on them after you said this lately too:
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Oh, really?
Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?
... apk
One of the 1st times "Barb" libeled me stating "APK is a know-nothing that's never worked in the industry" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in 1 of her numerous sockpuppet fake accounts kept active @ the same time here she uses to upmod herself & downmod opponents she can't get the better of (everyone's onto your games, freak).
Funny part is I've DONE FAR BETTER than ole' "cyclops Frank N. Furter" ever has shown in that exchange too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , lol!
---
Later, he/she kept a journal on me & libeled me even more but worse -> http://slashdot.org/journal/25...
(Typical b.s. to *try* to 'put down' computer "geeks/nerds" saying "I live in a basement with my mommy" etc. when *ANYTHING BUT THAT* is true, considering I am a taxpaying homeowner!).
---
* From the dates you can SEE she's kept this up unceasingly since early to mid 2010 no less, & that's only scratching the surface (there's far more).
(Even TELLING OTHERS TO HARASS ME BY ANONYMOUS COWARD POSTS, calling me a "pedo" -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... )
He/She left in May 2012 after being exposed for ALL OF THAT, but came back with this NEW account of hers, & what started up again (I did *NOT* bother "shim" even once before that)?
You guessed it (more harassment) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
Where I challenged her for her usual CRAP she always runs from (to validly disprove my points on hosts, which she clearly, cannot):
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Oh, really?
Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Barb/Tom (whatever, with multiple sockpuppets too http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... = http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... + http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... ) you've destroyed yourself yet again...
...apk
"His only "legend in his own mind" was that he claimed that "his" hosts file could completely secure a windows computer. " - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday February 12, @11:19AM (#35186644) Homepage Journal FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in the YEAR 2011 years ago no less
I never claimed a HOSTS file can secure you completely... show me where I have? I want a quote, big talker... you'll never get it, because I never, EVER said that: HOSTS files are, however, a valuable layer of defense for the concept of "layered security".
* You couldn't produce proof THEN, & you certainly can't now (vainly *trying* to put words in my mouth I NEVER ONCE SAID!)
APK
P.S.=> Still @ your LIES, you transsexual weirdo? Ok, asking it again now nearly 5 yrs. later now in response to your bullshit lies again here quoted:
"APK - not only an expert on how the HOSTS file is the best way to secure your computer" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @07:06PM (#47932519) Homepage
Under your NEW sockpuppet account too no less: SEE my challenge to you above - where've I ever said they completely secure you? I never have, liar...
Of course, YOU ARE welcome to disprove my points on them after you said this lately too:
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Oh, really?
Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?
... apk
One of the 1st times "Barb" libeled me stating "APK is a know-nothing that's never worked in the industry" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in 1 of her numerous sockpuppet fake accounts kept active @ the same time here she uses to upmod herself & downmod opponents she can't get the better of (everyone's onto your games, freak).
Funny part is I've DONE FAR BETTER than ole' "cyclops Frank N. Furter" ever has shown in that exchange too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , lol!
---
Later, he/she kept a journal on me & libeled me even more but worse -> http://slashdot.org/journal/25...
(Typical b.s. to *try* to 'put down' computer "geeks/nerds" saying "I live in a basement with my mommy" etc. when *ANYTHING BUT THAT* is true, considering I am a taxpaying homeowner!).
---
* From the dates you can SEE she's kept this up unceasingly since early to mid 2010 no less, & that's only scratching the surface (there's far more).
(Even TELLING OTHERS TO HARASS ME BY ANONYMOUS COWARD POSTS, calling me a "pedo" -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... )
He/She left in May 2012 after being exposed for ALL OF THAT, but came back with this NEW account of hers, & what started up again (I did *NOT* bother "shim" even once before that)?
You guessed it (more harassment) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
Where I challenged her for her usual CRAP she always runs from (to validly disprove my points on hosts, which she clearly, cannot):
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Oh, really?
Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Barb/Tom (whatever, with multiple sockpuppets too http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... = http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... + http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... ) you've destroyed yourself yet again...
...apk