They have consistently advertised four things until now:
Pay what you want
Cross-platform
Free of DRM
Supports charity
The two most important to me were 'cross-platform' and 'free of DRM'. I thought the other two parts were neat, but didn't really care about them. I talked them up to people and mentioned them a bunch to others because of those two things. And now they drop them for this bundle. It's very annoying.
As an aside, I've also noticed that frequent use of profanity, name calling and lack of ability to actually make rational arguments are frequently found together.
If Apple started selling re-packaged cheap plastic laptops that fell apart when you opened them, yes, I'd be pretty upset. I already avoid Starbucks, but if Starbucks decided to use Folger's drip coffee and just boil it down a bit for espresso (and I actually liked Starbucks) I'd be pretty upset over that too. If the local coffee shop I tell everybody has spectacular coffee did that, I would also be upset.
I'm certain that Humble Bundle profited just fine from their previous bundles, and I'm quite pleased with that. Profit that comes from serving your customers well and having some integrity is profit well-earned. But profit as a means unto itself is just empty, and if it's earned at the expense of integrity, it's evil.
It's on the same website and advertised through the same channels as the thing I was promoting. If it were a different website and they'd advertised using different accounts I'd be fine with it. Even if they had used the one account to point out the announcement by this other, separate effort and explained how it would be different, I'd also be fine with it.
They, after all, named something the 'Humble Introversion Bundle' previously and had the exact some terms as all their other bundles.
Really, nothing? So, if you had someone tell you that they were going to travel the road and fix everybody's flat tires for free and you went and told all of your friends and gave them some money because you thought that was really awesome. And then it turns out they drive up and tell people they'll fix their flat for $50. Wouldn't you feel like maybe they lied to you and feel kind of icky about the fact that you recommended them to people and gave them money?
They owe me something, and they owe the thousands of other people who did the same as I did something. Building a brand takes the cooperation of your customers. You can't do it in a vacuum. Customers who believe in your product. I was one of them. So were a whole ton of other people. Collectively we have every right to be annoyed that we were let down when we gave them our support.
How much less money would they have made on this bundle without the reputation they had before they released it? I'm sure it'd be a lot, because those are good games. I'm also certain it would be less than they're making now.
I agree. I don't begrudge those developers a single penny, and I greatly appreciate what was made. I'm a little annoyed with the Humble tips I gave in support of more of the same, but only a little.
Yes. I made a post a couple of dozen people saw. I talked personally to 5 or 10 people.
And there are thousands of people like me. We each made our little contributions. Each of us helped make the Humble Bundle brand what it was. It wasn't just me, but I helped. And so did they. Many of us our upset.
Thousands of negligible effects add up to a real effect. I think my anger is justified. So is theirs.
Well, they weren't games but they were DRM free and available in formats easily dealt with by Open Source software, so it was in keeping with the spirit. I was fine with it.
I'm angry for several reasons. But the biggest reason is that I gave the Humble Bundle brand name a lot of free advertising and word of mouth because I expected them to always be DRM-free and cross-platform. Them choosing not to be feels like a betrayal and a cheat because they're taking all that good will I helped them create to sell something that is at cross-purposes to the reason I helped them create this good will.
I'm also angry because I spent a bunch of money, always above the average, often significantly so. I spent it not just because I thought the games were worth it. I spent it because I believed in Humble Bundle and what I thought they were trying to accomplish. It was another way for me to invest in the brand.
If they had done something like this under a different name I wouldn't be angry at all. Create another brand "Pay What You Can" bundles or whatever and market your stuff under that brand if it doesn't fit the Humble Bundle image. Then I wouldn't feel like all the work and money I put into supporting the Humble Bundle brand was a waste.
More than pays for. In fact, the bloatware not only completely pays for the MS license, it offsets the cost of the hardware. They're paying you to have a laptop with all that garbage on it.
Yeah, you deserve a ton of mod points. I despise how people on Slashdot look down at anybody who's not in 'the club', whatever they might imagine the club to be. Jon Katz was fuzzy headed, but didn't deserve the reception he got here at all. And neither does this anthropologist.
Using your definition, the word free (as in zero cost) becomes a totally useless word to use.
It is, in fact, a totally useless word. Everybody understands TANSTAAFL. Nothing is 'free' from cost, and calling it such is a marketing lie. Just like talking about 'saving' money by buying something cheaper today than it was yesterday.
The unfortunate conflation of the two meanings of the word 'free' have confused people. A lot of 'free' software now isn't actually free for a variety of reasons. But the costs are not out-of-pocket expenses incurred at the time the software is downloaded. And much of this software comes with some sort of support. So people get confused.
Though, in reality, I have few actual problems with this sort of enforcement (aside from the fact that cutting off domain names shouldn't be possible for a government without a trial). Though the hypocrisy of the situation is still not lost on me.
The 'Berserker' novels of course are an examination of the end result of building such killer robots. It will happen eventually. But I don't want it to happen until some of us are no longer in the solar system.
Actually, historically speaking in the past 30 years or so, Democrats have done a far better job of fighting wars than Republicans.
Democrats tend to listen to their military advisors and things. Republicans tend to want to act like they're re-enacting WWII, except with bigger penises and a sense of entitlement.
So I expect I would've been far happier with Al Gore's response. He likely wouldn't have stomped all over Afghanistan like an angry giant, then abandon it to run off and fight a war he, his father and their cronies had planned long before he got elected. A war with a completely irrelevant country that was no direct threat to us.
One is a file stuck in some random place that nobody is ever likely to look at. And even if they do, it's unlikely to ever be made public. The other is stuck on someone's camera and they might post it to Facebook or upload it to YouTube or any number of things that make it very public. There is a big difference between those two things, and that difference matters a great deal to me.
I go out dancing. I'm very good at it. People often try to take videos of me. I hate it and avoid letting them if I notice.
It's a matter of intent and framing. I do not want a video of me show up on YouTube in a context I don't control.
I do not like surveillance cameras, but there is an implicit intent behind them that I do not find objectionable in the same way. I still find it objectionable, but in a different and much more subtle way.
This guy pretend to be a surveillance camera but clearly being a private individual raises the same questions I have for people who photograph or take videos of me when I'm out dancing.
And things I've read about how they've dealt with various entities who decided to sell like (Wal-Mart for example) have told me that they still lean on people to avoid ever selling anything but Windows. The methods change according to what is technically legal, but the behavior and practice remains.
This isn't a mid-90s phenomena. It is a now phenomena. Nothing about Microsoft's behavior over the past 10 years leads me to believe that their essential attitude that competition must be prevented from ever even seeing the marketplace if at all possible has changed in the slightest.
Luckily, they are so wedded to the strategy of leveraging their existing stuff to force their monopoly everywhere they can't adapt and change. So they're slowly slipping into irrelevance. But I worry about things like trusted computing being used now that OEMs are no longer the primary gatekeeper for consumer use of an OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really need goodies like games to donate to charity?
They have consistently advertised four things until now:
The two most important to me were 'cross-platform' and 'free of DRM'. I thought the other two parts were neat, but didn't really care about them. I talked them up to people and mentioned them a bunch to others because of those two things. And now they drop them for this bundle. It's very annoying.
As an aside, I've also noticed that frequent use of profanity, name calling and lack of ability to actually make rational arguments are frequently found together.
If Apple started selling re-packaged cheap plastic laptops that fell apart when you opened them, yes, I'd be pretty upset. I already avoid Starbucks, but if Starbucks decided to use Folger's drip coffee and just boil it down a bit for espresso (and I actually liked Starbucks) I'd be pretty upset over that too. If the local coffee shop I tell everybody has spectacular coffee did that, I would also be upset.
I'm certain that Humble Bundle profited just fine from their previous bundles, and I'm quite pleased with that. Profit that comes from serving your customers well and having some integrity is profit well-earned. But profit as a means unto itself is just empty, and if it's earned at the expense of integrity, it's evil.
It's on the same website and advertised through the same channels as the thing I was promoting. If it were a different website and they'd advertised using different accounts I'd be fine with it. Even if they had used the one account to point out the announcement by this other, separate effort and explained how it would be different, I'd also be fine with it.
They, after all, named something the 'Humble Introversion Bundle' previously and had the exact some terms as all their other bundles.
Really, nothing? So, if you had someone tell you that they were going to travel the road and fix everybody's flat tires for free and you went and told all of your friends and gave them some money because you thought that was really awesome. And then it turns out they drive up and tell people they'll fix their flat for $50. Wouldn't you feel like maybe they lied to you and feel kind of icky about the fact that you recommended them to people and gave them money?
They owe me something, and they owe the thousands of other people who did the same as I did something. Building a brand takes the cooperation of your customers. You can't do it in a vacuum. Customers who believe in your product. I was one of them. So were a whole ton of other people. Collectively we have every right to be annoyed that we were let down when we gave them our support.
How much less money would they have made on this bundle without the reputation they had before they released it? I'm sure it'd be a lot, because those are good games. I'm also certain it would be less than they're making now.
I agree. I don't begrudge those developers a single penny, and I greatly appreciate what was made. I'm a little annoyed with the Humble tips I gave in support of more of the same, but only a little.
Yes. I made a post a couple of dozen people saw. I talked personally to 5 or 10 people.
And there are thousands of people like me. We each made our little contributions. Each of us helped make the Humble Bundle brand what it was. It wasn't just me, but I helped. And so did they. Many of us our upset.
Thousands of negligible effects add up to a real effect. I think my anger is justified. So is theirs.
I and thousands of people like me, yes. We all helped. I didn't do it singlehandedly, no.
Well, they weren't games but they were DRM free and available in formats easily dealt with by Open Source software, so it was in keeping with the spirit. I was fine with it.
I'm +Eric Hopper over on Google+.
I'm angry for several reasons. But the biggest reason is that I gave the Humble Bundle brand name a lot of free advertising and word of mouth because I expected them to always be DRM-free and cross-platform. Them choosing not to be feels like a betrayal and a cheat because they're taking all that good will I helped them create to sell something that is at cross-purposes to the reason I helped them create this good will.
I'm also angry because I spent a bunch of money, always above the average, often significantly so. I spent it not just because I thought the games were worth it. I spent it because I believed in Humble Bundle and what I thought they were trying to accomplish. It was another way for me to invest in the brand.
If they had done something like this under a different name I wouldn't be angry at all. Create another brand "Pay What You Can" bundles or whatever and market your stuff under that brand if it doesn't fit the Humble Bundle image. Then I wouldn't feel like all the work and money I put into supporting the Humble Bundle brand was a waste.
More than pays for. In fact, the bloatware not only completely pays for the MS license, it offsets the cost of the hardware. They're paying you to have a laptop with all that garbage on it.
I think in this case, people are resistant to the notion that they can be so neatly studied and classified.
Perhaps you're right. Though really, no group of humans is and anthropologists are well aware of this fact. :-)
Yeah, you deserve a ton of mod points. I despise how people on Slashdot look down at anybody who's not in 'the club', whatever they might imagine the club to be. Jon Katz was fuzzy headed, but didn't deserve the reception he got here at all. And neither does this anthropologist.
I really wonder why people are so xenophobic.
Using your definition, the word free (as in zero cost) becomes a totally useless word to use.
It is, in fact, a totally useless word. Everybody understands TANSTAAFL. Nothing is 'free' from cost, and calling it such is a marketing lie. Just like talking about 'saving' money by buying something cheaper today than it was yesterday.
The unfortunate conflation of the two meanings of the word 'free' have confused people. A lot of 'free' software now isn't actually free for a variety of reasons. But the costs are not out-of-pocket expenses incurred at the time the software is downloaded. And much of this software comes with some sort of support. So people get confused.
Though, in reality, I have few actual problems with this sort of enforcement (aside from the fact that cutting off domain names shouldn't be possible for a government without a trial). Though the hypocrisy of the situation is still not lost on me.
Now we know what Luke Skywalker was repairing.
The 'Berserker' novels of course are an examination of the end result of building such killer robots. It will happen eventually. But I don't want it to happen until some of us are no longer in the solar system.
Actually, historically speaking in the past 30 years or so, Democrats have done a far better job of fighting wars than Republicans.
Democrats tend to listen to their military advisors and things. Republicans tend to want to act like they're re-enacting WWII, except with bigger penises and a sense of entitlement.
So I expect I would've been far happier with Al Gore's response. He likely wouldn't have stomped all over Afghanistan like an angry giant, then abandon it to run off and fight a war he, his father and their cronies had planned long before he got elected. A war with a completely irrelevant country that was no direct threat to us.
In truth, I was expecting a higher quality of trollish insult in response to my post. You should try harder.
One is a file stuck in some random place that nobody is ever likely to look at. And even if they do, it's unlikely to ever be made public. The other is stuck on someone's camera and they might post it to Facebook or upload it to YouTube or any number of things that make it very public. There is a big difference between those two things, and that difference matters a great deal to me.
I go out dancing. I'm very good at it. People often try to take videos of me. I hate it and avoid letting them if I notice.
It's a matter of intent and framing. I do not want a video of me show up on YouTube in a context I don't control.
I do not like surveillance cameras, but there is an implicit intent behind them that I do not find objectionable in the same way. I still find it objectionable, but in a different and much more subtle way.
This guy pretend to be a surveillance camera but clearly being a private individual raises the same questions I have for people who photograph or take videos of me when I'm out dancing.
And things I've read about how they've dealt with various entities who decided to sell like (Wal-Mart for example) have told me that they still lean on people to avoid ever selling anything but Windows. The methods change according to what is technically legal, but the behavior and practice remains.
This isn't a mid-90s phenomena. It is a now phenomena. Nothing about Microsoft's behavior over the past 10 years leads me to believe that their essential attitude that competition must be prevented from ever even seeing the marketplace if at all possible has changed in the slightest.
Luckily, they are so wedded to the strategy of leveraging their existing stuff to force their monopoly everywhere they can't adapt and change. So they're slowly slipping into irrelevance. But I worry about things like trusted computing being used now that OEMs are no longer the primary gatekeeper for consumer use of an OS.
And what happens to the OEM's deal with Microsoft if they sell some other OS on their box?