You know what's BULL-shit? Installing software

flubbernugget said:

Is there a reason this bullshit hasn't made torrenting more popular?

Sure thing, let's just install uTorren-MY GOD, it's full of ads!

@Maes: I guess the freeware enthusiasts with a good app get approached by Google or Askbar or McAfee and they realize there's some nice money to be made and they sell out. Simple as that. A Chrome offer in the PSPad installer, uh huh, that's related. I guess the "Donate if you like my app" banners aren't very effective. Shocking, eh? Actually, hitting the motherload that inexplicably makes m(b?)illions is probably why most of those hacks write mobile apps.

edit: inb4 ads in Doom ports. 32in24diet also had a good idea going. I mean, those intermissions? Why not check out our offer while the stats come up?

dew said:

edit: inb4 ads in Doom ports.

Quake Live implemented those, but it didn't really work, meaning that the ads (presented as textures on walls) couldn't cover the costs. If one used a free account, they had to wait 10 seconds or so watching ads before they could join a server, but fans quickly developed a 3rd party software to bypass those ads.

Recently, the dev team removed a very popular map from the map pool and substituted it with an "Intel themed" version following a sponsorship by Intel.

So yeah, it already happens in other games :P

dew said:

@Maes: I guess the freeware enthusiasts with a good app get approached by Google or Askbar or McAfee and they realize there's some nice money to be made and they sell out. Simple as that.

Still, it seems that mobile apps have found a less intrusive and equally, if not more effective way of displaying ads. This way, the ads get displayed, they are clickable, they can be disabled, and they don't fuck up other parts of the system (then again, on Android or iPhone that'd be technically very hard, for more or less the same reasons that would make it hard on Linux/Unix). I wonder why PC apps don't follow this model instead, like e.g. the Opera browser did for a long time, but no, they have to go the malware way. I'd really like the author of a popular app that got caught in this scheme, to have a say, unless they are forbidden to discuss it, even.

And yeah, most download pages now have more fake "download" buttons, that finding the real one has become a game of "hunt the pixel". Sometimes the ratio can be, without exaggeration, 10:1 or even 20:1, like Inkie said.

It's really not a matter of whether someone has been lucky/smart and never caught anything bad from such sites, or never needed to use them. It's about how broken and contorted the entire software distribution scene is. I really miss the old days where "shareware collection" just meant a bunch of ZIP files loosely organized in folders.

Maes said:

OK, I get it, revenue has to come from somewhere...bills don't pay themselves, but has it come to the point that a deal with the devil is necessary?

Why don't we cut to the chase, and you tell us the ideal way for independent developers to make money from their apps.

I ask you, a citizen of a country where approximately 99.44% of computer users would chew their own arm off to avoid paying a single red cent for software.

There shouldn't be any installation process for any programs, the user must be able to just extract a zip in a folder and start using the software.
Ok, maybe ms framework, direct x and such need some kind of installation for other programs to access them easily but it should always be crystal clear what is happening with them, what is being installed, etc.

I already mentioned the pop-up ad model used in mobile apps, and the inline ads used by Opera browser for a long time. As the AVGN would say, "Have these (pop-ups), not these (malware)". Otherwise, the natural implication would be that mobile apps are next.

Then again, if you read the typical permission list of even the simplest mobile apps, even those which would have absolutely no reason at all to require network access, let alone full access to your contacts, perhaps they don't need to: users already freely consent to giving away much more data than would be acceptable (and accessible) on the desktop, and all upon installation time. Why bother with setting up a botnet and logging keystrokes and hacking e-mail and IM clients when the user just consents to unlimited access to his contacts and messages right off the bat?

So, the current market model is that a user has to "sell" his contacts and partially recede from his right to privacy and informed use of his devices? Fuck that. I wonder how far that model would walk if every user turned into a "deadbeat" or a "marketing loss", from a business point of view: aka, using only dummy accounts with no contacts, entirely unpredictable and random usage patterns and generally, deliberately fucking with whatever "business intelligence gathering" those next-gen apps are supposed to perform "for an enhanced user-experience". Fuck that shit.

Memfis said:

There shouldn't be any installation process for any programs, the user must be able to just extract a zip in a folder and start using the software.
Ok, maybe ms framework, direct x and such need some kind of installation for other programs to access them easily but it should always be crystal clear what is happening with them, what is being installed, etc.

That'd be ideal, but also a "marketing loss" from the point of view of the pointy-haired. A software that will end up used in a "somebody's mother's basement's computer" with no "juice" to extract out of it, is of little interest today.

Patrol1985 said:

If one used a free account, they had to wait 10 seconds or so watching ads before they could join a server

Reminds me of the Gizmondo, where if you bought the "budget" version ($230 instead of $400) you had to sit through at least 3 commercials before playing your game. And people wondered why this thing flopped?

On another note, I think that if http://unchecky.com/ actually works, it could be quite helpful in the realm of eliminating or at least lessening this problem.

I avoid those 'download managers' like the plague. Nearly every time I accidentally started one my antivirus popped up notifying me about some crap going on.

Fortunately, most software being distributed this way is shit. All the good stuff I ever needed came in a sane package.

2 annoying download related things happened to me kind of recently:

1) I noticed VLC media player had an upgrade available. It worked perfectly as is but, oh, I should upgrade it "for my security" (the age old government excuse) so I thought what the hell and upgraded it. Well before, all my .it files (impulse tracker data music files) had a unique icon, as did my .mp3 (and .wav/ .mid probably I forget?). Now they ALL have the SAME road safety cone vlc icon (hmm... road SAFETY cone... upgrade for your "security".. it fits). If there is any way to change them back, the annoyance of figuring it out is slightly greater than the annoyance of having them all the same icon. That's how the new world order herds you toward the lesser of 2 evils constantly. Rewards are too costly, you can condition people with punishment only, just have one punishment less severe.

2) comodo firewall, another thing to upgrade "for your safety" and so you can install whatever new heartbleed type backdoor concoctions they've come up with since. Well now with avast and comodo's ultra web 3.0 dvd player skinned cumbersome menu software I somehow ended up with comodo effing up my DNS server whatever-a-majigs. So I go to the address bar (as opposed to typing in a search engine) and type 'gmail' (the only reason they monopolized email was so they can send lots of false positives to spam folders, such as people trying to conduct transactions outside of the new world order control grid plantation), it now goes to a http://securedns.comodo.com page that says 'comodo creating trust online'. This has some shitty links and a small yahoo search box on the bottom. Hmm, yahoo pays comodo to redirect google related searches to this page with a yahoo search? Well once again, the annoyance of fixing it is greater than the annoyance of just going to a search engine and not typing in the address bar anymore. I found the place to type the dns whatever stuff, but now I have to figure out what dns is actually good, and read fake astroturfed reviews so the next one can trick me in some way too etc.

Avast's strategy to give you crapware seems to be to have like all these extra 'goodies' with obscure names 'web shield' and like 6 others. You have to search engine each thing to see if it is actually useful or crap, and that doesn't really help because avast has the greatest motive to write reviews about its own crap. Kinda like 'the patriot act', just give it a positive sounding name then everyone will want your malware. Antivirus is government for computers, malware disguised as good guys.

And I cringe every time anything adobe wants an update, knowing their RIAA style mass lawsuit trolling strategy. I should research an alternative to flash probably so I can watch youtube (sigh more google controlled stuff) without them and anything else adobe.

I have read all of that, and you sir are a severe anarchist or severely paranoia. An icon for vlc or an update for your firewall made by people absolutely not connected to any government institute are not part of a new world order system.

Memfis said:

There shouldn't be any installation process for any programs, the user must be able to just extract a zip in a folder and start using the software.
Ok, maybe ms framework, direct x and such need some kind of installation for other programs to access them easily but it should always be crystal clear what is happening with them, what is being installed, etc.

There are some valid reasons for proper installation; less savvy users have a convenient start menu folder to use / uninstall the software from, and part of me wants to say that it has to do with legacy design choices that involve the Windows registry. Don't quote on that last one, though.


Gear shift: Where on earth are you people getting your downloads from? Maybe it's just because I use Firefox with NoScript, but seriously, I don't have to deal half of the BS you guys are running into.

BlueFeena said:

Gear shift: Where on earth are you people getting your downloads from? Maybe it's just because I use Firefox with NoScript, but seriously, I don't have to deal half of the BS you guys are running into.

Use addblockers, or scriptblocker in firefox and this will 'almost' not happen again. Please note not to use these two at the same time.

1 - Bluhell Firewall :
Ad-Blocker and Tracking/Privacy Protector.

2 - Adblock Plus :
a heavy weight Ad-Blocker and Tracking/Privacy Protector.
adblock plus is a heavy weight because its system wil slow down page loading by a few miliseconds, but it blocks, and block it will !

There are many more, but they need to gain a bigger user base before i trust them as safe or before i would mention them.

Maes said:

I already mentioned the pop-up ad model used in mobile apps, and the inline ads used by Opera browser for a long time. As the AVGN would say, "Have these (pop-ups), not these (malware)". Otherwise, the natural implication would be that mobile apps are next.

So some guy programs a hack that blocks ads, and 99.44% of users download it. Try again.

Bucket said:

So some guy programs a hack that blocks ads, and 99.44% of users download it. Try again.

For that matter, those ads stop popping up if you simply turn off your device's internet connection, so apparently this is a calculated risk/marketing loss, which hasn't spelt doom for this model just yet. Oh and of course it doesn't legitimate deceptive/invasive means of planting ads (or worse) in a user's machine. Now you try again.

gggmork said:

1) I noticed VLC media player had an upgrade available.

I've had similar problems with VLC's update mechanism. It doesn't respect file association choices made during the initial installation, instead running a default installer config. Since then I always manually install the new version when it comes out.

I used VLC, because I thought it could handle both video and audio well, but over time I just started hating it and it wasn't worth keeping anymore. The uber-clunky settings were driving me mad, updating was weird as hell, windows shell integration was far from flawless and then that pompous ass of a project leader dropped midi support.

S'yeah. XMPlay and back to MPC. Their interpolation feature to fake 60fps out of 24fps is an interesting idea.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned those giant ads for iLivid or other such dubious services that just have a huge picture of a button that says "DOWNLOAD" or "PLAY NOW" on a site where the actual download link is small and nondescript

Maes said:

For that matter, those ads stop popping up if you simply turn off your device's internet connection, so apparently this is a calculated risk/marketing loss, which hasn't spelt doom for this model just yet. Oh and of course it doesn't legitimate deceptive/invasive means of planting ads (or worse) in a user's machine. Now you try again.

The mobile market is mainly comprised of non-gamers who play puzzle-based time wasters with zero immersion. These folks aren't tech savvy enough to root their phones and download cracked software... but more importantly, they aren't going to be playing Torchlight or The Witcher or Borderlands or any game that requires a modicum of involvement, i.e., the games YOU AND I PLAY. This extends to the majority of indie games, which appeal to a hardcore audience by sole virtue of obscurity.

Why are you defending the mobile model, as if it's at all relevant to the type of games you play? Phones and tablets aren't the future of gaming, and gods help you if you think it is.

Bucket said:

Why are you defending the mobile model, as if it's at all relevant to the type of games you play? Phones and tablets aren't the future of gaming, and gods help you if you think it is.

I don't recall mentioning gaming -let alone mobile gaming- in this thread at all.

My OP was about utility software on PCs, but even on mobiles, this ad-driven model is by no ways restricted to games: e-mail clients, GPS apps, barcode scanners -you name it- also use this ad-driven model, which goes kaputt as soon as you don't have an internet connection active.

I even offered an explanation of why an apparently easier-to-defeat model is used: you bend over backwards the moment you agree to the terms of even the most trivial mobile app, so there's no reason to try and outsmart or outhack mobile users, at least for the time being.



Now, theoretically, if you never-ever-ever activate your device's internet connection, not even for installing apps (you could just use externally downloaded APKs...), then even that big scary list of permissions doesn't mean anything, because the app can do zilch to exploit it. That would be a "deadbeat user", in marketing parlance, one that does not generate ad revenue or even useful "business knowledge". At least so far no app requires compulsory Internet access at all times...


Of course, you'll probably post TL;DR and come back with another weasely retort, but that's OK, old chump. I don't expect better from you. Do you happen to have stock options in some adware company, BTW, "friend"? *grin*

Maes said:

Of course, you'll probably post TL;DR and come back with another weasely retort

*cough*

WildWeasel said:

*cough*

Not you, WildWeasel.

Why are you defending the mobile model, as if it's at all relevant to the type of games you play? Phones and tablets aren't the future of gaming, and gods help you if you think it is.

Color me as yet another person puzzled from you switching your gears from "but meas lol, how do you suggest indie devs get paid if not for aggressive malware?" to "mobile games aren't REAL gaming so it doesn't count".

I can't think of any "real" game sponsored by ads. Let's look at your examples for that matter.

Torchlight? DRM free version available.
The Witcher? Available as DRM free, and IIRC it's even the same dev studio that brought you GOG.
Borderlands? I think this one requires Steam. Steam has its problems, but last I checked it didn't hijack my search results, nor started without my consent, nor sent my personal information to every place on Earth.

I find what Graf says above to be the truth. Most software coming in crap packages, games or anything, turn out to be shit themselves. Genuinely good stuff tends to sell without gimmicks. I don't have much sympathy for the plight of the indie dev ESPECIALLY in relation to gaming, there's so much garbage coming out of the indie community clogging the market and so much of it gets a pass because it's indie, it's the little guy. Fuck that noise, I'm a little guy too and you're wasting my little guy time making me wade through endless sludge to get to the good stuff just so you can trick some other people and make a cheap buck with your subpar game.

gggmork said:

And I cringe every time anything adobe wants an update, knowing their RIAA style mass lawsuit trolling strategy. I should research an alternative to flash probably so I can watch youtube (sigh more google controlled stuff) without them and anything else adobe.

The alternative is built in as far as YouTube goes. I just plain uninstalled the plugin a while back and it still works despite the occasional "you need flash" notice on the pages. Don't count on watching any other video site, though.

The only actual alternative I can think of is Gnash which isn't particularly good.

Yes, I think we've come to the conclusion that advertisements and commercialism is ruining the technological world whenever developers try to get a few more dimes in their pockets by adding some ads to their installers and downloaders given to them by a shady ad agency that wants to give us all a nasty computer-disease that gets them more revenue.

Websites, programs, developers and software companies that use this shit don't deserve anyone's respect or support.

They can go fuck themselves with a thick 20-foot pole.

Phml said:

Borderlands? I think this one requires Steam. Steam has its problems, but last I checked it didn't hijack my search results, nor started without my consent, nor sent my personal information to every place on Earth.

Minor quibble from an old schooler here: The very first version of Borderlands did not use steam, and had SECUROM internet activation. First prints / releases of the DLC used SECUROM as well and were limited to 5 installs.

I hate shit like that that Maes describes in the OP, this is why I avoid CNET Download like the plague.

Phml said:

Color me as yet another person puzzled from you switching your gears from "but meas lol, how do you suggest indie devs get paid if not for aggressive malware?" to "mobile games aren't REAL gaming so it doesn't count".

I'm not specifically talking about "mobile games" - I'm talking about "the ad-supported model that is characteristic of the mobile market, of which gaming is a large part". I don't really feel like typing out that whole phrase the dozen or so times I refer to it. Your powers of inference are lacking; Maes can be forgiven because it's all Greek to him.

Maes said:

e-mail clients, GPS apps, barcode scanners -you name it- also use this ad-driven model, which goes kaputt as soon as you don't have an internet connection active.

Your solution for indie game and freeware developers is the model that's most easily circumvented. I get it. At least in your OP, you had some pretense of giving a shit about these smalltime programmers and their ability to make money from their craft. But your actual concern is having the least amount of barriers between yourself and someone else's work that you feel entitled to.

You're essentially claiming a moral right to steal shit from other people on the basis you're too sucky at your job. By the same logic, people who don't make enough money to afford software are entitled to pirate your stuff.

Maes said:

The above also means that it's technically impossible to complete certain downloads if you're using any OS other than Windows, a browser that doesn't wotk with their drive-by download trickery, and/or you're unwilling/unable to run arbitrary .exe files. "Sorry, only suckers using Windows and dumb enough to run any .exe file without protection can download this!" WTF?!

Yo Maes, there is a way around the windows only program with .exe files. if you got Linux, BSD, Solaris and/or Mac OS X try a program called wine. It will allow you to run windows .exe files in Linux, BSD, Solaris and Mac OS X. Not every program will work, but it's making progress.

Glaice said:

I hate shit like that that Maes describes in the OP, this is why I avoid CNET Download like the plague.

Welcome to the Moroccan Peoples' Revolutionary CNET Displeasurement Club, brother.
...
wait, what?