One Hour One Life Forums

a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Main Forum » Why not Patreon? » 2019-06-11 08:05:02

testo wrote:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

A little off topic but I honestly really dislike this saying. Because it's anti innovative as possible. Otherwise we would still write with type writers, because they weren't broke.

PS: The only place where I agree to this, don't mess around with a system that is going to be phased out in mid-future anyway.

#2 Re: Main Forum » Why not Patreon? » 2019-06-10 08:25:02

BerrypickerAF wrote:

It seems Patreon would be a way better platform to support/sell this game than Steam. It's often been made clear that we didn't buy a game, but a concept or a ticket to get to watch Jason do his thing.
Seems more like a Patreon thing rather than Steam. It allows for continuous support and pricing tiers, and if people don't like changes made to the game they can cancel their subscription. If we're getting a service, why not sell it like one?

Yes, I suggested this months ago, despite all the nay-sayers and theoretical "but if nonsense" in this thread. It works very well example for for ToadyOne (dwarf fortress) adding up to quite stable euros a month in the 4 digit range. Enough to make a decent living. Dunno why Jason doesn't want to get this road, at the end it's his decision tough.

PS: One misunderstanding I see, I wouldn't sell it as a service, like stop paying no more access, but providing access to the servers for free (or stay with the 20 bucks for life time), the patreon would just be people gifting it, because they consider this something awesome they want to support.

*Selling* the game has it's natural barrier anyway anywhere, at some point you saturated the market in people interested in this type of game.

#3 Re: Main Forum » Help with Linux Kernel OOM-killer issue » 2019-04-10 04:49:09

jasonrohrer wrote:

Can anyone make any sense of these values?  I can't find any documentation about this.

Yes that was the same problem I was having in "story 2". This is poorly documented especially the "Memory kinds" "Normal", "DMA", "DMA32"...

#4 Re: Main Forum » Help with Linux Kernel OOM-killer issue » 2019-04-10 04:45:44

Only 2 stories I can tell to this:

Back the day I was developing embedded devices, with a linux kernel, where the OOM-killer would sometimes kick in on heavy usage of the web interface and it's scoring algorithm would kill the "central control daemon" which put the device into unusable mode and least since it stopped servicing the watchdog, it would reboot soon after. I replaced the default scoring algorithm in the kernel to a) always hit the web stuff first, since it's least essential, and whatever it does, hit the control deamon last (well last before init).  (conclusion: you can make custom scorings to the OOM-killer)

Second story, I once had a server that kept oom-killing the backup daemon... and I spent quite some time digging into it, since the RAM strangely wasn't actually depleted. What I learned that (at least on this architecture) there are actually different kinds of RAM and only one of these went down. I never fully understood what was going on there. I believe it was due to being a very old machine, modern ones seem to have an easier RAM built. I fiddled around with some kernel parameters, like swappiness, OOM-killer sensitivity etc. and it stopped killing the daemon mostly. It still does every other month, but I put it on auto-restart so the damage is minimal. As I only have this behavior on that old machine, it will go once it is swapped out as a whole and I stopped wanting to invest more time into that. (conclusion: RAM is more complicated that one might believe, there are some parameters fiddle with it)

#5 Re: Main Forum » Objects despawning. » 2019-03-18 16:44:29

Sound to me you have a file permission problem.

Did you start the server once as root, but not as a user? Then you'll have this problem, since when you started it using a root accounts, it created files belonging to root which are not writeable by a normal user.

Solution -> sudo chown -R [directoryOfOHOL] [yourname]

#6 Re: Main Forum » "I'm just concerned about my legacy" - an open letter to Jason » 2019-03-18 13:08:05

Starknight_One wrote:

You are correct. You can copyright a specific arrangement of rules (i.e., a 'game system' if you will), but you can't copyright the systems themselves. The whole kerfluffle back in the day of WOTC trademarking 'tapping' cards is an example; you can have a card game that uses the mechanic of 'turn this card sideways to indicate it is inactive', you just can't call it 'tapping' in your game rules. smile

You're confusingly mingling things. First you talk of copyright then suddenly you switch over to trademarks. Yes you're right, you can't "copyright" an idea, but you can "trademark" naming it in a a certain way.

To make it clear: I can create a Tetris clone. If I change the graphics and music, and write the engine myself (or use a commercially licensed one, like Unity), and call it something like Geometry Fill... I'm well within my legal rights. NOW... depending upon how *closely* my designs and music follow that of Tetris, they might have a case to stop me

If you infringe the copyright of the music (by having it too similar) yeah, but it's just that.

#7 Re: Main Forum » "I'm just concerned about my legacy" - an open letter to Jason » 2019-03-18 08:57:53

Toxic wrote:

Stop open letters lol!

Only if you stop writing JASON in capital letters every topic of yours, attention seeker.

#8 Re: Main Forum » Macros for quick communication » 2019-03-18 07:13:18

jasonrohrer wrote:

You become a parrot at that point.

become a parrot. become a parrot. gark!

#9 Re: Main Forum » "I'm just concerned about my legacy" - an open letter to Jason » 2019-03-18 07:03:34

Sanshuba wrote:

Copying the idea is not shameful.
Shameful is copying the whole game and sell it for the half of the price.

I agree. The post of @JustDisappointed suggested otherwise tough, hence the argument.

#10 Re: Main Forum » "I'm just concerned about my legacy" - an open letter to Jason » 2019-03-18 06:36:37

JustDisappointed wrote:

I'm also the type of person who sees someone playing 2048 and tells them that it's a ripoff of a better game, because I care about attribution and crediting good work.

It's your fair view to disregard "shameless clones" but even if the original author reserves all rights, no public domain or OpenSource License or anything, legally the is nothing wrong with copying a "game idea". Ideas is not copyright, it would be patents. And as far I know you cannot patent a "game idea" and I heavily oppose anybody suggesting so.

So many games have been the mother of a whole generation, putting this idea forward would heavily impede the game industry and harm public as a whole. If Doom wouldn't have """shameless copied""" the idea of Wolfenstein 3D and nobody would have copied the idea of Doom, we wouldn't have *any* FPS, hundreds of thousands of games nowadays.

And as Jason rightly said, nothing is ever truly original. We always base our ideas on ideas before us. And always somebody comes and complains this might be too similar to that and a "shameless ripp-off".

This notion is not helpful, neither for humanity at large nor of the discussion that had been going on here.

#12 Re: Main Forum » A book that lays out arguments against intellecual property » 2019-03-15 05:51:29

ryanb wrote:

I just saw Dwarf Fortress will be released on Steam for $20. It will be interesting to see how it does.

Wait what DF gets graphical? Awkward smile

I suppose much like every Steam release? Nice sales on the first days or even weeks then exponential decay when the new age short attention span group moves on.

Anyway in Toady's case this is additional to the ~6k a month he gets from patreon.

#13 Re: Main Forum » Working clarification to no_copyright.txt » 2019-03-14 04:55:32

jasonrohrer wrote:

"By accessing these materials, you are bound in contract with me to not use them in a competing multiplayer online game service, nor to distribute them to someone else who is not bound by this contract."

Contract law know something as "wrapping". Originally by shrink wrapping. By breaking the shrink wrap, you agreed to the contract, which is generally seen as valid, as long the whole of the contract is readable before you break the seal. Otherwise it would be ridiculous to suppose agreement without being able read it.

Then there is the nowadays classical "clip wrapping". By clicking this button you agree to bla bla... valid as well, same condition.

Sometimes I come across to people trying to do "browse wrapping". Like having a footer "by browsing this side you agree to." This is generally *not* valid, as there isn't a clear indiciation of agrement, you are already browsing before you read the conditions etc.

"By accessing these materials" is likely also not a valid wrapping. It's not like I'm hindered to access it without agreeing to the contract, so I disagree the contract and still access it. So now what? In case of the shrink wrap, there would be the shrink wrap in the way, and in case of the click wrap I don't get to install the software, get into website etc. without clicking the button.. but "accessing" is not a valid wrap.

Also the classical example, writing on my car "by reading this you agree to not holding me responsible if I drive over you"... is not a valid wrapping

PS: Special case are OpenSource licenses which are most times not wrapped in anyway, because they don't need it. They leave you in the ex-post decision, either you agree to them or you are infringing copyright... They don't need any wrapping, because they are bettering your situation to what would be default law if you disagree. However trying to worse someones situation by a non-wrapping contract offer, doesn't work.

#14 Re: Main Forum » Working clarification to no_copyright.txt » 2019-03-13 17:12:26

Since this has turned into a philosophical just another 2 cents.. While I do see that intensive lobbying has smudged copyright (foremost some comic enterprise to keep a mousy character in protection -- that is the most problematic area is likely it's very extensive period) the original idea was good. Before copyright people were extremely protective of their stuff, as to physically hinder anyone to make a copy of it? "You want to take that book home? Surely not, you may only read this, in this protected hall with a guard watching you..." The original idea was to liberate it, so people feel more secure sharing their stuff. To some degree this kind of protection is returning with big film, as to control you cannot make a physically make a copy until the box office paid off.

At least so I read, dunno if this was that historical correct or a a marketing pitch for copyright.

SImilar with patents, the core idea was well intended, again encouraging people to share their ideas, some developments turned problematic tough...

#15 Re: Main Forum » A book that lays out arguments against intellecual property » 2019-03-12 18:38:09

PS: There are quite some free games, while not OpenSource or "free as in beer" that make a living from the main dev soley on donations. Dwarf Fortress comes to my mind, I suppose Toady is keeping over water quite well. There is Crystal Shard with the wonderful free game of "Heroine's Quest: The Herald of Ragnarok", he asked for patreons, dunno how he's floating. (I wanted to give one free donation, for what I considered the game worth, but not sign up for patreon... didn't work out)

What I'm trying to suggest, maybe just ask... (quoting here Amanda Palma, great TED talk)

#16 Re: Main Forum » A book that lays out arguments against intellecual property » 2019-03-12 18:27:32

Ja, I believe the release of Seven Kingoms 1 as OpenSource was considered an advertisement move for their new, closed source variants.

Otherwise, nothing I know of. At least through the list of games I skimmed through that are OpenSource in and out, I suppose there might be quite a bunch with OpenSource engine but protected content.

#17 Re: Main Forum » A book that lays out arguments against intellecual property » 2019-03-12 15:36:52

CrazyEddie wrote:

My guess is that the only open-source for-pay games on Steam are yours.

Seven Kingdoms.

#18 Re: Main Forum » A book that lays out arguments against intellecual property » 2019-03-12 07:36:25

jasonrohrer wrote:

My "recent" review score when from like 78 down to 55.

Well humans generally don't go light on change. Whatever it may be.

#19 Re: Main Forum » Working clarification to no_copyright.txt » 2019-03-12 05:32:58

The word "McDonalds" surely is likely protected beyond restaurants, toys etc. whatever they are doing business in (in the last 5 years). Especially considering it's just a Scottish surname. The golden arches... is a different topic, as you're going into copyright as well. Like "apple" the music label surely can't use the bitten off Apple logo. I believe if you go make a video game called "McDonalds" thats about the life of a Scottish farmer and don't use their logo or play any other way on resembling them etc. you have a chance to get away with it, albeit you know big corps using loads of lawyers just to defend their turfs against small, the usual story.

@CrazyEddie since you seem to know at least more than most here, what is your opinion on how far the trademark stretches? In my understanding it is exactly what Jason uses to market the game, not a "second order copyright" of everything in the game, which would be covered exacly what Jason doesn't want to participate with, copyright.

#20 Re: Main Forum » Working clarification to no_copyright.txt » 2019-03-11 06:43:17

jasonrohrer wrote:

So, if you're interacting with multiplayer online game service that LOOKS like it's part of my universe, you will know that it really is part of my universe in the future.

I'm certainly not an an expert on trademarks, but I don't think that trademarks work as deep as that. A trademark would protect for calling an adaption "One Hour One Life", or potentially something too similarly (dunno if 2HOL would be considered to similar or different enough) and the Eve icon used to market the game.

But it wouldn't cover adaptions where just screenshots would seem to similar, of a game marketed for example as "60 minutes, 60 years".

#21 Re: Main Forum » Working clarification to no_copyright.txt » 2019-03-11 06:34:34

Whatever wrote:

Does this mean other people are not allowed to host servers containing the same characters? skins? What does character elements mean?

It means, if you want to call your adaption, server etc. "One hour one life" you need to use Jason's ticket server to determine who can use it (that is, your users must purchase OHOL from him/his steam).

This is IMO fair enough, and yes contrary to drafting yet another free-(no)-copyright license which I would advise against, drafting his own license to use his OHOL trademark I consider a fair idea.

So you either use his ticket server, or change the name icons under which you present your adaption/server so not to infringe the trademark.

#22 Re: Main Forum » Working clarification to no_copyright.txt » 2019-03-11 06:25:54

The concept of "I place it into the public domain." is not something that works across the globe. There are a bunch of countries where this sentence has no legal meaning. So you need fallback options for those countries.

Consider using CC0:
Human version:
Legal version: … /legalcode

Generally there are so many licenses of free already around, the cacophony is worse enough for people that want to combine stuff from different projects in their "remix". So if by any means possible. Don't make the cacaphony worse by drafting yet another license, which for example, if someone would want to combine it with a GPL product, would have need the FSF to check your license on compatibility.

So as far I see it, it gets pretty close to what you want, but is already better developed in some potential problematic areas and builds fail-safe mechanisms.

PS: The usual "no warranty for any purpose" thing may also be a sensible add-on to protect yourself. One can argue if it is necessary, but it surely doesn't hurt either.

#23 Re: Main Forum » JASON! You need to fix the area ban! » 2019-03-09 15:57:02

If you want to have your post read, you should start it with "An open letter to"

#24 Re: Main Forum » Please clarify no_copyright.txt » 2019-03-08 19:27:06

jasonrohrer wrote:

"but not otherwise"... dun dun DUN!

Where is this any worse than your no_copyright waiver? One may assume that copyright is no an issue... yet there may other laws come into effect. You use the stuff as "One Hour One Life"... than the original author claims a trademark on it and asks you to write "unofficial" in big letters all over the place.

Reasonable manner isn't defined, what the licensor is allowed to request isn't defined.  It all depends on the medium, means, and context of the usage.

In other words, when push comes to shove, it will be settled in court.

You credit me in a way you think is reasonable (say fine print in the app store when you make a direct clone of my CC BY OHOL), I say it's not reasonable and demand more reasonable credit, you refuse, and then there we sit.

Yes, if we can't agree on what reasonable is, we got to have an impartial party decide it. I mean this is the way law from start to buttom, you can't specify everything in the latest  detail. Albeit I certainly do agree that lawmakers (or licenses writers) should be as concrete as possible. I remember the classical examples from my philosphy of law courses. "If a shop forbids dogs, does this apply to trained dance bears?" or "If architectural control forbids you windows at a certain place, does this apply to transparent bricks?". etc.

There is certainly a green area of okay, there is certainly a red area of not okay (say font size="1pt" textcolor="#fef" on #fff background, there is a gray area.

#25 Re: Main Forum » Please clarify no_copyright.txt » 2019-03-08 18:40:11

PS: While it is true that only the license is the license and not other explanatory material, it is exactly my point that practically speaking for the widely used licenses you can rely on the fact that the public and common interpretations of them is correct.... across the world.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB