The most crime-ridden location in the US is 80% white. Both violent and non-violent.

And there is black flight. Most definitely.

Poor white people are not nearly as violent as poor black people.

Tell that to the families of the dead in Overland, Kansas.

You racist shit, what are you too embarrassed to post under your "Third Way" moniker tonight?

I predict a sucky game.

I agree about Left/Right. The real divide is Top/Bottom. Even the notion of "individual/collective" is kind of a dodge in this instance. The only "collective" that I see anywhere in the US is aggregate capital in the form of the corporation.

Thanks for the info. That's what I'd assumed, and hoped.

So I'm not sure where this idea that these audits are "American only" or that there is something preventing someone from pointing out a vulnerability comes from.

Generally, I trust stuff that has lots of eyes on it.

It's easier to do it on paper, using the PDF forms.

Last year was the first and hopefully the last year I did taxes electronically. To prepare, I filled out the government's PDF forms. Then I had to research the online filing options, picked one, set up an account and filled in all the info I'd already entered into the PDF forms, had it fail on me, picked another, gave personal info to yet another online account, had to enter all the tax data again, and then had it tell me it'd take two days to confirm acceptance, which if it had failed, would have made me late.

This year I just printed the damned PDFs I'd already filled out and snail mailed them on the way to work.

Just because it's "on the computer" doesn't make it any easier.

Africa itself was a key player.

And the Left is the real Right. and, and, Frazier Glenn Cross is a demonrat because Robert Byrd!

It's all about projection. I take that as a positive, in that it shows you are capable of shame.

That did what? Not suck? Can you give us a list of 10 F2P games that did not suck and not include DOTA2?

And how much lower is the bar for F2P and why? Clearly, the teams making these games are trying to make money, and if they believe they can make money, apparently there is some value to having people play these games?

So what exactly is "free" as in "free to play"? Ain't nothing free.

The code is being audited in America.

Is there something preventing an audit elsewhere? Is it illegal to send the source code overseas? And how are these audits done? There aren't a lot of details in TFA. Is it like a big Wiki where anybody can look at the code and report what they find, or are the auditors vetted with specific sections assigned them?

I'm asking seriously. I'm not a developer, so I don't know. But I worry about security and snooping.

If you fail to deliver on your promised, you won't be able to easily earn back people's trust

So the next kickstarter campaign is in your girlfriend's name.

Do you want me to find examples of people who have gone back to the kickstarter well and never really delivered?

Incidentally, although I'm an indie developer (as one would define it),

Great. Then maybe you can explain why it seems impossible for new companies to produce something at the level of Half-Life, the Burnout series, etc etc. Games that people want to put over 100 hours into. Valve and Criterion were relatively small and little-known "indie" companies when those games were made. Why do game developers seem so allergic to giving good value for the price of their game. And why do so many have such low opinions of their own games that they go F2P? Are there no developers who realize just how badly that genre sucks?

If it doesn't work out, like the patron of olde, I'm not spending money I can't afford to spend

The "patrons of old" generally gave commissions, which the artist was expected to fulfill. And if they didn't, they'd get away with it once.

Kickstarter has become the go-to charity for game devs on their third, fourth and fifth go-round. You'd think at some point, they'd be able to get someone to pay them for their work, instead of for their promises.

It's not just "starving artists" at kickstarter, either. You'll see a lot of well-known developers with their hands out, because it's easier to promise to pay on Tuesday for a hamburger today than it is to sign a contract, where you are required to perform.

"Patron of olde" sounds a lot like sucker to me, but as you say, you're not spending money you can't afford to, um, lose.

You realize that there are ways to support "starving artists" where you actually get something? You ever think maybe there's a reason they're starving?

I don't know about you, but I'm in my 28th year of living off my own intellectual property. There are plenty of artists who actually have held down jobs in order to support their work, or got commissions (I've done both) or even (gasp!) sold stock. Roberto Rodriquez participated in medical experiments to finance his first movie. At least there is a shred of self-respect in those methods, and a higher likelihood that the artist will actually accomplish something besides making a snappy trailer for a game that will never, ever be finished.

what other graphical style is practical for a small team seeking to build a portfolio?

Most artists don't expect anyone to actually pay money for their portfolio.

I am well-acquainted with possibilities for artists. The notion that step #1 is, "asking people to pay, no strings attached for what you haven't made" when you haven't made anything yet is relatively recent.

If you want money to build something, then the people who invest should be in for a cut of the profits.

To be big enough to be called "apocalypse" it would probably need something like nukes taking out all major ports etc so that it's a global disaster.

One good pandemic could do it too.

An apocalypse does not have to be an industrial event.

Sure, some of those bets won't pay off, but welcome to venture capitalism.

Absolutely not. If you believe that your kickstarter donation is anything like "venture capitalism" you need to hit up Wikipedia for some definitions.

When you invest venture capital, you are getting a piece of the "venture". Your return on investment is directly tied to the success of the venture. The more success, often, the more return.

In crowdfunding, you are basically giving someone on the money based on a promise that gosh, they will try their best to maybe get around to building a game. Or not.

And crowdfunding has led to "early access" which has led to a whole bunch of crappy, unfinished games. Maybe requiring developers to get real investors who will hold them accountable is a good way of self-limiting what's past off as "development".

If you've ever been to an "indie game conference" you'll know what I mean. It's a bunch of navel-gazing hipsters comparing trailers and kickstarter campaigns who will never, ever create a game that's worth anybody's time. It's a way of paying the bills while they effectively prolong their undergraduate experience and avoid like hell having to actually produce. It's the equivalent of the magnificent ideas you come up with when you're smoking pot with your friends. They're so grand but they never see the light of day.

I think it's a pretty exciting time for the gaming industry, and I'm happy I'm in the middle of it.

I think you just explained your comment. You're an indie game developer, so you're in the middle of the milieu I described above. It's great for you. I wish I could come up with a cool idea and have people give me money with no strings attached and little expectation that I'll have to do anything. It's kind of like having rich parents, except you don't have your dad complaining about your grades. For people who just love games, it kind of sucks.

My only hope is that there are some people who are actually developing some skills so when the inevitable shakeout in the "indie gaming community" comes and most of those people have become baristas, the ones who are capable will go on to create some great games. But they won't do it on kickstarter.

I understand, but I also believe that a game that is really engaging and top-level in terms of production values can be worth more than the $50 price tag. I don't mind dropping a few dollars here and there for a game that I've been playing >100 hours, because I'm getting value (as long as the DLC is more than just a fancy hat or a new skin for my shotgun).

I just want some developers to go back to the model where a good game had a good price and it was a good experience all around. Instead of this underhanded "F2P" and "Early Access" and so on.