I honestly think this is one of those cases where you have to just say 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it,' and carry on doing something else.

On 11/28/2011 4:20 AM, Latimerius wrote:
Evidence or not, what he's talking about is likely to happen in some
form.  There are games for the Android platform, and some of them have
objectionable contents - not objectionable to me, perhaps not to you
but to a potentially significant part of buying public.  Blood,
violence, the usual stuff.  It won't be long until someone notices the
"objectionable" ones are indistinguishable from the rest at Android
Market, so parents don't have a way of telling whether or not a game
is suitable for their kids.  Ratings will be the remedy.  This is just
a repeat of what has already happened on other platforms, you don't
have to be clairvoyant to expect this with a reasonable degree of
certainty.

Obviously, whether ratings come tomorrow or in two years, or how much
they will be remains to be seen.  I don't expect them to be free
though.

Also, not promoting unrated games would be a natural thing to do for
Google.  Why would they want to promote potentially dodgy stuff that
can get them into trouble and cause significant damage to their and
Android's image?  Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if unrated games
end up banned from the Market after some time (just speculating here,
although again based on experience from other gaming markets).

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Lew<[email protected]>  wrote:
Binxalot wrote:
There's nothing in writing from Google that games will not be promoted
So you have no evidence whatsoever.

on the marketplace without a rating just rumors. - but - there is no
other reason to suspect that the new rating system as it applies to
mobile phones would be different than the one for desktops and
consoles.  Why would it? It’s the same content, just a different
What system is that?  Now you have to provide evidence that such a thing
applies to desktop games, and how it affects the very different Android
marketplace(s).
Your "evidence" for a claim even you admit has no substance is another claim
for which you provide no substance.
distribution platform. So yes, when this announcement is made then
I'm sorry, "when this announcement is made"?  You can't prove a conclusion
by stating the conclusion itself as evidence.
That's a logical fallacy,.

there will be two types of games - games with a rating and games
You're wrong, there won't be, not in any manner that justifies your attempt
at FUDwords..

without - and like on all other platforms the hopes of getting your
game in to a mainstream outlet would require an upfront cost of $800
for a rating. It couldn't be anything other than that or console game
Baloney.

developers and other game developers would cry fowl at having to pay
two fees for the same rating on two platforms.  Also all of the mobile
More nonsense.
You were asked for evidence, not more wild assertions based on your first
unproven one.
Unproven?  Hell, not even supported.

companies involved would have to accept this agreement or be seen as
allowing children access to violent games by customers / competition,
and if they accept the terms of the ESRB mobile rating system then
there's no addition need for more useless legislation from the
government.

In the end the small developer loses, I can pay $800 for a rating, it
would take me months to save up for it, but in the end I have to now
make up the loss of the rating cost and then after I dig out of that
hole if I'm lucky. Only months later would I see a profit from my game
on the store.  Then we'd still be fighting against the mega AAA titles
which now litter featured marketplace.

Also this goes even further because now we have a breakup of the
android marketplace with Verizon and Amazon both pushing their own
separate app stores which all have a separate submission process and
hoops to jump through.
Since you provide no evidence, much less proof, of your thesis, only spin
more wild paranoid fantasies when pressed for evidence, I m led strongly to
my own conclusion - that your thesis is full of crap.
Otherwise you'd've responded to the call for evidence that, for some reason,
no one else but you has ever seen.  Likely because it doesn't exist, and
your claims are so far beyond fallacious as to land in tin-foil-hat
territory.
--
Lew

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en

Reply via email to