@tgh1925tobiasheath24 what would you like your username to be? Could you please add it in the name requests topic?
@ 22 we would have to see how much cash he has, something which we of corse will never know. Maybe he payed for all of them, maybe he did not. In less someone knows how much he has made from things like stw. Regardless, this seems a little off topic. Still though.
@22, we can make rough guesses at his amount of cash from stw.
But at least 100 to 150 people have bought accounts, probably more, witch is 15 dollars on it's own. So that on it's own is 1500 dolllars.
Then you have people like John Sena, with around 1200 dfc's, witch, if I'm not mistaken, are about 1.50 each? That's a shit ton. That's like 1800 dollars, and that's not counting the one's he's lost.
Then we have people like Smoke Jay, with I think around the same amount.
O! And I'm not even counting teleporters or other items you can buy with creddits!
So I think that it is definitely possible that he got more then 30,000 dollars from stw.
Contact information:email: [email protected]
Skype: Brennan Draves
I'm usually found on online games, chatting, and being warned bye admins for talking to much, f**k you admin!
And remember, this has been up for years. We would have to know exactly what sound libraries he got, and how much they cost.Thanks for doing the math for me redfox, I was too lazy to do it myself, but I couldn't log on to stw any way because of my computer.
I'm not issuing a caution here, but very close to it.
Frankly, we really do not need to know Sam's income, and we aren't apt to do so. Talking about how he probably didn't buy his sound libraries with that line about how "any of us who think he got them legitimately deserves to be lied to" comes very close to character assassination, as it intends to cast doubt on Sam's actions without any demonstrable proof. If someone has such proof, that's one thing, but I'm quite confident that unless Sam waltzes in here saying how he gleefully stole sound libraries and such, that proof simply won't materialize.
As such, let's stop with the baseless accusations and suppositions. Remember that thing we said about being nicer, being less toxic? Yup, that's happening. Continuance along that line of attack is going to lead straight to warnings. I'm not kidding around.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1
#31 (edited by defender 2019-03-16 05:12:01)
Okay, here is what I don't understand.
If audiogames.net has decided to make a stand against piracy and code theft, particularly around games, then why are we allowing discussion of those games here, since it legitimises them and brings in more players.
Simply not allowing download links is not enough if you are trying to make a definitive statement, since the community is tight nit and it's extremely easy to just find the link somewhere else or have someone PM it to you, essentially using the site as a publicity platform if not a (direct) distribution source.
Not only that, but it also makes it harder on the mods when they have to constantly monitor threads about it for download links.
I mean we had a download link on this very page up for hours and hours, imagine how many people used it?
So either your going to do the bare minimum legally and only disallow direct links, or your going to back up your moral stand. Which one is it, because this waffling back and forth on the issue do to concerns about stifling discussion is actually giving both parties (the coders who had their work stolen, as well as the players of the game who couldn't care less) the short end of the stick.
All mods need to be on the same page regardless, so that the hesitation seen earlier in the thread which allowed that link to be around for so long does not happen again. At least a clarification needs to be made about discussing the sharing of the link while not actually posting it as well, unless their is a legal loophole there that I am not aware of.
The problem isn't going to go away on it's own either, in the last week we've seen at least three threads on the subject popping up, and this cycle will undoubtedly repeat it's self with another game some time in the future as it has in the past.
I think that Audiogames.net needs to decide, as a group, weather that be the mods, the users, or both, if they are developer friendly first or player friendly first, and how much responsibility the mods are willing/required to take on the subject.
Are you going to require a developer to show you some proof or legal precedent before banning the discussion/distribution of a particular game? Is there even anyone here who's capable of properly interpreting that kind of information anyway? And what if their are two or more opposing parties involved, one making a counterclaim against the other, how do you intend to handle that.
Or are you just going to wash your hands of it altogether and make some kind of blanket statement that hopefully covers most of it until something unique arises.
It would just be nice to have a solid answer rather than a bunch of confusion when ever this kinda stuff comes up.
Lets demonstrate this: stand still Thom...
either way you could just type batalha constante audiogame into google and it's the second result. if that's what you're looking for. if people can use google, they can find the link.