HTML The Making of a Slut [v1.0.4 Patreon] [Austinhaney6969]

[LordCorwin]

For crying out loud guys, this was already covered earlier in the thread:



So, for those late to the game: Those images have been released for free public use so that people can make games exactly like this one.

You can't "steal" something which is given away for free.

Except it's not free. Akabur was the original artist, who sold his stuff to paying Patrons, who some then pirated his work and tried to turn their own profit claiming "well you had your go, let us make some money too!" Akabur has said he's totally fine with letting people mod his stuff, just so long as they don't try to charge for it like it is somehow theirs just because they modified the hair of a character or added a poorly drawn shirt.

Witch Trainer Silver Edition was a big abuser of this, and from there we've seen dozens of people think that just because something has been turned into an "asset pack" it makes it ok to reuse and sell.

 

[deluges]

Is it just me or are there a lot of errors with the videos? I've tried it on Chrome and Edge and more often than not, they don't work.

 

[austinhaney6969]

Except it's not free. Akabur was the original artist, who sold his stuff to paying Patrons, who some then pirated his work and tried to turn their own profit claiming "well you had your go, let us make some money too!" Akabur has said he's totally fine with letting people mod his stuff, just so long as they don't try to charge for it like it is somehow theirs just because they modified the hair of a character or added a poorly drawn shirt.

Witch Trainer Silver Edition was a big abuser of this, and from there we've seen dozens of people think that just because something has been turned into an "asset pack" it makes it ok to reuse and sell.

The game is free, nothing is behind a paywall, patrons just get access to the latest updates faster and have a bigger say on the polls. Patrons aren't paying for the game, they are paying for a portion of creative control and direct access.

 

[deluges]

Nice, I got my first F95zone "infraction point" for giving this game a 1 star review, because it shoves an animation in my face in the "latest updates" view.

It's like when you go to the harbor to find a nice lady for recreational services, and some cunt throws herself in your face yelling "fuck me, bitch boy! fuck me!!!" Look cunt, if everyone behaved like you it would be a goddamn nightmare and nobody would come to this otherwise pristine neighborhood. So get back in the line, sit still and make a pretty pose like the rest of the ladies.

Well, to be fair, that is a really dumb reason to give a game a one-star review since it has nothing to do with the game itself and would be useful to, oh, no one.

 

[HiEv]

Except it's not free.

You're absolutely right... Except for the parts where you're completely wrong. Which is almost all of this. Especially that bit.

Akabur was the original artist, who sold his stuff to paying Patrons, who some then pirated his work and tried to turn their own profit claiming "well you had your go, let us make some money too!"

But that has nothing to do with this, because that's not what's going on here.

Whether or not he sold a game with this artwork in it to Patrons originally is irrelevant, as is whether some people tried to rip off his game later. The question is, "Was the art used here made freely available for use by others?" And as far as I can tell the answer to that is, "Yes!"

Akabur has said he's totally fine with letting people mod his stuff, just so long as they don't try to charge for it like it is somehow theirs just because they modified the hair of a character or added a poorly drawn shirt.

Witch Trainer Silver Edition was a big abuser of this, and from there we've seen dozens of people think that just because something has been turned into an "asset pack" it makes it ok to reuse and sell.

See, now you're conflating two entirely different things. "Witch Trainer Silver Edition" was a rip-off of an entire game. Not merely the art, which, as has already been stated, has been made freely available for games exactly like this one.

So, when I see comments like this:

Soo... this guy's asking for patreon money for a game that's just gifs and assets ripped off other games?

I have to totally facepalm, because the answer is, "Absolutely not." What you're doing by being one of his patrons is thanking him for the time and effort of creating an original story, using original code, to combine art assets he had to find and then edit to suit the narrative of the game he was trying to create. Try making a game like this yourself; you'll find that that's a lot of effort.

And all of that effort is being totally ignored by an unfair and ignorant question like that.

Honestly, I don't care if it pisses you off that he doesn't create his own art from scratch on top of all the things he's already doing to create the game. And the fact is, almost nobody else cares either, so it's merely annoying to see you to whine about it here. (The "you" refers to the people who do this, not necessarily anyone I've quoted above.)

What bothers me is seeing people ignorantly acting like something was "stolen" (on a piracy website no less), when the thing they're talking about are assets which have been made freely available (do I need to further emphasize this somehow?), and there isn't one shred of evidence that they haven't been made freely available.

So, rather than waving red herrings by talking about other irrelevant things which have happened, stick to the topic of what is going on here, and focus on the fact that the art that you're complaining about has been made freely available, so that other people can make games just like this one.

Disagree? Prove me wrong.

 

[austinhaney6969]

You're absolutely right... Except for the parts where you're completely wrong. Which is almost all of this. Especially that bit.


But that has nothing to do with this, because that's not what's going on here.

Whether or not he sold a game with this artwork in it to Patrons originally is irrelevant, as is whether some people tried to rip off his game later. The question is, "Was the art used here made freely available for use by others?" And as far as I can tell the answer to that is, "Yes!"


See, now you're conflating two entirely different things. "Witch Trainer Silver Edition" was a rip-off of an entire game. Not merely the art, which, as has already been stated, has been made freely available for games exactly like this one.

So, when I see comments like this:

I have to totally facepalm, because the answer is, "Absolutely not." What you're doing by being one of his patrons is thanking him for the time and effort of creating an original story, using original code, to combine art assets he had to find and then edit to suit the narrative of the game he was trying to create. Try making a game like this yourself; you'll find that that's a lot of effort.

And all of that effort is being totally ignored by an unfair and ignorant question like that.

Honestly, I don't care if it pisses you off that he doesn't create his own art from scratch on top of all the things he's already doing to create the game. And the fact is, almost nobody else cares either, so it's merely annoying to see you to whine about it here. (The "you" refers to the people who do this, not necessarily anyone I've quoted above.)

What bothers me is seeing people ignorantly acting like something was "stolen" (on a piracy website no less), when the thing they're talking about are assets which have been made freely available (do I need to further emphasize this somehow?), and there isn't one shred of evidence that they haven't been made freely available.

So, rather than waving red herrings by talking about other irrelevant things which have happened, stick to the topic of what is going on here, and focus on the fact that the art that you're complaining about has been made freely available, so that other people can make games just like this one.

Disagree? Prove me wrong.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Paitryn]

For crying out loud guys, this was already covered earlier in the thread:



So, for those late to the game: Those images have been released for free public use so that people can make games exactly like this one.

You can't "steal" something which is given away for free.

Never complained it was stolen, just made the comment.

But the game is a hodgepodge of Stock Images, Live porn, and Drawn art so I'm skipping this one entirely. It just looks like hot buttered ass.

 

[diaboros]

Sorry if someone else has already reported this error, when you are walking around you used "img source" instead of "video source" for the "random 1/2/3/4/etc." webm files, so none of the videos actually show up. This seems to start around line 8147 of the code, but I've been playing for about 5 minutes so I haven't checked very carefully. Sorry, I'm salty about having to debug this as soon as I started. Looks promising so far though?

 

[HiEv]

Never complained it was stolen, just made the comment.

Then that part wasn't directed at you. However, you did make a comment which was already covered earlier in the thread, which was why you were among those I quoted when pointing out that this had already been explained.

But the game is a hodgepodge of Stock Images, Live porn, and Drawn art so I'm skipping this one entirely. It just looks like hot buttered ass.

That's cool. You can like or dislike whatever you want. I don't care.

I'm just annoyed by seeing people rehash something which has already been explained. And worse, some of them complaining on a pirate website, about something supposedly being pirated, when this is actually a case where the something they're complaining about is one of the few things on the site which is actually public domain!

I mean, it's like going into a bag of peanut M&M's, fully aware that it's a bag of peanut M&M's, finding a regular M&M in it, and then complaining about how your bag of peanut M&M's has a peanut M&M in it. I mean, you managed to find the one non-peanut M&M in the whole bag, and that one is the one you complain about for having a peanut in it?

Insanity!

 

[diaboros]

Line 6827 in the code also uses "img src" instead of "video src" for "makeup.webm" at work

edit: also uses the images folder instead of the video folder, so the video cannot be found
edit 2: same problem occurs on lines 16862 and 16873, when you visit Bailey
edit 3: Lines 13332, 13339, 13348, 13355, 13364, 13374, 13381, 13388, 13395, and 13402 use the "riley face" thumbnail but Lexi is talking, so it should be the "lexi face" thumbnail instead (also, for some reason it says </span> at the end of Lexi's text boxes, I can't see the error causing it rn)

 

[austinhaney6969]

Line 6827 in the code also uses "img src" instead of "video src" for "makeup.webm" at work

edit: also uses the images folder instead of the video folder, so the video cannot be found
edit 2: same problem occurs on lines 16862 and 16873, when you visit Bailey
edit 3: Lines 13332, 13339, 13348, 13355, 13364, 13374, 13381, 13388, 13395, and 13402 use the "riley face" thumbnail but Lexi is talking, so it should be the "lexi face" thumbnail instead (also, for some reason it says </span> at the end of the Lexi's text boxes, I can't see the error causing it rn)

Those are leftover from when I changed formats. Previously I was using gifs, but to cut down on file size, I changed them to webm's. I've been fixing them as I go along, but I am aware of the issue. Thanks for the info.

 

[diaboros]

Those are leftover from when I changed formats. Previously I was using gifs, but to cut down on file size, I changed them to webm's. I've been fixing them as I go along, but I am aware of the issue. Thanks for the info.

Sorry if I'm bringing up stuff you've already fixed, I'm also fixing all the issues I encounter as I go along, I started posting on the tfgamesite forums too, but idk which one you prefer.

 

[diaboros]

On that note, line 13494 also uses img when trying to show the webm.

Edit: When you take a nap with high arousal nothing plays because the video dimensions are never set in the code. This happens on line 2149 (it tries to play "Porn 0.gif" but that no longer exists too)

 

[camoway]

Android release?

 

[SuA]

Can I have a source of the gif in the OP? For science purpose.

 

[bonzz]

Those are leftover from when I changed formats. Previously I was using gifs, but to cut down on file size, I changed them to webm's. I've been fixing them as I go along, but I am aware of the issue. Thanks for the info.

Nice of you to tell us: I spent +1 hour yesterday trying to find out why the video didn't work. I'm on linux so I'm used to see filenames with capitalization gone wrong in html games..

Going for webp/webm is the right way to go so kudo's to you! keep up the good work man.

 

[Paitryn]

I'm just annoyed by seeing people rehash something which has already been explained. And worse, some of them complaining on a pirate website, about something supposedly being pirated, when this is actually a case where the something they're complaining about is one of the few things on the site which is actually public domain!

I think the real case here is that people don't like its blatancy. There are many games that do use images stock, public or otherwise not their own, but it's the game itself that seems to be what the developer is selling (Goldo's Brothel King or Ashford Academy/HHS are great examples here.) There is also the question of the real porn content which I can guarantee isn't but also, again, many games do this already. I don't think the complaint comes from Hypocricy so much as there is a consensus that it is ok for an amateur dev to use more successful Assets, but not assets from a fellow amateur developer.

As for the Public Domain argument, thats a bit more tricky. You are allowed to give away and distrubute your assets as you like naturally, but they are still copyright protected against expressed monetary gain unless you specifically permit that. So even if you give your patrons the artwork and tell them they can use them, you still have a case if they choose to sell the product. This of course is trumped by the patreon method of selling the development as a service, which sort of bypasses traditional copyrights anyways since games are rarely sold but instead given away for free and people are "tipping" the developer more or less.

So yes the argument is Moot, but still the consensus seems that it is in bad taste to imitate another author without at least acknowledging said author.

I mean, it's like going into a bag of peanut M&M's, fully aware that it's a bag of peanut M&M's, finding a regular M&M in it, and then complaining about how your bag of peanut M&M's has a peanut M&M in it. I mean, you managed to find the one non-peanut M&M in the whole bag, and that one is the one you complain about for having a peanut in it?

Insanity!

Swing an a miss I'm afraid. M&M/Mars is allowed to do whatever they want with their own product, However should Nestle start putting m&Ms in their chocolate bar that would be a problem. This is more like the latter scenario than the former as the current body of work is not created by or endorsed by Akabur himself.

 

[numanumani]

Nice of you to tell us: I spent +1 hour yesterday trying to find out why the video didn't work. I'm on linux so I'm used to see filenames with capitalization gone wrong in html games..

Going for webp/webm is the right way to go so kudo's to you! keep up the good work man.

Since you're on Linux, don't forget the handy "file"-binary. When nothing else makes sense, throw it at file and it will spit out some handy metadata that may lead you down the right path.

 

[greyelf]

As for the Public Domain argument, thats a bit more tricky. You are allowed to give away and distrubute your assets as you like naturally, but they are still copyright protected against expressed monetary gain unless you specifically permit that.

I believe you will find that in many legal regions the legal state known as Public Domain means that
exclusive intellectual property rights (like Copyright) no longer apply because such rights have either expired, been forfeited, or
been expressly waived.

One of the main points of something being placing into the Public Domain is that it is now owned by the Public (of the relevant legal regions).

 

[numanumani]

Has the original artist actually released this to the public domain? On that github page there's a line that says:

All are considered public use and are simply organised here -- only a few of them were created by our group.

But that's not the same as it being in the public domain. If it's actually been released it could simply have been released under a license that allows non-profit usage. Either way, I have seen no meaningful source saying what the deal is here.

And in the end the game also includes other images and videos of Riley, Bailey, etc, which are no doubt copyrighted.
It's a weird discussion from start to finish.