"...only Members are allowed to submit their hub entries for search & listing, and those in turn must be approved."

That's ridiculous.
I'm not a member. But I have a non-rip [fan game] that I've spent a number of years on (in my spare time).
I have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure a rip could never be made of it, too (by being the only person to ever have the code).

I strongly disagree with this. All I read when I see that is:
"we will be trying to squeeze money out of our community"

Please justify.
BYOND is giving you the tools to create the game.
Were they free?

BYOND is giving you a publishing platform (hub).
Is that free?

Stop being cheap and buy a $20 membership.
It's the least you can do.
Pre this option, whilst it's true that a few gems like you were shunned out, the hub was spammed with two-bit crappy games that were ridiculous and just a waste of time for everyone.

Sorry, but if you want, get another member to host the hub for you, I'd do it if you wanted.
In response to Flame Sage (#1)
I have done.
Not to mention I, like all developers, are potential BYOND revenue via ads.
I am not complaining about not getting enough free things.
I am simply stating that it is a silly way to judge who's eligible to post games. And their motivation is purely money.
Hence all the extra features for them now.
Why does making it manditory suddenly change the reason to "it stops rips"; as opposed to the assumed current reason: reward members?
I dont dispute that it will probably have a beneficial effect. Slightly.
But why should good people like myself suffer as a result of the carpet bombing of idiots.
In the same sentence it was said that there will be scrutiny on the entries, anyway.
Saucepan Man wrote:
That's ridiculous.
I'm not a member. But I have a non-rip [fan game] that I've spent a number of years on (in my spare time).
Please justify.

Welcome to the real world kiddo. Services generally cost money - they aren't all magically provided free of charge.

If you've "spent years" on a project and the idea of paying $18 to list and promote it upsets you, then you must not value your own time very much. Granted, if your game's biggest selling point is that "it's not a rip" then perhaps you are just better off saving your cash.
In response to El Wookie (#2)
I totally agree with the eradication of the crappy games that have clogged BYOND.
But this was/is (has this already been done?) a bad way to go about it.
But to be fair, Im not convinced I can think of a better, non-intrusive way.
In response to SilkWizard (#4)
I take it you read the hub description? heh. Thats at least 2 years old. Back when it was never obvious what was a game, and what was the result of a person spasming on a keyboard whilst having a ripped source code open.

Im not personally complainging. Im arguing against it in principle. Especially the fact that the statement was being shady about why they truly are/have changing/changed it.

On the flip side, back before I learnt to code on BYOND, if a rip had come my way, I would have JUMPED at the chance to pay 20 bucks and get my rip listed.
In response to Saucepan Man (#6)
I didn't read the hub, I just read your description of the game in your post.

There is nothing shady about charging money for a service, and it makes no difference whether that money is being used to keep the lights on or send the BYOND Devs on weekend trips to Vegas. No one ever needs to "justify" charging money for a service.
It's been this way ever since the site changed back in January, and it was fiercely argued over back then too.
In response to SilkWizard (#7)
Youre missing the point. Entirely.

The shadiness was not being open that it was for revenue (which is fine, their prerogative).

I dont disagree with the reasons we suppose are there (mainly). I disagree with the way theyre disguising it as something else.

If it were true that it was to stop rips, they would have included members over 1 or 2 years as well. But they didn't.
In response to LordAndrew (#8)
Oh so it ISN'T new. Was wondering.
~At least it wasn't reterospective.
In response to Saucepan Man (#10)
You realize it costs the Byond team money to run the site right? Stop complaining because you are cheap.
In response to Techgamer (#11)
Oh dear god. Another person who has missed the point completely.

I am merely standing up for the principle of the thing.

1) It was a deliberatly misleading delivery of that information
2) If they were not being misleading, then old members (1/2 years+) would perhaps receive automatic eligibility to list games.
Or perhaps after contributing X number of libs?
In response to Saucepan Man (#12)
Saucepan Man wrote:
I am merely standing up for the principle of the thing.
1) It was a deliberatly misleading delivery of that information

You don't even when all of this took effect, much less how the announcement about the change was delivered. All of your information is second or third hand.

You're not taking a stand based on principle, you're fumbling along based on ignorance.
In response to SilkWizard (#13)
Can you please not make assumptions?
I came here direct from the blog. Hold Up I'll find the link BYOND?command=view_post&post=106285

And if you're gonna continue to try and talk down your nose to me dont bother making another post, and I shalln't either.
In response to Saucepan Man (#12)
No, you are missing the point.

There is a reason that everyone else here is disagreeing with you.

You are getting upset that you are not getting something for free. You are hiding it behind the argument that BYOND isn't acting in good faith, but it's patently obvious you just want everything for free.
In response to Techgamer (#15)
I would have come here just as directly if I had unlimited BYOND membership.

I don't want anything for free. In fact I don't want anything.
Other than an explanation from someone qualified.
If I am told by said person or peoples that it is to cover costs (as previously mentioned, even if said cost are for a weekend at vegas), then fine. So be it. Im not the boss last time I checked.
Maybe I've just been riding a strong wave of freedom of speech lately; and got carried away. My argument seems to be headed that way, at which point it collapses.

I think you meant blatantly too, btw.
In response to Saucepan Man (#16)
Saucepan Man wrote:
I think you meant blatantly too, btw.

No, I didn't.
In response to Techgamer (#17)
Ah, my sincere apologies.
Add that to my tab of fails.
There's nothing to justify. This is their company and if they want to make money from it they are doing nothing wrong.
Page: 1 2 3