Duke Nukem update

Good news for those of you who paid your 99 cents for Duke Nukem 3D (check out our review) only to be greeted with a few ads in the game menu -- they're gone. Finished. Kaput.

It's an interesting argument -- should an app that you paid for (albeit less than a dollar) have ads as well? Or should it at least warn you up front? (That seems a bit much.) Maybe it's double-dipping. Maybe we're just used to seeing ads. (Lord knows we have enough around here.) Regardless, Duke's killed 'em. Huzzah.

Thanks, @imjustjoshinyou


Reader comments

Duke Nukem ditches the ads after initial complaints


Why do nearly all the developers put ads in Android apps? Coming from the webOS world where most people are more than happy to hand out quality apps, with the source code available, and don't put a single thought to putting ads in them.

I'm *honestly* just curious: Why are ads in apps are "common place"? Why is it frowned upon, if you're already making your app free, to try and gouge the user as well?

Thank you.


With over 130 applications on my Sony Ericsson Xperia PLAY ("PlayStation phone"), I find it extremely frustrating when developers offer a free application - with in-app advertisements - but won't offer a "premium" version of their application that removes the advertisements.

Angry Birds is a good example of this - I paid about AU$5 for Angry Birds on my Sony PSP (PlayStation Portable) and I'd glady pay the same again if it would remove the advertisements from the Android versions on my Xperia PLAY ("PlayStation phone")... But Rovio stubbornly won't release a "premium" version of the Angry Birds series in the Android Market.

Of course, there's far better examples out there - for example, I have a couple of applications which tell me how to inspect and/or fix various things on my car, another that reminds me how to tie a tie and knots, plus a couple of decent games... I'm happy to pay, but so many developers prefer to settle with those damn advertisements!

Do you have something against somebody trying to make a living? It's all fine and dandy if someone wants to release their stuff completely free with no ads, but don't expect them to. Most people aren't willing to work for free.

Make a living? Obviously not!

I just simply don't understand how annoying users to the point of uninstalling the app (and in turn not having the ad run...) is beneficial to one's wallet. Maybe this comes from living in the FOSS world as long as I have (12+ years), but I *honestly* don't understand the mindset.

And, just to say it, it's not working for "free". It's "working" to help the community as a whole, not just "me". I've put a LOT of time into a few apps over in the webOS world where, monetarily, I got nothing in return. What I did get was admiration, respect, and a few good e-friends that I can genuinely rely on. That beats a "free" tank of gas or two a month in my book (and I'm fairly dead broke right now...).

I dunno. Maybe it's just me. I'm finding this transition to this community VERY hard. I'm used to (FOSS in general) people more than willing to help through their own source code.

Sorry. Didn't mean to ramble...


First, not EVERYONE can afford to build software and not get paid for it.

It's a trade off. If you put a price on your app, you are potentially leaving money on the table in number of sales. If you put it out for free with ads, you may piss people off that can't stand the sight of an advertisement even if their experience is free.

There is also plenty of software (and media in general) that does both.

Cable TV stations with commercials and product placement: You have to pay for the programming AND look at ads.

Good Newspapers and their apps: same, you pay for the paper (or sometimes apps) and there's ads

Good software that someone makes a living out of making..

Not everything is free, and sometimes someone loves what they are doing so much they want to do it all day long, or they are good at it.

Not everyone can afford to put countless hours of work into FOSS. Last time I checked no one accepted admiration and respect as payment for mortgage, electricity, and food. :)

I should add, outside of Linus Torvalds himself, and maybe Rasmus and Larry Wall, I cannot name one person that works on FOSS that is highly popular (Rasmus and Wall are a stretch, and Matsumoto (Ruby)). But admiration and respect are dished out in heaps for many technologists and leaders of corporations working on pay software. Jobs, Gates, Ellison, Carmack (who does eventually open up his software after it's EOL for revenue), Sweeney (don't get me started on game development I could go on all day with names) , a few people at google, the list goes on.

My opinion, it's two VERY different camps....

On one hand, you have the old Palm crowd, very familiar with share-and-share-alike. They (used to) develop because it's fun, it's a hobby, and thoughts of revenue were secondary to furthering the Palm community. These were the techie-hippies. (and I was one of them. I developed 'apps' before they were called 'apps', lol) This is what made Palm so wonderful, I miss those days. Group hug!

On the other hand, you have the newer Android and iOS crowds that (typically) create an app for more financial reasons. Not that this is bad, go capitalism! Just a different purpose. With the proliferation of smartphones in so-called recent years, they can become quite profitable. With all the support out there for developing, why not?

I do tend to feel like some of the fun is gone though. For me, it's no longer a hobby, it's a business... and 'hobby' is ALWAYS better than 'work'. lol

Nobody says it has to be one or the other. There are TONS of free apps that require no money nor spam you with ads.

The true essence of freedom is that you can do what you want. I personally think Android in some sense is more free than Linux where you can make a living of off apps or you can contribute to some OSS apps that are excellent.

SIPdroid, CoolReader, etc..

Though I've always been a fan of the OSS I've never seen the hard line taken where it's all free or nothing.

To be Honest I see it as a big difference in what the 'app' is being made for...

Back in those Palm days people were making apps for functionality that was lacking in the OS, or not complete. There still are those out there for Android, not as much for IOS generally (unless rooted and looking elsewhere beyond the Apps Store). There were some games, but updating was only to fix bugs found mostly... Once made, not a lot time needed to be put in until an update to the OS, which Palm wasn't all that quick on.

A lot of these now are apps that take a lot of time and effort to develop for, and are games or deeply optimized applications - email or text apps. For Android you have how many different OS versions currently, you have Sense, Blur and the like... You have how many different hardware makers..? So there is a lot more involved and updates to them.

Along with this you have the App Store design that Apple started, that became all about getting paid.

Just kind of my views on it.

Technically it is a $3 game (after in-app purchasing unlocks the rest of the game.) Not a 99 cent game.

In any case, ads *or* fee. Not both.


I don't mind ads in a free app. especially if it's developed well. However, putting ads in an already paid app is greedy. I'm happy they listened to the customers.

Thank you!

Exactly. Paid apps should not pile on the ads.

Duke is paid, as well as In-App purchases. To add ads on top of that is over the top.

I think the real issue here is that all apps should be required to disclose exactly what they require.

The description should state if there are ads, and how many/where. And it should also disclose if there are any in-app purchases and for what. Plus, it would be unethical for an app designer to change to make future updates *worse* that what was already installed.

Nice of them to ditch the ads.

Now if we could just get Android Central to stop with the pop up ads! The ever ballooning masthead ads weren't enough, now those huge pop-overs that you have to kill off before you can even see the story.

I make a mental note not to buy anything from people who push pop-overs on me.

I'm getting the popup ads as well. The worst part about the popup I'm seeing, is there is no X or anything to click on to get rid of it. This is the only forum I'm seeing this on. It's usually a Verizon ad that shows up.

It did take some getting used to seeing ads in an app. Coming from A BlackBerry where I never saw an ad. Even in a free app.

yes, it's annoying the crap out of me too. especially the first time i saw it and it was advertising blackberry crap. what the hell, AC?


Firefox + Adblock Plus + NoScript = (almost) NO ads anywhere.

I see no popups, no banner ads, no side ads. I do see the one little static graphic for the mobile nations android store (shopandroid.com) and the various links along the left side for products from it, but nothing else.

Why do you guys put up with being spammed with ads? i refuse to allow my web experience to be flooded that way.

Please don't tell me that Android is soaked with ads you can't turn off. I'd hate to have to go to iPrison just to avoid ads.

Why do you guys put up with being spammed with ads? i refuse to allow my web experience to be flooded that way.

I put up with being spammed with ads because AC has to pay the bills some how, and occasionally I buy from the AC store as well.

The content on AC is worth something to me. Having side ads does not bother me, as long as I can instantly start reading the story i clicked on.

Forcing some intrusive ad to cover the story is a whole other issue.

Killing off ALL ads is your way of telling AC that you will be happy to read their content as long as they all work for free to supply you with fresh material every day but their bills and food on their table is their problem, and you refuse to help.

I get that its your precognitive, your computer, and your bandwidth. Somehow I just can't bring myself to be that much of a cheapskate. And yeah, sometimes I actually find an ad worth clicking.

The problem is that most people would never get into trying to block ads if they were:

1) Reasonable size ( usually < 10% of total page size)
2) Not intrusive (like capturing cursor or obscuring stuff)
3) Not animated in any way (movement is EXTREMELY distracting and wasteful)
4) Made no sounds (even MORE annoying)
5) Use no FLASH (proprietary + resource wasting)
6) NEVER pop up or over (beyond annoying)
7) Didn't delay the loading of the site with strange tricks.

I estimate 95% of ads I see violate at least one, usually MANY of the above 7 things. I am not opposed to ads, but I am to any that violate my list.

Ads suck on a 4 inch screen that's already cramped. The worse thing is the ones like in Scrabble where they fill the screen. I always buy the paid version. Ad versions are fine if you trying to buy. Ads in Duke 3d when we paid for the AP is a crime. That isn't fair. You can't charge twice.