Milovana.com

Hey everyone, I hope you're doing well!

After putting countless hours of work into it for the last six months, this amazing new version of fapnip's FapJack with Melody is finally finished. Have fun playing Hentai FapJack Hearts!

Test your luck with a game of Blackjack against your favorite sexy characters!
In multiple rounds with different hentai girls, jerk off to the beat and win games to watch your opponent undress for you. There's a great reward waiting for you at the end... but can you last that long?

This first part of the Hentai FapJack series features three game modes: Overwatch, My Hero Academia and Superheroines.

This game is by far my most complex one yet and it features actual coding far above my level of understanding. So I want to sincerely thank fapnip, not only for letting me use his game concept and code but also for the amazing and productive collaborative relationship we've had since mid-2020. Together, we've added a lot of really cool features and improvements to his original game.

Enjoy playing Hentai FapJack Hearts! I look forward to your feedback and please let me know if you have any questions!


UPDATE 1 (05/03/2021): There's a new "Moan" option in the sound settings, allowing you to enable and disable the moaning sound effects that play during an edge and in the cum round. I've also added more moan and orgasm sounds to make it less repetitive; I'll keep adding more sounds in the future.
Additionally, I removed the "Stroke Penalty Limit" option because it didn't add a lot to the game and was mostly confusing.

Yee-ha! I do like the game, but it was just as good as done originally by fapnip. From just that FapJack game perspective, I think I noticed one bug/oversight fixed. Maybe a new one had appeared in its place.

But with pics replaced, story written and paywall added, it's still fapnips 5/5 game, and yours got 1/5. I'd have gone with 3/5 for the effort to improve something that is great, but since you've learnt nothing and stay hell-bent on shoving your paywall marketing down throats in here, 1/5 it is. I know already that you can't be fixed, but I had to write this so maybe you won't be able to manipulate my 1/5 vote out of the count on grounds of something made up again.

Good luck getting rich!

thatsprettyhot wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:40 am But with pics replaced, story written and paywall added, it's still fapnips 5/5 game, and yours got 1/5. I'd have gone with 3/5 for the effort to improve something that is great, but since you've learnt nothing and stay hell-bent on shoving your paywall marketing down throats in here,

First, thanks for the kind words on my original FapJack.

I hesitate commenting further as I feel I'm opening a can of worms, but, on the subject of paywalls, as Morexis and some others are aware, I'm torn. (Full disclosure, Morexis did offer to share some Patreon income, but I'm not in it for money, so I declined.)

While I don't receive income off any tease development, I do have the luxury of a relatively comfortable income from real development projects -- and not all of those are able to be open sourced like I'm able to do with my contributions here -- so are effectively behind a paywall of sorts. Of those I'm able to unleash, I usually try to release with relatively open licensing, allowing them to be used in commercial projects with no strings attached. (Some end up being freely used by very large corporations -- but I also use open libraries in my projects, and many of those free libraries I depend on were bankrolled by entities with deep pockets.)

Where I'm torn is that Milovana is this free platform, right? So all the other stuff people put on it should be free too, right? But then, who am I do deny someone an income for creating content? I get paid to develop software -- and much of the stuff I'm paid to develop, or manage the development of, I'm also able to release publicly.

So, while my instinctual reaction is to recoil from a paywall on an otherwise free platform, Is it really that wrong of a thing? It's no different than the shareware model, and I have no ill will towards developers of shareware. (Provided that shareware isn't also malware.) And is it different than, say, Wall Street Journal using open source software in its platform, of which is behind a paywall?

But, why would I assist Morexis in releasing a version of my free game that ends in part of it being behind a paywall?

First, I enjoy the challenge. But, in addition, I figured it would help develop and add flexibility to the core game so other authors could more easily make their own FapJacks (yeah, shudder at the thought of Milovana being overwhelmed with FapJacks, I know.) Morexis has financial incentive to stick with the often difficult path of development, give valuable input from a tease author's perspective, offer ideas for improving the core game, and then try to build a game using those changes.

While a portion of Morexis' game is behind a paywall, the resulting changes to FapJack's base game are there for any tease author to use -- and those changes were really only possible to the extent they were because of Morexis' willingness to be a guinea pig.

(Now, let me hide while people look under the hood of FapJack to see the rat's nest the code really is -- It is what it is. Much of the mess is a result of unfortunate design decisions early on that I'm too lazy to refactor. )

fapnip wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:36 am
But then, who am I do deny someone an income for creating content?

Is it really Morexis' content? My guess is that they acquired all images for free and share no percentage of revenue with the original artists.

Pay to play does not belong on Milovana.

There's been a discussion about that in one of the threads that Morexis is using content/characters that don't belong to Morexis in the tease and was trying to profit off of it. Then later Morexis got a tease of the month on a tease and then changed *that specific tease* to a placeholder tease saying "Sadly, Cum for the Cauldron was removed from Milovana due to policy issues."

..but that's not what happen because that was the tease that won Tease of the Month! ..taking that opportunity away from others who are making teases trying to get that spotlight, instead Morexis changes the tease(it wasn't removed!) to a link stack where people can pay to play the tease.

This is the tease: https://milovana.com/webteases/showtease.php?id=46670
{TOTM Winner} Merry Christmas from Morexis
Enjoy the holidays! Thank you for your support throughout 2020! If you're looking for "Cum for the Cauldron", you can still play it for free wherever you find my games (Patreon, Discord, reddit etc.)."

Paywalls and pay to play doesn't belong on Milovana. The person/people running this site are literally paying for it with their own money and zero ads, I find it to be shameful for anyone who comes in and tries to profit off of someone hosting this site with no cost to the user with money out of their own pocket.

Electro wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:34 pm Then later Morexis got a tease of the month on a tease and then changed *that specific tease* to a placeholder tease saying "Sadly, Cum for the Cauldron was removed from Milovana due to policy issues."

..but that's not what happen because that was the tease that won Tease of the Month! ..taking that opportunity away from others who are making teases trying to get that spotlight, instead Morexis changes the tease(it wasn't removed!) to a link stack where people can pay to play the tease.

Winning the TOTM spot on the front page means a lot to me, what possible motivation could I have to remove my tease and replace it with a placeholder?

The fact is that, after winning TOTM and receiving the spot on the front page, a moderator decided to remove Cum for the Cauldron because it allegedly didn't comply with Milovana's policy. Note that in this case, "remove" doesn't mean deleting the tease. The moderator changed the tease to make it inaccessible, so after talking to them, I was allowed to replace the shell of my removed tease with some holiday greetings.

So I didn't take away anyone's opportunity because 1) it happend after the TOTM was decided and 2) it wasn't my choice. Also, you might disagree with this, but I personally think a highly-praised tease with 120k views deserves TOTM.

But most importantly: After it was removed, I didn't link to somewhere where "people can pay to play the tease". It says very clearly in the description (which you even copied into your comment) that "you can still play it for free wherever you find my games". Cum for the Cauldron is not behind a paywall, it's just not posted publicly on Milovana anymore. If you don't believe me, feel free to go to https://linktr.ee/morexis and click on "Game: Cum for the Cauldron".


Thank you all for your comments. You may not believe me, but I value negative feedback just as much as positive. We can't improve unless we are talking about the issues.
However, it is important that we base our opinions on factual and correct information, not rumours and theories.

Morexis wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:55 pm You may not believe me, but I value negative comments just as much as positive ones. We can't improve unless we are talking about the issues.
However, it is important that we base our opinions on factual and correct information, not rumours and theories.

I agree that we should base our opinions on facts. Just looked through Milovana's terms of service: https://milovana.com/pages/tos.php

3-i states "your use of the Website as permitted is solely for your personal, noncommercial use." It is clear that teases with pay-to-play content are in violation of these terms.

Therefore, I have reported this tease for terms of service violation and urge others to do the same.


As an long-time and established contributor, I see the influx of pay-to-play content as a major threat to the Milovana community. If you like my teases or teases from the 99% of authors that make content for free, then I strongly urge you to make your voice heard so that our community isn't overrun by outsiders like Morexis that are only here for monetary gains.

P.S. As a author with all 8 of my teases rated between 4.4-4.7, I don't think you can consider a tease with a 3.9 rating as "highly praised".

Batman314 wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:07 pm

fapnip wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:36 am
But then, who am I do deny someone an income for creating content?

Is it really Morexis' content? My guess is that they acquired all images for free and share no percentage of revenue with the original artists.

Pay to play does not belong on Milovana.

Like I said, I'm torn.

I make plenty of income off other's work when using other's libraries in code I'm paid to create -- however those libraries are specifically licensed to allow me to do that. (Or I pay for a license, or purchase the rights, if needed.)

I don't think your position is at all unreasonable. I don't know if Morexis has acquired permission to use the all material in this tease. I do know if code I wrote was used in a way I didn't specifically license it for, I'd be a bit pissed.

Batman314 wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:26 pm 3-i states "your use of the Website as permitted is solely for your personal, noncommercial use." It is clear that teases with pay-to-play content are in violation of these terms.

That does appear to exclude pay-to-play pretty clearly. Seeing that, I'm not sure I can honestly take a different position than yours.

Edit:
Thinking out loud (dangerous, I know), I'm grappling with what the effective difference is between:

A: Tease authors requiring a subscription for a portion of the tease, and

B: Tease authors basically saying "If you want more teases, please subscribe to encourage me", with the implication being that if you pay, the author is going to produce more content.

In both cases, it is basically pay to continue to play -- it's just that those that don't pay are excluded from dangling fruit of "special content" from column A. However, provided the tease authors from column A continue to produce teases with free content, only partially locked, it could be argued that those that don't pay still benefit from the free content -- and who's to say what content from column B is hidden behind a paywall if you don't subscribe?

I know there are many authors that fall into column B. I'm not sure how many others fall into column A. But, from purely a content licensing and ToS point of view, there really doesn't seem to be much difference.

So, and I'm asking completely non-rhetorically, if not licensing and Tos, what's the real difference? Is it simply the blatant, in-your-face, advertisement? The precedence it sets? The exposure/scale? What is it exactly that rubs so many of us the wrong way with one, when we all don't seem so initially bothered about the other?

fapnip wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:41 pm So, and I'm asking completely non-rhetorically, if not licensing and Tos, what's the real difference? Is it simply the blatant, in-your-face, advertisement? The precedence it sets? The exposure/scale? What is it exactly that rubs so many of us the wrong way with one, when we all don't seem so initially bothered about the other?

Thanks for the reply Fapnip, I'll think out loud with you...

IMO, the main issue is the precedence that is set by pay-to-play content and the fact that it goes against the founding principles of the community. The Milovana community as it exists today was created by volunteers that created free content available to all, and any content that isn't 100% free exploits the platform that was created by these volunteers. Donation based authors are different because they still adhere to these foundations that have allowed the community to grow into what it is today.

Morexis has skirted the issue because only small sections of their teases are pay-to-play, but I believe Morexis knows they are in the wrong and going against the community, otherwise they would have made teases that are 100% pay-to-play. I'm pretty confident that any 100% pay-to-play tease would be shut down very quickly, but maybe I'm wrong... It would almost certainly get such low ratings that it isn't visible in the feed.

Any percentage of pay-to-play content allowed in a tease on Milovana sets the precedent to eventually allow teases that are 100% pay-to-play. What would the Milovana community look like if that happens? Right now Morexis is the only one currently trying to use pay-to-play architecture, but what would Milovana look like if 50% of the teases were pay-to-play? What if it got overrun and 80+% of teases were restricted with a paywall? I think if pay-to-play teases were integrated into the current system, they would be a major threat to the Milovana community if they became more prevalent.

I can see two different actions that could be taken to protect the community:

1.) Restrict all pay-to-play content on Milovana as dictated in the ToS.

2.) Create a separate category for pay-to-play teases. I'm not sure, but this might still be good Milovana, because it allows for the established community to continue, but allows for a separate community of pay-to-play content to grow alongside the current community. This option probably isn't legally feasible though.

Also I think its unethical to use custom password scripts for pay-to-play that aren't available to all tease creators in the vanilla eos editor. The Eos editor was designed to be accessible to those with limited coding experience, if pay-to-play is allowed to exist on Milovana, it should be readily available to all authors.

Paywall or not, Morexis puts out very good teases that I think the vast majority of this site's visitors enjoy and look forward to. They are a source of inspiration for upcoming creators and new users, and several collaborations involving Morexis have resulted in other very good teases. While I'm not happy that some of their content is behind a Patreon password, I think I'm indifferent to it as long as most of the content is free.

For this particular tease, though, I didn't like that one third of the game was locked, whereas previous teases only had optional items or a side quest behind a paywall. Also in general, content shouldn't be presented to the player without first making them aware that it requires a password. I was excited to play that third game involving the superheroes but felt like I was done dirty when I clicked on it to find out it wasn't free.

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 am Also I think its unethical to use custom password scripts for pay-to-play that aren't available to all tease creators in the vanilla eos editor. The Eos editor was designed to be accessible to those with limited coding experience, if pay-to-play is allowed to exist on Milovana, it should be readily available to all authors.

I see what you mean. The spirit of the site is in collaboration, but I can't even try to draw inspiration from something locked with a cipher In this case I know that most of the content here is just the game engine with added images, so there isn't much to see anyways, but hard-locking content shouldn't be allowed on this site. It isn't even necessary; people trying to learn from and make derivative works of Morexis' teases (which is allowed per the terms of use if I recall correctly) probably aren't willing to spend money to do so, considering everyone else makes teases as a hobby rather than a source of income.

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 am I can see two different actions that could be taken to protect the community:

1.) Restrict all pay-to-play content on Milovana as dictated in the ToS.

2.) Create a separate category for pay-to-play teases. I'm not sure, but this might still be good Milovana, because it allows for the established community to continue, but allows for a separate community of pay-to-play content to grow alongside the current community. This option probably isn't legally feasible though.

There is a third option, Morexis can choose not to publish some of their content on the main site and rather supply the link to their Patreon page. I wouldn't want to see that happen because other creators can always use more good examples, but if the content is just going to be locked with a cipher anyways I guess there isn't really an upside to having pay-to-play content here.

I really liked the concept, but there should be an option to disable the timer at the end. I suck ass at blackjack and card games in general, so that ending really made this tease go from a 5/5 to a 3/5.

Also love the metronome volume option, those things are loud as fuck normally.

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 amMorexis has skirted the issue because only small sections of their teases are pay-to-play, but I believe Morexis knows they are in the wrong and going against the community, otherwise they would have made teases that are 100% pay-to-play.

Their page does in fact show a couple of patreon exclusives, accessible only through a preview link. (Though I coulda sworn I'd seen that Pokegirl one available openly before... maybe I'm just thinking of something else with the same character headlining though.)

However... I don't think this necessarily follows. On one side, "some of it's available for free, get more if you pay" has a long history in the software community and is a common distribution model for all sorts of digital content these days.

On the other side, while I'm not entirely comfortable with it myself, I'm not seeing compelling evidence that most of the community is actually bothered by Morexis doing what he's doing.

In any case I would be very surprised if this model were to become common. After all, Morexis has been doing this for over a year, and no one else I'm aware of has followed suit. This is not exactly a stampede here.

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 am Donation based authors are different because they still adhere to these foundations that have allowed the community to grow into what it is today.

I guess I don't see subscriptions to Pantreon accounts purely as donations. In almost all cases, you're paying to open up a paywall of some sort, with rewards varying from author to author. There is an intent to profit. To me that puts them in the same boat, ToS wise. Morexis' model is certainly more up front about it.

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 am I'm pretty confident that any 100% pay-to-play tease would be shut down very quickly

For content published on Milovana, yes. I think it would be down-voted into oblivion almost immediately, so I really don't think there should be much concern on this point.

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 amAny percentage of pay-to-play content allowed in a tease on Milovana sets the precedent to eventually allow teases that are 100% pay-to-play.

See above.

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 ambelieve Morexis knows they are in the wrong and going against the community, otherwise they would have made teases that are 100% pay-to-play

I'm not sure I agree with this. Morexis is obviously aware that some in the community are adamantly opposed to the pay-to-play model, but I'm pretty sure they don't think they're "in the wrong." I think there's a lot of gray area between "right" and "wrong" in a community like Milovna.

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 amRestrict all pay-to-play content on Milovana as dictated in the ToS.

If this were to be done, I'd argue any authors requesting donations also be included. If we're going to start segregating, how should we categorise those that donate efforts to the community freely, without passing a hat around?

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 amAlso I think its unethical to use custom password scripts for pay-to-play that aren't available to all tease creators in the vanilla eos editor. The Eos editor was designed to be accessible to those with limited coding experience,

I think this is a slippery slope. Is it then "unethical" for me to publish teases with complex scripting, because some authors wont be able to wrap their heads around it and use it in their own tease?

I designed FapJack's core engine to be modifiable by anyone -- and included documentation and comments, complete with copious typos, describing how things work -- but they will need to wrap their heads around the structure of JavaScript objects in order to configure the game for their purpose. For some, any amount of code could scare them off. Are my efforts here now "unethical"? How about if I were asking for "donations"?

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 amif pay-to-play is allowed to exist on Milovana, it should be readily available to all authors.

But, at the moment, it is -- if the author is willing to put in the effort to figure out how to do it. There's plenty of relatively advanced things than can be done in Eos, but requires at least a rudimentary understanding of JavaScript to implement. Some authors will simply be incapable of doing some things. See slippery slope, above.

Now, I do understand the core of your argument is that some authors will have a higher climb before they can tap a potential revenue stream. And, of course, none of us really want the bar to password protection lowered. That's the real difference between the donor-ware teases and the freemium ones, no matter how hard I try to conflate them. We just don't like the idea of stuff we can't access on Milovana, a community of volunteers, without paying for it.

fapnip wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:47 pm We just don't like the idea of stuff we can't access on Milovana, a community of volunteers, without paying for it.

A lot of points covered, but this pretty much sums it up.

fapnip wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:47 pm

Batman314 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:36 amAlso I think its unethical to use custom password scripts for pay-to-play that aren't available to all tease creators in the vanilla eos editor. The Eos editor was designed to be accessible to those with limited coding experience,

I think this is a slippery slope. Is it then "unethical" for me to publish teases with complex scripting, because some authors wont be able to wrap their heads around it and use it in their own tease?

I designed FapJack's core engine to be modifiable by anyone -- and included documentation and comments, complete with copious typos, describing how things work -- but they will need to wrap their heads around the structure of JavaScript objects in order to configure the game for their purpose. For some, any amount of code could scare them off. Are my efforts here now "unethical"? How about if I were asking for "donations"?

I think passwords are a different animal than teases made with complex scripting. Since we seem to be encountering some slippery slopes, consider this one:
Should you be allowed to to republish someone else's password protected tease without passwords? Definitely no.
Should you be allowed to share the password of a pay-to-play tease on a forum post. Probably no.
Should you be allowed to make a forum guide explaining how to re-upload a tease and edit it to remove the password so that you can play it in Eos preview?
If we're following precedent, then this should be allowed right? Because there's a ton of forum discussion on the eos editor including how to download/re-upload/edit other authors' teases. But with passwords and monetized content... another slippery slope.

So yes, I think custom password scripts are different than other tease scripting. If pay-to-play is allowed to exist on Milovana, then one change that needs to happen is to treat it differently in Eos. Making a hidden password should as simple as making a new 'say' action. There are plenty of authors that make great teases without using any scripting, I don't think its in the spirit of the Milovana community to ask them to learn a programming language just so that they can encrypt a password.

fapnip wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:47 pm I guess I don't see subscriptions to Pantreon accounts purely as donations. In almost all cases, you're paying to open up a paywall of some sort, with rewards varying from author to author. There is an intent to profit. To me that puts them in the same boat, ToS wise. Morexis' model is certainly more up front about it.

Yes rewards are more than donations, but I think all of them are along the lines of "choose a pornstar in the next tease" or early access: in the end the content is still shared with the community.
Yes, both models intend to profit. I feel the main difference is the profit of the first encourages the artist to continue contributing free content to the community. The profit of the other encourages the creation of as much pay-to-play content as possible... and its a good thing that the community isn't tolerant of it otherwise it would continue to grow.

I still think pay-to-play does not belong on Milovana. Aside from ToS arguments, its clear that its not what the community wants. It would be so much better for Milovana if Morexis and everyone else used the "donation model" for their patreon.