What can we do to make the video game industry embrace free/libre and open-source software?
What can we do to make the video game industry embrace free/libre and open-source software? #2
What can we do to make the video game industry embrace free/libre and open-source software?
Start paying people for their work. I propose a new licensing model. The idea is simple - you put out a gofundme style community donation model on a piece of software to public domain it. Once the money reaches a fixed, upfront dollar amount the money is collected and software automatically Open Sourced/Public Domain.
That way the developers can get paid for their work and more software can become FOSS rather than FOSS and then pray they make some money off it - which almost never happens. It usually ends up becoming a giant theft and a mistake because most fosstards are just israelites who want everything for free and don't give a shit about the source.
> fosstards
it's wider industry that uses open source software to build products whatever corporation uses to makes millions of dollars with. if they couldn't steal without attribution all of their code from github or other repos then they would go out of business.
> who want everything for free
on linux this is to be expected.
>don't give a shit about the source.
most people in foss expect the source code to be available.that's how the system works. you're really fricking new to all of this, aren't you, rajeesh? it's like you saw FOSS mentioned once or twice on reddit and now you think you're an expert.
Wrong. Most people expect the source to be available because they want it to be free. They don't care about the source itself. They want to be able to just take it and build their own copy without paying for it.
It's not about my failure to understand, it's about your failure to assess reality and what people are really about. It's about a free meal, they don't give a shit about the ingredients unless those too are given away for fee.
>Wrong. Most people expect the source to be available because they want it to be free.
you have no idea how any of this works, and you most certainly don't have any ability to read minds, especially when your own is like the vacuum of space with nothing in reach within thousands of lightyears.
> has no idea about foss
> It's about a free meal, they don't give a shit about the ingredients unless those too are given away for fee.
> everyone else doesn't understand!
apparently everyone understands how this works except you. you're the odd one out here, rajeesh.
I don't have to read minds, moron, I can see what people do. FOSS is a Machiavellian lie; it's about free shit. Most of the OSS development is done by corporations these days, people being paid for their work...
Because so called FOSS supporters are really cheapskates who only care about the first letter and use the other three letters as some kind of ideological smokescreen for their own refusal to admit they're cheapskate israelites.
The entire software industry has been heavily-subsidized by the govt (i.e., my taxes) since its inception, so yeah they can cough-up the source.
Where do I apply for this free government money?
Get employed by any gayman company with insane six digit wages for the work you do and the value you actually provide for society
Post all of your forks that have become publicly relevant.
If the source and copyleft are relevant because people are modifying the source and copyleft is forcing them to distribute it for others to use, you should have some modified source that has been distributed and used.
But you don't. You just want the source so you can compile someone else's work for free.
Honestly the only path I see for FOSS to win against established software is to utilize an army of unpaid volunteers until not using FOSS is a bad business decision.
Especially for small programs that were created non-commercially I want the source code to be available so the software can be maintained even when the original author disappears.
I do.
But I'm aware most people don't, especially not devs to the libraries they are using.
The guy making Ren'Py (visual novel engine) gets ~2k per month on Patreon while the biggest Ren'Py project alone gets ~65k per month.
Consider that DRM - like any aspect of software - needs to be maintained which in turn costs money.
When the people making the product decide that they no longer want to pay there are two options: the DRM is either being removed or the product stops working.
Curiously I cannot remember a single instance of the former but I have several personal examples of the latter:
>Several games that require a connection to an external server to function stop working once the server is shut down.
>Trackmania and Trackmania Sunrise stopped working on newer Windows versions due to aggressive DRM. Luckily some Russian guy cracked the Sunrise DRM so I was able to play the game I legally bought.
>AnimeOnDemand was a streaming platform that offered the ability to "permanently" purchase content compared to just a subscription option. When the platform was bought up by Crunchyroll I got an email saying "Sorry, you can't watch your stuff anymore but have some Crunchyroll coupons". Luckily I know how to use youtube-dl so I still have access to my content.
>Bookwalker is an e-book store with good DRM that has so far not been cracked - you cannot read your books without the app. When the app suddenly stopped working on my phone I was unable to read the e-books I bought. I have since switched to Kobo which has weak DRM that I can remove myself and read independently of their software.
There is no army of unpaid volunteers. Despite programming being more widespread than at any previous point in history, the interest in contributing to free software with no monetary compensation is the lowest it's ever been.
Good. Because the devs don't take long to realize that the end users not only don't respect their work enough to pay them for it, but also treat them like shit and expect even more free work and use it against them.
It's like blaming white men for ending slavery. No good deed goes unpunished.
Perhaps "unpaid volunteers" is a bad way to put it.
I meant to include people that are being paid as well, just not by the FOSS developers.
For instance, I recently spent some of my time at work tracking down a matplotlib bug which was critical for us but could not be replicated by the devs commenting on my bug report.
I probably would not have invested my time so readily if the source code was difficult or impossible to obtain or if it were bound to legal stipulations.
At least for things that people are passionate about I would argue that armies of actually unpaid volunteers do exist, however.
Games like Skyrim and Minecraft have huge modding communities (mostly not FOSS though) that have extended the amount of time I spent playing those games by a factor of 5 to 10.
Civilization 5 is an okay strategy game, with the Vox Populi modpack (FOSS) it's the best strategy game I ever played.
I use many small FOSS programs on a daily basis that were created and are being maintained by enthusiasts.
While none of those are large, monolithic programs almost no software works in isolation; it is about the larger ecosystem that is being formed.
My argument does not depend on the specific type of DRM; my examples merely trend towards always-online DRM because that type of DRM is particularly widespread.
If products were bound to specific operating system licenses or hardware the issue would be the same.
There is a fundamental tradeoff between how effective DRM is at stopping illegal copying, how strongly it restricts legal copying, and how much money it costs to develop and maintain.
Notice how the people making products only care about two out of those three directly.
Always-online was already explicitly mentioned and dissaproved.
Renpy is nothing complex, it's a fricking visual novel engine and it's not even written in a proper language to boot. It's the kind of thing the technologically illiterate japs make for breakfast. That he gets 24k passive income for not implementing but maintaining it is crazy
The Ren'Py repository has 12.7k commits so if nothing else a lot of time went into it.
I wouldn't call that passive income.
>Excluding merges, 11 authors have pushed 109 commits to master and 140 commits to all branches. On master, 92 files have changed and there have been 943 additions and 267 deletions.
700-900 new lines of code, including whitespace (there's a lot of it), comments, non-code, contributors making PRs for free. It's also python we're talking about, and it's not innovative code in a new problem space, there's not even a need for them to do anything with graphics. Despite the hyperbole I'm not trying to talk down the devs for being compensated for their work (though I do think all software devs are overpaid in general), but the game devs absolutely deserve the money they make over renpy
>but the game devs absolutely deserve the money they make over renpy
And I don't disagree.
My point was never about who does or does not deserve what amounts of money.
I was merely observing (without any value judgement) that on the one hand some users are definitely willing to shell out money for end products that they could get for free on Patreon.
And that on the other hand while this model seems to be successful for some end products it does not seem to be for libraries that are being used in commercial settings with the objective to maximize profits.
I merely picked out Ren'Py because it's a case where it's easy to compare numbers.
Now for a value judgement: if you use MIT it's your own fault when people pay you nothing when they use your work for proprietary products - but at the same time you don't have any obligations towards them.
The real issue is making those big whales who make millions off their products pay up for the things they use.
Donations never work, if not the least because it's not a stable income. Crowdfunding only first for your initial cash flow and patreons/subscriptions juet isn't worth it for anything that isn't a flashy coomer art project. Your funding must come from the big boys who rake in billions per year.
In a sense, despite the teething issues unreal is kind of on the right track here. The source is sort of freely accessible and mostly open for modification, and they don't really mind you making some money off of it, but if it's a commercial success they reserve the right to come knocking for a piece of the pie. It'd be even better if you added some variation of LGPL's terms to it. But yes godot with their MIT is just begging to be cucked.
>The source is sort of freely accessible and mostly open for modification, and they don't really mind you making some money off of it, but if it's a commercial success they reserve the right to come knocking for a piece of the pie.
But that's not FOSS.
I know, what I'm saying is that this may potentially be the best compromise there is between freedom and profitability. Copyleft itself can not exist without the framework of copyright, perhaps we should make use of capitalism the same way we do with intellectual property.
>I know, what I'm saying is that this may potentially be the best compromise there is between freedom and profitability.
Then it's outside of the scope of this thread.
>The guy making Ren'Py (visual novel engine) gets ~2k per month
Too bad that all that effort was built on top of Pygame (LGPL) and a lot of other copyleft elements. KiriKiri Z > Ren'Py.
No one donates. Ever
Right, so the project stays closed source until their target is met.
Hence, the project can never be open source
Then it just underscores what I've said - FOSS is not about OSS, but about F. About people being cheapskate israelites.
99% of people are lying about that and using OSS as a shield to cover for their commie gibs mentality.
I don't blame game devs for not wanting to give their work away for free.
When you put it this way, it is very simple and effective. But it isn't free software if the product is ever available but not the source code, regardless of promises and conditions to provide it.
OK but it still forces you to make a decision - whether it's about OSS or just the F. And that was the point, for most people it's just gibs me dat for free. OSS has nothing to do with it.
Then how did all those repositories of free & open source software appear on GitHub and elsewhere? Magic?
The last time I checked, the creator of Vue.js made over $10,000 a month just from his Patreon linked on GitHub (https://www.patreon.com/evanyou). It seems that how much money he gets is hidden on his Patreon page now.
>I propose a new licensing model. The idea is simple - you put out a gofundme style community donation model on a piece of software to public domain it. Once the money reaches a fixed, upfront dollar amount the money is collected and software automatically Open Sourced/Public Domain.
How is this any better than just licensing source code to people who want to use it
Because when the target amount is met, the whole thing goes public domain for everyone. That way the developers get paid an amount they think is fair for their work and everyone else gets to benefit from tens, hundreds, thousands or millions of people who are willing to put up a small amount.
Nobody would get the source code---not a single soul, no badly how much they wanted it---till the community as a whole had coughed up the requisite $100,000 or whatever profit pricetag the developer fixed, which amount would "set the developer for life" and adequately recoup the labor investment similar to as if the project had been fully for-profit.
The gambit only works if the program is good enough to use, to even be worth dropping money on in the first place, and even then furthermore if somehow the source code is valuable either. Because until the goal is met, for an otherwise FLOSS project, the product is essentially shareware/freeware. I tell you, the only freeware I know of that end users have ever cared to have the source of is AIMP, which incidentally is also good enough to satisfactorily pay for.
So then why do you expect them to donate when that is in this scenario just payment by another name?
People use the vast majority of FLOSS software because it is free as in beer gratis. Most of it is inferior copies of proprietary originals, and wouldn't exist without FLOSS zealotry. The principles of FLOSS matter to no one but developers, who make up a very small proportion of the total """community""". Contrary to RMS's vision of a communist utopia, modern FLOSS is a welfare state, wherein the masses can neither "earn their bread" nor contribute to the prosperity of the laborers.
Your proposal is therefore moot. The source code doesn't matter, and the flow of money nullifies one of only two or three benefits FLOSS software even has.
But that IS my position. We're in agreement. Pay people for their work. And I say that because, like you yourself just said, FOSS has nothing to do with OSS and everything to do with F.
That's why they seethe when I say you can get OSS if you crowdfund it. They're lying, they don't want OSS. I'm exposing the lie.
You are missing however the principle of "You get what you pay for", that, again, there are few instances where FLOSS is worth paying for over the proprietary alternatives---or again, one should say originals, as most FLOSS is reimplementing proprietary software badly: uglier and with less functionality.
But yes, it's all lies from that lot.
Seeing as how most open source project contributors are paid software developers who are paid by their companies to contribute to said projects, what are you even complaining about?
How many times do I have to say this? I'm saying that OSS is incoherent babble from people who just need a rationale for demanding gibs. They don't care about OSS, they care about free shit, that's it. Everything else is just an octopus squirting out ink to confuse people. They just want to be cheapskate israelites like RMS.
If you don't want free software, then don't use it.
If you want everything to be free software then stop using non-free software.
Ok. That's what I do already.
Ask rms, idk
Won't work because it presumes there is meaningful value in it being FOSS over its work as art, when its value as FOSS is always less than its value as art.
(The better the software is, the harder the freetards complain it isn't FOSS, but this will never amount to an outlay of money above what it is worth paying for as art itself)
As the value of the art is objectively determined by how many people are willing to shell out how much for it, there is no pre-determined level at which the art should be free. People being willing to shell out money for it means it is always worth that amount more.
And successful software pays for the failures. So no amount can be considered "a reasonable salary," after which it can be made free, as any greater amount that it pulls in can be used to finance other attempts at making software, which life gives no guarantee of similar success. The value is there, so why not use it?
The point is not to make it work, it's to expose the freetard's inconsistent positions.
You are right in calling them freetards. Like I said elsewhere, their bullshit moralizing about OSS is simply an attempt for them to rationalize their desire for theft - the same way a commie tries to rationalize stealing from "the rich" by saying
>n-no, the rich are stealing from me!!!!!!!!
>donations
>just pay upfront for a product that doesn't exist
When making something, finding enough money is hard. Companies have to find investors willing to give them money, take a big loan or use their own money to fund the project. Then they have to make a product that people will want to buy to repay the money they used and make a profit.
This goes comoletley out the window if companies make 90 % of their sales before the project is finished. morons at marketing will make a shitty projection, claim the project is a dead end and they will release even more unfinished shit.
This is pretty much what Blender did.
>With NaN’s demise, Blender’s development ceased. Unable to buy the rights from NaN’s backers, Roosendaal opted for a novel plan. In May of 2002, he started a non-profit, the Blender Foundation, with the intention of making Blender open-source. His hope was to create a public monument to Blender, and give everyone who had worked on the Blender project the chance to use it for their portfolios. In July of the same year, he launched the first-ever crowdfunding campaign: Free Blender. Thanks to Blender’s community of 250,000 users, the Blender Foundation was able to raise one hundred and ten thousand euros in just seven weeks — sufficient to regain Blender from its investors.
https://www.blender.org/about/history/
>their bullshit
your bullshit psychic conjecture doesn't work, homosexual. it's an issue of liberty, we used to hang tyrants around here
Doesn't work. Source: the original Humble Bundle, which was originally created for this exact purpose.
>have to pay for something that will eventually go free
>have to make something free that you're already getting paid money for
>there's basically 0% chance community will be donating enough to compete industry salaries
i can see this working out
Apparently that's what happened with Blender. Users got together and crowdfunded the source.
congrats anon, you fell for godot marketing. the industry standard engine (unreal) is open source.
He didn't fall for it though. He wants hungry Santa free, he doesn't give a shit about open source. Most people don't.
>the industry standard engine (unreal) is open source.
The restrictions that Epic Games have in their EULA makes it not open. Nothing wrong with that, but not even Epic Games calls it open-source. It's source-available.
Epic Games provides the source code for their engine so people can hack it to their hearts' content. You can also get the source code to Unity by paying a decent amount of cash. FOSS doesn't give any advantage in this regard.
What prevents one person from buying unity's sauce and spreading it around?
The EULA.
Open source, more like copin source. It needs to be free as in freedom
Unreal is not FOSS
>Godot marketing
Kek anon the only one with a marketing budget is Unreal. I used Unreal for 4 years before switching to Godot after benchmarking both engines' response time (Godot averaged ~21ms, same as Unity, Haxe, and Unreal averaged 60ms. Believe me I tried everything, even the new low latency mode.)
>60ms
Absolutely fricking disgusting
Although UE4/5 is pretty unrestrictive it expressly belongs to Epic regardless of any modifications you make to it and you need to pay their 5% royalty after your first $1 million in revenue.
Vast majority of projects aren't going to rake in a cool mil tho, i'm not even anti-godot but this isn't going to be a concern for like, 90% of the devs out there
Yeah so like even if you made a million is after your first million. So if you made 1 million and 1 thousand you'd pay 5% of 1 thousand which is 50 bucks
game devs used to write their own engines, now most have given up and they're complaining about the inflexibility of off-the-shelf engines
a foss engine is the best of both worlds, most of the work is done for you, but you can still hack it to your hearts' content
Make it more profitable than closed source. Money talks.
That would mean making it more powerful and easy to use than nonfree software, which is ordinarily impossible, with or without funding.
match or exceed the quality of proprietary tools.
this has already been done in many cases: even ubisoft is ditching some autodesk tools for blender, dear imgui and renderdoc are used everywhere, for example.
but for the most part it hasn't. video games take money to make, which means they have money to spend on proprietary solutions. unreal may suck shit but it has more features for getting games over the line to shipping than any other middleware available. havok may be creakingly old, but it is the most performant and least unstable physics middleware you can get. same with wwise for audio.
Blender was closed-source though. All of those other offerings still depend on closed-source OpenGL/DirectX/Vulkan graphics drivers to some extent or another.
>match or exceed the quality of proprietary tools.
Exactly. It truly is that simple but freetards will never, ever understand and accept this.
Godot is shit for 3D games and he knows it too. This has been brought directly to his attention and he refused to address the glaring cache miss problem with the renderer while going off and implementing muh vulkan renderer hoping it would improve things.
you need to turn game developers assets into NFTs and they get paid when their NFT is used by other developers. There is no such thing as a free lunch so you have to pay for the use of their open-source stuff
You may misunderstand what an NFT actually is. This won't work unless audits are on the table.
Do what Id software and other similar companies of the time did, release the source code to the engine as open source after some time has passed and they have earned enough money from the game but don't release the asset files for the game so people still have to buy it (or download the files from some site) to play the game using the compiled engine code.
Good point.
Which is also a bullshit position. Why should art be privileged over source code? Why shouldn't the art become free in the same exact way? It's not a philosophically consistent position, it's just treating programmers like they're second class citizens who should give up rights to their own creative works while copyright holders to art continue to enjoy the same level of protection that programmers are told is evil.
Because artists are more valued by society, codeBlack person.
There are far more artBlack folk than codeBlack folk and they don't get paid shit; but it is telling that some homosexual pedowood israelite can earn millions off of his or her portrayal of an actual hero who got nothing for their deeds.
That's what we value as a society - larping.
Frick this gay earth.
>That's what we value as a society - larping.
Well, duh. You're living under liberalism, an order that keeps winning without fail since 1789.
You are conflating indie artists with employed artists and employed programmers with FLOSS programmers.
>Why shouldn't the art become free in the same exact way?
Because people people never bought games for the source code, they do it for the assets.
From John Carmack (the code monkey at id Software) himself:
>First, it is interesting to examine how coding is similar or dissimilar to art, music, design, etc. Most GPL works don't have to face the issue, because the work is clearly dominated by code. A few little icons aren't enough to make people really think about it. The argument is significant for games, because coding is only about a third or less of the work in most cases. The arguments that RMS puts forth for the ethical rightness of free software also seem to apply to all digital media. If you take them seriously, the spirit of the GPL seems to want to say that all digital media should be free. That isn't a pragmatic battle to try and fight.
> If you just focus on the code, I think there is indeed a viable business model for a line of titles based on open source code with proprietary data. It will take either a very small company, or a very gutsy big company to take the first step. The payoff won't be until the second product.
https://web.archive.org/web/20011031112953/http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/10/15/1012230.shtml
>the same level of protection that programmers are told is evil.
It's not about that shit. It's about keeping a source of income.
But even from your own quote, Carmack agrees with me. Applying the ethical argument consistently means that artists should surrender their work as well. Saying that's not practical isn't a counter-argument; it doesn't remove the gaping wound in RMS's position.
The argument than that anon posted at
was never about ethics, but applicability in the real world.
OK but it's within the context of a clearly evangelical position posted at
referencing godot... a group of devs who make next to nothing for their work. I'm seeing small grants for a large number of workers while the games made with godot make far more.
Why should a AAA game producer managing multi-billion dollar budgets listen to a group of people who would, if they were running an actual business, declare bankruptcy immediately and be charged with crimes for paying even less than slave wages?
>OK but
Don't care. In any case, the source code for the software (and scripts) is all you need to have freedom.
>It is feasible to develop free games commercially, while respecting your freedom to change the software you use. Since the art in the game is not software, it is not ethically imperative to make the art free—though free art is an additional contribution.
>context matters when I want it to ceases to matter when I don't want it to.
k
The thread and that post are exclusively about source code. Even Stallman himself says that you only need the game code to be free.
Making game art free as in freedom is a concept that (You) decided to brought up for no real reason.
I didn't bring it up for no reason, I brought it up because the same rationale can be applied to art, music or anything else.
For some reason devs get targeted with this communist homosexualry and they aren't.
>For some reason devs get targeted with this communist homosexualry and they aren't.
Art and music cannot have the evils that software can have (telemtry, DRM, kernel access). Even Stallman acknowledges this.
There is nothing inherently wrong with telemetry or DRM. The latter in fact is a good thing, and the former can be harmless.
have a nice day.
It's just business. Put yourself in those shoes and see how you'd feel watching self-righteous homosexuals gloat about copping your shit for free.
You probably can't though because you lack the entrepreneurial soul; born to subsist on corporate employer cum, assuming you have a job at all.
DRM only harms legal customers. Telemetry isn't meant to stop copying, just to spy your customers. Once again, I ask you to kys.
DRM seeks to ensure *only* customers have the product. Piratehomosexuals coping saying that just because the current tech available is incompetent shit that there will never be an uncrackable solution (which doesn't also carry adverse side-affects like peformance hits or always-online), are wrong.
Unrestricted replication of the product is the entire crux of the issue. Any copies the end user makes for themself have the potential to be distributed to others, bypassing the need to pay, hurting the profit of the producer, and reducing the potential of the producer to keep putting out products or better products in the future. Without protection, the risk can become too much to conscience and leads to a lower-effort product or no product at all---why bother if there's no compensation.
Telemetry can be used to police unauthorized copies. I wasn't even thinking about that though. Recording and selling anonymized or voluntarily shared data is a line of profit and utility that has zero downsides, so why not do it.
Telemetry meant to spy and DRM that affects more than just the ability to copy are bad. But it doesn't have to be like that.
>Piratehomosexuals coping saying that just because the current tech available is incompetent shit that there will never be an uncrackable solution (which doesn't also carry adverse side-affects like peformance hits or always-online), are wrong.
Until I see otherwise, they're right. Your evidence is a potential future that will never come to fruition, especially if you are also including the "doesn't also carry adverse side-affects like peformance hits or always-online" requirement.
The software industry is drowning in morons; it may very well be a long time until a proper solution is devised and delivered.
>The software industry is drowning in morons
What's stopping you from showing your intelligence to the software industry?
I have no money to fund R&D and get a product to market, at this time. Maybe one day.
Good luck in your quest to spread cancer like "ethical" telemetry and DRM to the world.
Ethical telemetry is already in existence and ubiquitous. It's DRM that needs to move beyond Denuvo as the industry standard.
You have no argument for it being cancer other than it preventing you from (theoretically) getting the product for free. You are a myopic consumer who does not care about your producers, which in turn probably means you'd never even be a producer yourself, just a freeloader.
>theoretically
LOL, LMAO. I'm basing my opinion on the options that already exist, not in some made up fantasy scenario that will never ever happen.
>Ethical telemetry is already in existence and ubiquitous.
>ethical
No, not really.
And you really don't need to have the source to know if telemetry data is being sent, all you need is a packet sniffer. That's an unconvincing argument.
>b-but what if they put it in the kernel where you can't sniff it
the freetard will say, but it can always be measured somewhere - if not at the computer then at the router or the network port.
>And you really don't need to have the source to know if telemetry data is being sent
No one said otherwise.
suggested otherwise
You don't bring RMS into that argument if you know that FOSS has nothing to do with whether telemetry can be detected.
And even assuming FOSS is the cure all for that particular problem, it's *still* bullshit because most people can't read source code anyway, it's as useful to them as breasts on a bull.
You dumb frick. The point of having the source code available is not to detected what is being sent, but to easily disable it.
>it's *still* bullshit because most people can't read source code anyway, it's as useful to them as breasts on a bull.
So? There's always someone that knows what to do.
Why should you disable it? Just stop using the software.
>Why should you disable it?
Because telemetry is inherently evil.
Then stop using the software. If you hate seeing men getting anally fisted on video why would you keep watching it?
>Then stop using the software.
Software is more than the telemetry it may or may not have.
So you sit through the anal fisting because you enjoy the part where he finishes on the other man's face?
I'm glad you enjoy thinking about gay porn out of nowhere. Feel free to keep doing so.
I didn't think of it out of nowhere. You said telemetry is evil so I brought up something I think is evil.
Perhaps you can't recognize the comparison because you like that shit...
At any rate, if a dev put evil shit in the software they gave you, then their intentions are clearly tainted so why the hell would you use anything they write?
>then their intentions are clearly tainted so why the hell would you use anything they write?
That answer was already provided to you and you chose to think about gay porn instead. Sayonara.
TBF anyone who talks to you immediately thinks of gayness.
Schizo.
> Unrestricted replication of the product is the entire crux of the issue. Any copies the end user makes for themself have the potential to be distributed to others, bypassing the need to pay
Maybe coders should work in a field that produces valuable objects that aren't incredibly easy to duplicate.
They are valuable, and being virtual assets does not make them any less valuable nor any less real. It's sophistry on the part of the pirate to justify their immorality.
That actually does make them less valuable because scarcity is one of the things that makes an object valuable.
Reductio ad absurdem, in a world where everyone can replicate any asset at will using no resources, everything becomes value-less.
But that world doesn't exist.
Irrelevant. Your argument taken to its logical conclusion means just about nothing has value, which is ridiculous, so the claim that replicability reduces its value turns out to be unsound, and that scarcity is not as relevant as first presumed.
Replication was automated. Scribes, printing press, digital screens and data; it just got faster. The effort needed to create the thing in the first place is still the limiting factor; if a book takes 4 years to write, then all instant replication does is take this asset to a 4 year dissemination time, rather than the decades of traditional print, or centuries of hand-copied.
You overlooked how the means of production there is still chained to the supply-side, whereas this was talking about what happens when the demand-side acquires the means of production: that it is now entirely out of the (original) producer's hands, and the consumer can obtain it without recompensation.
>because the current tech available is incompetent shit that there will never be an uncrackable solution (which doesn't also carry adverse side-affects like peformance hits or always-online), are wrong.
Human eyes/ears can't decrypt content. If you can see it you can copy it.
You're fricking moronic and hence warrant no further replies.
I'd argue against even that. Art and music can be incredibly subversive, it can convince people to believe all manner of things that are not only untrue, but can get them killed.
>For some reason devs get targeted with this communist homosexualry and they aren't
Code is a tool you double Black person. The point of the FSF is that code is that users should have the same rights when buying software that they they have when buying a hammer or a set of screwdrivers: you buy it it's yours. You can give it away, lend it to someone else, study how it works, modify it and even replicate it.
The FSF exists because Stallman lived through the hacker community of the 70s, he saw firsthand how programmers could share and study software without any issues, and then he saw how corporations began to make everything proprietary, locked down and even send people to jail for studying and reverse-engineering it. He saw the dangers that could come from it and he was mostly right.
The FSF is just an attempt to revive the 70s hacker community.
Art is not code, art is not a tool. It's about an idea and expression. You cannot own those things even if you physically own it, it's a huge difference you gigantic turbo homosexual.
You could say the same thing about art - you buy it, it's yours. So now you can use it in your own works.
Nope, you can't - it's not yours.
The greentext is a total lie. It is not feasible, not even theoretically if you inject the slightest bit of realism into it.
FLOSS was never about profit. RMS and the FSF doesn't give a shit about profit. The developer can starve for all they care---let them eat platitudes.
It worked for id Software and keeps working for them. They recently released the source code for the Quake remaster too.
Doom, Quake, and Wolfenstein were released (and, thus, obviously, sold) closed source, and not open sourced until varying years later.
Correct, and only released after their engines were incredibly outdated and could no longer compete with their current offerings.
Doom 2 + mods is better than 95% of games released in the past 15 years.
Sure, on the merits of content and level design, but those are assets that are still copyrighted.
The source, however, is outdated.
>The source, however, is outdated.
The source code is still copyrighted. The GPL is not public domain.
And the distinction is important because while most people have to comply with the GPL, Microsoft does not have to.
When you are already a household name with millions of dollars and loyal fans, you don't have to worry much about potential profit hits or competition, which are risks in open sourcing---or more strictly, free software-ing.
The iOS ports of Doom and Wolfenstein 3D were open-source since day 1 and they still sold.
>and not open sourced until varying years later
In any case, a late source code release is also good enough.
>could no longer compete with their current offerings
If that was the case, Carmack wouldn't have been forced to use the GPL instead of the BSD license.
The open source movement was born because a fight between two proprietary software developers destroyed the MIT AI Lab.
>if they were running an actual business
That's an important detail. Godot isn't the business, it's simply a joint effort by lots of game devs that are all at the very least interested in developing their own games, so that's what they get out of it: a working game engine built in their own vision.
Because art doesn't ship with tons of bugs. It's a complete work.
On the contrary, from a technical perspective almost all art ships with bugs - especially when it comes to 3d models. If you want a clean 3d model, hire a CAD guy, if you want a bug-ridden mess with backwards normals, duplicated vertices and all sorts of other nasty issues, hire an "artist".
>If you want a clean 3d model, hire a CAD guy, if you want a bug-ridden mess with backwards normals, duplicated vertices and all sorts of other nasty issues, hire an "artist"
Kek. If you'd engineered around both CAD and artist-created models, you'd know this is backward.
Nope, artists constantly make shit models that have to be sent back to them repeatedly and even then bad models make it out. CAD models have to be used to create physical objects so they have to be both accurate and correct.
The best proof of this is to examine the models produced independently. The artgay models almost always have problems because without guidance they are incredibly sloppy workers.
cad drawing doesn't even work directly with normals and vertices, it's higher level than that, if there's a problem with the raw model, then it's a problem with the tool used to export the drawing
i work with 3d cad, and i can draw you a physically-accurate model, but i wouldn't know how to touch up something like an STL in blender
oh and if you're not sure why i'd know one and not the other, my cad drawings are turned into 2D technical drawings, not raw 3D models for something like a video game or 3D printer
CAD is mathematically modeled and verified by the software. Polygonal modeling is literally arbitrary.
it is in some ways possible to make physically incorrect models with cad software, but they often provide tools to check for those kinds of things
like i could draw two cubes and place them inside one-another, but it'd get picked up immediately by an automatic interference check, and of course trying to do any kind of physical analysis on it would bomb out immediately since it makes no physical sense
No it doesn't. RMS has already said that assets and other artistic works don't have the ethical implications of code and thus can be propriatary. There is a free art foundation and it's unrelated to the FSF.
RMS stole emacs and slapped his own license on it. There's nothing ethical at all about that fat commie israelite.
id software was one of the first companies to release a shareware version of the first installments of their games and then charge people for the sequels. It's how they sold Commander Keene & Wolfenstein 3-D. By open sourcing the Doom & Quake engines they created a modding community that continues to preserve interest in their titles.
OK but the engine for those games was exactly the same, what they withheld was content.
Incidentally people were modding those games even when they were closed-source. The bulk of those maps and content created were probably created when the game was closed-source, but don't quote me on that.
I remember hundreds and hundreds of maps and dozens of total conversions coming out for Doom and Doom II long before the source was opened. There were probably half a dozen map editors as well.
If you open source the game logic but withhold the content (models, writing, textures, audio clips, etc.), then you released an engine, not a game.
Because progamers are incels who don't deserve any ritght
For the same reason farmers get paid jack shit; you are expected to work for your betters and the reward for your efforts will be meager at best.
Nothing
Video game developers are immune to this ideological brainrot, probably because they make interesting things for a living instead of web servers or linux components
Not only interesting but novel.
I think everyone has noticed by now that the only thing the FOSS community is good for is copying other people's works poorly - especially their games.
They can't innovate, they're like the Chinese. They just make knock-off products. Even the claims to novelty they make are from products that used to be closed-source.
Hilarious that game devs repeat this shit constantly while the entire world runs on free software.
They are all wintards plain and simple.
And that entire world also runs on proprietary hardware. What's your point?
What the frick is your point? Seems bretty irrelevant when we are talking about software tbh.
>what would it take to burst that bubble
maybe stability in an open source project for once. but that will never happen
Godot is a good company
LMAO then games would all suck shit why the frick would we do that?
Western game devs can go to hell.
Riddle me this, if I make a game with Godot what should make public to comply with its license?
I'm guessing changes to the engine are a must but what about game logic and stuff build on top of Godot?
>if I make a game with Godot what should make public to comply with its license?
https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/about/complying_with_licenses.html
Read the license.
convince stock holders and managers
>muh freedom
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean anymore. I just build and share my own stuff and occasionally read other people's code on github. As long as that's not taken away from me, big words like that don't really matter in software development.
> 2022
> rhinking about, buy, or playing new video games
moronic homosexual confirmed
>rhinking
You can't make the video game industry do shit. It's a multi trillion dollar industry patronized by the most gullible and non-savvy consumers in the world; it will do whatever it thinks will make them the most money.
What does he mean by "technical debt"?
The "cost" of having to rework portions of your codebase that were done one way to save time and get something out the door and will need to be redone.
Godot is nice
That piece of shit doesn't run on my system, always get an OpenGL error
I think it's not really possible within our current system or paradigm. Only fusion power and post-scarcity economics have any hope of fixing video games.
Why do you guys act like unreal isn't opensource?
Because the source is such a pain in the ass to get that it may as well be considered effectively proprietary.
It's really not, you make an epic account and link your GitHub
Source-available != Open Source
It's nice that you can view the source code yourself but it's still proprietary. You can know how a company makes something but be legally unable to duplicate it because they own the rights to the methodology. Sure, you could illegally copy it and just ignore the licensing restrictions, but you can't really do that as a reputable and relevant company.
I don't understand.
The entire source code for the thing is there.
What exactly do you expect?
God of also doesn't give methodology for anything and they probably made the thing in C11 to discourage people from contributing to godot.
C++11*
Godot*
>The entire source code for the thing is there.
>What exactly do you expect?
The freedom for communities and non-owner entities to modify and collaborate? That's kind of the entire point of open-source software.
It's free if you make less than 1 million dollars and it's open source.
Unreal engine is foss.
Again, not what Open Source means. Can you please just stop being stupid on purpose? I'm not even advocating here, just pointing out how wrong you are. But what did I expect responding to a Ganker thread?
>It's free if you make less than 1 million dollars and it's open source.
that's not what open source means.
Freetards think anything that doesn't follow their commie mentality is haram. If it's not under copyleft license they will throw a fit like a toddler
https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/ue-on-github
>Can I share Unreal Engine source code or tools with others?
>You can share the source code or tools, along with any modifications you’ve made, with anyone who is an Unreal Engine licensee who is authorized to access the same version of the engine as yours, e.g. the 5.x.x version number of your installed build.
Violates OSD#1, OSD#7 and FSD#2.
>Can I study and learn from Unreal Engine code, and then utilize that knowledge in writing my own game or competing engine?
>Yes, as long as you don’t copy any of the code. Code is copyrighted, but knowledge is free!
Violates OSD#3 and FSD#3.
>Can I share code snippets online?
>Unreal Engine licensees are permitted to post engine code snippets (up to 30 lines) in a public forum, but only for the purpose of discussing the content of the snippet.
Violates OSD#1 and FSD#2.
It's not open, it has a lot of restrictions.
>~~*Linietsky*~~
>promotes communism
every fricking time
you can start by having OSS not be dogshit
for every OBS you have 30 subpar products. no, nobody wants to use blender, and *nobody* wants to use gimp.
ultimately proprietary software has a shitton more money to throw at their devs than OSS, and unless that changes neither will the industry.
>nobody wants to use blender
stopped reading, opinion discarded
you know he's right, blender is only ever used by hobbyists
>just open source this product full of copyrighted material bro
freetards being moronic as usual
for godot to actually get good for 3d gayme makin and not be an unoptomized mess
you can't do shit because muh foss is pointless and is usually full of half assed features and bugs. people want to use shit that works, they don't give a frick if it's le free as in freedom or whatever
Bullshit. The video game industry is rife with buggy, half-assed software, because taking the minimum amount of time necessary to make good, full-assed software will get you fired for missing deadlines.
I'm not even a freetard but I'd unironically use Godot before bothering with most proprietary engines. There's a reason everyone uses Unreal, it's one of the few that actually fricking works.
ok but if Black folk that get paid for writing code can't do it right, how worse off are the free as in freedom FOSS shits?
>The video game industry is rife with buggy, half-assed software, because taking the minimum amount of time necessary to make good, full-assed software will get you fired for missing deadlines.
True
>There's a reason everyone uses Unreal, it's one of the few that actually fricking works.
False. They use Unreal because it's easy to staff for (everyone's used Unreal before). It's still a jankfest.
On a technical level, it needs to be better than Unreal or Unity, ie be able to produce good-looking games that run decently with all-around good tools that make collaborating easy (eg, with automatic Perforce checkout) and allow for fast iteration times.
On a social level, the problem is one of inertia. The advantage of going with an established engine like Unreal is that you can count on the already existing ecosystem of experienced developers or of less experienced developers who have a wealth of resources to learn from (tutorials, documentation, very large community, etc).
One thing Epic has over other engine vendors in terms of sensing what might make for good features and tools is that it dogfoods its engine by using it to actually ship a complex video game.
make an engine thats better than unreal.
so far it hasnt been done and now with unreal 5 there's not even any competition. UE5 is so far above the competition that it's not even funny anymore
Part of it support. Companies essentially need their first class support, so these tools should offer some premium support.
Is gdscript beginner friendly for someone new to programming?
It is, with a few asterisks.
Biggest one being that it's a scripting language, not a programming language (learn the difference if you don't know it, it'll probably only take a couple minutes). There are going to be things gdscript just doesn't teach because those things are pre-made and handled elsewhere.
Just like everything else in society video games have gone down the bad ending path. Instead of prioritizing creative user interaction they prioritize visuals + addiction + story. So most AAA video games are either downright evil, or do not take advantage of the medium's defining aspect.
FOSS in video games is a secondary concern at this point given how far things have degraded.
>AAA video games are downright evil
Play indies. They aren't afraid to make interesting interactions.
>What can we do to make the video game industry embrace free/libre and open-source software
Nothing. They're as anti-freedom as the recording industry was in the 90s.
Let them fricking die, frick all AAA companies worthless scam pieces of shit
pirate all their fricking games do it twice make them go bankrupt who cares
pirate the game 100 times so they lose 100 times more money
Glad I didn't pay money for this elden ring 64.
Is that where the bar is set now?
They claim their budget goes towards marketing. When was the last time anyone saw a game advertising anyways lol
>w-why won't big serious companies use my unstable shitty toy game engine???
>please respond
damn this guy is fricking desperate
>with godot 4 the feature will shrink a ton
many such cases
Is Juan a gnome kind of dev or is he cool?
I remember there was drama cause he didnt accept a merge request once if i remember right.
>literally every piece of "libre" software is a piece of garbage
>GUISE HOW CAN WE MAKE ALL SOFTWARE FREE! ITS CLEARLY WORKING!
Anyone that knows how to code will do it for a profit, thats why the "free" community is ran by trannies.
If youre young and live in the united states DUDE
I'd love to,
but I'm not gonna
simply because it's not within viable range of my 0 skillset, so unless there is an efficient step-by-step tutorial from a piece in C to getting trigons representing a legate bread made of sewage waste to move a wienershit towards the dinglebop when you press P and E, then E again, then I'm going to just make the simpler games in GDScript and whatever else that doesn't take too much resources to run and then compile it with OpenGL ES 2.0
who cares, video games are for children
you cant
Why would multi-billion dollar companies who make their millions from having virtually no competition want to help others make games so they can make less money?