5 ms·

Why is it not right? They built it, financed it, drew it, programmed it, marketed it. They own it. If they want to smother it with a pillow, they should be abl

Why is it not right? They built it, financed it, drew it, programmed it, marketed it. They own it. If they want to smother it with a pillow, they should be able to. It is theirs; the players and fans certainly don't own it.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
You're right, it's their property, it's their legal right what to do with it. I just feel it's like destroying art, which they can do, but I can still be angry at. I get that it's not financially viable, but what does it cost them to release the source code years later?
- analognoise 8y ago
  It can cost millions, depending on the agreements they made and technology they leveraged to build their game. You can't go around distributing OTHER peoples work, just to release your own. That's even worse!
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    And if that's the case that's understandable, but I don't believe it to be in this case.
    - analognoise 8y ago
      How is that any different than "it would cost us millions in sales"? Hell not even artists work for fre.
      - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        I'm a bit confused on what you're saying is different than that. CoH stopped selling their product, they stopped supporting it. They have no intention of ever supporting it again. To release the source would involve no lost sales, as they do not intend to sell it again. I absolutely say that while they intend on supporting the product in any way (even just maintenance mode), it's theirs, but once they stop using it completely and have no future intentions to ever again sell it, there's no harm in releasing it. Once the work is no longer being used by the artist, with the artist having no desire to ever use it again, why not release it?
        analognoise 8y ago
        Because people who might otherwise buy a new game, by the same people, would instead play the old one. If you could somehow relive your favorite concert forever, rather than buy more tickets, artists would be devastated. I think their business rationale is totally sound: why not just sit on it, and people who want that same experience come to you for their new work? Instead you'd have to pay a lot of money for lawyers and engineers to review the code, etc. That's expensive - it's not like they could just upload the whole thing to Github, no review, nothing. Besides, the people who don't want to pay for a new game are people who you should spend zero time pleasing - they're not willing to support whatever endeavour you're embarking upon, so why spend all this time and effort putting something out there for them to enjoy? Sit on it: cost zero. Release it: Potentially costs lots, might decrease sales of current product. It seems like a no-brainer from every perspective: as an artist, as a programmer, as a business person. I guess as a "digital artifact" it has some worth, but honestly, if it isn't enough to support the people making it, it really isn't actually worth that much (emotional attachment to games aside).
        SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        You must be the guy behind Google's product diversity strategy.
        analognoise 8y ago
        I wish, I'm sure they make a hell of a lot more than I do. Many years ago I decided that keeping up with and being invested in games didn't make sense - stuff went microtrandaction, content released as add ons that clearly should have been part of the game, the focus is on multiplayer streamable, etc. I hate it. So indy titles or GOG style games for me only. It cut way down on spending, toxic communities, supported artists and older digital works directly, and it's more fun (to me). Plus GOG games have no DRM!
Causality1 8y ago
Except they sold a piece of it to every person who bought the game. What right do they have to revoke the functionality of software on other people's computers when it isn't them maintaining that functionality? They didnt put an expiration date on the box, and therefore every single City of Heroes box is currently a false advertisement and they owe everyone a full refund.
- analognoise 8y ago
  I'm sure the agreement people made to play had language about changes to the service, 100%. Lawyers dont miss this kind of stuff. "I don't understand how online games work or terms and condition" is not the same as false advertising.
  - Causality1 8y ago
    Oh I don't argue they have good legal standing. I'm arguing they're morally bankrupt scumbags.
nullsmack 8y ago
No, they do not own it. Copyright law gives them legal ability to profit off of it for a limited time without having to compete with people copying it. After this protection expires it is supposed to go to the public, to which it belongs. The whole point of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." If they want to destroy their works, then they can exist outside of the protection of the law.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

You're right, it's their property, it's their legal right what to do with it. I just feel it's like destroying art, which they can do, but I can still be angry at. I get that it's not financially viable, but what does it cost them to release the source code years later?

analognoise 8y ago
It can cost millions, depending on the agreements they made and technology they leveraged to build their game. You can't go around distributing OTHER peoples work, just to release your own. That's even worse!
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  And if that's the case that's understandable, but I don't believe it to be in this case.
  - analognoise 8y ago
    How is that any different than "it would cost us millions in sales"? Hell not even artists work for fre.
    - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
      I'm a bit confused on what you're saying is different than that. CoH stopped selling their product, they stopped supporting it. They have no intention of ever supporting it again. To release the source would involve no lost sales, as they do not intend to sell it again. I absolutely say that while they intend on supporting the product in any way (even just maintenance mode), it's theirs, but once they stop using it completely and have no future intentions to ever again sell it, there's no harm in releasing it. Once the work is no longer being used by the artist, with the artist having no desire to ever use it again, why not release it?
      - analognoise 8y ago
        Because people who might otherwise buy a new game, by the same people, would instead play the old one. If you could somehow relive your favorite concert forever, rather than buy more tickets, artists would be devastated. I think their business rationale is totally sound: why not just sit on it, and people who want that same experience come to you for their new work? Instead you'd have to pay a lot of money for lawyers and engineers to review the code, etc. That's expensive - it's not like they could just upload the whole thing to Github, no review, nothing. Besides, the people who don't want to pay for a new game are people who you should spend zero time pleasing - they're not willing to support whatever endeavour you're embarking upon, so why spend all this time and effort putting something out there for them to enjoy? Sit on it: cost zero. Release it: Potentially costs lots, might decrease sales of current product. It seems like a no-brainer from every perspective: as an artist, as a programmer, as a business person. I guess as a "digital artifact" it has some worth, but honestly, if it isn't enough to support the people making it, it really isn't actually worth that much (emotional attachment to games aside).
        SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        You must be the guy behind Google's product diversity strategy.
        analognoise 8y ago
        I wish, I'm sure they make a hell of a lot more than I do. Many years ago I decided that keeping up with and being invested in games didn't make sense - stuff went microtrandaction, content released as add ons that clearly should have been part of the game, the focus is on multiplayer streamable, etc. I hate it. So indy titles or GOG style games for me only. It cut way down on spending, toxic communities, supported artists and older digital works directly, and it's more fun (to me). Plus GOG games have no DRM!

Causality1 8y ago

Except they sold a piece of it to every person who bought the game. What right do they have to revoke the functionality of software on other people's computers when it isn't them maintaining that functionality? They didnt put an expiration date on the box, and therefore every single City of Heroes box is currently a false advertisement and they owe everyone a full refund.

analognoise 8y ago
I'm sure the agreement people made to play had language about changes to the service, 100%. Lawyers dont miss this kind of stuff. "I don't understand how online games work or terms and condition" is not the same as false advertising.
- Causality1 8y ago
  Oh I don't argue they have good legal standing. I'm arguing they're morally bankrupt scumbags.

nullsmack 8y ago

No, they do not own it. Copyright law gives them legal ability to profit off of it for a limited time without having to compete with people copying it. After this protection expires it is supposed to go to the public, to which it belongs. The whole point of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." If they want to destroy their works, then they can exist outside of the protection of the law.