3 ms·
You can't really compete on licensed league IP, since you'd need to acquire the license, and leagues want money. "open source" doesn't really make sense for tr
by masklinn 3y ago
You can't really compete on licensed league IP, since you'd need to acquire the license, and leagues want money.
"open source" doesn't really make sense for trading cards either, since the entire point is collectibility. It's not even clear what "open source" would entail at all.
Hell, even for a trading card game what "open source" means isn't really clear: you can already create your own format if you want, you're never going to be able to play bespoke cards at sanctioned events (way too easy to abuse), would it just give you the right to "fork" the TCG and reuse as many of the existing cards & rules as you want ignoring the rest?
That hardly seems useful as you can more or less already do that, everybody understands that an MTG ETB and a Hearthstone Battlecry are the same thing, you just can't use the exact same names (let alone reuse art because that is under separate licensing).
- tnecniv 3y agoDon’t forget the players get their money too. I’m not sure how it works for the trading cards but, for the MLB at least, players get paid for their likeness used in video games. As an interesting aside, Barry Bonds is the only player since the 70s to opt out of the collective player licensing agreement. He figured he’d make more if he / his agent negotiated his own deals. This led to him not appearing in a lot of the licensed games from that era. Normally he got replaced by a fictitious white guy who batted right handed to avoid any possible litigation since developers didn’t want to work out a separate deal with him.