5 ms·

this was written (or 'output') by someone (or something) that clearly has not thought of the knock-on effects of those freedoms. they sound great in theory, bu

this was written (or 'output') by someone (or something) that clearly has not thought of the knock-on effects of those freedoms. they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again". by all means i 100% agree that an ostensibly single player game should not be locked behind a login or telemetry, and that platforms like steam should not be able to lock you out of playing games you paid for. but i dont think forcing the whole free software thing would work out how the author is imagining it.

luqtas 5mo ago
you don't need to liberate your project to GPL or whatever OSS to let users distribute them via torrent or at least being able to backup the DRM-free installer... i bet most if not all AAA games have their crack into the pirate land in less than a week after or even before release
figmert 5mo ago
As the article mentions, these arguments are basically all the arguments of the FSF, and everything Richard Stallman pushed for since the 80s. So yes, there has been plenty of thought, scrutiny, improvements, etc. 40 years of it in fact.
- john_strinlai 5mo ago
  >So yes, there has been plenty of thought, scrutiny, improvements, etc. 40 years of it in fact. what percent of businesses follow the FSF freedoms and turn a profit? i would love it if i could get all my games for free, and legally give additional copies to all my students, family, and friends. but the developers pumping out those games probably want to see some sort of return more substantial than whatever trickles into their ko-fi account. they'll just stop developing games and go into CRM software or whatever.
  - figmert 5mo ago
    Not really my point. My point is more that you suggested no one has thought about this, but yes, they have. To answer your question, there have been plenty of business who have created and published free software (albeit plenty have later closed them). Notable examples are Databricks, Hashicorp, Mongodb, RedHat. Sure they've built a moat on top of their free software, but they have (or had) free software regardless.
    - john_strinlai 5mo ago
      >My point is more that you suggested no one has thought about this, but yes, they have. i didnt say no one has thought about free software. i said that this specific llm that output this article did not think about how the freedoms would work in todays gaming industry. there are dozens of issues that immediately pop into my head, mostly specific to gaming, which are not mentioned or addressed at all.
      - singpolyma3 5mo ago
        lol. The article is obviously not written by an LLM.
  - singpolyma3 5mo ago
    I don't see how "what percent" is the right metric. There are hundreds of such companies (I work for one) but it's a small percentage due to other factors (mainly it not being the default way most founders think about these things)
F3nd0 5mo ago
> […] in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again". This is exactly what has been happening for years, only illegally. If it became legal, I imagine far less people would end up buying the game, though probably still more than just one. But again, games are more than just software, so the four freedoms do not enable this.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
singpolyma3 5mo ago
We have decades of real world experience which shows this is not true. People buy things they could otherwise get for free with a bit of work all the time.
- john_strinlai 5mo ago
  you aren't getting a company to build baldurs gate 3 and hope they recoup the costs from ko-fi donations. real world experience is that most companies do not offer their software for free, and open source developers either have to get sponsored or have to constantly solicit donations. donations do not typically cover multi-million dollar, multi-year development cycles.
  - ben-schaaf 5mo ago
    BG3 is actually a perfect counterexample here. It doesn't have DRM, doesn't require an online account to play and uses direct connections for multiplayer. Nothing needs to be done to preserve it.
    - john_strinlai 5mo ago
      right, but if BG3 had to be free as in FSF free, it would not have been made.
      - singpolyma3 5mo ago
        This is almost certainly untrue. it would have cost the same amount and all the same people would have bought it for all the same reasons.
        john_strinlai 5mo ago
        >and all the same people would have bought it for all the same reasons. you have to be trolling, right? if people can get the game for free, because freedom 2 demands the game be freely redistributable by anyone with no restrictions, people are not going to pay for it. they are going to get it for free.
b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago
>they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again". fyi, there are tens of torrent trackers with every game/movie/album/etc under the sun. had been for two decades.
- john_strinlai 5mo ago
  i was unaware torrenting copyrighted content was made legal, thanks for the update
  - sapphicsnail 5mo ago
    I think their point was that lots of media is easily piratable but still makes money and companies continue to produce more of it.
    - trinsic2 5mo ago
      Yep another lost soul at the parent that thinks piracy equals death.
      - john_strinlai 5mo ago
        that is not what i think.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
  - b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago
    >they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again".
    - 5mo ago
throwaway85825 5mo ago
If the game is being sold it has to be supported, and if it's supported no legislative requirement applies.
- john_strinlai 5mo ago
  my comment is in response to the demand that games be free, not the legislation

luqtas 5mo ago

you don't need to liberate your project to GPL or whatever OSS to let users distribute them via torrent or at least being able to backup the DRM-free installer... i bet most if not all AAA games have their crack into the pirate land in less than a week after or even before release

figmert 5mo ago

As the article mentions, these arguments are basically all the arguments of the FSF, and everything Richard Stallman pushed for since the 80s. So yes, there has been plenty of thought, scrutiny, improvements, etc. 40 years of it in fact.

john_strinlai 5mo ago
>So yes, there has been plenty of thought, scrutiny, improvements, etc. 40 years of it in fact. what percent of businesses follow the FSF freedoms and turn a profit? i would love it if i could get all my games for free, and legally give additional copies to all my students, family, and friends. but the developers pumping out those games probably want to see some sort of return more substantial than whatever trickles into their ko-fi account. they'll just stop developing games and go into CRM software or whatever.
- figmert 5mo ago
  Not really my point. My point is more that you suggested no one has thought about this, but yes, they have. To answer your question, there have been plenty of business who have created and published free software (albeit plenty have later closed them). Notable examples are Databricks, Hashicorp, Mongodb, RedHat. Sure they've built a moat on top of their free software, but they have (or had) free software regardless.
  - john_strinlai 5mo ago
    >My point is more that you suggested no one has thought about this, but yes, they have. i didnt say no one has thought about free software. i said that this specific llm that output this article did not think about how the freedoms would work in todays gaming industry. there are dozens of issues that immediately pop into my head, mostly specific to gaming, which are not mentioned or addressed at all.
    - singpolyma3 5mo ago
      lol. The article is obviously not written by an LLM.
- singpolyma3 5mo ago
  I don't see how "what percent" is the right metric. There are hundreds of such companies (I work for one) but it's a small percentage due to other factors (mainly it not being the default way most founders think about these things)

F3nd0 5mo ago

> […] in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again". This is exactly what has been happening for years, only illegally. If it became legal, I imagine far less people would end up buying the game, though probably still more than just one. But again, games are more than just software, so the four freedoms do not enable this.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

singpolyma3 5mo ago

We have decades of real world experience which shows this is not true. People buy things they could otherwise get for free with a bit of work all the time.

john_strinlai 5mo ago
you aren't getting a company to build baldurs gate 3 and hope they recoup the costs from ko-fi donations. real world experience is that most companies do not offer their software for free, and open source developers either have to get sponsored or have to constantly solicit donations. donations do not typically cover multi-million dollar, multi-year development cycles.
- ben-schaaf 5mo ago
  BG3 is actually a perfect counterexample here. It doesn't have DRM, doesn't require an online account to play and uses direct connections for multiplayer. Nothing needs to be done to preserve it.
  - john_strinlai 5mo ago
    right, but if BG3 had to be free as in FSF free, it would not have been made.
    - singpolyma3 5mo ago
      This is almost certainly untrue. it would have cost the same amount and all the same people would have bought it for all the same reasons.
      - john_strinlai 5mo ago
        >and all the same people would have bought it for all the same reasons. you have to be trolling, right? if people can get the game for free, because freedom 2 demands the game be freely redistributable by anyone with no restrictions, people are not going to pay for it. they are going to get it for free.

b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago

>they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again". fyi, there are tens of torrent trackers with every game/movie/album/etc under the sun. had been for two decades.

john_strinlai 5mo ago
i was unaware torrenting copyrighted content was made legal, thanks for the update
- sapphicsnail 5mo ago
  I think their point was that lots of media is easily piratable but still makes money and companies continue to produce more of it.
  - trinsic2 5mo ago
    Yep another lost soul at the parent that thinks piracy equals death.
    - john_strinlai 5mo ago
      that is not what i think.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
- b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago
  >they sound great in theory, but in practice exactly one person will buy the game that cost millions to produce, put it up on a website for free, and then the studio will say "well, never doing that again".
  - 5mo ago

throwaway85825 5mo ago

If the game is being sold it has to be supported, and if it's supported no legislative requirement applies.

john_strinlai 5mo ago
my comment is in response to the demand that games be free, not the legislation