Welcome to Gaming! Come chat with us in the GoatChat network (desktop users click here). We also have an Official Steam Group.
All sub rules are defined in detail here and open for feedback
-
Submissions must be related to gaming.
-
Titles must be clear and reflect content of the submission. Include game titles where necessary.
-
No Clickbait (defined).
-
No links to illegal torrents or other illegal downloads/content.
-
No link posts to merchandise and/or unrelated products (exceptions).
-
Mark all spoilers with: [](#s "Text goes here")
-
Mark all NSFW posts appropriately.
-
Submissions reposted within 6 months will be removed.
Content creators, please read our community Content Creator Guidelines
What you're encouraged to post:
Games! We should talk about games more than anything! New releases, old favorites, Speed Runs, Let's Play's, development news, what we love, what we hate and so on and so forth.
Try to post things that create discussion. We want people to feel engaged and feel their voices are heard, rather than to be a place of disposable content.
If you're not sure, ask!
If you wish to, you can archive your posts here.
Check out v/gaming's megathread of gaming-related subverses
view the rest of the comments →
[–] scandalous-goat ago
That's a pretty naive, in my opinion. We need to make money, why are there some crafts that can't make money, or have their revenue restricted? And what makes you think there would be any motivation to make works without a possibility of revenue.
You bring up open-source software, how much truly useful code is written by unpaid volunteers and what is the quality of that code? In reality, there's a lot of programmers working on open-source project that are paid, be it from IBM (redhat) and other corporations or from foundations.
Good will and ideals will leave you hungry.
[–] Wahaha ago
Same reason works got created prior to copyright, which isn't even 300 years old and has only been as strict as it is now for some 50 years or so. Original copyright expired 12 years after publication and actually lead to less books being published, since the incentives changed.
The reason there are crafts that can't make money is because those crafts aren't worth paying money for. Just because you put effort into something doesn't mean people owe you money for it. Unless you're a communist, then that's exactly how it's supposed to work. But since communism also has to deal with reality that's not how it will unfold.
You're asking the wrong questions about open source. The correct question would be to ask why money is spend on people developing open source software. Because the answer tells you a business model that doesn't rely on a state to enforce copyright. Enforcing copyright isn't cheap, but it's basically useless, since there aren't a lot of people acknowledging copyright in it's current form as a just law.
[–] scandalous-goat 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
We aren't talking about someone shitting on an canvas and calling it art, we're talking about programming, which takes years to master, and graphic and game design, which are also art that require time and practice to master. You are telling me that those skills aren't worth money?
I'm quite familiar with open source. I'm also familiar with the deception of open source, that I dub technological marxism, that aims to level the field of technical knowledge and skills in order to weaken those who dominate. Young, white programmers who wish to land a programming job are encouraged, through some kind of cult-like doctrine, to publish useful code for free. Then strong womyn and dark people get to take those jobs, using said useful software written by those who have the proper aptitudes. It also gets into people's head that their skills aren't worth money, even though, in reality, the skills are extremely desirable.
That's the reason why open source is pushed by multinational corporations: it helps them cut money by not having a skilled programmer on their payroll and to be able make use of third world shitskins. It's the corporate equivalant of the anarcho communist, stoner left "we want everything, for free".
Going back to the topic, why the hell are nintendo evil for protecting their IP and their assets? Those are absolutely desirable when you consider how often people use their stuff in their own projects, instead of taking the time and effort to make their own art and assets. It's not that it isn't worth money, quite the opposite, it's that those developers really want those assets, for free. They don't have the skills to create original assets, original game design and they don't want to spend the time to learn how to do it (or, the brand is strong and they want to have its effect in their project). That's lazy and arguably, theft.