We've all been there right? You paid for a game, it required an active internet connection and a couple of years later the publisher decided they're done with it and shut it down leaving you with a broken game. Annoying.
Publishers? Shareholders are the problem.
If any involved can make a change then we should do that. I can’t talk of publishers but I can speak dev.
If many of us refused towrite code unless it will be shared under an open source/free software license then publushers would have no choice but to let people self host. Sadly school doesn’t appear to teach programmers ethics of software, specifically flsoftware freedomn
University. Cyberethics is a required course where I graduated from, and it goes deep into open source licensing and the free software movement. I can tell you from experience presenting on open source licensing and the free software movement during that class that almost no one in the class gave a shit about it. It was quite sad to see so many people uninterested in a topic I’m so passionate about, especially because these are the types of people who would go on to be my coworkers.
The fact of the matter is that most people (including programmers) will never care about it, simply because they refuse to understand how important it is or how they can make money from it. It seems to me that people just want to conform to the systems that already exist (copyright and proprietary software) instead of challenging and changing the way we view, write, and interact with software.
But of course, that only really applies to students who graduate with a Bachelor’s in CS, and likely doesn’t apply to every university. The layperson still has absolutely no idea what “open source” even means or why it is important. In fact, the layperson is often brainwashed into thinking that the best thing for enterprises is the best thing for them, so in all likelihood most people would rather fight for copyright than against it, even if they had been informed on open source licensing and the free software movement. US businesses do a damn good job of brainwashing their consumers into echoing their views.
Then why make the distinction when A can often be B? People like to paint a picture of the little guy being bullied by the big guy into making a decision that players didn’t like, but we’ve seen plenty of times that developers will be the ones making the decisions we didn’t like. If there’s an incentive to do the bad thing, developers will do it without being told to.
That’s a strawman argument, sorry. You’re arguing as if all developers are publishers. You just said it “A can often be B,” but A is not always B.
Publishers do this bullshit. Period. And in small shops, developers are the publishers, sure. But when they make those decisions, they don’t make them in their roles of developers. They do so in their roles of publishers. And also, not all publishers and not all developers-turned-publishers are dicks.
But I understand what you’re saying. When they are dicks, they are dicks.
Developers can and have made this decision on their own even when they’ve got a publisher, because publishing deals come in all sizes, and online connection requirements that inevitably lead to a game’s death are pervasive in the industry right now.
No, not really. You just said it, man. “Publishing deals come in all sizes.” Publishing. Publishing. So, it’s the publishers who make those decisions. Not developers. That developers must accept them is one thing. But the publishers made the decision.
Developers? Publishers are the problem.
Publishers? Shareholders are the problem. If any involved can make a change then we should do that. I can’t talk of publishers but I can speak dev.
If many of us refused towrite code unless it will be shared under an open source/free software license then publushers would have no choice but to let people self host. Sadly school doesn’t appear to teach programmers ethics of software, specifically flsoftware freedomn
Oh they teach it, most people (honestly including myself), just don’t care.
I really couldn’t give a shit what license code I write for work is under.
Where do they teach it?
University. Cyberethics is a required course where I graduated from, and it goes deep into open source licensing and the free software movement. I can tell you from experience presenting on open source licensing and the free software movement during that class that almost no one in the class gave a shit about it. It was quite sad to see so many people uninterested in a topic I’m so passionate about, especially because these are the types of people who would go on to be my coworkers.
The fact of the matter is that most people (including programmers) will never care about it, simply because they refuse to understand how important it is or how they can make money from it. It seems to me that people just want to conform to the systems that already exist (copyright and proprietary software) instead of challenging and changing the way we view, write, and interact with software.
But of course, that only really applies to students who graduate with a Bachelor’s in CS, and likely doesn’t apply to every university. The layperson still has absolutely no idea what “open source” even means or why it is important. In fact, the layperson is often brainwashed into thinking that the best thing for enterprises is the best thing for them, so in all likelihood most people would rather fight for copyright than against it, even if they had been informed on open source licensing and the free software movement. US businesses do a damn good job of brainwashing their consumers into echoing their views.
Plenty of games without publishers are designed to destroy themselves in this exact way, because there’s money in it.
In that case, the developers are the publishers.
Then why make the distinction when A can often be B? People like to paint a picture of the little guy being bullied by the big guy into making a decision that players didn’t like, but we’ve seen plenty of times that developers will be the ones making the decisions we didn’t like. If there’s an incentive to do the bad thing, developers will do it without being told to.
That’s a strawman argument, sorry. You’re arguing as if all developers are publishers. You just said it “A can often be B,” but A is not always B.
Publishers do this bullshit. Period. And in small shops, developers are the publishers, sure. But when they make those decisions, they don’t make them in their roles of developers. They do so in their roles of publishers. And also, not all publishers and not all developers-turned-publishers are dicks.
But I understand what you’re saying. When they are dicks, they are dicks.
Developers can and have made this decision on their own even when they’ve got a publisher, because publishing deals come in all sizes, and online connection requirements that inevitably lead to a game’s death are pervasive in the industry right now.
No, not really. You just said it, man. “Publishing deals come in all sizes.” Publishing. Publishing. So, it’s the publishers who make those decisions. Not developers. That developers must accept them is one thing. But the publishers made the decision.
All sizes meaning that those deals also come with the absence of that decision, leaving it up to the developers.
If developers make those decisions, then they’re the publishers.
Are we going to continue going round this circle?
The developers willingly entrust publishers to make those decisions.