• TabbsTheBat@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Companies would still be cutting flour with chalk if they had their way. “It’s limiting blah blah blah” that’s the point you corpos, consumer rights are about the consumer not the bottom line

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      History taught us that corpos would literally burn the world for a few more bucks. And by history, I mean right now.

    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Not to mention that studios like Larian have proven that it’s entirely possible to make a blockbuster game without teams of 400 heads, changing direction and leadership every few years and laying off the people who made the product in the first place. They really seethed at that one, so many salty comments lol.

  • Decq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is just pure fabricated bullshit. They themselves started limiting options. Remember the old days where you could host your own server with basically any game? They took that away, not us. So they themselves are 100% responsible for this ‘uprising’. Besides they could just provide/open-source the backend and disable drm. Hardly any work at all.

    But of course it’s not about that. They just try to hide behind this ‘limits options’ argument. But they simply don’t want you to be able to play their old games. They want you to buy their latest CoD 42.

    • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Let’s be real, open sourcing it isn’t “hardly any work”. All the code has to be reviewed to make sure they can legally release it, no third-party proprietary stuff.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        When starting a new game, don’t include that stuff. Not including proprietary stuff without meeting the licensing requirements is already a step in the process.

        • truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          There is a reason it’s included though. Stuff like fmod, bink video etc. does complicated things that you otherwise need to implement yourself.

  • skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    “curtail developer choice” is such a weak argument because you could equally apply it to literally every piece of regulation ever passed. Of course it curtails choice, that’s almost the dictionary definition of an industry regulation.

  • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Copyright was invented so artists would be able to sell their art, and more art would be made.

    When copyright is protected on a product that’s no longer sold, less art is made.

    When a copyright holder stops selling their art, copyright protections should immediately cease, and they should be responsible for copyright obligations - releasing the source code to the public. Use it or lose it!

    • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is the most level headed approach to IP I’ve seen. If you’re not willing to use the property you forfeit it. It’s a common contact for licensing rights for movies that forces a studio to make a movie or lose rights. That way people can’t squat on a licence to prevent others using it.