Comment

Comment on The signatures are still coming and it's already making an impact

I’m speaking from ignorance but isn’t the server backend often licensed and they couldn’t release it if they wanted, even as binaries? Granted, going forward they’d have to make those considerations before they accept restrictive licenses in core parts of their game. And the market for those licenses will change accordingly. So there core of your argument is correct.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
lots of licensed or bought code in development in general, but knowing that you’ll have to provide code to the public eventually, means that you’ll have to take this into consideration when starting a project.

source
- SheeEttin@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Which is doable, but is additional time and money.
  
  source
  - Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    codifying in law that your customers must be able to run a server for your game, when you stop running them has the consequence, that you’ll have to buy licenses that allow you to give binaries or code for those things to your customers. every middleware or library that does not allow that won’t be a viable product anymore. It’s not more dev work, it will change how licensing in game development for middleware and such will be done.
    
    source
  - BassTurd@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Why would coding something with less restrictions take more time and money?
    
    source
    SheeEttin@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    It doesn’t, that’s why companies rarely open-source their code. If you want to publish it you have to make sure you have all the rights to do so, you have to code in a way that’s readable for outside users, you have to make sure people can reproduce your build process, and ideally you provide support.
    
    On the other hand, if you’re not developing the source for publication, you can leave undocumented dirty hacks, only have to make sure it builds on your machine, and include third-party proprietary code wherever you want. That’s faster and cheaper, so naturally companies will prefer it.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Because you can buy other people’s code for cheaper than developing it yourself, as long as you use it within the restrictions of the license you paid for.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Honytawk@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Making games online is also additional time and money.
    
    source
    SheeEttin@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Yes, but that’s immediately profitable, which is why so many companies do it.
    
    source
Decq@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Maybe so, but that’s a decision they make. Surely I as customer shouldn’t be taken away what i paid for because of that? And if so they should have mentioned clearly upon sale that they would take away my product after 3-4 years (though maybe that’s the case in those dense ToS?) . Everything else should be considered illegal and fraudulent if they planned/knew it from the start. Which is the case if it’s a licensing issue

Besides, I’m pretty sure after those 4 years the code is outdated and they could renegotiate the license to be more open to release a binary.

source