231–240 of 287 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Audio subsystems (wwise, fmod). Physics subsystems (havok, ISI). Procedural systems (Gaea, Houdini) Vegetation (Speedtree) VFX subsystems (Nvidia Gameworks) First party SDKs (Sony Playstation, Microsoft NDK, Horizon/Quest). Pathfinding (Kytheria, Mercuna) Cutscenes/Videos (Bink) UI (Rive, Neosis) Networking (Photon, Coherence) Theres… thousands more, if you’d like me to continue.
On the web backend?
This is basically advocating for open source games which is a completely different story than what stop killing games is trying to do. There are tons of closed source games that have zero online component to them. I don't see how you can actually argue that this is a good thing, especially when they say: > The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. That... basically kills the entire gaming industry. A…
To be fair, the legislation also kills any sort of multiplayer games, so it's in the same spirit. It just takes the idea to its logical conclusion. As a game developer, if this thing passes, I would just not build multiplayer ever anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The power to have a game natively on platforms it was never implemented on before but look identical to the original. To me, that's honestly cooler and more desirable than emulation; the fact that it's also more defensible from an IP standpoint is just a nice bonus. I also wouldn't say that "respecting the limits of IP law" is particularly idiosyncratic either; you can make the case that IP owners like Nintendo often…
IP law is peak law nerd, regular lawyers can't make any definitive statements about IP situations, what makes you think that you could?
If you think that neither of those definitive statements are something regular lawyers could tell you, I think we just have mutually incompatible perceptions of reality. Otherwise, you're claiming that the boundary between what's transparently a legal or a violation and what's murky is itself obvious, which doesn't really make sense if you don't think that regular lawyers even understand IP law.
It honestly just seems like you're trying to pick a fight for reasons that are not really clear to me. You initially responded derisively to my use of the word "power" to describe a form of abstraction, and when I responded to clarify it, you ignored that part of my response in favor of focusing on a different part and starting a new argument about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the server binary doesn't start unless you have 190GiB of RAM and 38 available CPUs. This doesn't seem like much of an obstacle? Can buy or rent such without too much trouble.
> Can buy or rent such without too much trouble. for... thousands of dollars a month. the goal of the regulation is that regular people can keep playing their games. not just rich people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Obviously not. No one is talking about donations
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If the game is being sold it has to be supported, and if it's supported no legislative requirement applies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding on to this but I'm not sure if it's 1:1 what you're talking about. PokeMMO is a online Pokemon Fangame that combines the first 5 generations of games. From what I gather, this is possible because it is up to the user to provide the ROMs, so litigious Nintendo cannot say they are re-distributing copyrighted material
Does it only use the assets from the original games, or also the scripting? If the former, then I'd say it's basically the same concept that I'm talking about, but with making a new game using the existing assets rather than reimplementing an existing one. If it uses the scripting as well and then provides some extra stuff to merge them and put it online, I'd say it's a slightly different (but still extremely cool!)…