Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

openttd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 265 posts

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#31

Post by lstodd »

Closi wrote: post #12
paxys wrote: post #4

I'm sure I'm missing some context but what is Atari's role here exactly? Isn't OpenTTD an independent and fully legal project? What is Atari's basis for asking for a "compromise"? Or is it just the case that the project maintainers got paid off?

Atari own all the IP and copyright. While OpenTTD is open source, it's basis is really that the original game was reverse-engineered, originally using the original assets, and then rebuilt. Also all the map data etc is owned by Atari, so you need to have a 'genuine' copy to access all the levels etc.

What levels? TTD, Open or no has no levels, only a map generator, and you seriously don't want to try the reimplementation of the original one.

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#32

Post by striking »

paxys wrote: post #9
beardsciences wrote: post #2

I'm glad that Atari was willing to compromise at all. I'm happy with the updated response, and hope that it helps others understand the nuance of the situation. Anyone can still go download the main release from the official site.

How are people supposed to understand the "nuance of the situation" when they aren't even sharing it? What is the problem to begin with? Why can't both projects continue to exist independently?

The bundling might feel necessary from Atari's side because OpenTTD would compete with Atari's re-release on platforms like Steam and GoG (unlike on OpenTTD's website, where you're already at the end of the funnel for OpenTTD specifically and therefore Atari doesn't feel like they're losing a sale).

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#33

Post by Sharlin »

designerarvid wrote: post #20
paxys wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What copyright? OpenTTD doesn't copy any code or assets from the original game. It is a ground-up rewrite. There is no copyright violation.

Reproducing someone’s intellectual property and publishing it is exactly what constitutes a copyright violation. You can retype someone’s book with your keyboard, it’s still not yours.

Reproducing the surface behavior of a program, no matter how faithfully, is not in itself copyright violation if it's a cleanroom implementation. But int this case it's not to write the new one, the developers studied (and manually translated to C++) the original code, not just the program's behavior. So this is more of a case of a derived work, like a translation of a novel.

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#34

Post by throwaway0q5347 »

lstodd wrote: post #27
legitster wrote: post #15

As a sidenote, this whole situation implies just how important platforms are. Nothing about OpenTTD has changed. You can literally just go download it off their website for free - same as it was 20 years ago. And you can add it to your Steam library just fine. It's only been on the Steam store for 5 of those years. But the open internet is dead now and just being "de-merchandised" from a platform feels like being rel…

Open internet is dead only to those that don't take the effort to discover. Otherwise it's still as open as it always was. Since there was an internet to speak of, there always were and still are vast amounts of people unaware of stuff that exists, limited by no "platforms" but only by their own lack of desire.

> limited by no "platforms" but only by their own lack of desire.

Or Google's low ranking of their content

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#35

Post by sho_hn »

yellowapple wrote: post #28

In situations like this it's odd to me that the rightsholder wouldn't just sell an official build of the FOSS reimplementation with the assets (legally) included. If some of the proceeds end up going toward the FOSS reimplementation's donations then it seems like an easy win-win.

There are actually cases this has happened in (e.g. re-releases using ScummVM under the hood; id basing products on community source ports, etc.), but it's not always that simple.

Chris Sawyer as creator for example is known to have particular opinions on this as I recall, and if you e.g. look over to film making there's also a hot debate over preserving original artistic intent and original creations over later remasters. OpenTTD is more than a maintenance upgrade, it's a continuation and a different game.

Honestly I think it's probably just OK what Atari has done here. Monetizing the original assets is well in their rights both legally and morally (especially considering e.g. royalities to Chris), OpenTTD remains available everywhere, they're monetarily supporting OpenTTS, gamers will find it.

Note that once a commercial company decides to ship a FOSS project, they also are much more invested in potentially controlling its direction to different ends. This setup keeps OpenTTD community-run and independent, free to make decisions independent of a commercial agenda. This also feels worth protecting.

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#36

Post by lstodd »

LoganDark wrote: post #14
paxys wrote: post #4

I'm sure I'm missing some context but what is Atari's role here exactly? Isn't OpenTTD an independent and fully legal project? What is Atari's basis for asking for a "compromise"? Or is it just the case that the project maintainers got paid off?

Atari probably threatened to take it down if there wouldn't be a compromise. So a compromise was worked out that wouldn't require a takedown.

Pretty much this. No one was interested in playing corporate games, and Steam/GoG isn't that important anyway.

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#37

Post by maybewhenthesun »

mhitza wrote: post #11

The initial post has omitted any reason for the change. Of course people would speculate, including in the HN comments. What seemed majority at the time was the idea of some collaboration/partnership and monetary exchange. I think its a good lesson in communication, especially when you have a dedicated community. Transparency is welcome. Regarding Atari and "their rights", there hasn't been an Atari for way too long…

Atari being the commercial firm it is, I could very well imagine that stuff was under NDA. Just 'by default', because that's what the lawyers like. And only when angry speculations emerged they could be persuaded to just openly communicate.

Or the OpenTTD guys were not the best communicators. Considering it's the OpenTTD creators live at the intersection of the groups 'programmers' and 'adults who like to play with train sets' it wouldn't be a stretch.

All in all I think this collaborative approach is very much the preferred outcome.

All those people saying 'the open web is dead' and 'people don't download from websites anymore' are exaggerating imo.

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#38

Post by kabdib »

paxys wrote: post #4

I'm sure I'm missing some context but what is Atari's role here exactly? Isn't OpenTTD an independent and fully legal project? What is Atari's basis for asking for a "compromise"? Or is it just the case that the project maintainers got paid off?

I really wonder who "Atari" is these days . . .

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#39

Post by orphea »

designerarvid wrote: post #20
paxys wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What copyright? OpenTTD doesn't copy any code or assets from the original game. It is a ground-up rewrite. There is no copyright violation.

Reproducing someone’s intellectual property and publishing it is exactly what constitutes a copyright violation. You can retype someone’s book with your keyboard, it’s still not yours.

Reproducing is absolutely not a copyright violation. Otherwise emulators would have no legal option to exist.

Re: An update on Steam / GOG changes for OpenTTD

#40

Post by maybewhenthesun »

Lammy wrote: post #3

> a compromise would be needed to balance Atari’s commercial interests (which of course they are entitled to pursue as the rights holder) No, fuck 'em. They had nothing to do with developing the game, and in a sane copyright structure a thirty-year-old work would be public domain by now.

> in a sane copyright structure

You are not wrong. But alas we don't have that. ANd in the reality we live in this collaboration is way better than the alternative.

Post reply on HN