• @ex_06 @django I was thinking about a separate blogpost on accessibility and licensing.

    Some games, like Daybreak, proclaim to use open source manufacturing methods to be more sustainable and not pollute, but at the same time the game itself is licensed and copyrighted with no (known to me) invitation to hack or fan-translate, which vastly decreases its educational potential.

    On the other hand, making an ambitious game takes money and markets rarely pay for fully open projects.

    • ex_06@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Open source (nor foss) doesn’t really assure protection from the capital and/or consumerism…

      On the other hand, making an ambitious game takes money and markets rarely pay for fully open projects

      yep, hence why imo is better to not be fully open from day 0. The free software movement reached his peak, now it’s time to evolve into something better. A software made by squeezing the open libraries and then the devs and then the consumers to then have most of the earnings kept in the company bank to get numbers going up for the capital is totally doable even while having the most free license.

      As you say tho, it can help with accessibility and longevity.

      I just would like to not see ‘‘solarpunk99’’ in some years made in the worst possible way. I’d rather have toxic games but made in a solarpunk way than ‘‘solarpunk’’ games made by the capital to sell us another commodified idea