[BadVista Advocate] A few thoughts on games

Fri May 4 10:34:36 EDT 2007

Sorry if this sounds real dumb...

But what do you mean by "artificial sacristy"?

I am a non-native English speaker and just past my teens... so yea...

2007/5/4, Don Hensley <Don at donhensley.com>:
>
> Actually you have a good point, but you are coming at the 'Games' problem from
> a different view point then mine.
>
> You see that's what I said in #1 : closed source.
>
> Inherently I simply do not believe in artificial sacristy as being a valid
> business model. And if the only way for any business to make money is by
> creating artificial sacristy, then their business model should die. For me it
> is that simple.
>
> Yes I am aware that what I just said will be heard by some as "You are taking
> the food out of my mouth!". What I'm really saying is find a different
> business model.
>
> It is actually very friendly and well meant advice. Much as I would have given
> to the local Stage Coach line in the old west, as I saw the train coming
> closer inch by inch and mile by mile.
>
> History is simply chock full of similar examples --and littered with dead
> business models, that today we laugh about and say "wow were they ever
> foolish. They could have turned their company from a hay storage loft into a
> wood storage yard, to feed those steam engines on the trains." and each
> consecutive example down the line : Wood Yard into diesel storage facility,
> etc, etc.
>
> The notion of using a general purpose, user owned, device, i.e., the computer
> as a horribly restricted  controlled by some other entity, i.e., Microsoft,
> is not going to continue to be a valid business model for it relies on
> conditions that are rapidly fading into the past.
>
> The first rule people learn, as part of life, is that what you totally
> control, you own. Or to put it more concisely: What you can destroy with
> impunity, you own.
>
> The lesson that is emerging now is one of people discovering they are
> empowered to destroy that which once they could not.
>
> The prime example today would be Digg. It will be interesting to see how Digg
> manages to survive. Yes I'm pleased to see they gave up and said they would
> stop trying to take down the number. All that did was leave them at the TOTAL
> mercy of the AACS-LA, who can now sue them out of existence.
>
> No I don't like that thought either, but that is the reality of the DMCA. See
> this article by the EFF: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005229.php
>
> So yes the users discovered power --the company that owns Digg simply realized
> that it was over either way, users would destroy it, or the AACS-LA would
> destroy it if it went along with the users.
>
> It is going to be interesting to see how this works out. The only thing that
> may save Digg now is if the AACS-LA wises up enough to not want any more user
> revolt in areas that would actually seriously hurt them (the AACS-LA).
>
> You see that is what we are living through right now. A revolution. If the
> human race wins, then business based on artificial scarcity will lose. If the
> business that rely on artificial sacristy win, then the rest of us become
> slaves.
>
> You might wish to read this: The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free
> http://techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
>
> It would help to read the entire series.
>
> So that is where I come from, goodbye to artificial sacristy, hello to a
> better world.
>
> For the first time in all of human history, we stand at the door to a society
> of plenty.
>
> This is a brand new thing for us, it will come unevenly, and in many ways
> painfully, at first only a few will understand the change. I do not expect to
> live long enough to see the society of plenty bloom.
>
> But I damn well intend to do my best to insure that it is not still born. And
> if that means some people having to learn a new business model, well them's
> the breaks.
>
> No one can say I (and others) are not trying to warn them. They can save
> themselves if they want.
>
> Yes this IS a war. It is being fought every day all around the globe. Be aware
> of it, think about which world you would like to live in --artificial
> sacristy or a society of plenty.
>
> And you probably thought the issue of games was important to me or people like
> me, because of what I wrote about them.
>
> Actually it's just a way to get people to start thinking about some rather
> more important stuff.
>
> Thanks for reading my little ramble. See what happens when you get an old man
> started...
>
> Don.
>  *******************************
>  On Friday 04 May 2007 01:56 am, Sunnz wrote:
> Another tricky thing to develop games on Linux is GPL.
>
> Ok, I don't know that much about the underlying workings of GNU, so I
> am on the assumption that a lot of programming API and libraries on
> Linux are licensed under GPL, and if you make use of the API and libs,
> your game would be a derivative software and have to license under
> GPL.
>
> The implication of GPL is that you are free to distribute the
> software, binary and/or source code... companies who have invest large
> sum of money wouldn't want to do this, perhaps it is ok to open source
> the code, but they certainly want people to pay for each copy.
>
> And if they somehow develop their game without the use of GPL'd libs,
> there would be a lot of wheel re-invention going on, therefore
> increase cost for the unfortunate, minority of their target.
>
> Please correct any mistakes, I am basing this on assumptions about GNU
>  libs...
>
> 2007/5/4, Lam YongXian <news at adolflam.com>:
> > > Most of us here understand that the reason a lot of games are only
> > > available
> > > on Microsoft platforms has to do with 3 things:
> > >
> > > 1. Closed source code
> > >
> > > 2. Dependencies on proprietary ancillary code (.net, Direct X, etc.)
> > >
> > > 3. (Microsoft FUD): Fear that all us GNU/Linux bad guys will steal the
> > > game...
> > > Pirates all.
> > >
> > > Well think about this for a minute.
> > >
> > > All Windows games that can be played on just a single computer --not
> > > Internet
> > > dependent on some outside server, have already been cracked --and not by
> > > GNU/Linux guys --we don't use Windows so what would we do with a Windows
> > > game, even if it was cracked? So it's Windows bad guys that are cracking
> > > (pirating) Windows games, not all of us.
> > >
> > > So #3 simply has no bearing on GNU/Linux users at all, for any Windows
> > > game
> > > that is ... lets call it 'self contained'.
> > >
> > > Now as to games that are not 'self contained'. Well, all of those have
> > > tons of
> > > cheats... the list of cheat sheet sites for any Windows game or games is
> > > simply endless. So 'Windows only' games come down to he who cheats best
> > > wins.
> > >
> > > Now ask your self if that really makes any sense to play a game that only
> > > by
> > > cheating can you really get somewhere at the game?
> > >
> > > Free Software games, on the other hand, are not likely to have 'cheats'
> > > as a
> > > practical part of the game --at least not for long, because either some
> > > one
> > > will patch it so that is no longer possible, or they may simply
> > > incorporate
> > > it into the game for the use of everyone (it becomes a feature that
> > > really is
> > > a new feature).
> > >
> > > Makes Free Software games a lot more fun because you can play it with a
> > > lot of
> > > faith that how you do will be based on your ability to play --not the
> > > other
> > > guy's ability to cheat.
> > >
> > > This relies on having the source available to all, which is why #1 is a
> > > stopper for us GNU/Linux types. Honesty is only insured by transparency.
> > >
> > > That only leaves problem #2... Well after a little thought about problems
> > > #1
> > > and #3, it becomes sort of obvious that #2 only exists to insure vendor
> > > lock
> > > in --not for the game, for the real vendor that wants everyone locked in
> > > --Microsoft.
> > >
> > > So if you want to play Microsoft's games (they are too, if you can only
> > > play
> > > them on Microsoft's OS, no matter who they nominally 'belong' to), then
> > > by all means do so.
> > >
> > > Just don't complain that GNU/Linux is bad because you can't play
> > > Microsoft's
> > > games on it... We like it that way, for all the above reasons --and a few
> > > more that have more of a philosophical nature (like understanding what
> > > losing
> > > Freedom means).
> > >
> > > So that's my two cents on Microsoft's games.
> > >
> > > Don.
> > > --
> > > GNU/Linux is the future.
> > > Join the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=4458
> > > Get the Real Facts: http://BadVista.org
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Advocate mailing list
> > > Advocate at badvista.org
> > > http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
> >
> > It is ridiculous that one must insert a disc to play the game every time,
> > even though he has the 'license' to play it. And it is also technically
> > not necessary to have the disc in tray.
> >
> > "If they don't trust you, why should you trust them?"
> >
> > ---
> > Lam YongXian
> > Adolflam.com
> >
> > FSF member #5279
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Advocate mailing list
> > Advocate at badvista.org
> > http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>
> --
> GNU/Linux is the future.
> Join the FSF: http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=4458
> Get the Real Facts: http://BadVista.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocate mailing list
> Advocate at badvista.org
> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0