[BadVista Advocate] A few thoughts on games

Sat May 5 03:04:58 EDT 2007

Wow thanks for the long explanation!!

Now let me try to understand this.

Air is free, but artificial scarcity would mean to limit its use and
make up a cost for it.

But what about games? It is relatively free to copy games, like
distributing Linux... however it does cost quite a lot to develop
games in the first place, does it?

The way I understand it, a large number of developers are being hired
to develop Linux, because people can actually use Linux to make money,
e.g. to power routers, supercomputer, embedded systems, etc...

But how is a "free" game earn profit to sustain the cost of developing
it? The way it works now is that you have to pay for a copy of the
game, for the service the game runs on? I don't know how much money
those game companies are actually earning... but they got to earn some
money to sustain the cost of making a game, right? So as long as money
is needed to develop a game, it isn't so much of artificial scarcity,
since it cost to produce a game in the first place.

2007/5/5, Don Hensley <Don at donhensley.com>:
>
> No question will ever sound dumb to me. The only "dumb questions" are those
> that are never asked.
>
> "Artificial Sacristy" is a condition where something is actually easily and
> readily available, and so it's "dollar value" (a loose term I'm using broadly
> here) should be low.  Then you create an artificial barrier to people
> actually obtaining it, thereby making it's "dollar value" artificially high.
>
> As in the air we breathe --we do not pay anyone for it because it is plentiful
> and readily available --a not scarce resource (I'm side stepping how clean
> the air may, or may not be, for now).
>
> But assume for a moment that I find a way to lock you in a room that I alone
> can control the air supply to... you would find the value of air to be any
> price I set it at... even though air is, if not for me having you locked in a
> room I control, still a free non scarce commodity.
>
> That is what "Artificial Sacristy" means.
>
> Today it is most apparent in the fact that any "thing" (music, movies, etc.),
> that can be copied in digital form, is no longer scarce at all. So the
> ***AA's try to use DRM to create an artificial condition where some other
> thing is made scarce in order to make the actual thing have an artificially
> high value.
>
> In this case it is the legal right to copy any digital work they "own".
>
> You see the digital data (song, CD, etc.) is not scarce at all. Every person
> on the planet could have three copies of some digital thing, and it would not
> have diminished any ones copy of that thing.
>
> So what happens is some people attempt to make the "right" to have a digital
> copy into a scarce commodity (lock you in their room), even though the
> commodity is not really scarce at all.
>
> This is a artificial state, as it does not reflect reality at all --just as if
> I have you locked in a room I control the air to, it does not make air
> scarce, it makes your "right" to that air scarce. So you will perceive the
> value of air as being high, when the reality is it is my artificial control
> of your access to air that is of high value, not the actual air.
>
> It is a huge trick being used to make people see things as the makers of
> artificial barriers would have you see them --not as the reality is. They
> determine what you perceive as "reality" by virtue of the artificial barriers
> they have erected.
>
> Thomas Jefferson put it best:
>
> He hated monopoly and was determined that the patent process shouldn't serve
> it. The peculiar character of an idea, said Jefferson, is that
>
> ... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whole of it. He
> who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who
> lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me.
>
> I riped that from JEFFERSON AND TECHNOLOGY
> http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi792.htm
>
> Which you might enjoy reading.
>
> If I didn't quite get your question answered in a way that makes sense to you,
> or if you have other questions, do not hesitate to ask more, I will do my
> best to help you at least understand the point of this, even if you
> ultimately come to a different conclusion about these issues.
>
> Learning is important, and the future will be lived by you and all young
> people, not me, or my generation --we are about to pass from the stage, which
> is as it should be. But as Jefferson pointed out; ideas are all one can truly
> give without diminishing themselves. So while I live I intend to try to share
> what ideas I may have, or that I have learned from others.
>
> My only goal is to make every ones candle help bring more light to the room we
> all live in.
>
> Don.
> ****************************************
>  On Friday 04 May 2007 07:34 am, Sunnz wrote:
> 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
>
> --
> 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