This should be illegal, companies should be forced to open-source games (or at least provide the code to people who bought it) if they decide to discontinue it, so people can preserve it on their own.
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
671 points (92.2% liked)
Games
32436 readers
904 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I appreciate the sentiment around preservation, but there's an argument to be made that if you make something, you should get to decide if you want to destroy it. Banksy did something like this recently by destroying one of his pieces of art when it went up for auction.
@Kushan so you're saying they should be able to take your money and then destroy what you bought with out any sort of warning or compensation right? I strongly disagree with you if that's what you're saying.
This is more like if it was successfully sold at auction, and THEN banksy destroyed it after taking the money.
No no, not at all - I agree with you, if you sell something to someone you shouldn't be able to just take it back arbitrarily.
However, OP is talking about forcing companies to open source something they created - and while I love open source and am a big supporter of it, I don't think that's necessarily right either.
I don't believe in that at all, human lives and the feelings associated with them are finite, the appreciation of art lasts as long as the canvas does which can be hundreds to thousands of years depending on what it is. The feelings they feel as the artist aren't significant on that time-frame and whatever respect I have for them is irrelevant in that context. I believe in preservation even against the will of creators because it benefits future generations, for the same reason historical knowledge does and their feelings today do not.
People have told me I'd feel different if it was my art but not really (I find that argument incredibly presumptuous and condescending which is why I'm acknowledging them here before anyone has the chance to make them as some kind of comeback), I recognize the value of art and the fact that just like these other artists I won't be around forever either.
The Banksy example is also bad because they didn't take anything away from anyone, just sold something that would change form after sale. And they knew that this stunt would only increase the art's value going in.
I agree with your sentiment that a creator should have control over their work. However. I do feel that an art piece which can only exist in one form is different from commercial mass media. Mainly because you start getting in to an "original vs a copy" territory. While I believe an owner of something should have control over copyrights...once someone legally owns a "copy" of something that copy should be theirs since the owner made the mass media thing for the public to consume I believe the public should, at some point, have a say in the future trajectory of the product, after all it is still the public who "decide" if a product is good and will be remembered, and they even "decide" the value of the product as well.
Art is usually only made for a select few to own...it is "artisanal"...meanwhile video games are made for a much larger group...
Do you really defend that kind of right?
That's not what I'm defending at all.
That's completely different? Also the owner still had an art piece. Just a destroyed one. That was arguably worth more.