Wasteland 2 To Run On Unity Game Engine

[directhex]

It's nothing giving for free.We are Paying for the product. People PAY to development of project and after this is released on opensource.It's not free because we PAY (funding on Kickstarter) for the development of game.

You seem very upset that you're not getting something you haven't paid for.

At no point in Wasteland 2's pitch was there a promise to release either the engine or the assets under a Free Software license.

If you gave them your money on the basis that they would do that, then you need to read better.

If you didn't give them your money, then no harm no foul - they are 101% within their rights to pick the terms under which to produce their product, and end users are 100% within their rights to decide whether or not to back the project on that basis (e.g. I've not pledged to games without Linux ports, as is my right)

[lapis]

You seem very upset that you're not getting something you haven't paid for.

At no point in Wasteland 2's pitch was there a promise to release either the engine or the assets under a Free Software license.

If you gave them your money on the basis that they would do that, then you need to read better.

If you didn't give them your money, then no harm no foul - they are 101% within their rights to pick the terms under which to produce their product, and end users are 100% within their rights to decide whether or not to back the project on that basis (e.g. I've not pledged to games without Linux ports, as is my right)

Hey mono guy ,I know they don t promise release anything using a Free Software license. And they are on their right to do this.

But it's not logical because the society pays to develop a game but it's not for society even if society paid for this.When you pay for a product ,the product is your property .

Why on copyright side this dont happen?

[directhex]

Hey mono guy ,I know they don t promise release anything using a Free Software license. And they are on their right to do this.

But it's not logical because the society pays to develop a game but it's not for society even if society paid for this.When you pay for a product ,the product is your property .

Why on copyright side this dont happen?

It's not "society" that paid anything.

It's a collection of individuals. Those individuals have made the empirical decision "I consider the proposed benefits X to be worth my money Y". Every one of those users has accepted the terms under which the product will be developed.

Everyone who paid $15 or more paid that on the understanding that they'd receive a closed-source game for Windows, OSX or Linux. Initial release, with the expectation of the occasional patch. That's what they'll get!

If you want to encourage people to support Free Software projects instead, then by all means, do so. Any suggestions of Free Software games, developed by dedicated teams with deep experience of developing compelling games?

[lapis]

It's not "society" that paid anything.

It's a collection of individuals. Those individuals have made the empirical decision "I consider the proposed benefits X to be worth my money Y". Every one of those users has accepted the terms under which the product will be developed.

Everyone who paid $15 or more paid that on the understanding that they'd receive a closed-source game for Windows, OSX or Linux. Initial release, with the expectation of the occasional patch. That's what they'll get!

If you want to encourage people to support Free Software projects instead, then by all means, do so. Any suggestions of Free Software games, developed by dedicated teams with deep experience of developing compelling games?

Even if a group of individuals accepted the proposal is not based on logic, because individuals have paid the entire project development. And when you pay for the entire product development you have the right to ownership of the product. It's like selling a physical product and the person does not obtain ownership of the product (even if paid for all costs of producing the product).

People do not fight for ownership of the product because they dont know they have this right. And they have this right, because they paid for it entirely. Nobody would be stupid to pay entirely for a product and not wanting to own it.

This is called socialism. The person pays, pay, pay and never receive the right to property product.And remember, socialism is theft. Because the person paid more than the cost of the product and still be obliged to accept that the product will never be yours.

It happened with Windows 95. We pay very expensive and beyond the cost of the product. And we do not have the public domain Windows 95.Copyright in past have 14 years .Today it's 90 years.An absurd and a complete socialism os software.

[directhex]

Even if a group of individuals accepted the proposal is not based on logic, because individuals have paid the entire project development. And when you pay for the entire product development you have the right to ownership of the product. It's like selling a physical product and the person does not obtain ownership of the product (even if paid for all costs of producing the product).

People do not fight for ownership of the product because they dont know they have this right. And they have this right, because they paid for it entirely. Nobody would be stupid to pay entirely for a product and not wanting to own it.

This is called socialism. The person pays, pay, pay and never receive the right to property product.And remember, socialism is theft. Because the person paid more than the cost of the product and still be obliged to accept that the product will never be yours.

It happened with Windows 95. We pay very expensive and beyond the cost of the product. And we do not have the public domain Windows 95.Copyright in past have 14 years .Today it's 90 years.An absurd and a complete socialism os software.

I don't think "socialism" means what you think it means.

And you're confusing Kickstarter with Gambitious, which gives you what you're talking about

[rustybroomhandle]

Nobody would be stupid to pay entirely for a product and not wanting to own it.

Kickstarter is not about buying stuff. It's a place where you donate money to other people so that they can finance their projects. The fact that you get a copy of the product thrown in as a bonus is just an extra perk.

You did not "buy" anything.

[lapis]

Kickstarter is not about buying stuff. It's a place where you donate money to other people so that they can finance their projects. The fact that you get a copy of the product thrown in as a bonus is just an extra perk.

You did not "buy" anything.

Sorry, but this is theft or rather blind charity. People pay for the product, the developer takes as his property and then resell this work and will take all the money for themselves.


Besides being rather expensive, is a way that produces no return of free content and then the developer will sell a product that you invested.


It's a waste of money.

[directhex]

Sorry, but this is theft or rather blind charity. People pay for the product, the developer takes as his property and then resell this work and will take all the money for themselves.


Besides being rather expensive, is a way that produces no return of free content and then the developer will sell a product that you invested.


It's a waste of money.

Kickstarter clearly doesn't do what you think it does.

It is, by design a charity-style effort. Individuals and companies offer a pitch, and you can decide whether or not you want to support the project they have pitched financially.

Alongside the pitch, a project may offer rewards to its backers, so they receive *something* in exchange for their donation. Discrete levels are defined, so anyone pledging a minimum of X can receive the reward tier associated with X. In the case of most game Kickstarters, it's "give our company $15, and you'll receive a copy of the game once we've finished it".

You are not investing in the company, and you do not have any rights to the work being created, beyond those offered to you as a backer reward to match your backer level.

I liked Fargo's pitch, so donated $15, on the basis that I expect to enjoy the final product, will receive a copy of that product when it's finished (the final sale price of the game to non-backers is not yet defined, but will likely be more than $15) and trust the pitch enough to donate my money to the company. Same for Double Fine Adventure.

In both cases I am supporting a pitched project financially, in the hope of receiving future rewards. I don't own part of the company, or am owed any royalties on the final product. I am as I have described above.

It seems your main complaint is with the entire structure of Kickstarter, more than anything.

[lapis]

My problem is not with the kickstarter. The problem is the use of charity as a bad form of software development.

In the real world, people invest in something to get something in return. There is no free beer. What's worse is that the company will resell the product. It used the charity to produce even more money.


A healthy development is based on investment, where people pay to get something in return. Pay something to have nothing or very little in return is not healthy development.


And all this does not undo what I said about socialism in copyright.

Kickstarter clearly doesn't do what you think it does.

It is, by design a charity-style effort. Individuals and companies offer a pitch, and you can decide whether or not you want to support the project they have pitched financially.

Alongside the pitch, a project may offer rewards to its backers, so they receive *something* in exchange for their donation. Discrete levels are defined, so anyone pledging a minimum of X can receive the reward tier associated with X. In the case of most game Kickstarters, it's "give our company $15, and you'll receive a copy of the game once we've finished it".

You are not investing in the company, and you do not have any rights to the work being created, beyond those offered to you as a backer reward to match your backer level.

I liked Fargo's pitch, so donated $15, on the basis that I expect to enjoy the final product, will receive a copy of that product when it's finished (the final sale price of the game to non-backers is not yet defined, but will likely be more than $15) and trust the pitch enough to donate my money to the company. Same for Double Fine Adventure.

In both cases I am supporting a pitched project financially, in the hope of receiving future rewards. I don't own part of the company, or am owed any royalties on the final product. I am as I have described above.

It seems your main complaint is with the entire structure of Kickstarter, more than anything.

[Wyatt]

My problem is not with the kickstarter. The problem is the use of charity as a bad form of software development.
...
A healthy development is based on investment...

"Oh boo hoo, I don't like people investing in things they want to happen." Get real.