Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags
(3 edits)

I do not think centralizing anything is the way to go, unless you want to make the thing a business. Free, simple to use and efficient engines help a lot, like 'Bitsy'. People using it can express themselves and their ideas swiftly, without putting the creativity on pause, due to overt technological obstacles. It is simple, it is fast and it is free. We need more tools like that, tools that would turn consumers into developers.

EDIT:

For the open source, I know the mantra of earning on product related services rather than the product sales, as well as I do realize the terms of self promotion, but riding the horse of socialism, open source is not destined to function well in the capitalist environment.

(1 edit)

> I don't feel like explaining why would be productive to this conversation [about modding]. 

So I feel a bit sad that your answer was basically being the counterproductivity I feared, but I also feel commited to answer it, hoping to bring back your attention to the actual modding discussion. There's a lot of interesting discussion out there regarding open source as a profitable thing, especially within the discussion between free software and open source (this movement coming out explicitly as a way of free software serving some demands of capitalistic institutions, like when github posts that  "open source has won").

(2 edits)

Perhaps the only way to reasonably summarize my input in this thread is to state that balance is important in every aspect of life, be it also modding or approach to software availability in general. Any type of extremity typically asks for the principles of it to be tested, as if proposing a challenge, thus fueling not only competition, but plainly son-of-a-bitch behaviours that are a pain in the ass to deal with.

EDIT:

But y'know, since I have no programming or artistic skills whatsoever, maybe I just do not understand the charm of joyful commune aimed at sharing, rather than achieving any particular goal on the basis of organized teamwork. Perhaps I am being overly theoretical.

PS.

Open source technology has proven to work best as a springboard, meaning, someone will cash on your work eventually. I see the desire to make the world a better place, but in the end, you cannot negate the major ecosystem in charge.

I don't know, either you didn't understand my original point or you are being purposefully disruptful and counterproductive to it. I'll assume no malice, thus the former, and would ask you to kindly read all of which I have already written and think (as in no need to reply) how does that relate to any kind of extremity. For some reason you seem to holding very tightly to this argument that open source is not profitable, when profitability has never even been my point. I am really glad that you are engaged in this conversation with me, but I really think diving into the profitability and "extremety of open source" is missing the point and wasting away our precious thinking time. I would really thank you if you engaged with the actual proposals I've been making and telling how and why they could or could not work, instead of just insisting in "open source is not profitable" "open source has proven to be just a spring board", especially when I am even addressing those specific points in some way or another.

So if you answer this with just more meta discussion I'll just assume malice and give up on maintainig this dialogue with you. And please, if you want to talk about your thoughts on how bad open source is, please create a thread about it somewhere, and let's have fruitful arguments about it somewhere else, but again, it's not the point I am trying to make with this specific post.

(+1)

Yes, forgive me, I am simply being theoretical for the sake of dispute, I will disengage now.