cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/18457741
I realize that, after all this time, I have never payed for my all-time favorite games I grew up playing (Fallout 3 & Skyrim). I can pay for it, but I really do not want to pay the money to the Bethesda’s marketing team, CEO, and whoever bullshit middle man who wants a cut of that. I want to give directly to the team that made the damn game, the artists, the sound designers, the voice actors, the programmers. If there was a way to do that, i’d be more happily inclined to spend my money on a decade year old game.
Just thinking
What are your ideas on how this could actually be implemented?
Buy games from indie developers on platforms like itch.io. You may have a negative view of the other people involved in funding and marketing a triple AAA game but they all contribute and get a share of the retail price. You don’t get to pick and choose who deserves to get their slice.
they all contribute
The point is:
Not evenly.
The point is that game developers don’t get royalties the same way say, book writers do, not that the distribution is uneven or exactly unfair in a direct sense.
Is anyone seriously advocating for literally even distribution of the rewards? Some people barely touch the game and others are in it from the start. Not to mention putting work in early is much more risky than working on a nearly complete game.
I meant that the uneven distribution may be unfair, not that fairness = evenness. But yeah, I guess there’d be no way to tell what the optimal redistribution should be…
Eh, guessing from a distance or playing favorites won’t be better though. Like I might get grumpy about a C-level guy or investor getting more than their “fair share”, but marketing for example is still an important job done by people that aren’t paid gobs of money. Without the ability to let the people that would buy it know about your product, it effectively doesn’t exist. We all love the story about a game that came out of nowhere, but that’s the exception, not the rule.
WOM has and will always be the best form of marketing and you dont need big marketing teams to do it.
The problem is that a company doesnt need that many people to push a product. They can just pay the few they need, well. But instead, they’d just rather hire a shit ton of people and under pay all of them.
This reply reads like we should have to pay for these big unnecessary marketing teams these companies hire, which shouldn’t be the case.
Marketing has to be one of the most fungible business activities there are. That any business maintains its own marketing department (you’d still need someone to be the marketing director) is a waste of resources.
“Here’s $1m, put my products in front of 200,000 of the best market segment. Oh here’s some art to use.”
If only we could migrate our Steam library to itch.io or GOG…
Bruce Perens is spearheading an initiative that he is calling Post Open to address issues like the sustainability of open source software development.
the distinction between big and small companies is artificial , a big company can still have a small product with low profit margins, and both big and small companies can be managed by the same mutual funds and pension funds (vanguard , blackrock, fidelity etc).
@wiki_me @vk6flab Yes, I created the DFSG and then made it the OSD. Please read the text at https://perens.com/static/DEVELOPMENT_LICENSE.txt?v=2004_04_01 , specificially the definition of YOU. It sounds like I should add _owners_ to YOU as well as _ownership_.
@wiki_me @vk6flab In response to your comment, I made these changes to my draft:
2.5 YOU are:
A) The legal entity exercising RESTRICTED RIGHTS under these terms.
B) any other legal entities in which the entity of part A holds
5% ownership or greater or equivalent control without ownership
C) Any legal entity with 5% or more ownership in the entity of part A
or equivalent control without ownership.(continued)
Where the above definition contains multiple legal entities, all are
subject to these terms, including the sections regarding termination.
[This is to avoid the situation in which a company creates a legal entity
specifically for the purpose of entering into these terms while insulating
the rest of the company from their effect.]YOUR is the possessive or adjective form of YOU.
(continued)
deleted by creator
I recommend that you take that observation to @BrucePerens_K6BP@mastodon.radio himself.
In Germany, it’s illegal to donate without the person receiving doesn’t have a company, or a non-profit. So it quickly becomes difficult in some parts of the world.
The other problem is weird moderation. A few months ago I made a post on the Linux Mint forum to ask the developers to implement the cinnamon panel to also auto-expand (so it looks more like a dock when the user wants it that way). I simply mentioned that if there’s an official bounty website for mint, that I’d gladly contribute there. I almost got banned over there just for asking that. So since then, I don’t ask anymore, and I donate less. I don’t wanna get in trouble.
Can you elaborate on the Germany part? I am from Germany and I tried to look this up and found nothing. The main thing I found was:
Die Rechtslage in Deutschland – Ist Spenden sammeln für private Zwecke erlaubt?
In Deutschland ist das Crowdfunding für private Zwecke erlaubt. Es gibt keinerlei gesetzliche Einschränkungen – du brauchst dir also keine Gedanken zu machen, ob du zuerst einen Verein gründen musst oder einen Gemeinnützigkeitsnachweis benötigst, um online Spenden zu sammeln.
From GoFundMe
So it sounds like you can receive private donations for anything no problem. Obviously it’s taxable but that should be obvious, and true in most places.
That was on a mastodon discussion a few days ago, where it was said that in germany you need a legal entity to receive the money, and not as an individual. And that has complexities of its own. In the US, you can receive money as donation without a problem, as long as you pay your taxes on them, for anything above $400 per year or so.
It’s basically illegal to do anything in Germany🫠
Removed by mod
Nah, nah, nah, it’s illegal too
I almost got banned over there just for asking that
Huh. Why, what was the reasoning there?
Apparently it was against the ToS of the forum. Not sure why though.
Weirdness. Anyway, kudos for being one of the few people actively supporting FOSS monetarily!
If they took the first step and worked towards, or remained, independent and selfpublished, that would make it a bit easier.
But Bethesda, Obsidian, InXile and even Blizzard couldn’t sell their asses to Microsoft fast enough once the offer was on the table.
I get you want to support the Devs, but they kinda made their choice. They had independence, some quite successfully, but they sold it.
Maybe it’s time to look for new studios to support and help up to contest with the old buggers?
I want to give directly to the team that made the damn game, the artists, the sound designers, the voice actors, the programmers.
So… you want to push game development into something like what happens with the servers at restaurants and whatnot? Essentially create a scenario where the developers are payed even less by the game studio because “they can get good money from tips”?
Are you aware that this is exactly what’s going to happen if people push for what you’re saying?
Some software that enables users to browse all kinds of content and encourages them to donate to creators using cryptocurrency. This program would automatically distribute payments to verified creators who have provided a cryptocurrency address. This ensures that creators receive their rightful compensation for their work.
At present, I only donate to individual creators who receive funding through platforms like OpenCollective, Patreon, or similar services. I don’t even donate to Lemmy because there are multiple developers, but only one person in charge of receiving and distributing donations and I don’t want to waste time and effort making sure the funds are distributed between everyone involved. I’d instead prefer open-source software that simplifies the process and ensures that everyone receives their fair share.
Why does it have to be cryptocurrency
@breadsmasher Not OP, but for me, donating by cryptocurrency is about a million times easier than in any other way.
Same here, using the US backed SWIFT system seems absurd. I’d be mindful of the shit around Crypto though, it’s why I like
As always converting to fiat will be the issue.
Same here, using the US backed SWIFT system seems absurd
What is absurd is that US banks offer accounts without an IBAN/SWIFT number, or ask for large commissions on those, and people are still relying on bullshit non-standardized forms of identification like account number, bank codes and routing numbers. USA, get yourself and your banking system into the XXI century.
I believe any other payment method has someone in the middle taking a cut. What would you propose?
Gas fees, fees to convert to fiat, electricity bills for miners / initial investment for stakers… No matter how you frame it, there are still associated fees. Might as well use the standard we have at the moment.
I wouldn’t use it then since I don’t feel as comfortable sharing my bank account as I do sharing a cryptocurrency address.
But you don’t need to share identification if you’re sharing to receive money.
@CoderSupreme I just discovered that if I pay with my MasterCard, and the vendor saves my card details even against my wish, and then they make a new transaction, my bank is not able to reverse it. So yeah… I guess I’m never paying by MasterCard ever again.
There are many ways around this, like using intermediary services like PayPal or a privacy.com credit card with ephemeral numbers.
Crypto, while one way, is not the only way.
@TrumpetX Sorry but your two proposed solutions are not available to me, and both would put me at the mercy of big American corporations. I’m not saying crypto is the only way, but all the other ways are either not available in 90% of the world, or not acceptable for anyone a bit privacy conscious. Out of the remaining options, crypto is by far the easiest to use. And no intermediaries necessary.
Medium of payment isn’t the problem. The problem is to convince people to pay for free software. I don’t think there’s any good solution to this.
@magic_lobster_party I beg to differ. The medium of payment has always been the bigger problem for me, whenever I wanted to donate. When I found out it can be done through F-Droid Bitcoin button by a single click, I started sending monthly donations to some OSS apps. PayPal is cancer, even MasterCard and Visa are much more hassle (and risk) than Bitcoin, and sending an international wire transaction is completely out of the question.
Wikipedia removed the option to donate by Bitcoin because too few people used it. I don’t deny that some people prefer to pay by cryptocurrency. It’s just that these people are too few to drive a change.
@magic_lobster_party I mean… cryptocurrency fans are also regularly bullied to the point that it’s a bit risky to even mention my preference. And having a bitcoin wallet costs nothing, so the wikipedia decision must be caused by something else - maybe also more of a marketing thing. The crypto haters caused so much damage, it’s really sad.
It costs money to exchange Bitcoin to some actual useful currency.
