It feels refreshing like the old days of Reddit minus the bad stuff. People discussing hobbies, music, technology and stuff.
The one thing this place needs now is gaming discussions.
It feels refreshing like the old days of Reddit minus the bad stuff. People discussing hobbies, music, technology and stuff.
The one thing this place needs now is gaming discussions.
yeah I agree, foss games are cool but most of them don’t even get close to what most proprietary games have been able to do unfortunately.
But ethics goes first. If you have problems with FLOSS games, participate in their development.
Resign to user rights is not negotiable. And more given that these games are not basic things for life.
Pop culture has nothing to do with FOSS ethics. Do you listen to music or movies only if they are made on an entirely complete FOSS hardware and supply chain?
Creativity if stifled by anything is a problem, be it ethics or lack of.
If can be created/edited and the license is libre I use to accept it.
However, yes, I encourage this. Mostly because games in this case are software.
I want my rights when I have a copy. I am in the libre culture, not only “libre software for utilities and tools” which seems the case to some people.
Even i promote libre culture, but pop culture does not work that way. Creativity expression needs money, and libre culture cannot satisfy the living needs and aspirations of the creative people.
Creative people.have their own needs, be it capitalist greed or aspirations, and they are the generators of creations. Creativity does not happen in a vacuum, as can be seen by the usually terrible UX, and lack of acknowledgement of, in the FOSS space.
I don’t believe that the issue with UX is exactly what you are pointing.
Libre Culture doesn’t prevent you to subsist.
Other thing is that you are trapped inside other idea that selling a disk is the only source of money and maintaining copyright over it which is, itself, wrong as other replacements as related services or proposals to add a tax to the internet to pay artists based on their use have been promoted several times and some of these views are alive today.
This doesn’t prevent you to get your rights and the point in the issues is to look for a solution for every case more than maintaining us without rights.
The issue is that creative people like to protect their IP, and their rights to it. And that stuff involves money. Non creative people steal the efforts of others mercilessly, which makes copyright law a safeguard to protect rights of creative artists.
Copyright law and patents are abused too though under capitalism, so you have both issues. And then you have the libre culture issue, where everything should be ideally libre, when the creative artists here will never want it, or stop their work altogether wherever such a culture exists.
Sorry for being a little dick in the comment before.
I have to think about how addressing this issue better yet with the people directly.
About the thing with UX, at least here people who study “art” vocational training (the alternative to the university to work directly and finish as Illustrators, etc) learn the following about informatics: first click, move mouse, second click, this tools is better because double click you apply a mask. There is no learning about the basics about it unless you study some deep degree or specific additional courses with is less common from a lot. I tell you from direct info I get of people inside and their ideas about informatics.
I doubt that I am wrong if I apply this experience to the whole Spain.
In the other side, people in computer programming (again vocational training) which use to be prepared directly more like Computer Sciece + Courses about programming (or you are good alone with the basics because of your intelectual ejem elitist ejem ejem superiority) learn the following about design guidelines: a bar here, here a column and this is accesible, don’t forget to add tags blablablabla. There is no explanation of the concepts behind it at all (this happens also in the programming we learn but this is other topic) and I know this from first hand.
In both cases, could exist a certain subject which tries to explain the basics at minimum but a very bare minimum to allow people connect one concept to other. It is like you learn basic of raw drawing over paper to apply just that in the computer with the complex methods teachers only tell you how to use.
Not at all, I am used to a little overboard defense, and I think it is better than being a corporate fangirling shrimp abundant on other corporate social media and IRL.
It is very hard to address this problem, and creativity cannot be taught, even if vocational courses can teach basic skill sets. Wanting creation of a creative generator AI is also stifled by its creator’s creativity, even if it were to be open source. Thus you have a catch 22 problem.
Creativity is not a skill, so it is limited too per artist, which has not been quantifiable to date and probably might not happen until the human and environment is scientifically entirely decoded.