Wizards of the Coast denies, then confirms, that Magic: The Gathering promo art features AI elements | When will companies learn?::undefined

  • Whom@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d like to gently suggest you reread my comments, because my whole point is that design, rulesets, and declaring legality within their own system can all happen with a governing body that is not a for-profit company and released according to the same principles as free and open source software. There is not separation of those activities if you simply choose to play the original, say, Bizards of the Boast version as most players realistically would. Stuff made by others would effectively work just like homebrew does now.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I literally gave the name of a non-profit game with my response.

      And I recognized you can create a card game without a for-profit company running the design.

      I feel like you are taking past me because you are conflating tying two design activities together as requiring a profit motive.

      • Whom@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        you are conflating tying two design activities together as requiring a profit motive.

        I’m not though! I am saying, repeatedly, that a single organized group or even singular designer, for-profit or non-profit (but ideally the latter, of course) can do ALL of those design activities and release it as open source. They can design every card, decide every rule, and decide every card that “counts”. Having a FOSS license doesn’t change any of that. It’s up to players if they want to just use that or use additional stuff others make…just like it is now, since homebrew exists and will always exist as long as there is paper to write rules text on.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And you keep ignoring my statements about the system being more important than the individual parts. A designed system doesn’t get the value from FOSS development that other game systems get.

          • Whom@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Well, the point is that the advantages of centralized development don’t have to be given up, because development can still be centralized. The advantages of FOSS development I’m building this point upon aren’t like increased efficiency or something like that. It’s an ethical thing, allowing the game to be the public good it ought to be (and functionally kind of is, looking at proxies and homebrew). If those original designers ruin the game in a way that upsets enough people, a new designer or group could fork it and become the new standard. This isn’t really possible with a proprietary game without stepping incredibly carefully around the law. Homebrew and modified cards can exist, but if there was a modified version of Magic threatening to replace the original game, Wizards would be sending nukes your way real quick.

            But I get that you seem to be coming at this from a different position, if you don’t consider games being made as part of the commons as an inherently good thing then we have a philosophical disagreement that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. I believe that making stuff that belongs to everyone IS the value of free and open source development, not a means to an end.

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              if you don’t consider games being made as part of the commons as an inherently good thing then we have a philosophical disagreement that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

              I defined a type of game being made as part of the commons as being an inherently good thing.

              You are still talking past my assertion that a deck building card game is defined by the card pool, which is usually designed by a singular group of people.

              • Whom@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are still talking past my assertion that a deck building card game is defined by the card pool, which is usually designed by a singular group of people.

                I’m not talking past it, because as I’ve said over and over, I agree. That singular group of people can just release that card pool under a Creative Commons license and any associated software under a FOSS license and they have made a FOSS card game. What is the problem?

                • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They can, but it doesn’t provide any benefit to the game based on how card games like M:tG work.