You’ve taken it?

You are continuing to perpetuate the misunderstanding that the modder releases a modified game, rather than just a mod.

Removed by mod

It doesn’t even need to come to that - it is plain as day your legal right to modify files on your computer

You are entirely missing the point, mate. Creating skeletal animations is game dev work. I didn’t say they were working for the company!

A modder’s work is the mod, not the modified game. And a company releasing someone else’s work is not “the exact same” as a modder adding to the game.

Nope. I know that the modders didn’t do the original work, that’s why it’s called modding.

But there is no claim to the original work. They only claim to have made what they made.

And, more importantly, they only release what they made.

This is why I asked you what you think modding is. Because modding is not “releasing a modified game”. Modding is releasing a modification to a game. This is a fundamental difference you do not seem to understand.

Most companies don’t support this practice.

[citation needed]

[definition of ‘support’ needed]

Those that literally don’t support mods, as in, block the possibility and disavow it publicly, do so because they make the same mistake you do: thinking that modders release modified games.

Yes, you can do whatever you want with files on your hard drive, but you’re still modding someone else’s work.

Yes. So?

That’s all I’m saying. Everyone is griping that the company used the modder’s work without permission, when the modder did the exact same thing: using someone else’s work without permission.

They did not do the exact same thing. If modders “did the exact same thing”, that would mean releasing the games with their modifications.

But they don’t do that.

They only release their mods. Which can only be enjoyed with an actual copy of the game. Which, I will remind you - the modders do not provide.

I’m not saying modding is morally wrong

You’re certainly implying it.

I’m something of a mod enjoyer myself XD

Then you really should understand that modders don’t release modified games.

and I agree it’s a dick move to swipe a modder’s work, but I doubt there’s a legal leg to stand on when their work is based on an IP they don’t own.

That really depends on the mod. A mod extending animation capabilities is not based on anyone else’s work but their own. This type of work is generally game agnostic, but is tailored to fit the game for that implementation.

The vast majority of modding is actual game development work that has been tailored to extend an existing game.

I do also understand the difference between small modders doing something for fun based on something they love instead of money and a company swiping someone’s work for profit.

You don’t demonstrate any understanding of this fact whatsoever.

But it’s right there in the name. Modding. What are you modding? Someone else’s work.

Yes. Modding. Not flipping - which is what you’re accusing them of.

they are always using someone else’s work for free.

Explain this insanity

You think someone should have to pay to modify the files of a game on their hard drive?

Actually let’s back up. What do you think “modding” means?

Such great but slightly annoying news. Dell have been notorious for making black boxes. Great that they’re improving, but never forget!

They’d be 23 days late on that claim

Rhetorical question haha, I know it’s bullshit. Popups take effort to create, you can’t just accidentally add them.

How the fuck do you accidentally add popups

I think they meant Philips and Phillips

Removed by mod

Age 17: Get lucky on the dancefloor and maybe in the bedroom.

Why not? Why do workers and owners being exactly the same set of people make it impossible to successfully develop games? This is an extra-important question to answer because a lot of these indie dev companies are a dozen or so people in total.

Lot money divided by many people = little money

Lot money in one person not divided. Still lot

Thanks for coming to my ted talk

Also - didn’t say it made it impossible to develop a game. Nice go making weird assumptions, though.

Exactly. For an extreme example, to “fantasise” about CSA requires a very warped POV.

You can’t act like media doesn’t help inform your biases. Sure, your opinion on nonexistent crime fighting turtles may not have changed, since that is complete fantasy. But your view on crime itself?

I saw Batman as a kid, and, though Batman obviously isn’t real, crime certainly is, and so are urban decay and bad neighbourhoods in cities. Seeing Batman take out goons and thugs made be believe those goons and thugs existed, and that I’d be in danger if I went out at night. More scared, in fact, because I knew Batman wouldn’t save me, since he isn’t real. The Batman films made Batman feel necessary, and his absence made the world scarier.

My comment wasn’t aimed at Re-Logic precisely, and I admit I was only making assumptions. My assumption was that their company fit into the mold of how capitalist companies operate. If they are a co-op, and practise profit sharing, then I admit I was wrong in my assumption, but I hope you agree it’s an assumption closely related to the reality of capitalist economics.

EDIT: Re-Logic has an owner. Sorry, my original comment stands.

Nothing stops a game dev company from operating as a cooperative

Apart from existing in a sea of capitalist companies than can ruthlessly outcompete them. Co-operatives don’t stand a chance.

paying the employees their share of the full value of revenue, minus costs involved in production and distribution and presumably some amount of seed funding they all agree to set aside for the next project.

That would only be feasible in a very small company, with sufficient profits to spread among the workforce.

But then, splitting the revenue means splitting the risk. So if the game doesn’t sell enough to recoup costs then the workers get nothing.

Yep, like I just said.

The whole tradeoff of wage labor is that you agree to do a thing for an amount of pay, regardless of what the employer gains from that labor.

I’d frame it as: you need money to live. Therefore, you suck it up and let someone exploit you so they can profit from your work, and give you scraps out of that profit.

You typically don’t get the full value of your labor, but are also insulated from business risks.

Those “business risks” only exist as a result of the same system that necessitates wage labour: capitalism. The risks generally have to do failing to increase growth and therefore going under due to lack of owner capital. A democratic economy has no owners, only a collective workforce who will together use their resources to fund the company and pay their own wages - this means there is no need for growth. That huge risk no longer exists.

If this usually didn’t pay off for the employer, then basically every business would be a co-op

That’s not even worth thinking about. We live in capitalism. Of course working with a capitalist model would work best - it’s the only way to ensure profits for the owners.

(because no one would be willing to pay someone to do a job if they weren’t willing to take a share of the risk)

You’re still assuming an owner. A democratic workplace wouldn’t have an owner - they’d all share responsibility for the business. And pay would be agreed democratically.

but successful co-ops of any scale are pretty rare which suggests a general unwillingness for workers to take on a share of the risks of the business.

No, it suggests that co-ops are ill-equipped to compete. It’s a moral decision, not a business one, and an incredibly risky one. Any company that isn’t willing to exploit its workers will be beaten out by one that is willing to do that, because the competitive, capitalist one will inevitably have more resources to throw behind it.

Think about this: for a company to be a co-op, it either has to be founded that way, or changed some time afterward. A company that runs in a traditionally capitalist way can only have fundamental changes happen at the behest of its owner; workers have no say how their business is run. This means that the small amount of co-ops has nothing to do with workers’ willingness to take risks. It has to do with owners not wanting to relinquish power and profit - an owner can only lose when transitioning to a co-op.

I’m not saying that Re-Logic should be a co-op. I’m saying our entire economic system demands that they exploit their workers.

Not pay its employees the full value of their labour. Mathematically impossible.