Vapourware Abandoned early access games should be forced to go open source

[puur prutswerk]

It should be in the early access contract with steam or something.

Discuss.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

If there's a downside to using EA then they'll just release it as a broken regular game.
Better off just not buying early access titles.

That's not to say I don't like the idea itself. I'd be much more likely to buy an early access title if a developer did this voluntarily.

 

[Bester]

1- Devs will just mark it as "released" and won't let anyone have it.

2- Under what license what that function anyway? If I pick up an abandoned game and continue to develop it under a different name, so I can get a stream of revenue, should it be allowed, or is it only for modding? If I make money with it, it means I also get the IP and can do whatever the fuck I want with it, which is obviously a problem. And if it's only for free, nobody will seriously develop it. And if I do it for free, but do something weird with the IP that harms it, and the devs have no recourse? That's weird.
It creates all sorts of questions to which there's no answers.

3- Steam won't ever do anything like that. So I don't even feel like talking about it.

I'll vote "yes" if someone formulates a coherent license for the whole thing, which is pretty much impossible.

 

[Nekot-The-Brave]

I actually kind of agree with this.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

If I scribble down a few words on a notepad and leave it as it is, should I be forced to publish a novel? If I strum a few notes on my guitar, should I be forced to release an album?

Big ole' no.

Distributors getting rid of early access altogether, that's a possible solution. We didn't have it or need it 20 years ago, we don't need it now.

 

[Damned Registrations]

And if it's only for free, nobody will seriously develop it.

Are... are you serious?

 

[Bester]

1- Devs will just mark it as "released" and won't let anyone have it.

2- Under what license what that function anyway? If I pick up an abandoned game and continue to develop it under a different name, so I can get a stream of revenue, should it be allowed, or is it only for modding? If I make money with it, it means I also get the IP and can do whatever the fuck I want with it, which is obviously a problem. And if it's only for free, nobody will seriously develop it. And if I do it for free, but do something weird with the IP that harms it, and the devs have no recourse? That's weird.
It creates all sorts of questions to which there's no answers.

3- Steam won't ever do anything like that. So I don't even feel like talking about it.

I'll vote "yes" if someone formulates a coherent license for the whole thing, which is pretty much impossible.

On top of what I said yesterday, companies also sometimes license technologies that cannot be distributed as open source, end of story.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

people who buy early accesses should be whipped.
people who buy early accesses who are abandoned should be flayed.

 

[Steamboat Willie]

On top of what I said yesterday, companies also sometimes license technologies that cannot be distributed as open source, end of story.

Anyone who puts any thought into how this would have to work will realize how idiotic of a proposal it is.

 

[puur prutswerk]

I was looking through my library and got a little angry.

I think forcing them is a bit much and against my principles, but developers should be at least encouraged to open up the development process when it seems to become stagnant.

Edit: i voted no in the poll.