SarahVeraVicky

SarahVeraVicky t1_j6j470q wrote

> According to open source, that's impossible, you can't pirate open source code

I would assume pirating open source code would be using the code against its licensing. Yeah, I know, it's weird, but open source code in some cases (like GPL licensed code) can't just be added to a product and compiled without additional steps. If the open-source license used explicitly states you have to give the same license and rights to open source the code to other people and you commercially closed-source it, it would be an issue.

Since this removes the whole "show license before giving code", well... I could see a reason for a lawsuit being problematic to some. Who knows, most people would rather just take the code and use it, rather than deal with respecting copyrights/copyleft licenses.

3

SarahVeraVicky t1_j5kuxb0 wrote

The key part is to 'act in the best interests of [the company]'. Maybe loss leaders helps build the user base, or helping another company means building a future portfolio that spreads the influence of the company. Both of these would be seen as a death sentence if "maximize profit" was the only goal.

It could be argued that killing the company for a single quarter's highest profits could be seen as an act against the best interests of the company, but proving that can be impossible (unless the person in charge ends up parachuting out immediately afterwards, and even then they would have to have some hard proof against them.)

1

SarahVeraVicky t1_j5gwtxw wrote

Yeah....

Sadly there will always be some random "devil's advocates"/"rabid fans"/"corporate dogs" that will always be on their side, saying many of their loved reasons:

  • "People will still buy it anyways"
  • "They're making a shitton of money, why would they change that?"
  • "Look at how many awards Skyrim got, so you have zero right"
  • "It's a AAA game, it requires all that time and effort"
  • "You don't run the company"
  • [my 'favorite'] "They have to maximize their profits, it's REQUIRED BY LAW" [no it's not.]

At the end of the day, I would prefer:

  • Games announced at most 1 year before release
  • Decent profit, aim to spread the game so more people can enjoy it, not trying to squeeze every last cent.
1

SarahVeraVicky t1_istsrgh wrote

20 years to become profitable?

I wonder how that would work in today's business mindset? So much focus on quarterly and annual profits, that only rare people would have the patience to bother.

Shit would've either barely grazed by, or would've changed hands quickly enough to register for whiplash in a hospital.

4