wodahSShadow wrote:I think we disagree on how much control is reasonable.
probably, for me it is a balance between what I would like (free everything! lol), and believing that a creator should have the right to do with their creations as they see fit, even if it is not what I would do myself.
note: the last part is
not a comment on the choices @sportd made.
wodahSShadow wrote:No, it isn't correct, I mean the actually publicly available games. Allowing access to subscribers/donors only is fine by me, even if disappointing (muh entitlement), but when it's out and popular it will spread like gonorrhea in a frat house. Trying to lock the game is like trying to stop the gonorrhea by force, it hurts more than it helps.
It is interesting to see the differences to peoples thinking that digital content has brought about.
If a carpenter built a table which someone else then took without permission and made money from it would be seen as a crime consisting of two parts. 1. Depriving the creator of said object, and 2. Unreasonable gain from another person's effort, both I would argue are of equal importance.
It seems that if the item being created is digital then the above situation changes because the taking part is seen to not deprive the creator of anything because they still have their copy of the item, the Unreasonable Gain also seems to be deemed less important or a minor inconvenience for the creator.
As a developer, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing when it comes to the design choices made when creating a new piece of software.
![soleil [img]images/icones/icon13.gif[/img]](./images/smilies/icon13.gif)