89
Ross Scott Gets A Second Chance For His ‘Stop Killing Games’ Crusade
(www.techdirt.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
89 points (97.8% liked)
Games
20390 readers
796 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Setting aside piratesoftware's concerns (that it's economically untenable to require devs to develop a form of their game's source that would be publicly releasable), I'm not clear on why games should have this requirement and no other media, particularly when games are so much more complicated.
If we can't even require physical releases of any show or movie or album, because the company still owns the copyright and might choose to profit from it in the future, how can we expect active investment in the unwinding of their copyright from devs? Seems a double standard.
Nothing about the initiative says anything about “requiring devs to develop a form of their game’s source that would be publicly available”. Where did you see that?
Seeing multiple people pushing source code to misrepresent the movement makes me start to think they are bad faith actors.