"You are telling me that a company should spend that amount of money and then
give EVERYTHING away for free?"
You of all people should know that when we're talking of free it doesn't mean
gratis. Free software and free culture aren't anti-money. Recall what I said
earlier that "I'd like to see more people doing what onpon4 is doing and
developing free games commercially. Free from the start. Not free code with
non-free graphics/sounds. Or that start proprietary and are made free later
on when the code is thrown over the wall (and no longer compiles or runs on
modern systems), etc."
"that is not possible with a pure FLOSS game."
So you say. Some people said developing GNU was impossible. If we really do
want proprietary stuff to disappear entirely then it needs to be possible for
people to make money from the stuff they make. All of the usual funding
suspects come into play: Crowdfunding, subscriptions, etc. People are only
limited by their own imaginations for what sort of funding models they can
think up. BUT... just because someone's unimaginative and can't think up a
way to raise a sufficient budget for what they want to do doesn't mean that
sticking with the old school model of "I must take the power and control away
from other people in order to make money" is valid. It assumes that the make
of the money is the most important thing. Money is a reward only and isn't
necessarily deserved. To quote RMS, "if anything deserves a reward, it is
social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results..." Society isn't free to use
proprietary stuff, because it's proprietary. So if someone making something
proprietary they don't deserve any money IMO.
"If RMS is fine with game art being proprietary/commercial, then what makes
you think that your ideology that game art should be totally free has any
pull?"
Fortunately I am not the only person with this view.
