Re: The nature of the beast

From: David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Henry Penninkilampi <htp@dove.net.au> writes:
> My, my...  That chip on your shoulder must be *huge*!

Come on.  Your goal is obviously to make broad and sweeping statements
(with liberal use of "obviously" and "of course" and "everyone knows")
in order to provoke disagreement.  Don't act surprised when you succeed.

> Wrong (David, you really should brush up on your logic before going off
> the deep end with a statement like this).
>
> If you had extrapolated my logic correctly (a single step) then you would
> have asked whether or not any *good* free *games* ever gets written. If
> you had extrapolated my logic correctly (two steps) then you would have
> asked whether or not any *good* free *software* ever gets written.

So you agree that if your argument were correct, there wouldn't be any
good free software??  Huh.

> Oh, there might be some rich kids who were born into wealth and, as a
> result, don't have to worry about earning a living.  These sorts of people
> are the most likely source of consistently GOOD free software - they have
> the technological resources, the private education, and the time.  A less
> consistent source of GOOD free software is the middle-class,
> socially-challenged geek.  These sorts of people tend to have limited
> funds (but just enough to get by), a public education, and plenty of free
> time because they don't have (what society calls) a life.  (Members of
> this latter group, by the way, are almost totally responsible for Linux -
> a free operating system, one of the best (IMHO) Unix variants around, and
> a shining example of open-source software.)

This isn't accurate.  Much (most) free software is produced by people
with good jobs, an adequate living, and relatively little free time.
[And a lot more by "rich kids" who made a lot of money in the software
business, than by people who inherited it.]  The busy people I know
write a lot more decent software in the little free time that they have
than do the people with lots of time on their hands.

You now seem to agree that there's a large class of people that produce
vast amounts of high-quality free software (and not by "accident", but
as the result of a specific intention to do so).  But somehow you deny
that the same process can produce high-quality free games.  According to
your argument, the successful free game designer will immediately
abandon doing anything for free and proceed to commercialize all future
work.  But plenty of successful free software developers succeed and
move proceed to ... produce lots more free software!  What's wrong with
this argument?

Personally, I don't see the point in producing free pbm/pbem games.  My
experience is that games with a small turn fee actually work better, to
keep people more serious about the game, while not costing so much as to
restrict the audience very much.  But that doesn't mean that those
non-free games are necessarily a for-profit activity.  I think most of
the poeple with the skills to create them could make more money doing
something else.  But they do it anyway because thyey enjoy it---a
motivation you apparently can't accept.

> Anyway, at the very beginning of this thread I said "if you are going to
> bitch and moan about exceptions to the rule, and cite specific examples,
> then you have missed the whole point."

If you don't like my pointing out the problems with your arguments,
please feel free not to respond to my postings.  Qualifying your remarks
with, "If there's something wrong with my logic, I don't want to hear
about it," doesn't mean that other people aren't interested in the
subject.

David desJardins

References

The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
Andrei Jirnyi <jonn@i-connect.ru>
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
Andrei Jirnyi <jonn@i-connect.ru>
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000