I used to be a gamer, but it just doesn't do much for me anymore. I don't know why. I just feel like I'm wasting my time when I play games. That said, I still play them every once in a while, but only briefly, and almost exclusively single-player indie games.

I'm mostly a sandbox game fan. I like games you can just do what ever. The freedom is fun.

>>589 >Have your tastes changed over time, or have you always liked the same kinda games I don't think tastes change over time so much than they get refined. I think people always have liked the same thing but just didn't know it existed. >>590 >I just feel like I'm wasting my time when I play games. It generally is a waste of time since after years you probably know how to get the same kicks doing something in the real world with actual effects on your life. That is if its not a game you've already moved past since you already know what you actually enjoy. Can't imagine going back and playing any new massive platform-er or whatever like you would when you were a kid.

>>590 I can't remember the last time I bought a AAA game at launch. Indie games are where the spirit of video gaming lies, which is fine by me.

>>589 I guess it is more just an admission than anything, but...I actually seem to watch more games than play them nowadays. Hard to find motivation or time or effort to do it, but when I do do it, it feels really comfy. I like to play the occasional RPG, I am a fan of old FPS games, platformers are also my jam. Dont mind rhythm games either but I get too irked about not full comboing them lol. Still! I enjoy the culture, and there are a lot of people I have met thanks to it.

>>670 I find myself doing the same. I watch gaming channels on Youtube but don't really play games much at all. When I do, it's usually sandbox-like games where I can distract myself with little projects. Things like Minecraft, No Man's Sky, (it's actually quite good now, look it up) Terraria. Games where there's a lot of freedom to do other things besides the main goal of beating the game. It's fun. I'm not as into more directed linear progression styled games anymore. Then again, I'm not really very into games at all anymore.

So I saw on one of the Video game boards (I was on the overboard so I don't know which) a thread about video game licenses. Surely we're all in agreement that AGPL is the only non corporate bootlicker option right? Even ordinary GPL isn't really good enough here, because nothing's stopping any large gaming company from just streaming their altered version of the game over the internet and never needing to give out the source code. Honestly, big companies could do that with just about any software. That's why I heavily emphasize using AGPL over GPL for software you really don't want to get stolen. I remember reading that the AGPL was originally going to be just the next version of the GPL, but Google (and I think some other companies) threatened the FSF with banning GPL software from any websites they hosted if they went through with it, so they made it a separate license instead. It kinda makes sense, because there's no difference between the GPL and AGPL except for the extra "network use as distribution". There's not really any reason to not just use AGPL everywhere you would otherwise use GPL unless you specifically dislike the network clause, which just gives web companies like Google an amazon a huge advantage, and free reign to not give back to the community. Since that's the whole point of copyleft licenses, I get get why GPL is still much more.

>>740 >AGPL is the only non corporate bootlicker option That is unless you're going to just keep the whole thing proprietary. I'm talking from the perspective of an indie developer.

>>740 If it's a game you don't intend to make money from, then yeah it's the best option. If you're trying to profit though, it's a problem, because nothing's stopping the first person who buys your game (and thus has access to the source code) from just uploading the source code somewhere else for others to compile in order to get the game for free.

>>590 Same. The magic's gone for some reason. I wish I could enjoy them like I used to as a kid.

What kind of gamer am I? Pretty much an old school one. The new games don't really do it for me. Give me an old Atari game, some 8 or 16 bit platformers, RPG or sports title, and I'm good to go. That's what I grew up on. That, and old arcade titles like Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga and Donkey Kong, to name a few

>>755 I've thought about this problem a bit. I think that if you play on the security aspect of not using 3rd-party builds, you might not miss out on too many earnings. Idk though, I'm not any kind of developer, game or otherwise.

>>867 The problem is that most casual computer users don't understand the importance of property cyber-security, so they just download whatever without thinking about it potentially being malware because it's something they want. That's why does desktop screensaver viruses were so effective, and also why antivirus software is so prevalent on Windows. It you followed proper precautions, you wouldn't need antivirus because you'd never make the kinds of mistakes that give your computer a virus, like not verifying checksums. (To be fair, doing that is a lot easier on Linux where the process is largely automated by package managers, but I don't think people would really respect the checksum results anyway and probably do things like accept every pgp signature and key without really thinking about it if its automated, which destroys the whole point of the checksums. For most people, it just feels better to get an antivirus that'll clean up their poor practices, and download whatever they want. On the other hand if the users who buy the game only end up releasing the source code and other people would still have the compile the game themselves, I think the developer would actually be most fine with sales.