If you recognize the name Jason Rohrer, it might be because he's done somewhat controversial stuff in the past. The example I remember best is when he said big Steam sales are bad for gamers....
If you recognize the name Jason Rohrer, it might be because he's done somewhat controversial stuff in the past. The example I remember best is when he said big Steam sales are bad for gamers.
Interestingly, he says at the end of that blog post that The Castle Doctrine will be $16 forever. Today, the game is listed on Steam for $3.99.
That's hilarious, in a cynical way. "Sales are bad, unless it's my game, then buy it. Also, I'm gonna create a micro-scandal about treating artists, getting eyeballs on my game... which if you...
That's hilarious, in a cynical way.
"Sales are bad, unless it's my game, then buy it. Also, I'm gonna create a micro-scandal about treating artists, getting eyeballs on my game... which if you missed, is on SALE!"
Then have those conversations and make your own art to sell as NFTs if you can't sell others? Wait, his art won't, which is why he had to outsource that work in the first place. NFTs are the next...
Rohrer told Kotaku that he did not ask permission to sell people’s works as NFTs “mostly because having email conversations with 50+ people would exceed my bandwidth as a solo creator.”
Then have those conversations and make your own art to sell as NFTs if you can't sell others? Wait, his art won't, which is why he had to outsource that work in the first place.
NFTs are the next logical step in the alternative capitalism of crypto. It is the weird secret society, high-value auction, creepy gala step where people bid for cultural tokens just to have them and stash them in their private collection, or maybe loan out to an institution with a placard saying "Put on display by <rich dude>." Essentially just tech-enabled opulence. It's made all the worse in this case because it isn't just environmental exploitation, but artist exploitation. These assets were made by artists who made them for a game. Arguably their work was important in creating the value of these assets, and they should have a say in how they are used outside of their original purpose. The part where this becomes particularly egregious is the contract may say Rohrer can use them for any purpose, but a good person would check to see if it's okay to re-appropriate these works in this different, even questionable, context.
That seems like a misdirection. He's within his legal rights of course, but I mean, if you had the bandwidth to commission the work in the first place, he clearly could could contact them. The...
In an email, Rohrer told Kotaku that he did not ask permission to sell people’s works as NFTs “mostly because having email conversations with 50+ people would exceed my bandwidth as a solo creator.”
That seems like a misdirection. He's within his legal rights of course, but I mean, if you had the bandwidth to commission the work in the first place, he clearly could could contact them. The reason he didn't is obvious; he has no legal obligation and it feels kinda scummy.
If you recognize the name Jason Rohrer, it might be because he's done somewhat controversial stuff in the past. The example I remember best is when he said big Steam sales are bad for gamers.
Interestingly, he says at the end of that blog post that The Castle Doctrine will be $16 forever. Today, the game is listed on Steam for $3.99.
That's hilarious, in a cynical way.
"Sales are bad, unless it's my game, then buy it. Also, I'm gonna create a micro-scandal about treating artists, getting eyeballs on my game... which if you missed, is on SALE!"
Then have those conversations and make your own art to sell as NFTs if you can't sell others? Wait, his art won't, which is why he had to outsource that work in the first place.
NFTs are the next logical step in the alternative capitalism of crypto. It is the weird secret society, high-value auction, creepy gala step where people bid for cultural tokens just to have them and stash them in their private collection, or maybe loan out to an institution with a placard saying "Put on display by <rich dude>." Essentially just tech-enabled opulence. It's made all the worse in this case because it isn't just environmental exploitation, but artist exploitation. These assets were made by artists who made them for a game. Arguably their work was important in creating the value of these assets, and they should have a say in how they are used outside of their original purpose. The part where this becomes particularly egregious is the contract may say Rohrer can use them for any purpose, but a good person would check to see if it's okay to re-appropriate these works in this different, even questionable, context.
That seems like a misdirection. He's within his legal rights of course, but I mean, if you had the bandwidth to commission the work in the first place, he clearly could could contact them. The reason he didn't is obvious; he has no legal obligation and it feels kinda scummy.