MERLANDESE'S PROFILE

author=Sooz

author=Merlandese
I'm showing sympathy to a laborer who might feel that they aren't getting their fair due because the term "non-commercial only" isn't as clean cut as they thought. Just sympathy. I had to get clarity on if a Free to Play game was commercial, so I understand why it's not clear to everyone. I'm not on saying any person using "non-commercial only" assets is in the wrong.

As a creator myself, if you don't bother to understand the nature of commercial vs noncommercial work, you only have yourself to blame. It's pretty simple.

But, like, what's the deal here with that statement? I'm totally on board. Why does it feel like I'm being accused of being stupid? XD

The complexity of creator businessman-ness is kind of a different can of worms. Not immediately learning every facet of how legal definitions apply to globally newer business concepts isn't what I'd use as a qualifier for being a creator, nor would I ever consider it a "simple" subject.

But look, that's just me here, apparently. Maybe I'm not bright, and I'll pay for the mistakes. But if someone else makes these mistakes I can see where they're coming from. To me, the answer is clearer now that we've discussed, but it wasn't when I came in, so I totally get why a person would have questioned this from the outset when Patreon--something they may have never expected--got involved.

author=Liberty
What you're saying is "Don't every use free use stuff because it's not yours and if you get big off the use of it when adhering to the rules, then you're bad."

I said nothing like that. I didn't even imply it. I agree with you, Lib. Your stance is, like I said, the one that's logical. It falls in terms with the legal, what's sensible, etc. I'm just sympathizing with people who, through laziness or ignorance or whatever reason, may feel taken advantage of.

If someone signs a contract where they have to work the rest of their life, and that's in the fine print, yes, they should have read everything in the fine print, but they aren't crazy to suddenly feel like they've been used or tricked.

And this contract example isn't analogous in method, just in the mentality of the only person who could be considered in any way a victim, because rest assured the person making money isn't one.

author=Liberty
Well, of course it depends on the Terms of Use with the resources, of course. For example, my own resources have the caveat that any game using them MUST be made in a legally owned RPG Maker engine since they're based on the RTP. As long as they abide by those, then sure, that's not an issue?

Yeah, but what you're saying here is that if they follow the rules then they aren't breaking the rules. I can get behind that. If I'm not misreading the topic's, like, "core" or whatever, it's an issue for people who are trying to get something out of their assets.

Not every asset is given out to be completely nice. Let's say some of these assets are semi-free to help get exposure for the artist. Easiest way to make sure people don't just take them and profit (while still releasing them) is to make it clear they are for non-commercial use. And for the sake of normality, the person isn't going to write an extensive set of guidelines for donations and what-not. In fact, a lot of those distribution sites only have a checkbox for usage, not really a blank area where you specify engine or country or hair color or etc.

The heart of this choice is that if someone else benefits from the creator's asset, in this not-uncommon example, the creator also wants to benefit. They want the chance to share the gold or the glory or both. Using the "non-commercial" label doesn't feel very thin... until we get into the gray area of a topic like this.

So now Sooz has released a bunch of sweet songs on the pan flute for people to see and use, but pay for if they start making money with them. And Kentona, the savviest, makes a bunch of successful free games that launch him to Hideo Kojima status and leaves Sooz still broke, still not famous.

If Sooz gets upset by this, I can at least understand. If all is standing as it is, I agree with you (Liberty) on the last word because you're on solid logical ground. But I wouldn't feel comfortable saying, "hey, that's what you get for not specifying better," or that "dude, calm down, Kentona's stuff isn't commercial, it's donation" like this is all so completely obvious.

author=Liberty
The argument isn't "Do they have the right to have their assets covered if there's a commercial endeavour?" (which they do), but "Is this thing considered a commercial endeavour?" (which it isn't).

author=Merlandese
I generally agree with all of this, but what if Adventure Capitalist used nothing but Hirei's non-commercial assets? Where does that fall, and what sort of difference does it make in terms of, like, game busking? XD

Ah, but that isn't donations from outside the scope of a particular game. That's pay to play which is definitely a commercial endeavour within the game.

It isn't always Pay to Play. Maybe this game is (I'm not sure, I tried to find one that doesn't have micro-transactions), but not all of them.

Imagine that you and I, Liberty, release a completely Free to Play game on Steam. Can we use non-commercial assets? It's making less money than a Patreon. Or what if we release it but as soon as someone makes a transaction it locks out all of the non-commercial assets?

What makes it commercial, I guess it what I'm asking, and why would a Free to Play game without micro-transactions--or even before micro-transactions--be more commercial than a game that, though "busking," generates revenue?

If I made a game in the Free to Play category and released it on Steam, can I use non-commercial assets?

I don't know the answer to this question, but if someone says that you CAN use non-commercial assets on this page (Steam: Free to Play) then the same holds true for a Patreon page.

But if getting no money from a Free to Play game can somehow bar you from using non-commercial assets then I don't see how a Patreon-funded game could honestly feel they're doing anything different. Both offer free games, publicly, using assets that benefit their downloads and visibility, but one asks for money through Patreon.