6 ms·
I used to work at Rovio (the creator of Angry Birds). Everyone was telling the story of a talk given by Peter Vesterbacka, the head of marketing. When it was ti
by tikotus 3mo ago
I used to work at Rovio (the creator of Angry Birds). Everyone was telling the story of a talk given by Peter Vesterbacka, the head of marketing. When it was time for questions, a man from the audience asked what physics engine the game uses. Vesterbacka gives the correct answer, Box2D, to which the person replied with another question. "Why isn't it mentioned in the credits? And by the way, I'm Erin Catto, the creator of Box2D." To this Vesterbacka replied "Come talk to me after the show". Maybe that's when Erin was given the hoodie? Also, his name was soon added to the credits.
But one thing amazed us all. It was impressive that the marketing guy knew which physics engine was used!
- gregsadetsky 3mo agoTo the larger point, do you know if Rovio did support/pay Eric in any other way than that hoodie? Angry Birds generated $500M [0], supposedly. I would also not be surprised if the Rovio developers, designers, testers, etc. who worked on this game did not get a share of that $500M pie - I actually assume they didn't. But still, you know. Dare I say it - what about "fairness"? :-) [0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/02/28/angry-birds-2-revenue-500-million-rovio https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/02/28/angry-birds-2-reven...
- sosodev 3mo agoI find it odd how we frame fairness in regards to open source software. He licensed his software as MIT. It says anyone can you use it without owing the author anything. So how is it unfair? To be clear, I think that open source maintainers deserve much more, but I don't understand why we rarely inspect the licenses as the source of the problem.
- nananana9 3mo agoWell there's this little pesky thing in the MIT license: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. That's what he was asking for, a mention in the credits.
- sosodev 3mo agoHe got his name in the credits. The question was if he is owed anything else. The contract he created says he was not. I’m simply suggesting he might need a different contract.
- singpolyma3 3mo agoOnly if he wants to force something different. Which it seems he does not.
- adamhartenz 3mo agoI bet if you caught a homerun ball in a baseball game, you wouldn't give it to the kid next to you because "I don't owe the kid anything".
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- gamblor956 3mo agoDepends on what the little kid intends to do with it. A lot of them collect MLB baseballs to sell them for cash.
- MisterTea 3mo ago> A lot of them collect MLB baseballs to sell them for cash. You have evidence of this? Because it would be my first guess that the parent coerces their child to sell the ball.
- gamblor956 3mo agoAt least a dozen times this season I've personally witnessed small kids talking about what they could buy with the money they would get from selling a foul ball that someone gave to them (out of guilt or public pressure) while their parents asked if they wouldn't rather keep it for the memories. However, my home team is the Dodgers, so the experience is probably different in other markets where the local team sucks and nobody cares about the players (like the Anaheim Angels, where fans are more likely to throw the ball back onto the field than keep them).
- LeBit 3mo agoIf I made 500M$ using an Open Source library and didn’t send at least 1M$ to the author, I would be an objectively bad person.
- CooCooCaCha 3mo agoI find this whole conversation baffling. Licenses and contracts are not a replacement for being a decent person.
- SiempreViernes 3mo agoSure, but contracts is the remedy society has developed to the problem that there are lots of indecent people around (not to mention that reasonable persons can disagree without being unreasonable).
- gafferongames 3mo agoYou can't have a good contract with bad people.
- singpolyma3 3mo agoOnly if you can afford to sue
- sillysaurusx 3mo agoI find it baffling in the other direction. The whole point of licensing is to ensure you’re a decent person. If you’re creating something new and you dare try to copy anything without a license, the pushback is unanimous and universal: everyone agrees you’re a bad person for even thinking of it. This is the same argument in the opposite direction. By fulfilling the terms of a license, you’re ensuring you play by the rules. In fact, licenses are the only real protection that open source maintainers have. So why diss on someone for following the license terms? This whole moralizing and tut-tutting is a weird branch of the convo.
- tripzilch 3mo ago
- CooCooCaCha 3mo agoBecause there’s a clear mismatch between the value generated from Box2d vs the value the creator receives, and that’s common for open-source in general. It would be common decency to donate even a small portion of that $500 million, even if the license technically doesn’t require it.
- SiempreViernes 3mo agoBut if this expectation really were very common, what would be the harm of putting it in a licence?
- CooCooCaCha 3mo agoMIT is simple, open, and common which is a big benefit for indie projects, small studios, and anyone with limited legal resources. It means there’s lots of info on the internet explaining how to use the license and they can be relatively certain they won’t accidentally fall into some legal trap or misinterpret the license. It also means there’s legal precedent around the license. All that to say, custom licenses are actually a big issue for small players.
- mvdtnz 3mo agoYou seem to be confusing what is legally/contractually required with what is fair. Fairness, in general, isn't defined by law or contracts, although some laws try to codify it.
- Yeask 3mo ago[dead]
- jasonkester 3mo agoI don’t think this is about fairness so much as a wish that developers would look out for their own self interest just a tiny bit. We all get the full-court open source brainwashing during our early years of learning about programming, so it’s hard to ever step back and look at creating something from any other lens than “I should release this as open source”. That’s the default, and anything less might get you grumped at by “the community”, so it’s the safest option. But if your thing can be picked up by a megacorp and used as the basis for their $100M product, it might be in your best interest to carve yourself out a little clause that lets you capture some of that.
- seshwanseb 3mo agoI think box2d was zlib licensed at the point angry birds was made. Not that the sentiment changes.
- maccard 3mo agoBox2d is open source. For better or for worse, Rovio are entitled to use it.
- tikotus 3mo agoI don't know enough to give an answer. But I also wonder if Unity, using Box2D to empower games generating billions, paid him anything.
- raincole 3mo agoPersonally, I define fairness as being able to use a piece of code however the license permitted. "Kindness" might be a better word.
- left-struck 3mo agoI think you’re confusing something being permissible with something being fair
- qwery 3mo ago> I would also not be surprised if the [staff] on this game did not get a share of that $500M pie That's almost certainly the case, yes. Anything like royalties / residuals is pretty much unheard of in gamedev. You do the work, you do the crunch, you don't talk about conditions, you don't talk about pay, you are actively hostile towards the 'U' word, your boss _________ ____ __ _____. For your service, you get the chance to be in the credits, provided your service continues after going "gold"[0], of course. Then you get laid off which is actually a win because you get to leave the company without getting blacklisted. Please forgive the gentle hyperbole, it's illustrative. The situation may have improved (slightly)[1] with ~actors as SAG-AFTRA was a growing influence in the industry some years ago. I'm a bit out of the loop on that side of things, though. [0] not that anyone ships after going gold anymore [1] improved slightly relative to "I'm the voice of Niko Bellic and I got paid in Famista cassettes" -- no this is not a true story, I'm actually not even a voice actor.
- protocolture 3mo ago>But one thing amazed us all. It was impressive that the marketing guy knew which physics engine was used! Yeah that was my immediate take away.