Wizards of the Coast denies, then confirms, that Magic: The Gathering promo art features AI elements
www.techspot.com
The situation began a couple of days ago when fans accused Wizards of the Coast of using generative AI in promo images for its new Magic: The...

Wizards of the Coast denies, then confirms, that Magic: The Gathering promo art features AI elements | When will companies learn?::undefined

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    There are non-profit Living Card Games out there, including the current iteration of Star Wars: Customizable Card Game, but they still package card design together internally.

    And you sidestepped my comment about cohesive card design. It isn’t just designing cards, but the collection of cards together as well. Why separate these two activities?

    And if the open source model could work, I feel like it could have been implemented by now. We’ve seen it implemented in RPG’s and some board games, but why not card games?

    • Whom@midwest.socialEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      I’d like to gently suggest you reread my comments, because my whole point is that design, rulesets, and declaring legality within their own system can all happen with a governing body that is not a for-profit company and released according to the same principles as free and open source software. There is not separation of those activities if you simply choose to play the original, say, Bizards of the Boast version as most players realistically would. Stuff made by others would effectively work just like homebrew does now.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        I literally gave the name of a non-profit game with my response.

        And I recognized you can create a card game without a for-profit company running the design.

        I feel like you are taking past me because you are conflating tying two design activities together as requiring a profit motive.

        • Whom@midwest.socialEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          you are conflating tying two design activities together as requiring a profit motive.

          I’m not though! I am saying, repeatedly, that a single organized group or even singular designer, for-profit or non-profit (but ideally the latter, of course) can do ALL of those design activities and release it as open source. They can design every card, decide every rule, and decide every card that “counts”. Having a FOSS license doesn’t change any of that. It’s up to players if they want to just use that or use additional stuff others make…just like it is now, since homebrew exists and will always exist as long as there is paper to write rules text on.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            And you keep ignoring my statements about the system being more important than the individual parts. A designed system doesn’t get the value from FOSS development that other game systems get.

            • Whom@midwest.socialEnglish
              1·
              11 months ago

              Well, the point is that the advantages of centralized development don’t have to be given up, because development can still be centralized. The advantages of FOSS development I’m building this point upon aren’t like increased efficiency or something like that. It’s an ethical thing, allowing the game to be the public good it ought to be (and functionally kind of is, looking at proxies and homebrew). If those original designers ruin the game in a way that upsets enough people, a new designer or group could fork it and become the new standard. This isn’t really possible with a proprietary game without stepping incredibly carefully around the law. Homebrew and modified cards can exist, but if there was a modified version of Magic threatening to replace the original game, Wizards would be sending nukes your way real quick.

              But I get that you seem to be coming at this from a different position, if you don’t consider games being made as part of the commons as an inherently good thing then we have a philosophical disagreement that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. I believe that making stuff that belongs to everyone IS the value of free and open source development, not a means to an end.

              • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                if you don’t consider games being made as part of the commons as an inherently good thing then we have a philosophical disagreement that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

                I defined a type of game being made as part of the commons as being an inherently good thing.

                You are still talking past my assertion that a deck building card game is defined by the card pool, which is usually designed by a singular group of people.

                • Whom@midwest.socialEnglish
                  1·
                  11 months ago

                  You are still talking past my assertion that a deck building card game is defined by the card pool, which is usually designed by a singular group of people.

                  I’m not talking past it, because as I’ve said over and over, I agree. That singular group of people can just release that card pool under a Creative Commons license and any associated software under a FOSS license and they have made a FOSS card game. What is the problem?