I'm interested in creation of remote, horizontal game dev worker cooperative

> I somewhat wonder about trying to release those games on FOSS licenses (still with asking for “paying” for them to support the creators), that would be “purer” from anarchist perspective than using proprietary license but this is not something I have thought about that much.

A difficulty with FOSS licensing is that there are various ways to avoid its terms. If we consider the GPL for example, one is only required to redistribute source if they distribute the software. A company could potentially run the software on their own servers and instead provide a streaming service so that the users don't every explicitly receive the software. Even the AGPL doesn't help with this, which is why various other non-FOSS, but "source available" licenses have appeared in recent years such as the SSPL[1] from MongoDB, based of the AGPL.

It might be reasonable to use a dual-licensing model of SSPL/Proprietary, and have any third-party contributors sign a CLA to allow your enterprise to relicense their contributions. Even though the SSPL has received a lot of criticism and been called a "fauxpen-source" license, I think its terms are completely reasonable. To the little-man who wants to run and modify the software for their own personal use, there's virtually no difference from the AGPL. The stricter terms only impact cloud providers who want to profit from providing the software without giving anything back.

Another consideration is whether you only make the code FOSS, but keep the game assets proprietary. This would allow people to make similar/derivative games from your code without explicitly cloning yours. You could also release some assets under CC-BY-SA to allow third-party creations around your brand without giving all of it away. Perhaps the best example is the Touhou franchise[2], where the games are still proprietary but there are many derivative works around the franchise. You could also release assets under CC-BY-NC-ND or CC-BY-NC-SA

[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License

[2]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touhou_Project#Reception_and_f...

> I could research some more legalistic side of cooperative but it would be nice certainly to have someone who has some expertise here.

I'm no expert, but have you considered establishing something like a CIC[3] (UK Community Interest Company) or L3C[4] (US Low-profit LLC)? These approaches can take advantage of the legal system to prevent a company's assets being taken over by for-profit enterprises. In a CIC for example, if the company is wound up, the company's assets can only be transferred to another "asset-locked body", which includes other CICs or non-profits, but not for-profit companies. A CIC can only sell its assets to a for-profit if the sale is for the benefit of the community, and must have consent from the regulator.

A CIC must have a primary motive besides profit, but profit as a secondary motive is OK, which makes them distinct from charities. A CIC can raise capital like a limited company and pay dividends to shareholders - but there's not a duty to maximize shareholder profit because it is not the primary goal of the company.

This must all be declared in a constitution which is submitted to the regulator when establishing the company. You can use this constitution to outline what is expected of all members, including decision making processes, how disagreements are to be handled, and how the company's excess-profit is to be used for the benefit of the community.

It's not a completely flat structure, but IMO, some form of leadership is necessary to direct the community towards a common goal and mediate disputes. The company constitution could be crafted to prevent a few bad apples from poisoning the well. It can place limitations on how long each member can serve as a director, and can require directors be selected from the internal pool of members.

[3]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company

[4]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-profit_limited_liability_c...

(thought explosion below from a person who doesn't know very much at all)

Yes, I'm very keen on this idea. I mention worker collectives a few times in my blog as something I want to explore:

https://juanuys.com/blog/2022/11/21/masters-retrospective.ht...

https://juanuys.com/blog/2023/03/07/thoughts-on-ai-and-games...

https://juanuys.com/blog/2021/07/23/week-9-industry-insight-...

https://juanuys.com/blog/2021/08/03/week-10-more-industry-in...

I know a few people involved in co-ops, so I have an opportunity to ask them more about the nitty gritty of running one:

- a network I'm a part of (EE): https://www.equalexperts.com/blog/whats-new/employeebuyout-e...

- I know some folks who work at Outlandish: https://outlandish.com

In fact, I have links to some of the Outlandish documentation:

- member benefits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wd0zv-xCh7lM3ttu3eiNaVYO...

- regular contributor benefits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j4jPla6PUOijlGX0RN6f01Y0...

- competency framework: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kwmU2i3UuqHIyvVie8hX...

> I somewhat wonder about trying to release those games on FOSS licenses (still with asking for “paying” for them to support the creators), that would be “purer” from anarchist perspective than using proprietary license but this is not something I have thought about that much. The pro would be it being impossible to get the license stolen how almost happened to Disco Elysium creators.

This is absolutely the model I want to follow.

Pros:

- More people will try your game if it's free. Especially useful if a studio isn't known yet

- You can slap on a GPL3 license to force derivatives to also be FOSS

Cons:

- someone can easily take your FOSS game, build it, and sell it. Some might even go through the trouble of rebranding your game ever so slightly before re-selling it (even if you had the GPL3 license on there, but who cares, right? Lawyers are expensive, etc)

- There might be a bit of a stigma attached to free games, as something which might not really be worth your time, or perhaps comes with trackers/ads/malware/etc so I'm really sure if folks would pay much attention. Personal experience: even if I get an itch.io alert that someone I followed released a new free game, I rarely even have a look (and TBH, a lot of thumbnails + descriptions are quite boring, and looks like more of the same I see everywhere)

- if you follow the sales funnel (I use dummy numbers as an example): number of people who see/discover your game (10,000) -> number of people who claim it or add it to their account (1,000) -> number of people who install it (100) -> number of people who actually run the game (10) -> number of people who actually play it for a significant amount of time (1) -> the number of people who think it's worth something and actually saw the call-to-action that says "if you like this game, please support us by donating or buying our premium DLC or X" -> now we're getting into the vanishingly small numbers. Even if your call-to-action was super clear and can't be missed, no real significant number of people will actually send money your way.

> Game dev is very susceptible to exploitation from capitalists

OMG, the layoffs are heart-breaking. And the recent spate of Bethesda studio closures by M$, considering that these studios actually made successful games, is just disgusting.

(mad rant: From the "7 deadly sins", (capitalist) greed is definitely deadly. It's causing people stress, bad health, lack of funds to pay for doctors, etc. Maybe not so deadly for those at the top, but then I guess swimming in a sea of fire and brimstone forever more while Papa Satan sings his sweet tunes (apparently he was the leader of music in heaven before his fall, haha) is worse than death.)

> I already tried creating such a project but due to internal disagreements it didn’t pan out

I think the reason that something like sokpop works so well for now is because those 4 guys are roughly (exactly?) the same age and culture, and have roughly the same life goals and immediate needs, so it's like taking yourself and multiplying by four.

In the real world, some people have kids (might not be always available), some people are 10 years from retirement (maybe want to be more conservative with their income), some people only want to do it in their spare time (won't be in the "office" the same time as you), some people's productivity are measured differently (is a 3 minute song the same as a new level in a 2-bit single-screen platformer?), etc. It's just very difficult to get alignment on an entire founding team in a co-op. Perhaps it takes a certain kind of individual to function in a co-op.

Anyway, dude, this is a good idea. More people should pursue co-ops. There's definitely place for a kinder alternative to capitalism as we currently know it. I haven't really dug into the nitty gritty in-depth, but a lot of folks are doing it, so the resources are out there to learn more.

Feel free to reach out. Contact deets on my website.

Disclaimer (apart from being a ranting mad man who doesn't know much): I'm currently just a gamedev hobbyist, and don't have any big dreams of being successful (for whatever definition of successful), but I am having fun when I do spend my few minutes a week making games, and I'm not beating myself up when something doesn't get finished. (I think this was the nail in the coffin for me w.r.t "gamedev as a career": https://www.mimimi.games/our-final-game/ I mean, if THEY can't survive, who am I to survive, lol)