Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(1 edit)

That closure is to prevent someone from uploading a game and then suing Itch because the game is available in the newly created itch app for android or because an image or video of the game appears in some Itch promotion.

Entering Itch, without first asking the reason or meaning of the closure, if not, demanding that it be changed simply because it seems wrong to you (actually, you are misunderstanding). You're the one with the problem, not Itch.

You have no obligation to publish here, if you don't like the license, don't publish and that's it.

Go to Steam, GOG, etc. They have similar text in their licenses if you want to distribute with them.

A ridiculous theory

It is obviously the fault of the overlord clause. I am surprised by your attitude of shirking responsibility.

Just like those hooligans, [I just don't modify them. If you don't like them, go away.]

Very good.

In addition, don't ask me to go to GOG. They also have such overlord clauses. Including Patreon.

(1 edit)

I tried to be respectful and explain to you in good terms, but obviously either you come with the intention of creating conflict or you have a serious attitude and understanding problem.

The clause is written and drafted that way for a reason, you may like it or not, but they will not change it for you, and that is a fact.
Learn to live with that or go cry in a corner, I don't care.

But if in addition, you are going to get arrogant with the people who try to explain this to you, I really do not see what you are doing here, except being a troll

EDIT: By the way, I'm not an itch administrator nor do I have anything to do with the license. Believe me that if I were an admin, with your attitude, I would have already banned you.

Funny. If I were afraid of being banned, I wouldn't speak here

Also, I will video all the discussions here. If I am banned, people in my country can see it. This will prove your attitude.

I explained from the very beginning that we refused to accept such a hegemonic clause. Because of our attitude, many domestic platforms have respected our decision. They remove derivative works as an optional option, or allow authorization (just tick the checkbox).

You mentioned STEAM. I don't think STEAM is that bad. At least the derivative works of creative workshops can be closed and prohibited.

If you are just a game writer or audience, please shut up, because your explanation is only to annoy me, not to make the problem better.

thank you

That's funny. You don't "believe". Let's see what the Steam ToS have to say:

When you upload your content to Steam to make it available to other users and/or to Valve, you grant Valve and its affiliates the worldwide, non-exclusive right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and publicly perform, your User Generated Content, and derivative works of your User Generated Content, for the purpose of the operation, distribution, incorporation as part of and promotion of the Steam service, Steam games or other Steam offerings, including Subscriptions. This license is granted to Valve as the content is uploaded on Steam for the entire duration of the intellectual property rights.

And that's from the Subscriber Agreement, i.e. for what you post there as a user. Never mind if you publish a game with them.

OK, if this is true, STEAM is also a bad platform.

I will not take sides with any overlord clause. Thank you for your reminding.

However, I have many ways to deal with bad platforms. I can create bad junk games and put them on those platforms. Because the resources in the game are public resources purchased from the mall (not things I create), I will not worry about any derivative works.