this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025

107 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

33347 readers

209 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

Whom@beehaw.org

The_Hunted_One@beehaw.org

chloyster@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

107

Japanese devs face font licensing dilemma as leading provider increases annual plan price from $380 to $20,000+ (www.gamesindustry.biz)

submitted 3 weeks ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/gaming@beehaw.org

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 72 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

People complain about the evil of landlords, but it's nothing compared to companies like this.

Landlords at least nominally provide some sort of ongoing services. There are no necessary services a font company could possibly provide - there's no maintenance, no upkeep, no ongoing costs at all. This is just pure, and purely evil, rent-seeking.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 33 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

To be clear, there are some awful landlords out there. I agree with your point, but I don't want to diminish the dislike of many landlords.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Landlords province nothing to society, they are leeches who profit off others hard work simply because they "own the property" the worker lives on and takes care of.

Save a tree, axe a landlord.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 26 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This is not true at all. Good landlords also take care of the property, providing what is functionally a "home as a service" with none of the hassle of maintaining it.

There are bad landlords. Most rentals are owned by them. There are precious few that are not.

[–] Kissaki@beehaw.org 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Part of this service is covering the risk of unforseen cost. Heating breaks? That may become expensive. You pay a monthly fee and don't have to manage risk and cost like that. Many people would be ruined if they had to cover that and repair becomes necessary, or face worsening condition.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

As someone who owns my home (a moderately small 2-bedroom condo), I have tens of thousands of dollars worth of work to do to it that I really don't want to do. Nobody is going to do it for me.

Sometimes I wish I was renting ngl, but rent would be even higher than my mortgage for the same sized place.

[+] SARGE@startrek.website -3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

~~Imagine having a different opinion.~~

~~You could never.~~

Edit: I don't even know why I responded. You are clearly incapable of having a real discussion. I'm done.

[–] bear@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm a socialist and I agree with them.

The reality is that not everyone wants to own and maintain their current home, for a variety of reasons. So long as homes are commodified, which they effectively will be for the long-term forseeable future until we live in a true post-scarcity society, renting a home will be a necessary option that a functioning society must provide. Building housing is expensive in terms of labor and resources, and that labor must be compensated somehow, and not everyone will want or be able to front that entire cost. Or maybe they simply don't want to settle down permanently where they are now, or even ever, and therefore homeownership would saddle themselves with unwanted debts and the trouble of selling the home when they do move.

The flaws we see in modern day landlords are largely a function of capitalism. Housing is a necessary resource for survival, but one that we've rendered artificially scarce through social and economic policy inflating the price, and then it gets bought up by the only people who can afford it and rented out to those who can't. There's nothing inherently wrong with, for example, a worker-owned cooperative leasing out housing and providing maintenance services at a fair price for those homes for people who don't want to do it themselves. Ownership alone isn't a job and such rentseeking would be forbidden in a sane and just society, but under a better system there would still be room for such a service that provides genuine value to society.

[–] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 9 points 3 weeks ago

that’s a weird way to spell housing scalper

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 28 points 3 weeks ago

As reported by Gamemakers and GameSpark and translated by Automaton, Fontworks LETS discontinued its game licence plan at the end of November.

The expensive replacement plan – offered through Fontwork's parent company, Monotype – doesn't even provide local pricing for Japanese developers, and comes with a 25,000 user-cap, which is likely not workable for Japan's bigger studios.

The problem is further compounded by the difficulties and complexities of securing fonts that can accurately transcribe Kanji and Katakana characters.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What is this even licensing? You can't copyright a typeface in Japan or the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces#Japan

Technically the .ttf file could be copyright as a specific means to reproduce the typeface, but someone could just run it through something to copy the shapes and then there's nothing to be licensed.

[–] inconel@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Japanese law doesn't consider font itself or the style to be copyrighted, but font files are considered "program" (it is very broad in jurisdictional sense, roughly translates to "digital data that produce products through computational process", and displaying letters on monitor is applicable) and thus fall under under copyright protection.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

That's what I was saying with the .ttf file being copyright. It's entirely possible to generate a new "program" that produces the same shapes while being a brand new uncopyrighted program. There's an infinite number of ways to describe how to draw a shape, only the one in the original file is copyright.

[–] inconel@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

IANAL but again, the program is not program in general sense. The regular "program" part here is ttf format and protocol around there, but protection goes over ttf data as a whole. It may be able to argue if such new font display system is developed and used, practically no gamedev/publishing industries want to reinvent the wheel and built the ecosystem from scratch.

Also, the infringement criteria is not necessarily on process but also end results similarity and intention in Japanese law. When intention comes up in argument defendant often provide proof they did not have access to the alleged source or its end product.

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Notosans all the things everywhere? It’s a shame, but font users have an ethical duty to not pay these scumbags anything

[–] nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 weeks ago

Noto Sans definitely not choice for most of games.

Imagine having Elden Ring or Persona being served as Noto Sans. Even text heavy games, especially visual novel, use unique suitable font on main menu.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 16 points 3 weeks ago

Nowadays, creating fonts is easier than ever, with widely available tools. Creating good fonts that don’t look like hot garbage and don’t make your eyes hurt after reading a paragraph is somewhat harder, though type designers graduate from courses every year. There are lots of small independent foundries selling fonts around the world, and consultancies that will design fonts on commission for brands. If Monotype are going to play the private-equity extortion game, they’ll soon find game companies commissioning fonts they then own outright from designers, or even hiring a few type designers with the usual intake of 3D graphics/texture/animation artists.

[–] Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So then it sounds like somebody just needs to provide a font for applications that is a low priced one time payment and they would do pretty well. I wonder how difficult it is

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Or kill copyright. Japan is nothing without that fascist slave collar^MET^.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, I too love allowing large corporations to steal from independent artists and use their larger resources to take market share and all of the profit

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

… you know it is precisely copyright that allowed large corporation to form, right?

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's strictly untrue

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wait, you're serious claiming the opposite of the reality.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Large corporations predate copyright, including the west india trading company. So yes, it is strictly untrue. Not all business relies on copyright and patents to run.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Corporations created by government granted monopolies… Now, why would governments even entertaining the formation of corporations?

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's a different conversation. You're redirecting. My statement was as to that copyright is not necessary for large corporations. I'm still anti corpo. Without copyright large businesses would be the primary beneficiaries. They'd be able to freely do as china's factories do. They'd simply undercut the original inventers with their massive wealth, making the products cheaper(and often worse), selling more and amassing more money for themselves.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Without copyright large businesses would be the primary beneficiaries.

You merge or sue your competition to death for copyright violations first…

They’d simply undercut the original inventers with their massive wealth, making the products cheaper(and often worse), selling more and amassing more money for themselves.

Capitalism without copyright…

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes,

Capitalism without copyright…

Capitalism is the issue. Not copyright. Why do you think copyright is causing the problems that capitalism is causing.

You merge or sue your competition to death for copyright violations first…

A nonsense statement when said in reply to what I said.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Because the monopolies that capitalism creates, created copyright in the first place…. The monopoly on who gets to form corporations or not is a feature of capitalism that copyright or not strengthens. If you cease copyright altogether, capitalists will still abuse others because the government lobbied them so.

Capitalism ≠ Laissez-faire free markets, but government owning the rights on who gets to issue bonds and debts. You can't form a corporation without their expressed permission, if not, you loose your status as a corporation.

Copyright was expressely created to control the free flow of information, so the King and his nobility could amass wealth + control. It keeps working precisely because folks want a class society: wherein the law protects them, but punishes everyone else.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You can't form a corporation without their expressed permission, if not, you loose your status as a corporation.

This is just wrong. It's not permission. You submit to their bureaucracy, yes, but that's guaranteed if you submit your paperwork correctly, it's not a permission.

Capitalism ≠ Laissez-faire free markets, but government owning the rights on who gets to issue bonds and debts.

This is not completely accurate. It implies it's a prior approval situation instead of a post-revocable situation which while similar are notably different. The government cannot revoke those privileges arbitrarily. There is rules for them, but those rules do not restrict who does so, they restrict how it's done.

Speaking broadly, a system where the king issues money, and controls said money, is not capitalism anymore than socialism is communism. When nobility exist and can arbitrarily set rules and taxes, that is not capitalism. That isn't to say either are good, they're both terrible systems. But the thing you described with a king is strictly not capitalism, it's a different evil.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

government cannot revoke those privileges arbitrarily.

Ok, it's just ignorance on your part.

Speaking broadly, a system where the king issues money, and controls said money, is not capitalism

Cripes, your comprehension is just appalling. Next your going to sell me your follicles for your fealty to copyright governance with your level of dissonance

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The fact that you linked 3 links that don't counter what I said is impressive.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It does, if u comprehend ðt private ownership of ð means of trade means exactly ðt ð Diet made ðmselves proprietors of ð font, & want ð developers to pay rent. But since you ðink ð yen was creatd by Monotype, ðn Laissez faire ur font away, dissonant trader.

[–] spaciouscoder78@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There are a lot of free fonts (open source in your language) out there that cost nothing to use.

[–] Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Are you sure about this being true in Japanese? Open source culture over there might be different, and I don't think many Western fonts include Japanese glyphs.

It's likely, but I wouldn't extrapolate from my Western experiences in this case.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'd bet it's easier (and probably exists) with Katakana and Hiragana, Kanji OTOH, maybe not.

[–] Burnoutdv@feddit.org 11 points 3 weeks ago

Unfortunately there is a high level of complexity in some asian text, Chinese and Japanese kanji that are very similar have thousands of characters that are built in parts as far as i understood the technical site but are still annoyingly diverse, so you need a lot more than just lower, upper case, numbers and special characters

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Have the penalties for what you ratified for. 🎻

[–] nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, Japanese copyright law for software seriously needs to be overhaul.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 2 points 3 weeks ago

nah, the whole thing. authoritarianism needs to die.