 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
One more quick reply before heading off to lay down (cold meds and muscle relaxers for a SORE back make an intriguing combination).
The open source debate was actually the first substantial issue we tackled in the old Portal Forums, and at the outset, I was HIGHLY skeptical of the whole thing. One of the chief advangtages that kept being brought to the fore was the fact that we had access to public libraries of code, but my thinking was that, since so much of the game was original thinking, we would not be able to gain much from that.
The other reason that kept being offered up though, was much, MUCH more compelling in my mind's eye.
Lots of interest, and lots of eyeballs.
The fact that we're doing it in Java AND that it's open source rings both of the major bells over at slashdot, and slashdot sees a whole heckuva lot of traffic....when they endorse something, it generally sees a huge surge in activity. Likewise, the folks at sourceforge are understandably avid supporters of Open Source projects. Our goal is to use our position as an open source game (free release) to "be seen" by a whole lot of eyeballs (and wouldn't you know it, but the in-game documentation will point the way back to 'poly!  ), get people talking about the game in large number, and then, when we're ready, button up the code, take it commercial, and see where she takes us.
Essentially then, it's all about eyeballs, and we've got three different "legs" in that equation: 'Poly, Slashdot, and SourceForge.
-=Vel=-
(who has become an Open Source convert, and avid supporter!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
moomin
|
 |
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
No my point is that if you make it open source and than expect iteration to occur by work of hobbyists, that original build plus improvements will still be on the net. |
That's certainly true, but I'm not so sure it's all that important. We've seen plenty of evidence here that the CBeans have much design done that won't even go into the free release of CB, so for all practical purposes the free version of CB and the commercial aren't even the same game. Would a free, sourced version give a leg up to a team of hackers wanting to emulate the commercial release? Possibly, but not in any significant way. Code reuse is seldom all it's set out to be, unless the projects are managed that way very intentionally. So you'll have a free release, a dozen more or less polished improvements and the holy grail of the spit-and-polish commercial version - _all_ the free version are basically advertisements for the commercial one... and anybody who finds them to their liking will be sorely tempted to buy the best release.
quote:
Sure you can add some features which are "buttoned up" but then of course, you won't have this hypervauluable iteration by hobbyists on those parts. |
Well, of course not. It's not like they can eat their pie and have it too. But it stands to reason to believe that CB.com will profit from the innovations and creativity that will benefit CB.free during the considerable span of time between the free and the commercial release.
And since you question free source, let me just add the quiet observation that they've chosen an implementational technology - java - where extracting the source from what passes for a binary is if not trivial then certainly easy for any reasonably skilled programmer with a good set of tools. There is a reason, beyond less than beathtaking speed and iffiness of the core class packages that all commercial java you ever see is server-side. So if the proverbial genie is out of the bottle anyway, why not profit from it?
All this is defensive, anyhow. There are good offensive arguments too. Vel has already talked about the propagandistic value - which is huge - and I'd add that OS seems to be the numero uno way to build brand awareness quick in computing these days. Velocigames would have to pay a substancial amount of cash in hype to build up the equivalent commercially. And there is the issue of crew morale - I'd certianly would be examining my commitment verus time and risk if I were on the CB project on an entirely commercial basis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
moomin
|
|
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
Well, GP, that's hard to say, really.
My personal feeling is that outside contribution isn't likely to be much of an asset as far as design goes... but it might be huge in fixing bugs and adding all those minor touches tach bring life to a game. CB.com will profit from the bug-fixes directly and may profit from some of the added features if that part of the game is left intact in the commercial release.
More important, however, is the external utility contribution. Consider Gramphos and his Civ3 tool which is the de facto standard of adding functionality to the sadly lacking commercial release of that game. I'd go so far as to say that the existence of that utility has persuaded more people to stay with Civ3 (and consider buying an expansion!) than all Firaxis's patches together.
Open source makes it far easier to write tools like that and it also enables them to do much more exciting things. It will certainly help a lot in maintaing interest and buzz in the span between free and commercial release.
Another thing worth mentioning is that a full-scale proliferation of CB clones is a sword that cuts two ways... while to freebie gamer has more choise, he can't really rely on anyting in multiplayer. One of the big selling points I see for a commercial release over all the clones is solid multiplayer interoperability and a secure infrastructure to fend off cheaters - although this last will require they rethink their implementational choises, as I mentioned before.
So, no, I don't particularly believe that the hype & buzz - although huge - is the only good reason to go OS.
Now, as a counterpoint, would I do it this way myself? Probably not. I'd secure VC and a pay check for everyone involved... and make darn sure the publisher contract had a minimum-marketing requirement in dollars. But that's not a choise Vel & the gang have, so I believe the've rather chosen the good strategy with regard to OS given their circumstances.
That internal contract thing, now, that's another issue, but I don't have to preach that to you, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Lots of good discussion here while I was snoozing! Excellent! Excellent!
GP, your comments are an almost verbatim echo of my own concerns when we started the OS/Non-OS debate....I was VERY leery about a number of aspects of going OpenSource at the outset, for the very reasons you mentioned.
At the forefront of my mind was the notion that we'd have all these clones running around, people would be forking the code and taking it off in entirely new directions, adding features...any number of things.
And then I realized just how much control we have over the license. Yep, we can *almost* have our cake and eat it too. Not quite of course, but it's close.
We can write our license in such a way that if anybody does fork the code (expand or change), they're not allowed to do so for anything but personal use. We can even restrict where and how the modified code is made available for download. But in truth, I don't think we'll need to do more than watch that in a cursory manner, primarily because of the research I did on Open Source projects prior to making my final decision in favor of it.
As part of my research, I studied 485 OS projects that were in an at least similar vein as our project (there were only a handful of projects like ours (4x style game), so I had to branch out a bit to include strategy games, war games, and RPG's in my study, and came away with a whopping 485.
Of those, all but a handful were in anything other than the planning/pre-alpha stage, and had been for 10 months or longer (meaning in my mind, that they weren't ever gonna get any further along than they already were). Of the few that had progressed to the stage where they actually had a playable version available, all the projects had been in the works for at least two years, and a couple had been in development for over three. In my mind, this was pretty solid evidence that things move REALLY slowly in the OS world (done almost purely as a hobby, if I'm reading the trail signs correctly), and this gives me a great deal of comfort and confidence where the OS model is concerned.
If someone were to get serious about modding the code and making a viable, full featured, OS clone of our commercial release, first they'd have to assemble a comparably sized team (or a smaller team with a LOT of time on their hands), then, they'd have to learn the ins and outs of our code base...dissect it, see how stuff works, learn the ropes of it. THEN, they could begin adding enhancements to it....but all the while they're busy playing catch-up, we're steaming ahead with our new ideas.
Before they could have a comparable product out the door, we'd already have released the Commercial version by a wide margin....and even if (worst case), some independently wealthy code group beat us to the punch, we've got the protection of being able to restrict how they use what they create from our work.
The overriding importance of going OS, in my head though, is three fold:
First, it sends a strong message to the gaming community that ties in nicely with our open philosophy. It says in no uncertain terms that we applaud and appreciate their efforts at enhancing our work (and I'd not be terribly surprised if some of the derivative work done on the free release didn't find its way into the commercial release).
Second, the buzz created by doing it this way will be huge, and absolutely invaluable to us. We'd have to spend millions of dollars advertising and hyping to reach the same number of potential players as going the OS route introduces us to simply by existing as an active project. That's powerful marketing leverage indeed, and the cost effectiveness of it is....enormous (since it's free to us).
Third, we get access to a whole HOST of utilities that would cost us up front money if we had to set them up ourselves. SourceForge has a free CVS, bug-tracker thingy, and a whole menu of other stuff we get to use absolutely free just for being an OpenSource project.
I like free. Free is a good thing for us at this stage....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
moomin
|
|
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
(and I'd not be terribly surprised if some of the derivative work done on the free release didn't find its way into the commercial release).
-=Vel=- |
You'd better be very careful with that license in that case, Vel. It ain't trivial cooking up a scheme that procludes others from running away with your code while enabling you to make money off theirs, while maintaining as devotee-acceptable level of OSness, although it's possible. For successful examples, take a look at the commercial BSD licenses... not linux. For spectacular recent crashes, look up and enjoy the
MySQL AB/NuSphere debacle, now touring the court circuit to live Slashdot sports coverage. Amazing stuff.
In fact, I'd suggest paying a professional body, such as the FSF to write it for you. Do not, however, approch a "regular" immaterial rights attorney - their track record with OS isn't all that impressive, and any contract they produce is certainly going to meet with less hardcore OS approval. Your dedication looking at 500-odd other OS projects is commendable, but do not take your license from theirs - most of the guys who do OS wouldn't know how to write any kind of license, least of all a good OS one, if it jumped up and bit them in the posterior.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by moominparatrooper
You'd better be very careful with that license in that case, Vel. It ain't trivial cooking up a scheme that procludes others from running away with your code while enabling you to make money off theirs, while maintaining as devotee-acceptable level of OSness, although it's possible. |
Didn't Microprose do something similar though with their CiC and FW expansions having "Best of Net" sections?
Or is this an issue relating to open-source specifically?
One possible way around it might be to invite players to send material in with the understanding that they would be credited in the final release. A number of PnP RPG publishers do similar things with source material.
I have no idea about all of the legal technicalities involved though...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
Vel,
Just one quick question about your plan. You said that by being open source you can use source code and tools from certain places. Than once you have used that stuff and had the publicity from Open Source that you would close it up and make it a commercial viable product. Wouldn't closing the game up violate the licenses from the open source products and code that you used to get to the version that you are at when it is time for the open source version?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
Just make a good game. Than advertising is easy. if it stinks...no amount of advertising will help it. |
Ah but what Vel is also attempting to do is but it in front enough people that if the team cannot figure something out either coding or grahapically then they will have a base to call on others to help out.
I just was wondering about that part of the game design but I guess if your not really planning on using any code than I guess you will be ok.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2002 00:23
|