Mooo
Time to start my own lil'' flame war...
Being Linux users, we use OpenSource tools to develop our software. But what is your take on making the software OpenSource?
Are you free software fanatics who would burn the developer of a proprietry extension to some obscure banking package on a stake, or are you the developer of the proprietry extension to some obscure banking package?
Personally, I prefer to OpenSource the tools I make, while keeping the final product (the game itself, if I was working on a game (which I''m not)) closed source until I had milked the market out of every penny I could get, then OpenSource it.
Opinions?
http://www.thisisnurgle.org.uk
"Nazrix is cool" Nazrix first, then Darkmage, then Nazrix again
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
To opensource or not to opensource?
My personal opinion is that OpenSource does not apply very well to the commercial game market. Other area can opensource their applications and still make good money on selling binary, bundled version and on support. This does not work in the case of games.
Nobody in their right mind would pay for a game which they can compile easily enough (come on, compiling a game isn''t like compiling the XFree86 4.0.1 sources
And there is no such thing as paying for support.
On the other hand, one area where OpenSource might work is online games. The server is closed and running on your company servers, while the protocol is released to the public and the client is opensource. You then have to charge people to play of course.
Nobody in their right mind would pay for a game which they can compile easily enough (come on, compiling a game isn''t like compiling the XFree86 4.0.1 sources
And there is no such thing as paying for support.On the other hand, one area where OpenSource might work is online games. The server is closed and running on your company servers, while the protocol is released to the public and the client is opensource. You then have to charge people to play of course.
Opnsource would work better on non-online games. Opensource on online games would be bad for the game''s security. Opensource on a non-multiplayer game wouldn''t matter as long as the media wouldn''t be free.
Oh, for (insert favourite diety here)''s sake... opensourcing will probably _increase_ security. Or do you consider Linux to be less secure than non-opensourced alternatives (hint: Windows)?
Another problem with opensourcing a non-online game in some cases is that you might want sell licenses for the game engine to other companies. Since commercial game development often includes state-of-the-art technology, where a lot of the value of the game is in the core engine code, the normal opensourcing arguments doesn''t really apply to it IMHO.
Another problem with opensourcing a non-online game in some cases is that you might want sell licenses for the game engine to other companies. Since commercial game development often includes state-of-the-art technology, where a lot of the value of the game is in the core engine code, the normal opensourcing arguments doesn''t really apply to it IMHO.
I think that open source just doesn''t really work for games. I mean, seriously, how many GOOD open source games are there?
Martee
Magnum Games
Martee
Magnum Games
Good Open Sourced Commercial Games (Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein) - Bad Open Sourced Commercial Games (?) = 3
Therefore, there are more good open sourced games than not.
That being said, who doesn''t think Quake makes oodeles and oodeles of cash for id?
Anyway, Open source is great, but if you dont go OS it, fine. Your choice, but dont say it is a bad business decision.
-----------------------------
A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."
Therefore, there are more good open sourced games than not.
That being said, who doesn''t think Quake makes oodeles and oodeles of cash for id?
Anyway, Open source is great, but if you dont go OS it, fine. Your choice, but dont say it is a bad business decision.
-----------------------------
A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."
I didn''t say commercial 
.
All the id games were only made open source when they were no longer viable to sell, so those don''t really count.
Martee
Magnum Games
. All the id games were only made open source when they were no longer viable to sell, so those don''t really count.
Martee
Magnum Games
I have no problems with open source software. It allows you to have a MUCH larger development team that can work all around the world (without moving, too!). Since there are many people working on it (for a large, well-known project, it can be hundreds or more), it takes much less time to find bugs, and usually all of them are found before it is released. Also, if you have a good team, development time is pretty fast. Linux is already a good OS, and look at how little time it''s taken to get there!
As far as good open-sourced games go, every game I''ve seen lives up to what it is advertised to be. In other words, few people have tried! Usually, if they make a *good* game, they want $$, so they don''t make it open source, and make their customers *buy* it.
It''s a myth that you can''t make money off of open-source software. Take a look at the major Linux distrubutions: Red Hat, SuSE, and others. They all make money off of their software, although a major portion of it is open-source!
Here are some ideas to make money off open-source software:
1. Make only part of the software open, and sell the open-source part with the .dll''s and other non-open source components. Microsoft''s Age of Empires II kinda does this, I''ve found out that the AI is practically open, there''s even documentation describing the scripting language for the AI!
SuSe does this. Although Linux is open-source, as are many of the programs in their package, there are also many tweaks that SuSE made by itself, and not everything in the package is open-source.
2. Do what some companies do: Sell major versions/their source code.
3. Remember: It is you who has the official release of your software! You can sell the binaries to stores/customers. The non-geek crowd will buy it this way. They don''t want to mess around with compiling and stuff.
4. Also, I''ve heard that some companies (Netscape? I''m not sure) will make their products free to the average consumer, but license the product so corporations have to pay. Only a customer can get the source code *legally* (and corporations can pay more if they get caught). Netscape also has the advantage of being able to freeze the code and put it in their browser (they''ve already done it), so they can sell their product. They also have the advantage of having a name that people recognize, so their copies will get more customers than people downloading the source code for free.
5. I''ve seen some software that makes their $$ on advertising.
6. You can do it how Godfree^ describes: Open-source the tools, but keep the final product closed.
7. Godfree^2: Sell the product, then when it stops selling and/or becomes obselete, open-source it. I myself kinda like this idea, it gives other programmers valuable tools and source without adversely affecting the company that sells the product, since it''s only given away when it is no longer profitable.
8. Lord Chaos: Host the game on a closed-source server, and have them pay for time playing it.
9. Remember to advertise your produst, or you''ll never make money, open-source or not!
10. Remember: Open source is only an option, even if you''re developing for Linux. There''s no law that states that all Linux software must be open-source!!!
No, I''m not a "make everything open!" fanatic, but I''ve seen evidence that the personality exists, especially on the GNU pages. Also note that many open-source people refer to "free" as a term to describe "freedom", not price.
WRONG! This only applies to programmers! Get your mind out of geek world; your average gamer knows practically nothing about programming. The danger is actually programmers who compile it, and then give it away to the average person for zero price.
"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away" --Henry David Thoreau
As far as good open-sourced games go, every game I''ve seen lives up to what it is advertised to be. In other words, few people have tried! Usually, if they make a *good* game, they want $$, so they don''t make it open source, and make their customers *buy* it.
It''s a myth that you can''t make money off of open-source software. Take a look at the major Linux distrubutions: Red Hat, SuSE, and others. They all make money off of their software, although a major portion of it is open-source!
Here are some ideas to make money off open-source software:
1. Make only part of the software open, and sell the open-source part with the .dll''s and other non-open source components. Microsoft''s Age of Empires II kinda does this, I''ve found out that the AI is practically open, there''s even documentation describing the scripting language for the AI!
SuSe does this. Although Linux is open-source, as are many of the programs in their package, there are also many tweaks that SuSE made by itself, and not everything in the package is open-source.
2. Do what some companies do: Sell major versions/their source code.
3. Remember: It is you who has the official release of your software! You can sell the binaries to stores/customers. The non-geek crowd will buy it this way. They don''t want to mess around with compiling and stuff.
4. Also, I''ve heard that some companies (Netscape? I''m not sure) will make their products free to the average consumer, but license the product so corporations have to pay. Only a customer can get the source code *legally* (and corporations can pay more if they get caught
). Netscape also has the advantage of being able to freeze the code and put it in their browser (they''ve already done it), so they can sell their product. They also have the advantage of having a name that people recognize, so their copies will get more customers than people downloading the source code for free.5. I''ve seen some software that makes their $$ on advertising.
6. You can do it how Godfree^ describes: Open-source the tools, but keep the final product closed.
7. Godfree^2: Sell the product, then when it stops selling and/or becomes obselete, open-source it. I myself kinda like this idea, it gives other programmers valuable tools and source without adversely affecting the company that sells the product, since it''s only given away when it is no longer profitable.
8. Lord Chaos: Host the game on a closed-source server, and have them pay for time playing it.
9. Remember to advertise your produst, or you''ll never make money, open-source or not!
10. Remember: Open source is only an option, even if you''re developing for Linux. There''s no law that states that all Linux software must be open-source!!!
No, I''m not a "make everything open!" fanatic, but I''ve seen evidence that the personality exists, especially on the GNU pages. Also note that many open-source people refer to "free" as a term to describe "freedom", not price.
quote: Nobody in their right mind would pay for a game which they can compile easily enough
WRONG! This only applies to programmers! Get your mind out of geek world; your average gamer knows practically nothing about programming. The danger is actually programmers who compile it, and then give it away to the average person for zero price.
"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away" --Henry David Thoreau
quote:
Get your mind out of geek world; your average gamer knows practically nothing about programming. The danger is actually programmers who compile it, and then give it away to the average person for zero price.
But this really applies to the Linux community, since the geek percentage is way bigger than for example the Windows so,,umity (if there is such a thing). Most people running Linux know how to compile stuff.
But yes, the second sentence is the most important. I know copy-protections and things doesn''t stop people from copying and distributing your software for free, but at least it makes it harder and maybe a few people think one or even two times before getting a pirated version instead of paying for it.
And comparing to RedHat and SuSE isn''t really fair. A game has a _very_ short life compared to an OS. WHen a game is released, it will probably only be on the market for half a year, maybe a year if it''s a *really* good one. Then it''s considered old and nobody (at least not very manby) would consider paying anything for it.
So I Also agree to Godfree^''s idea of milking as much money out of the game while keeping it closed-source, then when it''s "dead" you release it as open-source. And of course, keep all tools open-source all the time.
quote:
9. Remember to advertise your produst, or you''ll never make money, open-source or not!
This is actually an area where opensource will have a lot of good things to offer. Opensourcing the game will probably build a strong geek community around the game, and give you a fair boost in advertisement for free. Geeks talk, and the talk A LOT about stuff they like
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
