quote:

---

Original post by SpittingTrashcan
Whoa!

I didn''t mean to start a flame war (my final comment was rather ill chosen), nor was I necessarily particularly interested in open source in specific... although it''s a topic worthy of debate, it wasn''t my intent to start that debate here.

Let me rephrase my basic question. To what extent should a game designer have the "buyer" and the "market" in mind? To what extent should he be creating for the gamer, to what extent for the common man, and to what extent for himself? And what balance creates the best (not just best-selling) games? Is financial motivation compatible with creativity and sound design? That''s what I wanted to ask. I''m not staking a claim anywhere on this... I just want to hear some opinions.

---

Like all products, if the developer of the product does not create a product that a consumer wants, it will eventually fail. Sure there are 6 billion Quake clones out there, and that''s because people buy them.

When it comes down to it (and this is from belief and no proof of my own), I think game developers are controlled to certain extent of revenue. If they come up with what they believe to be the next best thing, they sure better sell the idea to whoever is funding them or the project won''t get funded.

Also, I hope you don''t take my post about Open Source personally. I just think that Open Source will eventually be the death of programming if it get''s a big enough foot hold in the market. After all, you don''t see heart surgeons publishing detailed instructions on how to do a triple bypass on the net (with good reason).

borngamer

quote:

---

Original post by borngamer
If someone wrote it, and you use it, they should get paid. Simple as that. If the program isn''t worth paying for it isn''t worth using.

---

Why do you define everything in life in terms of money? What if the user has no money to give? Do they not deserve to be able to use anything? And your statement also implies that a product is worth whatever price tag you choose to place on it, which is also pretty silly. If I decide to price ICQ at $2 billion, it''s not suddenly worth $2 billion just because someone wants to use it.

People out there are using one of my programs. (Only 1492 downloads, but hey, it''s better than nothing.) I am not getting paid, nor do I mind. Someone wrote some open source software that I use, and I wrote an added piece of software that works with it. We all benefit. Not everything has to be about money.

quote:

---

So your saying that the musicians and the artists are worth getting paid but the programmers are not?

---

I am saying that people should take a more holistic view of development and sell the product as a whole. Why would giving the source for free on the net mean that the programmers don''t get paid? You''ll still shift just as many copies of your game if they need the CD to play it. Suggesting that programming will cease to be viable if everything became open source is like saying that UnrealScript or QuakeC or whatever languages are available these days will make it unviable to write FPS games. All it does is raise the standard for everybody as they have a better base to build from.

quote:

---

No kidding. I deal with this every day customizing a hospital application. But there is no way the product I use would exist if it were Open Source for a whole slew of reasons I won''t bother going into.

---

Why bother entering a discussion if you won''t explain your viewpoint?

If there are applications where open source is not an option, then fine, keep it closed source. For most application areas, open source is a good option.

quote:

---

But I''ll have to see a hell of a lot more examples of established products that can hold a candle to their commercial counterpart.

---

I think this is just going to come down to opinion, since I would have phrased it the other way. I certainly see a lot more active development and better customer service in the open source world than in closed source. In the commercial world you are often fed a patch for software that simply doesn''t work, and often forced to pay for that patch in the guise of an ''upgrade''. Only the computer industry gets away with this: other industries have to issue recalls or honour refunds when they sell unmerchantable goods. At least with open source, someone''s likely to fix it in good time and make that fix available to you for free. And you know that the people who work on open source have a personal stake in that code being perfect, as it''s open to being reviewed by everyone. Whereas a coder in a commercial environment rarely cares as they''re gonna get paid so long as it appears to work.

quote:

---

Sorry, but as a professional my time is way too valuable to give away.

---

I don''t try to tell everyone that all their code should be open source, but I think that a lot of open source''s opponents are just somewhat selfish. Which, I guess, is up to them. I spend hours on these forums daily because I want to help people and improve the community. I could instead be spending those hours working on my own games and selling them. But instead, I help out here, and we learn from each other. Call me a communist, but hey, sharing stuff tends to benefit everyone.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

[edit: hit the quote button instead of edit the second time ]

Edited by - eldee on January 22, 2002 11:27:40 PM

ok, here's my view on things...
programmers like myself pay alot of money to go through school,
get degrees, and get ahead.
who in their right mind is going to spend ~$30 thousand dollars
on something that will have no return?
im sorry, but some of the arguments i've heard here are truly
insane. Since when are all things prices based on a user's income?
Since when were computers necessary to get through life?
Do you see Bob's used car-lot for low-income families? no.. because
there (in most cities) is a public transportation system you can
get back and forth to work on. cars arent a necessity. neither is software.

quote:

---

If I decide to price ICQ at $2 billion, it's not suddenly worth $2 billion just because someone wants to use it.

---

if ICQ was priced at $2 billion nobody would buy it. they'd
switch to AIM or something else.
that's business. you compete, or you lose.

i think the current system of things is on track.. people can, in
most cases download a shareware version of a program to test out,
and if they like it, they can buy the full version before the 30 days
is up and cripples the program.
its like a test drive when you go to the car lot.
nobody asks you to buy a car out without trying it first.. same
with software.
open source in alot of cases is great. leaves room for community
improvement, fixes, ect.. but dont think for one minute that
i'm going to pay for my student loans while im giving away
my trade.



-eldee
;another space monkey;
[ Forced Evolution Studios ]

Edited by - eldee on January 22, 2002 11:28:36 PM

quote:

---

Original post by borngamer
After all, you don''t see heart surgeons publishing detailed instructions on how to do a triple bypass on the net (with good reason).

---

The phrase "dont try this at home, kids!" comes to mind.

-eldee
;another space monkey;

If a company made a game and thought that people would actually pay money for it, what''s wrong with making them pay for it?

If you spent a good whole year developing the BEST game engine ever, you wouldn''t want all that time and effort wasted by not getting any income or benefits from it.

No one should criticize a programmer if they don''t understand how difficult programming can be. No one should criticize an artist if they don''t know how annoying modelling can be. I am a programmer who''s artistic skills are gone.

Make this how you will.


- Impulse-X

I never said that all commercial software is worth buying. But if you use a commercial product the developer deserves to get paid. It's just up to you to determine if the product is worth using for the price the developer is charging.

I'll use 3D software as an example. I would gladly pay up to $1000 Candian for the full non-educational version of 3D Studio Max. But they won't price it that low so I won't buy it (or use it). At the same point, I have tried the under $1000 3D software (commercial and shareware) and can't find anything I like. So for now, I go without. But at some point I will have to decide one of three things. 1. Go without, 2. Bite the bullet and pay full retail for 3DS, or 3. Choose an inferior application in my price range.

The whole Open Source concept just blows me away. There are so many bad arguments people make on why software should be Open Source.

In the arguments above where someone says that the game should be priced based on sound and graphics only is crap. How could anyone justify this when without the code the game wouldn't exist. You need to remember, projects need funding. People need a salary or they won't work. Most managers base their budgets on performance and ability to generate revenue. What do you think would happen if is was common practice that the code would not be the money maker. I'll tell you, the developers would get minimal funding while the artists and musicians would get all the money. The same would go for salaries, who do you think would get the big $ salaries, not the programmers.

As for the point about me being selfish and only thinking of money... I have to reply with... Yes, I want to make money. Yes I want to make lot's of it. I have a family and a lifestyle to support. To do that, I need money. Do I want to make the best game possible? The answer to that is also yes. But if I can't make a profit doing it, I won't make it a priority in my life. I'd much rather do work that will let my little girl have a new bike for her birthday.

For those of you who disagree, give up all your earthly possessions (including your computer) and go join a monastary.

borngamer

Edited by - borngamer on January 23, 2002 10:48:30 AM

Here here borngamer. Open source has its place, but if people want to charge for their software, let them. If the market thinks is worth the price tag, it will sell and be successful. I don''t think any software should be forced to be open source. But it is nice when companies like id release their source a couple years later. Competition drives innovation, more than the sharing of source code. And that''s any kind of competition. Do you think we would have the cutting edge 3D cards we have now if the hardware companies were not saying company A says their card can do this, let''s beat that.

---
Make it work.
Make it fast.

"Commmmpuuuuterrrr.." --Scotty Star Trek IV:The Voyage Home

poeple create maps - earn money
poeple create music - earn money
poeple create textures - earn money
poeple create characters - earn money
poeple create animations - earn money
poeple create gfxcards - earn money blocksatz
poeple publish software - earn money
poeple create programms - for free... ?

I don''t understand why this should work this way... why all the other should get salary and programmers not? where should companys get money, which just sell software without maps/music/... ?

I can code a raytracer as a plugin for 3dsmax, I just have the plugin.. should I make it open source, to give everybody the chance to use my optimisations ? who would buy my programms ? they all know how to code it themself...
it would be easier to give them my money to let them buy my plugin..

some of yous guys are [deliberately?] twisting this issue.

open source != no pay 

i get paid to program where i work, and i get a paycheck every two weeks. i don''t give a DAMN what they do with my code once i compile a working program and put all the source in the "save all source in case we missed a bug or need updates" archive. they can put it on the internet as open source; they can email it to random net citizens with a note that says "take this code and use it all you like!" what difference does it make? i (the programmer) already got paid. i''m not haughty enough to think i deserve royalties for something that i programmed a year ago and then promptly forgot about.
open source is a good thing, because it allows anyone who bothers to look a good learning experience, or a chance to "steal code" if they aren''t into learning experiences. please do not think i am saying everything should be open source... i don''t care about it either way. but it is nice to find a good piece of software, wonder "how''d they do that?", and download the source code so i can see for myself. unless i am greatly mistaken, the people who wrote that code have no problem with my seeing it (unless they have an evil boss who neglects his programmer''s wishes, like someone mentioned in an earlier post).

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)