On Saturday 10 December 2005 15.29, Chris Nystrom wrote: > On 12/10/05, David Olofson <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I don't think it's that simple. AFAIK, the vast majority of spare > > time > > game projects are never finished! It's too easy to give up when > > motivation fades and it all just seems like hard, boring work that > > you aren't even getting paid for. > > For some reason there are alot of hobby programmers, but few hobby > project managers. :) Right. :-) Hobbyists that are truly motivated usually don't stay hobbyists very long. [...] > > > I mean, sure its a lost opportunity > > > cost, but perhaps that is what they have to invest in the > > > project? > > > > Well, I dunno... If you invest, you want some form of return. If > > these guys really want to do this just for the sake of doing it, > > fine. However, I doubt that the value of the return in form of > > fun, gained experience, reputation etc is even in the same order > > of magnitude as the cost. > > It is hard to say what value they put on it. I would think each > individual would have to decide for themselves. Well, of course. There was a "...beyond that..." in there first, but I edited it out after thinking about it. It seems like most projects like this tend to grind to a halt sooner or later, probably exactly because the cost is greater than the value of the return. That is, too much boring work to get to the fun parts, too expensive hosting, too much plain coding and not enough real learning, and so on. Basically, as an aspiring game developer, I think you (think you have) learned about all you can learn from a project somewhere around where it's mostly playable and there are a few real levels. From that point to a complete, polished, seriously playable quality product, there can be countless hours of hard and sometimes rather boring work - and that's where most people want to abandon the project and move on. > > I mean, if you're going to do it all "in-house" (ie not depending > > on a Free/Open Source style community), you may as well try to > > make some money while you're at it. > > I would not think the licensing model would matter one way or the > other. You can try to make money on open source software, too. Its > free as in freedom, not free as in beer. :) Actually, I was thinking of the licesning model for the game, rather than the code. You could even have the whole engine Free/Open Source, and still keep the game data proprietary. Or you can... > ESP an MMO game where you could charge to access the server. ...find ways of making money on services related to the totally Free product. :-) Of course, there's a risk involved in keeping the client and all game data fully open. Someone else can create a better client, and/or an alternative server, Free/Open Source or commercial. Then again, that kind of situation might actually help you, as it can increase visibility of both your original product and the alternative(s). For example, say find this game that you really like, based on a new game idea. You spend spend a great deal of time playing it, but eventually, you run out of maps or want more variations or whatever. Pretty good chance you start looking for other, similar games, right? As a more practical example, if you describe a game as a Tetris clone and throw in some nice shots, that's pretty much all you need to get a lot of downloads from people looking for "another nice Tetris clone". Thanks to the original game, search engines market your game for free - and this is thanks to the original, and all the other clones! :-) //David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate .- Audiality -----------------------------------------------. | Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. | | MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... | `-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -' --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se --- --------------------- To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html