Is working on a project for free worth it?

[FreakNigh]

One person or a group of people can only give so much which normally does not amount to enough to make a competitive game. Even a free game now has to be fairly decent in order for people to even try it out. Money was invented a long time ago as a tool to help bring talent together and let them focus on one thing. Is building a game without money like nailing wood together with your forehead instead of a hammer or a nailgun? Would you want your house built in an open source model?

I can understand if there is a particular motivation or there actually is some return on investment such as a resume peice then it's okay. But how can anyone be expected to bring a quality game for free out of free time? Even some of the best open source games took from the assets of a commercial game, copied the game design of a commercial game, or built off the source of what was once a commercial game.

[charlie]

Open source games are seeds which grow slowly if regularly watered, and only grow rapidly under the right conditions. I doubt the original author of Battle for Wesnoth expected it to be such a staggering success with such a dedicated community. Red Eclipse and Sauerbraten are very popular and impressive games, as are many of the other open source FPS games.

If you start an open source game (or start contributing to a game in its early stages) then you have to either expect to contribute to it over years or expect it to fail. Many developers are actually quite content with projects failing - and by failing, I mean never reaching a state of relative completion. Some projects are the result of the need to scratch a proverbial itch, or the desire to pick up a new tool.

There's lots of original open source games too, or ones simply inspired by commercial equivalents. Granted, most open source game projects will fall by the wayside, but that's a consequence of the fact they are volunteer efforts produced by hobbyists.

[FreakNigh]

True, a game with a real proper open source base to it can be developed over time with people coming and going. Also I can see games with a "higher calling" such as FreeOrion managing to get developed since wanting to developing those games is like a moth to the flame.

However what I'm worried about is under this model do they ever manage to compete? And if they can't compete are they really contributing to open source gaming?

[charlie]

FreeOrion has been developed over a decade; its success is due to perseverance more than anything else. Same goes for most open source games.

Open source has rescued projects as well, for example 0AD was a stalled indie title and opening up development has been incredibly successful.

Don't think of open source games as competing with non-open games. That's like comparing a marathon runner to a sprinter.

[FreakNigh]

0AD Actually takes funding with kickstarter though doesn't it?

[Arthur]

However what I'm worried about is under this model do they ever manage to compete?

That really depends on what merits they're trying to compete on. Competing with regards to graphics, sound, music etc. is not something Free projects are particularly good at. However, when it comes to gameplay, I think mature projects can compete pretty well with commercial games, even though it can be a bit rough here and there. Many people seem to be tired of the ultra-smooth and similar gameplay experiences many big-title games have nowadays, so that might not be a bad thing unless it's major balance issues and similar.

[NaN]

Hi FreakNigh

To get to your thread title... I would say, if you have to ask, then it is probably not.

Now to my open source games story.

I've been a racing games fan since Ridge Racer and Gran Tourismo on the good old PS1. And I've wondered how the simulation aspects are implemented. Some time ago the curiosity became rampant (and I looked for something fun to refresh my C/C++ skills, lol) and guess what? I found multiple open source racing simulations on the net. I picked one of them, Joe Venzon's VDrift. I took a look at the code, used it as a playground to see what works, what doesn't and what might work better.

The experience has been awesome. I've learned a lot about car simulations and games (graphics, sound, input). It felt natural to share the gained knowledge and contribute to the project in the hope it will be useful for others the way it has been for me.

Now, VDrift is by no means a finished or even complete game. And it can not compete with commercial products like Forza and Gran Tourismo in graphics, gameplay or overall design. But it is a platform to share knowledge. It has and is being used in academia for example. A few areas I am aware of are Human Machine Interaction, Control Algorithms and AI.

This is what makes open source projects in general very worthwhile for me.

PS: And VDrift is also a car racing game I enjoy playing.

[andrewj]

Open source has not been as successful for creating games as for creating other kinds of software (e.g. the Linux kernel, GCC, FireFox), I think the main reason is because games require a lot of high quality art assets, and good artists are a lot more reluctant to give away their creations than good programmers.

Sites like OpenGameArt.org (and licenses like CC-BY-SA) may be helping to remedy that and encourage artists to be more sharing, but it could be a long time (if ever) before there is a similar amount of artists making free artwork as programmers writing free code.

On the question of being worth it, well, I think talking about "return on investment" is taking it all too seriously. People get bored and like to make stuff in their free time, and sometimes it turns into a popular and complete game, more often it only gets so far and then the programmer loses interest, or gets disappointed when nobody else seems interested in their game.

As charlie said, it is just a "hobby", and no I wouldn't want my house built by a bunch of hobbiests -- but I really don't think these situations are directly comparable.

[alexander]

I like hacking. I like games. I think proprietary software is unethical.

there wasn't ever even a question.

[mdwh]

Are you questioning if it's worth it from a developer point of view, or questioning the quality the results?

I'd buy a house built in an open source model if the quality and price made it worthwhile - the reason people don't is because it doesn't exist. But hundreds of millions of people buy smartphones with an OS built on open source; millions of people use a web browser with an open source web browser.

I agree that it's hard to compete with commercial projects, especially in games - but it's possible to make a fun game if one isn't trying to compete with the scale and graphics quality of the latest AAA games. I agree with andrewj about the reasons why open source gaming is harder - my experience is that artists seem a lot more reluctant to release work for free usage (even if they're doing stuff for free, they seem far more likely to restict how the art can be used, if at all). And as games technology advances, the requirements for artwork increase (both in terms of quality, and quantity).

Not sure what you mean about copying game designs - many commercial games do this too. Most commercial games reuse existing tried and tested ideas, rather than being completely original.

> 0AD Actually takes funding with kickstarter though doesn't it?

Doesn't stop it being open source. Are we talking about open source, or doing things for no payment? Although there's an overlap, they aren't the same thing.

[FreakNigh]

I'm more questioning the results and assuming if the product is good then it's worth it to the developer. So something like 0 AD is an example of how a little bit of money can go a long way. About copying game designs though I mean games that are closer to one to one like widelands or hedgewars.

But with the OS and Web browser there have been paid developers on those projects. If they're on the phone then they're more of examples of open source gone commercial.

[Tranberry]

I find this topic mildly disturbing, not sure what your goals where when you started the topic. Was it to 'motivate yourself'/'find reasons' to start doing open source game development, or to discourager open source game developers from continuing to develop. Or is it just trolling?

[FreakNigh]

To answer that would change the subject and if I wanted a different subject I'd have made a post for it.

[Tranberry]

Then I hope you had a better reason.

As for the question, I do believe it is worth it, spreading the idea to many and to share it in a way anyone could adopt it and make it into anything they would like to share. To me that is worth so much more than to just try to extract as much money you can from your fellow humans, as let's say classic game development.

[charlie]

Some people enjoy programming or creating art/audio or designing things in their free time. Many of those people like games and have their own ideas on what makes a good game. So they like to spend their time and skills on their ideas. It is a hobby. Is it worth it? To them, hell yes. To somebody who expects a free game of contemporary quality? Hell no. Is it a black and white situation? Hell no, there's a scale from "in it for the hack of it" to "where is my free CoD?" and each individual's answer to the OP's question depends upon where you fall on that scale.

[FreakNigh]

Then I hope you had a better reason.

As for the question, I do believe it is worth it, spreading the idea to many and to share it in a way anyone could adopt it and make it into anything they would like to share. To me that is worth so much more than to just try to extract as much money you can from your fellow humans, as let's say classic game development.

I think everyone takes the question personally from the their own point of view. Mainly what I'm getting at is for those most interested in the end product being an open source game then wouldn't it be *ahem* foolish to not have it be funded as well. I'm not really thinking about those who are most interested in the journey of just developing but I would think that would still be improved too.

But ya the question is basically is the difference between ID software's approach to making an open source game so much more significantly better then the average approach that the average approach shouldn't even be considered (so long as your main concern is the end product)? I guess I'd just like to see there become some sort of model open source developers can employee which can let them develop funded. Then instead of some game projects we'd have an open source game industry. Maybe right now the best contribution open source game enthusiasts can do for the open source game community is to figure out how to do that.

[NaN]

I think you thread title is wrong then, should be something like: "How to make money with open source?"

I think there is a thread about this somewhere here... Here you go: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35

Btw ID don't make open source games. They make the source available after EOL of the product. The art assets for example are not open, neither is the development process.

[charlie]

But ya the question is basically is the difference between ID software's approach to making an open source game

Now this is trolling. You know full well ID Software do not make open source games. Sure, they eventually "open" up the engine, because after a while it becomes commercially irrelevant anyway and they get kudos for doing so, it breathes life into a loyal community. However, the game content, assets, setting etc all remain proprietary. If you weren't trolling, then you do not understand the issue at all.

[mdwh]

I don't think it's controversial to say that things funded by money have more chance of success and quality, but that seems obvious to me - it takes time to develop games, and if you want people working full time, they have to pay their bills and earn an income.

But if I have an idea for a game, it's not clear that me taking the commercial route has a better chance of success - I may not be able to get funding for my game, or it may flop and leave me bankrupt, or costing me personally a large amount of money. In addition, I have to give up my well paid career to do that. So that's why many people do take the non-commercial route, and if you're doing that, there are many benefits for open sourcing it. Also remember that for many people, it is a hobby that people do for fun.

Yes, Firefox and Android has had commercial involvement, but that's the point - open source and commercial aren't necessarily separate things. And Linux didn't start off as a commercial project - it was developed to an end product by people working for free, and this provided something of great value for other people to use to build into a commercial OS, most notably the immensely successful Android.

[Julius]

There is one additional thing: as soon as money comes into the equation you start to think about stuff differently, and instead of making the game you want, you start developing (to some extend) the game you think other people might want.

[Cacatoes]

We don't need to compete with commercial games, I have very low interest for them even though they can put a zillion dollars in them, it's just a waste of money.
There is a will to play opensource games by the sole facts they are opensource. No pressure at all for FLOSS games.
Eventually, nothing prevents some opensource game to be better than some commercial counterpart, this would even have to be expected in the long term.
So to answer the question in the topic title: Yes, no doubt it is worth.

[FreakNigh]

I think the issue is I try to encompass the issue for one answer but it really matters how you look at game development and what you expect out of it.

[farcodev]

My source of "income" is the hapiness people has when they use and/or follow your project.

Beside that the power of the open source world is to share the work and even allow other to learn and/or participate to it.
It's nothing to do with business and is a bit what the old ones like me known with pages and pages of code listing in magazines in the 80' and even 90'.

For your words about that the OS games just copy commercial ones, it's not 100% true and by this fact you can widen it to the AAA (awww an another military shooter.... too cool...) and indie world (aww an another revolutionary tower defense game) too.

In this so called modern world, that become more and more walled-garden, the open source represent the freedom of passion, and trust it or not, that's worth it more better than a $100 bill.

[shirish]

I'll try to answer from a player's perspective because all of those who have answered before are devs. (at least I know some of their work in some aspect).

From a player's perspective in a FOSS environment, I am able to talk with the dev. and *sometimes* persuade him if something doesn't work right or doesn't feel right. Now one could say that this also happens in testing games but that happens right at the end of the game, so players could ask for bugs to be fixed but not be a partner (in a sense) in designing a game or plot lines or whatever. This I can advise, learn, banter so as a player as well I get much more out of it then in the other environment. I become from a consumer to a sort of partner-creator/tester/mind bouncer etc.

The other thing is I don't really wanna play more and more realistic games, the whole idea of gaming is to lose onself. Also I'm not really into seeing reflections in water or ripples in water etc. I know it's a WOW thing but it does not add anything to the gameplay but instead distracts me.

The last commercial RPG game I played was Elder Scrolls:Morrowind and was frustrated (esp. with the whole soul gems things) and things you had to do. Anyways I find FOSS games to be simple yes but also entertaining. They are babies today yes, but they are gonna become responsible adults someday. Both efforts like SDL, OpenGL on the development side and sites like opengameart.org where they are making funding work for art assets as well it seems atleast to me a great future.

[qubodup]

From a player's perspective in a FOSS environment, I am able to talk with the dev. and *sometimes* persuade him if something doesn't work right or doesn't feel right.

A bit on-topic: Presenting guidelines like Game Accessibility Guidelines (rather than own research/subjective opinion(?)) to game devs can help discussions like this.
(found via http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=9152 )