FOSS game looking for feedback on funding idea

[TeeBeeZee]

Hi!

So I am working with a bunch of guys to produce a FOSS game (commercially). Like many FOSS games we are short on funding and are looking into ways of getting some support. I have seen projects who used KickStarter that got really good results and we are working towards launching our project through them.

As part of KickStarter the projects offer rewards for "pledges" of money (then if the goal amount of "X" pledge-dollars is achieved, the money is charged from the pledgers and given to the project). It seems like an excellent way to fund and support a FOSS game.

Since we want to have the project be completely FOSS we where thinking of the following. This is just a rough idea and I was hoping to get some feedback on whether this is a good idea or not. Perhaps how I should phrase the question is: If you came across our video game on KickStarter with the rewards bellow would you pledge any money to us? And if so, how much?

Pledge $15 or more: Get a free game-account once the game is released and beta access (the game is multi-player centered so players pay a one-time fee for an account to be able to play. This is what allows the game to be FOSS and commercial at the same time. Pledging $15 or more gets you an account for a incredibly low price!).
Pledge $20 or more: Unlock special character portraits for being a total FOSS-supporting boss!
Pledge $25 or more: Be entered to win one of several special edition game packages!

And last but not least: If we reach our goal amount of $100,000 USD we would release the game with fully FOSS-ed licensing.

It would be great to hear what you chaps think of this. If possible I was also wondering if the project could get highlighting on the main page once we go public to help us reach our goal. And, naturally, we love new ideas, especially ones for potential pledge rewards (let us know what would motivate you!).

Its really my passion to design & create video games and I have always wanted to develop one for Linux and release it FOSS (don't mean to be oey goey or anything, but its kinda my dream!). The project has already sunk several thousand $$ into its development and we would really like to finish it into the first fully foss-ed commercial game made by FOSS fans for FOSS fans. Without further adieu here is some concept art:

[odamite]

Hello,

First off it would be nice to get some more information of the project. Is it 2d or 3d? Is it some kind of RTS?
Also what do you mean with FOSS? Are you guys going to release only the source code? Does fully FOSS-ed mean you release also all the assets under open source license like Creative Commons?

Anyway I think that it's a good idea of using kickstarter to help funding the game. But you have to do it right. You will need a lot of advertisement for the kickstarter. People will need to read and hear about it to contribute. Also you will need a nice professional-looking video.

Good luck for you. This project sounds very interesting and promising! Commercially developed games is all we still need for Linux.

[TeeBeeZee]

Hello odamite

Its 3D and its a RTS game inspired by Starcraft II (has similar style but different units & abilities which allow for different tactics and strategic styles). As for the FOSS - The code would likely be GPLv3'd and (if it works out) the game data CC'd.

@exposure: I was hoping that places like FreeGamer could help us out on this (UnbuntuForums and other Linux and FOSS supporting web pages). With $25 dollar pledges we would need about 4,000 pledgers. Assuming one out of every ten people who see it actually pledge, that is 40,000 people who need to see the project. So yah - exposure is a big deal that I need to figure out.

[Julius]

Showing just four concept art pictures is not going to get people excited to help funding development. As far as I can tell there are two types of projects successfull on Kickstarter... those with a big name behind (developer or IP) and those showing an already 50% or more complete game.

Good look with the project though.

[TeeBeeZee]

Hello Julius .

I am trying to get some feedback on what rewards I could offer through KickStarter to motivate funding a Open Source game (I am not trying to raise support just yet). I posted the concept art to show that we are not an average run-of-the-mill project, that time & money is being invested--aka that I am paying my employees--to actually make it happen for real. Also - Our game is much further complete than I think I have portrayed (although I am not quite ready to commit to a totally public release just yet so the concept art will have to do, I hope you understand).

Looking at the other projects on KickStarter I am positive my game is up-to-par with the task but that's not the issue, the real issue is: what rewards would motivate FOSS fans to pledge money to support a project?

Basically we are a commercial game considering going FOSS if the FOSS fans show enough support and can justify the cost of FOSS'ing our entire game. If not we will just proceed without any FOSS-elements in our KickStarter plan, but if we can get lots of support in exchange for FOSS'ing our game we would be glad to do so. That is what I would like to do--release the game full FOSS--but its a huge risk that requires some security, which is where KickStarter support comes in. If FOSS fans could raise $100,000 to finish the game then we would have no issues releasing it full FOSS. But, if not, then the benefits of being FOSS are minimal and don't justify the associated risk, and as such we would market the game as a closed-source commercial one through KickStarter.

If that makes sense

[Julius]

FOSS is mainly a development technique to help you (and everyone else) to make better software/games... that is the main benefit.

Of course it will also give you some free media coverage and there are a few "fan-boys" who will support anything FOSS, but that group is even smaller than that of the Linux supporters.

I thus very much encurage you to make your game FOSS, but I don't think using it as a novelty to stick out from other Kickstarter projects will work.

[TeeBeeZee]

Thanks for the feedback Julius. I have always admired how Quake 2's GPL release was able to fuel a bunch of successful sub-projects (Xonotic, Tremulous, etc) for over a decade. Although FOSS may be a development process, releasing the code to a predominant game would be a huge benefit to the community just like Quake 2's source was.

But you bring out a interesting point - I was expecting much more feedback from users of this site (especially this site), which just goes to show there is little-to-no support for FOSS games (releasing concept art like that on a mod forum would get immediate interest from dozens of users, here it only got criticism :P). With this in perspective we may still GPLv3 the code because I have a deep and renowned respect for the FOSS community, but the game-data is definitely staying proprietary.

Thanks again!

[Knitter]

The thing that drives me away from this project is the idea "we are proprietary but may become FOSS if there is interest". It just feels wrong and I don't like, it's like when you buy a car and the salesman offers you one price but says that he will lower it if I have a better offer from a competitor... either he can lower the price and does so or he can't, the same for this project, either it is proprietary or it isn't. The dubious "may become free software" just doesn't work for me.

As for the rewards, if I was to donate I would probably like to get some art relate reward, an art book with the concept sketches and art only available in that book, or other media like a special box version, a statue of one or two models. I also like the idea that I saw in WTactics were you can become part of the game by submitting a photograph and have, in their case, a card with my image.

[Skorpio]

You've got to be careful with such rewards. There was an interesting article on indiegames.com lately. http://indiegames.com/2012/04/star_comm ... ealit.html

[sireus]

Re rewards: don't forget that they're rewards, not baits. It doesn't make sense to offer people something to make them donate - it's meant to be a "thank you" after they donated. People will give you money because they like your project and they feel it's worth their money, not because you offer them X, Y or Z.
And in order to make them support your project, you'll have to give them something (and I don't mean rewards). As Julius said, without either substantial progress or a famous name, you won't get any substantial amount of money.
Also, it's not just any sort of progress that will make people like a project. Amazing graphics and stuff are nice to look at, but they're not what really appeals to the kind of people who would generally donate to an indie project. From my (very limited) experience with crowd-funded projects (or indie projects, for that matter), the really popular stuff is the one which either has a unique concept or which revives some old, back-then-really-popular concept, i.e. benefit from nostalgia. To sum it up: a project won't have much success with crowd funding if it offers something that can already be bought.

But don't take my words too serious. As I said, I don't have any experience with crowd funding except for occasional observance from afar :P

[TeeBeeZee]

Thanks for the feedback guys, your insights are very much appreciated!

As for the rewards, if I was to donate I would probably like to get some art relate reward, an art book with the concept sketches and art only available in that book

That, sir, is an excellent idea. For say a $50 pledge you get all the lower rewards + a small paperback book with the concept art (organized by race & unit, showing the stats, strategic abilities, etc of each unit). Thank you

The thing that drives me away from this project is the idea "we are proprietary but may become FOSS if there is interest".

That is one of the things I was worried about and that this thread was supposed to test for. While I sympathize with you, you have to remember that I run a business. Successful businesses take the route with the least possible risk and most probable payoff--this is how businesses make money rather than lose it.

Releasing the source code (and/or game-data) to a game you have invested lots of money into is a huge risk. You--or the FOSS community--may not take advantage of that but there are people out there who do (and will). Take a look at what happened to Nexuis last year, and Nexuis isn't even in the same ballpark as mine when measuring the quality of the game (I don't mean to seem arrogant, its just the blatant truth...).

Making a FOSS-business model work isn't easy (as I am sure you all know). The purpose of KickStarter would be to give me the assurance that the risk is a worth the payoff. Its business 101 applied to FOSS. But, without the assurance I feel the risk is just too high.

You've got to be careful with such rewards. There was an interesting article on indiegames.com lately. http://indiegames.com/2012/04/star_comm ... ealit.html

That is a interesting article, sounds like bad planning on their part, but definitely something to learn from. Thanks!

Amazing graphics and stuff are nice to look at, but they're not what really appeals to the kind of people who would generally donate to an indie project. From my (very limited) experience with crowd-funded projects (or indie projects, for that matter), the really popular stuff is the one which either has a unique concept or which revives some old, back-then-really-popular concept, i.e. benefit from nostalgia. To sum it up: a project won't have much success with crowd funding if it offers something that can already be bought.

That is an excellent point and something to keep in mind for sure, thanks .

[Julius]

Thanks for the feedback guys, your insights are very much appreciated!
Releasing the source code (and/or game-data) to a game you have invested lots of money into is a huge risk. You--or the FOSS community--may not take advantage of that but there are people out there who do (and will). Take a look at what happened to Nexuis last year, and Nexuis isn't even in the same ballpark as mine when measuring the quality of the game (I don't mean to seem arrogant, its just the blatant truth...).

Ok... I feel I need to clarify something here (I actually formulated this opinion before, but deleted it again as I didn't wanted to come across too negatively or as attacking you personally)... but that Nexuiz example shows (in my opinion) that you do not seem to have fully understood the entire idea of FOSS...

But lets talk about the Nexuiz example first... it is in fact an example for the exact opposite of what you tried to express. It was the "owners" (e.g. the original developers and IP holders) that had long lost interest in the game and went for what it seems like a quick buck by selling of the game to a 3rd party with no interest what so ever in really continuing the game as by it's original "spirit". And in the end the resulting game has nothing to do with the original Nexuiz but the name.
If of course you want to sell off the game and name to the highest bidder at a later point, than you are right in taking this example as a risk of making your game FOSS (note the sarcasm) as people might fork your game and continue it in the true FOSS spirit (aka Xonotic).

So where do I think you got the idea of FOSS wrong? It is that you are constantly talking about risk this and risk that... *there is no risk* at least no extra risk in releasing your game under a FOSS license. The exact same kind of copyright applies to your FOSS code and assets as to propitiatory stuff... legally speaking there is literally no difference!
People who want to rip off your game will do so regardless of free licensing options... but this is really rather rare. Sure people will use some of your assets for other projects, or *gasps* even forks... but they will feed back potential improvements to your projects and thus every-one wins.

A game is sold as a complete package, e.g. graphics, story, features etc... but don't believe for a single second that you will be able to create something that great that there arn't plenty of other at least as good offers by competing companies, thus your game will have to stand as a complete deal, and that it can (or can not) regardless of the licensing. But if you make it FOSS it will have likely a much longer life span and significantly more user improvements and contributions.

Sorry for the long rant, and please don't take it as a personal attack. I am merely stating my opinion on this.

tl;dr
OP doesn't seem to have fully understood the idea behind FOSS and thus is not likely to get a lot of interest by the FOSS community for his or her game project.

[Julius]

Ok on a second thought...maybe I simplified the thought a bit too much and added to much rant to it

So lets have a look at a concrete example concerning your game:

You run a completely FOSS RTS game but sell the game to people as a complete package, maybe with the added benefit of a unique multiplayer ID including access to the official masterserver, matchmaking service and highquality servers (aka a "cd-key" with a sort of "battlenet" service... the old "software as a service" idea).

Sure, people will run unofficial servers, but these are just free servers for your game and propitiatory games have plenty of "hacked" servers which run with pirated versions too. But in the end people really interested in your game will buy it and play on the official servers (just like only those really interested will buy propitiatory games instead of pirating them).

Now some people get interested in modifying your game... as long as it is small mods it's the same as with mods for propitiatory games... extra free content for you to boost the popularity. Now lets say someone uses your game to make a big new project... either it is worse (and less popular) then your game then it is no different than if that person would have made a game not based on your's, but you get the benefit of feeding back some improvements into your project... or it is significantly better (and more popular) than your game... then be happy and offer that great developer full integration and a small cut of the profits early on, which he or she will gladly accept and your are the great community loving developer in everyones eyes. Which, as you might have guessed is only (easily) possible if you offer your game under a FOSS license.

So where is that risk you speak of? I can't see any

[TeeBeeZee]

I appreciate your replies - I can tell you are quite passionate on this subject. From what I understand the idea behind FOSS is that the community is the benefit--People who play or modify your game simply increase its popularity and hence is nothing but beneficial. That is excellent in theory but how about in application? Since on paper it sounds real good why don't more companies do it?

I think the answer lies in the history of practical application--by looking at real world events and contrasting them with theory you can draw your own conclusion. First a fun fact that we need to establish: There is risk associated with anything and everything. Walking across the street, eating an apple, using credit cards, etc. You could be hit by a bus, you could get a disease from the apple, or your credit card could be stolen (just to name a few!). The goal of life is to take the course of action(s) that has the least risk and the most payoff. Eating an apple for example provides numerous health benefits and the risks of getting a disease are so minimal that the health benefits ("payoff") definitely justifies the risk ("the chance of disease"). Denying that there is risk in FOSS'ing software is a fallacy because it violates this universal law.

Now on to the example -

One of the huge issues in software right now is patents. You practically can't write any code without violating some patent somewhere. By releasing source code to software it reveals any potential intellectual rights violations that may or may not be there (intentional or not). While this may not be an issue for a small FOSS project for a large game it is. Lets use an example: If your game cuts into another game's profit from a larger company, they see your game is FOSS and that you are violating "X" patent, there is a good chance they will take legal action against you in order to either A) shutdown your game, B) acquire royalty fees from you, or C) acquire the entire game itself (worst case scenario).

A great example of this was that of JPEG. The alleged intellectual owner of JPEG proceeded to popularize the standard then began suing the companies using it (making millions in the process). In a counter lawsuit it was proven that their alleged intellectual ownership of the JPEG standard was invalid due to prior art (aka it existed publicly before their patent was filled which disproves the patent's claim of originality).

Companies who & used the public JPEG standard lost a collective $105 million USD from lawsuits (even though the intellectual claims where invalid!). A video game releasing source code is little different. It exposes the entire internal workings of the code and makes it vulnerable to intellectual rights lawsuits (might as well scream: "I USE JPEG IN MY SOFTWARE!").

Now, this example (and that of the Nexuis one) is in no way conclusive. It does not show all the possible risks associated with FOSS software, nor does it show all the possible problems associated with said risks, but they are a couple quick examples for examples' sake. They are simply to show that there is risk associated with FOSS'ing big-name commercial software and that for this very reason companies don't FOSS their software.

Since we have established that there is risk associated with FOSS software one might ask: Which course of action has the least risk and most payoff - proprietary or FOSS? Using the above example, FOSS software makes the company vulnerable to intellectual rights lawsuits, whereas proprietary software is completely safe (there are a few exceptions to this - but they are very rare). This is because the licensing of the proprietary software prevents any reverse engineering. Proving that a software is violating "X" patent would usually be a huge violation of the software's EULA (the lawyers would just have to prove that the software's EULA was violated and the judge would throw the case out, then you could counter-sue the company for violating your EULA).

Lets make a table:

FOSS.

Payoff: Users have ultimate control to mod the game, resulting in increased popularity.
Risk: Vulnerable to intellectual rights lawsuits.

Proprietary.

Payoff: Generally safe from patent lawsuits (and other intellectual rights messes) and definitely much safer than FOSS.
Payoff: Users can still mod the game.
Risk: Users have less (but negligible) modding capability.

So which (for this example) has the least risk and most payoff? I would definitely say the proprietary, and I would say that goes for many more things than what this example covers. In my eyes there is a large risk associated with FOSS'ing a big-name game (a lot more risks than what I have covered here). The idea of KickStarter would be to minimize those risks in order to make a commercial-FOSS business plan to have a reasonable risk-to-payoff ratio that makes it worthwhile in pursuing.

Remember - the goal here is to make a commercial FOSS game. I am not ranting against FOSS nor am I saying its bad, I am merely theorizing on how to make it work commercially so I can have my game be FOSS.

Thanks again Julius .

[Julius]

Ok, I have to admit you got a point in regards to that patent argument... it's a weak one though as it is generally a good idea to stay away from patented code regardless of the openness of code (and this is just another spin on the "security" by obfuscation argument, which is not really that convincing).

And the example of the jpeg lawsuits show that you can be sucked into such a mess even if you are completely innocent, so this I would rather count as a general risk if you release a (successful) game, and not really related to making it FOSS. Besides... if your game is that successful you will have the funds to pay for a good lawyer and if it is FOSS you will have some good legal support by organizations like the FSF etc. also.

P.S.: Most other companies don't do it because of bad old habits, fear that a competitor could take all the features (which is a laughable argument IMHO) and last but not least mainly because they are using third party code from companies living off selling that middleware code (engines etc) to said companies and thus have zero interest releasing it under a FOSS license.

P.P.S.: Oh and you are contradicting yourself a bit when you wrote earlier that you would still release the code, but not the media under a FOSS license, while now arguing that patents in the code are the main risk... so what about releasing the media freely and not the code? There are no patents on artwork after all

[MCMic]

The goal of life is to take the course of action(s) that has the least risk and the most payoff.

What a horrible thing to read!
Maybe that is your goal in life…

Regarding the funding question, I'd only support funding a game that assure me it will be complete FOSS, that means code and datas, client and server. And I'd look at what license we're speaking of, I'd like AGPL for the server, CC-BY-SA for datas, etc…
License matters :-)

But I'm not sure I'd fund your game as it seems to much risky regarding the payoff…
Actually, not sure I should post here, too much risk, not enough payoff, I'm outta here.

[qubodup]

[...] least risk and the most payoff.

In an economics class I took, this was my teacher's favorite mistake to correct. The described goal makes no sense, as the minimal risk action usually can not lead to the maximal payoff.

Off-topic: By the way, "payoff" does not just mean money, "warm fuzzy feeling" is also payoff. I don't invest time into open source games for free for example, I get some warm fuzzy feeling payoff sometimes.

[xahodo]

You could have multi-player via a centralized official server. If somebody wants to participate in official online competitions, the content that person has/wishes to use, has to be registered and available at that server... of course access to that server comes at a price and the player has to be known to the server, which is included in that same (monthly) price. The game is completely free, can be modded by the players to their hearts desire and you still make a buck of it from those who wish to participate in an official competition or something. On top of that "unofficial" multi-player is still available.

The official server could be used for all kinds of services to make life easier on the players, on top of that it could house anti-cheat functionality (needn't be too cpu-intensive).

Now, here's the thing: all content, the complete source tree of the game is available, same goes for all content... that central server (which you keep to yourself) all makes it that much more easier to the player and only adds luxury and trust. It should be noted though, that you should not jump through all kinds of hoops to break multi-player because you have an optional centralized server.

The source doesn't need to be locked down this way, just foster your community and make sure they love you.

This is the most open way I could think of while you're still actually making a buck of of it.

[TeeBeeZee]

Thanks everyone - I appreciate all your feedback! I apologize for my slow reply (work is just sooo busy right now).

I definitely have a lot to consider. I think the main vibe I am getting from your feedback is "trust the community and it will pay off". By giving them free reign over the code & game-data it will pay off with good public relations and increased exposure & popularity.

Many of you may look at me harshly because I keep saying "risks" and am concerned about money. But lets be honest, if you had invested thousands of $$ and employee-hours into a product and are thinking of practically giving it away for free, wouldn't you be cautious too? Please keep in mind that I run a business - that I have to make up for sunk costs, pay my employees and hopefully get enough to fund the follow-up game (not to mention feed my own family!). So I appreciate your continued patience with me .

The goal of life is to take the course of action(s) that has the least risk and the most payoff.

What a horrible thing to read!
Maybe that is your goal in life…

Its a more integral part of you than I think most people realize. Your brain does it on a momentary basis--involuntary or not you do it. Doctors do it while treating patients. Businessmen do it while running companies. Politicians do it while campaigning. Evolution does it. Pizza stores do it. By choosing to eat an apple instead of a burger you do it. By choosing to get an education instead of doing drugs you do it. Etc.

While the nature of my statement may seem narcissistic the principle still applies and is used by everyone on a momentary basis--involuntary or not, you do do it. Its a universal rule that makes the world go round .

But I'm not sure I'd fund your game as it seems to much risky regarding the payoff…
Actually, not sure I should post here, too much risk, not enough payoff, I'm outta here.

Hahaha, don't be trite :P. Lets make a table for you:

By investing five minutes of my time to help commercial game producers:

Risk: Lose 5 minutes of my life.
Payoff: Provide vital feedback that may permanently revolutionize the FOSS gaming community with a high-end game engine (and future game engines).

By ignoring the commercial game producers:

Risk: Don't provide feedback and risk being stuck on decade-old games forever.
Payoff: Save five minutes of my life.

Hopefully here we agree that the risk is worth the payoff .

[...] least risk and the most payoff.

In an economics class I took, this was my teacher's favorite mistake to correct. The described goal makes no sense, as the minimal risk action usually can not lead to the maximal payoff.

Its a mistake to assume that the least risk yields the most payoff, yes, which is what I think you are getting at - but trying to achieve the most payoff for the least risk isn't a mistake. Business is all about balancing the risks with the rewards.

If there is a 12% risk of losing $20,000 dollars but a 88% chance of making 2 million, then you will make money and its a good course of action to take. But if there is a 65% chance of you losing $50,000 and a 35% chance of making $10,000 then its a terrible idea that you need to drop ASAP.

So long as the payoff outweighs the risk then you make money. Trying to achieve the best payoff-to-risk ratio isn't a mistake, its good business.

By the way, "payoff" does not just mean money, "warm fuzzy feeling" is also payoff. I don't invest time into open source games for free for example, I get some warm fuzzy feeling payoff sometimes.

Indeed, but paying debts trumps fuzzy feelings (sadly enough).


Conclusion -

I really do appreciate everyone's feedback and I have a ton to consider and a lot of thinking to do! Your feedback has helped a ton too help me see your perspective on this situation, for which I am very grateful.

Thanks .

[xahodo]

Well, the issue with open source games vs open source applications is that it's much more difficult to gain revenue from them. Businesses don't play games (unless it happens to be a testing facility or games studio), but they do use office software, operating systems, mail servers, etc. And for each and every bit of software they want services around them.

Gamers don't need that much services... except for multi-player, you want them to make use of your servers (for which they will cheerfully pay, unless you ask too much).

[farcodev]

I don't want to be a fanatic here, but for me FOSS game or application is about freedom, freedom to make something non-business driven, so not like the so called AAA studios and also the indie ones.
I don't make FARC in the projection to generate revenue, just to create what I want to do, and show what it drives me.
If even 10 people around the world are interested, thanks to them, and if some of them one day will give a donation thanks too, even if I prefer a direct contribution, like a graphic asset, because it's here that the power of FOSS is.

If you begin to want to make a FOSS in the spirit to make money with it, it should be better that you do a 100% closed project, like a bunch load of indie devs do these years.
You can always make it closed and release the source far after as it was the case for some indie games.
Especially if you have a business and employees.

Some FOSS project made successful kickstarter application like for 0 AD but it's not for business, just to accelerate the development by paying a professional during a given time.

As I repeat sometimes, even if some people aren't agreeing with, Open-Source scene and indie scene are two completely different worlds.

[MCMic]

I disagree, I think Free Software is the better way of doing software, including games, and therefore I hope that one days Free games developpers will be able to live from this work, that would allow them to do a much better work.

About "You can always make it closed and release the source far after", as it has been said, that's a bad solution, as you loose some important part of the free software way (you can't "release ealry release often", you can't re-use copyleft code, can't accept contributions, …)

[farcodev]

I disagree, I think Free Software is the better way of doing software, including games, and therefore I hope that one days Free games developpers will be able to live from this work, that would allow them to do a much better work.

I didn't said the contrary

About "You can always make it closed and release the source far after", as it has been said, that's a bad solution, as you loose some important part of the free software way (you can't "release ealry release often", you can't re-use copyleft code, can't accept contributions, …)

I'm agree, but I just posted the answer based on what he wanted.