meoblast001 wrote:From my understanding, this game, Capsized, will be released under a proprietary, restrictive license. I personally believe that this will do nothing but harm both the game and its users. A proprietary game may upset users who wish to modify it to their liking, and may reduce the quality of the game due to lack of platform independence, flexibility with system differences, etc. By making Capsized free software, it could reach more players as well. I understand that Microsoft's Xbox Live Arcade may restrict licensing terms, but this does not prevent Capsized from going free. The proprietary version that Microsoft may force you to distribute could reflect the free version entirely. If you intended to profit from Capsized, that would still be possible through feature requests and through various distribution mediums (the site mentions Steam). Please consider this request. For more information on free software licenses, visit http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.

Ijal wrote:I also don't know the feelings of the developers for this project, but personally I would want to get paid for my initial investment.

meoblast001 wrote:If you intended to profit from Capsized, that would still be possible through feature requests and through various distribution mediums

ai wrote:Feature requests and distribution mediums aren't certain, selling/profiting from a game that is already made, that's 100% security.

ai wrote:Feature requests and distribution mediums aren't certain, selling/profiting from a game that is already made, that's 100% security.

Flying Steel wrote:It'd probably make a lot more sense to just release the source code a few years after the initial commercial release, when most everyone who is going to buy the game has already bought it and sales have greatly decreased.

After all, Nexuiz and Zymotic exist because id software essentially used this model for Quake's engine.

Lee_Stricklin wrote:True that and the way I see it (I'm gonna get burned for this) is that it should be up to the developers that pieced together the game, software, music, movie, etc. how it should be distributed. If a dev wants to license it out to make a profit that's fine, if they want to hand it out for free that's fine, if they want to open it's source code for the world to improve upon that's also cool.

Lee_Stricklin wrote:

Flying Steel wrote:It'd probably make a lot more sense to just release the source code a few years after the initial commercial release, when most everyone who is going to buy the game has already bought it and sales have greatly decreased.

After all, Nexuiz and Zymotic exist because id software essentially used this model for Quake's engine.

True that and the way I see it (I'm gonna get burned for this) is that it should be up to the developers that pieced together the game, software, music, movie, etc. how it should be distributed. If a dev wants to license it out to make a profit that's fine, if they want to hand it out for free that's fine, if they want to open it's source code for the world to improve upon that's also cool. Where people are starting to cross the line at is most of the new DRMs that go as far as spying on you or installing a root kit on your system or treating the product like a service and limiting your installs. With the exception of Bioshock (since you can now re-install as many times as you want) I'll never touch TAGES or SecuROM DRM'd products. Free or not I'll most likely play Capsized.

meoblast001 wrote:Well, I don't have a problem with him making a profit off of it, but I do think that the software should still value user freedoms. You're right, it is his choice, and not mine, but I'm just trying to persuade him. I still think he should market it and sell it for some money. That's not possible, I even wrote an article on how to do that, http://meoblast001.mysticgalaxies.com/philosophy/freedomware/freebusiness.html. DRM and other forms of spying on the user can be done without you knowing it, unless you can get the source. And if you want to adapt a program to a specific task (even with a game), how are you going to do that without the source. It is my goal to minimize the development of proprietary software in the world, so I obviously don't want Capsized to be proprietary. Take a look at that link, it might change your perception.[/url]

Lee_Stricklin wrote:

meoblast001 wrote:Well, I don't have a problem with him making a profit off of it, but I do think that the software should still value user freedoms. You're right, it is his choice, and not mine, but I'm just trying to persuade him. I still think he should market it and sell it for some money. That's not possible, I even wrote an article on how to do that, http://meoblast001.mysticgalaxies.com/philosophy/freedomware/freebusiness.html. DRM and other forms of spying on the user can be done without you knowing it, unless you can get the source. And if you want to adapt a program to a specific task (even with a game), how are you going to do that without the source. It is my goal to minimize the development of proprietary software in the world, so I obviously don't want Capsized to be proprietary. Take a look at that link, it might change your perception.[/url]

Oh I get it. Your saying that even if the game is sold for profit that the source code should still be available for it so that it can be modified to either improve the game or make it run on hardware it otherwise wouldn't run on without a modified source code. I'm assuming that you'd still be OK with leaving the content (maps, sounds, characters, etc.) out as that is the part that would sell the game. What if the devs wanted to market the engine and make a profit off of that though? I think they would find it quite difficult to do that if the code is publicly available. How would that work?

meoblast001 wrote:With an engine, it becomes a little trickier. Something that is being sold to the end user is much easier to sell (as free software) than middleware. Two of those three methods in that link will work with middleware though. First, you can charge for feature requests. Every time another developer or user wants you to implement a new feature into the engine, you charge the user money to implement it. The other method of profiting would be through support (which wouldn't be too easy for a small group of game developers). If it were me, I'd sell the game (through the five methods I listed in that link), and only charge for feature requests on the engine.

Lee_Stricklin wrote:

meoblast001 wrote:With an engine, it becomes a little trickier. Something that is being sold to the end user is much easier to sell (as free software) than middleware. Two of those three methods in that link will work with middleware though. First, you can charge for feature requests. Every time another developer or user wants you to implement a new feature into the engine, you charge the user money to implement it. The other method of profiting would be through support (which wouldn't be too easy for a small group of game developers). If it were me, I'd sell the game (through the five methods I listed in that link), and only charge for feature requests on the engine.

That sounds like it would work to an extent. Couldn't they also charge for a license that would allow somebody to use it for commercial purposes?

Lee_Stricklin wrote:

meoblast001 wrote:With an engine, it becomes a little trickier. Something that is being sold to the end user is much easier to sell (as free software) than middleware. Two of those three methods in that link will work with middleware though. First, you can charge for feature requests. Every time another developer or user wants you to implement a new feature into the engine, you charge the user money to implement it. The other method of profiting would be through support (which wouldn't be too easy for a small group of game developers). If it were me, I'd sell the game (through the five methods I listed in that link), and only charge for feature requests on the engine.

That sounds like it would work to an extent. Couldn't they also charge for a license that would allow somebody to use it for commercial purposes?