#21157 - keldon - Tue May 25, 2004 12:46 am
Here is a short article I've written on this topic, so that you can simply read my summary below
http://dkauk.com/klogic/temp/OpenSource.htm
Summary: | Quote: |
With the success of open source, homemade PC software, that has got large companies such as Microsoft running scared - it may be a wise step to consider the impact this can and may have on the gaming industry.
Open source has often been considered a risky option as they contain bugs and are not of the same quality as software from the big companies and that you can trust an established company more than a bunch of people who have never met. This is in fact a strategic lie called FUD (Fear, Uncertaincy, Doubt Tactics), and in fact open source is the complete opposite.
But how does this affect the industry, and what might it do to gaming? Surely games that are there to be great to play are far better than those that are made to be paid for - or is that a myth? And if you can be sure your game will be superceeded by an open source project - does that threaten people from releasing commercial games? And is that such a bad thing? |
EDIT: Open source developers are not necessarily unpaid students, many are working for large software companies - Open Source does not mean FREE, but more often than is - which is the major threat
Last edited by keldon on Tue May 25, 2004 11:56 am; edited 1 time in total
#21174 - Daniel Andersen - Tue May 25, 2004 10:22 am
| Quote: |
| With the success of open source, homemade PC software, that has got large companies such as Microsoft running scared |
As we're off topic anyway, have any of you by the way realized that Microsoft might just blame (us) open-source people for beeing supporting communism?
I hear you laugh, but actually I'm very serious about it; many - but not all - commercial computer companies *will* die in the model of open-source, but then what about the employees? They will lose their job. And what about the persons developing open-source? They have to have *some* food regardless that they're helping man kind! :)
So who are going to pay them and the persons now without job? Wouldn't it mean a distribution of resources? And with new technology and more spare time it is far from only a topic of computer programs...
_________________
In a world without fences and walls you will never need gates and windows.
#26489 - keldon - Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:01 am
Russia survived without their programmers recieving nothing, although the fact that they were pretty 'low funded individuals' they needed the money and it held back ingenious programs. There's nothing wrong with an open source project being commercialized, just look at OpenOffice and The Gimp, which was used in making a Disney film.
If anything it will do only good to our market. Microsoft alone has recieved over $100Bn of the worlds money; that would have been better spent on cancer research, for example. After all we're mostly paying shareholders when we're buying, for example, Microsoft products (or anything listed in Nasdaq and FTSE).
#26503 - sgeos - Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:18 am
| keldon wrote: |
| After all we're mostly paying shareholders when we're buying, for example, Microsoft products (or anything listed in Nasdaq and FTSE). |
What about salaries, benefits, R&D, distribution, and other operating expenses? Do you not think a bunch of money goes toward these things, or are you only speaking of profit.
-Brendan
#26510 - keldon - Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:51 am
Some profit goes back to the business. But most goes to stock holders, and the decision of what goes back to the business is in their hands.
I don't agree with spending more on a product to make a stupidly rich man richer for no good reason. Their only concern is how much they are making, rather than what good can come of it. However they do get many projects going ahead quickly, and help those who do not know how to get funding or generate money.
As for open source. What it lacks is money. Many music projects fall behind commercial products ONLY because of lack of samples. There are plenty of products that better functions in cubase, but just don't have a good sound library.
#26516 - FluBBa - Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:29 pm
Going back to the original topic of more games being OpenSource...
I don't think we'll see more open source games spcificly.
Games have a shelf life of around 1 year (if that long), players might use it for a month or two and forget about it, for developers it's much easier to add stuff to an existing program that they actually use on a day to day basis, adding one little function fixing one annoying bug.
With a game you have to have some kind of level/map allready done, play around in it, you fix a little bug... release a new beta version with this one little bugfix, the interested people have allready played the level 10 times, they now can play it again with that litlle bug back in one the rocks fixed... *woow*... people will definitly get tired of it quickly.
I think we will see more opensource "engines" in the future and I think there is a need for it aswell if only for the fact that one of the biggest middleware engines (Criterions RenderWare) has been bought up by EA.
I think (and hope) that we will see more opensource middleware, physics, AI and graphic engines.
There is allready a physics engine (http://ode.org/) that is quite capable.
_________________
I probably suck, my not is a programmer.
#26518 - tepples - Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:25 pm
The most compelling games aren't centered around the continuous consumption of new content. Any game based on competition against a not-entirely-deterministic opponent, such as a puzzle game, a fighting game, or a sport simulation, can have continuous improvement to both the engine and the assets without becoming boring.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#26526 - sgeos - Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:08 pm
nethack
-Brendan
#26532 - Miked0801 - Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:19 pm
I disagree with this statement somewhat. The purpose of a company is not to make share-holders rich, it is to make the original owners/founders rich. Look at how many smaller companies (mid-cap and below) that don't pay any dividends. Payment of dividends is how stock holders can make quite a bit of money (in the long run). True, shareholders want the company to become more profitable so that in theory their shares are worth more (Price/Earnings Ratio), but the truth is that by doing so, there is a ton of capitol available for improving the business, paying fun salaries to those founders, and paying dividends.
"Paying Share-Holders" is important, but not as important as supporting #1.