A project like this that hopes to succeed should be open source. Development will be speedier and if you guys make a shitty game someone else can fix it. Imagine if xenimus was originally open source think about the fun you could be having with out all the hassle. Also imagine all the sweet ports people could make. Star Warzimus anyone?
whats going to happen is you will either lose developers or people will stop caring. The niche market for xenimus is very small and it may make this difficult task more unbearable.
This should be open source
17 posts • Page 1 of 1
This should be open source
by Mr Duke » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:54 pm
- Mr Duke
- Villager
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:41 pm
by thadiusofx3 » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:14 pm
We've discussed all of the software models for the project and we think that closed-source is the best model to provide a good experience for the players.
The reason we decided this is because if it was open-source anyone could setup a server and run it from their computer, which would further split the userbase with 100 different servers running.
Also, versioning becomes a problem with a client not being able to connect to a server because of it being a different version.
Eventually we will have to pay for server costs, model development, etc and if our server was pay-to-play and we developed all of the content with that money, then someone came along and setup a server that was free after we had spent all of the money developing the content that would not be fair and no one would play on the dedicated server that we could offer (which means a better game experience).
This doesn't mean that alot of people can't contribute to the project via models, textures, sounds, and monetary means.
Also, we are not preventing people from developing the game via programming, they just need to apply to the development team and be accepted.
This makes it safer for us (and to the people that have donated) to go ahead with the game.
The reason we decided this is because if it was open-source anyone could setup a server and run it from their computer, which would further split the userbase with 100 different servers running.
Also, versioning becomes a problem with a client not being able to connect to a server because of it being a different version.
Eventually we will have to pay for server costs, model development, etc and if our server was pay-to-play and we developed all of the content with that money, then someone came along and setup a server that was free after we had spent all of the money developing the content that would not be fair and no one would play on the dedicated server that we could offer (which means a better game experience).
This doesn't mean that alot of people can't contribute to the project via models, textures, sounds, and monetary means.
Also, we are not preventing people from developing the game via programming, they just need to apply to the development team and be accepted.
This makes it safer for us (and to the people that have donated) to go ahead with the game.
Thus spake the master programmer, "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless"
-
thadiusofx3 - Knight
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:46 pm
- Location: Jonesboro, AR
by Mr Duke » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:35 pm
How long can few people with limited resources keep players happy?
I understand the work that goes into the models and programming etc. Can you honestly say you will be working on this in 5 years? What about 10 years?
You know versioning wouldn't be a problem as the player would download the version on the official site to play on the official server. Maybe if it was limited open source, like the core engine was available.
There are a couple outcomes of a closed source project like this which I'm sure you have thought about.
One: you make a great game and it is successful until the players quit playing and you run out of cash it dies.
Two: you make a not so great game that no one wants to play then it will die very quickly.
Three: you make a great game and you decide its not worth your time then it dies.
Building a self supporting game is very difficult which I'm sure you are aware of.
Basically the game should be closed source if it is successful. But at the moment you realize its not working out it should quickly become open source which would breath life into it (hopefully).
I understand the work that goes into the models and programming etc. Can you honestly say you will be working on this in 5 years? What about 10 years?
You know versioning wouldn't be a problem as the player would download the version on the official site to play on the official server. Maybe if it was limited open source, like the core engine was available.
There are a couple outcomes of a closed source project like this which I'm sure you have thought about.
One: you make a great game and it is successful until the players quit playing and you run out of cash it dies.
Two: you make a not so great game that no one wants to play then it will die very quickly.
Three: you make a great game and you decide its not worth your time then it dies.
Building a self supporting game is very difficult which I'm sure you are aware of.
Basically the game should be closed source if it is successful. But at the moment you realize its not working out it should quickly become open source which would breath life into it (hopefully).
- Mr Duke
- Villager
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:41 pm
by thadiusofx3 » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:13 pm
Mr Duke wrote:How long can few people with limited resources keep players happy?
I understand the work that goes into the models and programming etc. Can you honestly say you will be working on this in 5 years? What about 10 years?
You know versioning wouldn't be a problem as the player would download the version on the official site to play on the official server. Maybe if it was limited open source, like the core engine was available.
There are a couple outcomes of a closed source project like this which I'm sure you have thought about.
One: you make a great game and it is successful until the players quit playing and you run out of cash it dies.
Two: you make a not so great game that no one wants to play then it will die very quickly.
Three: you make a great game and you decide its not worth your time then it dies.
Building a self supporting game is very difficult which I'm sure you are aware of.
Basically the game should be closed source if it is successful. But at the moment you realize its not working out it should quickly become open source which would breath life into it (hopefully).
well to answer your first question: Longer than one person with limited resources (EJ)
in scenario one isn't that what happens to every successful game?
scenario two doesn't mean that having it open source would not make it suck
scenario 3: Programming is my life and unless I die I'm not going to stop
Thus spake the master programmer, "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless"
-
thadiusofx3 - Knight
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:46 pm
- Location: Jonesboro, AR
by thadiusofx3 » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:53 pm
Another point I forgot to mention:
If the game was open-source it would be easy for a hacker to find exploits to use from examining the code, compiling his own modified client with cheats, etc.
I'm not against open-source software, I just don't think it is the best software model for this project.
If someone wants to help program it, nothing is stopping them from applying to the development team, but you can't always trust your code with just anyone.
If the game was open-source it would be easy for a hacker to find exploits to use from examining the code, compiling his own modified client with cheats, etc.
I'm not against open-source software, I just don't think it is the best software model for this project.
If someone wants to help program it, nothing is stopping them from applying to the development team, but you can't always trust your code with just anyone.
Thus spake the master programmer, "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless"
-
thadiusofx3 - Knight
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:46 pm
- Location: Jonesboro, AR
by Karl G. » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:25 am
Thadius has laid out the situation perfectly: were we to make this game open-source at this stage of development, it would fracture the community more than help build it. The learning curve for the code as it stands is very steep (as Thadius is discovering) and, likely, the passerby who downloads the code and sits down to learn it will have their own ideas on how to direct the project--likely causing them to create a spinoff instead of helping us.
-
Karl G. - Lesser Spirit
- Posts: 2453
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:26 am
by thadiusofx3 » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:21 pm
Karl G. wrote:The learning curve for the code as it stands is very steep (as Thadius is discovering)
lol you got that right
Thus spake the master programmer, "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless"
-
thadiusofx3 - Knight
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:46 pm
- Location: Jonesboro, AR
by thadiusofx3 » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:42 am
think about what you just said lol
Thus spake the master programmer, "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless"
-
thadiusofx3 - Knight
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:46 pm
- Location: Jonesboro, AR
by Karl G. » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:39 pm
That's something that Blizzard has in their Diablo series, which I do like very much. Although I cant make any promises regarding PV, it's a good idea to keep in mind. And yes, that would negate the issues of source distribution regarding hacking.
-
Karl G. - Lesser Spirit
- Posts: 2453
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:26 am
17 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest