@MedicineStorm:
I think I am starting to understand what you mean with this option #2.
My concern was if donors were given exclusive access to the works /before/ the funding goal was met.
So what if it works like this:
Every time a certain funding threshold is released, a celebratory 'OGA Fundraiser' pack is released as an asset under a public license on OGA.
We line up artist(s) who promise to contribute something ahead of time, and they submit their pack to OGA once the given fund raising goal is met.
That way there's no special or 'exclusive' treatment for donors, all the work is /always/ released publicly.
Donors still have an incentive to donate because they get the benefit of the work just like everyone else when it's released onto OGA.
Is that close to what you were thinking?
To me that's the simplest method possible, the only work to be done is get together a list of contributors, assign each to a funding goal, and then let them know when that funding goal has been reach, at which point they submit the work to OGA.
As an example, if artists Billy, Bobby, Susy and Jenny all agreed to contribute something toward the fundraiser, then we could assign a goal to each of them, like so:
$200 - Billy
$400 - Bobby
$600 - Susy
$800 - Jenny
So Billy makes a work and releases it when the funding pot hits $200, Bobby releases something when the pot hits $400, etc.
If we wanted to incentivize contributions, then a funding split of some kind could be considered, eg. instead of outright donating works, artists are paid a portion of the fundraising pot as a commission for their works. Ie, if the fundraiser hits $200 then OGA gives Billy a $50 commission to make and release something on OGA.
Does that sound like the kind of thing you were thinking of?
Because I was hearing something more like an art package sold on itch.io or unity or something and then proceeds from that are funneled back into OGA, with maybe the possibility that the works are released onto OGA at some point if certain fund raising goals are met, which doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
@chasersgaming:
>> Good point. How do we address that?
>> Why stay away from Drupal and PHP? What is a better alternative?
> These two kinda go hand in hand i think.
I disagree. It doesn't matter if the pool of potential helpers is 10 or 10,000 because there is no way for OGA to tap into that pool.
Ask yourself, are OGA's issues the result of running Drupal 4 or are they the result of developers and admins moving on from the project and not being replaced?
My suggestion is that we put our heads together, find 2-3 volunteers who have well demonstrated commitment to OGA and have the desire and time to help out and bring them onboard as developers, mods and/or admins.
From there, as far as tech, transitions plans, etc. etc, we can follow the simple maxim that 'them that does, decides.'
>> "The idea of dust-binning years worth of accumulated art work is insane."
> Woah, i never said to 'dust bin', or 'toss it', and i certainly don't regard any assets as a 'problem'.
> I agree.
phew, glad we are in agreement on that! Thought maybe I was losing my mind for a minute there. :)
@chasergaming:
> I wasn't clear about 're-uploading', what i meant was, as the admin curate the assets here they could do it
> as part of the curation process, and have users help out and do it themselves too.
I'm afraid I'm still not sure what you mean by this.
Let me describe how I think a typical migration would go and maybe you can tell me what I'm missing.
1) A new web site is developed with whatever new back and front end tech we'd like to use.
2) Some kind of massive glue script is written and run to pull all the data (users, submissions, submission infos, comments, forum posts, etc. etc) from the old web site and insert it into the new web site.
3) The new site is launched.
4) The old site is archived, perhaps still visible at some URL (opengameart.org/old) or something, but change-locked and eventually taken offline completely
Is that the rough outline of what we are talking about here?
@all:
> is OGA more likely to get more volunteers to work on the site if a different development tool is used.
> It's possible using some other framework may open up more volunteers. It's definitely worth considering.
I don't think lack of volunteers is the issue. This and several other forum threads like it are replete with folks offering to help out, some with relevant experience, others willing to learn whatever's needed to help OGA out.
The issue is a lack of any onboarding process for volunteers.
IMHO, that's what's really keeping anything from moving forward and also what most imperils OGA's future.
Honestly, even if the funds were found and a big OGA 2.0 migration pulled off, we'd still be looking at 1 active moderator and 1 active developer/administrator. Maybe the revamp would get the site another 10 years on auto-pilot, but realistically, if a way can't be found to bring new developers and admins into the fold the long term prognosis is still going to be inevitable decline and death.
If you look at the new stuff that's been going on around OGA for some time now, the Game Jams, the Discord Server, it's all been done by people working around and outside of the site itself. I don't think that's out of any animosity for OGA's management team or distaste for it's web tech, it's just that people have energy and want to help out but there's no way for them to channel that energy into the site itself.
@MedicineStorm:
> OGA creating commissioned art in exchange for contributions was baked into the site from the beginning
You are right to say this is different from the 'exclusive donor art' concept.
This is using OGA funds to fund the creation of more open art.
That is using creation of private art to fund the operation of OGA.
I just don't think there's a way to square that last idea with the fundamental concept and mission of OGA.
I see where you are going with option #2, but even that I think is anathema to the whole idea of OGA. No matter how you slice it, it is creating and selling private works. The whole lure of 'exclusive' assets is that other people don't have access to them. Maybe the end goal is noble, but from where I sit it seems to be tantamount to selling your soul one bit at a time.
I'll also again point out that the idea seems wholly unnecessary and unlikely to bring in any serious money.
The reality is the world is flooded with art assets. Every where you look someone is selling game art. I don't doubt that a 'Save OGA!' art bundle could attract some talented contributors, but ask yourself, is it really likely to make much of a splash in today's hyper crowded asset marketplace?
Why violate OGA's first principles to raise a few dollars when you could almost certainly raise a similarly paltry amount of money just re-packaging existing OGA art in a way that wouldn't betray the site or any of the artists who've contributed to its ideals over so many years?
BTW, I had actually forgotten about these patreon goals. TBH the actually make a lot of sense. The idea of OGA funding the creation of more open art is fantastic and these concepts probably make more sense to keep as stretch goals.
Also, reading those goals and the FAQ bit, I take them as an implicit promise that no one is going to get rich off OGA donations, that any excess fund will be funneled into creating more art for the community to use.
@MedicineStorm:
> discord link
Awesome, thanks!
And yeah, I think the IRC chat could be dropped completely. Maybe hide the link for a bit and see if anyone complains...
> patreon link
gotcha, and I guess I gave me two cents about the patreon bar. I do like the 'Prefer to make a one-time Paypal donation instead?' link that I see there now. Looks good!
hi all, apologies in advance if this sounds harsh. I have nothing but love and respect for chasersgaming and MedicineStorm and they know that, but I do feel compelled to chime in with my thoughts here.
I can't stress enough what an awful, awful idea introducing any kind of exclusive, pay-walled, or otherwise paid for art is. It violates the very first principal of OpenGameArt which is that all this art is meant to be free and shared publicly. On top of that, the amount of money you're likely to raise off such an endeavor is minimal and easily out weighed by the number artists and users you are going to piss off or otherwise turn off by doing such a thing.
Secondly, with regard to migrating to a newer/different/better web technology: OGA's collection of assets, years in the making, isn't just it's main strength (although it most certainly is that), it is, in fact, OGA's entire reason for existing. Literally, the point of this site is to host all of these art assets. The idea of dust-binning years worth of accumulated art work is insane. Asking artist to re-submit their work is insane. You'd be lucky to get 25% of the works re-submitted, if that. As if that wasn't enough, it would be a complete disservice to the artists who contributed their work here to toss it for the sake of better web code. People worked to create this art and generously donated it to the community and it's not fair to them to now treat it like it's problem, like it's getting in the way of OGA running the latest fancy web platform. Without that art and those artists OGA is nothing.
I certainly get the frustration of dealing with old or otherwise limiting tech, but I think that's getting caught looking at the problem from an admin and developer's perspective. And while that's certainly a valid perspective to consider, it's also important to pull back, think more broadly and ask 'Does this action further OGA's mission?' And if that action involves tossing half or more of the art on OGA, I just can't see anyway the answer is 'Yes'.
Now for my positive paths forward on both these points...
I could get behind handing out an 'OGA Highlights' package that was simply a curated collection of material from OGA as reward for donors. The material would all be available on OGA and provided under the same license terms as it is on OGA, so really all donors would be getting would be a little curation and convenience of having a nice set of assets all bundled up into a single download. But it'd make a nice bonus for donors and realistically probably likely to bring in around the same amount of funding as 'exclusive' content would without pissing anybody off. On that note (not pissing people off), I'd say we'd want to contact the artists and get explicit approval before including any of their work in such a package.
Regarding web tech and the path forward, I'm not at all opposed to trying to move the site forward or onto a new platform if that's what progress means, however I'd just say that any tech change needs to start from the position that ALL existing submissions will be maintained and supported on the new platform. If that means some kind of wild and crazy script's got to be written to migrate the submissions from the old style to the new hotness, then count me as first line for volunteering to write that magic. It's all just data at the end of the day, so don't tell me it can't be done.
About the patreon stuff, I see the meter is back up. TBH though, just a 'Support OGA on Patreon!' link might be better. The meter is kinda sad, and like you say, all the funding benchmarks are kind of dated and meaningless anyways. On that topic, maybe just three levels... 'Pay Monthly Hosting Bill' and 'Hire Development Contractor to improve site' and finally 'Hire Full Time Development Staff' Something like that anyway.
Final unrelated but related note, any hope of getting a link to the Discord server to replace or supplement the IRC link on the top of the page? Not sure how anyone finds the discord server...
@MedicineStorm: Just a thought and a question re: fundraising.
Question first. What happened to the Patreon link on the front page? Is there a link anywhere on OGA to the Patreon anymore? How would newcomers to the site even know about the patreon today?
And my thought, is there anyway for OGA to accept/receive one-time donations? Might be a way for people to give to the cause without going to the trouble of setting up a Patreon account and/or committing to making a monthly contribution.
I'll second Aetherna's comments about the depth of the water tiles being a bit odd. From the 2nd preview I like #1 the best. The added depth around the edges of 2 & 3 doesn't fit with the perspective somehow. Especially the shadow along the bottom edge of #3. On the other hand, just a solid line seems really thin. Maybe some kind of edge treatment, like patchy grass, or a turn to dark green around the entire border might be worth trying.
The trees and shrubs all look good, although the black outline feels a bit strong along the top of a few of them. Specifically, 15, 20 & 21. Could just be me over analyzing it, but a thinner outline might work better there.
Just my two cents, hope it's somewhat helpful. I'll say it's all hands down 1000x better than anything I've ever drawn so definitely take my comments with a grain of salt! :)
The list is formatted nicely and works well as a set of slides, so I see why Xom did it that way. The bummer is it makes it hard to view.
The list is 32 pages long so I see why exporting to PNGs might be impractical. Although, I suppose once you get through the initial pain, and all you're doing is /adding/ to the list then it'd be more manageable..
@MedicineStorm:
I think I am starting to understand what you mean with this option #2.
My concern was if donors were given exclusive access to the works /before/ the funding goal was met.
So what if it works like this:
Every time a certain funding threshold is released, a celebratory 'OGA Fundraiser' pack is released as an asset under a public license on OGA.
We line up artist(s) who promise to contribute something ahead of time, and they submit their pack to OGA once the given fund raising goal is met.
That way there's no special or 'exclusive' treatment for donors, all the work is /always/ released publicly.
Donors still have an incentive to donate because they get the benefit of the work just like everyone else when it's released onto OGA.
Is that close to what you were thinking?
To me that's the simplest method possible, the only work to be done is get together a list of contributors, assign each to a funding goal, and then let them know when that funding goal has been reach, at which point they submit the work to OGA.
As an example, if artists Billy, Bobby, Susy and Jenny all agreed to contribute something toward the fundraiser, then we could assign a goal to each of them, like so:
$200 - Billy
$400 - Bobby
$600 - Susy
$800 - Jenny
So Billy makes a work and releases it when the funding pot hits $200, Bobby releases something when the pot hits $400, etc.
If we wanted to incentivize contributions, then a funding split of some kind could be considered, eg. instead of outright donating works, artists are paid a portion of the fundraising pot as a commission for their works. Ie, if the fundraiser hits $200 then OGA gives Billy a $50 commission to make and release something on OGA.
Does that sound like the kind of thing you were thinking of?
Because I was hearing something more like an art package sold on itch.io or unity or something and then proceeds from that are funneled back into OGA, with maybe the possibility that the works are released onto OGA at some point if certain fund raising goals are met, which doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
@chasersgaming:
>> Good point. How do we address that?
>> Why stay away from Drupal and PHP? What is a better alternative?
> These two kinda go hand in hand i think.
I disagree. It doesn't matter if the pool of potential helpers is 10 or 10,000 because there is no way for OGA to tap into that pool.
Ask yourself, are OGA's issues the result of running Drupal 4 or are they the result of developers and admins moving on from the project and not being replaced?
My suggestion is that we put our heads together, find 2-3 volunteers who have well demonstrated commitment to OGA and have the desire and time to help out and bring them onboard as developers, mods and/or admins.
From there, as far as tech, transitions plans, etc. etc, we can follow the simple maxim that 'them that does, decides.'
yes, PLEASE!! :)
@chasergaming and MedicineStorm:
>> "The idea of dust-binning years worth of accumulated art work is insane."
> Woah, i never said to 'dust bin', or 'toss it', and i certainly don't regard any assets as a 'problem'.
> I agree.
phew, glad we are in agreement on that! Thought maybe I was losing my mind for a minute there. :)
@chasergaming:
> I wasn't clear about 're-uploading', what i meant was, as the admin curate the assets here they could do it
> as part of the curation process, and have users help out and do it themselves too.
I'm afraid I'm still not sure what you mean by this.
Let me describe how I think a typical migration would go and maybe you can tell me what I'm missing.
1) A new web site is developed with whatever new back and front end tech we'd like to use.
2) Some kind of massive glue script is written and run to pull all the data (users, submissions, submission infos, comments, forum posts, etc. etc) from the old web site and insert it into the new web site.
3) The new site is launched.
4) The old site is archived, perhaps still visible at some URL (opengameart.org/old) or something, but change-locked and eventually taken offline completely
Is that the rough outline of what we are talking about here?
@all:
> is OGA more likely to get more volunteers to work on the site if a different development tool is used.
> It's possible using some other framework may open up more volunteers. It's definitely worth considering.
I don't think lack of volunteers is the issue. This and several other forum threads like it are replete with folks offering to help out, some with relevant experience, others willing to learn whatever's needed to help OGA out.
The issue is a lack of any onboarding process for volunteers.
IMHO, that's what's really keeping anything from moving forward and also what most imperils OGA's future.
Honestly, even if the funds were found and a big OGA 2.0 migration pulled off, we'd still be looking at 1 active moderator and 1 active developer/administrator. Maybe the revamp would get the site another 10 years on auto-pilot, but realistically, if a way can't be found to bring new developers and admins into the fold the long term prognosis is still going to be inevitable decline and death.
If you look at the new stuff that's been going on around OGA for some time now, the Game Jams, the Discord Server, it's all been done by people working around and outside of the site itself. I don't think that's out of any animosity for OGA's management team or distaste for it's web tech, it's just that people have energy and want to help out but there's no way for them to channel that energy into the site itself.
@MedicineStorm:
> OGA creating commissioned art in exchange for contributions was baked into the site from the beginning
You are right to say this is different from the 'exclusive donor art' concept.
This is using OGA funds to fund the creation of more open art.
That is using creation of private art to fund the operation of OGA.
I just don't think there's a way to square that last idea with the fundamental concept and mission of OGA.
I see where you are going with option #2, but even that I think is anathema to the whole idea of OGA. No matter how you slice it, it is creating and selling private works. The whole lure of 'exclusive' assets is that other people don't have access to them. Maybe the end goal is noble, but from where I sit it seems to be tantamount to selling your soul one bit at a time.
I'll also again point out that the idea seems wholly unnecessary and unlikely to bring in any serious money.
The reality is the world is flooded with art assets. Every where you look someone is selling game art. I don't doubt that a 'Save OGA!' art bundle could attract some talented contributors, but ask yourself, is it really likely to make much of a splash in today's hyper crowded asset marketplace?
Why violate OGA's first principles to raise a few dollars when you could almost certainly raise a similarly paltry amount of money just re-packaging existing OGA art in a way that wouldn't betray the site or any of the artists who've contributed to its ideals over so many years?
BTW, I had actually forgotten about these patreon goals. TBH the actually make a lot of sense. The idea of OGA funding the creation of more open art is fantastic and these concepts probably make more sense to keep as stretch goals.
Also, reading those goals and the FAQ bit, I take them as an implicit promise that no one is going to get rich off OGA donations, that any excess fund will be funneled into creating more art for the community to use.
@MedicineStorm:
> discord link
Awesome, thanks!
And yeah, I think the IRC chat could be dropped completely. Maybe hide the link for a bit and see if anyone complains...
> patreon link
gotcha, and I guess I gave me two cents about the patreon bar. I do like the 'Prefer to make a one-time Paypal donation instead?' link that I see there now. Looks good!
hi all, apologies in advance if this sounds harsh. I have nothing but love and respect for chasersgaming and MedicineStorm and they know that, but I do feel compelled to chime in with my thoughts here.
I can't stress enough what an awful, awful idea introducing any kind of exclusive, pay-walled, or otherwise paid for art is. It violates the very first principal of OpenGameArt which is that all this art is meant to be free and shared publicly. On top of that, the amount of money you're likely to raise off such an endeavor is minimal and easily out weighed by the number artists and users you are going to piss off or otherwise turn off by doing such a thing.
Secondly, with regard to migrating to a newer/different/better web technology: OGA's collection of assets, years in the making, isn't just it's main strength (although it most certainly is that), it is, in fact, OGA's entire reason for existing. Literally, the point of this site is to host all of these art assets. The idea of dust-binning years worth of accumulated art work is insane. Asking artist to re-submit their work is insane. You'd be lucky to get 25% of the works re-submitted, if that. As if that wasn't enough, it would be a complete disservice to the artists who contributed their work here to toss it for the sake of better web code. People worked to create this art and generously donated it to the community and it's not fair to them to now treat it like it's problem, like it's getting in the way of OGA running the latest fancy web platform. Without that art and those artists OGA is nothing.
I certainly get the frustration of dealing with old or otherwise limiting tech, but I think that's getting caught looking at the problem from an admin and developer's perspective. And while that's certainly a valid perspective to consider, it's also important to pull back, think more broadly and ask 'Does this action further OGA's mission?' And if that action involves tossing half or more of the art on OGA, I just can't see anyway the answer is 'Yes'.
Now for my positive paths forward on both these points...
I could get behind handing out an 'OGA Highlights' package that was simply a curated collection of material from OGA as reward for donors. The material would all be available on OGA and provided under the same license terms as it is on OGA, so really all donors would be getting would be a little curation and convenience of having a nice set of assets all bundled up into a single download. But it'd make a nice bonus for donors and realistically probably likely to bring in around the same amount of funding as 'exclusive' content would without pissing anybody off. On that note (not pissing people off), I'd say we'd want to contact the artists and get explicit approval before including any of their work in such a package.
Regarding web tech and the path forward, I'm not at all opposed to trying to move the site forward or onto a new platform if that's what progress means, however I'd just say that any tech change needs to start from the position that ALL existing submissions will be maintained and supported on the new platform. If that means some kind of wild and crazy script's got to be written to migrate the submissions from the old style to the new hotness, then count me as first line for volunteering to write that magic. It's all just data at the end of the day, so don't tell me it can't be done.
About the patreon stuff, I see the meter is back up. TBH though, just a 'Support OGA on Patreon!' link might be better. The meter is kinda sad, and like you say, all the funding benchmarks are kind of dated and meaningless anyways. On that topic, maybe just three levels... 'Pay Monthly Hosting Bill' and 'Hire Development Contractor to improve site' and finally 'Hire Full Time Development Staff' Something like that anyway.
Final unrelated but related note, any hope of getting a link to the Discord server to replace or supplement the IRC link on the top of the page? Not sure how anyone finds the discord server...
@MedicineStorm: Just a thought and a question re: fundraising.
Question first. What happened to the Patreon link on the front page? Is there a link anywhere on OGA to the Patreon anymore? How would newcomers to the site even know about the patreon today?
And my thought, is there anyway for OGA to accept/receive one-time donations? Might be a way for people to give to the cause without going to the trouble of setting up a Patreon account and/or committing to making a monthly contribution.
@XomAdept: Otter Basketball! I love it! I also love that they are playing in a pool, because of course! :)
Awesome! Got such a great tense feeling to it. Like the big fight is about to start. Love it! Perfect title music for a medieval combat game!
the grass edge treatment around the water tiles looks fantastic! much improved, great work!
I'll second Aetherna's comments about the depth of the water tiles being a bit odd. From the 2nd preview I like #1 the best. The added depth around the edges of 2 & 3 doesn't fit with the perspective somehow. Especially the shadow along the bottom edge of #3. On the other hand, just a solid line seems really thin. Maybe some kind of edge treatment, like patchy grass, or a turn to dark green around the entire border might be worth trying.
The trees and shrubs all look good, although the black outline feels a bit strong along the top of a few of them. Specifically, 15, 20 & 21. Could just be me over analyzing it, but a thinner outline might work better there.
Just my two cents, hope it's somewhat helpful. I'll say it's all hands down 1000x better than anything I've ever drawn so definitely take my comments with a grain of salt! :)
The list is formatted nicely and works well as a set of slides, so I see why Xom did it that way. The bummer is it makes it hard to view.
The list is 32 pages long so I see why exporting to PNGs might be impractical. Although, I suppose once you get through the initial pain, and all you're doing is /adding/ to the list then it'd be more manageable..
Pages