Well, the point of the site is to host 'open' art, so probably charging for it would be a no go, even if the money went back to OGA. In fact, probably esp. if the money went back to OGA ;)
Still, if the art could be made available on the Unity storefront for 'free' with the licenses selected by the artists on OGA that could be pretty cool. Certainly, as you point out, it would get the work a lot more exposure.
Now, although I tossed it out there, I figured this idea was probably a non-starter because undoubtedly the Unity Asset store has it's own license that it imposes on the assets for sale there. Well, a little googling and sure enough that's true:
There is some fine print in there, which seems to leave the door open for assets to use alternate licenses. Specifically the last sentance of section 1.2 which states: "Certain Assets may be governed by a Provider end user license agreement."
I don't know if that would be 'in addition to' the Unity Asset Store license, in which case it would be useless for pretty much anything other than CC0 stuff.
Well, I would say the next step would be to try and contact the Unity folks and see if they have any interest in hosting OpenGameArt stuff in there and what the legal terms of doing something like that would look like.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016 - 03:50
@Chris_M_The_Game_Dude:
> I based this off of going back in time on the list of the sites assets and looking at the downloads.
Gotcha. Only caveat with that method would be that the longer something's been on the site, the more often it's likely to have been downloaded.
As for the Unity store, I wonder what it would take to get an 'OpenGameArt' section setup in their store?
No doubt the assets in their are more popular simply because they show up 'in-app' if you will.
Not sure how one rises to the rank of 'admin' but I will say I don't think it would be the worst thing if OGA appointed a few new admins as the some of the original set seem to be busy with other things now.
@Danimal: I think that's a really unfair characterization of the situation. Bart has been very active on the site since the paetron was setup and even just recently rolled out the internal messaging system. It's only in the last six months or so that he seems to have been absent for long stretches.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 09:42
Just want to say I support TheNess 100% on this one.
It's really uncool that this submission was flagged without any comment.
If there's a problem with it that's fine but at least let the submitter know what the issue is.
@TheNess: all I can say is this isn't the way things normally work around here. :(
Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 05:10
yeah, this looks pretty amazing! especially for a first go!
my only comment would be that the animation is just shifts, no actual changes to the sprite itself.
It's pixel art, part of the magic is that each frame can be a custom image!
Still, what you have works ok for the most part, but her calves in particular look really stiff. You might try bending them in a little to match the motion of the thighs coming down, if that makes any sense.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 05:03
Although I agree it'd be a place to start, the problem with starting this as a forum is that it'll basically be invisible to anyone browsing the site. Even if they ventured into the forums section, unless it literally gets a new submission every other day or is somehow marked 'sticky' it'll drop to the bottom of the list pretty quickly.
Well, not trying to be a downer, just thinking out loud I guess. :(
Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 04:58
Another thing you could try is logging onto the IRC and asking there:
It's open login, so you don't need to create an account or anything.
Sometimes the site admins will respond on there.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I find this really odd. Sharm's probably right, my guess is an admin saw the extras in the preview and flagged it, but I can't say why they wouldn't have at least left you a comment about it.
TBH, the usual routine is for an admin to leave a comment asking about an issue and flag the submission only if the submitter can't or won't address it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016 - 04:52
yikes! is that true?
It seems like OGA is still attracting a very steady stream of submissions.
One thing I do find saddening is that the amount of admin/mod activity seems to have really fallen off in the last year. I know there are a few volunteer mods that do the best they can, but it just seems like we don't hear from the admins as often as we did even a year ago. :(
To your point about affiliates, I guess more affiliates is always nice, but if I google 'free game art' OpenGameArt.org is the top result and as far as attracting traffic goes, I'm guessing that trumps anything else by a factor of 10.
Monday, January 25, 2016 - 06:48
gotcha, that actually makes sense now that you've said it, guess I'm just used to '8x8' and '16x16', etc. referring to pixel counts. But then, I'm definitely the pixel counting type ;)
Monday, January 25, 2016 - 06:47
> I though license apply to the package only
Funny you mention this, there was a rather large discussion about this recently:
Turns out to be a trickier issue than it seems, although I guess the simple summary of the current situation is that previews are not part of the submission proper and not bound or covered by it's licence(s).
So no one contacted you privately about this submission?
Even that would be a little odd, normally mod's leave a public comment when they flag something.
Seems like you've been left hanging here. Doesn't seem right or fair. :(
Well, the point of the site is to host 'open' art, so probably charging for it would be a no go, even if the money went back to OGA. In fact, probably esp. if the money went back to OGA ;)
Still, if the art could be made available on the Unity storefront for 'free' with the licenses selected by the artists on OGA that could be pretty cool. Certainly, as you point out, it would get the work a lot more exposure.
Now, although I tossed it out there, I figured this idea was probably a non-starter because undoubtedly the Unity Asset store has it's own license that it imposes on the assets for sale there. Well, a little googling and sure enough that's true:
https://unity3d.com/legal/as_terms
but...
There is some fine print in there, which seems to leave the door open for assets to use alternate licenses. Specifically the last sentance of section 1.2 which states: "Certain Assets may be governed by a Provider end user license agreement."
I don't know if that would be 'in addition to' the Unity Asset Store license, in which case it would be useless for pretty much anything other than CC0 stuff.
Well, I would say the next step would be to try and contact the Unity folks and see if they have any interest in hosting OpenGameArt stuff in there and what the legal terms of doing something like that would look like.
@Chris_M_The_Game_Dude:
> I based this off of going back in time on the list of the sites assets and looking at the downloads.
Gotcha. Only caveat with that method would be that the longer something's been on the site, the more often it's likely to have been downloaded.
As for the Unity store, I wonder what it would take to get an 'OpenGameArt' section setup in their store?
No doubt the assets in their are more popular simply because they show up 'in-app' if you will.
Not sure how one rises to the rank of 'admin' but I will say I don't think it would be the worst thing if OGA appointed a few new admins as the some of the original set seem to be busy with other things now.
@Danimal: I think that's a really unfair characterization of the situation. Bart has been very active on the site since the paetron was setup and even just recently rolled out the internal messaging system. It's only in the last six months or so that he seems to have been absent for long stretches.
Just want to say I support TheNess 100% on this one.
It's really uncool that this submission was flagged without any comment.
If there's a problem with it that's fine but at least let the submitter know what the issue is.
@TheNess: all I can say is this isn't the way things normally work around here. :(
yeah, this looks pretty amazing! especially for a first go!
my only comment would be that the animation is just shifts, no actual changes to the sprite itself.
It's pixel art, part of the magic is that each frame can be a custom image!
Still, what you have works ok for the most part, but her calves in particular look really stiff. You might try bending them in a little to match the motion of the thighs coming down, if that makes any sense.
Although I agree it'd be a place to start, the problem with starting this as a forum is that it'll basically be invisible to anyone browsing the site. Even if they ventured into the forums section, unless it literally gets a new submission every other day or is somehow marked 'sticky' it'll drop to the bottom of the list pretty quickly.
Well, not trying to be a downer, just thinking out loud I guess. :(
Another thing you could try is logging onto the IRC and asking there:
http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=opengameart
It's open login, so you don't need to create an account or anything.
Sometimes the site admins will respond on there.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I find this really odd. Sharm's probably right, my guess is an admin saw the extras in the preview and flagged it, but I can't say why they wouldn't have at least left you a comment about it.
TBH, the usual routine is for an admin to leave a comment asking about an issue and flag the submission only if the submitter can't or won't address it.
yikes! is that true?
It seems like OGA is still attracting a very steady stream of submissions.
One thing I do find saddening is that the amount of admin/mod activity seems to have really fallen off in the last year. I know there are a few volunteer mods that do the best they can, but it just seems like we don't hear from the admins as often as we did even a year ago. :(
To your point about affiliates, I guess more affiliates is always nice, but if I google 'free game art' OpenGameArt.org is the top result and as far as attracting traffic goes, I'm guessing that trumps anything else by a factor of 10.
gotcha, that actually makes sense now that you've said it, guess I'm just used to '8x8' and '16x16', etc. referring to pixel counts. But then, I'm definitely the pixel counting type ;)
> I though license apply to the package only
Funny you mention this, there was a rather large discussion about this recently:
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/site-faqsubmission-guidelines-updatesc...
Turns out to be a trickier issue than it seems, although I guess the simple summary of the current situation is that previews are not part of the submission proper and not bound or covered by it's licence(s).
So no one contacted you privately about this submission?
Even that would be a little odd, normally mod's leave a public comment when they flag something.
Seems like you've been left hanging here. Doesn't seem right or fair. :(
Pages