It would make sense for the FAQ to also quote the relevant part from CC's own summary: "No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits."
The reason why it says technological measures and not DRM is because the former is the term used by Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, however there is a link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Application_of_effecti... which mentions this includes DRM and explains it (and personally I'd say that "technological measure that restricts..." is clearer than DRM because that's the explanation - I only know that DRM is a technological measure that restricts what people can do, it's interesting that people know what the acronym means, but get confused by the explanation of the acronym...). This information or the link could also be put in the FAQ.
There used to be a problem that the CC summaries said nothing on this, but now they're pretty clear.
OGA-BY also removes the clauses:
"You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work."
Which makes sense - even for a game without DRM, the game could just as well have a licence saying people weren't allowed to distribute any of the context (even if it was someone else's OGA-BY content). So in capbros's example of this website disappearing, even though someone could technically get hold of the content from such a game, they wouldn't have legal rights to redistibute that version of it.
Another example might be someone taking all the OGA-BY art on this site, and putting it on their own site under a more restrictive licence. I don't think any way is right - this is just the old copyleft or GPL vs BSD debate in a different form.
Going back to Kaetemi's "ten cutouts" analogy - I'd agree with Kaetemi's later comment that it's only when the game is run that they are combined into an adapted work. To go back to the analogy, whilst distributing a landscape created from the cutouts would be an adaption, suppose instead I distribute the cutouts, along with a set of instructions for how to arrange those cutouts into a landscape?
Though yes, the lack of clarity does mean that BY-SA isn't ideal for games.
p0ss: "I really like BY-SA, I always thought its limitations pretty much limited people to using it in open source games"
There is nothing in BY-SA that suggest it can only be used for Open Source. Even if a game is considered an Adaption, that means the game (at least in binary form) has to be released as BY-SA (which would be problematic for many Open Source projects too).
Which bit are you referring to? The chart says that PD (CC0) can be relicenced in an adaption as any licence.
Note that in some countries like the US, you can't claim copyright on a copy of public domain material, but that doesn't mean you'd be sued for not marking the files as CC0, it just means you won't successfully be able to sue other people. (See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs .)
IMO OGA would only lose trust in the more straightforward case of copyright infringement - where it is someone else's work, or an edited version of it.
If someone sues because of a vague "similarity" or the copyright holder believes they own the rights to a "style", then I don't think people are going to say OGA should have known and removed the art, when it's impossible to make that judgement. If people are concerned there is a similarity, that can be discussed in the comments, and anyone deciding to use it can choose for themselves. I fear that a lot of art would end up being deleted if anything that might result in someone suing over a vague similarity was deleted.
Should all the art submitted as part of http://itch.io/jam/candyjam be deleted? I mean, this was a jam actively encouraging developers to create games which King believes would be infringing. That was trademark issues rather than copyright, though a similar principle applied, plus "the art looks a similar style" may often end up being a trademark issue rather than a copyright one - should the art be deleted, because someone might use a candy image from OGA, that King then decide to sue them for?
"I believe if you place your art on your site under OGA-compatible license, anyone else can submit them here, right?"
Legally this is correct, if someone releases something under a licence, one can't retroactively revoke that.
I don't know what OGA's deletion policy is, but in my opinion, I would hope the deletion requests are only acted upon if there is a good reason, say a licensing issue (such as it using copyrighted material from elsewhere without appropriate licences, or uploaded without permission).
Whilst it might seem nice to honour an author's request to delete, it causes problems if various games are using it, and link to a webpage here that then gets deleted. (Well, it's not a problem legally - but it helps as evidence that things are properly licenced, if the originating URLs are not dead.) As Demetrius points out, someone can just come along an re-add it, but it's less hassle to not have to do that, and to avoid changing the URL; it also seems stronger legally if the uploaded is the author.
Fair enough if OGA prefers to always honour deletion request, but just putting my thoughts out there for debate :)
http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-takedown says that OGA honors requests to take down if it was uploaded without permission, but that seems to be more a case of erring on the side of caution when it comes to licencing - if someone claims it was uploaded without permission, you don't want to risk a court battle even if it seems that it was released elsewhere under a free licence. In this case though, someone can't claim it was uploaded without permission when they uploaded it!
I can play music from OGA in the browser no problem (including from search results).
It's possible to "favourite" music tracks to give feedback, as well as adding to collections in order for people to keep track of ones that they like. OGA also now keeps track of your downloads.
I don't think a "music player" is needed, because unlike Jamendo, the intention isn't to provide a music streaming service where people listen to music (e.g., in the background), it's to provide music for game developers to download and integrate into their games. So as long as I can easily listen to it when I find it, that's fine, I don't need things like playlists.
I don't see how a music player would make it easier to find music. Whilst the OGA search could do with improving, this is something that is being worked on. Is Jamendo easier find music? At a quick test, it seems similar in that you type terms, then get a list of hits, and can play from the list of results.
Whilst Jamendo is another good place for people to distribute or find music, I don't think OGA should encourage people to go there instead. OGA has the advantage that music uploaded is geared towards being used in games, meaning you don't have to wade through other kinds of music. Also Jamendo allows non-Free licences like non-commercial and no-derivatives. And the advanced search only allows limiting it to one licence - I can't select a list of licences to search for (which OGA does, incidentally).
Technical modifications are allowed in the GPL too (I can put it into a zip file). CC BY 4 is just more explicit about the difference between a technical modification and Effective Technological Measure.
It's good if they've changed the terms to allow Open Source, I believe Microsoft for the Windows Store (which also originally had similar problems IIRC) does a similar thing. So if DRM is no longer enforced, it may be that this issue is out of date anyway (and interesting to note that actually it is worth fighting these things). Are there any news articles on this?
These things do have the possible problem that although licences like CC BY are seen as "compatible" with, or the art equivalents of Free and Open Source software, I don't think any CC licences are OSI approved (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ) - probably because they weren't written with source code in mind. So it may be that the mandatory licence for non-Open Source means that CC BY etc still can't be used in non-Open Source products, so those people should still stick with OGA BY or CC0. Also it's not uncommon for Open Source games to be multiple-licenced, i.e., source/binary under an Open Source licence, and different licence(s) for the art, so who knows what it means if another licence says "you can't do any of this, except for bits which are Open Source".
* I agree with complete packs. Of course that's quite an undertaking, but it doesn't have to be "complete" - just having a set of art that's consistent (rather than just single one off pieces), and it's then easier to full in the gaps as required. Or maybe artists can look at existing art, and add something to complement it. I don't know if maybe people might think this would be seen as copying/plagiarising - I mean, obviously the art here explicitly allows copying, but people often have an artistic drive to be original, or a fear of being accused of just using someone else's work even if it's legal. But it's worth making the point that here, that really is a good thing for games! FLARE and LPC have shown that there are artists out there willing to create art for an existing set - more of that please :) Perhaps we need another LPC-style competition - or maybe it doesn't have to be a competition with prizes, I think the important thing about LPC was providing an initial set of graphics that artists then built on.
* More character art with animation - static images are fine for scenery, but it's not uncommon to see people release a game character which may look great, but being a single static image makes it unusable in many styles of game (well, they could still be used say as an NPC who just stands there, but not if you want them for a player character or movable enemy). The LPC set, and the FLARE graphics, are great not just for being a consistent set, but also having animation.
* High resolution graphics would also benefit Android, Windows etc. Though I'd say the gap is not just a lack of very high resolution, but a dominance of low resolution graphics. Much of the 2D art seems to have a retro early-90s feel (not that that's a bad thing, but this topic is what there seems to be a lack of), and is below the resolution capabilities of any device today. But having said that, I imagine there's the point that 2D game art becomes harder at higher resolutions (I saw someone making the point that doubling the resolution in each dimension is four times the pixels, and if you're doing pixel art, that matters). In practice my understanding is that most in-game graphics that are higher resolutions tend to be created in 3D, and then pre-rendered if 2D sprites are desired. There are a fair amount of 3D characters on OGA, though often not in a pre-rendered format. Still, in the case of very simple vector art like the balloons example, these restrictions don't apply, so I guess vector art (that can be scaled to any resolution) is something there's not much of.
On the note of 3D models used for rendering sprites, is there demand for taking some of these 3D models, and generating sprite sheets? I'm a programmer but did learn enough Blender to be able to render a static model in isometric (Clint's tutorial at http://clintbellanger.net/articles/isometric_tiles/ was a great help), though animation is currently beyond me. Or has anyone had luck with Blender scripts that claim to automate this? (a quick Google reveals http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Render/Spritify ). I wonder if some programmers skip by the 3D models altogether, in which case generating spritesheets from 3D models (especially those with animations) might be an easy (albeit tedious) way to increase the amount of higher-resolution game-ready art.
@cdoty: To clarify the reason for the clause, it's to prevent additional restrictions (legal or technical) being applied to the licence which takes away those rights.
"DRM is not the only way to prevent someone from getting at the asset. Isn't a protected Unity package a form of DRM?"
I don't know about Unity; but CC define "technological measures" as "defined with reference to Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty". A key point is whether circumventing the protection would be illegal in countries that implement that treaty (e.g., the US, with the DMCA).
You say it's possible to get at the assets on IOS anyway. There are three possibilities:
1. The legal terms of service say that you can't do it. 2. Doing so would be illegal under laws like the DMCA. 3. It's not an issue - in which case this is all a red herring, and people can use CC licences after all :)
"The OGA licenses are a good example of this, but they are not universal and every artist isn't necessarily interested in using them. If a resource is uploaded to another site, there's a discrepancy in the licenses."
If a resource is uploaded to another site and it has to be under CC-BY instead of OGA-BY, how is that different to uploading it to Apple app store? In both cases, it's uploaded somewhere under a more restrictive licence. If it's okay for Apple because people can still download from OGA, then that applies to any other site. If you think it's important for the licence to be preserved - well, now you see why some people prefer CC-BY :)
(This is one of the paradoxes of licencing - yes, I can take anyone's OGA-BY and relicence it as CC-BY! Because that's the very freedom they grant, when they allow people to apply additional restrictions.)
"Nintendo also has a limitation against open sourced anything. I'm assuming Microsoft and Sony probably do too."
Do you mean consoles? Maybe, but that's bad too :)
claudeb asked why this issue only seemed to come up with IOS. Android is massively more popular, and I don't know if IOS being more profitable affects things, if anything, that should be a reason why developers should be able to pay for artists rather than taking Free art :) But yes, there are plenty of developers who want to write games for IOS anyway. But really, I don't think that matters, it's more that this is the first time it's been an issue, other platforms don't have the restriction that additional terms must be applied and you can only distribute through the company. One exception is consoles as cdoty points out, but those are sufficiently harder to develop for that you didn't have many indie/freeware developers in the first place - the companies developing for consoles would be paying for their own art anyway.
I disagree with SketchyLogic that CC not being usable on Apple app store is deterimental "to the CC movement as a whole", when being against legal and technical restrictions seems to be a belief of Creative Commons organisation. It may be hugely important to an IOS developer, but that doesn't mean it's hugely important to other people with views against DRM or closed platforms (who aren't going to persuaded by the more profitable argument, when they're not making the money, and Apple is taking a 30% cut - it's like arguing that Windows makes more money than Linux, when in fact the lower costs is a possible benefit of Free Software - plus as an Android user, it's hard for me to contribute to a company's profits when they only release for the fewer Apple users in the first place - there are some games that I'd love to pay for, but can't). Within the Free/Open movements, there's long been a debate about "liberal" versus "copyleft" licences (e.g., BSD vs GPL). I think there's a place for both - so it is a good thing that OGA-BY now exists.
I'd certainly love for there to be better graphics (and more consistent), as I say earlier in this thread. Unfortunately this is something I don't have the skills for right now, but would welcome any contributions. (By pre-rendered, do you mean the buildings? This was the best way I found I could create something that didn't look awful, but they are one of the things that could do with replacing.)
Version 0.27 is now released - this adds speech samples (thanks to Rob Hunter, who recorded speech samples to go along with the game), along with in-game music and some other sound effects. Also some minor improvements to the graphics using more from Open Game Art (bombs, explosions, and some other minor improvements). I've switched to using SDL 2 for all platforms, and added support for Windows 8 tablets/touchscreens.
It would make sense for the FAQ to also quote the relevant part from CC's own summary: "No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits."
The reason why it says technological measures and not DRM is because the former is the term used by Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, however there is a link to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Application_of_effecti... which mentions this includes DRM and explains it (and personally I'd say that "technological measure that restricts..." is clearer than DRM because that's the explanation - I only know that DRM is a technological measure that restricts what people can do, it's interesting that people know what the acronym means, but get confused by the explanation of the acronym...). This information or the link could also be put in the FAQ.
There used to be a problem that the CC summaries said nothing on this, but now they're pretty clear.
OGA-BY also removes the clauses:
"You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work."
Which makes sense - even for a game without DRM, the game could just as well have a licence saying people weren't allowed to distribute any of the context (even if it was someone else's OGA-BY content). So in capbros's example of this website disappearing, even though someone could technically get hold of the content from such a game, they wouldn't have legal rights to redistibute that version of it.
Another example might be someone taking all the OGA-BY art on this site, and putting it on their own site under a more restrictive licence. I don't think any way is right - this is just the old copyleft or GPL vs BSD debate in a different form.
Going back to Kaetemi's "ten cutouts" analogy - I'd agree with Kaetemi's later comment that it's only when the game is run that they are combined into an adapted work. To go back to the analogy, whilst distributing a landscape created from the cutouts would be an adaption, suppose instead I distribute the cutouts, along with a set of instructions for how to arrange those cutouts into a landscape?
Though yes, the lack of clarity does mean that BY-SA isn't ideal for games.
p0ss: "I really like BY-SA, I always thought its limitations pretty much limited people to using it in open source games"
There is nothing in BY-SA that suggest it can only be used for Open Source. Even if a game is considered an Adaption, that means the game (at least in binary form) has to be released as BY-SA (which would be problematic for many Open Source projects too).
Teken: "I thought any CC0 were obliged to be redistributed as CC0 at least see here https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offer..."
Which bit are you referring to? The chart says that PD (CC0) can be relicenced in an adaption as any licence.
Note that in some countries like the US, you can't claim copyright on a copy of public domain material, but that doesn't mean you'd be sued for not marking the files as CC0, it just means you won't successfully be able to sue other people. (See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs .)
IMO OGA would only lose trust in the more straightforward case of copyright infringement - where it is someone else's work, or an edited version of it.
If someone sues because of a vague "similarity" or the copyright holder believes they own the rights to a "style", then I don't think people are going to say OGA should have known and removed the art, when it's impossible to make that judgement. If people are concerned there is a similarity, that can be discussed in the comments, and anyone deciding to use it can choose for themselves. I fear that a lot of art would end up being deleted if anything that might result in someone suing over a vague similarity was deleted.
Should all the art submitted as part of http://itch.io/jam/candyjam be deleted? I mean, this was a jam actively encouraging developers to create games which King believes would be infringing. That was trademark issues rather than copyright, though a similar principle applied, plus "the art looks a similar style" may often end up being a trademark issue rather than a copyright one - should the art be deleted, because someone might use a candy image from OGA, that King then decide to sue them for?
"I believe if you place your art on your site under OGA-compatible license, anyone else can submit them here, right?"
Legally this is correct, if someone releases something under a licence, one can't retroactively revoke that.
I don't know what OGA's deletion policy is, but in my opinion, I would hope the deletion requests are only acted upon if there is a good reason, say a licensing issue (such as it using copyrighted material from elsewhere without appropriate licences, or uploaded without permission).
Whilst it might seem nice to honour an author's request to delete, it causes problems if various games are using it, and link to a webpage here that then gets deleted. (Well, it's not a problem legally - but it helps as evidence that things are properly licenced, if the originating URLs are not dead.) As Demetrius points out, someone can just come along an re-add it, but it's less hassle to not have to do that, and to avoid changing the URL; it also seems stronger legally if the uploaded is the author.
Fair enough if OGA prefers to always honour deletion request, but just putting my thoughts out there for debate :)
http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-takedown says that OGA honors requests to take down if it was uploaded without permission, but that seems to be more a case of erring on the side of caution when it comes to licencing - if someone claims it was uploaded without permission, you don't want to risk a court battle even if it seems that it was released elsewhere under a free licence. In this case though, someone can't claim it was uploaded without permission when they uploaded it!
Also of relevance perhaps: http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-changelicense
I can play music from OGA in the browser no problem (including from search results).
It's possible to "favourite" music tracks to give feedback, as well as adding to collections in order for people to keep track of ones that they like. OGA also now keeps track of your downloads.
I don't think a "music player" is needed, because unlike Jamendo, the intention isn't to provide a music streaming service where people listen to music (e.g., in the background), it's to provide music for game developers to download and integrate into their games. So as long as I can easily listen to it when I find it, that's fine, I don't need things like playlists.
I don't see how a music player would make it easier to find music. Whilst the OGA search could do with improving, this is something that is being worked on. Is Jamendo easier find music? At a quick test, it seems similar in that you type terms, then get a list of hits, and can play from the list of results.
Whilst Jamendo is another good place for people to distribute or find music, I don't think OGA should encourage people to go there instead. OGA has the advantage that music uploaded is geared towards being used in games, meaning you don't have to wade through other kinds of music. Also Jamendo allows non-Free licences like non-commercial and no-derivatives. And the advanced search only allows limiting it to one licence - I can't select a list of licences to search for (which OGA does, incidentally).
Technical modifications are allowed in the GPL too (I can put it into a zip file). CC BY 4 is just more explicit about the difference between a technical modification and Effective Technological Measure.
It's good if they've changed the terms to allow Open Source, I believe Microsoft for the Windows Store (which also originally had similar problems IIRC) does a similar thing. So if DRM is no longer enforced, it may be that this issue is out of date anyway (and interesting to note that actually it is worth fighting these things). Are there any news articles on this?
These things do have the possible problem that although licences like CC BY are seen as "compatible" with, or the art equivalents of Free and Open Source software, I don't think any CC licences are OSI approved (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ) - probably because they weren't written with source code in mind. So it may be that the mandatory licence for non-Open Source means that CC BY etc still can't be used in non-Open Source products, so those people should still stick with OGA BY or CC0. Also it's not uncommon for Open Source games to be multiple-licenced, i.e., source/binary under an Open Source licence, and different licence(s) for the art, so who knows what it means if another licence says "you can't do any of this, except for bits which are Open Source".
* I agree with complete packs. Of course that's quite an undertaking, but it doesn't have to be "complete" - just having a set of art that's consistent (rather than just single one off pieces), and it's then easier to full in the gaps as required. Or maybe artists can look at existing art, and add something to complement it. I don't know if maybe people might think this would be seen as copying/plagiarising - I mean, obviously the art here explicitly allows copying, but people often have an artistic drive to be original, or a fear of being accused of just using someone else's work even if it's legal. But it's worth making the point that here, that really is a good thing for games! FLARE and LPC have shown that there are artists out there willing to create art for an existing set - more of that please :) Perhaps we need another LPC-style competition - or maybe it doesn't have to be a competition with prizes, I think the important thing about LPC was providing an initial set of graphics that artists then built on.
* More character art with animation - static images are fine for scenery, but it's not uncommon to see people release a game character which may look great, but being a single static image makes it unusable in many styles of game (well, they could still be used say as an NPC who just stands there, but not if you want them for a player character or movable enemy). The LPC set, and the FLARE graphics, are great not just for being a consistent set, but also having animation.
* High resolution graphics would also benefit Android, Windows etc. Though I'd say the gap is not just a lack of very high resolution, but a dominance of low resolution graphics. Much of the 2D art seems to have a retro early-90s feel (not that that's a bad thing, but this topic is what there seems to be a lack of), and is below the resolution capabilities of any device today. But having said that, I imagine there's the point that 2D game art becomes harder at higher resolutions (I saw someone making the point that doubling the resolution in each dimension is four times the pixels, and if you're doing pixel art, that matters). In practice my understanding is that most in-game graphics that are higher resolutions tend to be created in 3D, and then pre-rendered if 2D sprites are desired. There are a fair amount of 3D characters on OGA, though often not in a pre-rendered format. Still, in the case of very simple vector art like the balloons example, these restrictions don't apply, so I guess vector art (that can be scaled to any resolution) is something there's not much of.
On the note of 3D models used for rendering sprites, is there demand for taking some of these 3D models, and generating sprite sheets? I'm a programmer but did learn enough Blender to be able to render a static model in isometric (Clint's tutorial at http://clintbellanger.net/articles/isometric_tiles/ was a great help), though animation is currently beyond me. Or has anyone had luck with Blender scripts that claim to automate this? (a quick Google reveals http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Render/Spritify ). I wonder if some programmers skip by the 3D models altogether, in which case generating spritesheets from 3D models (especially those with animations) might be an easy (albeit tedious) way to increase the amount of higher-resolution game-ready art.
@cdoty: To clarify the reason for the clause, it's to prevent additional restrictions (legal or technical) being applied to the licence which takes away those rights.
"DRM is not the only way to prevent someone from getting at the asset. Isn't a protected Unity package a form of DRM?"
I don't know about Unity; but CC define "technological measures" as "defined with reference to Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty". A key point is whether circumventing the protection would be illegal in countries that implement that treaty (e.g., the US, with the DMCA).
You say it's possible to get at the assets on IOS anyway. There are three possibilities:
1. The legal terms of service say that you can't do it.
2. Doing so would be illegal under laws like the DMCA.
3. It's not an issue - in which case this is all a red herring, and people can use CC licences after all :)
"The OGA licenses are a good example of this, but they are not universal and every artist isn't necessarily interested in using them. If a resource is uploaded to another site, there's a discrepancy in the licenses."
If a resource is uploaded to another site and it has to be under CC-BY instead of OGA-BY, how is that different to uploading it to Apple app store? In both cases, it's uploaded somewhere under a more restrictive licence. If it's okay for Apple because people can still download from OGA, then that applies to any other site. If you think it's important for the licence to be preserved - well, now you see why some people prefer CC-BY :)
(This is one of the paradoxes of licencing - yes, I can take anyone's OGA-BY and relicence it as CC-BY! Because that's the very freedom they grant, when they allow people to apply additional restrictions.)
"Nintendo also has a limitation against open sourced anything. I'm assuming Microsoft and Sony probably do too."
Do you mean consoles? Maybe, but that's bad too :)
claudeb asked why this issue only seemed to come up with IOS. Android is massively more popular, and I don't know if IOS being more profitable affects things, if anything, that should be a reason why developers should be able to pay for artists rather than taking Free art :) But yes, there are plenty of developers who want to write games for IOS anyway. But really, I don't think that matters, it's more that this is the first time it's been an issue, other platforms don't have the restriction that additional terms must be applied and you can only distribute through the company. One exception is consoles as cdoty points out, but those are sufficiently harder to develop for that you didn't have many indie/freeware developers in the first place - the companies developing for consoles would be paying for their own art anyway.
I disagree with SketchyLogic that CC not being usable on Apple app store is deterimental "to the CC movement as a whole", when being against legal and technical restrictions seems to be a belief of Creative Commons organisation. It may be hugely important to an IOS developer, but that doesn't mean it's hugely important to other people with views against DRM or closed platforms (who aren't going to persuaded by the more profitable argument, when they're not making the money, and Apple is taking a 30% cut - it's like arguing that Windows makes more money than Linux, when in fact the lower costs is a possible benefit of Free Software - plus as an Android user, it's hard for me to contribute to a company's profits when they only release for the fewer Apple users in the first place - there are some games that I'd love to pay for, but can't). Within the Free/Open movements, there's long been a debate about "liberal" versus "copyleft" licences (e.g., BSD vs GPL). I think there's a place for both - so it is a good thing that OGA-BY now exists.
(Getting off-topic, but interesting report at http://gearnuke.com/pc-dominates-market-51-console-30-mobile-13-accordin... on 2013 revenue share, showing PC at 51%, consoles 30%, mobile 13%; it doesn't break down by platform though, and unclear whether it includes ad revenue.)
I'd certainly love for there to be better graphics (and more consistent), as I say earlier in this thread. Unfortunately this is something I don't have the skills for right now, but would welcome any contributions. (By pre-rendered, do you mean the buildings? This was the best way I found I could create something that didn't look awful, but they are one of the things that could do with replacing.)
Version 0.27 is now released - this adds speech samples (thanks to Rob Hunter, who recorded speech samples to go along with the game), along with in-game music and some other sound effects. Also some minor improvements to the graphics using more from Open Game Art (bombs, explosions, and some other minor improvements). I've switched to using SDL 2 for all platforms, and added support for Windows 8 tablets/touchscreens.
Pages