You don't want to use free assets but you're asking for free assets to use?
I get where you're coming from, but the artists you're asking to work with you will have control over any content they create. Most artists working on a 'labor of love' project (aka not-paid, profit-share, 'free') prefer to release for free (non-exclusive) any assets they create for the project. I think you're going to have to decide which is more important; using assets that are free to everyone, or paying for exclusive assets that are unique to your project.
Remember that using non-exclusive assets doesn't remove the uniqueness from your game. The things that set your game apart are the gameplay, narrative, how you are using the assets... not the assets themselves. Also keep in mind you browse game assets, but your players do not. Players don't care that they could download the assets found in your game. Well, some do, but they tend to like your game more because of it.
If you can't pay money for assets, you'll want to have something else you can pay with. for 'labor of love' projects, that's often the shared passion for the project. People can't see the vision you have, though. You have to share that passion, not just expect it to infect others naturally.
One of the more important points on the post linked above is:
"Have several hours of real gameplay. This isn't just wandering around randomly generated terrain. Real quests, real NPCs, real levels, boss fights, whatever. The art can look horrible, but if you're asking people to work on your project out of the blue and you're not already established, you need to be prepared to show people that their art will be put to good use. ... you just want to provide a good amount of gameplay to prove that you're dedicated and able to finish your project."
You mentioned most artwork is currently placeholders. Perfect! :D Use free art found here on OGA to flush out those placeholders and share a playable demo. A demo that looks like garbage will attract far more artists than a pristine looking game that no one is allowed to see.
You may not repackage, redistribute or resell the assets, no matter how much they are modified.
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Those are things the CC-BY license permits. PixiVan, would you be willing to remove those stipulations? Not just because it conflicts with the license, but because it creates massive problems for anyone trying to use them in a game they may plan to distribute. The inclusion in the game could count as repackaging. The distribution of the assets for use in their game could count as redistribution. Selling their game that uses the assets could count as reselling. I get that the purpose is to say "no redistribution or reselling by themselves" but that is nearly impossible to effectively enforce without also preventing people from using the assets within a game project as well.
Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue in order to protect these assets against usage you may not want. Let me know if you have any questions.
If the only difference between two submissions on OGA is how the sprites are arranged, that serves only to clutter an already under-curated archive of game assets. If there is significant value added beyond simple rearranging, file format, or packaging: Sure, that's great! Otherwise, that's essentially duplicating assets and bloating the archive. OGA will not encourage that kind of thing.
I do, however, agree that adding additional arrangments of assets to an existing submission is always better. For example, I would encourage submitters to include both a spritesheet, and package of those same individual sprite files, if they are willing.
But what were the terms he gave? If he didn't explicitly say they could be re-shared under the CC-BY license, we might not be allowed to have it on OGA.
"I'm finishing the editor right now, and then I'm going to work on the player."
I would love a user-friendly game editor with an LPC focus! I am messing with the editor now, but I'm itching to try out what I'm doing with the editor, so please let us know when that player is ready to try out. Even if it does't have all the features promised by the Editor, yet. :)
"I don't want to be rude so I won't say exactly what I'm saying I don't want to say which is rude"
You were asking him to read the documentation. also known as "reviewing your documentation". I did not misunderstand. I recognize the intent was to direct attention back to what was already provided and being neglected. My point is, it was done in a rude fashion, whether that was your intent or not. I have no issue with saying "please take a look at the links I provided above. They answer all the questions you are asking."
I do have a problem with terms like RTFM, namely because it is a near perfect example of what is outlined in the forum rule examples of what not to do. I am glad you consider that resolved. I need to make sure everyone understands why that isn't the way to talk to people here.
You don't want to use free assets but you're asking for free assets to use?
I get where you're coming from, but the artists you're asking to work with you will have control over any content they create. Most artists working on a 'labor of love' project (aka not-paid, profit-share, 'free') prefer to release for free (non-exclusive) any assets they create for the project. I think you're going to have to decide which is more important; using assets that are free to everyone, or paying for exclusive assets that are unique to your project.
Remember that using non-exclusive assets doesn't remove the uniqueness from your game. The things that set your game apart are the gameplay, narrative, how you are using the assets... not the assets themselves. Also keep in mind you browse game assets, but your players do not. Players don't care that they could download the assets found in your game. Well, some do, but they tend to like your game more because of it.
If you can't pay money for assets, you'll want to have something else you can pay with. for 'labor of love' projects, that's often the shared passion for the project. People can't see the vision you have, though. You have to share that passion, not just expect it to infect others naturally.
Which is the primary purpose for this sticky post: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/how-and-when-to-write-a-good-art-request
One of the more important points on the post linked above is:
You mentioned most artwork is currently placeholders. Perfect! :D Use free art found here on OGA to flush out those placeholders and share a playable demo. A demo that looks like garbage will attract far more artists than a pristine looking game that no one is allowed to see.
I think the reason for asking is because content in the comments have no license.
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.Those are things the CC-BY license permits. PixiVan, would you be willing to remove those stipulations? Not just because it conflicts with the license, but because it creates massive problems for anyone trying to use them in a game they may plan to distribute. The inclusion in the game could count as repackaging. The distribution of the assets for use in their game could count as redistribution. Selling their game that uses the assets could count as reselling. I get that the purpose is to say "no redistribution or reselling by themselves" but that is nearly impossible to effectively enforce without also preventing people from using the assets within a game project as well.Until then, I must mark this as having a licensing issue in order to protect these assets against usage you may not want. Let me know if you have any questions.great! thanks.
If the only difference between two submissions on OGA is how the sprites are arranged, that serves only to clutter an already under-curated archive of game assets. If there is significant value added beyond simple rearranging, file format, or packaging: Sure, that's great! Otherwise, that's essentially duplicating assets and bloating the archive. OGA will not encourage that kind of thing.
I do, however, agree that adding additional arrangments of assets to an existing submission is always better. For example, I would encourage submitters to include both a spritesheet, and package of those same individual sprite files, if they are willing.
But what were the terms he gave? If he didn't explicitly say they could be re-shared under the CC-BY license, we might not be allowed to have it on OGA.
Thank you, and understood.
I would love a user-friendly game editor with an LPC focus! I am messing with the editor now, but I'm itching to try out what I'm doing with the editor, so please let us know when that player is ready to try out. Even if it does't have all the features promised by the Editor, yet. :)
Ok, thank you. Let me know when the .png is removed from the model. It is a great model, BTW. :)
"I don't want to be rude so I won't say exactly what I'm saying I don't want to say which is rude"
You were asking him to read the documentation. also known as "reviewing your documentation". I did not misunderstand. I recognize the intent was to direct attention back to what was already provided and being neglected. My point is, it was done in a rude fashion, whether that was your intent or not. I have no issue with saying "please take a look at the links I provided above. They answer all the questions you are asking."
I do have a problem with terms like RTFM, namely because it is a near perfect example of what is outlined in the forum rule examples of what not to do. I am glad you consider that resolved. I need to make sure everyone understands why that isn't the way to talk to people here.
Ok, then it can't be hosted here if you don't have permission to use the .png under the terms of CC0 as well. See submission guidelines on 3D art: https://opengameart.org/content/art-submission-guidelines#threed-art
Pages