@LDAsh: I can see how that would be useful, but it looks like our two ideas are solutions to two entirely different problems, so I'm sure they could both be implemented side by side.
The above model would certainly reduce drama and give momentum to the most deserving project, but I'm noticing a big reason why everyone needs help but no one is available to provide help is because everyone is, perhaps selfishly, focused on their own project, worthy or not.
As one fish in a big gamedev pond, it's statistically unlikely that my project is the worthiest project, so it probably wouldn't get worked on by the community. As soon as that was evident I think I'd probably leave the community and continue searching for alternative ways to complete my own less-than-top-notch project.
I can't speak for everone, but I suspect may other people would feel like leaving such a community as soon as it was clear it only benefits the top 1%. Obligation is easy when it's just providing an upvote, but as soon as real labor is on the line, it's a lot easier for people to chose exile versus keeping their promise with no tangible personal benefit. Both our concepts involve obligation to contribute, but when I'm obligated to complete a single task despite only getting a slightly-less-than-equivalent personal value out of it, I'm more willing to meet that obligation than if I'm obligated to complete a huge task despite getting no personal value out of it.
I think I'm misunderstanding some of your concept: the community gives each contributor a spot in the credits, but beyond that, what motivates a contributor to work on a project they aren't the leader of? I'm not saying people don't go for that. They definitely do, but they aren't common. If that were all it took to attract most poeple to another person's project, then all the hundreds of resource requests with "I'll give you credit and even a share of the profits when the game is done" would be a lot more successful.
@Chasersgaming: yeah, this might call for a new thread.
"...are you proposing that you wright like 'scripts' i.e a movement engine?"
That is one possibility, yes, but I was not thinking in such general-use terms. I would perform tasks that people are in specific need of. If someone specifically requested a movement engine, yes I would try my hand at making it for them, just like any typical commissioned resource request.
"...only used by the requester? (or open)..."
Either could be included as terms of the exchange. I might say "ok, I'll do this for you, but I insist it be licensed CC0 when our deal is concluded." Or the requestor might say "I'll sweeten the deal if you agree to let me keep it proprietary." Or the opposite might be desired: "I don't want to eliminate potential future customers by giving out free labor, so only you are allowed to use this when our deal is done. Others have to commission me if they want to use it." To which the requestor might say "No way. That goes against my FOSS ideals. However, I kinda understand where you're coming from, so I'll make a tiny sound effect for you in addition to the other stuff I promised... but all of it has to be licensed CC-BY or the deal's off."
"they gain kudos/reputation points for that contribution?"
Eventually, yes. Some kind of an internal currency representing work-performed. Initially, though the commerce should start out small and on an individual basis. Purely one-on-one barter to see how that goes.
For example: You need some bit of programming work done for your game. You "commission" me to program it. In turn, I "commission" you to perform some other work for my game in exchange. Art, music, sfx, even programming (though it's less likely I'll need programming since I can probably do it myself).
Once we agree to the terms (three functions that do xyz in exchange for 2 32x32 non-animated sprites of creature a and b, for example), we each perform our task and exchange the results.
Oops! I poorly estimated how long it would take me to create the 3 functions. It's taking way more effort than I expected. Too bad for me. I guess I lose out a bit on this deal. I agreed to it and on my honor I deliver as promised.
Oops! The way you requested the functions was not quite what you really meant, so the functions I deliver do what you asked, but they don't quite perform the way you want. Too bad for you. I can't be accountable because you failed to properly describe what you really wanted, so I guess you lose out a bit on this deal. You agreed to it and on your honor you deliver as promised.
Assuming we are clear about our wishes and properly estimate our own abilities, those will rarely be issues. Those aside, we review each other's work and point out any problems that don't line up with the requirements we agreed upon. Once all problems are resolved, our exchange is concluded.
Eventually this would be expanded beyond just a barter system and we would be exchanging some arbitrary currency like Reputation Points. I'll give you 10 RP for 2 sprites. You give me 20 RP for 3 functions. I take some of the remaining RP earned with you and use it to purchase sound effects from someone else, and so on.
EDIT: maybe something like this already exists. I'll have to look around. If anyone is aware of some site that might operate like this, exchanging tasks instead of money, tell me about it.
@LDAsh: How do you feel about skill bartering? Everyone has their own plans, so no one is available to work on someone else's plans. If you need some programming done, and I need some artwork done, (and assuming your style matches my project, and my coding fits the language of your project) is it feasible to trade hours of work for our independent mutual benefit?
It's an idea I've been kicking around for a while. A gaming skills market would be pretty awesome if we could figure out how to work it.
@LDAsh: Very interesting and to-the-point. I agree and have had that experience. So are you an artist seeking a programmer worth joining your project or are you an artist seeking a project worth joining?
We're done working on that: Searches now include CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 by default, which means the default licensing search is effectively "Any license" now. :)
"It lies in the fact that in doing that, my username will still appear as Author"
I'm aware. My instructions are still the best way to indicate who the artist is. There is an option for showing another name as the "Author" instead of the uploader, but it isn't working right now and we're still working on fixing it. Therefore, it is understood by most that "Author" is the uploader, but credit should be given to whomever is listed in the copyright/attribution section. So the best way to describe that is exactly what I suggested above.
Your suggestion for the text of the copyright/attribution notice section seems good to me.
@n2Liquid: I see you Added him/her as a collaborator. That's a good start. The next thing to do is list ArthCarvalho in the "Copyright/Attribution Notice" section of the submission. Something like:
@LDAsh: I can see how that would be useful, but it looks like our two ideas are solutions to two entirely different problems, so I'm sure they could both be implemented side by side.
The above model would certainly reduce drama and give momentum to the most deserving project, but I'm noticing a big reason why everyone needs help but no one is available to provide help is because everyone is, perhaps selfishly, focused on their own project, worthy or not.
As one fish in a big gamedev pond, it's statistically unlikely that my project is the worthiest project, so it probably wouldn't get worked on by the community. As soon as that was evident I think I'd probably leave the community and continue searching for alternative ways to complete my own less-than-top-notch project.
I can't speak for everone, but I suspect may other people would feel like leaving such a community as soon as it was clear it only benefits the top 1%. Obligation is easy when it's just providing an upvote, but as soon as real labor is on the line, it's a lot easier for people to chose exile versus keeping their promise with no tangible personal benefit. Both our concepts involve obligation to contribute, but when I'm obligated to complete a single task despite only getting a slightly-less-than-equivalent personal value out of it, I'm more willing to meet that obligation than if I'm obligated to complete a huge task despite getting no personal value out of it.
I think I'm misunderstanding some of your concept: the community gives each contributor a spot in the credits, but beyond that, what motivates a contributor to work on a project they aren't the leader of? I'm not saying people don't go for that. They definitely do, but they aren't common. If that were all it took to attract most poeple to another person's project, then all the hundreds of resource requests with "I'll give you credit and even a share of the profits when the game is done" would be a lot more successful.
@Chasersgaming: yeah, this might call for a new thread.
That is one possibility, yes, but I was not thinking in such general-use terms. I would perform tasks that people are in specific need of. If someone specifically requested a movement engine, yes I would try my hand at making it for them, just like any typical commissioned resource request.
Either could be included as terms of the exchange. I might say "ok, I'll do this for you, but I insist it be licensed CC0 when our deal is concluded." Or the requestor might say "I'll sweeten the deal if you agree to let me keep it proprietary." Or the opposite might be desired: "I don't want to eliminate potential future customers by giving out free labor, so only you are allowed to use this when our deal is done. Others have to commission me if they want to use it." To which the requestor might say "No way. That goes against my FOSS ideals. However, I kinda understand where you're coming from, so I'll make a tiny sound effect for you in addition to the other stuff I promised... but all of it has to be licensed CC-BY or the deal's off."
Eventually, yes. Some kind of an internal currency representing work-performed. Initially, though the commerce should start out small and on an individual basis. Purely one-on-one barter to see how that goes.
For example: You need some bit of programming work done for your game. You "commission" me to program it. In turn, I "commission" you to perform some other work for my game in exchange. Art, music, sfx, even programming (though it's less likely I'll need programming since I can probably do it myself).
Once we agree to the terms (three functions that do xyz in exchange for 2 32x32 non-animated sprites of creature a and b, for example), we each perform our task and exchange the results.
Oops! I poorly estimated how long it would take me to create the 3 functions. It's taking way more effort than I expected. Too bad for me. I guess I lose out a bit on this deal. I agreed to it and on my honor I deliver as promised.
Oops! The way you requested the functions was not quite what you really meant, so the functions I deliver do what you asked, but they don't quite perform the way you want. Too bad for you. I can't be accountable because you failed to properly describe what you really wanted, so I guess you lose out a bit on this deal. You agreed to it and on your honor you deliver as promised.
Assuming we are clear about our wishes and properly estimate our own abilities, those will rarely be issues. Those aside, we review each other's work and point out any problems that don't line up with the requirements we agreed upon. Once all problems are resolved, our exchange is concluded.
Eventually this would be expanded beyond just a barter system and we would be exchanging some arbitrary currency like Reputation Points. I'll give you 10 RP for 2 sprites. You give me 20 RP for 3 functions. I take some of the remaining RP earned with you and use it to purchase sound effects from someone else, and so on.
EDIT: maybe something like this already exists. I'll have to look around. If anyone is aware of some site that might operate like this, exchanging tasks instead of money, tell me about it.
Cool. Let's test it out on an individual task basis first. Do you have a relatively basic programming task you need done?
I guess "relatively basic" is hard to gague. I suppose I mean less involved than "I need a fully functional game engine"
@LDAsh: How do you feel about skill bartering? Everyone has their own plans, so no one is available to work on someone else's plans. If you need some programming done, and I need some artwork done, (and assuming your style matches my project, and my coding fits the language of your project) is it feasible to trade hours of work for our independent mutual benefit?
It's an idea I've been kicking around for a while. A gaming skills market would be pretty awesome if we could figure out how to work it.
@LDAsh: Very interesting and to-the-point. I agree and have had that experience. So are you an artist seeking a programmer worth joining your project or are you an artist seeking a project worth joining?
@Anti-Game-Dev: Bart's "How to write a good art request" guide may be applicable here: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/how-and-when-to-write-a-good-art-request
We're done working on that: Searches now include CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 by default, which means the default licensing search is effectively "Any license" now. :)
I like A. Seems more like a face.
"It lies in the fact that in doing that, my username will still appear as Author"
I'm aware. My instructions are still the best way to indicate who the artist is. There is an option for showing another name as the "Author" instead of the uploader, but it isn't working right now and we're still working on fixing it. Therefore, it is understood by most that "Author" is the uploader, but credit should be given to whomever is listed in the copyright/attribution section. So the best way to describe that is exactly what I suggested above.
Your suggestion for the text of the copyright/attribution notice section seems good to me.
Not sure where the confusion is. The best way to describe that is exactly what I suggested above.
@n2Liquid: I see you Added him/her as a collaborator. That's a good start. The next thing to do is list ArthCarvalho in the "Copyright/Attribution Notice" section of the submission. Something like:
Pages