Concern 1: That is a good point. Less-than-reputable individuals would try to game the system or hack it to give themselves unearned points. However, the points have no real value outside this community so the only motivation for doing so would be to gain an advantage in getting game assets created for themselves. The same motivation is present with a purely credibility or reputation based system where the highest ranked developers get the most influence over who joins their team and how much resources are dedicated to "their" project. I think there is a bit less of a selfish motivation on the project side since no single person is trying to get a project completed, but instead many people who all agree and upvote the project. Either way, hardening the system against abuse is a good idea.
Concern 2: Also a good point. This is would be close to Just Another Freelance Website. Though I think a place where you can trade freelance work for freelance work definitely solves one of the problems a lot of people run into with their projects: Most people wanting to make a game have three things: 1) A specialized talent that is integral for creating a game, but also not sufficient for creating the entire game. 2) A desire for the other components needed to make their game. 3) Insufficient capital to obtain #2 via freelance requests.
Allowing each person to exchange #1 for #2 allows people to disregard #3. I suck at art, but I'm a wizard at code. Someone is a beautiful artist, but can't really code. Some game making software helps in this regard, but often that software lacks the ability to implement the kind of features the creator really wants in their game. I code for the artists game, they draw for my game. We both get the parts we want (hopefully) regardless of not having the money for the assets. Maybe this is just Freelance work with extra steps; if all these people had a truly valuable talent (#1) they could do freelance work, earn money, and hire freelance work for the parts they need.
I think that illustrates the team aspect should always be integral. Perhaps these exchanges are occurring within a team, within a project. These teammates are already on-board to accomplish the same goal, but this would give weight to team contributions. I've had people join my project so they could help out only to find they weren't pulling their weight. One artist was doing 90% of the work, but only getting 1/5th of the total credit on a 5-artist team. The credits page lists all 5 artists as if they contributed the same amount of effort. Maybe an internal exchange system or point system within a project would help motivate all members to put in the effort. Each team member gets a visible reward/feedback for their contributions and the priority of tasks is a bit more free. If there is a high-priority coding task (lots of points for completion) I would be motivated to take it on, but if it looks like something I really REALLY don't want to do, I'm free not to. I can pick a lower reward task instead and leave that one to another coder.
It also helps people understand the effort required by a task they may not be familiar with. Someone on the team says "we'll need monster AI" so they request a very simple task "create advanced monster AI that can outsmart 80% of players" and offer 3 points for it. Huh, thats weird. Why isn't anyone taking this task? It's an easy 3 points. Maybe it isn't as simple a task as I thought it was. We either need to give it a higher priority (more points), or tone it down (make it a simpler request)."
Ah, now I'm starting to see this better. It isn't just the one top project that gets attention, it's a scale of multiple projects, and people can choose to join the one they like? Though they would tend to join the top ranking projects because they have the best organization and momentum.
"Welcome to Pendant. The other side of indie-pendant game development."
"If people are only interested in working on their own projects and not willing to compromise, and not confident their project would get upvoted in some substantial way, at some time, then maybe that's saying something?"
Hmm... yes I think it's saying we emphasise that these projects ARE your project. "Want to make a game? Have some ideas? Come join! Everyone gets to give input. Make this game project your own!" It will be true that everyone gives input, and that input isn't simply dismissed. It's weighed and discussed by the community and given a lower or higher priority democratically. I still think every project needs a project-leader, but that leader would be selected by vote probably, and the responsibilities of the leader do NOT include unilaterally making demands for "my game". Rockstars welcome... just not the kind that can't compromize or listen. Everyone gets to be a rockstar game creator.
I'm sure some projects may fill up with all the members they can handle and possibly won't be able to accept many new members, but that won't be the only project available.
How are people going to be ranked? I don't mean "what are the ranks going to be". I mean what determines a person's rank? Kicknbrit's concept of viral credibility seem interesting, but I feel like it needs a balancing factor. Some additional mechanic to go with it to counteract potential nepotism. Well, not quite nepotism, but it feels like it could reward people for seeking out all the easy tasks as long as they're requested by the most credible people.
Assume I'm highly credible. I request one sprite 32x32 pixels non-animated. I also request concept art for a cutscene backdrop 1024x768, with a bit of animated lightning flashing in a storm in the background of the scene. Everyone will jump on the sprite and pay no attention to the backdrop because the sprite is a way easier task, but grants the same amount of Credibility Points when completed. A bidding system perhaps? Something that would allow the community to quickly negotiate the difficulty vs reward for completing tasks. The community will tend to ignore tasks if the reward is not high enough to account for the difficulty of the task, prompting requestors to evaluate how important that task is to them. If they really need it, they'll probably raise the reward for that task a little until the "free market" decides the reward is sufficient.
Perhaps this is where the hybrid comes in. People with high credibility probably have high credibility because they put in a lot of work to one or many projects, earning those credibility points. Now they are in a position to spend those credibility points in exhange for tasks being completed.
The people with the most credibility and upvotes would have the most currency to spend toward the implementation of the upvoted concepts they are championing. Yes, no, yes?
@fablefox: Does the artwork need to be exclusive? Or do you already have a very specific art style that it needs to match? If not, why not use some of the already-existing assets here on OGA? They're all free and already done. :)
@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.
Concern 1: That is a good point. Less-than-reputable individuals would try to game the system or hack it to give themselves unearned points. However, the points have no real value outside this community so the only motivation for doing so would be to gain an advantage in getting game assets created for themselves. The same motivation is present with a purely credibility or reputation based system where the highest ranked developers get the most influence over who joins their team and how much resources are dedicated to "their" project. I think there is a bit less of a selfish motivation on the project side since no single person is trying to get a project completed, but instead many people who all agree and upvote the project. Either way, hardening the system against abuse is a good idea.
Concern 2: Also a good point. This is would be close to Just Another Freelance Website. Though I think a place where you can trade freelance work for freelance work definitely solves one of the problems a lot of people run into with their projects: Most people wanting to make a game have three things: 1) A specialized talent that is integral for creating a game, but also not sufficient for creating the entire game. 2) A desire for the other components needed to make their game. 3) Insufficient capital to obtain #2 via freelance requests.
Allowing each person to exchange #1 for #2 allows people to disregard #3. I suck at art, but I'm a wizard at code. Someone is a beautiful artist, but can't really code. Some game making software helps in this regard, but often that software lacks the ability to implement the kind of features the creator really wants in their game. I code for the artists game, they draw for my game. We both get the parts we want (hopefully) regardless of not having the money for the assets. Maybe this is just Freelance work with extra steps; if all these people had a truly valuable talent (#1) they could do freelance work, earn money, and hire freelance work for the parts they need.
I think that illustrates the team aspect should always be integral. Perhaps these exchanges are occurring within a team, within a project. These teammates are already on-board to accomplish the same goal, but this would give weight to team contributions. I've had people join my project so they could help out only to find they weren't pulling their weight. One artist was doing 90% of the work, but only getting 1/5th of the total credit on a 5-artist team. The credits page lists all 5 artists as if they contributed the same amount of effort. Maybe an internal exchange system or point system within a project would help motivate all members to put in the effort. Each team member gets a visible reward/feedback for their contributions and the priority of tasks is a bit more free. If there is a high-priority coding task (lots of points for completion) I would be motivated to take it on, but if it looks like something I really REALLY don't want to do, I'm free not to. I can pick a lower reward task instead and leave that one to another coder.
It also helps people understand the effort required by a task they may not be familiar with. Someone on the team says "we'll need monster AI" so they request a very simple task "create advanced monster AI that can outsmart 80% of players" and offer 3 points for it. Huh, thats weird. Why isn't anyone taking this task? It's an easy 3 points. Maybe it isn't as simple a task as I thought it was. We either need to give it a higher priority (more points), or tone it down (make it a simpler request)."
What do you think?
Ah, now I'm starting to see this better. It isn't just the one top project that gets attention, it's a scale of multiple projects, and people can choose to join the one they like? Though they would tend to join the top ranking projects because they have the best organization and momentum.
"Welcome to Pendant. The other side of indie-pendant game development."
Hmm... yes I think it's saying we emphasise that these projects ARE your project. "Want to make a game? Have some ideas? Come join! Everyone gets to give input. Make this game project your own!" It will be true that everyone gives input, and that input isn't simply dismissed. It's weighed and discussed by the community and given a lower or higher priority democratically. I still think every project needs a project-leader, but that leader would be selected by vote probably, and the responsibilities of the leader do NOT include unilaterally making demands for "my game". Rockstars welcome... just not the kind that can't compromize or listen. Everyone gets to be a rockstar game creator.
I'm sure some projects may fill up with all the members they can handle and possibly won't be able to accept many new members, but that won't be the only project available.
How are people going to be ranked? I don't mean "what are the ranks going to be". I mean what determines a person's rank? Kicknbrit's concept of viral credibility seem interesting, but I feel like it needs a balancing factor. Some additional mechanic to go with it to counteract potential nepotism. Well, not quite nepotism, but it feels like it could reward people for seeking out all the easy tasks as long as they're requested by the most credible people.
Assume I'm highly credible. I request one sprite 32x32 pixels non-animated. I also request concept art for a cutscene backdrop 1024x768, with a bit of animated lightning flashing in a storm in the background of the scene. Everyone will jump on the sprite and pay no attention to the backdrop because the sprite is a way easier task, but grants the same amount of Credibility Points when completed. A bidding system perhaps? Something that would allow the community to quickly negotiate the difficulty vs reward for completing tasks. The community will tend to ignore tasks if the reward is not high enough to account for the difficulty of the task, prompting requestors to evaluate how important that task is to them. If they really need it, they'll probably raise the reward for that task a little until the "free market" decides the reward is sufficient.
Perhaps this is where the hybrid comes in. People with high credibility probably have high credibility because they put in a lot of work to one or many projects, earning those credibility points. Now they are in a position to spend those credibility points in exhange for tasks being completed.
The people with the most credibility and upvotes would have the most currency to spend toward the implementation of the upvoted concepts they are championing. Yes, no, yes?
Yes I'm pretty sure that was fixed a while ago.
@Spring: What can't you find?
@sparrow666: Nearly right. It still needs that link to the original and a copy of bluecarrot16's Copyright/Attribution Notice.
@fablefox: Does the artwork need to be exclusive? Or do you already have a very specific art style that it needs to match? If not, why not use some of the already-existing assets here on OGA? They're all free and already done. :)
Dat contrast tho!
Sounds like an interesting project. This guide may be helpful in finding artists: https://opengameart.org/forumtopic/how-and-when-to-write-a-good-art-request
@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.
Pages