Libre Game Development
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
Hi, everyone. I have experience as a professional video games artist and have been spending the last several years learning coding and music and have finally come to a point where I will start creating my game. Something that comes to mind is making it Libre. I DO want to make significant money from selling it however. My plan right now is to make the code freely available but the art and music will not be. i don't have much experience with actually adhering to the limitations of Libre software. Are there any things I should be concerned with in order to provide free game software while still getting paid for teh software/ effort?
I appreciate the input.
Regards,
David
Hi davidpgil!
I'm giving my input here, with the caveat that I'm not a gamer, a developer, or an artist. Onpon4 is developing a 100% libre game, and will likely be able to give a more informed opinion.
In regards to making money from your game, significant or not, making the art (including music) non-libre is not going to be of great use. Apart from potential ethical issues, there's no way you can stop redistribution without making the whole game proprietary- in fact, if your game becomes popular enough, even banning redistribution won't stop it from happening. You can still ban derivatives or commercial use without stopping the game from being libre, but neither of these will make anywhere near as much money as potential career opportunities gained by being able to show a game *you* made. It is of course your choice as to whether or not you ban these uses, but there's little to be gained from a financial point of view.
The ways you *can* make money, by contrast, revolve around discarding the concept of the game as a 'product' and turning it into a 'service'. Crowdfunding is a great way to do this- set up a campaign with a libre service (I would recommend CrowdSupply) and offer such things as choice in how the game is developed, extra material (although this should be libre too!), or merchandise. By breaking the game down into several semi-independent parts, such as modular levels, it might very well be possible to keep the cash rolling in for quite a while. You could also sell merchandise separately- even if it were something as simple as discs containing copies of the game.
> Onpon4 is developing a 100% libre game, and will likely be able to give a more informed opinion.
Well, I don't think "libre software with proprietary culture" is the right way to go. It makes you have to worry about whether or not the game's "data" includes software, and it's just not as much of a contribution.
You seem to be implying that I have some sort of insightful experience, and that isn't true. I'm still exploring the different options; earlier this week, I launched a Patreon page which I hope may be useful, but it's too early to tell right now. I don't even know if Hexoshi Milestone 2 will really be possible, because half of Milestone 1's funding came from a massive $500 contribution by one person, and I don't know whether or not the goal would have been reached without it.
In short, when it comes to the topic of making money from libre games, I'm still just getting started. That's better than no experience at all, but nowhere near enough for me to make any truly substantial proclamations with confidence.
With that being said, this is a summary of what I have learned so far:
* Funding a single milestone is much easier than funding an entire game all at once.
* People do buy copies of libre games if no gratis official source is available. I had at least one person buying a copy of ReTux every couple of months.
* Many gamers are insanely cutthroat (self-entitled, even) when it comes to pricing. Transparency helps.
* Reddit is probably the single best website to post on to get eyeballs on your project.
I was under the impression that in order for a game to be libre, you needed to make the source available. I believe it is still possible for tehcode to be libre and the art and music to not be libre. I think that is fine since the art or music doesnt take away any freedoms. I have a lot of experience in game development already. I have just never coded my own graphical game before. I really like Crowd Supply, and I will likely target GNU/Linux as my main platform and the rest will be based from that. ITs just that my soul feels good doing stuff the libre way :)
Thanks for the input, especially from onpon4 since while not being an expert, he is walking the talk. Gotta respect that.
I was under the impression that in order for a game to be libre, you needed to make the source available.
To your users, yes. Not necessarily to the whole world (although your users are free to redistribute it).
Contrary to onpon4, I consider the NC and/or the ND components of some Creative Commons license OK as long as the work is not functional... but, like she wrote, there should be no software licensed under an NC or ND license! The GPL or the AGPL probably are the best choices for software you refuse to see ending up in proprietary software.
And, well, do not hope you will make (much) money with your first graphical game. It probably won't happen... but the acquired fame can help you to raise revenues with your second game.
Something else: use an existing engine or, even, consider contributing to an existing project rather than creating a small game alone.
Thanks Magic Banana. What are NC and ND? I eill read up on the GPL and AGPL. I am not expecting a specific amount of money but I do have the skill to develop something that I believe could make a lot of money. I have been working in the industry for about 17 years... Yikes. I plan to build the game in Godot Engine and keep it mostly graphical with very little complex programming involved (at first). I want to do this game solo as I know I can do all the parts of it. Key will be scoping something small - Good as a first game but will help me gain the fondation of other games I would make going forward. Not that I'm ungrateful for the career Ive had. I just want to be in a project where no one can tell me, "No".
The Creative Commons licenses are modular licenses for immaterial works (but they are not really appropriate for software). Wikipedia uses CC-BY-SA, for instance. NC and ND are the two other modules that exist.
CC means "Creative Commons", BY means "Attribution" (compulsory in some legislations), SA means "ShareAlike" (like GPL's copyleft), NC mean "NonCommercial" and ND mean "NoDerivatives" (which cannot be used along with SA).
NOTE For this message, I assume that you have read the four freedoms
described in the free/libre software definition.
It must be noted that, when people here say that they are thankful for
you for making such decision, they are also going to assume that: for
non-functional works you'll give society at least the freedom to share
original copies of these works (this is half of freedom 2 according to
the free/libre software definition). This "half of freedom 2" is needed
because it relates to the good will of society to help their neighbors,
this is why we don't recommend the use of words such as "piracy",
because these words try to depict sharing as a bad thing, when the bad
thing was caused by the proprietor of the content.
There is an evolution of this rule of "half of freedom 2" for
non-functional data which is defended by free/libre *culture* activists,
because they go a step further from free/libre software movement, and
so, they demand that every cultural work has to be free/libre, according
to the Definition of Free Cultural Works.
I'm not a free/libre culture activist myself (not a demander, just a
content creator), but being a free/libre culture activist brings us to
some interesting advantages and challenges:
- Advantage: No need to worry about what is
"software"/"functional"/"practical" anymore. Because you're going to
make sure that every little thing is free/libre, as defined by the
Definition of Free Cultural Works (done by other organization, not the
FSF nor the GNU project).
- Advantage and challenge: Complete corresponding source files must be
provided for everything, and in formats/codecs/standards friendly to
free/libre software. No use providing a music in .opus or .ogg format
because, although these are indeed free/libre software friendly,
they're not the complete corresponding source files in most
cases. This is also an advantage because, if done right, society
benefits hugely from this.
By contrast, if you decide to act only as free/libre software activist,
and not as free/libre culture content creator, then we must take the
inverse of the first advantage, and also note that you'd be pushing
free/libre culture "against the wall" as free/libre culture works become
more and more rare to find.
--
- [[https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno]]
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre, por isso não uso. Iguais a ele prefiro
Ring, ou Tox. Quer outras formas de contato? Adicione o vCard que
está no endereço acima aos teus contatos.
- Pretende me enviar arquivos .doc, .ppt, .cdr, ou .mp3? OK, eu
aceito, mas não repasso. Entrego apenas em formatos favoráveis ao
/software/ livre. Favor entrar em contato em caso de dúvida.
- "People said I should accept the world. Bullshit! I don't accept the
world."
--- Richard Stallman
> No use providing a music in .opus or .ogg format
because, although these are indeed free/libre software friendly,
> they're not the complete corresponding source files in most
cases.
I'm not a lawyer, but to my understanding, version 3 of the GPL is worded in such a way that if nothing better than an audio file exists, it is sufficient as "corresponding source code". I read it this way because the license talks about the preferred form, not necessarily the ideal form.
Also, interpreting it in such a way that an audio file is unacceptable because it's more difficult to edit than e.g. an LMMS file reduces to absurdity in so many ways that the policy would be impractical. These are just a few examples I can think of:
- It would imply that any video which has been edited in Pitivi must therefore have its project file included as its source code, for example, even though it will only work with the exact file configuration the original author.
- In cases where a less easy to edit form is edited, the original "source code" (e.g. LMMS file) doesn't apply to the edited version. It only exists as an audio file. So is such an edit unacceptable, then?
- You can make a recording of anything, so does this policy mean that a sound recording is unacceptable, or can you work around the policy by recording a sound file that otherwise require source code through an analog audio stream, which only serves to degrade the quality?
So I take a more lax approach: include the best form available, but if there's nothing better than an audio file, that's fine. I do think, however, that it's a good idea to make sure that a lossless form of any audio file like this which is distributed in a lossy form (e.g. Ogg Vorbis) exists somewhere losslessly (e.g. FLAC) as well. Also, when I make changes, I try to record exactly what I did so that it can be repeated easily by others.
Neither I'm a lawyer, so we're even. :)
The requirement for complete corresponding source files isn't in the
license per see, even if the license is indeed GNU GPL 3+ (let's
assume), --- because as you said, there is possibility of the
interpretation you just made ---, but the requirement I spoke of is in
the Definition of Free Cultural Works, in
[[http://freedomdefined.org/Definition]], which is what defines "free
culture".
About sound recordings: I'd say that the music composition being
recorded has complete and corresponding source which is the
score. However, in music improvisation, since it has no score, then the
recording itself is the source.
For other points raised by you but not answered in this message, see the
Definition of Free Cultural Works in the reference I just presented.
That definition says about source code, "Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions." So, in particular, this only applies if such "source files" actually exist and correspond with the final work. So if there was source code (e.g. an LMMS project file) for a song, and you made a modified version by changing the sound file in Audacity, this doesn't apply to that modified version because the LMMS file is not the source code to that version.
So basically, it's the same sort of thing as how I've interpreted GPLv3.
I'm only interested in making a Libre game is if I can sell a binary of it with access to the programming code for the game. For all of the music and visual art, no project files will be included and will not be free to edit. Of course, its fine to replace those assets with your own versions. All art and music files in the game will be in formats that are libre.
Indeed, you needn't provide source code with the game for it to be libre- as long as anybody who receives a copy of the game can obtain source in an easy and timely manner, the software is still free.
Correct me if i am wrong, but I dont need to include project files for creating the art or music, correct? For artists, this is "source code", except its not programmed its just the source file for the PNG or OGG file. It would seem very odd to me for this to be needed. I dont want people to claim credit for my creative designs, sharing code is fine to me though. Code, while of course can be considered "art" seems like more of a "vehicle" for delivering a game experience to me.
That's correct. Sorry if the wording caused any confusion, but the 'source code' and four freedoms are only required for software. It's often expected that the documentation also gets it, but art used in manuals would be the only kind that you might need to free. Anything else is, as you say, considered part of the 'game experience'.
Kia ora Davidpgil, first, congrats on your decision to get into libre game development! Always good to see more people get involved. As a gamer, a writer, and a person who dreams up lots of experimental projects and occasionally gets something to happen, it's an area I am getting quite interested:
https://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/libre-game-development
For funding, I know even less than Onpon, but I recommend at least having a look at Goteo.org, a platform that specializes in crowdfunding libre licensed projects, and Gratipay.com, a more libre-friendly version of Patreon, the entire source to their site is on GITHub under a public domain dedication!:
https://github.com/gratipay/gratipay.com
I agree with Magic Banana in principle on the NC and ND clauses (although I think it's unnecessarily stingy when people use both as in CC-NC-ND). But if you choose to use copyright restrictively, you need to think about how you are going to ensure compliance. Do you really want to go down the road of lawyering up in the unlikely event that a marketing giant decides to sell your stuff without sharing the revenue? It might be that as with GPL enforcement, using the Creator-Endorsed Mark and social pressure is more effective in making sure you get a fair share of any money made out of your creation. Obscurity is a bigger threat to your efforts on the internet than piracy, as O'Reilly quipped.
One thing to try is something that apparently worked for the developer of a desktop app called the Illumination Software Creator (can't find the blog post right now). The ILC dev put the code under GPL, but didn't distribute gratis binaries themselves. If people really wanted a free copy, they could compile it from source, and people could give copies of the binaries to each other legally. But apparently lots of people were willing to make a small one-off payment to download each new milestone version as it came out, because they wanted to support the developer and keep new versions coming, and respected their choice to use GPL (or didn't know or care).
This would be one advantage of choosing a cross-platform libre game engine that can allow you to sell binaries to Windows and Mac users, and maybe even mobile OS users, through traditional game and app stores. I don't think putting libre games in Steam is a "ruinous compromise" (as Stallman put it), especially if you're really pushing the envelop by putting all the game artwork under a free culture license (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or CC0).
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios