Matt Chat Thread

[Excidium II]

Why doesn't he interview Infocom employees? 2 deep 4 u Barton?

Maybe they're all dead

 

[felipepepe]

I'm also quite sad neither Matt not Brian knew Blind Guardian. A good band. Well, at least it was good 15 years ago.

It's funny, Matt is a big nerd, but it's a laser-focused one. He likes old-school CRPG, PERIOD. Going into modern RPGs, P&P RPGs or even Heavy Metal (usually part of the whole RPG nerd gig) is already out of his interests and he really doesn't care...

 

[Excidium II]

He's more into collecting stuff and reminiscing because man does he suck at playing them.

 

[Infinitron]

Hmmm.

 

[Boleskine]

There's something very relaxing about watching Matt bake apple pies and fish in Arx Fatalis.

 

[MicoSelva]

Man, Arx Fatalis looks fun, I wish i played this instead of NWN OC back in the day.

NWN OC memories still give me nightmares.

 

[Infinitron]

Tetris blyat

 

[Kutulu]

Man, Arx Fatalis looks fun, I wish i played this instead of NWN OC back in the day.

NWN OC memories still give me nightmares.

You should play it, its good fun & imho easy on the eyes.


Tetri dude part 2:

 

[Infinitron]

Yet another reminder that Matt Barton is kind of a weirdo: http://mattchat.us/?p=1008

Kickstarting Free Software

I meant to respond in more depth to a part of my last segment with Tetris creator Alexey Pajitnov, but a cold and a massive time crunch (plus an unstoppable Civ 5 binge) kept me from appending to the video. It’s been awhile since I’ve done a blog post, so I’ll just sketch out my response here instead.

First, a bit of history. As some long-time followers know, I used to be something of a cheerleader for the free software movement, doing cover features for Free Software Magazine and writing articles on it for Armchair Arcade. At the time, I was convinced that GNU/Linux was the future I wanted to fight for, and that anything other than 100% free software was unethical. To put it short, I had drunk the Kool-Aid.

My views started to shift partly in response to an email exchange I had with FSF founder Richard Stallman. Stallman told me that even he didn’t think games ought to be free; just their code. Creative assets (music, graphics, etc.) could and should still be protected. The impression I got was that his fight for free software didn’t include entertainment; just utilities, instructional material, or other “useful” wares.

These views shifted further when I began learning more about how real-life game development worked. In particular, I learned that most games aren’t written from scratch; rather, they rely heavily on proprietary packages, libraries, or entire engines they license. In short, they aren’t in a legal position to make their code free. Arguably, you could insist that developers avoid doing so, but that seems to be imposing an unfair burden on them in my opinion.

My current thinking on the matter is still subject to change. But one thing I’m still convinced of is that we would all be better off if more powerful development tools, libraries, assets, etc., were in the public domain. Yes, I’m aware that it’s now “free” to use Unity and other engines, but there are substantial limitations. These limitations are to the point where it’s not a big deal for most developers, but, ideally, I’d like it to be feasible to create a triple-A game with totally free tools. Note I said “ideally.”

Secondly, I’m convinced that Kickstarter and other crowdfunding options should encourage more games to be free in every sense. All it would take is for the pitch to include whatever compensation they might realistically have expected to earn from product sales. In other words, the campaign would cover not only the costs of making the game, but also the profits they’d be satisfied with. After the game was released, they’d just put it in the public domain or some form of Creative Commons or GNU license. Whatever parts of the code they could share without legal issues could be included with the release.

In addition or alternatively, they could launch a complementary Indiegogo or Patreon stream to fund updates, non-critical patches, or even full-on expansions. Hey, as long as there’s a reliable funding stream to keep a game updated, why should a developer turn his or her back on it?

These are just some thoughts I had on the matter. I suspect that many people would balk at the idea of contributing to a Kickstarter that included potential profits, but maybe not if they considered what they’d be getting. If a developer didn’t have to worry about selling it, they could dedicate more resources to development (and less to marketing). I’d also think the resources they’d be making freely available for other developers and projects would be a tremendous surge for indie development.

What do you think? Would you support a Kickstarter that promised that the finished game, including its code and assets, would be made freely available? Or, as a developer, would you be willing to risk receiving less profit than you might have with a traditional arrangement? This latter point seems troublesome; I’m wondering if perhaps these games are bringing in so much revenue from sales that putting all that upfront would simply be a non-starter.

 

[felipepepe]

For someone so into free stuff, he sure doesn't shy away from selling his books for $35 dollars a piece... just saying.

He could take his own idea and release the books as a free .pdf after hitting a certain (feasibible) amount on his Patreon. He certainly gets a lot more per month on donations than on book sales.

 

[J_C]

I can't say I agree with him.

Secondly, I’m convinced that Kickstarter and other crowdfunding options should encourage more games to be free in every sense. All it would take is for the pitch to include whatever compensation they might realistically have expected to earn from product sales. In other words, the campaign would cover not only the costs of making the game, but also the profits they’d be satisfied with.

Kickstarters usually don't even cover the development of the game, there is no way you could get enough money to cover the profit.

But one thing I’m still convinced of is that we would all be better off if more powerful development tools, libraries, assets, etc., were in the public domain.

In an ideal world, maybe, but these tools were made by people who spent a lot of time working on them. Who will compensate them for using their work?

Would you support a Kickstarter that promised that the finished game, including its code and assets, would be made freely available?

I support a KS if I want the game to be developed. I won't support just for some slackers can get it for free.

 

[t]

From what he told me on twitter, he's not the person who set the prices for those books. At least not the ridonculous $50+ for the kindle ebook of dungeons and desktops.

 

[felipepepe]

From what he told me on twitter, he's not the person who set the prices for those books. At least not the ridonculous $50+ for the kindle ebook of dungeons and desktops.

That's a cop out. Yes, the publishing company sets the price, but based on the contract they made with Matt. He published four books on gaming, with two different publishers, all with similar prices.

But my real issue here is that gaming stuff isn't Matt's day job - he's a teacher. Gaming books are a side project, but he still sells it. While saying that developers who's entire career & survival depends on software should make things available for free.

I spoke with people who teach & study at game colleges and some recommend Matt's book. I'm willing to bet that's were the bulk of his sales comes from - students - yet even after selling it for SEVEN years and definitely reaching "profits they’d be satisfied with", he still sells it. Even with a totally unrelated day job. Even when making 2k a month on donations to his Patreon.

So yeah, talk is cheap, especially when it comes from another's pockets. Is like those people saying "release the source code", when what the actually want it for others fans to spend years making free games for them.

 

[Immortal]

Just wanted to point out that Arx Fatalis is open source. Seemed appropriate.

 

[Mustawd]

But one thing I’m still convinced of is that we would all be better off if more powerful development tools, libraries, assets, etc., were in the public domain. Yes, I’m aware that it’s now “free” to use Unity and other engines, but there are substantial limitations. These limitations are to the point where it’s not a big deal for most developers, but, ideally, I’d like it to be feasible to create a triple-A game with totally free tools. Note I said “ideally.”

To be fair he does have a point how access to free tools DOES make thing easier for upcoming devs to make a game. But it's a double edged sword in that it then pushes down prices, making it harder to actually recoup your costs, let alone make a profit, on any given project.

For example, the availability of older versions of PhotoShop, via torrents, is very likely responsible for pushing down the prices of digital art overall. I mean most of the up and coming artists just cannot afford to shell out $500-1000 for a piece of software. The result is a huge jump in the quality and quantity of digital art nowadays. But it's also made art a lot cheaper than it used to be, and makes it harder for an artist to break into the industry. They have to work a ton more to just get to a decent level.


TL;DR Matt should read more books on Free market economics and Adam Smith, etc.

 

[28.8bps Modem]

To be fair he does have a point how access to free tools DOES make thing easier for upcoming devs to make a game. But it's a double edged sword in that it then pushes down prices, making it harder to actually recoup your costs, let alone make a profit, on any given project.

I think this argument greatly underestimates how much work a developer has to put in to a project, even given a rendering engine, packaged physics, a decent 3D audio library, etc. You only have to witness how many completely botched up projects there are using UDK to realise this. I mean, if you take UDK and use it to build a first person shooter based on the example projects, that's very little different than just creating a total conversion mod for Unreal. Yet there are enthusiastic amateurs every month who release absolute dreck even given the solid foundation, Jim Sterling practically makes a living taking the piss out of their feeble efforts.

The ready availability of more sophisticated game engines hasn't really touched prices at all, prices are almost fixed in the games industry by consumer expectations. What we have seen is that Steam opening the flood gates has been the major factor contributing to worthwhile titles making less money than they otherwise would have, not because there's a greater supply of worthwhile games, but because the signal is getting lost in the noise.

 

[Immortal]

As far as Expensive Asset Creation Tools Go:
If your a hobbyist - just pirate the tools.
You only need a license for this stuff when you "go legit" aka are ready to create a branding and company and start selling it. Is that ethical? fuck no but I am not dropping 600 bucks a year for an adobe subscription unless I am actually making a profit.

If 3Ds Max didn't charge 7000 dollars for a license, then maybe more consumers would get on board that weren't part of a company. It's not like their software is the best in the business or that it costs them anything to ship you a CD.

Or have different licensing models. I am totally against the gouging of price that adobe and others do in niche markets that they have complete control over (or at least an oligopoly).

~However~~~

As far as Matt's Bullshit Theory Go:

Creative assets (music, graphics, etc.) could and should still be protected.

The argument that assets / sound files / etc are worth copyright and payment but code..usually a much higher time investment and much more complicated is not worth payment - is a brilliant example of someone talking out their ass.
This is an argument that you only really hear from people who are bad hobbyist developers or people who just don't know their ass from a compiler and wish there was like totally more free stuff out there brooo.

Software Engineering is the ultimate expression of art and hard work. Algorithms, Design and Work flow management ranges wildly based on developer skill and should be paid for one way or another.
As if developers are only worth the art work they can load from a flat file. Fuck off.

 

[Mustawd]

What we have seen is that Steam opening the flood gates has been the major factor contributing to worthwhile titles making less money than they otherwise would have, not because there's a greater supply of worthwhile games, but because the signal is getting lost in the noise.

And the signal is getting lost because it's easier to make games, good, crappy, or great.

 

[Excidium II]

For someone so into free stuff, he sure doesn't shy away from selling his books for $35 dollars a piece... just saying.

He's talking mostly free in the "livre" sense not necessarily free as in "gratis".

It would certainly be much better for games if approach was to copyleft the code, players could contribute with fixes and extensions more easily without needing to in the best case scenario work with the limitations of decompiling scripts or reverse engineering everything for years. And all developers could easily reuse tools from each other (Same way InXile and Obsidian collaborated with the PoE codebase being handed for Torment devs).

I do agree with RMS that what's important in GPLing the code, the artistic assets can be copyrighted to maintain ownership of the brand or what have you.

In an ideal world, maybe, but these tools were made by people who spent a lot of time working on them. Who will compensate them for using their work?

The people who use the tools and require official support. That's how the majority of software being developed in the world gets most of their money.

 

[Mustawd]

As far as Expensive Asset Creation Tools Go:
If your a hobbyist - just pirate the tools.
You only need a license for this stuff when you "go legit" aka are ready to create a branding and company and start selling it. Is that ethical? fuck no but I am not dropping 600 bucks a year for an adobe subscription unless I am actually making a profit.

There are a lot of freelance and professional artists that use pirated adobe products. I mean there's always a range of talent. Sure, if you're creating top of the line artwork that needs all the bells and whistles for high production, then a new subscription is probably worth it. Or if the new product streamlines something for you where it makes the increase in productivity worth it, then yeah.

But if you're a novice or learning artist you need to learn somewhere. I mean I'd bet that the majority of users on Conceptart or other similar sites start out with pirating 2D and 3D software in order to learn and throughout early in their careers until they can afford it or join a studio.

And the result is that talent has skyrocketed compared with ten years ago.

 

[:Flash:]

He's talking mostly free in the "livre" sense not necessarily free as in "gratis".

That's what I thought he was getting at, but in the end he called for everything, including assets, to be freely available, even contradicting Stallman on this. So this does sound more like cheapskating than a well thought out idea to me.

Actually, there was an example of a free professional game engine: Radon Labs had made their Nebula Device engine free under a BSD-like license. All their games (Drakensang, ...), and some other games by German studios ran on that engine, but there never really developed a community, or even people willing to contribute financially, such as Matt talks about. After the bankruptcy of Radon Labs you could see that the new owners prohibited them from pushing the updates, and the Nebula Device is orphaned ever since.

 

[Excidium II]

Actually, there was an example of a free professional game engine: Radon Labs had made their Nebula Device engine free under a BSD-like license. All their games (Drakensang, ...), and some other games by German studios ran on that engine, but there never really developed a community, or even people willing to contribute financially, such as Matt talks about. After the bankruptcy of Radon Labs you could see that the new owners prohibited them from pushing the updates, and the Nebula Device is orphaned ever since.

I blame BSD license.

Permissive licenses are a dead-end.

 

[hello friend]

There's also OGRE3d, I think. Haven't heard of any games made with it, but it seems to be a pretty advanced 3d engine.

 

[:Flash:]

Last part of the interview with Pajitnov:


When Pajitnov says he ist not in favour of Free Software, and that he cannot understand why anyone would want to work on Software without getting compensated. Matt says: "You know, I feel the same way, also about Youtube videos."

 

[Jarpie]

Last part of the interview with Pajitnov:


When Pajitnov says he ist not in favour of Free Software, and that he cannot understand why anyone would want to work on Software without getting compensated. Matt says: "You know, I feel the same way, also about Youtube videos."

Not surprising as Pajitnov got screwed out of the profits by the state, at least for a while.