CPUFreak91 Member Posts: 2337 From: Registered: 02-01-2005 |
I had this thought, and would like to see what some of you think. Would you release a comercial game but make it open source instead of proprietary? I could answer for several by saying no. Have you thought of this scenario? You've spent $10,000 on a game, but want to make it open source and make a nice profit. Considered open sourceing the entire client and parts of the server, make it so that if someone wants to make their own server they've just got a barebones one. Don't release anything else that you've made for the server (such as maps). As for the client, release the entire client without any features missing (like you would for a demo) but ask the user to buy a serial or a membership (for an account). What do you think? Would that be possible? Would that be profitable? ------------------ |
NetCog Member Posts: 149 From: Registered: 06-15-2006 |
you could make money if you were really good about providing content and things to keep people interested. Playability, interest, and content (and support / responsiveness) make games. Not the code. Additionally: |
CPUFreak91 Member Posts: 2337 From: Registered: 02-01-2005 |
Oh, another thought. The GPL doesn't force you to give the source code to someone if you've never released a binary. Therefore you could create a server, make it open source, but never give away a binary of it or it's source code. NetCog: Multiverse? Nice! They're doing the Firefly TV Show MMOG!! (Something I *must* get). ------------------ |
D-SIPL Moderator Posts: 1345 From: Maesteg, Wales Registered: 07-21-2001 |
It's often a problem that I come across. I have a wife and home to run and being at Uni full time I have to write apps for money. Contract work is always good, recently I wrote a Estate Agent diary and booking system in Python-Cgi. I told them that license was Open Source, but I was paid around $2000 for it. They don't mind the license becuase they are not in the business of software. With Open Source, you can charge users for code. Possibly release the binary of the game for a charge, and also charge for a copy of the code. Most gamers don't care about code, they just want to play the game. Game developers will want a peak, but i suspect thats a minority. Support contracts are large earners of Open Source companies. Thats definately one way to capitilize on getting funds. Be creative ------------------ |
samw3 Member Posts: 542 From: Toccoa, GA, USA Registered: 08-15-2006 |
It seems like this idea could foster a bunch of bots being written for the game that wouldn't make it very fun.
quote: I'm not sure this would work with GPL, since (if I am correct) any derivatives must be open source as well. i.e. the added "signal" code. The OSF is really hot on this topic and has nailed big companies like cisco with lawsuits for not releasing their modified code for routers. ------------------ |
CPUFreak91 Member Posts: 2337 From: Registered: 02-01-2005 |
quote: quote: Oh, yeah. That's right, it is a modification distributed as a binary, therfore you have to release the code. Looks like a paid account/membership is the non-lawsuit option. ------------------ |