Let's Face Reality and Accomplish Something

Friendly conversations, and everything that doesn't fit into the other forums.
22 posts Page 1 of 3
Zombine
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:55 pm
  by Zombine » Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:59 pm
I have been around Torque since near the beginning of GarageGames and I simply loved the engine and what it promised. I believed in the technology and was very upset to see how quickly GG lost focus. How many game engines were they trying to develop at one time? Quite frankly, I don't even think Unity is around today beyond a niche product if they would have stayed focus. I think the real turning point was Torque 2.0 (or whatever it was called). It was certainly sad to see it go MIT after I had invested a lot of money into Torque. Now, I have a much different attitude, I'm excited. That being said, there are still a great many things that worry me.

How can an open source project succeed? I think there are many examples of how they can succeed. Blender Foundation is a perfect example of how to do it. I think the major turn for them was the Open Movie projects. What did it do for them? It provided needed capital to develop tools that would be needed for the project and then give those tools back to the community. Blender, IMHO, is an awesome piece of software that provides a tremendous feature set that is capable of being used professionally. Other open source projects that are very success are Krita and GIMP (though less so as of late :( ).

So what am I proposing? Quite simply, a plan.

1) Identify a core team to lead an Open Game project.
2) Identify the game concept and create preliminary design, technical, and art documentation.
3) Approach the Blender Foundation about co-developing the project.
4) Run an INDIEGOGO or Kickstarter campaign to get funding for the project (or even through Blender.org).
5) Commence the project.
6) Market the project and build the community.
7) Establish a long-term core team with a centralized location (if possible).

Who should be in the core team?
This should be made up of experienced community members who can oversee the rest of the team (contractors, less experienced devs, etc). It is vital that people have trust in the team and that they are capable of completing the project.

What kind of game?
Quite frankly, I think this is an easy answer. Make a Tribes-esque game. Many people from the original GG community were die-hard fans of the Tribes series of games and the series still has a following today. I believe that this type of game is also ideal for a smaller project because we can implement the gameplay mechanics and focus on creating just a few fun, polished maps rather than spending a large amount of resources trying to create a game that is way out of scope for our resources. Additionally, the game can be expanded after release by the mod community.

Why approach the Blender Foundation?
Like it or not, we need more credibility. The Blender Foundation will bring much needed credibility and potentially bring the support of the open source community. As a Blender user, I would love to see additional game-development related features funneled into Blender. Much of the art could come via the Blender Foundation as well.

Why a campaign?
Like it or not, many of the developers of Open Source projects have a full-time job. This means less focus on making this happen. Having a budget to pay some people full-time will go along way with making progress.

Why marketing?
Quite simply, people need to know that Torque is alive and development continues. It will also be important to identify the specific engine related features that are being developed with the game to keep the community excited and supportive of the project.

Why establish formal centralization?
I see the biggest advantage for this in the long term. It would be great to have a few full-time people working on this, even if was just 2 or 3 people. It would help the engine progress and they could additionally oversee the development of additional Open Game projects in the future.

Sorry to be so long winded, but I believe that Torque can be a highly successful OpenSource project, but I think we need some focus and a tangible goal.
Duion
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
by Duion » Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:54 am
I'm already doing this for a long time now, but almost nobody is interested in open source development, so I'm doing it mostly alone. Have you looked at my projects?
Johxz
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:37 pm
by Johxz » Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:36 am
I'm just learning torque... but I'm very interested, whatever I can help, count me in! ;)
Last edited by Johxz on Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zombine
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:55 pm
by Zombine » Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:47 am
I'm already doing this for a long time now, but almost nobody is interested in open source development, so I'm doing it mostly alone. Have you looked at my projects?
I think what you are doing looks really good, keep up the good work. I would argue that you aren't really doing what I list above though. I really think getting the organizational support is the key here. I think it is critical to partner with someone like the Blender Foundation to give the project legitimacy.
Duion
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
by Duion » Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:57 am
I'm doing pretty much what you suggested, with the exception that I will not make another boring tribes clone.
You have some weird concepts about legitimacy and so on, there is no such thing. The problem is everything people do is not good enough for you, you just demand and give nothing. There are people doing amazing work for free on the engine, things like linux port, opengl, physically based rendering, deferred rendering and you talk like there has never been accomplished anything.
Bloodknight
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:58 pm
by Bloodknight » Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:50 pm
May god forgive me for what i'm about to do...

If you must make an open project, i truly think you should consider joining forces with duion and his project.


Also kickstarter is useless without a solid business plan, and despite kickstarter stating the opposite, it is nothing more than a pre order system, with consumers expecting you to hit deadlines and quality standards
buckmaster
Steering Committee
Steering Committee
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:02 am
by buckmaster » Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:40 am
The advice I've heard about Kickstarter, especially for games, is that it's not a tool to market to a new audience, but to make use of the audience you currently have. I think what we've discovered over the last several failed GG funding campaigns is that we don't have that audience already.

As for the idea itself. First I want to note that what you're describing basically exists. TOL is fairly Tribesy, completely open-source, and has a dedicated team behind it who I'm sure would welcome contributions ( @ fr1tz ?). I realise it's not exactly what you had in mind, like one of Blender's open movie projects, but it's already made significant accomplishments, and looks like a pretty awesome game to boot.

The idea of an open game project is floated around once a month in this community, but never goes anywhere. I posit that this is because most of the community is already working on the game they want to make and are passionate about. I know that I wouldn't necessarily throw my hat into the ring to work on a community-designed game, because it wouldn't be the game I wanted to make and spend all my time on.

That said, I generally agree with your approach. We need to snuggle up as close as we can to Blender, both in terms of community and providing support for Blender art in the engine. Honestly I think it's our best shot. Also, this community tends to be more full of programmers than artists, so pairing with a community where the balance is flipped would be a great idea.
fr1tz
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:53 pm
 
by fr1tz » Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:32 pm
TOL is fairly Tribesy, completely open-source, and has a dedicated team behind it who I'm sure would welcome contributions ( @ fr1tz ?).
There have been a few contributions to TOL by other people but it's still basically just me working on the game, and currently I can't dedicate as much time to the project as I'd like.
I agree with @ buckmaster about the inherent problems of a community-developed game (especially if it isn't a straight up clone of something that already exists). On the other hand one of the ideas of TOL is that the same client can be used to play potentially wildly different games (for example: if you wanted to make a multiplayer game that's playable using the TOL client, you "just" have to get the required art and client-side scripts into http://content.terminal-overload.org and (if they exist) engine modifications merged into https://github.com/fr1tz/terminal-overload).
GraphicSynthesizer
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 10:41 pm
 
by GraphicSynthesizer » Tue Mar 17, 2015 10:24 am
That said, I generally agree with your approach. We need to snuggle up as close as we can to Blender, both in terms of community and providing support for Blender art in the engine. Honestly I think it's our best shot. Also, this community tends to be more full of programmers than artists, so pairing with a community where the balance is flipped would be a great idea.
I think its too late for that. Blender is like free photoshop for 3D visualizations, yes, there are alternatives, but with Blender you can get totally trained for a professional job with a zero investment on professional software that cost you thousands, then with that experience you can build a portfolio then land a job, with in-house commercial softs.

Torque3D is trying to fight in a completly different scenario. Here users are indie devs or teams that need to deliver a great, already finished product to archive his own survival. So everything but that a decent engine with a community and a company behind is already discarded. Even worse, since TWO 3D versions of photoshop went FREE and CryE. is 19$ / Month. Not to mention the other zillion open source engine alternatives avaliables as today.

Said it before, and I'm saying it again: With blender you only need to laid the tools and everything else are minor updates here and there (like gimp). In a Game Engine, evey noticeable shifting in rendering technology will FORCE you to deal with large source refractoring that affects on a global scale. And this HARDWARE shifts are happening on a solid 6 months circles because there are quite big guys shipping stuff 4 profits.

The thing that appeals the most about torque are his somewhat matured features and the full source. But don't be fooled, anyone wishing to make it in the industry will never ever choose Torque when you can already develop for free on behemoths like U5 or UE4. (And by the way, start over to learn an engine from the ground up).
The only guys that can found torque most appealing as today in my opinions are coders. Big con: Coders usually don't deliver enough eye-candy :cry: (which sells).

Vulkan, Dx12, HLGL, PBR, theres just too much shit new everyday to implement, and guys like me that are no coders, learning any modern API means a shitload of investment so big, that anything that I cannot reuse over and over and over again is a big fucking nono. Even at the level of scripting (yes, I'm looking you TorqueS).
For this reasons most artist want a plug and play approach, and torque is in a field that im pretty certain it will never archieve the stablity nor the features, not the standarization the other, mainstream engines already have. (And therefore can safely ignore us) UNLESS

UNLESS torque shifts to a modular approach, where Steering Comitee just develop a FRAMEWORK that just pieces together a buch of open source projects. (Torque6 a nice start)
Bloodknight
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:58 pm
by Bloodknight » Tue Mar 17, 2015 10:57 am
Image
22 posts Page 1 of 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests