Jump to content
DoubleX

What's your take on free vs paid RM resources?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Tsukihime said:
11 hours ago, PhoenixSoul said:

I don't think @Kayzee disagreed with how expensive gamedev can get, I believe she disagrees with how effort is quantized as automatic payoff.

Such is unfortunately, how society has been groomed into being slaves to the banker cartels (and I won't say anything more about that!)

 

In that case, my comment about gamedev being expensive is not about them deserving to make money from their games, but about them not having to pay thousands of dollars upfront to get the resources before they even have a game developed (eg: buy RM, buy art packs, buy plugins, etc)

 

For the record, what I disagree with is the notion that gamedev is necessarily expensive and/or/because resource makers necessarily need to always profit from resources. Or in other words that there simply cannot be any other way for it to be, period. This clearly is simply not true, or else free resources and tools wouldn't exist at all.

 

Allow me to offer another explanation: Gamedev is expensive and resource makers can charge a lot for resources for one simple reason: There are people who are willing to pay. That's kinda how economics work you know. There is no such thing as inherent value to anything, people value things the way they do because there are people who are willing to pay. If people were willing to do without and not shell out money for expensive art packs and/or tools, the art packs and/or tools get cheaper.

 

Every time someone says "gamedev is expensive" they reinforce their own conclusion. Yeah often the motivation for profit often increases the over all quality of work, but that's not always people's main motivation and too many people for whom that is the main motivation may be looking for a 'quick buck'. Is there a better way to do things then? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's worth it to examine what may be.

Edited by Kayzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kayzee said:

 

For the record, what I disagree with is the notion that gamedev is necessarily expensive and/or/because resource makers necessarily need to always profit from resources. Or in other words that there simply cannot be any other way for it to be, period. This clearly is simply not true, or else free resources and tools wouldn't exist at all.

 

Allow me to offer another explanation: Gamedev is expensive and resource makers can charge a lot for resources for one simple reason: There are people who are willing to pay. That's kinda how economics work you know. There is no such thing as inherent value to anything, people value things the way they do because there are people who are willing to pay. If people were willing to do without and not shell out money for expensive art packs and/or tools, the art packs and/or tools get cheaper.

 

Every time someone says "gamedev is expensive" they reinforce their own conclusion. Yeah often the motivation for profit often increases the over all quality of work, but that's not always people's main motivation and too many people for whom that is the main motivation may be looking for a 'quick buck'. Is there a better way to do things then? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's worth it to examine what may be.

 

Free resources exist simply because someone chooses to offer them for free.

But free resources doesn't make gamedev any less expensive, nor should it ever be set as an expectation for the cost of resources.

 

For example, unity3D is free. Unreal engine is also free. Both are fantastic game engines, and you start your gamedev journey with $0 in expenses (with RPG Maker you're already down $70-$90). You can even sell your products commercially until you hit like 100k+ in sales, so your initial investment can literally be $0.

 

But generally, gamedev is expensive. You still need to invest a lot of time, or a lot of money to get everything that you need.

You could argue free market capitalism isn't a very good economic system, but most gamedevs that I've worked with don't really care about things like that; they're just focused on making money with their games and are willing to invest a decent amount of money into others' services to allow them to achieve what they want in much shorter time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kayzee said:

 

For the record, what I disagree with is the notion that gamedev is necessarily expensive and/or/because resource makers necessarily need to always profit from resources. Or in other words that there simply cannot be any other way for it to be, period. This clearly is simply not true, or else free resources and tools wouldn't exist at all.

 

Allow me to offer another explanation: Gamedev is expensive and resource makers can charge a lot for resources for one simple reason: There are people who are willing to pay. That's kinda how economics work you know. There is no such thing as inherent value to anything, people value things the way they do because there are people who are willing to pay. If people were willing to do without and not shell out money for expensive art packs and/or tools, the art packs and/or tools get cheaper.

 

Every time someone says "gamedev is expensive" they reinforce their own conclusion. Yeah often the motivation for profit often increases the over all quality of work, but that's not always people's main motivation and too many people for whom that is the main motivation may be looking for a 'quick buck'. Is there a better way to do things then? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's worth it to examine what may be.

I think you're trying to address a very high level issue - our very human nature, and it's such a massive inertia that trying to change it on a mass scale's so hard that it almost never succeeded, all because of the fact the the evolution speed of the human brain's much slower than that of the human society(the former actually evolved only a little during the past millennia), and the accumulated lag-behind's so massive that even trying to catch up is already next to impossible for the majority, that's why the society still has to be designed around the current human nature(by trying to align the best interests of an individual to those of the others), instead of trying to change the human nature to fit even the most justified ideals possible.

In the case of resources, while high quality free resources with high quality supports do exist and some of them are incredibly successful, I'll consider them a luxury that not many resource makers can afford(making high quality resources and providing high quality supports take time, which involves daily expenses from the resource makers), so I think it's very questionable whether such resources can be the norm in the foreseeable future.

 

But first, let's try to picture an ideal scenario on the resources/games:

Spoiler

1. The resources/games are always free

2. Those having little money can still afford all these resources/games, even though they might still donate a little in return once a while

3. Those having tons of money always donate a lot to the resource makers/game developers, and earning praise, special thanks or even some kind of gifts in return(like resources specifically made for them or some NPCs and even playable characters using them as their prototypes)

4. Resource makers/game developers are always financially sustainable due to the donations and they're always motivated to keep making high quality resources/games with high quality supports/maintenance

5. The resources/games, their supports/maintenance, and the resource makers/game developers are all further improved consistently due to the existence of a large number of users/players, most of them won't be using/playing the resources/games if they were paid

So in this case, everybody wins a lot.

 

Unfortunately, uptil now and in the foreseeable future, the human nature still doesn't work that way as the norm yet, so while the above ideal situation can be realized by some resource makers/game developers, whether it can be the majority is a completely different matter.

At the very least, the following can be some very real obstacles:

Spoiler

1. The resource makers/game developers probably have to already be very popular with very good reputations in order to attract those having tons of money to maintain the financial sustainability of the former, otherwise the latter can hardly consider the investment worth the cost, and solely relying on the little donations from those having little money can be too risky

2. If it turns out that the donation's so lacking that the resource makers/game developers can't be financially sustainable, they'll have to consider discontinuing some resource supports/game maintenance and/or rejecting some resource requests/future game plans, especially for those having no other income sources, and this move can anger quite some other resource users/players, which can cause further troubles to resource makers/game developers

3. There will always be some resource users/players taking high quality free resources/games with high quality supports/maintenance for granted, and some will even severely criticize the resource makers/game developers if they failed to keep the "status quo", and this issue can be such a headache that some resource makers/game developers will become too demotivated from continuing to make resources/games and/or even providing supports/maintenance on the existing ones

4. Some donators feel very entitled to request nearly anything(sometimes even including outright impossible ones) from the resource makers/game developers, especially when it's a lot of money, and the situations can become very ugly if the latter refuses, regardless of how absurd the request is and how justified the refusal is

5. If the donation's supposed to happen before the release of the resources/games, the donators will have doubts on whether the whole thing's just a scam setup by the resource makers/game developers; If the donation's supposed to happen after the release of the resources/games, the resource makers/game developers will heavily worry about piracy, and such worry can be way more severe than those selling resources/games, even though piracy's still inevitable no matter what's done in the foreseeable future; If the donation's supposed to happen both before and after the release of the resources/games, then the combination of the above issues can appear simultaneously

There might be only few, but still nonetheless non-negligible tragedies that happened to some resource makers causing them to either retire or add a paywall on some of the previously free resources to protect themselves; There might be only few, but still nonetheless non-negligible tragedies that happened to some donated to games only to later find out that the whole thing's a scam to begin with and the game developers have already bailed out with all those money.

 

Also, no matter how much the resource making/game development cost's lowered, it'll still be significant.

In general, the more effective and efficient the resource makers/game developers are, the more the resource making/game development costs can be lowered, provided that they're willing to do so, because it'll take less time for them to produce higher quality resources/games with higher quality supports/maintenance(that also explains why the most expensive choice isn't always of the highest quality), but lowering them to the point of not having profit can be very dangerous even for the truly altruistic ones.

After all, resource makers have their own bills to pay and this can happen frequently, and hiring game developers demands salaries to be paid for them(of course hiring isn't always necessary but still), which can be a drastic expense.
Because of the very fact that keep living has a continuous cost, one needs to have a continuous income to compensate, otherwise one can hardly be sustainable.

All these are always true no matter how anyone value anything, due to the fact that the goods and services necessary to maintain lives are mostly consumables but not copyable(i.e.: the cost of producing a copy isn't negligible at all), and goods and services simply can't be produced/provided out of thin air, meaning that the costs and thus the price of those goods/services can only be lowered to a certain level.

When some goods/services are in high demands but only with low supplies, their value will increase, due to the fact that these demands are harder to be met; When some goods/services are only in low demands but with high supplies, their value will decrease, due to the fact that these demands are easier to be met.

With this valuing system, goods/service providers will have bigger incentives to produce goods/provide services having higher demands but lower supplies, thus increasing the supplies of such goods/services and making those demands easier to be met, even though it'll also decrease their value(but still higher than those having lower demands but higher supplies).

On the consumers side, the more they need some goods/services and the more scarce those goods/services are, the more they're willing to pay, due to the fact that it's harder for them to meet their more important needs, meaning that this valuing system also somehow helps the goods/services to be consumed by those needing them the most(of course there will always be hoarders and rent seekers but they're well-known problems with well-known solutions, albeit very hard to get them right).

 

Of course, this valuing system's far from ideal in practice, and in the case of resources, there will always be those desperately needing some paid resources to develop their games yet being too poor to pay for them, causing the game development to be in deep miseries(I won't be surprised if some of them outright stop developing the game altogether due to this alone).

Fortunately, because resources/games are copyable(producing a copy costs next to nothing), there won't be issues regarding liquidity of goods, meaning that the problem of hoarding necessary goods or rent seeking won't apply to resources/games(of course there will always be bastards trying to sell the resources of the others without permission, but it's a problem of educating resource users); Unfortunately, because resource supports/game maintenance still has to be done manually, there will still be issues regarding liquidity of services, meaning that the resource/game price might slightly increase or the subscription model might come into play, due to the prediction that the liquidity of services will probably be too low in the long term otherwise.

 

Besides, while some resources/games seem to be expensive, part of the expense can actually be regarded as a future investment on the resource makers/game developers to make/develop more higher quality resources/games with higher quality supports/maintenance later on.

Whether this investment's worth the cost depends on many factors, but some resource users/players are willing to pay for a seemingly overpriced resource/game partially because of their willingness to make this investment, regardless of whether it'll really pay off for them.

Of course, this kind of investment can also be done via donations, and perhaps it's more effective and efficient than forcing all resource users/players to invest via paying the price, but that's assuming that most resource users/players will really donate to begin with, and it's only reasonable for the resource makers/game developers to prepare for the worst.

 

All in all, I think the current economy system's far from ideal in practice, and I also wish it to move towards the donation model, but I guess right now the former's still a lesser evil than the latter in a mass scale even when the latter has some incredible successes in quite some cases, all due to the fact that the former won't work as well as the latter in very good(let alone the best) cases than the latter, while the latter probably doesn't work at all in very bad(let alone the worst) cases but the former can still work there, no matter how ugly it's.

In short, it's still a choice between lower risks with lower rewards, and higher risks with higher rewards, and the former almost always wins for the majority, at least due to the well-known "loss aversion", which is extremely common and can be a cognitive bias in many cases(but I'll argue that sometimes loss aversion is the most rational move).

I feel that the humanity's already moving towards the donation model, but this movement's to be this slow, simply due to the fact that, according to the mankind history, drastic movement all of a sudden can only succeed when the status quo is so broken that almost no one can even barely tolerate anymore.

Just look at the mankind history over the past millennia, the human nature actually only changed a little, even when the economy system's changed a lot many times already.

So my wild guess is that, maybe after another several millennia, the economy will finally be based on donations, assuming that the mankind isn't extinct already.

 

When that time finally comes, @Kayzee will likely be remembered as one of the few who's several millennia ahead of the 21st century, which is probably as barbaric to them as what we think about the medieval era(and being several millennia ahead of the times is as painful as a 21st century human being sent back to the medieval era I guess) :)

Edited by DoubleX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DoubleX said:

So my wild guess is that, maybe after another several millennia, the economy will finally be based on donations, assuming that the mankind isn't extinct already.

 

Virtual goods as you mentioned can be duplicated endlessly as long as our computing systems continue to exist. The actual cost to create and store a piece of data is so small at this point we can practically call it free.

 

However, non-virtual goods have serious bottlenecks. Land is limited. Food is limited. Resources are limited.

Unless we have serious breakthroughs in technology that would address these limitations, I don't think we would ever be able to achieve an economy where everything is based on donations, because of this scarcity (perhaps a nano replicator that allows us to turn air into steak like in the movies?)

 

Think about something as simple as a nice steak dinner at a restaurant.

  • To get to the restaurant, you need to have someone run the business
  • To get the steak, the business needs to hire someone to cook the meat
  • To get the meat, the business needs to find a supplier, possibly a wholesaler in the city
  • For the wholesaler to get the meat, they need to transport it from the farm outside the city
  • For the farm to offer the meat, they need to raise the cow
  • To raise the cow, they will need lots of lands and nourishment. And most importantly, time.

Everything is bound by scarcity, as you say. Every step in the process requires someone to put in the time, money, and labor.

And of course, the restaurant spends money in order to obtain the meat to sell, so they will charge money for the customer to eat the steak. Even if the steak were free for the business, they could still charge money for it, simply because they don't have unlimited amounts of steak and they know people will pay for it if that will give them a greater chance of getting it.

 

I suppose one could argue, why does any of that need money? Couldn't people just choose to do all of those things because they simply want to?

 

But to me, that's the underlying issue: people won't do it. Who really wants to work at mcdonalds and deal with crappy customers for $7 an hour? I'm sure they would much rather create art and sell them for the equivalent of $7 an hour. But then we have people that say no, that should be free.

 

So then where would they get the money? Some people have suggested universal basic income. Just have society cover your financial needs.

That might work. If I could earn $100k a year for the rest of my life without having to do anything so that I can enjoy my occasional steak dinners, occasional vacations to other countries, and so on, sure I might consider doing work for free. But now you have to figure out how to sustain such a system, given the realities of the scarcity of physical goods.

Edited by Tsukihime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tsukihime said:

So then where would they get the money? Some people have suggested universal basic income. Just have society cover your financial needs.

That might work. If I could earn $100k a year for the rest of my life without having to do anything so that I can enjoy my occasional steak dinners, occasional vacations to other countries, and so on, sure I might consider doing work for free. But now you have to figure out how to sustain such a system, given the realities of the scarcity of physical goods.

In RMW, someone suggested that MZ should have subscriptions as well, even though it's not about free vs paid resources.

While I don't think it'll work in MZ, that discussion inspired me to have an idea on something similar to universal basic income for MZ resource makers if MZ does have subscriptions.

Simply put, as long as the resource maker meets a set of public criteria on a month(certainly including the fact that he/she's made some high quality free resources with high quality supports), he/she'll take a very small portion from the MZ subscription pool on that month, and the exact amount depends on the contribution, popularity, reputation, and maybe some other criteria.

Of course, only the best resource makers(definitely including you but not me) can even have a chance to earn money this way, and this model will definitely increase the burden of all MZ users(as at least some of them will have to subscribe and the rest will have to pay for at least a slightly increased one time purchase price due to the extra costs supposedly to be covered by subscriptions, and that slight one time purchase price increase's just to play safe in case only few go for subscriptions), but maybe it's a dream that some resource makers can at least think about lol

Edited by DoubleX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tsukihime said:

universal basic income


Coming soon, just so you know. With your COVID-19 vaccine. (That's all I will say about that.)

The only reason we have such high expenses is because of inflation...

Ugh. I don't really have much more to say on this that doesn't dive deep into political scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, DoubleX said:

In RMW, someone suggested that MZ should have subscriptions as well, even though it's not about free vs paid resources.

While I don't think it'll work in MZ, that discussion inspired me to have an idea on something similar to universal basic income for MZ resource makers if MZ does have subscriptions.

Simply put, as long as the resource maker meets a set of public criteria on a month(certainly including the fact that he/she's made some high quality free resources with high quality supports), he/she'll take a very small portion from the MZ subscription pool on that month, and the exact amount depends on the contribution, popularity, reputation, and maybe some other criteria.

Of course, only the best resource makers(definitely including you but not me) can even have a chance to earn money this way, and this model will definitely increase the burden of all MZ users(as at least some of them will have to subscribe and the rest will have to pay for at least a slightly increased one time purchase price due to the extra costs supposedly to be covered by subscriptions, and that slight one time purchase price increase's just to play safe in case only few go for subscriptions), but maybe it's a dream that some resource makers can at least think about lol

 

So basically paywalling the entire engine, instead of just paywalling specific resources lol

It would be more like a part-time job where you're meeting quotas for the month in order to get paid.

 

I suppose it would be a bit different from just trying to get people to donate to you through patreon since you'd now be advertised on a larger platform (eg: rmwebs), and you wouldn't have to worry about asking people to donate because RMW basically determines how much you'll get.

Edited by Tsukihime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DoubleX said:

I think you're trying to address a very high level issue - our very human nature, and it's such a massive inertia that trying to change it on a mass scale's so hard that it almost never succeeded, all because of the fact the the evolution speed of the human brain's much slower than that of the human society(the former actually evolved only a little during the past millennia), and the accumulated lag-behind's so massive that even trying to catch up is already next to impossible for the majority, that's why the society still has to be designed around the current human nature(by trying to align the best interests of an individual to those of the others), instead of trying to change the human nature to fit even the most justified ideals possible. 

 

Bah, don't talk to me about 'human nature'. If you ask me, so called 'human nature' is an excuse humans made up so they don't have to think or change. It seems to me that human belief is the greatest obstacle to any change in human society, not 'human nature'. Not that the collective belief of a whole society is necessarily any easier to change mind, but the least I can do is continue to question some belief when I see it. I for one rather believe in possibilities rather then impossibilities. And you of course are free to question my belief. But before you do, let me ask you this: What do you actually gain by being right and what do I actually lose by being wrong?

 

Besides, this is not and never was about humanity as a whole. This is about you and me. And @Tsukihime of course. And maybe @PhoenixSoul. And anyone else who posted or wants to post in this thread. This is about our beliefs, our feelings. I doubt I can change humanity's mind about anything anytime soon. But maybe, if I am really lucky, I might be able to change someone's mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Kayzee said:

 

Bah, don't talk to me about 'human nature'. If you ask me, so called 'human nature' is an excuse humans made up so they don't have to think or change. It seems to me that human belief is the greatest obstacle to any change in human society, not 'human nature'. Not that the collective belief of a whole society is necessarily any easier to change mind, but the least I can do is continue to question some belief when I see it. I for one rather believe in possibilities rather then impossibilities. And you of course are free to question my belief. But before you do, let me ask you this: What do you actually gain by being right and what do I actually lose by being wrong?

 

Besides, this is not and never was about humanity as a whole. This is about you and me. And @Tsukihime of course. And maybe @PhoenixSoul. And anyone else who posted or wants to post in this thread. This is about our beliefs, our feelings. I doubt I can change humanity's mind about anything anytime soon. But maybe, if I am really lucky, I might be able to change someone's mind.

 

I guarantee you, if you were to tell people "hey, let's abolish money so you don't need to worry about it anymore and everyone gets to enjoy life without worrying about money", they will 100% agree if you can present a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kayzee said:

Besides, this is not and never was about humanity as a whole. This is about you and me. And @Tsukihime of course. And maybe @PhoenixSoul. And anyone else who posted or wants to post in this thread. This is about our beliefs, our feelings. I doubt I can change humanity's mind about anything anytime soon. But maybe, if I am really lucky, I might be able to change someone's mind.

Back to the personal scale, it definitely depends on one's current personal situation.

In my case, I'm thinking of letting plugin users to give me donations after I've jumped into MZ, and most, if not all, of my MZ plugins will probably be always free.

But if I'm lucky enough that I managed to make some plugins reaching the professional level with professional level support(as if I'm working as a seasoned full-time professional software engineer), then I'll consider charging them for commercial projects.

For instance, if I managed to implement saves in the snapshot form(think of some gaming platform emulators letting you press a hotkey to save at any moment) or client server multiplayer(or p2p counterpart), I might charge something like a one-time 10USD fee for permissions to be used on any commercial projects(those projects can use mine if anyone has the license).

 

Of course, that also depends on how well my donations will work.

If almost no one donates or if there's almost even no plugin users, then I don't think charging my plugins will work at all.

There might be some plugins that are close to the professional level(but not yet) that I'll want to write as well, but I might announce that they'll only be written if the donation has reached a certain amount.

But I'm not certain on any of these things, at least not before I actually have MZ :)

Edited by DoubleX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DoubleX said:

...if I managed to implement saves in the snapshot form...


Hueueueueue...

I think most devs would avoid such unless it was used as a debugging tool only, but I'm surprised it doesn't exist already.

@Kayzee has it nailed, though Societal belief would be more precise, and this jumps deep into political debauchery as well as identity politics, and as such I will avoid talking about it further. Moving on! Any scripts I write I'll not bother charging or putting in ToS for. Realistically, it isn't like if someone were to violate them, I could do anything about it. I don't have clout/resources and am financially inept, so why bother. If people are going to make edits, let 'em. Maybe one day it'll land them a high paying job. lolz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, PhoenixSoul said:


@Kayzee has it nailed, though Societal belief would be more precise, and this jumps deep into political debauchery as well as identity politics, and as such I will avoid talking about it further. Moving on! Any scripts I write I'll not bother charging or putting in ToS for. Realistically, it isn't like if someone were to violate them, I could do anything about it. I don't have clout/resources and am financially inept, so why bother. If people are going to make edits, let 'em. Maybe one day it'll land them a high paying job. lolz

Actually, I think most paid resources rely on the assumption that most people are honest enough to pay and only few will be brazen enough to pirate them blatantly.

So I guess that as long as this assumption holds are most paid resources, at least some resource makers will keep making paid ones :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tsukihime said:

 

I guarantee you, if you were to tell people "hey, let's abolish money so you don't need to worry about it anymore and everyone gets to enjoy life without worrying about money", they will 100% agree if you can present a solution.

 

Pppft, yeah sure pal. Since when do people 100% agree on anything? Plus people have presented solutions before. Isn't that what communism was supposed to be? Sure I would say it wasn't the best solution, but in theory it might have worked... If people actually believed in it. But instead at least half the world treated the idea with suspicion and distrust, and the other half were communist in name only and were really dictatorships run by people more concerned about their own powerbase then any ideology. I mean honestly I personally don't believe it would have worked anyway, but I personally don't really believe capitalism works that well either.

 

That being said, did I say here I wanted to abolish money? I may have entertained the idea at points in the past sure, but over all that money is involved is not actually my problem with the way paid resources work. After all, I am all for donations. My problem is how money is involved.

 

 

 

Edited by Kayzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the issue of letting resource users try the paid resources without having to pay first while still ensuring the resource makers can earn money, I've thinking of an idea besides the traditional "free for free projects/paid for commercial projects" - The resources can be used for free for all PRIVATE/UNPUBLISHED PROJECTS, but must be paid right before they're PUBLIC/PUBLISHED.

Of course, if I were one such resource user, I can already come up with a scheme to circumvent such a terms of use, but if most resource users are honest enough to actually stick to the terms of use, I wonder if this will work better for commercial projects(at least those turning out to be failures won't have to pay for those resources yet) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DoubleX said:

When it comes to the issue of letting resource users try the paid resources without having to pay first while still ensuring the resource makers can earn money, I've thinking of an idea besides the traditional "free for free projects/paid for commercial projects" - The resources can be used for free for all PRIVATE/UNPUBLISHED PROJECTS, but must be paid right before they're PUBLIC/PUBLISHED.

Of course, if I were one such resource user, I can already come up with a scheme to circumvent such a terms of use, but if most resource users are honest enough to actually stick to the terms of use, I wonder if this will work better for commercial projects(at least those turning out to be failures won't have to pay for those resources yet) :)

 

Personally I think it would be best to find a lawyer to look over the wording. Then we can just go with what they say lol

When someone's using your stuff without your permission there's really only two avenues

 

1. Legal - threaten to take them to court. This is expensive, might not be worth it, especially if they're not even making much in the first place. On the other hand, think about all of those pokemon clones, where nintendo hit them with a C&D.

 

2. Social - it CAN be pretty tough if a resource owner decides to call someone out for selling games with their resources, without their permission. Players might not care, but what about the gamedev community?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tsukihime said:

2. Social - it CAN be pretty tough if a resource owner decides to call someone out for selling games with their resources, without their permission. Players might not care, but what about the gamedev community?

Fortunately, this has been working well in some communities(at least including RMW and this forum).

Those proven to be not respecting the terms of use of the resources, if not just being banished by the community, will at least have a very hard time on using any other paid, or even free, resources, as most resource makers knowing the incident will likely openly or secretly blacklist such offenders already.

Also, the community will probably "advertise" the game so even some players will know the truth, and at least some of them will care about this.

Similarly, the offenders will usually have a harder and harder time selling their next games, due to generally more and more potential buyers knowing the truth and boycotting such games.

Of course, it really depends on which community the offenders mainly access, and I won't be surprised if there are communities standing for treating resource terms of use like dirt :)

Edited by DoubleX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DoubleX said:

When it comes to the issue of letting resource users try the paid resources without having to pay first while still ensuring the resource makers can earn money, I've thinking of an idea besides the traditional "free for free projects/paid for commercial projects" - The resources can be used for free for all PRIVATE/UNPUBLISHED PROJECTS, but must be paid right before they're PUBLIC/PUBLISHED.

Of course, if I were one such resource user, I can already come up with a scheme to circumvent such a terms of use, but if most resource users are honest enough to actually stick to the terms of use, I wonder if this will work better for commercial projects(at least those turning out to be failures won't have to pay for those resources yet) :)

 

Even if people are honest enough to stick to the terms of use doesn't mean the terms will be read and understood. For example, you may think this is nitpicking, but how do you define 'public/published' here? Officially published in a service such as steam? Available in any form online, even if only as an unfinished beta in someone's google drive to give to some select people? Unless terms like these are clearly and universally defined they may render your terms unenforceable. Also depends on how the terms are communicated and if anyone will bother reading it at all.

 

That's a common problem with all types of 'terms and conditions' really.

 

Also:

 

12 hours ago, Tsukihime said:

2. Social - it CAN be pretty tough if a resource owner decides to call someone out for selling games with their resources, without their permission. Players might not care, but what about the gamedev community? 

 

This is only really going to work if the resource owner can prove his case and/or has clout in the community, and sometimes it may even backfire. Plus people who are most likely to do this on purpose aren't going to really care much what the community thinks anyway.

 

 

 

Edited by Kayzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kayzee said:

That's a common problem with all types of 'terms and conditions' really.

 

Also:

 

This is only really going to work if the resource owner can prove his case and/or has clout in the community, and sometimes it may even backfire. Plus people who are most likely to do this on purpose aren't going to really care much what the community thinks anyway.

 

 

 

 

Ya, it's the same issue with piracy and IP infringement in general. Dishonest people will be dishonest.

You release a game, add some DRM, then hackers remove your DRM and it ends up on torrents lol

 

The software industry has basically responded to this by turning everything into software as a service, monthly subscriptions etc.

You don't pay, you don't get access. You want extra lives? Pay $1 or wait 30 minutes.

 

Resources of course don't have this kind of option. As resource makers, there really isn't much we can do lol

Personally I don't really care about dishonest people, cause they were never going to pay anyways. Better to just focus on making good stuff, getting good clients, build good relationships, and focus on the stuff that actually makes money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tsukihime said:

The software industry has basically responded to this by turning everything into software as a service, monthly subscriptions etc.


That has proven to be not their best move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tsukihime said:

 

Is it? When I see games making billions of dollars selling dumb virtual items I'm always impressed lol

 

I'm not. Humans have proven way to easy to dupe. There is nothing impressive about taking candy from a baby.

 

That said, I for one kinda like the idea of 'software as service'... In theory. At least makes more sense to me then the legal fiction of treating software as if it was a physical good instead of the endlessly copyable collection of abstract data it actually is. Yeah, it isn't really useful for every type of software/game, but the logic behind it is sound for a lot of stuff.

 

Too bad so many game companies are blatantly abusing it. More and more games require a bigger and bigger investment while the gameplay suffers to fuel the game's monetization strategy. It's not really something that can be maintained long term, but then again since when do corporate types care about that? It's all about riding the company into the ground while making as much short term gain as possible.

Edited by Kayzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kayzee said:

 

I'm not. Humans have proven way to easy to dupe. There is nothing impressive about taking candy from a baby.

 

 

Oh, I'm very impressed by how often players will say "NO I HATE THIS GAME F THE COMPANY!!!!" and then go right back to playing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tsukihime said:

 

Oh, I'm very impressed by how often players will say "NO I HATE THIS GAME F THE COMPANY!!!!" and then go right back to playing it.

 

Again, I'm not. Humans have also proven to often whine about things they don't like while at the same time helping to enable that thing to stay around. XD

 

 

 

Edited by Kayzee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be making money now. Now.

It's going to crash/burst eventually, and likely sooner than most would think.

Remember Stadia? That was a flop even before it launched. Games as a service is going to end and those invested in it are going to crash and burn. Google knows this and that's why they abandoned Stadia. Also, because they're greedy, avaricious wankers, lolz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, Stadia failed partly because internet access is just not good enough for most people yet, and partly because there was never really any big name games to push sales. The idea is something that might still be doable some day. Pretty sure the idea of 'games as a service' is not going to go away completely, but it well have to change somehow. Also: Crashing and burning is basically the game industry's whole business plan at this point.

 

The plan goes like this:

  1. Become CEO or other high position in a game company that pays big bucks.
  2. Milk that company's franchise into the ground until you have systematically destroyed any value the company has.
  3. As the place burns to the ground around you quietly walk off with billions. It isn't your problem anymore.
  4. Find another company, repeat.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×