| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Gaming as a service...Gaming as a service...Posted Mar 6, 2008 13:16 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Gaming as a service... by pizza Parent article: Ryzom returns? There is actually no need to give the service for free. The article calls for free code, so the situation would be:
(Log in to post comments)
Gaming as a service... Posted Mar 6, 2008 15:59 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] > The second option (free server code) is apparently our editor's desire, as evidenced in the first installment of this saga. I realize that it does not look too viable right now, but stranger things have happened. And as others have pointed out, the "code" (either client or server) is actually the least time-consuming part of game development. Design, art, and metadata effort is measured in the hundreds of man-years for modern A-list games. And that art isn't really re-usable in the same sense that code is.
Gaming as a service... Posted Mar 6, 2008 21:31 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Exactly! Free software with proprietary artwork is perfectly acceptable to many of us; after all this is not a "free culture" advocacy site. Such server and client code liberation would open further possibilities:
Gaming as a service... Posted Mar 6, 2008 21:59 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] >If such a universal, free game engine would ever gain traction, studios might create their own games (or more exactly worlds), and charge for admission. It is a fun concept. I'm confused -- isn't this more or less what we have now? There's already quite a choice of game engines, even if you restrict yourselves to those that are Free Software. Anyone can build anything they want on top of any of those engines, and charge (or not) for admission. Granted, there's no "grand unified game engine" but I see that as a strength.
Gaming as a service... Posted Mar 6, 2008 22:21 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I'm confused -- isn't this more or less what we have now?It is, but only in the client space. And even if you can choose between different free 3D engines, they are not quite state-of-the-art: this field is advancing all the time. I'm not sure a big studio would want to commit itself to any of the free engines. On the server there seem to be not viable options. So, no massive multiplayer games can be free software. Granted, there's no "grand unified game engine" but I see that as a strength.I'm sure that this is a transitional phase. Depicting a more-or-less-physical world is a complex task and we are not getting there yet. It is like color films in the 40s and 50s -- there were many different technologies (Technicolor, Multicolor...) until the industry settled to a single format (Eastman Color). If ever there is a standard protocol for player-world interactions free software might even become the most popular choice.
Gaming as a service... Posted Mar 6, 2008 22:44 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] > If ever there is a standard protocol for player-world interactions free software might even become the most popular choice. That is the key to everything else -- Technology is always advancing; with a standard protocol (that facilitates inter-world interaction) will come the true advances, and Free Software will be behind it all.
|
|
||||||||||||