The Bounty cash reward discussion.
2 views
Skip to first unread message
wimbet
Apr 30, 2009, 1:39:59 AM4/30/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
The feedback I got from the devs who participated in the first Bounty
was that the cash reward was really not that important. I had the
idea of offering cash because I thought it would encourage
development.
So far, we only raised $225 but I'll find a way to bump it to $500.
I'm still not exactly sure how important the money is. I want to
reward those that help, but I don't want to create problems with
splitting it up. If this is going to be a team project, then the team
leader can decide how to split the money or make whatever agreement
you would like.
There is also the possibility of a single person completing the task,
but I'm beginning to think this will be a team effort.
If anyone has any input on the actual bounty reward, post it here.
was that the cash reward was really not that important. I had the
idea of offering cash because I thought it would encourage
development.
So far, we only raised $225 but I'll find a way to bump it to $500.
I'm still not exactly sure how important the money is. I want to
reward those that help, but I don't want to create problems with
splitting it up. If this is going to be a team project, then the team
leader can decide how to split the money or make whatever agreement
you would like.
There is also the possibility of a single person completing the task,
but I'm beginning to think this will be a team effort.
If anyone has any input on the actual bounty reward, post it here.
nEx.Software
Apr 30, 2009, 9:08:01 AM4/30/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
For me, the Bounty was a good incentive, a reason to get a move on in
developing something real. As for the amount, it did not matter and
though it would have been nice to have won the Bounty, I gained more
in experience and knowledge than the Bounty alone offered. Plus, it
prompted me to develop something which I am in turn selling on the
Market and making more than the Bounty would have provided alone. That
being said, I don't know that the same can be said of this Bounty due
to the open source nature of the project, there is no viable way to
make recurring income from it. That might be why the Bounty is more
important in this case. Take for example the Doom port, on one hand we
have a developer porting and releasing for a charge in the market.
Before long another developer took his port, made some changes and
released for free in the Market. Now, this original developer cannot
viably compete in a way that makes him money. Additionally, while the
successful development of this engine will make it easier to develop
new games, there would be the GPL issues that would likely cause some
issues for some developers. Wouldn't any games developed using this
also have to be GPL? I don't completely understand the whole GPL thing
but I thought this was the case. Anyway, these are just my thoughts as
to why developers might insist on a higher Bounty before getting
involved. I'd certainly get involved from a development standpoint if
I had any clue how to port C to Java.
developing something real. As for the amount, it did not matter and
though it would have been nice to have won the Bounty, I gained more
in experience and knowledge than the Bounty alone offered. Plus, it
prompted me to develop something which I am in turn selling on the
Market and making more than the Bounty would have provided alone. That
being said, I don't know that the same can be said of this Bounty due
to the open source nature of the project, there is no viable way to
make recurring income from it. That might be why the Bounty is more
important in this case. Take for example the Doom port, on one hand we
have a developer porting and releasing for a charge in the market.
Before long another developer took his port, made some changes and
released for free in the Market. Now, this original developer cannot
viably compete in a way that makes him money. Additionally, while the
successful development of this engine will make it easier to develop
new games, there would be the GPL issues that would likely cause some
issues for some developers. Wouldn't any games developed using this
also have to be GPL? I don't completely understand the whole GPL thing
but I thought this was the case. Anyway, these are just my thoughts as
to why developers might insist on a higher Bounty before getting
involved. I'd certainly get involved from a development standpoint if
I had any clue how to port C to Java.
wimbet
Apr 30, 2009, 9:45:23 AM4/30/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
My goal was to optimize the basic engine and then release the source
code. If a dev wants to add new features and additions on his own,
then I think he has the right to charge whatever he wants. Vladimir
started charging for Doom, but he has also worked to add touch and
motion controls.
So I really don't mind if someone wants to take the final code and
then modify and sell it. In fact, I would hope that some people are
encouraged to take the work and create new games. I think Michael
shared my same view of focusing on the engine and less on the actual
game. Quake is just a good starting point as a proof of concept. I
would like to hear more from Michael on the engine because I get the
feeling he thinks the G1 can support a Quake 3 class engine with a
playable framerate.
On Apr 30, 8:08 am, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
code. If a dev wants to add new features and additions on his own,
then I think he has the right to charge whatever he wants. Vladimir
started charging for Doom, but he has also worked to add touch and
motion controls.
So I really don't mind if someone wants to take the final code and
then modify and sell it. In fact, I would hope that some people are
encouraged to take the work and create new games. I think Michael
shared my same view of focusing on the engine and less on the actual
game. Quake is just a good starting point as a proof of concept. I
would like to hear more from Michael on the engine because I get the
feeling he thinks the G1 can support a Quake 3 class engine with a
playable framerate.
On Apr 30, 8:08 am, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
nEx.Software
Apr 30, 2009, 10:19:36 AM4/30/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
Wouldn't any games using the engine also fall under GPL and,
therefore, force developers to provide source code for their games?
That's a big incentive not to do it if they intend to charge for their
game. Just a thought. Personally, I'd love to have a good engine to
work pre-built engine to work with so as to not have to worry about
all of the complexities involved in that aspect. I too would like to
see the Quake 3 engine in action.
therefore, force developers to provide source code for their games?
That's a big incentive not to do it if they intend to charge for their
game. Just a thought. Personally, I'd love to have a good engine to
work pre-built engine to work with so as to not have to worry about
all of the complexities involved in that aspect. I too would like to
see the Quake 3 engine in action.
MarcusMaximus
Apr 30, 2009, 1:06:29 PM4/30/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
Yes and no. GPL states that you do have to release the source code but
you can only release it to those who have purchased the product, so
that they can edit it and make changes as they wish. Also, my only
thing about the quake 3 engine is: doesn't it use shaders? Or had
those not started being used yet?
On Apr 30, 7:19 am, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
you can only release it to those who have purchased the product, so
that they can edit it and make changes as they wish. Also, my only
thing about the quake 3 engine is: doesn't it use shaders? Or had
those not started being used yet?
On Apr 30, 7:19 am, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
nEx.Software
Apr 30, 2009, 1:48:29 PM4/30/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
But there is nothing stopping these folks from turning around and
giving your code to anybody/everybody else.
giving your code to anybody/everybody else.
MarcusMaximus
Apr 30, 2009, 2:39:50 PM4/30/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
Actually, since you own the code, you also own the copyright to it.
Other people can only give it out if they significantly change all the
parts you added to the point that it doesn't look like they got the
code from you at all, otherwise it's copyright infringement. They
theoretically CAN do it, but it'll be illegal if they do. The point of
having it open source is really just so people who buy it can change
things to make it the way they want. (Note: I got this info from my
computer ethics professor in college who has a Ph.D in comp sci and a
J.D. So if anyone knows this stuff better than I do they can feel free
to correct me).
On Apr 30, 10:48 am, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Other people can only give it out if they significantly change all the
parts you added to the point that it doesn't look like they got the
code from you at all, otherwise it's copyright infringement. They
theoretically CAN do it, but it'll be illegal if they do. The point of
having it open source is really just so people who buy it can change
things to make it the way they want. (Note: I got this info from my
computer ethics professor in college who has a Ph.D in comp sci and a
J.D. So if anyone knows this stuff better than I do they can feel free
to correct me).
On Apr 30, 10:48 am, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
nEx.Software
Apr 30, 2009, 2:44:46 PM4/30/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
Fantastic then. That's actually good to hear. I've always been a
little confused by GPL.
little confused by GPL.
clark
May 3, 2009, 3:37:48 PM5/3/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
Actually, if it is GPLed then ANYONE who has the source can freely
distribute it. The GPL does not stop them from releasing it, as is,
to anyone else. I've done exactly that with the Doom for Android
source. The whole
GPL licensing can get confusing at times and there seems to be some
gray areas, but as far as I understand it, once the code is out there,
there is nothing to stop others from distributing it once they have
their copy.
Now to get back on topic, I for one am not too concerned with the
bounty. I have a day job, and I do this stuff on the side because I
enjoy it. So you all can have the money, I just want to see this
become a reality.
~clark
On Apr 30, 11:44 am, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
distribute it. The GPL does not stop them from releasing it, as is,
to anyone else. I've done exactly that with the Doom for Android
source. The whole
GPL licensing can get confusing at times and there seems to be some
gray areas, but as far as I understand it, once the code is out there,
there is nothing to stop others from distributing it once they have
their copy.
Now to get back on topic, I for one am not too concerned with the
bounty. I have a day job, and I do this stuff on the side because I
enjoy it. So you all can have the money, I just want to see this
become a reality.
~clark
On Apr 30, 11:44 am, "nEx.Software" <email.nex.softw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Michael Leahy (Tactel US)
May 4, 2009, 6:27:30 PM5/4/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
Greets folks.. It looks like I'll be around to help a little with the
Quake 1 port. On a exciting note as well I'm a software architect for
Android projects with a company called Tactel US. I've recently been
giving the task of starting a technology blog for Android and just got
my proposed topic approved of creating tutorials on OpenGL ES and in
particular dissecting the Q1 engine and making a port to Android
available of at least the level renderer for the 1st stage. This
should be up in a couple of weeks.
What this will enable is the foundation work of the engine and an
optimized level renderer. If anyone else wants to finish off the game
content and game play that will be left as an "exercise" (for now at
least).
issues. I would expect ID to aggressively assert it's IP claims and
prevent any port being released for a fee unless it's sanctioned by
them.
> So I really don't mind if someone wants to take the final code and then modify and sell it. In fact, I would hope that some people are encouraged to take the work and create new games.
Ideally any effort to create a generic engine can be released under a
license other than GPL, so that other devs can create their own games
without having to abide by the GPL. As things go though my efforts for
the Q1 port will have to be GPLed since neither myself or the company
I'm working with regarding the blog/tutorials with can assume any
responsibility. IE it's an educational effort.
There is also an open question, that even if you make a generic game
engine (such as Auriga3D), but use the GPLed level editors to make the
content that a license fee may still be owed to ID for releasing a
commercial for pay game even if the game engine was made without
looking at GPL source code.
>I think Michael shared my same view of focusing on the engine and less on the actual game. Quake is just a good starting point as a proof of concept. I would like to hear more from Michael on the engine because I get the
feeling he thinks the G1 can support a Quake 3 class engine with a
playable framerate.
I think the G1 is capable given further optimization specific to the
hardware. After porting Auriga3D to Android and the G1 it worked
adequately given that it's practically a straight port of the desktop
engine and 98% of the code is shared between desktop and Android. Q1
should definitely run at a high FPS even with a Java port. Q3 should
run just fine if further optimization work is completed as far as
Auriga3D is concerned.
> > > If anyone has any input on the actual bounty reward, post it here.
Well.. lets just say that the bounty won't come close to covering my
involvement as a professional developer and luckily I convinced some
folks of the merits of the tutorial/blog site and what I think is a
potentially a hot topic for Android development (3D engines / OpenGL
ES).
Quake 1 port. On a exciting note as well I'm a software architect for
Android projects with a company called Tactel US. I've recently been
giving the task of starting a technology blog for Android and just got
my proposed topic approved of creating tutorials on OpenGL ES and in
particular dissecting the Q1 engine and making a port to Android
available of at least the level renderer for the 1st stage. This
should be up in a couple of weeks.
What this will enable is the foundation work of the engine and an
optimized level renderer. If anyone else wants to finish off the game
content and game play that will be left as an "exercise" (for now at
least).
> My goal was to optimize the basic engine and then release the source
> code. If a dev wants to add new features and additions on his own,
> then I think he has the right to charge whatever he wants. Vladimir
> started charging for Doom, but he has also worked to add touch and
> motion controls.
The main problem with charging for Doom or Quake is IP / content
> code. If a dev wants to add new features and additions on his own,
> then I think he has the right to charge whatever he wants. Vladimir
> started charging for Doom, but he has also worked to add touch and
> motion controls.
issues. I would expect ID to aggressively assert it's IP claims and
prevent any port being released for a fee unless it's sanctioned by
them.
> So I really don't mind if someone wants to take the final code and then modify and sell it. In fact, I would hope that some people are encouraged to take the work and create new games.
license other than GPL, so that other devs can create their own games
without having to abide by the GPL. As things go though my efforts for
the Q1 port will have to be GPLed since neither myself or the company
I'm working with regarding the blog/tutorials with can assume any
responsibility. IE it's an educational effort.
There is also an open question, that even if you make a generic game
engine (such as Auriga3D), but use the GPLed level editors to make the
content that a license fee may still be owed to ID for releasing a
commercial for pay game even if the game engine was made without
looking at GPL source code.
>I think Michael shared my same view of focusing on the engine and less on the actual game. Quake is just a good starting point as a proof of concept. I would like to hear more from Michael on the engine because I get the
feeling he thinks the G1 can support a Quake 3 class engine with a
playable framerate.
hardware. After porting Auriga3D to Android and the G1 it worked
adequately given that it's practically a straight port of the desktop
engine and 98% of the code is shared between desktop and Android. Q1
should definitely run at a high FPS even with a Java port. Q3 should
run just fine if further optimization work is completed as far as
Auriga3D is concerned.
> > > If anyone has any input on the actual bounty reward, post it here.
involvement as a professional developer and luckily I convinced some
folks of the merits of the tutorial/blog site and what I think is a
potentially a hot topic for Android development (3D engines / OpenGL
ES).
Michael Leahy (Tactel US)
May 4, 2009, 6:35:48 PM5/4/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
On Apr 30, 10:06 am, MarcusMaximus <MarcusMaximu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, my only thing about the quake 3 engine is: doesn't it use shaders? Or had
> those not started being used yet?
Q3 is 1999 tech and before hardware shaders and non-fixed pipeline
> those not started being used yet?
tech. The terminology is used in regard to the Q3 engine though to
define surfaces and there attributes via text scripts.
wimbet
May 4, 2009, 7:12:19 PM5/4/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
Wow, thanks for all the input. We are looking forward to your
tutorials. That is a lot of info so it will take me awhile to process
it all.
It was never my goal to attempt to make money off this project. I
just recognized the lack of 3d games on Android and wanted to show
what the platform could do.
If the result of this project is an optimized Java engine, I would
call that a success. The money we collected needs to go to someone
though. I will not be keeping it and the purpose of the money was to
encourage participation. I now think I really underestimated the
scope of this project, but I would like to see it continue.
So, I realize the money is not very significant but it is just sitting
in a paypal account. I guess we will just have to see where this
goes.
On May 4, 5:27 pm, "Michael Leahy (Tactel US)"
tutorials. That is a lot of info so it will take me awhile to process
it all.
It was never my goal to attempt to make money off this project. I
just recognized the lack of 3d games on Android and wanted to show
what the platform could do.
If the result of this project is an optimized Java engine, I would
call that a success. The money we collected needs to go to someone
though. I will not be keeping it and the purpose of the money was to
encourage participation. I now think I really underestimated the
scope of this project, but I would like to see it continue.
So, I realize the money is not very significant but it is just sitting
in a paypal account. I guess we will just have to see where this
goes.
On May 4, 5:27 pm, "Michael Leahy (Tactel US)"
Michael Leahy (Tactel US)
May 5, 2009, 3:24:08 AM5/5/09
to Android Bounty II Mobile Quake
On May 4, 4:12 pm, wimbet <wim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was never my goal to attempt to make money off this project. I
> just recognized the lack of 3d games on Android and wanted to show
> what the platform could do.
Indeed.. I just mentioned issues with folks charging for iD content or
> It was never my goal to attempt to make money off this project. I
> just recognized the lack of 3d games on Android and wanted to show
> what the platform could do.
even conceivably being trapped by the level editor / content creation
issue which is a seemingly gray area.
> If the result of this project is an optimized Java engine, I would
> call that a success. The money we collected needs to go to someone
> though. I will not be keeping it and the purpose of the money was to
> encourage participation. I now think I really underestimated the
> scope of this project, but I would like to see it continue.
excited that Tactel saw this as a hot area in Android development that
isn't really covered elsewhere online or in books for the time being
and that it provides a good learning / tutorial topic otherwise I'd be
limited to moral support.. :)
I'm on this project full time+ for the month of May and maybe a little
of June.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages