Enforcing open source

[Jeremy Kahn]

This really won't be an issue until later, but it's something that I've been thinking about.  One of the goals of Pine is to provide a platform for open source games, but I think it's also important to allow closed source games.  To cast it in another light, we shouldn't forbid closed source games, it's not beneficial for users.

Even if we don't offer any kind of store for paying for games, a lot of developers will monetize their Pine games through now-common practices such as advertisements and in-app purchases.  I absolutely don't want this.  Advertisements and upsells do not belong in video games (in my opinion), and I want Pine to be a place to find games that are games, not revenue streams.

For this reason, I propose a restriction: Free Pine games must be open source.  Only paid-for games may by closed.  The logic behind this is that games with ads and upsells generally can't be open source, and this rule will keep them out.  Paid-for games have less impetus to have these revenue vehicles, as they made money from the sale of the game.

This is by no means a bulletproof idea, but I think that it will help keep game quality consistent and reduce ads and upsells in Pine games.  Thoughts?

[Luke Stebner]

Do we need to come up with some sort of terms or agreements for developers to agree to? We can include things like not allowing in game ads or other revenue streams.

We could also enforce a github style model where if you want to have closed source games (private repos) then you pay us a flat rate and/or a percentage of your sales in order to be allowed to do, but still must agree to the above terms. If you'd like to release freeware (open source/public repos) then it costs you nothing to be allowed to do that. We can also enforce a much stricter review process on games that developers want to sell.

I am 999999% for NO in game ads and NO in game microtransactions. I absolutely hate these and fully stand by them being the downfall of gaming. 

[Jeremy Kahn]

I don't see why we can't completely disallow banner ads and in-game transactions.  It's admittedly not developer-friendly, but it benefits users.  Such restrictions are in line with the focus of Pine - simple and enjoyable gaming.

As for clear terms of service -  yes, we will need it eventually.  We owe that much transparency to developers.  Such a document is not something I feel like writing right now, and I'd also like to let our ideas mature a bit more before we codify them.

I'd like to avoid charging gatekeeper fees of any kind.  Ideally, it should be possible to profit from a Pine game (if it is closed source) with no initial investment.  If we do wind up selling games, I suggest a 30/70 revenue split like Apple does.

To clarify, we are not focusing on non-free/paid-for game now, but we should consider it in the future.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pine" group.
To post to this group, send email to pine-d...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pine-discuss...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pine-discuss/-/6JVLNeGC-70J.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
Jeremy Kahn

jerem...@gmail.com

https://github.com/jeremyckahn

@jeremyckahn

[Scott Elcomb]

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Luke Stebner <luke.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We could also enforce a github style model where if you want to have closed
> source games (private repos) then you pay us a flat rate and/or a percentage
> of your sales in order to be allowed to do, but still must agree to the
> above terms. If you'd like to release freeware (open source/public repos)
> then it costs you nothing to be allowed to do that. We can also enforce a
> much stricter review process on games that developers want to sell.

Like this model. =)

> I am 999999% for NO in game ads and NO in game microtransactions. I
> absolutely hate these and fully stand by them being the downfall of gaming.

Could you expand on this a bit? I fully agree with preventing in-game
banner ads, but I'm curious why you believe micro-transactions
contribute to "the downfall of gaming." It has it's place IMHO. As
long as the author remains responsible for the relevant
engine/interface/money and it's not the primary reason for a game's
existence, then I (currently) have no objections to in-game
transactions.

I expect this would mostly affect commercial games, but should in-game
product placements be considered as a form of advertising?

Best,
--
Scott Elcomb
@psema4 on Twitter / Identi.ca / Github & more

Atomic OS: Self Contained Microsystems
http://code.google.com/p/atomos/

Member of the Pirate Party of Canada
http://www.pirateparty.ca/

[Jeremy Kahn]

I fully agree with preventing in-game
banner ads, but I'm curious why you believe micro-transactions
contribute to "the downfall of gaming."  It has it's place IMHO. As
long as the author remains responsible for the relevant
engine/interface/money and it's not the primary reason for a game's
existence, then I (currently) have no objections to in-game
transactions.

I strongly feel that real-life transactions do not belong in a video game - the suspension of disbelief is disrupted when users are presented with real world transactions.  A game should be just as fun to a person with disposable income as it is for a person with less or none.

I expect this would mostly affect commercial games, but should in-game
product placements be considered as a form of advertising?

This is something that I imagine will come up a lot.   I think a good rule of thumb is that advertisements intended to generate direct revenue will not be allowed.  We'll have to handle unclear cases of this as they arise and calibrate our terms accordingly.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pine" group.
To post to this group, send email to pine-d...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pine-discuss...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Luke Stebner]

Sorry for being slow to respond, been a busy week!

In game purchases could be used to benefit gamers (in theory) such as unlocking extra content to keep the initial cost down, the problem is they are abused 99% of the time. Browsing any mobile game marketplace or any free to play game on Steam will show that developers put content in that can be unlocked without purchasing, but through an amount of work that makes just buying it much more appetizing. They then sell things like in game bucks, hats or even things like double experience for real world money. What's the challenge of playing a game if you can just spend money to buy the things that would normally take effort to unlock? Especially if one is online and someone has purchased their way to level 90 when you grinded it out. 

I would rather sell content DLC (not clothing/in game money/etc) and/or charge up front to get developers money than even give the opportunity for them to abuse these sorts of systems.

[Jeremy Kahn]

I'd be open to downloadable content, but only if, as Luke explained, it does not give one gamer an advantage over another. Selling things like in-game movies or more levels seems reasonable (although I still don't personally love it).

I can only really get behind this if we make it clear that downloadable content can only be acquired through payment, not leaving it up to the gamer to decide if they want to pay or "earn" the content. A developer must decide if it's one or the other. 

--

Jeremy Kahn

jerem...@gmail.com

Tel: 847.347.8086

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pine" group.
To post to this group, send email to pine-d...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pine-discuss...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pine-discuss/-/Ka7pNpTJpW8J.

[Alex Wilson]

I like the idea of having some paid-for games and DLC on the market, while enforcing no ads in-game. This makes the experience overall better for the players because it will incentivize people to make good games if people will be paying for them, and doesn't allow annoying advertisements while you're playing.