Does it make any sense to develop AGS further?

Started by Crimson Wizard, Thu 13/04/2017 19:10:09

Previous topic - Next topic

Clarvalon

I don't have much to add other than to empathise with CW's position - it's difficult to maintain a constant level of motivation while sinking years of effort into a long term project.  The difference here is that CW also has the added weight of expectation from an active community.

While it's fair to say that my own engine has converged with AGS further, especially in the last twelve months, it still only supports a subset of functionality and almost certainly will never be a full reimplementation.  There's lots to do and never enough time!
XAGE - Cross-Platform Adventure Game Engine (alpha)

Retro Wolf

I'm not familiar with the inner workings of AGS so forgive me if I misstep.
I don't think AGS really needs any new features, consider just fixing the odd bug that pops up and keep it compatible whenever Microsoft releases a new OS (not forgetting Linux).
If in the future someone else comes along wanting to take over the engine, they want to add new features that's fine.

The most important thing about AGS is its community, why not make it more engine neutral? If somebody has created a Unity/Game Maker/Monogame plugin for making adventure games, why not allow them a sub forum?

m0ds

Someone needs to be. AGS needs its critics. But I'm not slapping price tags on things, I'm pointing out that commercialization in some form could be the answer to some elements of the, as you say "lack of vision". Your comment about the roadmap for CW is probably the most pertinent response in this thread yet relating directly to his question. But yes I think your "lack of vision" comment also sums up why I get worked up about this. Because it's true, though I'd personally call it a TOTAL lack of vision. We know what the original vision was of CJ, to make an engine that makes point & click adventures. He achieved that, we reaped the benefits of it. What is CW's vision, or the current vision by whomever, community or individuals? To maintain an engine? To maintain an engine for the rest of eternity? Is that really it? I have no problem with that being the sum-total of expectation from many people, but you can't expect everyone to settle just for that.

And underneath what Crimson Wizard says, I believe lies a desire for there to be some kind of new or brighter vision to warrant continuing to work on it. Because as he says, AGS works, it does plenty. And Unity exists. So AGS, not necessarily the engine, needs something else, new, fresh... Sense of purpose is a key theme, whether he explicitly stated it or not. And CW is the only one of us that has to wake up worrying about what people need, expect or are having problems with, with the engine. That burden isn't on anyone else. So the least we can do (aside from shoving a bullet point list of 'choice' envelopes back in his direction) is actually try and alleviate the problem with our own new, up to date ideas and visions, not necessarily to replace any currently standing, but to complement them. However, these things usually end up getting shut down or brushed aside. And if you don't see that happening then you're blind (or not paying attention, especially behind the scenes, ergo, this doesn't apply to everyone). This happens because some people are settling for what exists and seem reluctant to allow new visions to shine through. And yes, that does piss me off, as someone who has done a number of things to try and "give something back" over the years.

Innovation at AGS is someone adding a feature to a point & click adventure that's slightly different to a previous mechanic. It's not finding ways to raise money for charity. It's not finding ways to dish out grants to AGS developers who are struggling, let alone those who are working on the engine. It's not keeping the website up to date, nor making it a hub for game developers or players. As I said it's not even raising some funds for servers, nigh-on 5 years ago now since that last happened. So it's no wonder CW (and maybe others) are left wondering "where is this heading, and for what purpose?". This "every 6 months" discussion should be a red flag that this question is getting harder and harder to answer, that perhaps therefore, something isn't working. That there really is such a lack of vision, it's not even worth it. Some problems are deep rooted and can't be solved by a simple discussion, they require actual action.

Rant aside, if I were to actually point out some nuts and bolts, look at it like this. A bunch of us, maybe counted on both hands, use AGS daily, it is our living. We, if anyone, are probably the people who should be paying to use AGS in some respect. In my mind, it would be those folks who pay for the multi-platform support version, and the language version, etc. Because generally, everyone doing this for a hobby doesn't really need those options (and as the multi-platform support has never really existed, people can't demand it to be free to honour a condition it already was [as it has never been so]). In terms of the engine, I see something that works with 'add-ons'. You get AGS as it is today for free, you can build your Windows point and clicks, that is what you can do with AGS on 16 April 2017, why shouldn't it remain that way forever. If you want the multi-platform exporting option then you pay $1 a month for it. Same for language support (which could be much improved), another dollar. So people like me, dave, andail, joel "the commercial bunch" etc probably have an AGS subscription for $3 a month. Someone like cat, Snarky or the "freeware bunch", probably don't, because they don't really require the extras to be able to continue to use it in hobby fashion. I absolutely do not know the ins-and-outs of what I've just said so I write that as merely a concept. A concept where the heaviest users give something back, and the lighter users generally see no change.

Now you have some initial income coming in. AGS servers can be paid for, some of it can be put aside to create developer grants, and another amount for charity. CW and other contributors get paid for their work. Suddenly, AGS is a lot more than it currently is. Suddenly it seems to be doing enough for other people that it makes sense to invest your life working on it. Then when publications talk about AGS, they won't just be talking about it being used by Wadjet Eye Games, they'll actually have something to say about AGS itself. "The AGS Community raised 10,000 for charity". Or, "The AGS Engine gives its developers grants". Or, "People still work on AGS engine because it stands for something more."

As I say, if you, we, as a community, want to settle for less, that is fine. I know the face of the matter written by CW does not go quite so deep as that. But I am certain there are bigger goals that could be achieved, or at least attempted, to re-invigorate a sense of purpose not just for CW, but for everyone here. AGS needs to grow up and get itself an economy, if not for itself, then for others, in selfless manner that I know a lot of people here are capable of. Kickstarter will not achieve that, it will simply solve a problem temporarily and ultimately, creates an end-goal in a point of time in the future rather than an on-going sense of purpose.

Another key word is philanthropy. You don't need 3000 community members to be that, but you also don't want to block the 5 people that are from being so. No-one wins under those circumstances. And I think AGS could produce some of the better philanthropists of the video-game world, but it doesn't, because of the lack of vision here. And that's that really, as it ever has been. If CJ was even part philantropist, things would probably be somewhat different around here... Maybe we're lucky for it, maybe we're unlucky. But 18 years on, and there's still no sign that anyone has those kind of intentions, and I stick by my guns that this community doesn't reach its full potential because of it. On the flip-side, I would of course, be dismayed by a pure income based, ad-covered experience here, that's horrible. But we're not even attempting to meet halfway yet, so there's progress to be made. I personally feel some forward motion on this, a side of things that is perhaps somewhat "indirect action" compared to CW's initial post and worries, could incentivise things for CW and others, and also bring AGS into the realm of a key player in the industry, regardless of it's being used for hobby or work.

Peder 🚀

Quote from: Screen 7 on Sat 15/04/2017 01:39:50
When was the last time this community raised funds for anything, charity or servers? 5 years ago wasn't it?

2014 - http://bluecupbakesale.com/

LimpingFish

I don't inherently disagree with anything you've put forward, m0ds. I think we differ in our expectations of the future of AGS and the community, though both outlooks aren't necessarily incompatible. I just don't think we have a solid base to work from at the moment. Two points:

1. The open-source dream has fizzled out. Instead of strengthening the core code base, it has splintered it, leaving the "offical" version, more or less, a one-man show.

2. The amount of work needed to produce an AGS 4.0, for want of a better term, suitable for today's developer, and built from the ground up, is a colossal undertaking. It also raises the question of what will happen to the legacy version, should people want to continue using it. Would development on both versions run concurrently, until the new version is ready to roll out? Surely not, as it's hard enough to find people to contribute code to one version, let alone two. Or would we just put a nail in the coffin of the old version, and suffer through the  inevitable years of alphas, betas and workarounds while we wait for a stable version of the new editor and engine?

Call me short-sighted (not that you have :)) or eager to settle, but I'd much prefer to see healthy development of what we currently have. If, as you say, CW doesn't want to continue work on an engine he doesn't see a future for, or one that can compete with other engines, then maybe he should call it a day.

But let's not forget: AGS, as it is, does what it's supposed to, and does it very well. It's creates 2D point-and-click adventures, freeware and commercial quality, for Windows. Out of the box, it can be used by just about anyone with any level of talent or experience. It has no barrier to entry, monetary or otherwise. It has a active community, and one that produces content on a regular basis. Can't say that about Wintermute. Or any of the other engines that have come and gone in AGS's lifetime. You may see that as something that demands to be taken to the next level, which is fine, but not following this path doesn't necessarily mean AGS will wither and die.

At the end of the day, if people want a "modern" engine, one that supports Android, etc, then...just pay the $49/$79/$125/$500 and license Visionaire Studio. It seems to do everything people are complaining AGS doesn't do. But if they just want a usable adventure game engine, AGS is more than adequate. Commercial developers may want more from the editor and engine, but there might be a good reason for that...

If I may be allowed to be a little snippy, it's no coincidence that AGS comes with zero ties to any messy license fees or restrictions. This is very attractive to people looking to make money from their games. It also has a small army of people willing to offer snippets of help on engine limitations, coding errors and bugs. The community is AGS's strongest asset, and one that comes free of charge. It's no wonder people don't want to stop using AGS.
Steam: LimpingFish
PSN: LFishRoller
XB: TheActualLimpingFish
Spotify: LimpingFish

Crimson Wizard

#45
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 16/04/2017 23:30:59The open-source dream has fizzled out. Instead of strengthening the core code base, it has splintered it, leaving the "offical" version, more or less, a one-man show.

It is hard for me to compare open source development with closed source one performed by Chris Jones, but to some degree the situation got better and to some worse.

It is better in the sense that project's source is seen by more people, which may add a thing or two, or fix something overlooked by the "core team".

It seem to become worse in the sense that... having an open source adds to the pressure developer have. When Chris Jones was working solely by himself, he could speed things up by not worrying about such things as bad code style and ugly structure.

I think the main reason we did not have many collaborators is the state of the code. It's not ultimately bad, but it's just entangled so much, and has lots of surprising ties and restrictions.

On several occasions a person wanted to add something in the engine, not realizing that they are breaking other things. When this problem was pointed out, not everyone was ready to spend additional effort on reworking their additions.

In other case, person wanted to quickly add something small, that in reality would require doing restructuring in the code. Even if such restructuring was completed later, contributor often was not interested anymore (or just dissapeared to never come back).

Danvzare

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 16/04/2017 23:30:59
At the end of the day, if people want a "modern" engine, one that supports Android, etc, then...just pay the $49/$79/$125/$500 and license Visionaire Studio. It seems to do everything people are complaining AGS doesn't do. But if they just want a usable adventure game engine, AGS is more than adequate. Commercial developers may want more from the editor and engine, but there might be a good reason for that...
+1 to that. (nod)

Darth Mandarb

I think the thing that's being overlooked here is that people want to stick with AGS. They just want it to be more capable/modern. I have an adventure game project I'm working on (with my wife) and we've jumped ship to Unity because, while it's crazy expensive, it's WAY more capable for what we want to accomplish with the project. I feel terrible about not using AGS but AGS cannot do what I want so I have no real option in that regard.

For whatever it's worth I think AGS4 should be a total rewrite to encompass modern technology.

Android/iOS. Windows/Linux/Mac.

It should, essentially, work the same way it does now (to keep it familiar to the loyal community that's been here all along) but brought into the 21st century a bit more.

I don't think AGS (as it stands today) is in any real "danger" but it is definitely stagnating (in my opinion) due to falling WAY behind in terms of how people are consuming games today. I have always felt that AGS was a system designed to keep adventure games from going extinct. It does this very well in a retro sense. I would rather keep adventure games evolving and keeping up with modern tech. AGS does not do that very well. But it could...

The current version of AGS should be renamed AGS Classic and maintained but not improved. It is for creating classic/retro adventure games which is does, and does very well. Leave it alone.

AGS4 should have two versions:

AGS4 and AGS4 Premium (or Pro, or Plus, something like that).

Both are full-featured versions of the engine. The only difference between AGS4 and AGS4 Premium are:

1) AGS4 Premium is not free but a very affordable price (like $49.99)
2) AGS4 Premium has no "watermark" where AGS4 would have a water-marked "Made in Adventure Game Studio" splash screen

There is ZERO licensing nonsense that is so prevalent in (and ruining) the games industry. You pay the initial fee for the premium version and you can release as many games you want.

I was thinking something along the lines of the purchase (for AGS4 Premium) would be $49.99 and then when AGS5 is released it would be $49.99 but to upgrade from AGS4 Premium would be like $19.99 (again keeping it very affordable) or if/when they purchase AGS4 Premium they can do a $129.99 version that grants them free upgrades for life.

I think this model is sooooo much better than the way Unity and others and all their convoluted licensing nonsense. This is just my opinion. I feel that the lower price would mean more sales.

I think the way to fund the development of AGS4 is a kickstarter.

- find a developer(s) willing to commit to the project
- find out what the developer(s) want as far as salary
- set a campaign fund-raising goal (meticulously calculated, let those in the community that have KS experience give advice)
- put together a kickstarter campaign (let the community work together to create the campaign/pitch video - could be fun)
- start an LLC, or equivalent in the country that does the founding, (using the funds from the kickstarter if successful -if AGS4 has a paid version, a "company" is necessary to handle the revenue)
- sign a contract w/ the developer(s) and start cuttin' them paychecks as they develop
- the project will need a project manager/coordinator to create goals/deadlines/etc to keep everything streamlined and on target.

I think this is all very possible and doable if people commit to it. I am fairly certain there are developers here that, if compensated accordingly, would devote to it as a full-time job! Could even work out some kind of partnership with the company where they get a percentage of the revenue.

Maybe I'm just too optimistic but I think we have it in us to pull this off. (nod)

Alan v.Drake

As discussed before, AGS is a pain in the ass to code for, there's much legacy stuff lying around that becomes a hindrance to refactoring attempts. It doesn't look like much at first, but trust me, there are so many little things and they all pile up. Which leads to discouragement.
IMHO that is the main reason there are so few active developers. Only people with a vested interest on AGS can have the proper motivation to try. Or madmen.

I was suggesting to split AGS into a legacy player branch (maybe AGS classic as Darth suggests) that only receives small fixes, and let the main development utterly disregard retrocompatibility, so new developers can actually develop instead of getting deadlocked into a code nightmare.

You don't need retrocompatibility when you make new games.
New source developers don't give a damn about retrocompatibility.
No one wants do deal with retrocompatibility.
Everybody but the users hate retrocompatibility.
New coders just want a good game engine that can be easily customized.

Last year I worked on a few new features, and I suffered way more than necessary, a dozen files just for a single feature, time lost because of gotchas and surprises. And I had prior experiences in messing with the sources.
Imagine what a new developer dabbling with AGS source code has to go through: he wants to change a function, so he changes the code where he would expect it to be changed, only to find out nothing changes, because that part of the code is actually legacy code and the actual one has a different name, he fixes it but something else breaks. No wonder he gives up and looks elsewhere!

Writing a new AGS from scratch is too big an undertaking, it will never happen. The only chance for things to get better is to start cutting away the dead weight.
8/16bit color support ? Rest in peace. Left-to right operator precedence ? Shouldn't even be a question. Old audio system ? Nope. And so on...

There's plenty of this stuff that makes it impossible to even imagine how to rewrite, because it's all intertwined. The knowledge required to change things without causing a nuclear meltdown is no laughing matter.

I had to refeer to CW's knowledge multiple times to properly wrap up most of my features, or I would have broken compatibility several times, I pretty much went forth blind with pure brute force, with little to no clue about what the heck I was doing.


As things stands, I feel too overwhelmed to touch the code, at least until I realize I really *really* need a new feature.

That said, I gotta thank you CW, you've improved the state of the code a lot, I probably wouldn't have even tried to code on AGS again if it weren't for that. But the legacy stuff has to go, only you know enough to make sense of it, I don't think anyone else can without going mad.


Quote from: Joseph DiPerla on Sat 15/04/2017 17:29:58
Others seem to create their own versions of AGS rather than contributing to the main engine(Draconian). Maybe I am wrong about that?
You're mistaken, the Draconian edition may be tailored for my purposes, but most of the feature branches have made their way to the main engine. Except few small things and the new blend modes feature which is kinda lost in limbo, I'm not too happy the way I coded it but I can't get myself to suffer more on it (it works good enough, but the code is not good enough. Stalemate).

- Alan

Dave Gilbert

#49
I am confused as to why backwards compatibility is so important. Surely it's up to the developer to update their game to the latest version of AGS if they want to get it running on newer computers? I know when I updated Blackwell Legacy and Gemini Rue, there were several out-of-date functions and script commands that I had to redo entirely from scratch. For some other games, we had to find new fonts because they didn't display properly. So from where I am standing, there's no 100% backwards compatibility anyway. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the term?

As for why I keep using AGS? It knows EXACTLY what I'm trying to make. Studying Unity (or adventure creator) is like learning how paint is created in order to draw a picture. There's just TOO MUCH too learn, and so much of it unnecessary. I'd rather just jump in and paint. AGS lets me do that. I'm making a traditional point-and-click, AGS is set up to do exactly that. It has its quirks and issues, yes, but I know how to work around them. Switching to another engine would just mean dealing with a whole new slew of quirrks and issues that I DON'T know how to deal with. So I stick with the devil I know. Out of the 100 things I need from an adventure game creation tool, AGS does 95 of them perfectly.

I admit to not knowing much about the engine and how it works (I know a lot about scripting within it, but the engine itself is a mystery), which is why I typically stay out of discussions like this. But as others have said, you really underestimate the value of your work CW. Your work recent work on the engine has allowed AGS games to be played on a MUCH wider variety of computers and monitors, something that was a major issue for us in the past. Our technical support emails regarding weird monitor resolutions have all but disappeared. So if you are not feeling like you are making a difference, you most definitely are.

-Dave

Crimson Wizard

#50
Quote from: Dave Gilbert on Tue 18/04/2017 20:28:09
I am confused as to why backwards compatibility is so important.

Short answer: because I am an idiot who listened to couple of people who told me to keep it. Or maybe I imagined that happened? I cannot even remember for sure. Wasted months and months because of that. And did not feel confident enough to change the plans and drop it, because I persuaded myself that if I do, people will start complaining.

I always refused to ask for an advice until I got completely desperate, because I thought no one will care to give a good one to me. And even when people suggested, I did not listen, because I thought they are telling their own opinion, and not opinion of most of users.

I remember that at the very start of my work I proposed to form a "comitee" which would define the development plans for AGS. Unfortunately, that never seem to interest people here. So I continued to follow my own bad decisions.

In retrospect, I am not the smart person at all... most of the stupidest things I did while working on AGS was because someone else proposed something and I took that for a rule, then followed that rule for months if not years, even though I realized that what I am doing seemed wrong, but probably was not confident enough again to change it, until it drove me crazy.

Dave Gilbert

Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Tue 18/04/2017 20:40:50
I remember that at the very start of my work I proposed to form a "comitee" which would define the development plans for AGS. Unfortunately, that never seem to interest people here. So I continued to follow my own bad decisions.

If there was a call to form a committee, I never saw it. Ironically, the folks who use AGS the most are probably the ones least likely to visit the forum on a regular basis. I know I am one of them. (heck, it took me several days to see this thread!) I'd be happy to be part of that committee, if there's still a desire to create one.

Crimson Wizard

#52
Quote from: Dave Gilbert on Tue 18/04/2017 20:54:00
If there was a call to form a committee, I never saw it. Ironically, the folks who use AGS the most are probably the ones least likely to visit the forum on a regular basis. I know I am one of them. (heck, it took me several days to see this thread!) I'd be happy to be part of that committee, if there's still a desire to create one.

I thought this is simply most reasonable idea to get experienced users and long standing members of community to define a future path, since you knew better what is needed to be fixed, added or changed. I was very much surprised this was never done, not even a single attempt made to organize such thing, and people just let me, who was practically the newcomer at that point, to do all the job as I see fit.

About making one now... How do I know... who need to have a desire to create one if not you and other users?

I may be mistaken, because I do not see what is going on around the community, but it was my major feeling all those years, that no ones actually wants this, or cares about any planning. At least I don't remember anyone ever talked to me about it.

Snarky

I'm pretty sure you were nominated to lead the committee back in the day, Dave! :P We took a straw poll and everything...

What I always saw as the problem with a committee was this:

Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Tue 18/04/2017 20:40:50
most of the stupidest things I did while working on AGS was because someone else proposed something and I took that for a rule, then followed that rule for months if not years, even though I realized that what I am doing seemed wrong

As in: if the committee doesn't consist of people who know the engine from the inside, what if they propose something that doesn't make sense? To me it seems like the decisions ultimately have to be made by the developers.

But I suppose it will at least lead to a defined, manageable and hopefully more engaged group of people the devs can discuss things with, to avoid this problem:

Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Tue 18/04/2017 20:40:50
I always refused to ask for an advice until I got completely desperate, because I thought no one will care to give a good one to me. And even when people suggested, I did not listen, because I thought they are telling their own opinion, and not opinion of most of users.

Anyway, I know I've told you this before, Crimson Wizard, but even if you have made mistakes, you shouldn't beat yourself up about it. Making mistakes is a direct consequence of doing something difficult: really, it's something you should be proud about. In addition to the direct value your work has provided (which is much greater than you seem to realize), all that pain and all those regrets are a learning experience. If you do decide to start afresh, you'll know a lot about the different challenges faced when building an engine, you'll know what solutions work and which ones don't, and you'll know a thousand things not to do.

Dave Gilbert

#54
For a long time we were used to the way CJ did things, where one guy made all the decisions and everyone generally deferred to him. You (CW) inadvertently stepped into that role, so we all reverted to habit. At least, that's the way I see it. And that's kind of what you are? You have the most intimate knowledge of AGS than anyone right now (as far as I can tell), and have taken the initiative in making the next official version. Nobody else has done that, because nobody wanted to step on anyone's toes. You took the bull by the horns and it's much appreciated!

I learned awhile ago not to butt into discussions about the future of the engine because I approached it from an entirely different place. Most of the devs here were looking to improve the way they MADE games, while I was more interested in improving how they were played. Most of my concerns (like save game compatibility between versions, the monitor resolution issues, steam overlay problems) were met with confusion when I raised them, or shrugged off as low priority. So eventually I just shut up and dealt with it. (which is why I am so happy by 3.4 - it fixes a whole chunk of the issues I was having). I suppose this is less of an issue now that more commercial games are being released and more devs are on the same page as me. CW, I know that you expressed frustration in the past that devs like me don't voice their concerns as often. I'm trying to change that!


Quote from: Snarky on Tue 18/04/2017 21:32:33
I'm pretty sure you were nominated to lead the committee back in the day, Dave! :P We took a straw poll and everything...

Yep! And when I tried to get things started, the replies I got were akin to "What's the rush?" Nobody wanted to do anything and there seemed to be some resentment about it. So I backed off. But to be fair, I don't think anybody really knew what was needed. CJ had just left and there was no organization at all. It's been 6 years since then. CW pretty much has the reigns of the engine. He knows what's possible and what's not. So if we're going to have ANY kind of committee, it probably should center around him? What sort of group would be useful for you? A group to discuss the current issues with AGS and what should be fixed? WOULD any other AGSers be willing to be part of such a thing? I know I would.

Crimson Wizard

#55
Making a person to lead a project simply because he knows insides of the code is really a bad approach. The problem is that I do not make games. My perspective is completely different, and it is not the best to make strategic plans from. I mean, it is suitable to plan on implementation specifics, but not on design roadmap. I had a lot of ideas that later proved to be plain confusing to people, and I did not see a lot of usability problems until getting repeating complains, and forced to checking that out myself from users perspective.

Every time I try to make something in the editor it reveals a problem that I did not realize before, and that makes me doubt my priorities.

Dave Gilbert

Well not lead per se, but it will have to seriously involve you in some way. We literally can't do it without you. Obviously you'd work together with a developer. I'm happy to be involved, whether it's just me or a group.

LameNick

I lurk around these boards ever since I found out about AGS but I always refrained from these discussions because I feel like an outsider who hasn't really created anything with it yet and there is no reason for anyone to give a flying schmuck about what I have to say, but since it looks like AGS might be approaching crossroads, I guess I should either rant now or hold my peas forever.

I feel quite uncomfortable about the notion of the mainstream “official” version going commercial. I'm no legal expert but if I'm not wrong, some person(s) gonna have to assume private ownership along with full control over this commercial release of AGS. (if the current CJ's license allows that at all)
I very much appreciate the transparent and carrying approach of CW and other developers not excluding the community in their decisions about the future of AGS. I like the idea of being able to financially support AGS, but I see no reason to leave it at the mercy of the whims of private ownership. Never knowing, if the “business” will be sold, what the price will be, will they start to charge by subscription, ask for percentage of profits, impose some opaque private data extraction etc…

And if financing future development is an issue, I don't understand how that solves anything. Developers would have to work now for free in the hopes for some profits.Maybe I'm just terribly stupid, but it doesn't seem to me like selling AGS would have in reality significant advantage for development purposes over voluntary donations for an open source release. I would be happy to donate to the development given it would stay free.


When I look at the community support and variety of features provided in modules I believe that if only AGS got rid of it's legacy limitations and fixed some of it's features, it would have bigger potential than Visionaire, while staying much, much more user friendly than any Unity addon.

Also I don't know if its possible but I think it would be a good idea if there was a place where members can post their feature suggestions that could be voted up or down just to show the popularity of features to the developers and the newly appointed committee led by Dave Gilbert, that I hereby personally fully endorse.:-D




How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

Danvzare

Quote from: Dave Gilbert on Tue 18/04/2017 22:33:50
Well not lead per se, but it will have to seriously involve you in some way. We literally can't do it without you. Obviously you'd work together with a developer. I'm happy to be involved, whether it's just me or a group.
I think CW could be best for bringing any ideas down to reality. Since he knows the insides of the engine like the back of his hand, he'll have the best viewpoints when it comes down to how plausible or implausible something is. So while everyone else in the committee would be coming up with ideas, and choosing the best ones for implementation, CW could be there advising everyone about how realistic these ideas are. Which of course could affect the committee's decision as to whether or not development time would be better suited elsewhere.

If anyone is going to lead the committee (and have the final say in matters), I think it should be someone who has released the most commercial games using AGS. Since they will know the most about what the engine needs.

Snarky

Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Tue 18/04/2017 22:06:26
Making a person to lead a project simply because he knows insides of the code is really a bad approach. The problem is that I do not make games. My perspective is completely different, and it is not the best to make strategic plans from. I mean, it is suitable to plan on implementation specifics, but not on design roadmap.

OK, it definitely makes sense that you need input from the people who know AGS from the user side. To tweak what I'm saying a little, though, the decisions of any committee are useless without someone who's willing and able to carry them out. If that's primarily going to be you, Crimson Wizard (and I know there are a few others who're contributing to the engine development as well, but it does seem like you're the one doing the most), the most important part is that we find a committee you're happy with, and whose vision for AGS is something you're excited to be working on â€" whether that's in terms of code maintenance, overall architecture, or licensing/funding model (though for anything that moves away from the free/open source model, you're not just going to need a developer to carry it out, but people to handle a lot of other functions as well).

Quote from: Dave Gilbert on Tue 18/04/2017 22:33:50
I'm happy to be involved, whether it's just me or a group.

Well, if you're both amenable to that arrangement, I suggest you just... go off and do it. Invite whoever else you want to be part of a committee (I would suggest AGA since he manages the forum and website, and someone to represent non-commercial AGS users, but that's just my 2¢; there are a lot of people who might be good to have on there). If you want, I'm sure we could set you up with a private board like the ones for the mods and for the ratings committee.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk