Future AGS development

[subspark]

I can't help but feel almost entirely responsible for this. I started the AGS 3.3 Wishlist to encourage some serious and responsible suggestions and while that was the case for some of it, the 23 page topic took-off beyond what I unwittingly thought would be a manageable amount of feedback for CJ to draw from. I know this decision was inevitable and CJ would naturally grow lethargic from the repetition of his release/feedback/improve/bugfix routine but I still feel indirectly responsible for 'seemingly' breaking CJ's spirit. :'(

The majority seem so quick to dismiss all the hard work involved with keeping AGS a proprietary format. As a long time AGS user, who really only started to get serious with it in the last 5 years, I remember - As much as I tried to fight it, I respect the old-day mindset of keeping AGS proprietary. I firmly respect the decisions made back then as I believe they were relevant then, and it remains a serious topic even today. Times have moved on, I see this, and I pushed for this, perhaps a little too boisterously if you read back through the history of my posts, however I am extremely proud to have eventually come through with an unconditional sense of honor for those responsible for holding our community together and backing the one man responsible for all of this. Thats you CJ!

The irony is clear: Even I now miss the old days and fear the new, but it is a brave new world for our community and I believe, have always believed, that we lot are responsible enough to slowly become familiar with an open source environment and I strongly agree with the fundamentals some of you have laid out. Here's looking at you, RickJ, Dualnames, Baron, ProgZ, Garage and Calin. I think you've all hit on some key points that sum up what I think needs to happen rather distinctly.

So, in the end I suppose I get my wish. But it comes with great humility and a strong appreciation for what some of us take so well for granted.
I stand by CJ and his elite community driving force, and insist that something so refined and precious deserves careful and steady planning. We MUST NOT rush 10 years of passion out into the wild. This whole thing must be prepared in such a way that its community remains faithful enough to carry the collective spirit of the past decade into whatever lies ahead in the next.

Forgive my omen-esque, WW2-era sentiment but may I leave you all with this:
Only through the window of history can insight into the mistakes of the future be seen.

May Adventure Game Studio live to see a new day in our hearts and on our hard disks!

Cheers,
Paul (Sparky).

[Wyz]

Now look what you have done!

But seriously it is a delicate matter including a great resource and a tight community. I've only been around for two years but feel connected. For every other application I would to have shouted 'YAY opensource!', but this one includes a custom script language and API that are only this tight because they were handled with utter care.Further more AGS has evolved, it had ten year to find an interface that suits its purpose the most. The Hourgames prove that it can be used to create a adventure game in just an hour. Any careless development will break that beyond repair. At this point CJ has given me the trust AGS will also remain solid in the future, although I know opensource can be a success, I can't argue with my guts.

I hear two different scenarios: 'opensource it yay!' and 'we need a panel'.
Well I've come up with the ultimate compromise. Open source it but not completely, that means: release the source but not allow it to be redistributed without permission of CJ, maybe accompanied by a panel. Still allow people to modify it, compile it into a game and redistribute this, but if they want to add something to AGS it should have the CJ stamp of approval. They can make improvements and send them to a panel, who might change it a bit so it fits, or prefer it becomes a plugin. Furthermore because you don't allow it to be published without permission you can prevent it branches out and the quality of the program is in jeopardy.

[Calin Leafshade]

I know all of this discussion is somewhat academic since CJ gets to choose what happens anyway but I don't really see the mechanism by which the shit will hit the fan.

So what if someone releases their own game with some crappy version of the engine? It has no bearing on the engine as a whole. People release crappy stuff with every engine/programming language/platform.

The trunk of the engine and the "official" version would still be controlled by CJ and official additions would still require his approval but the advantage of releasing it wholesale is that any flashes of genius from the community are not wasted by bureaucracy and the ruling of a panel. It gives an individual coder a chance to prove that their addition is worthy by virtue alone.
If the idea of that addition is sound but the implementation is not consistent then the panel/CJ are open to say so and provide guidelines to the coder in order to help them fix it.
If the idea is shitty to begin with then the panel/CJ merely has to say that the addition is not part of the vision but they are welcome to use it in their own games.

There would be no splintering of the vision because CJ would still control that vision.

Granted there is still the issue of reverse engineering a game but as MrC pointed out that is a problem with all games and always has been.

If I am missing something here please someone point it out to me.

[GarageGothic]

While I agree that a panel would be more or less necessary to keep "Future AGS" (aka FAGS) consistent and structure development in an efficient manner, I don't see any real benefit in limiting source access. What exactly is it you fear will happen if AGS goes completely open source? Paint a worst case scenario if you wish - and please do give examples if you know of any other game engines, 3D renderers etc. that have somehow suffered by going open source.

Edit: Yeah, what Calin said while I was writing this

[Misj']

I'm going to mingle in this discussion...simply because I can. Anyway...I would applaud open-sourcing AGS.

Of course I can understand that companies would prefer a closed-sourced (propriety) file format to store their resources in (although that never stopped applications like SCUMM Revisited). But let's face it: even if the files get extracted you would still hold the copyrights. So the worst case scenario is that someone would be using them for a freeware fangame...

What I would find much more interesting, though, is that open-sourcing AGS would make it possible to implement it in ScummVM (something people have asked for every now and then over the last several years); thus removing the platform restrictions for the games...and even more so: providing ScummVM with a game development suite.

As for the fragmentation. As indicated earlier, that all depends on how things are organized. If you take ScummVM for example, there is a version for Palm HP WebOS. But it's not available from the ScummVM website because it's not official; simply because there hasn't been any (official) contact between the developers of ScummVM and this version. In the case of open-AGS things would be very much the same: everyone can compile and edit their own version (for whatever platform one wishes); but that doesn't make every version official.

The only thing that I'm doubtful about is whether C# as a language (and AGS's reliance on .NET) won't hinder future development at some point...and if so, whether the first step should be to have a small team rewrite the application for a more universal language.

Ps. when going open-source...should there be an open-AGS 2 and open-AGS 3? - Not that I care, but some might (since some still use AGS2.x).

[Ghost]

I would like to add another point- if work and improvement on AGS would stop, completely stop, I would not really see that as "AGS dying".
AGS is already a very flexible, versatile and stable program. It offers everything and the kitchen sink for adventure game making. In it`s own right
it is the full package, and to be honest, the changes from 2.7-something to 3 were more about the editor itself than the scripting commands/functionality. Whatever you do, CJ, here´s one guy who thinks that you`ve already reached a level of perfection that is rarely found. Just wanted to say that.

[AGD2]

I agree with making AGS open source for the reasons Calin mentioned. So long as CJ continues to maintain quality assurance by overseeing all of the features/fixes that get implemented into each "official" AGS build, the release process wouldn't really be any different than how it already works. This way, a panel of hand-picked assistants could implement additions that are approved by CJ, while at the same time, innovation emanating from beyond the panel would be given a chance to flourish (and the really good things could be considered for inclusion in the next official build).

I guess the main argument to be made is whether or not CJ actually feels comfortable releasing all of AGS's code to the masses. I recall him mentioning once that on a previous Open Source project someone tried to claim his work as their own. That may have some bearing on his decision.

Well, whatever approach is taken, the main workload will be lifted off CJ's shoulders while other people contribute to making frequently requested changes happen faster, as well as shrinking the bug tracker list down in size.  Whatever decision is made, AGS will be on-track to getting things done in an efficient and timely manner, which is great.  Thanks CJ for all the excellent work you've put into AGS over the years, and for being-forward minded in thinking about the best way to handle the engine's future so that we can all continue doing what we all enjoy.

PS. About commercial games and reverse engineering etc. I think the benefits of Open Source outweigh the risks. As others have mentioned, there's always someone who will find a way to crack, rip resources from, or copy your game if they really want to. If you make a commercial game, it's going to be uploaded to a plethora of torrent and rapidshare links within days regardless. There's little you can do about it, and this is arguably more damaging than someone simply being able to rip your resources (which they could already partially do with the printscreen key and Windows Sound Recorder anyway). At the end of the day, the large majority of people who buy games will buy them, and those who copy and hack them will always do that. You just want to stop casual pirates and hackers as much as possible. Doesn't really make sense to stifle AGS's improvement in an effort to prevent people from doing what a skilled hacker is already capable of.

[monkey0506]

I think CJ needs to modify his first post with a notice..this thread is becoming very repetetive:

Code: ags

HAI
  CAN HAS STDIO?
  I HAS A AGS ITZ A YARN
  LOL AGS R "OPENSOURCE"
  IZ AGS LIEK "OPENSOURCE"?
    YARLY
      IM IN YR FORUMZ BTW LOOP
        IM IN YR THRED
          VISIBLE "YAY OPINSORZ!!1"
          VISIBLE "O NOES! OPINSORZ R T3H BAD!!"
          VISIBLE "NO WAI!! OPINSORZ R T3H WIN!"
          VISIBLE "LOOKIT..THIS HOW OPINSORZ WORK"
          VISIBLE "OIC WAT U DID THAR"
          BTW NO GTFO MEANZ NO END LOOP
        IM OUTTA YR THRED
      IM OUTTA YR FORUMZ
    NOWAI
      VISIBLE "CJ R T3H OWNAR OF AGS FOREVAR!!1"
      VISIBLE "YAY! FTW!!"
  KTHX
KTHXBAI

For those who don't understand programmatic logic or LOLSPEEK, the point is, CJ said he's considering open sourcing AGS. A few people got excited, and then a few people came along and told them they don't know what they're talking about and open source is the devil because it inherently and inevitably leads to splintering and slow, painful death of the project.

Following that a few people explained how open source works (CJ and/or a panel control "official" versions of AGS whilst anyone is free to write their own modifications for their own use and/or non-official distribution depending on the actual licensing).

After that everyone pretty much came back to the agreement and understanding that open source would allow AGS to move forward at a faster pace than CJ doing all the work by himself. Never to discount the dedicated, loving service he has granted all of us completely free of charge; rather, simply recognizing the fact that due to CJ having responsibilities, wants, and needs beyond the realm of developing the program he's put so much hard work into, he has earned a break.

I think a panel for official revisions would help alleviate even more of the workload from CJ's shoulders. He can continue to monitor and of course always have the final say in things, but he wouldn't have to bear the sole responsibility of every single suggestion that might come across the forums.

There is a danger associated in a panel of course. I personally look to Wikipedia as a perfect example of this. Wikipedia is supposed to be able to be edited by anyone, yet the "official" Wikipedians have today become a very elitist group who will reject modifications to meet their own arbitrary desires. Notoriety, for example, is something that I feel has absolutely no place in Wikipedia. If the information is verifiably accurate, what difference should it make if it's not as popular as another page?

The panel should be made up of people who understand where AGS has been, have a clear vision of where it's going, but yet are open to suggestions that might not have come from their own minds. Clearly no one can match CJ's dedication to the program he started in his mom's basement (citation needed ) more than a decade ago, but there are plenty of members who are dedicated to the program. The members who have been around the forums for years, doing things to help further the community, like SSH, Steve McCrea, Electroshokker, and dkh as were mentioned.

These are the type of people we can count on, as a proposed panel, to keep AGS going where it needs to be going.

[Sslaxx]

Surprising that, given CJ's clear antipathy to open source, that he does not appear to have considered the opposite option - going commercial.

So. If he did decide to, say, set up a Blue Cup Ltd. to develop and support AGS as a commercial product, how many of you would buy it?

[Joseph DiPerla]

I would buy every update when its released... Even though I havent made a game, I am determined to one day do so. Buying and paying for AGS will motivate me further. I am willing to pay around $30 to $60 and $25 for each upgrade.

[FSi++]

I would buy every update when its released... Even though I havent made a game, I am determined to one day do so. Buying and paying for AGS will motivate me further. I am willing to pay around $30 to $60 and $25 for each upgrade.

I'll just move to other stuff. Me and most of the community.

[abstauber]

Yeah, even though I would pay, I don't know about all the students and other poor people.

If AGS has to make money, I suggest selling a snob pro version that compiles games for smart phones

[subspark]

the worst case scenario is that someone would be using them for a freeware fangame

If this were to happen to me, from the perspective of a competent studio, I would find it difficult NOT to be somewhat flattered.

The trunk of the engine and the "official" version would still be controlled by CJ and official additions would still require his approval but the advantage of releasing it wholesale is that any flashes of genius from the community are not wasted by bureaucracy and the ruling of a panel. It gives an individual coder a chance to prove that their addition is worthy by virtue alone.
If the idea of that addition is sound but the implementation is not consistent then the panel/CJ are open to say so and provide guidelines to the coder in order to help them fix it.
If the idea is shitty to begin with then the panel/CJ merely has to say that the addition is not part of the vision but they are welcome to use it in their own games.

Again you reiterate/refine exactly the steps I believe should be put in place to allow free-er use of the engine. To for the very first time enable developers, right down to the individuals themselves, to take AGS home with them and make it work for them in a way that complements their project and indeed perhaps compliments the majority of us through the acceptance of that code through the main trunk. Again I think it's important for the community supporting AGS, with the few surefire expectations we hold to its tangibility, for there to still be an 'official' face on it. So I think the main trunk is extremely important for this.

Cheers,
Sparky.

[deadsuperhero]

Well, if you opt for the open-source, once the rumor spreads I'm pretty sure there'll be enough programmers interested to keep the thing going, after all AGS is pretty estabilished by now.


- Alan

This happens a lot these days. Just slap something like the AGPL, LGPL, Apache or a BSD license on it, and the people that really love it will carry it on. As of right now, Google Wave's "Wave-in-a-Box" code initiative is being adopted into several corporate and open-source projects by Novell, VMWare, Red Hat, and a few other people with their hands heavy in FOSS development.

If anything, AGS has developed itself to a point of code maturity that I think it would take very little time at all for a community to wrap itself around. Go for it.

[Baron]

Surprising that, given CJ's clear antipathy to open source, that he does not appear to have considered the opposite option - going commercial.

So. If he did decide to, say, set up a Blue Cup Ltd. to develop and support AGS as a commercial product, how many of you would buy it?

I would buy every update when its released... Even though I havent made a game, I am determined to one day do so. Buying and paying for AGS will motivate me further. I am willing to pay around $30 to $60 and $25 for each upgrade.

Yeah, even though I would pay, I don't know about all the students and other poor people.

If AGS has to make money, I suggest selling a snob pro version that compiles games for smart phones

Clearly the appeal of AGS is its price ($0).  I don't think you can argue that the community would be as strong or the amazing games made with it nearly so numerous if you had to pay at the gate.  And if proliferating the genre and midwifing great adventure games into the world isn't the point of AGS, what is?

Having said that, the market potential for an "elite" version somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25-30 is probably sufficient to allow CJ to dedicate some work time (rather than leisure time) to AGS -pending the necessary flexibility in his current work arrangements, of course.  It would be hard to quantify the market precisely but there are 103 WiPs commented on in the forums in the last 6 mo. and reasonably an equal or greater number of projects that are unadvertised by their developers.  Add to that the folk that always mean to start a game or like to play around with the latest stuff and you might have a market of 300-400 per upgrade cycle.  We're not talking huge money here, but enough to justify the time spent.  Sexy upgrades (editor skins! Live in-editor chat!) may well increase the market.

A happy medium may invovle charging for new upgrades, but the upgrade version becomes free as soon as the next upgrade is released (and so on).  That way we keep our wonderful community of starving artists and starving students (with software 6 mo. to a year out of date), while the more serious developers (and those artists and students who can exercise enough self-discipline not to go to the bar for one night and save the $25...  : ) can play with the latest features.  This scenario also motivates CJ with a small amount of additional income, possibly replacing part of his work-week.  Heck, he could even get all capitalistic and farm-out some of the scripting grunt-work, leaving him with absolute control,  more spare time, and of course all the money.  Ah... the system works.

[Dualnames]

Are we yet on the war that was caused by AGS topic?

Why is everyone constantly saying random things expressing their fears and doubts, when CJ has actually told on his first post, exactly the direction he'll be somewhat taking?

We're all concerned about the course of actions CJ will take, but suggesting over imaginary things without actual actions happening is just really silly. Calm down, and take a walk on the wild side.

We're all here to support him and his actions. So for once let the man step down and do something that at this point we all rather agree is a positive step in AGS development.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I for one would pay for a license for this fine program, and I'm lucky if I have two pennies to rub together.  A one-time fee of something like $30-60 USD for an entire version number (like 3.0-4.0) wouldn't kill anyone and most of the kids without money could ask for it as a Christmas/Hannukah/birthday/something gift.  There will still be the people who whine and say they absolutely can't buy it and oh god what a sell out but ultimately if it going commercial then gives you, the buyer, an actual stock in the improvement of the product then I see no real losers here.  I've never lamented buying Pro Motion twice(v5 and v6); Jan Zimmerman's a lovely fellow who not only made me an official tester but reviewed and committed several of my suggestions and bug reports to the final product.  If you think about it, that CJ's been doing this for free for years is quite special, and while not unique, sets him apart from many creators.  I know he's been almost as adamant about receiving payment as he has been about going open source, but if payment would induce him to be active again (ie, money is involved so it's not just a time sink now) then I'm all for it.  If not, by all means ask a selection of agsers you trust to get together and carry on under your supervision and approval until/unless you feel comfortable just releasing the source altogether.  

I'm actually for any of the three eventualities, but more importantly, I'm for the option CJ is most comfortable with himself.  We all stand to come out winners either way, and if it does go commercial there will still be 3.2.0.103 plus all the plugins and mods for the people who won't or can't pay.

[homelightgames]

The appeal of AGS, for me, is not it's price.  My appeal to AGS is that it's a solid program that can make adventure games (3rd person avatar games and other kinds of games) with a ton of good features, including code-completion, a feature that I've discovered is disappointingly rare in other (commercial) game makers.
Personally, I'm interested in the AGS whether it's completely open source, or completely commercial ($40-60), or maybe even some in between like a free non-commercial-use edition for hobbyists.  While open source is nice, I've come across too many dead projects for me to love the idea.  And while it's nice to get something for free, I totally think AGS is worth paying for, if that's what it takes to continue it's development. Not only that but I'd agree with Joseph DiPerla in that paying for something can be motivating.  Not that making it commercial was an original option/suggestion but...  I just like AGS and look forward to it's future.

Ultimately, though, I agree with ProgZmax, and am cool with whatever CJ feels good about.

visionmind

PS thanks for all your work CJ.

[Misj']

minor comment: open-source and commercial are not opposites. An application can be open-source while you still have to pay for - for example - the compiled version and/or support (and even the source-code doesn't have to be freely available to everyone). While it's not a route taken often for obvious reasons (which is why open-source is often synonymous to freeware) it's fully allowed within all open-source licenses (that I know of).

Anyway...would I pay for AGS? - If I were new here probably not. After lurking around here for several years quite possibly. On the other hand, there are a few thing that I would wish that might keep me from doing so. Would I buy it if this meant that I - as a registered user - could also download the source-code? - Quite likely. Was this a useful post? - Probably not.

[Calin Leafshade]

I wouldnt buy AGS unless the source was made available or the plugin interface was improved manifold. I needs me some customisation!

Again, academic. I very much doubt CJ would make the engine commercial in any sense.