Should the AGS community hire a paid full time coder?

[Atavismus]

Yesterday, after this, I made a poll here:

http://goo.gl/s1MtKc

I don't want to bring revolution, discord or anything negative.
I just think the "hire a paid coder" question has to be asked.
It's not about not having trust in the current dev team, huge work has been done.
But so much hard work remains, it means so much time, issues, tough choices, hair pulling, etc. that imo it's not a shame to talk about money.
Also, if that coder work fulltime, it means it should take less time and time is against us imo.
So we could quickly turn AGS into a modern engine (so people don't need to switch to boring Unity or any other engine).

Of course, first, we should create a list of what needs to be done, so we can get an idea of a time frame and cost.
Then we could make, for example, a new AGS Bake Sale.

I guess it's better to sell games to people instead of just asking for money.
Btw, Mark and me could give some Dustbowl steam keys.
I know KodiakBehr would agree to too.
And I'm sure some other people who released commercial games could be too.
Some games could unlock when a certain amount is paid, etc.
Well, it's not the time to discuss how that Bake Sale would work: it's only to point that we can raise money without "begging" people.

I hope you'll see my post as something constructive and not a lese majesty.

[Crimson Wizard]

My opinion is to forget about updating old code and choose an existing modern engine/framework, which should be modified to emulate AGS behavior.
This could be easier and faster.
Not all of the features are critical, some AGS features are used very rarely and may be added only if really necessary.
You keep writing games in AGS Editor, if you like, but run them on better engine.

[Peder 🚀]

Forgetting about updating old code could be a good move imo, I feel it's time to start thinking new, and pick whatever choices are best for AGS to go forward and become not just an engine/editor to make old school adventure games, but to make more modern up to date adventure games.

My biggest personal reason for not thinking of using AGS for any future projects atm is the lack of a multiplatform editor.

[Atavismus]

My opinion is to forget about updating old code and choose an existing modern engine/framework, which should be modified to emulate AGS behavior.
This could be easier and faster.
Not all of the features are critical, some AGS features are used very rarely and may be added only if really necessary.
You keep writing games in AGS Editor, if you like, but run them on better engine.

That's an interesting way indeed. But maybe with such solution, the risk to lose AGS "identity" is high?

Also, whatever the tech side of AGS future, I don't think it's incompatible with paying someone to do it.

I wanted to add (if some people wonder):
- I'm a coder (that's my job but I don't want at all to be hire for AGS)
- I tried many engines/frameworks (including Unity)
- I really love AGS above all since many years.
That's why I would like the best for AGS.

[Crimson Wizard]

That's an interesting way indeed. But maybe with such solution, the risk to lose AGS "identity" is high?

That depends on what "identity" means. Is it bugs and technical limitation; or having authentic line of code circa year 2000 inside the engine?
I specifically pointed out that the idea is to keep using AGS Editor to create game data. This would mean that game creator will use same tools and design concepts. They will just be run in different enviroment.

[Atavismus]

That depends on what "identity" means. Is it bugs and technical limitation; or having authentic line of code circa year 2000 inside the engine?
I specifically pointed out that the idea is to keep using AGS Editor to create game data. This would mean that game creator will use same tools and design concepts. They will just be run in different enviroment.

hehe
Well, indeed, if we keep the editor / concepts, I personally don't really care about what is running behind.
Still, I guess it would ask a lot of time?
Do you have an engine/framework in mind?
Maybe we should open a new topic to discuss about it and keep this one for the funding side?

[Crimson Wizard]

Do you have an engine/framework in mind?

No, I do not, I am merely saying my opinion now. Finding such framework would be a subtask of its own.


E: To be honest, I feel deja vu now, because I was saying very similar things about a year or two ago...

[Adeel]

E: To be honest, I feel deja vu now, because I was saying very similar things about a year or two ago...

LOL! Finally you realized that!

[Atavismus]

Just to let you know, there are 19 votes for now.

Yes    : 74% (14)
Depends: 11% (2)
No     : 16% (3)

But it can't be considered as representative for the moment.
I guess we need around 100 votes.

[Jack]

I would be nice to send CW several sacks of money for the work he's already done, but like he said he never expected compensation for this.

This all depends on whether Crimson Wizard wants to be the paid programmer (if there is one), but in case of not, it would be a good idea to raise a bunch of cash to fund the writing of a technical document on the functioning of AGS. I'm talking about stuff like which script gets executed first, the format of all the files used, etc. Basically a detailed description to make it a whole lot easier for anyone who wants to rebuild either part of AGS (the editor or the engine). We'll send these liberated sacks of bank money to CW if he wants the job.

My particular interest is in the editor, because ever since using it I've had a dream to redesign it one day when I have the time.

[Atavismus]

So we have 30 votes.

Yes: 63% (19)
Depends: 23% (7)   
No: 13% (4)

Even if the result is clear, I guess it's not enough to be relevant.

Well, I keep my money. ^^

Let's hope we won't be - more or less - at the same point in one year.

[Dave Gilbert]

We (meaning Wadjet Eye) have offered money to folks in this community to work on updating AGS in the past. The answer has always been no. It's a hobby for most people here, and accepting money for it implies a commitment that not many are willing to make.

To really make it work, we'd probably need to hire a pro from outside the community entirely. Someone to crack open the engine, see how it works, and then begin the arduous task of updating it. It's *not* easy, and could easily run into $50,000+ range if we wanted someone professional and fast.

I was toying with moving to Unity last year, but after a few months of playing around with it I decided that I was trading one set of problems for another. So I'm sticking with AGS right now. But I'd be lying if I said that the lack of forward momentum on keeping it updated and modern doesn't worry me.

[shaun9991]

I would definitely throw some money at this. Even if it meant reframing AGS into a Unity module or some such thing.

Adventure Creator for Unity seems to be the closest thing we have so far to a modern AGS... but some features that take seconds in AGS take forever in Unity... meaning I will stick with AGS for the time being!

[Atavismus]

We (meaning Wadjet Eye) have offered money to folks in this community to work on updating AGS in the past. The answer has always been no. It's a hobby for most people here, and accepting money for it implies a commitment that not many are willing to make.

I can understand them and I respect them, but it's not about stealing money to a community. Imo, it won't be a shame at all to be paid for a hard fulltime job.

To really make it work, we'd probably need to hire a pro from outside the community entirely.

That was what I meant.
But ofc, if someone of the community want the job, better give it to him.

Someone to crack open the engine, see how it works, and then begin the arduous task of updating it. It's *not* easy, and could easily run into $50,000+ range if we wanted someone professional and fast.

For sure it's not easy.
50 000: I thought about less, but I guess you know better than me.

I was toying with moving to Unity last year, but after a few months of playing around with it I decided that I was trading one set of problems for another. So I'm sticking with AGS right now.

Same here.
But I can't stop loving AGS... ^^

But I'd be lying if I said that the lack of forward momentum on keeping it updated and modern doesn't worry me.

Again, same here.
And, I mean, it's not only about my games: I could just move my ass and switch to Unity (even if it bores me).
I fear AGS won't attract new people if we don't reach a kind of "modernity".
To me, it's not only a commercial games issue, if you know what I mean.

[Crimson Wizard]

Someone to crack open the engine, see how it works, and then begin the arduous task of updating it.

I want to say again that I think this is a mistake. Updating outdated engine step-by-step is a mistake. This only makes sense if you want to add limited amount of improvements.

Taking an existing engine, or even writing a clear new one based on contemporary technology, then simulating at least common AGS behavior with it, might be much easier and will require less time and effort (and money).

I do not think you have to copy everything from AGS. AGS has a lot of redundant things, and bad entangled code that should be rewritten anyway. Just emulate the basics, and then continue "restoring" things only by user request.


E:
The good example of what I am talking about was XAGE engine. It was completely new thing written on XNA framework, which simulated AGS behavior. It was successfully tested with few AGS games.
You may find references on forums by searching for "XAGE".
E.g.
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=42856.msg568691#msg568691
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51083

One may argue about the choice of framework, but it is a working example, and BTW made without any payment, as far as I know.

[Jack]

But I'd be lying if I said that the lack of forward momentum on keeping it updated and modern doesn't worry me.

I wouldn't be worried about no-one continuing development, if that's what you mean. This community has probably never been bigger. Someone will find the time.

I think bringing money/commitment into it depends on the situation. Thinking about it, I would be thrilled to have the job of rewriting AGS, but I wouldn't want to enforce any one company's vision on it, even if that company is WadjetEye.

[morganw]

Just emulate the basics, and then continue "restoring" things only by user request.

I like this approach, particularly if the initial design is generic and well documented. It would be nice if extra functionality was modular and games would check feature flags when they run to see if the engine implements the required features.

i.e. anyone could port the core to the documented spec ("just emulate the basics") to run on other system without worrying about incorporating advanced functions - any games that just used core features would run.

I would like to think that with so many people interested in game design you may get a lot of ports of the core engine for educational purposes, as well as for fun.

[Ali]

I think there's the scope for a crowdfunding campaign to create a next-generation version of AGS. As CW says, the great things about AGS is all conceptual. It's about how easy AGS makes it to design adventure games that just work like adventure games should work. The actual code could do with being replaced wholesale.

I would definitely contribute to a modern, open-source, user-friendly 2-D adventure game engine. And I'd be up for helping put together a Kickstarter campaign for it. But for this to work we'd need to find the right coder first, and find the money second.

[Atavismus]

I wouldn't want to enforce any one company's vision on it

That's not the idea at all.
The dev team and the community will decide what to do.

Btw, I guess the first step would be to create a list of what needs to be done (so we could figure out how much it would cost)

The tech side is opened to discussion (CW's idea and example are interesting. I guess some people have other points, let's discuss).

Whatever is decided, imo, it has to be collegiate and clear.

1) What do we all want? (features list)
2) How to do it, so the cost? (tech side)
3) Who for the job?
4) Raise money (Bake sale, Kickstarter, something else, whatever)

Could be a good way to plan stuffs maybe?

[Jack]

What we need (IMO):

Besides the code being cleaned up by a complete rewrite, starting with the core features as CW said, the thing I think AGS needs most is being able to run in the user's native desktop resolution. That means that the game should scale up the game's resolution to fit the full size of the desktop res, add letterboxing where the AR doesn't match, and translate the mouse input back to the game's res. Sometimes this will cause pixel doubling, so the game should also be able to run in its own native res, allowing the hardware to handle the resampling. Ideally the user should be able to change the resolution from within the engine while it's running, as with modern games.

As for who, we should find out whether CW would be interested in doing the refactor, as he's probably the person most familiar with the AGS code right now.

[Crimson Wizard]

Besides the code being cleaned up by a complete rewrite, starting with the core features as CW said, the thing I think AGS needs most is being able to run in the user's native desktop resolution. That means that the game should scale up the game's resolution to fit the full size of the desktop res, add letterboxing where the AR doesn't match, and translate the mouse input back to the game's res.

No offense, but are you serious? AGS can already do that...

I mean, come on, even speaking on features, this is something that does not even need a mention IMO.
When I was suggesting a new engine, I assumed that it can do everything a decent contemporary engine should be able to do: run on multitude of common platforms - desktop or mobile - freely, run in any display resolution, support common control devices (keyboards, mouse, gamepads), have a proper hardware accelerated render, etc; I just thought that is too obvious to mention in an informal thread like this.

[Atavismus]

I mean, come on, even speaking on features, this is something that does not even need a mention IMO.
When I was suggesting a new engine, I assumed that it can do everything a decent contemporary engine should be able to do: run on multitude of common platforms - desktop or mobile - freely, run in any display resolution, support common control devices (keyboards, mouse, gamepads), etc; I just thought that is too obvious to mention in the informal thread like this.

Obvious indeed, but not for everyone.
We have to talk to the whole community.
If we want to ask money to people, the project has to be clear.
People has to know what they fund.
(But indeed, it could/should be in another thread)

[Billbis]

If we remade AGS, should it from a new 2D game engine, or simply an point&click plugin of an already existing 2D game engine? Love2D was quite popular here, but there are many other free 2D engines one could use.
Could Calin Leafshade share his experience about remaking an AGS-like engine (ADORE)?

[Ali]

No offense, but are you serious? AGS can already do that...

While I think crowdfunding for AGS is a very good idea, this demonstrates the limits of crowdsourcing. It's all too easy for us to bat around contradictory opinions and ideas which might not even be relevant to the current state AGS. Without formal project leaders who feel empowered to make decisive choices it's going to be hard to select ideas and make progress.

EDIT: I thought I should add something positive to this! In the interest of progress, I'd volunteer to work on any crowdfunding campaign for AGS.

[Snarky]

Yeah, this has been my position all along. I'm not against paying someone to work on AGS in principle â€" I'd be happy to chip in if there was a credible plan/arrangement set up â€" but lack of money has not been the limiting factor holding AGS development back. Lack of motivated, knowledgeable developers, organization and decisiveness has been. This list:

1) What do we all want? (features list)
2) How to do it, so the cost? (tech side)
3) Who for the job?

... is essentially the same sticking points we have talked about since at least 2012. Further discussion, opinions and ideas are not getting us anywhere. For anything to happen, someone has to step up and just do it (whatever it is).

[miguel]

Hello everybody, I know I'm more known for bad jokes than contributing to AGS and that I will probably never make another game but still love this project.

I agree with the crowdfunding initiative and will support AGS monetarily.
To me is very clear who should "lead" the process of turning AGS more modern. It is also easy to accept that our beloved editor and simplicity to make games should continue to be so, but now on top of a solid, multi-platform engine.
It's fair to say that everybody agrees with this approach as it makes it easier and less costly to emulate AGS plus add some cool modern stuff rather than rebuild the existing code.
Couldn't you lead, Snarky, together with CW and all of the people (khris,monkey,gurok),that have been contributing to AGS? I will not continue naming people because I'll be unfair and forget some as I'm sure I already did.
Ali's offer is very generous and I think people should think seriously about it.

[Atavismus]

Indeed, it won't be easy to find a consensus.
But it's not because it's hard that we should not try.

Indeed (bis), I guess the dev team are the more relevant people to lead the project.
If there are several projects/ways we can vote.
With a clear statement for each project/way, anyone who want to vote should be able to vote.

We should not fear discussions nor votes imo.

we have talked about since at least 2012.

Indeed (ter). So, maybe now we are ready.

[Crimson Wizard]

^
Posts like that make me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Indeed, it won't be easy to find a consensus.

What this consensus is about, and consensus between who and who exactly?

What are you discussing here? My head is going to burst.

You started this thread asking people to vote about hiring the "full time coder" without having a clear understanding what that magical coder will do... I wonder what all those people who voted were voting for?

[Adeel]

I wonder what all those people who voted were voting for?

Isn't this the case with every election/voting, CW?

[Atavismus]

Mate, please, laugh but do not cry.
I didn't mean to hurt.

What this consensus is about, and consensus between who and who exactly?

Well, I already read discussions here about what should be the future of AGS, I know that all people aren't agree on the "way", but they are all agree on the modernity point.
I'm not competent on the tech side, so I won't discuss it.
I know we can always find a consensus in everything.
That's why I made this post: to make people think/share/talk eachother.

You started this thread asking people to vote about hiring the "full time coder" without having a clear understanding what that magical coder will do... I wonder what all those people who voted were voting for?

Talk about the funding side is - imo - a way to approch the problem and it could simplify it a bit.

Whatever, we have to start somewhere, I "put my foot in it" so let's progress.

If people are agree with the crowdfunding point (not sure they are), let's jump on the project definition.

[Crimson Wizard]

Talk about the funding side is - imo - a way to approch the problem and it could simplify it a bit.

Well, you see, I disagree with this.
You do not vote "shall we gather money to buy food", you first think, do you need food right now, and if yes then how much. Maybe you still have some in the fridge?


Same with any project, first you decide on what you want to get, and then you find out what you need to get it: do you need to hire someone, etc.

Of course, you may pay money to some person for making all the decisions for yourself. But it does not look like the case.

I wonder what all those people who voted were voting for?

Isn't this the case with every election/voting, CW?

I must admit, I do see parallels.

[Atavismus]

you first think, do you need food right now, and if yes then how much.

To me, it's a fact:
We "need food right now"/ a modern engine.
But I don't know exactly "how much" / what kind of new AGS.

Maybe you still have some in the fridge?

We have some, but I'll quote Snarky:

Lack of motivated, knowledgeable developers, organization and decisiveness

That's why I fear nothing will come in time, then it will be too late and AGS won't be attractive anymore.

Same with any project, first you decide on what you want to get, and then you find out what you need to get it: do you need to hire someone, etc.

Personally, before wondering what car I want to buy, I check if I can afford one.
So I check funds.
Then indeed, I can choose.

Whatever, I don't want to argue like this.

The work on AGS is huge.
It's even too much for a small team with "issues" mentioned by Snarky.
We need a fulltime dev.
Who can do that?
No one*.
Except if he is paid.

*(We all have bills to pay.)

[Ali]

CW is right about many things, and this is one of them. We're not asking how much money we have (at the moment, it's just all of us throwing in our 2 cents - geddit!). We're asking how much money we could raise.

You can't raise money for a fuzzy cause. You can't raise money to see if we could maybe find someone to look at possibly updating or maybe rewriting...or ...

If the AGS community were going to raise some money, and I think we could, we'd need a very clear set of goals. We'd also need the enthusiastic support of people like CW and Dave Gilbert who have done such good work on and with the engine. But we couldn't start raising money and then wait for a project leader to materialise.

[Cassiebsg]

I think this voting is more for: who is willing to support AGS monetarily, if the need arises. And not voting for feature x or y.
I'll admit I haven't voted, not because I wouldn't wish to support, but am unsure how to do it without paypal or IBAN... But it would probably not be much more than a measly 20â,¬...

[Radiant]

Well, the main question is whether this paid developer is to improve the current engine based on the bug backlog (because a lot of the commonly requested features are already in the latest beta, or are quick wins when there is more developer capacity), or adapt another engine that's in active development (e.g. ScummVM, because they share a lot of features that we need), or write an independent new engine from scratch (at the risk of splitting the community in half). Last time we checked, there was absolutely no consensus on this question, and I do think it would help to have one to answer questions of what we're fundraising for.

[Mehrdad]

I think so port to ScummVM is easiest way for get cross platform and AGS haven't any another main problem . Of course I don't know mobile port in ScummVM is optimized for accept Appstore or Google play or not.Is anyone know it?

[miguel]

Well put Radiant.
I have no problem at all in putting my trust on the decisions made by CW and the rest of the active engine and editor devs, plus the knowledge of modern needs of Dave Gilbert. Again, someone with the clear mind set of Snarky could "lead" the process.

I am all for democracy but some issues must be dealt by people who know how difficult it is to take such a task.

[Snarky]

Just for the record, real-world concerns concerns make it impossible for me to take on any such heavy responsibility, even if I thought I'd be a good person for the job (which I don't). I'm actually trying to step down my AGS involvement, and have asked the other mods to keep an eye on the boards I moderate, as I may not always be around.

IMO, anyone who wants to lead the direction of AGS development would need to be involved hands-on in that development.

[miguel]

That's a shame but honest. But yes, it must be someone with availability and a global knowledge of the engine and real possibilities for a new project.

[Atavismus]

CW don't want to lead anymore.
Sonneveld maybe?

If you want to see contributors' activity, here is a link:
https://github.com/adventuregamestudio/ags/graphs/contributors

(Mind, it seems we have the same debat than in politics: do we need a leader first or a programme first...)

[Jack]

Unless I misread it, CW's "I give up" is about his frustration maintaining an old code base, when it is a refactor that is needed.

So how about it, Crimson Wizard. If you are compensated for your time, and there are clearly defined goals and milestones, would you be interested in taking on the project of rewriting AGS, or even just to compose a technical document on the functioning of AGS for future developers?

I have no say, so this is not a job offer. But we have not established whether you personally would be interested, if the terms were to your satisfaction.

I think whether or not we should and can generate the cash is no longer relevant. After monetary contributions from within the community, we can do bake sale on bake sale until we hit our number.

[Dave Gilbert]

Well put Radiant.
I have no problem at all in putting my trust on the decisions made by CW and the rest of the active engine and editor devs, plus the knowledge of modern needs of Dave Gilbert.

Just need to say that it's Janet Gilbert who has this knowledge. I just have the arduous task of tweeting about the engine updates when they are made.

[Andail]

This isn't really my table - I likely won't even program my own games in the future - just wanted to say that I'm also willing to chip in if we need to pay someone to maintain AGS.

I do think it sounds a bit strange that there can't be a middle ground between $0 (which we pay now) and $50,000 (which is Dave's estimate), but whatever we decide to pay I'll pay my share.

Cheerio.

PS:
Also, a huge thank you to CW for everything he's done to this point!

[miguel]

Sorry about that Dave, . Janet Gilbert knowledge of what a modern engine requires to thrive is our best reference possible. And what is your opinion Dave, what would you like AGS to become for next Xmas? What engine would you like AGS to be "on top of".

[Dave Gilbert]

I do think it sounds a bit strange that there can't be a middle ground between $0 (which we pay now) and $50,000 (which is Dave's estimate), but whatever we decide to pay I'll pay my share.

I mean, that's just an estimate based on the amount of work required and the going rate for a professional full-time coder (who can get it done in a reasonable amount of time). Mileage may vary, as these things do.

[Ali]

If $50,000 is a moderate estimate of what would be needed, it's not an utterly ridiculous target for a Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign.

We shouldn't just look around the AGS forums and see who is prepared to chip in. A modern AGS would appeal to more people - all the artists, writers and coders who drop in here because they like adventure games, but then decide that the engine is too retro for them. And some gamers, who want to see Dave and others keep developing great adventure games without the aesthetic and technical limitations AGS imposes.

The project wouldn't necessarily have to be led by the main coder. It could be one person or a committee, but someone would need to set out a clear vision for the project. (Although it's well meaning, I don't think it's fair to start volunteering other people.)

Perhaps it would be better to ask what people can volunteer besides money and see what resources AGS has at its disposal. As I mentioned before, I'd volunteer to help when it comes to fundraising.

[Crimson Wizard]

Unless I misread it, CW's "I give up" is about his frustration maintaining an old code base, when it is a refactor that is needed.

No.
It was a frustration of making wrong choices and wasting lots of time doing wrong things.
I was not just maintaining old code base, I was refactoring and changing it too. Perhaps not fast enough, but I was.
But refactoring is not magic. It helps seeing what code does and adding new things, but it cannot fix core problems; it cannot fix the fact that AGS is based on outdated framework, it cannot magically port it to other platforms.

[cat]

$50,000 will give you a full-time developer for a year. This is the minimum that will be needed for writing a new engine.
The last bake-sale brought what - 2000-3000$ maybe?

I agree with Radiant: We first have to decide where we want to go.

What is so special about AGS it not the engine, but the community. So whatever decision is made, it should be in the interest of the community.

[Peder 🚀]

The last bake-sale brought what - 2000-3000$ maybe?

$1121.48 before PayPal fees.

[selmiak]

good for some 'fast food'. I want mine extra hot

[Jack]

Always with you it cannot be done.

$1121.48 was raised after the second bake sale was extended, the original having raised $1025.59. That was with, what, 4 games?

Bake Sale I made $4191.98.

What about making each month's MAGS bundle a pay-what-you-want, like a monthly bake sale, which is already organised and running?

[Atavismus]

What about making each month's MAGS bundle a pay-what-you-want, like a monthly bake sale, which is already organised and running?

Better keep MAGS free imo.
But as I said, some commercial games (steam keys) could be unlock when a certain amount is paid or stuffs like that (it would rise the value of the bundle so the sales).

To be true, I'm not afraid of money, we can do it.

The most difficult to set imo is the project:
- update what we have?
- rewrite everything that has to be rewritten?
- start from scratch?
- keep the AGS editor and make a new engine?
- AGS as a toolkit for Unity?
- Use SCUMMVM?
- Or whatever: I don't know enough about the tech side to know what makes sense or not, but we have people here who are able to do so, I would like to hear them.

[Baron]

So it's decided then: 15 Bake Sales!   I'll call Ponch.

[Atavismus]

I discussed with CW and here is how he is sorting our options (I quote him):

There are 3 options:
1. Keep current code and improve it further;
2. Take existing engine and modify it to run AGS games;
3. Write completely new engine from scratch, which
  a) meant to run AGS games;
  b) meant to run more advanced games, but can emulate AGS games as well

I do not think dropping AGS Editor is an option, because if there is something that binds community, it is the first.
The Editor IS AGS.
Or rather the type of game creation workflow.

I totally agree with the editor point.

Could option 2 be a kind of medium way?
Keep the editor, choose an engine and tie them together?

[Slasher]

Above everything else i must commend highly the people that have worked so very hard improving the capabilities of AGS.. and unpaid..

They have looked at the nuts and bolts, toyed with them, made changes to them all in the sake of improvement.

Whilst some of these improvements are greatly welcomed there are costs that at times can't be paid.

Most of us could sit down and write a thousand things we would like AGS to be.. but then we don't have to tinker with the engine, do we?

When Chris first made the AGS engine he made it apt for the time and no one questioned it. But over time people wanted more and more that pushed the Editor to further limits. Chris had done his job: But now was the time for new blood to take the reins and make the beast roar louder.

I think for one guy to stand alone is far too much to comprehend. Now as a team that would be a different matter, provided they all had the same goals and could work very well together with great knowledge.

I say this because no matter how good a 'brought in' coder is he is not worth a bag of salt if he does not have the heart of AGS within him or the fundamental workings or what gaming is all about. It would be far too much if he lacked these elements.. of course money helps but that is not always the case for success.

As each Beta is made so the engine is being tested for new improvements and additions.

I think the open source is a good idea but too many cooks....

So before hiring anyone just make sure they have all the right qualities required to bring AGS forward into the 21st century...but it would be at a price...


Just my view

[doimus]

I discussed with CW and here is how he is sorting our options (I quote him):

There are 3 options:
1. Keep current code and improve it further;
2. Take existing engine and modify it to run AGS games;
3. Write completely new engine from scratch, which
  a) meant to run AGS games;
  b) meant to run more advanced games, but can emulate AGS games as well

I do not think dropping AGS Editor is an option, because if there is something that binds community, it is the first.
The Editor IS AGS.
Or rather the type of game creation workflow.

I totally agree with the editor point.

Could option 2 be a kind of medium way?
Keep the editor, choose an engine and tie them together?

I'd go with either 1) or 3).
The middle ground is neither here or there as you'd have to work around both the AGS quirks and that other engine's quirks. And engines do have quirks.

Regarding option 1) - It's the most feasible especially if it involves outsourced refactoring. Literally hiring a developer or company to forensically refactor the current code to a more modern, multiplatform code. There are companies out there that port old software to modern platforms. SDL2 library was designed with this exact purpose in mind, among other things.
Feature wise, it's handing them AGS 3.4 and they hand back the ported AGS 3.5. End user sees little difference except all their stuff now works on many platforms. Workflow remains the same.
The obvious question is: How much?

As for the start-from-scratch approach in option 3), this is a more of a design issue than anything else and design is a tricky subject based on my limited experience in professional gamedev world. You just can't outsource design and expect good results back. Compared to the opt.1 where you essentially know exactly what features the code should have, when you outsource the code-less design phase, it's a money pit, a pandora's box that's better left closed.
The not so obvious questions in this case are: How? Who? When? etc...

Now, in case you have modern and modular code base from opt1 then it's much easier to consider other design issues and add new features.

[Jack]

I do not think dropping AGS Editor is an option, because if there is something that binds community, it is the first.
The Editor IS AGS.
Or rather the type of game creation workflow.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've heard that a piece of software shouldn't be updated out of sentimentalism.

The editor is adequate, but it could be optimized, meaning less time wasted, and overall a better experience.

For the record.

[Crimson Wizard]

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've heard that a piece of software shouldn't be updated out of sentimentalism.

I did not say it should not be updated. I said it should not be dropped.

Also, I am probably one person who does not have any sentiments about AGS at all.
My "is AGS" remark was not refering to sentiments, it was refering to the fact that a lot of people got used to particular game creation workflow (types of objects, their relevance, way to script them).

[Jack]

For the record means I recognise my opinion is that of a noob here.

I agree that the AGS editor should not be completely dropped, I do think it should be redesigned and rewritten.

[Atavismus]

Damn , this is so annoying I am literally shaking irl now. This quote was taken from the random private chat, for god sake. If I were posting this on forums, I would explain it in more detail to prevent misinterpretation.

Mate, don't worry, all is fine, no big deal.
(Mind, I asked you if I could quote you and you accepted.)

Let's progress.

We have 3 ways, should I make poll?
Maybe some people who trust more on an option could defend it here?
Time to be constructive.

[Crimson Wizard]

I see I might have gotten that wrong myself. I apologize for my reaction. Something gets into me lately.

I'd rather refrain from commenting this thread further.

[Radiant]

We have 3 ways, should I make poll?

I suggest that people should be able to pick multiple options in the poll; it's probable that a lot of people will like (e.g.) 1 and 2 but not 3.

[cat]

Honestly, the future of AGS is nothing that can (or should) be decided in a poll.

[Atavismus]

Honestly, the future of AGS is nothing that can (or should) be decided in a poll.

You are right, but it could be a start.
If we do nothing, I'm not sure about AGS progress.
CW is almost alone (check GIT contributions) and I guess that's also why he is "burnt" by AGS.
So if he leave...

We could need one defenser of each options able to expose pros and cons.
Then we could have something like a campaign and people could join one side or another.
So the vote (poll).

I guess it's a way to do, if someone have others ideas, I'll be glad to hear them.
I don't hold the truth nor a solution, I just try to make people think together to progress.

[Atavismus]

We have 3 ways, should I make poll?

I suggest that people should be able to pick multiple options in the poll; it's probable that a lot of people will like (e.g.) 1 and 2 but not 3.

You mean sort options by preference?

[Radiant]

You mean sort options by preference?

No, just checkboxes.

[Myinah]

Unless someone takes ownership of this project this will continue to go round and round in circles. You can't even get a consensus on doing a poll. Soon it will be lets do a poll to see if we should do a poll!

The problem we have is that there is no real leader, because CW is quite justifiably not wanting to take that role. So in this leaderless project everyone gets a say and no one is agreeing so it's becoming very circular. At some point someone has to say "We're doing a poll" instead of waiting for everyone to give their opinion about the bloody poll. Someone has to decide the poll results mean something instead of letting people say "Well I'm not sure we can let the future be decided by a few votes!" Because otherwise the poll will be a fruitless endeavour. There needs to be a leader, or leadership team who take the community into consideration but ultimately make the decision to poll members and then follow through on the results. Without that I think people will continue to disagree and we will be flip flopping here with no significant advancement. 

[Ali]

I remember about 10 years ago we elected a king of AGS. There was a flag and everything. Maybe it's time for us to seriously consider:

The AGS Elections?

We could run them at the same time as the AGS awards. That might empower a team of 3-4 enthusiasts to make decisions, without unfairly thrusting responsibility onto people like CW.

[Myinah]

Okay I think that's a good idea. Anyone can put themselves forward, make a case for why they should be part of the team etc in a FYC thread. Then we have a community wide vote and those elected are in charge of the AGS project. If CW wants to be on this team I feel he should be given an automatic membership because he's the one who has been doing all the work, but it takes the burden off of being sole leader.

The elected team would then either run a community wide poll on the direction AGS should go in and then enforce the results, execute the actions, or we empower them the to make the decision on the direction of the engine without a community vote.

(Now let's watch people debate this idea 100 times)

[Snarky]

I still think "making decisions" is meaningless unless there's someone to carry them out, and that most of the decisions to be taken are technical, requiring technical insight into the engine. (You don't hold public votes on which materials to use when building a bridge, particularly if you haven't even got either a builder or a supplier lined up.)

Leadership, therefore, will necessarily require hands-on involvement in the development. And if we had 3-4 people with the technical skills and the confidence of the AGS community who were prepared to devote as much time and effort as any of the more ambitious plans would require, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

I think the only meaningful outcome of a discussion such as this is people coming forward saying: "I want to make the next version of AGS. I will do this, which I think is doable because X, Y, Z, and here's what you can do to help/support me. Who's with me?"

Ali, your offer to help with a crowdfunding campaign is in the right spirit, but we need people to actually hack code. If Crimson Wizard is interested at all, I'd much rather hear his ideas and what he actually wants from us than whatever a poll says. (And I say this knowing that his preferred option is not the one I personally believe would be the best way forward: It doesn't matter, because a way is better than no way.)

Basically, I think we should all shut up unless we're going to be doing the work or our input is specifically requested by someone who will.

[Myinah]

We aren't even talking about these people coding the engine. Rather they run and enforce this poll people claim they want. So if the poll results say "We want a paid dev to redesign with a crowdfunding attempt." they go and execute that. If the poll results say "We want to keep the editor but find a company to improve the code" they go an execute that. Of course if there was a team of programmers willing to sort out AGS this conversation wouldn't be happening. This would be a team of people who care about the community and are willing to put time and energy into executing a democratic process and enforcing the outcome of said process.

For me personally it makes little difference what direction it takes. I'm a go with the flow person. I will learn new code if I have to and I want what's best for the community at large. I have a soft spot for AGS and I want the engine improved, but I don't mind how people go about it or if they go about it at all. It's this never ending debate I find a shame. Do it, don't do it, just get some kind of system in place where something actually happens! If it changes people will adjust, if they don't they have the older editor versions to play with.

At present we are looking into Godot for future projects because AGS has limitations that we keep coming up against. Would love to continue developing on the engine and see it grow, but I think this debate will continue to rage and stifle progress. That's my two cents anyway. Hopefully the community can reach a consensus and achieve something that pleases most.

[Atavismus]

I remember about 10 years ago we elected a king of AGS. There was a flag and everything. Maybe it's time for us to seriously consider:

The AGS Elections?

We could run them at the same time as the AGS awards. That might empower a team of 3-4 enthusiasts to make decisions, without unfairly thrusting responsibility onto people like CW.

It's interesting.

Still, it seems our future leader is shy, because no one claim the job lol

If I refer to "do-cracy", I could name these people:

- CW
- Gilbert (Dave and/or Janet)
- gurok
- monkey0506
- sonneveld

Come on guyz and gals, claim your crown!

[JanetC]

I think it'd be a great idea to hire someone to maintain AGS. The question for me is not *whether we* should do it or *how much* it would cost, but *who*? We at Wadjet Eye have offered several people money to update the engine in limited ways. I'm pleased to announce that Michael Rittenhouse (monkey_05_06) has signed a contract with us to do some small-ish paid updates that we desperately need as our "intern." I'm not sure whether he would be interested in more long-term and extensive updates. I'll have to ask him.

But as for professional contractors, the skill-set of "aging code compatible with 6 different platforms" is hard to find. I know that monkey_05_06 is only interested in PC and Linux and we really need someone to update the Mac and Android versions, which are basically non-functional at the moment.

[[delete}]

Supporting more platforms is certainly the right way for more developers as well as users. JanetC is right.

[Ali]

If I refer to "do-cracy", I could name these people:

- CW
- Gilbert (Dave and/or Janet)
- gurok
- monkey0506
- sonneveld

I really think it isn't helpful to volunteer on other people's behalf. That's just applying pressure to people who haven't asked for it and it's not going to make a project leader emerge from the chaos. If no one wants the job, no one want it.

The best we can do is give people the opportunity to volunteer their services, and see if we can make it work. On reflection, a successful Kickstarter would probably also bring in offers of help. But they'd be as varied and conflicting as the opinions in this thread, so it wouldn't lead anywhere without strong project leadership.

[Atavismus]

I really think it isn't helpful to volunteer on other people's behalf. That's just applying pressure to people who haven't asked for it and it's not going to make a project leader emerge from the chaos. If no one wants the job, no one want it.

It doesn't hurt.
Moreover, maybe they could want to lead but are not sure if they are legitimate.
If they are volunteered and notice that people are up for this, maybe they will start to think about it.

[Crimson Wizard]

No, this thread keeps making me mad.*

It doesn't hurt.

How can you even know that? You are not even in the list you made.

Moreover, maybe they could want to lead but are not sure if they are legitimate.

The legitimacy cannot be applied here, because there is no formal organization. The AGS source code is open, and anyone is allowed to do whatever they want with it. And no one can decide whether particular person is legitimate for doing that or not.
And lead whom exactly? Is there an established team already? Did they agree to be lead by elected leader? lol.

When I started working on AGS I did not ask people if I am legitimate, and did not ask permission from no one. The only thing I was interested in - what other people were planning, because I did not want to duplicate someones work by mistake. Then I found out who is already working on it, and suggested to join efforts.

The thing is that when we were discussing the development of AGS on the forums back 4 years ago, we were not interested if anyone's permissions or questions of legitimacy. We just wanted to try something out.

Another thing is; don't know about others, but I did not think of myself as a new "leader of AGS", that would be silly**. I only wanted to make an improved version.

The first time I asked permission was when we had actual new version. I asked if I can upload it to AGS server and announce it on website homepage. But that was when we had a real thing to show.


*It makes me feel an atmosphere of insanity. Maybe it is just me though...

**Community leaders can exist only when community is formally organized. The "program leaders" can exist only when "program" is restricted to be modified by others. There could be project leaders indeed, but at the same time, in case of open sourced software, there may be multitude of projects.

[Atavismus]

there is no formal organization.

Maybe that's a part of the problem.

And lead whom exactly? Is there an established team already?

Maybe that's a another part of the problem.

Moreover, "legitimate" was more technically/knowledge speaking.

in case of open sourced software, there may be multitude of projects.

Of course, but we are already not enough for one project...
Better concentrate all our efforts on one official project.

*It makes me feel an atmosphere of insanity. Maybe it is just me though...

Well, the atmosphere is sometimes weird indeed.
I wish we were all benevolent and constructive.
I sometimes wonder if some people just think there is no solution.
Imo, there is always a solution.
And we can find and build it all together.
We all love AGS.
Most of us want a modern AGS.
So let's do it.

[Crimson Wizard]

If you want to create a formal organization, then do not make polls, but create one. Then invite people in.
What you do is calling out for someone who should create organization for you.

EDIT: scrapped the rest of the post... that was becoming silly.

[Crimson Wizard]

I sometimes wonder if some people just think there is no solution.
Imo, there is always a solution.
And we can find and build it all together.

Alright, maybe I should answer on this.
The question is not whether there is a solution, but whether you personally ready to work on one. And when I say "work on", I mean, actually do a project; not necessarily as a coder, perhaps as an organizer, but actually do work, and not ask all the people around to vote in your polls, and not start discussion thread without stating clear questions and aims first ("making AGS better" is not a clear aim; neither is "should we pay someone for something we are not sure what yet").
Just an example of such work could be researching available options, their advantages and disadvantages, then making a report on your research; at least that would clarify things for you, if not anyone else here.

If you are not ready to make such work, then IM(H)O it is better to stop now, until you feel you can (if ever); because you will waste your time and accomplish nothing, but a long forum thread.
There could always be a solution, but it does not necessarily mean there is always someone who is ready to work on one, so-

[Atavismus]

My idea was to bring the debate.
Make people react, push them to think and talk together.
Because I feel a lot of people are resigned.

I have to insist on "together".
I don't believe in the "Leader of Providence".
I believe in real democracy and Public Interest.
I have already my opinion, but I won't try to impose it.
I want the best option and maybe it's not mine, so let's discuss all together.

I'm not in campaign, I propose a campaign, that's a big difference imo.

I can't work on the project (lack of time, knowledge, experience, etc.), same for a lot of us, that's why my starting point was to hire someone.

That thread goes where it want, because I don't "lead" it, I let everybody speak.
I guess it's important to let people speak, then when we'll get enough opinions and ideas, we could have a second step. Then other steps.
That's consultation.

I say all this without animosity.
Maybe that consultation philosophy is wrong and don't fit here.
But even in a consultation some leading people could emerge.

[monkey0506]

I'm not sure whether he would be interested in more long-term and extensive updates. I'll have to ask him.

As others have mentioned, some time ago there was some serious discussion on this front. My programming knowledge is relatively limited to my experience, and I have honestly never done anything of the kind or scale that I feel AGS deserves. I really do love the program and the community, but I would feel wary about an open-ended commitment of that sort, simply because I don't know if I could do it. Working with CW has helped me gain experience, despite his disdain that the project should have moved in a different direction. I will do what I can, where I can, but I'm not comfortable putting myself in that position. I am, however, always open to exploring these things as they come up.

I know that monkey_05_06 is only interested in PC and Linux and we really need someone to update the Mac and Android versions, which are basically non-functional at the moment.

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm only interested in PC and Linux, but I don't own a Mac so development opportunities are extremely limited (all my attempts at a Hackintosh VM have been foiled by the fact that they run too slowly). I have been looking into Android, and the 3.3.4 and 3.4.0.6 builds both have not given me any issues except for the DIGMID patches problem (an error message at launch, but that's it -- the game still runs). I can correct that error for the launcher app, but I have not yet been able to get the MIDI driver to load properly in my standalone apps. I haven't had time to resolve that issue yet, though I recently had an idea that I don't think I tested previously. If you want to test standalone apps, Scourge of the Underworld, Scourge of the Underworld DX, Mighty Pirate, and WaffleQuest I are all AGS games.