A discussion of hybrid open source and proprietary licensing models.

[Marshall Van Alstyne <marshall AT MIT.EDU>]

At 04:02 PM 9/1/2004, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2004, at 20:11, Marshall Van Alstyne wrote:
>
> > The author argues that the main reasons are (attempted summary):
> >  (1) long development cycles with very short consumption cycles, that 
> > limit useful feedback.
>
> Successful games have long consumption cycles, and rely on new materials 
> to extend their lifespan. Role-playing games (like the Dungeons and 
> Dragons 3e computer games) rely on player-created modules for gameplay. 
> Single-player games, like "The Sims", have expansion packs of new 
> materials released to supplement those shipped with the game.
>
> "Modding", producing new characters, maps, challenges and stories for 
> existing games, building on the materials shipped with the game, is a 
> major ingredient in building communities of consumers for games from the 
> more successful companies. This is Open Source in all but license.

This sounds to me as if there could be a lot of leverage in setting up the 
licenses exactly as Creative Commons intends in ways that could stimulate 
mods.

A buddy of mine showed me a port of a Myth style game to a Civil War game 
that looked like it added immense value.


> > (2)  reuse of characters & graphics is difficult
> >
> > Now imagine that the developers for our open source Doom 3 can take the 
> > art from Doom 2 to use as a base for Doom 3. But this isn't very useful. 
> > The artist can't load the art for an Imp monster circa 1993 into The 
> > GIMP, apply a filter, and suddenly have an amazing 3-d model with bump 
> > mapping. In fact, the only area of game development where reuse is a 
> > major advantage is the ability to use an existing game engine. But most 
> > closed source developers already do this.
>
> This is a hacker's argument regarding art...  :-) Those low-polygon models 
> for the monster may have been reduced from high-poly models. Those 
> low-resolution textures likewise will have been reduced from hi-res 
> textures. So if the source materials were available, this would be useful 
> And even if they were lo-poly/lo-res to start with they can be smoothed 
> algorithmically as a starting point.
>
> If nothing else, you can re-use the look without plagiarism if it's Open.
>
> > It would be interesting to see if we could design licensing mechanisms 
> > that would facilitate open content for markets with these characteristics.
> ...
> One interesting thing for licensing with computer games is that there is a 
> clean conceptual and programmatic  split between the core system (the 
> "game engine" that loads and runs the resources and gameplay for the game, 
> written in a compiled language such as C) and the support materials (art, 
> models and the 'scripts' that drive the gameplay).
>
> So one could, in theory, keep the engine closed whilst licensing the art 
> and scripts liberally for community-driven modding. This would return 
> value to the authors of the game engine by maintaining interest in their 
> product, extending shelf-life and increasing sales.
>
> Or the engine could be opened, reducing the risk of relying on licensing 
> revenue, and the game materials kept closed as proprietary added value 
> over the closed engine.
>
> It is an interesting area for Open Content, in many ways there is already 
> an Open culture there with the Modding scene that could be formalised.

Excellent point!  This is a feature I think we need to model as a 
complementarity between Free/Open Content and proprietary content.  The 
nature of this complementarity and community building seems like one aspect 
of openness that is badly managed by strictly proprietary business models, 
worth further systematic exploration.

MVA