Zitheral I didn't know you were a co-Developer of TC:F... I think your objections are based on a lot of common misconception and hope you'll be more open to objective information about the 'state of gaming'.
I am not a co-developer of TC:F... but my work with WFA gives me a point of reference from which to speak on the topic...
Modern gaming communities are in fact not contracting; overall numbers have grown dramatically, but the demographics of the games and mods that game Fans prefer and that sustain larger audiences has changed, and will continue to change radically.
I'd like to see your research on this... while I agree that the number of people of play video games is increasing, so too are the number of titles available and I think that the average player will spend less time on any single title today than they might have say, 4 years ago because there were no alternatives.
The "sheer volume of available titles" and the number of mods that ride on them has not grown as fast as game sales, and the number of Fans playing... In fact the ratio of would be Fans to games and mods has grown substantially and favorably to creating and sustaining audiences for mods.
I'm not sure I agree there. The vast majority of people who buy games will never even consider getting a modification for it. The potential might be there but for the near future, I don't see this trend changing. The number of titles being sold however does not follow this behavior and thus the number of mods available to the number of players looking for mods is becoming increasingly unfavorable. This trend will not change until/unless it becomes easier for casual players to get mods through a system like STEAM which makes them available in a centralized, 1-click location.
I find the problem is one of perception and recurring frustration where mod Developers become frustrated when their work, in which they've invested hundreds of thousands of man hours doesn't sustain the kind of audience they'd hoped. This is far too often the result of insular game design where what appeals to the Developer is not going to appeal to a substantial and sustainable audience with so many alternatives. This situation is not going to change, it will only become more challenging to the game Developer that has a sense of what 'must work'...
This is common sense... but there is a limit to how many owners of game "X" will be interested in a tactical realism genre game or an action class-based game.
As far as alternatives; we are already well past the critical arcation -- we are past the million mark of games and mods, so if your work is not appealing to and sustaining an audience; you need to reevaluate your approach or you're quite simply SOL... The first three iterations of Quake didn't have much in the way of competition, today id Software engine games not only have a ton of competition -- they aren't chart busters...
You contradicted your own point above... The number of games and mods is making it increasingly difficult to gain and hold an audience. Allowing your mod to splinter in forks will only decrease the number of people playing your game.
As someone who creates mods and games, I personally would much rather my work existed in a sustainable projects -- that attracted and sustained a large audience; welcomed the ideas, work, and contribution others then burned out in under three years or died on the vine...
Different people are involved in modding for different reasons I guess... some people gain satisfaction in creating bricks, other people gain satisfaction from using those bricks to build a house. Similar activities, different motivations.
I find it odd that so many Mod Developers leverage and reap the benefits of Open Source, in operating systems, tools, games, game engines, art assets, and the free contribution of their Co-Developers, but are not themselves open to the the very concept they exploit -- Open Source.
The notion that if you Open source a Mod project that there will be a thousand Mod-On-Mods that will fragment and dilute your audience, is not only in my opinion cynical an self-obviating thinking, but in terms of fact and what has been demonstrated in the marketplace untrue.
If your Mod only attracts a small audience, a fork project is more likely to attract new Fans then it is to divide the Fans you have, and a static number of incoming Fans for any mod or game is not and never will be a sustainable proposition as that number will always contract. Game Developer/Publishers that embrace mod support are growing (Valve, Activision, Atari) Game Developer/Publishers that are following your epistemology of closed game design "products" like Ubisoft are suffering financially (Ubisoft)...
This is comparing apples and oranges. A mod project is by definition a not-for-profit enterprise. The only thing "gained" by modding is appreciation of your players, the skills you acquire while doing the work, and possibility the appreciate of other developers if you choose to open source it. Companies that open source their game code still make their money on every copy sold for each player playing any mod.
A self-standing, free, Open Source game (like Linux), has none of the limitations of a commercial "product" game as far as how large it's audience can grow, the only limitation is the appeal of the game and it's game-design, and that's expedient because it can be altered, adjusted, and modified until something is ultimately found that does appeal to a really large audience... This IMHO, is the best of all worlds, your core game may not appeal to as large an audience as you'd hoped, but, your work, your game assets live on in larger more popular works that ultimately are more likely to attract the audience you'd hoped for then the more insular approach that is no longer working very well for a lot of disappointed mod Developers...
This makes sense but if you open source your game, you lose decision making control over your assets and your work. I would be very disappointed if someone took my work and maybe something I considered substandard. Even worse are the cases where changes are made and either through maliciousness or ignorance, other players end up with a version of the software that is still attributed to you even though it has been changed in ways you don't approve of. This is not fair but in the real world, it isn't like you can sue over it. And then there is the problem where something is popular enough to spawn so many forks that your personal contribution disappeared. VNC is a good example... there are a whole bunch of VNC projects... I use UltraVNC myself but I have no clue who wrote the original.
In summary, I think ultimately the benefits of open source software to the developer depend heavily on why someone is writing the software in the first place. If they are interested in exploring a specific style of gameplay, allowing forks of their projects is not going to appeal to them. If they are interested in the act of creation itself, then open source software is something nice to do with it once you are done.
