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...
Anyone can speak on the topic, but Shadowspwan is the only participant on these fourms that has any decisive authority concerning TCF then...
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.
It's not 'my research' but the published marking stats of several game and toy marketing journals; as far as the demographics of player time on games and mods I reckon it all depends where you're looking... id Software engine games I'd say your dead on, but many Valve engine games have sustained audiences for over five years
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.
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.
This isn't a discussion concerning game "X" or mods on it, but TCF which would if finished and released be a self-standing, Open Source game under some manner of license. Tactical realism mods are the most popular mods on action realism games including Nova Logic, DICE, Valve, RSE, and
You contradicted your own point above...
There is no contradiction...
The number of games and mods is making it increasingly difficult to gain and hold an audience.
We disagree...
Allowing your mod to splinter in forks will only decrease the number of people playing your game.
Incorrect premise; your premise is based n circular reasoning and perhaps your experience with id Software games and mod... The laguage of your statement is assumptive; TCF is a game not a Mod, but even if it were Mods-on-Mods need no more "splinter" an audience then Mods on games. By identifying and offering game-play and game features that interest a particular audience and placing them in a more focused mod or mutator you offer a game that appeals to a larger, new, and/or alternative audience that your default game/mod does not. This is in fact part of the premise behind game Developers and Publishers offing mod support in the first place.
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.
That goes without saying; what exactly is your point?
This makes sense but if you open source your game, you lose decision making control over your assets and your work.
Incorrect! Open Source licensure has absolutly NOTHING to do with loosing creative control over YOUR work, in fact it can greatly enhance it... You can maintain complete, autonomous and exclusive control over your core project, it's title trademarks, its content, its features, its retail saleability and the talent you allow to contribut to it... Open Source only allows others to make derivative works based on your work, and gives you full reciprocity to use and leverage any work they've created based on your based on your original work. This is one of the core concepts of Open Source; it avoids redundant effort, and allows full reciprocity in selectively leveraging creative effort.
I would be very disappointed if someone took my work and maybe something I considered substandard.
Why#FF00FF Should John Carmack consider you a dissappointment because he consideres your Mods substandard? Shold the inventor of the pencil, pen, and word processor consider works you write an embarassment to his invention? That...is a moot and rediculous argument IMHO...
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.
Open Source licensure does not allow the 'works of others to be attributed to you' whether you approve of them or not...
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.
Another bizarre argument, that demonstrates a rather limited understanding of Open Source licensure on your part. Do you for example KNOW who created each game code and art asset in the games you Mod? Do you make sure all your Mod Fans know? Do you write a TOU Agreement to make sure they are aware of all your derivative work, and that in fact your work is not original but deravitive?
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.
Cleary you demonstrate a very limited understanding of what Open Source licensure can and does provide... There are nearly as many Opne Source license variations as there are Open Source projects, and suggesting that the concept of Open Source is limited in the regards you imply here is rediculous...
Forgive me for being blunt. But you are not interested in making a game, you are interested in being popular.
Then forgive me for being crass: you don't you know what the fuck you're talking about as far as what my interests, concerns, and motivation are in developing games.
If people like my games, great, I made most of my games as hobby projects. The only time I would consider being frustrated is if it was a commercial game that I had invested money in and never broke even from it.
How is that germane?