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, and the only person posting here who's opinions, motivations and decisions interest me...
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 from 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... For the id Software engine games I'd say your dead on, but many Valve and RSE engine games have sustained audiences for over five years that are still going stronger then the all the id Software engine mods combined....
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.
My post wasn't intended to incite a discussion concerning "Game X" or mods on it, but TCF which would/cold if finished and released be a self-standing, and Open Source under some manner of license. Tactical realism mods are the most popular mods on action realism games including Nova Logic, DICE, Valve, RSE, and Unreal Warfare realism games, and sustain close to three million Fans...
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 on circular reasoning and perhaps your experience with id Software games and mods... The laguage of your statement is also assumptive on several counds and incorrect: TCF is a game not a Mod, and even if it were Mods-On-Mods (or "Mutators") need no more "splinter>/i>" an audience then Mods on games.
In fact, 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, or compelling the loss of 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 sale-ability 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 the original work. This is one of the core concepts of Open Source; to avoid redundant effort, and allow full reciprocity in selectively leveraging creative effort.
I would be very disappointed if someone took my work and maybe something I considered substandard.
Why? Should John Carmack consider it very dissappointing 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, such a statement is a fallacious nonsequitur...
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 inference, that demonstrates a very 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 and the tools you use? 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? Do you think your lack of dilligance in this regard makes the original work invisible?
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 and in fact does offer and provide for... There are nearly as many variations on Open Source licensure as there are Open Source projects, and suggesting that the concept of Open Source is limited in the regards you imply here is patently ridiculous...
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? I'm really only concerned in Shadowspawn's motivations and decsions regarding his Mod projects -- specifically TCF; I really wasn't soliciting an opinion poll, or a recitation on existential mod building...