16
Off-topic / Artistic Freedom for Development
« on October 1st, 2011, 01:37 AM »
So I was reading this article here:
http://www.destructoid.com/how-i-learned-to-stop-pining-for-episode-three-211344.phtml
And I was making a lot of comparisons to free software development and Valve's release (or lack thereof) of Half Life 2: Episode 3[1]. There is one specific part that rung in my head:Quote And it's a shame that most people don't understand this. People who work on free software are not obligated to give anything back. They don't develop out of necessity, they develop because it's what they want to do. It's very unfortunate that people try to wedge[2] themselves in between the "artist" and their creative process.
Another good point made in this article was that if the author had a choice he'd rather take no game at all than one that was pushed out just to be pushed out. He's completely right. If a product is rushed out then not only are the people hurt by the bad product, but the product's image is hurt by a shoddy release. It's why people never get that upset when release dates for video games are pushed back. It's hard to complain that you'd rather get a crappy game than wait a few months for it to be more solid.
Anyways, I just wanted to give that article to you guys so you can have a good read. I thought you might be interested.
http://www.destructoid.com/how-i-learned-to-stop-pining-for-episode-three-211344.phtml
And I was making a lot of comparisons to free software development and Valve's release (or lack thereof) of Half Life 2: Episode 3[1]. There is one specific part that rung in my head:
Valve does not owe us anything more than what they choose to deliver. Artists and creative folks alike do what they feel is right and continue to work from there. They didn’t sign a contract with their fan-base that agreed to a sequel for every concept produced.
Another good point made in this article was that if the author had a choice he'd rather take no game at all than one that was pushed out just to be pushed out. He's completely right. If a product is rushed out then not only are the people hurt by the bad product, but the product's image is hurt by a shoddy release. It's why people never get that upset when release dates for video games are pushed back. It's hard to complain that you'd rather get a crappy game than wait a few months for it to be more solid.
Anyways, I just wanted to give that article to you guys so you can have a good read. I thought you might be interested.
| 1. | Yes, I know they are really similar but they exist in two entirely different environments |
| 2. | That was not suppose to be a shot at you guys, I just can't help myself when a good pun opportunity arises. |
17
Plugins / [Naming poll] Re: Packages
« on September 28th, 2011, 04:13 AM »
Clear? The other two words are way more clear that "wedgets". With "wedgets" people have to make the association with "widgets" and even then IMO "widgets" isn't as widely used as "add-on" or "plugin".
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of using the word "wedgets", but in terms of practicality (which it seems is what Nao and Arantor are going for) the other two make more sense to use.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of using the word "wedgets", but in terms of practicality (which it seems is what Nao and Arantor are going for) the other two make more sense to use.
18
Development blog / Re: The saga of the Add-on Manager
« on September 24th, 2011, 06:33 AM »
So I had a silly little idea come to mind about the name of Add-On in Wedge. The idea was that there could be some pun on the name Wedge that can be turned into a form of Widget. Like Wedget or Wedgit (as a pun on Wedge-it).
Sure, you get the problem of having to have people figure out what a Wedget represents as opposed to the more universal title of Add-On, but I thought that it was rather amusing.
Sure, you get the problem of having to have people figure out what a Wedget represents as opposed to the more universal title of Add-On, but I thought that it was rather amusing.
19
Other software / Re: More thoughts on SMF 2.1
« on September 21st, 2011, 06:08 PM »Some of them are absolutely natural, some of them are suspiciously close to what we've talked about here though.
20
Off-topic / Re: Something kind of crazy
« on September 20th, 2011, 07:09 PM »There is a side benefit to this approach, there are games in there I wouldn't have encountered at all otherwise, and I'm finding it's a nice change of pace to try games out that I wouldn't necessarily have tried.
It's why Valve is such an amazing company. Their first and most important goal is providing for the users[1], and in the end it benefits both them and us. Not to mention you feel awesome saving absolutely silly amounts of money[2] and get great games.
| 1. | Are they Tron?! |
| 2. | I mean, the Paradox pack was what? $750 in the US? And they offered it for $80-ish on sale. |
21
Off-topic / Re: I am looking for a favour
« on September 20th, 2011, 03:40 AM »No, it wasn't for naught. It was to fuck with your mind.Quote from live627 on September 20th, 2011, 03:10 AM Hey! Are you saying that 2 years taking high school Latin class was just for naught?
22
Off-topic / Re: The Oatmeal
« on September 20th, 2011, 03:38 AM »
Qwickster is the physical portion of Netflix that sends out the DVDs turned into it's own entity in order to....uh....so that they can.....um.....hmm....I'll get back to you on that last part. But at least they're going to be distributing video games as well, so they'll have the joy of trying to compete with Gamefly.
23
Features: Posts & Topics / Re: Like/dislike
« on September 13th, 2011, 10:53 PM »*nods* That is what he asked, Cassiel, and there wouldn't be much need for that.
That would just be a whole other bucket of crazy.
24
Features: Posts & Topics / Re: Like/dislike
« on September 13th, 2011, 05:20 PM »
See, the way I see nhwd was asking if there'd be the ability to unlike something for another user. As an admin permission of sorts.
Not sure why'd that would be needed, but that's just how I took it to mean.
Not sure why'd that would be needed, but that's just how I took it to mean.
25
Off-topic / Re: Today's going to be a fun day
« on September 11th, 2011, 07:11 PM »
I think it was changed. When I was researching how to do it all of the solutions were just very inconvenient solutions that required the use of an email account somewhere else anyways. It's a shame, really.
26
The Pub / [Archive] Re: Logo Madness
« on September 11th, 2011, 07:07 PM »
If you're going to have a more flat shape then it may be worth it to have it "underline" the 'we' part of wedge, Chris. Makes it seem like the project is more of a community-centered effort. ;)
27
Off-topic / Re: Today's going to be a fun day
« on September 11th, 2011, 06:58 PM »
The main thing that I'm starting to dislike about Google's services is that everything is tied to one central account. While this is not a bad thing most of the time, it does prevent me from having another Gmail address. So I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I love using Gmail, but I can't use it for all of my needs. I can't have a personal Gmail address, one to give out to employers and other professionals, and one to give out to services that require an email address. And after trying to create a dummy account to tie to an email it seems that they deleted it.
28
Plugins / Re: Mods, support and so on
« on September 6th, 2011, 06:56 PM »Therein lies the problem. There is a shortage of people who would get the job done, simply because finding people of that calibre is hard enough generally, and even if you do find people of the right calibre, odds are they're not going to have a lot of time to dump into sifting through what other people write.Quote Which give you full authority to pick who you want, and kick off who you don't. And since the project are your pets it seems to reason that you'd only want to pick the best for the job. People who you knew would get the job done.
To be brutally honest, I reviewed dozens and dozens of mods for SMF, and I never approved a great many of them, simply because they weren't up to standard, with a large percentage simply not even working in the first place, let alone reasonably tested.
Interesting, and unfortunately I have to say it's a little naive, if well meant. There was a warning on the sm.org download page for *years* that 2.0 was still in development and not meant for a production environment, yet it didn't prevent great numbers of people using it in such, and then complaining about it when it was in use in such. Those people tended to get short shrift from me, though...Quote In regards to the badges, there is the possibility of advertising the "Approved" badges in the same way that nightly builds or beta software could: It's not that they are unsafe, they just haven't been tested, so you should test them out yourself before putting them into a production environment
Honestly, there is only so much preventative measures you can do though. There is a line where the burden of informing them ends and it ends up being their own fault. IMO, those people who used pre-2.0 Gold on production environments crossed that line.
*nods* I think we'd stick to our rules better than most, especially because of what's happened, but I've learned over time that any rule in place for the regulation of any environment invariably leads to people testing the limits of that rule. Which means if we had a featured mod area of some kind, there would need to be criteria, and that criteria is invariably up for debate, especially if it means either any 'team' member being able to showcase their material there at will, or excluding their material which is equally unfair.[1]Quote When you say experience do you mean from the Cust Team? Because if so then there is no reason why you have to follow in the same path. It seems to me that if you were to adopt a rule about eligibility for MotM then you would stick to it, or hell any rule really.
Although I came to regret a great many things that happened during my time with SMF, I'm damned if I'm going to repeat their mistakes, and that's one of the things that I see as a mistake. The phrase at this point is simply, "Who watches the watchers?"
In another related note, there is one issue with people approving mods: who approves them when it's an approver releasing a mod? Another approver?[2]
1. Team members being able to feature their own work at will devalues the rest of the material featured, and team members not being able to feature their work limits their motivation to write that quality of material. 2. There is more than one mod of mine that I ended up approving because no-one else would. Not because there was anything wrong, but simply because no-one actually reviewed them.
As for team reviews, there doesn't seem to be any other way to go about it than having another approver to approve the mod. Though maybe it doesn't have to be that much. As long as another approver or the Team Lead can give the "sign off" of the mod then it's good to go. Or just leave it to the Lead to approve the Team's mods, though that might be giving them more work than they can handle.
That's always going to be a tricky balance, as I discovered while on the Cust Team. There were a number of people that I upset during my time as a reviewer, because I insisted that they follow the guidelines and they didn't understand why they had to, when as far as they were concerned, they'd done the hard work by writing a mod in the first place, and that was enough, apparently.Quote Just adding on here, it might be better to reward those modders who provide good quality mods than worry about offending those who don't.
That's the way I roll. Using a single topic is fine for some mods, it isn't for bigger mods. On the flip side, we need to be very careful about not repeating the... debacle that was the Aeva board on sm.org. For those who don't remember/know, Aeva was temporarily given its own board by the sm.org team, and it wasn't what Nao really wanted or needed, especially when he wasn't made its moderator (which would have solved a great many problems, actually), plus the board was set to post approval. You can only imagine how this didn't solve the problems the team perceived there to be.[3]Quote I like the idea of advancing from a support topic to a board. Give those the room that need it. Very smart.
What I really like about things like this is simply that they're not huge tasks to implement, meaning that we can actually implement it pretty quickly, and if it turns out that it isn't working that well, we can think about something else. The real success isn't whether something is a success, but how quickly you can move on through failures.
3. The idea was that it would tone down the attitude that was building, except that it didn't because the team didn't care about it much, to the point where they considered it mostly a dumping ground. Half the time no-one seemed that interested in approving posts in that board, the other half the time, they never bothered to deal with inflammatory posts even when they approved them.
You guys should remember that if needed you can always just poll the mod authors and ask them if they are comfortable with using topics or if they would prefer another kind of system. But you guys are good with polling the community so it would probably cross your minds if the need arises.
I have the feeling that the reality will not coincide with the theory here. The theory is that Wedge will be more tech-user oriented, but the reality is that if it's good, and usable, people will use it. Even though there is the tech-orientation mindset in there, the fact is we are making it more usable generally, which is going to lower the barrier to entry whatever else happens.Quote It seems to me that the audience for Wedge would be more capable of handling the occasional mod support here and there. Though I guess the argument could be made that even if they could...would they?
Which means that as much as we might notionally have this minimum tech knowledge level to cope with, the reality is less clear cut, and we are going to end up fielding non technical users' questions and problems, which includes mod support.
You also ask probably the most important question at the end there. Even if they could, would they? The answer is probably not. sm.org is the evidence here: of the people who offer support on mods, those providing support tend to be in the category of offering support on well documented/well known problems, or general functionality issues - not on debugging and cases that actually need support. Sure, there were and are a few people that do actually do support on mods that is a bit more than just helping users who don't bother to read support materials like the mod's page or FAQ, but they're so few and far between it's unreal.[4]
4. Look for posts by people like feline, if you're wondering what I'm getting at, where the support isn't just answering questions that have already been asked/answered before, but actual bug hunting and how to perform improvements.
The reason I asked that question though was because it was said somewhere, some time ago, that the people who are capable of supporting the software were off doing their own thing with their own forum/company. I don't see why the same wouldn't happen here. By sticking around and helping with support you either love the software and want to help, or you want to get on the team. Those who try for the latter get burnt out very quickly. Those for the former are, unfortunately, the minority when compared to everyone else.
So it seems that while community support would be great, it would be wise to think of a Plan B or C. :P
No worries :) Hope you slept well.Quote Sorry about not quoting. I'm just trying to get through this post and then head to bed.
Thank you though. :)
The problem was that there was this overriding mentality at sm.org that if one exists, that's good enough, even if it isn't necessarily the best way to do it. But if there is encouragement to build things that work, and work really well, the problem does actually go away for the most part, because normally the only reason for alternatives to crop up is if something actually doesn't work that well to start with.
29
Plugins / Re: Mods, support and so on
« on September 6th, 2011, 05:34 AM »
Arantor, perhaps I didn't get the idea of the placeholders across in the right way. I didn't mean that there would be the download for the mod and a link to an outside site. I meant that instead of offering a download it redirected the user to the site where the mod is located. But you did point out a good problem. The users might get fed up with having to go to an outside source where they, in the end, might having to pay. However I think that the convenience of a central directory (of sorts) of mods outweighs that. It's better them to find it and be redirected than them never knowing it was available in the first place, IMO.
As for the ideas, I know that number one was crap. It's still good to evaluate all of the options though. Per the second one, the main reason that I feel the possibility of a team who sorts through the mods could succeed in this environment is because that you two don't have to worry about the organization of a team structure. No different departments, no LLC, just the two of you and your project. Which give you full authority to pick who you want, and kick off who you don't. And since the project are your pets it seems to reason that you'd only want to pick the best for the job. People who you knew would get the job done.
In regards to the badges, there is the possibility of advertising the "Approved" badges in the same way that nightly builds or beta software could: It's not that they are unsafe, they just haven't been tested, so you should test them out yourself before putting them into a production environment. The "Recommended" badge is an interesting point though. When you say experience do you mean from the Cust Team? Because if so then there is no reason why you have to follow in the same path. It seems to me that if you were to adopt a rule about eligibility for MotM then you would stick to it, or hell any rule really. Particularly because of what's happened in the past. Just adding on here, it might be better to reward those modders who provide good quality mods than worry about offending those who don't.
I like the idea of advancing from a support topic to a board. Give those the room that need it. Very smart.
There was something I wanted to save for the end though. You were talking about how at SMF the mods aren't really supported over there by the community. IIRC, someone said (I think it was you) that they planned to Wedge to target more technical-oriented users than SMF. It seems to me that the audience for Wedge would be more capable of handling the occasional mod support here and there. Though I guess the argument could be made that even if they could...would they?
Sorry about not quoting. I'm just trying to get through this post and then head to bed.
As for the ideas, I know that number one was crap. It's still good to evaluate all of the options though. Per the second one, the main reason that I feel the possibility of a team who sorts through the mods could succeed in this environment is because that you two don't have to worry about the organization of a team structure. No different departments, no LLC, just the two of you and your project. Which give you full authority to pick who you want, and kick off who you don't. And since the project are your pets it seems to reason that you'd only want to pick the best for the job. People who you knew would get the job done.
In regards to the badges, there is the possibility of advertising the "Approved" badges in the same way that nightly builds or beta software could: It's not that they are unsafe, they just haven't been tested, so you should test them out yourself before putting them into a production environment. The "Recommended" badge is an interesting point though. When you say experience do you mean from the Cust Team? Because if so then there is no reason why you have to follow in the same path. It seems to me that if you were to adopt a rule about eligibility for MotM then you would stick to it, or hell any rule really. Particularly because of what's happened in the past. Just adding on here, it might be better to reward those modders who provide good quality mods than worry about offending those who don't.
I like the idea of advancing from a support topic to a board. Give those the room that need it. Very smart.
There was something I wanted to save for the end though. You were talking about how at SMF the mods aren't really supported over there by the community. IIRC, someone said (I think it was you) that they planned to Wedge to target more technical-oriented users than SMF. It seems to me that the audience for Wedge would be more capable of handling the occasional mod support here and there. Though I guess the argument could be made that even if they could...would they?
Sorry about not quoting. I'm just trying to get through this post and then head to bed.
30
Plugins / Re: Mods, support and so on
« on September 6th, 2011, 02:44 AM »
What I felt work with the way that SMF handled mods was that all of the mods were open to having normal community members support them. This is something that would get lost with having modders hosting their own mods. There ends up being more division.
It's a given that modders will eventually stop supporting their mods. We all know that. Having the community act as a backup for support though is a good way to have less mods "fall through the cracks" so to speak.
As for the "paid vs free" issue, if you don't want to deal with the hassle of handling payments and the issues that arise from that (and really, who would?) then might I suggest letting those modders that want to link to their own site be able to have a placeholder in the mods section here to link back to? It would still keep all of the available mods in one, central location, and the modders are free to handle payment and support as they wish. They are able to do their own thing, but not have to worry about being left out cold simply because they are not listed on the Wedge.org mod site.
Vetting through the mods is a problem though. There are several options that I can think of:
1) Should a security issue occur, have a "Report to Mod Author" button. Although this has the chance of being spammed with support requests, it does have the benefit of being able to notify the mod author directly instead of the author having to check up on any kind of support thread or the like. And no, this wouldn't be like a ticket support system.
2) Establishing a team to vet through the mods for you. I feel that with the way that you both have your system set up you wouldn't have any problems with lack of commitment or willingness to work with whoever you may choose for this team. And instead of waiting for mods to be approved, all mods could be posted up but only the ones who were checked could have a "Approved by the Approval Team that Approves things" badge (though possibly less wordy). This eliminates the cry of those who felt their mods were taking too long to be approved, while still informing the public which mods were known to be ok to download.
3) Yeah....while I was writing the first two points I ended up forgetting what my third idea was. I guess i'll just edit it when I remember.
In case you can't tell I love using badges to identify things. The idea of having a "Recommended" badge, "Mod of the Month: July 2012" (if you choose to go down that route) badge, or "Most Downloads" badge would be something I totally support. I feel that they give mod developers who actually care something to strive for, and it gives those that do reach that level of achievement some satisfaction for a job well done. Then again, i'm an idealist so who knows how something like that would turn out in actuality.
About how authors would be able to support their own mods, would it be too much to offer them their own sub-forum that only contains one board for support that the mod author is moderator of? I got the idea from how noisen.com gives people the ability to have their own personal blogs. The "support forum" would be linked from the mod page. Only those who are interested in the mod would have need to go to it, and those that don't aren't bothered by seeing it. I suppose that it's possible to have one giant "support sub-forum" where boards are created for every mod that's not linked to an outside site, but that would obviously get very large very quickly. At least it allows for better organization.
So there we go, all of my opinions on the matter were tossed out. Now I just have one question. Would the ability for mod authors to add Additional Authors who have the ability to update the mod and provide support be a possibility?
It's a given that modders will eventually stop supporting their mods. We all know that. Having the community act as a backup for support though is a good way to have less mods "fall through the cracks" so to speak.
As for the "paid vs free" issue, if you don't want to deal with the hassle of handling payments and the issues that arise from that (and really, who would?) then might I suggest letting those modders that want to link to their own site be able to have a placeholder in the mods section here to link back to? It would still keep all of the available mods in one, central location, and the modders are free to handle payment and support as they wish. They are able to do their own thing, but not have to worry about being left out cold simply because they are not listed on the Wedge.org mod site.
Vetting through the mods is a problem though. There are several options that I can think of:
1) Should a security issue occur, have a "Report to Mod Author" button. Although this has the chance of being spammed with support requests, it does have the benefit of being able to notify the mod author directly instead of the author having to check up on any kind of support thread or the like. And no, this wouldn't be like a ticket support system.
2) Establishing a team to vet through the mods for you. I feel that with the way that you both have your system set up you wouldn't have any problems with lack of commitment or willingness to work with whoever you may choose for this team. And instead of waiting for mods to be approved, all mods could be posted up but only the ones who were checked could have a "Approved by the Approval Team that Approves things" badge (though possibly less wordy). This eliminates the cry of those who felt their mods were taking too long to be approved, while still informing the public which mods were known to be ok to download.
3) Yeah....while I was writing the first two points I ended up forgetting what my third idea was. I guess i'll just edit it when I remember.
In case you can't tell I love using badges to identify things. The idea of having a "Recommended" badge, "Mod of the Month: July 2012" (if you choose to go down that route) badge, or "Most Downloads" badge would be something I totally support. I feel that they give mod developers who actually care something to strive for, and it gives those that do reach that level of achievement some satisfaction for a job well done. Then again, i'm an idealist so who knows how something like that would turn out in actuality.
About how authors would be able to support their own mods, would it be too much to offer them their own sub-forum that only contains one board for support that the mod author is moderator of? I got the idea from how noisen.com gives people the ability to have their own personal blogs. The "support forum" would be linked from the mod page. Only those who are interested in the mod would have need to go to it, and those that don't aren't bothered by seeing it. I suppose that it's possible to have one giant "support sub-forum" where boards are created for every mod that's not linked to an outside site, but that would obviously get very large very quickly. At least it allows for better organization.
So there we go, all of my opinions on the matter were tossed out. Now I just have one question. Would the ability for mod authors to add Additional Authors who have the ability to update the mod and provide support be a possibility?