AGEOD Forums

Came to mind after the discussion about viability of some topics for wargames. I always thought wargames would benefit greatly from open source projects.

This way wargame designers(veterans and wannabes alike) could leverage current knowledge and reduce development costs/time considerably. Obviously I would prefer licenses like the MS-PL where you can choose whether to do commersial stuff or freeware.

As a C# developer I am quite interested in the XNA platform, they really lowered the bar on getting started.

It would be too much to ask AGEOD to support this but I think on projects where commersial success is uncertain, why not? I think the reason so many projects fail is not only bad project management but too ambitious goals. Why not create many smaller projects and thus create a "smörgåsbord" with tools one could use in all kinds of wargames. Everything from simple hex generators to complex routines.

Some ideas I came up with at least.

There exist open-source wargames already of course; "Battle for Westnoth" being perhaps the best example, and several Civilization clones.

I'm no expert on open-source (although I'll be representing my department at the awards for promotion of open-source software in Norway next week ), but I think that two key drivers for OSS development rest on early access and reusability. I suspect OSS wargame development will typically fall foul of both. Early access (i.e., before gameplay is in place) to a game is rarely that interesting, and it tends to be hard to reuse elements from one game in another (except for series). Both of these elements are, I think, crucial to be able to build and develop the kind of community required for OSS.

One guy I know has been a project leader for many open source projects. Nothing as fancy as games but PERL based projects. He says you need very firm leadership to succeed and iron will as well.

However, this is why I feel less ambitious projects might be better. With proper OO development methods there is alot you could re-use. There's graphics, sounds and other things as well (how many times do you really need to create NATO counters?).

I am quite excited about XNA myself and will look into it further down the road. It's quite interesting that you can make games for 360 as well.

I would like to make a Junta lookalike, or maybe a "spiritual successor" to EFS. Two games I feel are under appreciated.

Please excuse my interruption, but I'm fairly new to the internet, and to concepts such as "open source software". The main thing I don't understand about open source software is how there is any profitability to it. I'm guessing that there's some core tenant that I'm missing. Would anyone care to explain?

The product may be given away for free, but users still require services (i.e., consulting, courses, and support). Big companies might also choose to release something as open-source/free because it supports some other element of their business strategy (e.g., IBM and the Eclipse project).

Well it' quite complicated. There are many different licenses. For instance, MS-PL(Microsoft Public License), allows you to make commersial products and use the source in it. GNU requires everything to be open source even though you can still sell services etc. It's a real jungle to be honest .

I have friends who work for companies 100% OpenSource based. They do not only make money but healthy profits (network analysis software).

Actually Open Source doesn't in any way mandate that any part is free. There' plenty of software open source products you have to pay for.

My favourite license is actually the MS-PL one, it's quite flexible. I would buy open source wargames without hesitation.