![]() ![]() ![]() Nicedwar- don't worry, the more you code the more you can look at others games and quickly identify a way for you to put together little blocks of logic to do the same things. One thing that occurs to me in relation to this, is that the "behavior" model of coding in Stencyl changes the act of programming from being an iterative process of an entire codebase into an asset-based production process. ![]() Quote from: Hectate on August 25, 2011, 09:20:16 am I've been thinking over some of the thoughts expressed in this thread, particularly as it stands for the expectations that behaviors should be free. Perhaps they feel they can profit more from having a unique game rather than from selling behaviors, that's the choice they've made and the risks are theirs as well (not that they ouldn't be sold later as well). If a coder, or artist/musician/etc, would rather keep their work only available to themselves, that is their right as well. Anyone is free to request or to volunteer services, or to give work away (as I have done), but there are no obligations to do so. If Irock, or anyone else, wished to charge to use his behaviors I would fully support the right to do so. Now that a programmer's output can be treated as a product - a game asset - I'm surprised that a coder's behaviors do not have the same expectations. I doubt that anyone here would find it surprising that an artist (visual or auditory) would expect payment for the products they create. Yet, sentiments in this thread expect that those behaviors should be free to them for their use. You may say, "So what? I still need a programmer to produce the behaviors". Primarily though the fact that they are a product that can be treated as an asset - a product instead of a service - is what I find of interest. The shift from coding everything to coding some things means that code is now an asset (a defined product of work) rather than a service (the programmer's time and experience).Īs a result, behaviors in Stencyl share many similarities with other game assets such as artwork, sounds, and music. With Stencyl, however, coding involves the creation of distinct modules that are inserted as needed. That is to say, in the past, a programmer would have to tie in new code with all the existing code - even for object oriented languages. I've been thinking over some of the thoughts expressed in this thread, particularly as it stands for the expectations that behaviors should be free. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |