What do you think about commercial game that use free assets

[LVUER]

Just like the title said, as both a developer and consumer, what do you think about a developer that uses free assets (sprite, BG, music). It's not like that the developer break any law if they use free assets from internet and clearly admit it. I mean nowadays there are lots of people that upload things to internet, to be used by other, commercially or not. And it would be a waste to not use them too...

Please write your comment, from POV as developer, and as consumer. Oh, and I'm talking about indie game developer, and the game is not limited to VN, but also applied to "real" RPG, shooting game, hybrid VN, adventure game, etc.

Let me be the first one:

As developer
I have conflict on this one. On one hand, using free assets means I could cut cost, cut time, ensuring quality (there are lots of high quality free assets out there, if you know where to search) with little time possible, and so on... though the main reason is one, money (it's FREE).

And I also promote the person that makes those assets, if my game sells a lot. A win-win situation ^_^

On the other hand though... I feel something is lost. There is no my touch there. Even if I don't make it myself, I could still choose or instruct the person I pay what to make. And if I make it myself, that means I also lose the opportunity to learn and grow. And there's pride thing. I feel very proud if most assets in that game is made by my own hand. I could proudly shout that "I MADE THIS GAME!"

As a consumer
As a prospect consumer, I would choose game that have original art and story (not so with music, since I don't really care about that and I don't remember every games music anyway). It would show how serious and commitment of that said developer. And if a game use too many free assets, I would think that that developer is a scammer, a ripper, a person who only want to make some money without doing much...

But, I also could have some thought... that if that developer use free assets, the development costs could be kept as low as possible, meaning cheaper price. NOT. It seems that no matter what, I don't like a developer who use free assets. But it's not like I would notice if certain games use free assets or they make all their assets on their own.

Though if one CHEAP commercial game that uses free assets (and I know it), but it have really interesting story or gameplay, and have at least some original assets beside that, I won't mind buying it.

[Greeny]

If any key elements (i.e. sprites) are free assets, if wouldn't pay for the game.

[Alera]

I'll be polar here and I'll say that don't support much the usage of free assets. I say that both as a developer and a customer. Where's the originality? How can you call this game yours if someone else could also use these free things and make another game?

Yes, yes- it's free, less money-money-money-money...But if you want something really good and original- then you have to give something in return! Again I'm talking for both as a developer hiring people and customers that buy the final product.

I support using original resources. Get your friends to help if you can't afford to pay someone. Find people working for free, but make them work especially for you! Things like that...there are many ways to achieve what you want without using assets and still to get a decent price for a commercial game.

And as @LVUER said: "I could proudly shout that "I MADE THIS GAME!"" <- indeed.

[Aleema]

Hummm. A quote from a game engine maker that stuck with me all these years (Explorations, I think it was) in response to why the engine didn't come pre-packaged with more 3D models, he said (paraphrasing here), "if you aren't producing your own game assets, what exactly are you contributing to your game?" This was said to me as a young girl hot off of using free sprites and tilesets from the RPG Maker series. Using other people's stuff was just natural. Wait for someone to make a kimono sprite. Yoink. Now it's mine. But that line from this indie game developer has really stuck with me. It put things in perspective and made me way less entitled, and has reminded me the importance of putting effort into game resources. It's amazing how it's affected me as a developer to hear that phrase pop in my head years later when I'm making games, "What am I contributing? How is this my game?"

Granted that was in relation to an RPG engine, not a visual novel. The story itself in a VN is quite a contribution and I'm all for using free stock to get that chance to tell the story to other people. However, that quote explains why I would look down on a commercial developer using free resources. Why should I pay for something I can already get, and have probably already seen in other games? Why should you be paid the same as someone who had completely custom assets? What makes this your game?

I'm not against licensing assets, because you paid for them and that makes them exclusive. That's your contribution. And I'm not against people working for free on a project with you, because that's a whole new ballpark. A pricetag on a game should reflect the difference between a game with all custom assets and one that's only unique feature is the writing. Charging $20 for both games doesn't seem right as both a consumer and a developer.

Is it a pride issue? I hope so! Making someone pay for something that was free isn't a noble thing to do. And I also question the legality of "they put it out there to use and I didn't say I made it and I'm advertising them, so it's okay!" The creator should explicitly say that commercial use is okay, and you should keep a record of it. Going commercial is a dangerous territory and you should never just assume it's okay to use a free resource. Know.

I don't think consumers really have much respect for developers who look for the lowest possible development cost, because we all want more for our money. (Not that I'm saying developers shouldn't be budget-savvy, I'm saying that being so budget-savvy that it shows will turn players off.) The lowest possible development cost is to just steal someone else's game and resell it. There's really a point when it just becomes theft or deceit, and the more you head towards that point, the less the consumers will be happy.

[Auro-Cyanide]

Hmmm, interesting question.

Actually, I thought about it a bit, and I have decided that I would have ethical problems with this. I didn't think I would since that is what free resources are for, but I do.

-I would feel that the creator has compromised the creation in order to save money. Free resources would not easily much the story and I would be highly suspect that certain things would be lost.
-I don't like people making money off of other people's work. It seems... wrong.
-They are doing very little for the overall VN community. The community will never gather strong artists/muscians etc if no-one is willing to pay them and the indie community will have trouble growing. There is no respect.

So yeah, that is my overall feeling. I wouldn't buy it primarily on ethical issues.

[komicer]

I think that if the developer have any respect for the creator making the resources, they would have paid them anyway, even if the resources are free in the first place. Making resources takes time and effort and these should be returned in a tangible, concrete manner (aka pay). 'Recognition' and 'credits' are worth very little in my books. I got no problem with credits but please pay me first. The is a recent youtube video I saw which summarizes what I thought well. On a more selfish note, developers relying on free resources meant less paying work for my artists too. So of course, I will frown on that practice.

Apart of the issue of 'creators should be paid', relying on free resources wouldn't make the developers look good anyway.

1. It makes them look cheap and lacking of a budget to develop a proper product.
2. The final product might lack that important but intangible quality of originality.
3. If the developer lacks the confidence of recouping any cost to invest money in his or her own product, how good can it be?

So there. I am against it.

[jack_norton]

Do you mean free opensource/public domain, or free as "royalty free"? Personally I want to make all of the game myself so I never used any royalty free art (except Poser for my older games), but I saw many commercial games using royalty free art (in particular BGs since is hard to find artist good at drawing them).

[papillon]

The RPG Maker crowd still makes good money using mostly assets that came with their engine, although most of them mix in bits of unique art.

if you aren't producing your own game assets, what exactly are you contributing to your game?

Story? Programming? Quite a lot, actually. As some *other* people who've dissed the commercial RPG Maker movement have found out, even with all the tools right there it's not actually that easy to make your own game and be a success at it. Some are good at it, others are less so.

If you can make a killer game out of entirely free resources (which is pretty tough to do, since free resources are often in small quantity and don't go well together) then go for it. You face the problem that people will probably see your game as 'lesser', and it kinda is, and you would probably want to put a lower pricetag on it. You face the problem that you'll get some nasty comments and some disappointment from some players if they've seen your content before.

But it's a way to get started. Not everyone has the ability to invest huge sums, especially if they're just starting out. I suspect after making a game entirely from free stuff, you'd likely want to get your own art for your next project anyway!

If the consumer doesn't recognise the free resources, then sadly, they will have far more respect for a developer using nice-looking free resources than one who paid a lot for (or labored to make emself) unique resources that they think look less cool. Consumers do not care how hard you worked on your game. They just don't. If you expect them to, you'll be disappointed.

I freely admit to using free textures/brushes in GUI design, after checking that they were indeed okay for commercial use and crediting/linking as apppropriate. It still takes work to make use of them and turn them into the final product. (I wish I could buy ready-made GUI but there don't seem to be a lot of people selling that!)

'Recognition' and 'credits' are worth very little in my books. I got no problem with credits but please pay me first.

Yeah, and that's you, and you wouldn't be offering your resources free for commercial use anyway, would you? Artists have different opinions on the subject. I've known artists who are offended by being paid! So never assume, check on every artist's rules individually.

Especially, don't assume that because something is on the internet it's free for use, even non-commercial use. Always check.

[SusanTheCat]

I feel in the minority here. I'm OK with using free assets, as long as it is reflected in the price. I would like to see that some effort has been made to customize the sprites and make them similar in style.

The developer could put up a donate button and hope for the generosity of players, but I'm not certain how well that works in the real world.

Susan

[KomiTsuku]

*Sets up his soapbox and readies his Shield of Flaming*

Okay. Everything I say comes from someone who has no art talent, has nobody that has art talent. I am fully dependent on artists to make a final product. No matter what I do, if I want to make a visual novel, I have to acquire art from somewhere. Somebody somewhere has to sit down at their desk and draw me a pretty, pretty sprite. That somebody asks for money. I, the untalented writer, have to pay them or nothing gets done. Once that gets done, I have to go out there and find someone else who can draw me a background. They also ask for a paycheck. Yet again, I pay up. Then, because everybody wants CG images, I find and pay for that artist. I'm almost done, but I need some pretty buttons and menus. I dig into my wallet and pay this artist as well.

The rough damage fiscally I am taking from art ALONE is...

8 sprites x 8 poses/emotions x maybe a different clothing set= $500
8 backgrounds= $320
10 CGs= $450
Interface= (I've never priced it, so we will assume that I manage to get someone to do it for free.)

They're not uber quality, but they put to shame anything I could do. Let's add in some music. That's gonna run me roughly $250, if I'm lucky.

Even though I am writing and editing and coding the entire project, the time I spent doing all of this is time that I could have been doing something else to earn money. Let's say my time is worth roughly $25 an hour for all of these. It takes me a good 40 hrs to write, edit, and code in everything, assuming I sat down and did nothing else for three days straight.

Yaaaaaaaay! I have a finished product and all it cost me was $2520.

Now, at this point, I have two options. The first one to soak the entire thing up and release it to all of you for free. I'm doing this now, as we speak. Anton's Vacation is costing me considerably, but I'm taking the blow on it. Good thing I am not trying to charge, because it doesn't seem to be doing well. Going from free to any cost will hurt what little interest it has.

The other option is to charge you all. Okay, let's try that. Now, based on other threads, I can determine that the most I am going to be able to get out of you all is $10 per copy. To break even, I have to sell at least 252 copies. Do I think I can sell at least that many of my cruddy game? I'm not confident in it. This is the first commercial game I've made and nobody really knows who I am. I'm looking at taking a hit.

But, as I am beginning to despair, I notice that someone has the backgrounds I need out there for absolutely nothing. While checking the site, I notice links to free music! Why, that means that $500 I was confident I would never see again has suddenly returned! I could turn this money around and invest in double the number of CGs, maybe even a minor ad campaign. It is free music that hasn't been used in another game and backgrounds that people tend to ignore anyway! Because I cut a corner, I can make a better end product. I can invest more, maybe see more of a return.

Everyone is up in arms when it isn't their money on the line. That's my entire month's paycheck as an engineer, plus some, that just went down the drain because it didn't turn out well. When I worked at Wal-mart, that would have been 6-8 months of pay. Heck, my entire argument is assuming you HAVE the initial investment capital as an indie. Rant against it all you want, but we aren't sitting in a high profit area. Look at your bank account and say you are willing to throw away $2,500 if things go sour. Why turn against a poor indie producer just because they are trying to make creation of their game possible? If it works, then they might actually have the money to not use free resources the next time.

Sorry, I've had that rant pent up for a while. I'm getting ready for trying to invest into a large, shiny project, looking around at artists to hire, and am growing a tad leery.

[Aleema]

if you aren't producing your own game assets, what exactly are you contributing to your game?

Story? Programming? Quite a lot, actually.

I know, and I said that later in my post ... I would consider story and programming an asset, for sure.
I wish I could find the exact quote from the guy, this is just my memory speaking. But the phrase still struck a chord with me -- same as you. I got defensive, but with time, it's still in my head, haunting me. And I find truth in it, to be honest. For commercial games, at least.

Aveyond is a successful game for a reason, and it's not because it was a refreshingly novel blast-from-the-blast retro RPG. There was more to it than that. Which is the "asset." Would I have less respect for it if they just used the RTP characters for the main parties? Hells to the yeah.

But it's a way to get started. Not everyone has the ability to invest huge sums, especially if they're just starting out.

I'm not in the commercial business, so I don't necessarily find pity for budding entrepreneurs making excuses for their quality of work. I'm sure if I ever am, my attitude might change, but right now I feel those same people who can't afford assets should, I dunno, make a game they can afford? Of course, I whole-hearted believe in just making games. Makes games. Make them. When you start roping them off with entrance fees, make sure you're selling something worth experiencing. Making a shabby game can do more damage than just waiting to make a good one, since your reputation is on the line.

Of course, this does come back down to if free resources makes a game any less "good."

[Aleema]

To break even, I have to sell at least 252 copies. Do I think I can sell at least that many of my cruddy game? I'm not confident in it. This is the first commercial game I've made and nobody really knows who I am. I'm looking at taking a hit.

Do you really not like your game? Do you personally believe it's cruddy? That could be your first problem.

Here's my thoughts. (Since I studied film, movies are about the only thing I can equate to this.) Every movie costs money to make. Usually: a lot. In school, my peers would whore themselves out to make a little money for their movie. "Their movie"; their film; their passion. In the end, what does it give them? Either it gives them a good piece for the portfolio, an instant hit at a film festival making their entire career, or just self-actualization (if no one really liked it but him). All three of these are good things. The bad result would be if they were shooting a movie they didn't necessarily like, and in the end, no one else liked it either. Of course, if they're focused on a career more than fulfilling a vision, they should conform to certain formulas that Hollywood would want to sell. That's why a lot of people remain indie, so that they're not compromised by budgets and "what will sell." But then the indie folks don't have good budgets to begin with, so may never "sell."

Take from that what you will.

[Auro-Cyanide]

I do understand KomiTsuku's point. That is why I initial thought that I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I guess it comes down to those who try and those who don't. Let's take KomiTsuku's project for a moment. Let's say it is made commercial and they are going to sell it. They have sunk money into sprites and CGs so they have control over the story, but the used free background resources because it is cheaper and they were unable to find a good artist (I agree with Jack here, though I don't really blame artists, backgrounds are boring to do >>). Personally, I wouldn't really have much problem with this. At least they tried. At least they put some money into the community. At least they made the effort to make a game that was unique.

I have far, far less issues with this, then say, a developer that just grabs every free resource they can find with out trying, either because it is easier or cheaper. Why should I give my money to someone who is trying to be easy or cheap? I much rather give it to the person who at least put in some honest effort into their game.

I suppose part of me feeling uneasy about it is me being an artist. I really want to see the VN community grow and produce strong commercial games when it can (or strong free games if they want ). I think apart of that needs to be the encouragement of the creative people, as difficult as they can be to work with. I think the community has a better chance of attracting stronger and more professional creatives/programmers/etc if they show that they are willing to fork out some cash. It has more integrity about it. It is like someone who actually draws vs someone who uses bases.

[kinougames]

Everyone is up in arms when it isn't their money on the line. That's my entire month's paycheck as an engineer, plus some, that just went down the drain because it didn't turn out well. When I worked at Wal-mart, that would have been 6-8 months of pay. Heck, my entire argument is assuming you HAVE the initial investment capital as an indie. Rant against it all you want, but we aren't sitting in a high profit area. Look at your bank account and say you are willing to throw away $2,500 if things go sour. Why turn against a poor indie producer just because they are trying to make creation of their game possible? If it works, then they might actually have the money to not use free resources the next time.

Sorry, I've had that rant pent up for a while. I'm getting ready for trying to invest into a large, shiny project, looking around at artists to hire, and am growing a tad leery.

Honestly? This is the nature of video games. It's one of those things you do need to suck up and deal with, because when you make games, you have to expect that you might fail if you didn't play the cards right. If you want to make money, you have to spend it, and you have to assume that there is a risk of getting $0 back. That's just how it works. It's a tough road, but it's how it works.

Customers do not care about these things, and when you are asking for their money, they shouldn't care about them. It's simply how business works.

As a dev, who has indeed outsourced art for my group because of the sheer mass of it, I have been basing the standards for my game on what I would put out money for. If I won't put out X money for it at X level, and it's my game and relevant to my interests, I can't expect people who don't know me and probably don't care to. One of those things involves original assets.

On the flipside, I am okay with minimal royalty-free assets, at least you bought those, and if you can hide the open source assets really, really well, then I'll probably give it a pass.

Sprites and CGs need to be original, and I really think BGs should be as well.

[papillon]

I'm not in the commercial business, so I don't necessarily find pity for budding entrepreneurs making excuses for their quality of work. I'm sure if I ever am, my attitude might change, but right now I feel those same people who can't afford assets should, I dunno, make a game they can afford? Of course, I whole-hearted believe in just making games. Makes games. Make them. When you start roping them off with entrance fees, make sure you're selling something worth experiencing. Making a shabby game can do more damage than just waiting to make a good one, since your reputation is on the line.

Things look a little different when your life involves being unemployable and already in debt, and you have to do anything you can to earn some cash with no outlay. (Someday I should figure out how to make use of some of those experiences in a story...)

I have a lot of sympathy for people starting out. An awful lot of my indie colleagues come from high-paying jobs and have a very different outlook on life than I do. (For that matter, I would assume that if you're an engineer you have WAY more money to throw at making a game than I did!)

And your first game being shitty isn't going to do that much to your reputation because you didn't have one to lose and if it's bad probably nobody is going to hear about it anyway. Serious reputation damage comes if your first game is great and your second game is horrible.

Also, I'm confused. Are we talking free or royalty-free? I've seen people describing art in games as "free" that I know is for sale in art packs... If you're buying art packs you're still 'putting money into the community'. And again, despite what you might think about originality, consumers will tend to fall over praising how great your bought-off-the-shelf art is, while sneering at the original art...