Developer Fund

[Julius]

For the people saying that they'd prefer donations instead..

The way I'm seeing this (and craigix please correct me if I'm wrong), this isn't meant to just provide a way to reward developers of software that you like. Instead it's supposed to strengthen the software library on the Pandora as a whole, acting as a motivator for good software in general. Which is why it's being offered with the purchases of the Pandoras themselves. Having everyone donate to the most popular software isn't really going to accomplish this. I see it as being like something that "stimulates the economy."

I could be totally wrong though.

Which is exactly why there should be some other way of distributing it than popular vote.
A (voted?) group of highly respected people from this community would probably be a good idea.

Another thing to keep in mind:
A centralized pot allows for smaller donations, e.g. sending $2-3 via Paypal to individual people doesn't make sense since paypal eats up most of it, but donating $20 to the fund would make sure that it gets distributed more evenly.

 

[wraggster]

we musnt also forget that drivers written to make better use of the hardware are as important as any emu/game released because as you know drivers that improve and pull the most out of the hardware make a massive difference to everything.

at least open discussion is throwing up good discussion

 

[AireTamStorm]

As others said there has to be some real controls put in place here... If we're going to do a centralized donation system there would likely be an entire site dedicated to it.

I don't think votes on how good the software is is a great way to base where the donations go. If we have a site, like donatetothepandoraproject.com, you would make an account there, donate some cash (and be given the option to do it again) and then IN YOUR ACCOUNT you would vote for what Pandora development is important TO YOU.

QUOTE
OS
Driver Updates and Bugfixes
1 2 3 4 5
Firefox 3.0 ports
1 2 3 4 5
Specific projects:
PS Emulator:
1 2 3 4 5
Original Game (name):
1 2 3 4 5



So you, in a centralized area would be given the option to donate either to a specific project, or a general category. This site would also collect votes / feedback for "PS Emulator" or "Original Game" regarding feature requests, bugfixes and bug reports. This way, the developers get $$$, get told what issues the userbase has, knows what features are popular on the request list, and can see how many donations have been made to make it happen. Give users this kind of control and you'd have something really worth fighting for here.

Edit: Example of this: Anybody here ever have a TransGaming account for Cedega?

 

[ingrin]

I think I will probably not contribute and instead vote with my money on specific projects that interest only me or a small subset of the community.

Capitalism? In an open source project? :huh:

I don't HAVE to give anything to these hard working devs.
This isn't about capitalism, its about controlling where my donation money goes. In the US, if I'm feeling charitable, I can donate to the United Way and avoid the hassle of trying to know which of the many charities in their network actually get the money. Otherwise, I can donate to individual charities whose cause I am most interested in. Neither way is better.

Also, I agree with Prophet above. If someone who normally donates to individuals gives their $xx dollars at the front, they may feel uninclined to give further as they have already done their ethical duty, so to speak.
I think since its voluntary, and not obligitory, this is less likely to happen, but it should still be taken into account.

I'm also concerned about rationing the money. Lets say 40% of the Pandora's are sold in the first year. its conceivable that projects that are much more difficult, and therefore take 2-4 years to develop, may actually see less money from this unified pool than quick and easy (but full featured and high quality) emu port released in the first year.

Anyway, not a bad idea overall, I certainly don't object, I'm just not sure I'll join in.

One question though to Craigix,
Will commercial developers have access to this pool as well? I wouldn't object really, I understand that these projects may have to have a path to profitability in order to be greenlighted.

 

[DisgruntleElf]

Common scenario with the GP2X. Developer A creates first release application and abandons project. Developer B picks up where Developer A leaves off. Developer C contributes to application with Developer B. And so on. Who gets the money? Is Developer B gonna be responsible for writing checks for using Developer's A application and Developer's C contribution when he gets paid? Gonna have to set up some sort of collection agency thread. :lol:

 

[TaG]

That being said, don't you think it's a little screwy that we're talking about donating to a project that still doesn't have a release date...
That is a fair point.

The timing of this discussion might be a bit off. People will undoubtedly feel more generous once the Pandora seems more real to them.

Maybe, but if it's at point of sale they need to sort it out before then. (This is where we get all optimistic again and say "are they close to announcing...")

 

[javaJake]

A great idea none theless i do agree with guyfawkes that emu authors will get the greater feedback as that has happened on every homebrew console so far.

No one has told me why that's a bad thing, as long as no one category don't get all the goods.

Much rather you just raise the price and open it up.

Why don't you raise the price yourself and open it up (for yourself)?


But at the expense of others and my kharma? Would be heartbreaking to see such a fine open project close even a little, the words, "developer program", make me wince and set off alarms.


The developer wants some proceeds from his development. How is he going to do it? Have only people who donated receive the beta releases. There's nothing wrong with capitalism, even in the open-source world. Did you know that Mozilla Firefox is a for-profit organization? (Or was it Mozilla? It was one of those.) While I'm on a roll I might as well point out that many good projects emerge from full-time developers working on open-source projects.

Edit: This fund is for slightly different purposes but my arguments still hold water as far as I can tell.

This isn't about capitalism, its about controlling where my donation money goes. In the US, if I'm feeling charitable, I can donate to the United Way and avoid the hassle of trying to know which of the many charities in their network actually get the money. Otherwise, I can donate to individual charities whose cause I am most interested in. Neither way is better.

This debate reminds me of the recent UMPC vs. Console discussions.

 

[MWeston]

I like the way some other companies handle this: bounties. A certain type of app pays a set amount of money.

Collecting cash from the community to distribute to the devs is asking for a world of hurt if all the rules are not put in place first. My opinion would be to have a rule sheet made up from day one that explains what you have to do to get the money. If you don't complete the project or half ass it, you don't get paid. The money will remain in the pool for someone else's project. Since you know the rules going in, you can't be ticked off if you don't get paid for failing.

Of course that leads to subjective decision making on what qualifies as a successful project and again, that is asking for trouble. There will have to be minimums, goals and bonus features determined for each project.

But then that might be interpreted as limiting since creative freedoms are limited.......

Pretty tricky stuff! I hope this topic leads to a pretty strong community agreement on the right way to go!

 

[sehs33]

I am sorry if this has been already suggested, I am in a bit of a hurry and I can't read all the replies:
What if the fund was divided to percentages, 35% for emulators, 25% for original games, xx% for drivers etc... The community can set the percentages using a poll, and then Craigix and co will have total freedom to distribute the fund as they wish to each category depending on what they see possible.

 

[Sphinxter]

A slippery slope, after flipping to godwin and back I'll just say I like a free market and ante up with whatever is acceptable, my little art projects would never qualify. As a user, eh, it's worth it.

 

[Prophet]

Pretty tricky stuff! I hope this topic leads to a pretty strong community agreement on the right way to go!

This is a tough one; there are valid arguments on every possible side and angle.

In the past, people did what they did out of love and personal interest. And people donated and/or raised funds for donations out of appreciation. Did the "system" work Ok then?

I think we pretty much have a community willing to give back to devs.

Perhaps the ball is in the dev's court here really - you guys and gals who do the hard coding work - you should decide on how the public can best reward you if they choose. Organize a dev's vote of some sort, poll interest to see how many want to be part of something like this, and how many who wish to remain independent.

But one thing for sure, getting the hardware out is the main thing!

 

[Guyfawkes]

A bounty is a possible way but it means other software not on the list would maybe not get anything and would most probably alienate a lot of releases such as original games. to make the pandora stand out it needs original software.

It does have one advantage in that the money to be given is stated from the beginning, so there are no problems in deciding how much should be given to the author(s). With the method I suggested earlier it would mean each software would have to be 'valued' when released which could cause some arguments why one piece of software got more or less than another.

 

[chad78]

I'm going to write a "Chad W Smith is AWESOME!" application. And since I'll be the only one who downloads it - I'll get 100% 5-Star feedback! I'll be rich!

That being said, don't you think it's a little screwy that we're talking about donating to a project that still doesn't have a release date or a GUI?
+1 !!! With no smiley attached.

Ok - now to seriously address the issue...

We're talking $20 a user, here, right? That's - at least for the first batch - a maximum of $60,000. Sounds like a lot of money, until you start divided it up by devs. Plus, let's face it, not everyone will contribute. Some won't contribute at all (some can't - some are just cheap - some don't believe in paying open source developers on principle) and some would rather just contribute directly to the authors individually. So if you get lucky, you might be - *MIGHT be* - talkinga about $10grand. Divide that by 500 devs.... you get $20. (the 500 devs comes from the 500 games for the GP2X).

Think about it this way - commercial systems get $20 - $60 *per game* not per console. I'm thinking the devs might be fighting over $25 by the time its said and done.

Individual contributions to individual devs makes a lot more sense to me. A centralized pot might be good for bounties, like people have suggested - but not for a "hey, everybody gets a couple bucks - the really good app writers get enough for a nice dinner."

BTW, Guy - it's great to see you here! You helped me out years ago on DCEmu.

 

[peca]

I see some complications about:

1/ Paying to dev pool when buying Pandora and buying more than one Pandora? I prepared for preorder, but one for me and another one for my friend. May be I want to pay dev fee but my friend may be not. How about dealing with this? Or we both pay fee to dev pool, but I preorder and I pay money. How we get access to betas independently? Payer identity related question.

2/ Dividing fund to devs. I want to have control about it. This may be some kind of voting, bounty hunting or so on. I think about categories voting and application requesting. So anybody can suggest category or even less or more described application. Fund chef (Craig or another respected team mate) publish category (and application) and payers vote for it. I guess that this is similiar to Transgaming Cedega. Payer interference related question.

3/ May be I decide pay fee to dev pool after I see requested categories and applications. So may be better way is get dev pool fee as separate item to buy, where every pay for devs gives some amount of voting points to payer and can be easy recharged. Postorder payment and payment repetition related question.

 

[schnitzelboy]

I'm saying it should be up to the devs. there. final. You guys can keep debating but my mind is set.

 

[atomicthumbs]

++

 

[Cervante]

I want to donate teh moniez

 

[bigtruck]

Perhaps if there's a $20 donation, there could be an option to put it all towards the 'pool', and an option of putting $10 in the pool and using $10 for a bounty of the user's choice when ordering. There would be a text box or something, where you could write whatever you want (I'd write "Freespace 2") and Craig and co keep track of that list of bounties and give them to the developer when the project is finished.

 

[plopperz]

Well, if someone wants to decide who their money goes to, then they should donate to that dev separately.

Think of it this way,
Imagine you're Dev A, and you spend 3 month's working on a game that looks really nice with excellent visuals and has no bugs or glitches, but lacks good gameplay. Nobody donates to you because they don't think your game is not very fun.
Now imagine Dev B comes along with a game he spent two weeks on and has great gameplay, but has OK graphics and has some bugs and glitches.
Everybody decides to give money to him.
You'd be pissed off right?

If other devs decided where the money went based on how much time and effort was put into it, this wouldn't be a problem.

Of course, this is probably the best argument for a bounty system, because Dev A would've spent his time working on a game people wanted.
I really have no idea what I'm talking about, I should probably shut up now.

 

[gaterooze]

Firstly, this should not deter you from making individual/personal donations to specific devs for specific software you love to use. I donated hundreds of dollars to GP32/GP2X devs, and I will continue to donate to Pandora devs. This is how the "popular" programs like emus will reap the bulk of their donations.

Now, the pool idea should be likened to an art fund that Governments provide. They give grants to artists not based on popularity or commercial potential, but on a perceived community need or artistic merit.

Some of these funds will have multiple strands for different types of grants, and I think you could adopt some of those principles here. For example, six strands which each take a portion of the overall fund:

1) Original Game 25%
2) Ported Game 15%
3) Original Application 25%
4) Ported Application 15%
5) Emulators (priority given to original code) 10%
6) Bounties 10%

Bounties would be for specific programs that there has been a community need identified for, e.g. a Flash Player or a GPS map program.

Then, as wraggster suggested, a 5-person panel comprised of, say, 2 members from the Pandora dev team, 2 independent devs (who would be ineligible for grants), and 1 forum representative, to judge the submissions and distribute funds in 4-6 rounds per year.

The criteria for each strand should be stated clearly, however it should be left subjective and the panel should not be required to explain their reasoning. Of course, at their discretion, they should give private encouragement and feedback where it is due.

And yes, it should be an ongoing fund with donations accepted at any time and donation drives whenever the fund is low (the current level should be transparent at all times). If the fund is working and people like how it is run, it should be topped up perhaps once per year. If it becomes a shambles, then it will simply die out. But it is definitely worth trying.