Primary tabs

Comments by User

Friday, December 7, 2012 - 18:57

For a phrase, something along the lines of "Support non-patented formats, use OGG or FLAC!" could suffice.

As far as consumers, VLC, MPC, WinAMP and Windows Media Player with codecs are all capable of playing both of these formats. For those who would say that "Well users don't want to have to install codecs!"... perhaps not. But they already do for video files (for Windows at least a common one is the CCCP). Is it really that much more difficult to install an audio codec or two? Keep in mind that these audio codecs are mostly for those users who use WMP exclusively.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 - 16:29

Perhaps not, but those programs can at least do a mix-down to a raw, uncompressed lossless format like WAV, which can then be converted by Audacity. I can accept that it's a potential pain to have to save with one program, open it with another, and then save it again in the desired format.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 - 13:23

A simple solution is Audacity. I know I keep mentioning it but it's the only one I really know for Windows that works well and imports/exports multiple formats including OGG and FLAC.

Players include WinAMP (which reads all of them) and there are codecs for Windows Media Player for the average consumer.

Thursday, December 6, 2012 - 04:25

? Perhaps you could elaborate a bit?

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 13:59

I wouldn't suggest something as intrusive as auto-conversion, especially MP3 -> OGG (decode into non-compresses, encode into compressed throwing away other data... leads to crappy audio quality)... but I think a note encouraging the use of patent-free formats is reasonable. Of course, I'm not an admin, but I make the suggestion in an effort to help improve the goals of OGA.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 13:03

Perhaps, but I don't think "Well, OGG/FLAC isn't widely supported yet." is a good reason. PNG for the longest time wasn't widely supported but people kept using it, it gained popularity and now it's a standard. WebP will likely follow suit as a replacement for JPEG as a lossy format.

Plus, every major editor can export or mix down to WAV or some other raw format... that's where software like Audacity (and other similar, freely available tools) come into play to encode OGG files. Plus, a lot of current MP3 players do, in fact, support OGG.

It would seem that a lot of others agree with me on this point... so I'm wondering if we should consider public encouragment of OGG/FLAC?

Saturday, December 1, 2012 - 17:28

These kinds of assets are very reusable. I like it a lot.

Monday, November 26, 2012 - 08:16

These are great! I really love how the style of this graphic and the others in your series are consistent.

Thanks for another great contribution!

Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 10:42

Wrote this after a night of programming and bughunting :D

Yeah, I totally understand what you mean. I have those pretty often... by the end of a 16 or so hour stint, I'm almost babbling.

Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 09:45

First, I'd like to state that I used to be an avid fan of the GPL. At this point, I hate it. It's far too restrictive and has caused a lot of controversies. Plus, either people will ignore the GPL license and do what they want with the work anyway or they simply won't use anything licensed under the GPL for commercial works. The LGPL is a lot better in the sense that it only covers the specific portion of the software distributed and doesn't force an entire project to be licensed under the GPL -- e.g., makes it a lot easier to use with commercial projects.

That stated -- I'm not sure the GPL applies to artwork at all as it very specifically talks about software, freedom with said software, source code of said software, and the restrictions the license puts on source code and the software that is licensed. Even if it did cover art, I would still either use a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license for any and all art assets.

Personally I don't really think it matters which of the two licenses you use for art assets... but using the CC-BY-SA assumes that all users are only thinking of using it for non-commercial, open-sourced games. Not everybody does and that could be an issue for the users who really want to use the work but don't want to have to 'share alike' if they make changes to the work. After all, having those changes would give them something unique.

CC-BY, on the other hand, pretty much requires that the original artist is given credit and that the user is free to do what they want with the work, including modifications, without having to share changes they've made to the work. I can see why this one could have less appeal but I suppose it all depends on how you want your work used and how how want changes made to the work to be handled.