4 ms·

I thought that this was a great idea, until I read a few of the rules: In short, you work for them, for free. You don't win unless you check all of the beauro

I thought that this was a great idea, until I read a few of the rules: In short, you work for them, for free. You don't win unless you check all of the beaurocratic checkboxes. If you make something good, you might win $20k, $10k, or $5k, but good luck with any further monitization, as you give them right to use it forever (not for "commercial" use, but the "educational" catch-all is pretty broad). It's non-exclusive rights, of course, but why would I pay you for it when I can get it from the LOC for free? The game is required to be in the browser. It's pretty obvious that they plan to put this on their website, or perhaps even create a portal for these types of games to point teachers to. I also found it interesting that they require a cheat code to allow judges to play all levels. And, they don't like copyleft licenses, either. LOL. "If you win, in consideration of and by accepting the prize, you hereby grant to the Library the worldwide, nonexclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully paid-up/royalty-free right to use the entry that I (or my team, as applicable) has submitted to the Challenge, consisting of the game itself and the description thereof (“Entry”), for noncommercial purposes in connection with the Challenge and otherwise in furtherance of the mission of the Library of Congress, including, without limitation, associated promotional and educational purposes. This right includes the right to reproduce, prepare derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, or otherwise make use of the Entry, in any form, media, or technology, now known or later developed, including television, radio, satellite, cable, and the Internet (including, without limitation, streaming, podcasting, and on websites with user-generated content, such as Facebook and YouTube). You must also allow us to use your name, brief biography, and likeness, or if you are a minor, your first name, last initial, and state, to promote the challenge." "The game must be accessible to disabled individuals. Many people with different abilities use content and apps from the Library of Congress. We have to make sure everyone, including people with disabilities, can use anything we post." "Where there is a choice, use the most permissive license (i.e., the one allowing the broadest unconditioned use; please avoid viral licenses such as GPL)." "i. Be Section 508 compliant.[1] ii. Work with screen readers like Jaws, NVDA, VoiceOver, etc."

marcellus23 3y ago
> In short, you work for them, for free. You don't win unless you check all of the beaurocratic checkboxes > you give them right to use it forever It's a contest. They don't pay you just for entering. And of course they have rights to distribute for free forever... you're making a game _for them_. How else would it possibly work? If you want to make a game that teaches civics and want to make money off it, then just build one and don't enter the contest with it.
- coreyp_1 3y ago
  I would expect it from a private corporation. I would not expect it from a government agency. Usually, a government agency is more interested in getting people to create things. The motivation is that by offering a prize, they encourage people to create things. Acquiring the thing is not the point. Of course, they need the right to depict the product, but they do not usually want to use it for anything and everything that they want, in perpetuity, including the right to make derivative works (without your permission, I might add). The way that this is designed, I would not want to encourage anybody that I know to participate in it. You may disagree, but we probably have different thresholds for what we deem to be acceptable risk. Let me put it another way. If I were to pour my heart and soul into this project, the absolute maximum value that I could extract is $20k, which is ~$13.7k after taxes. That is the ceiling. That is it. Why would I do something that would take so much time for so little potential? I would rather risk my time on something that has no ceiling. I would give the same advice to anyone. Never settle for anything when there is an artificially-imposed cap on the earning potential.
  - jamescostian 3y ago
    This isn't designed for anyone to pour their heart and soul into it. Contestants are to make a "lightweight" (their word) game. They added a ceiling (to varying degrees) not just to the payout, but also to the submissions
    - coreyp_1 3y ago
      The rules are designed so that there will be absolutely no encumberance to them using your submission in any way that they want (if you win 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place). From limiting datasets to stipulating the license to a requirement of patent unencumberance and broad IP permissions. The section 508 requirment is also very telling. Whatever wins, they plan to copy-and-paste it into their own website at the very least. If I were to do this, then I would pour everything I had into it, because that's the way that I do things. And so, I read all the rules, and decided that I didn't like the terms. The only reason that I commented here in the first place is because the terms were so eggregious (in my opinion) that I felt that others should be warned about the danger and the extent to which they must sacrifice their IP in order to win the contest. This contest could have been so much better. Sadly, it sounds like the terms were written by some greedy corporation looking to find a cheap way to mass-producde games. ($35k for 3 games is a bargain, but only if you're the buyer!)
sublinear 3y ago
> Work with screen readers like Jaws, NVDA, VoiceOver, etc. This is the actual dealbreaker from a technical standpoint. Good luck with that shit. One does not simply "et cetera" the screen readers, especially since games are likely to use canvas (rasterized text).
- coreyp_1 3y ago
  The flip side it that it may eliminate a lot of competition. I still won't be participating (for reasons that I give in another thread), but it's worth remembering that these types of technical difficulties can be a gold mine in the real world.
  - sublinear 3y ago
    > these types of technical difficulties can be a gold mine in the real world. It is. A11y is hot in web dev right now, but the Library of Congress isn't paying out anything close to that for this and normal web pages are much simpler to make accessible than games.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      A “game” doesn’t have to use canvas and rasterization (in fact, its pretty clear that they don’t assume that games will, since “can I use graphics” – the answer is yes – is a FAQ, not just something that goes without saying.)
parentheses 3y ago
It's easy to poke holes in government program and claim it's not friendly to a commercial mindset. The goal is to build compelling educational content for free use. I see this as a net positive and a good first attempt to do this. I'm hoping future iterations do a better job of incentivizing creators to make games for public education.
- Kapura 3y ago
  If people were motivated to build compelling education content for free, congress would not need to incentivize it with a contest, no? Incentives aren't there. As somebody who has judged indie games festival entries, I can tell you that even there it's rare to get a game that feels like it's complete, and even rarer to find one that feels like it's actually executing a gameplay idea. I don't know many folks who would bend over backwards to make a game for the government.
- conductr 3y ago
  > I see this as a net positive and a good first attempt to do this. I'm hoping future iterations do a better job of incentivizing creators to make games for public education. My take is that a good first attempt would cast a larger net through proper incentives and/or less restrictions. Then as they iterate they can decide where to tighten up things. As is, this seems to be completely lacking any inspiration and actually demotivational
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lostfiddler 3y ago
OP being sneaky, trying to discourage ppl from entering, thin out the competition.
qwery 3y ago
I expect most games available for sale don't ever see $5k, but I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against participating in such a "challenge".
moffkalast 3y ago
> You must also allow us to use your name, brief biography, and likeness, or if you are a minor, your first name, last initial, and state, to promote the challenge. NSA approved.
komali2 3y ago
> please avoid viral licenses such as GPL Is this a "please" or a requirement? Because the easiest answer to the issue is just... release the game under GPL3 and have done with it. Essentially transferring your copyright to the US government seems silly, would rather just make it available to everyone.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Is this a “please” or a requirement? It is a “please” but is part of a parenthetical attached to “Where there is a choice, use the most permissive license “ which is not a “please”. So, yeah, if you are dependent on GPL3 dependency, GPLv3 is the most permissive license available, there is no choice. OTOH, that may be a factor weighed against your submission.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> In short, you work for them, for free. No, if that was the case the permissions would be exclusive but sublicensable, not non-exclusive. > It’s pretty obvious that they plan to put this on their website, Yes, and? > I also found it interesting that they require a cheat code to allow judges to play all levels. Seems to be a sensible way to make evaluation possible when a game might naturally have a longer gameplay with progressive enabling of content. What do you find interesting about it? > And, they don’t like copyleft licenses, either. Copyleft licenses limit the utility of the code as a starting point for others looking to consume LOC resources; serving as that seems to be a secondary goal behind the primary civics education goal of the project.

marcellus23 3y ago

> In short, you work for them, for free. You don't win unless you check all of the beaurocratic checkboxes > you give them right to use it forever It's a contest. They don't pay you just for entering. And of course they have rights to distribute for free forever... you're making a game _for them_. How else would it possibly work? If you want to make a game that teaches civics and want to make money off it, then just build one and don't enter the contest with it.

coreyp_1 3y ago
I would expect it from a private corporation. I would not expect it from a government agency. Usually, a government agency is more interested in getting people to create things. The motivation is that by offering a prize, they encourage people to create things. Acquiring the thing is not the point. Of course, they need the right to depict the product, but they do not usually want to use it for anything and everything that they want, in perpetuity, including the right to make derivative works (without your permission, I might add). The way that this is designed, I would not want to encourage anybody that I know to participate in it. You may disagree, but we probably have different thresholds for what we deem to be acceptable risk. Let me put it another way. If I were to pour my heart and soul into this project, the absolute maximum value that I could extract is $20k, which is ~$13.7k after taxes. That is the ceiling. That is it. Why would I do something that would take so much time for so little potential? I would rather risk my time on something that has no ceiling. I would give the same advice to anyone. Never settle for anything when there is an artificially-imposed cap on the earning potential.
- jamescostian 3y ago
  This isn't designed for anyone to pour their heart and soul into it. Contestants are to make a "lightweight" (their word) game. They added a ceiling (to varying degrees) not just to the payout, but also to the submissions
  - coreyp_1 3y ago
    The rules are designed so that there will be absolutely no encumberance to them using your submission in any way that they want (if you win 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place). From limiting datasets to stipulating the license to a requirement of patent unencumberance and broad IP permissions. The section 508 requirment is also very telling. Whatever wins, they plan to copy-and-paste it into their own website at the very least. If I were to do this, then I would pour everything I had into it, because that's the way that I do things. And so, I read all the rules, and decided that I didn't like the terms. The only reason that I commented here in the first place is because the terms were so eggregious (in my opinion) that I felt that others should be warned about the danger and the extent to which they must sacrifice their IP in order to win the contest. This contest could have been so much better. Sadly, it sounds like the terms were written by some greedy corporation looking to find a cheap way to mass-producde games. ($35k for 3 games is a bargain, but only if you're the buyer!)

sublinear 3y ago

> Work with screen readers like Jaws, NVDA, VoiceOver, etc. This is the actual dealbreaker from a technical standpoint. Good luck with that shit. One does not simply "et cetera" the screen readers, especially since games are likely to use canvas (rasterized text).

coreyp_1 3y ago
The flip side it that it may eliminate a lot of competition. I still won't be participating (for reasons that I give in another thread), but it's worth remembering that these types of technical difficulties can be a gold mine in the real world.
- sublinear 3y ago
  > these types of technical difficulties can be a gold mine in the real world. It is. A11y is hot in web dev right now, but the Library of Congress isn't paying out anything close to that for this and normal web pages are much simpler to make accessible than games.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    A “game” doesn’t have to use canvas and rasterization (in fact, its pretty clear that they don’t assume that games will, since “can I use graphics” – the answer is yes – is a FAQ, not just something that goes without saying.)

parentheses 3y ago

It's easy to poke holes in government program and claim it's not friendly to a commercial mindset. The goal is to build compelling educational content for free use. I see this as a net positive and a good first attempt to do this. I'm hoping future iterations do a better job of incentivizing creators to make games for public education.

Kapura 3y ago
If people were motivated to build compelling education content for free, congress would not need to incentivize it with a contest, no? Incentives aren't there. As somebody who has judged indie games festival entries, I can tell you that even there it's rare to get a game that feels like it's complete, and even rarer to find one that feels like it's actually executing a gameplay idea. I don't know many folks who would bend over backwards to make a game for the government.
conductr 3y ago
> I see this as a net positive and a good first attempt to do this. I'm hoping future iterations do a better job of incentivizing creators to make games for public education. My take is that a good first attempt would cast a larger net through proper incentives and/or less restrictions. Then as they iterate they can decide where to tighten up things. As is, this seems to be completely lacking any inspiration and actually demotivational

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lostfiddler 3y ago

OP being sneaky, trying to discourage ppl from entering, thin out the competition.

qwery 3y ago

I expect most games available for sale don't ever see $5k, but I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against participating in such a "challenge".

moffkalast 3y ago

> You must also allow us to use your name, brief biography, and likeness, or if you are a minor, your first name, last initial, and state, to promote the challenge. NSA approved.

komali2 3y ago

> please avoid viral licenses such as GPL Is this a "please" or a requirement? Because the easiest answer to the issue is just... release the game under GPL3 and have done with it. Essentially transferring your copyright to the US government seems silly, would rather just make it available to everyone.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Is this a “please” or a requirement? It is a “please” but is part of a parenthetical attached to “Where there is a choice, use the most permissive license “ which is not a “please”. So, yeah, if you are dependent on GPL3 dependency, GPLv3 is the most permissive license available, there is no choice. OTOH, that may be a factor weighed against your submission.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> In short, you work for them, for free. No, if that was the case the permissions would be exclusive but sublicensable, not non-exclusive. > It’s pretty obvious that they plan to put this on their website, Yes, and? > I also found it interesting that they require a cheat code to allow judges to play all levels. Seems to be a sensible way to make evaluation possible when a game might naturally have a longer gameplay with progressive enabling of content. What do you find interesting about it? > And, they don’t like copyleft licenses, either. Copyleft licenses limit the utility of the code as a starting point for others looking to consume LOC resources; serving as that seems to be a secondary goal behind the primary civics education goal of the project.