4 ms·

This smacks of out of touch bureaucrats saying "what do the kids like? Video games? Lets get some of them together." $20k covers next to no development of a mod

by Kapura 3y ago

This smacks of out of touch bureaucrats saying "what do the kids like? Video games? Lets get some of them together." $20k covers next to no development of a modern video game. If they _actually_ wanted to engage with folks creating popular games in order to create pro-civic content, that'd be neato (imo) but it's going to require actually paying for quality.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> This smacks of out of touch bureaucrats saying “what do the kids like? Video games? Lets get some of them together.” Its actually bureaucrats getting together and saying “what would be simultaneously educational and a way to showcase how to use of LOC resources that other people can build upon”. > $20k covers next to no development of a modern video game. They don’t want what you are thinking of when you say a “modern video game”, nor is the prize intended to be a purchase fee, rather, a bonus along with showcasing it for a labor-of-love. There are government projects that buy things at prices intended to cover the actual costs, they are government contracts, not competitions like this. If this isn’t the kind of thing that just seeing the description of what they are looking for doesn’t make you think “Hey’d, I’d like to do that even if I wasn’t getting paid to”, its probably not for you. > If they _actually_ wanted to engage with folks creating popular games in order to create pro-civic content, that’d be neato (imo) but it’s going to require actually paying for quality. Yes, and if that’s what they wanted, there would be an RFP, the usual set of government contracting requirements and preferences, etc., not a short-timeline competition with a requirement for (a) using LOC resources, and (b) maximally open licensing (which the LOC itself doesn’t need since it is also acquiring broad nonexclusive rights as a condition of the contest, separate from the license under which the code is offered: the open licensing is for third parties.)

by Kapura 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> This smacks of out of touch bureaucrats saying “what do the kids like? Video games? Lets get some of them together.” Its actually bureaucrats getting together and saying “what would be simultaneously educational and a way to showcase how to use of LOC resources that other people can build upon”. > $20k covers next to no development of a modern video game. They don’t want what you are thinking of when you say a “modern video game”, nor is the prize intended to be a purchase fee, rather, a bonus along with showcasing it for a labor-of-love. There are government projects that buy things at prices intended to cover the actual costs, they are government contracts, not competitions like this. If this isn’t the kind of thing that just seeing the description of what they are looking for doesn’t make you think “Hey’d, I’d like to do that even if I wasn’t getting paid to”, its probably not for you. > If they _actually_ wanted to engage with folks creating popular games in order to create pro-civic content, that’d be neato (imo) but it’s going to require actually paying for quality. Yes, and if that’s what they wanted, there would be an RFP, the usual set of government contracting requirements and preferences, etc., not a short-timeline competition with a requirement for (a) using LOC resources, and (b) maximally open licensing (which the LOC itself doesn’t need since it is also acquiring broad nonexclusive rights as a condition of the contest, separate from the license under which the code is offered: the open licensing is for third parties.)