Are programmers more generous than artists?

#1 There is a little thing called food, clothing and shelter. Normally I like people to work for me for
free all day but something about they have to eat and pay bills. Bah you can't be a pro C++ programmer under the bridge in your cardboard box?

#2 It's not like there are no freebies around. Simply art is so much more project/style-specific. You say "shack", I think "what century? what country? realistic/cartoon? real-life/fantasy?"
And that's just a lousy shack.

#3 @Nauris Krauze

The exact thing is true of programming.

@Afrim Kacaj

Yeah, it's really true. Programmers are more generous and sharing than artists. But that's the nature of professional art though. It's brutally competative. Programmers? Eh. There's not even enough around to fill the jobs. We can do what ever the hell we want. Who's going to complain? We all last less than 3 years at a company on average, cause we get better paying jobs somewhere else. But that's the freedom of not having everyone and their brother to compete with. Nobody 'dreams' of being a programmer. :P

#4 In the case of the US then that might very well be true, but not everywhere else. In Sweden it is the opposite. There are simply too many programmers around and too few jobs.

I would not say programmers are more generous. I think it comes down to that where "free jobs" are promoted, people do not care as much about *how* the code is written, but that it works. The same thing can not be said about art, IMHO.

#5 The reason for this is very simple. Both artists and programmers are adrenaline junkies. They do what they do in order to feel the high when someone says to them "hey, that's cool." Both artists and programmers must actually release something in order to get the maximum adrenaline rush from their creations.

For a programmer learning Torque, the best way to do this is to release a resource. Full projects take a long time before the full adrenaline rush can be felt, and so releasing a resource is a good way to get a little pick me up.

Conversely, for an artist, all they need to do is post a picture. You don't need fully usable in game models to appreciate a cool model, all you need is a screenshot of it. Hell, it doesn't even need to be in an game screenie.

Since all good game developers are inherantly lazy beasts, nobody does more then they need to to get that high, and thus you see more "free" code then you do art.

(Side Note: This post completely ignores whether "free" code or art is actually any good or not, which is a whole different issue.)

T.

#6 LOL

Although I do have to admit (being a developer) we are very lazy. :)

For my 3 1/2 cents I would have to say that the reason you see more free code than art is simple.

... too damn simple that I can't type it out. Call it my lazy nature. :)

Soo on that note I will agree with Tom on this matter and go back to what I was doing.

My couch is calling and says that if I hurry I can have the whole damn bag of Cheeto's that it is holding for me.

#7 What about the lowpolycoop.com gilman st. project??? That project was all generosity it was alot of work it took all the contributors quite a while to finish.

#8 @Tom Bampton

LOL Awesome.

@Jeff

There's always some exceptional person(s) to make the rest of us look bad. :P

#9 Hi guys,

I suspect that the Torque End User License Agreement is responsible for many of the code resources being free and the overall perception that coders are more generous than artists in the Garage Games community.

The EULA restrictions about distributing derivatives of the engine to protect GG intellectual property are perfectly valid, but have caused some confusion among code developers over the years. It's important for Garage Games to protect its investments, but the details about what is and what isn't permissable with the engine isn't always easy for non-lawyers to understand.

As I understand things, any add-on code pack that includes some source code from a Garage Games engine falls under this protection and can't be sold without permission from GG. Free code resources posted and hosted in the private sections of the Garage Games website have fewer restrictions -- although some are rejected from time to time.

As for the other side of the issue -- pure art and script packs have total freedom for distribution & sale. There are no engine restrictions about selling art content packs. As such, there is almost never any debate about selling game art or script packs. There are excellent free art resources available, but the bottom line is that it's easier (from a legal standpoint) to sell art and script packs than it is to sell GG engine-derived code packs.

That's why coders seem more generous than artists -- it's all about the EULA.

:)

#10 If coders are so more generous than artists, Anton, and since this 'art' is as much an art as graphics; not many coders will compile a binary for you, or offer to; things seem to stop short there...I mean, if you expect art that has mesh, texture, and animation as a 'complete' package...how come these resources don't come with a compiled .exe to make it all happen[for there artist buddies...:)], instead you are directed to finish it yourself??

Thanks, Aaron

#11 I used to make tutorials/resources for worldcraft/hammer/photoshop/flash/php, etc.. a while back, and coding resources (and not just here at GG) so I would have to say that neither is more generous. You can find modelling tutorials and free textures and models all over the internet, just the same as code.

@rex
how come these resources don't come with a compiled .exe

It's because you can do more than one resource. This way you can pick and choose what you wanna add to your project. If everyone gave just the compiled .exe it would only have that one specific resource included. Not to mention most programmers like learning from the resources to see how things work.

#12 There are a number of reasons code is more freely given away than art:

1. A good chunk of code in a nearly any game can be made generic. Lots of art is directly tied to a specific game (think of the custom menu art for instance).
2. Code is easier to rework and customize. I can change the code for animating a dog into a cat better than I can change an animation of a dog into a cat.
3. Hobbyist programmers are often paid quite well. We have greater time to stroke our egos by giving away code. Many artists I've met are in a constant state of getting their next gig. They spend their time developing contacts and piercing things.
4. An artist has a shorter path to sell something. A number of art contracts could take under 20 hours of work, with the artist knowing little about the project beforehand. The possibility of a programmer picking up 5 extra hours of work is virtually non-existant.


I've seen this discussion many times before and often the artists are saying, "we're just as generous." Well, no you're not but there is nothing wrong with that. I think reason #4 is probably the biggest. A programmer can pick up a small job for $50-100 and spend a couple hours on it. For a programmer the only jobs that small are typically at the tech support level and there is no point to getting paid less than your regular job to navigate the quagmire of troubleshooting a user's problem.

#13 Everyone gives what they can back to the community. Sometimes in in free art, other times its in support or documentation or just helping out on IRC.

Griping about how you think one segment of the community appears more helpful than an other is just being petty and insulting the very nature of why people volunteer and donate their time here providing community based support.

#14 To rework code to customise it to your project is a completely different story to reworking models.

You can learn techniques and structure from looking at code. Not so much from models.

Its usually easier to start again then rework a model. Imagine someone reworks a top notch character model though their skills arent top notch (as can be the case for people downloading free models) and they change the head. Now you have a below par head on a top notch model. Doesnt really figure does it.

Most free art is generally left unchanged and the gamer can be a lot less forgiving about seeing the exact same art in different games then seeing a game with derivative code.

The fields are completely different anyway, programming honours those with logic and problem solving skills, art honours those good at aesthetics (or making a pretty picture if you like).

This isn't really an opinion on the matter of which group is more generous, more just comments on why I think there arent more free models.

#15 [This post only semi sarcastic, not completely sarcastic as it may first appear]

Art is bitch hard.
Coding isn't.

Gary (-;

#16 Thanks Jeff and Anton for the kind words. I think the thing we struggled with the most as we were making a freebie pack is to Lance's point "A good chunk of code in a nearly any game can be made generic. Lots of art is directly tied to a specific game ". It has been a fine line to make something that has some personality (and hopefully artistry) to it that still has enough universal usefulness to it. I think the one reason we were able to stick to a plan and release a whole pack is that the project was first and foremost a collective art project that we would be doing anyways and it later became something that we would thought woould be valuable to release.

Having been the facilitator for an ongoing freebie project has given me the opportunity to meet many artists of all levels who are excited to give away work for something other than money. The catch is that most arists, including me, want to see their work actually used in a game in some way. Nothing kills the motivation to volunteer all those hours of work quicker thant to have the work just sit buried on your hard drive. I know I have plenty sitting in my "game_projects" folder. A lot of stuff done for specific game teams is near impossible to repurpose aesthetically.

Oh, yeah, send screenshots. I get paid in positive feedback loops.

Scott (from the Low Poly Coop)

#17 I have to agree. Programmers help me all the time but I'm trying to learn art and only one person helped me. Although I have to thank that one person for helping me, but only that one person.

#18 This is a very touchy subject.

I can see Afrim's point. I have done two games so far and busy researching a third. Each time I have advertised for artists to work on the project, I got zero response because I could not afford to put up any money. But who pays me for my work on the project? I ended up doing my own art, enjoyed it a lot, but it's very time consuming, just like writing code is.

That situation does not motivate me to rush out and help any artists who "just want something compiled". Why not set up an art resource section where artists can post "Torque Ready" contributions. GG should do this so that it's part of the community and can be rated by the community, not a separate off-shoot like the Lowpolly thingy. (no disrespect intended)

At least that way, artists who can be seen to contribute can expect more help from programmers I think.

But the current setup is creating a us-versus-them situation because the artist are seen to be getting the only financial advantage in the community.

I don't know what the solution is but there needs to be a way to break down the barriers between artists and programmers because games require input from both.

#19 I guess I could have come across a bit meaner than I intended. I'll summarize my thoughts:

1. The work required to produce free art is nearly indistinguishable from an artists paid work process.

2. My free code is a world away from my day job.



A couple other things to be mentioned I guess:
1. Code can be given away when it's not done.
2. Giving away unfinished code that *nearly* solves a problem is often in the coders best interest (getting the community to help on that problem).
3. Code is easy to diff and patch down to the individual byte.

The second is something that I can't conceive of with an art related problem. Can you imagine tossing an image out there and saying, "I can't quite get the eyes right." And getting 1834 patches to your model.

#20 I think that it is simply the perception of the market. Lowpolycoop and the number of artists that have released their models/textures/sprite libraries/etc for free are the exception to the rule. But it has a lot to do with the art market, as stated above. When open source was a new concept, it was rather slow to pick up because the programming market was extremely wary of it. More recently, the Mac availability of open source software is an extremely new phenomenon (not to say there we not Mac OS projects, but they were extremely rare). Prior to that, every utility had a pricetag and it was VERY slow to change.

I see the same thing happening to a point. But there will always be a call for paid artists just as there will always be a call for paid programming staff. But there is also a world where free art can be made available and is being made available where it was more rare before.