Any game developers out there? Developing next step of online gambling

[ThePiachu]

Any game developers out there that would like to join me in creating some Bitcoin-powered open source software for online casinos?

I have some idea on how to make take Bitcoin online casinos and provably fair games to the next level, but I don't think I could fully realise my vision alone. I would like to partner up with someone else to help me develop some Bitcoin-powered open source software for online casinos. I think about using Unity3D for the front-end, with everything else being up for debate. Ideally I would like to partner with at least one person in the US so we would be able to launch some Kickstarter for the project.

So, is anyone interested in something like this?

[1715245021]

1715245021

[1715245021]

1715245021

[1715245021]

1715245021

[cbeast]

Open source provably fair gambling software is a great idea. In fact, it's one of the best ideas ever.

[ThePiachu]

Open source provably fair gambling software is a great idea. In fact, it's one of the best ideas ever.

And it's not all I have planned .

[cbeast]

Open source provably fair gambling software is a great idea. In fact, it's one of the best ideas ever.

And it's not all I have planned .

OK, I'll bite. If it's open source, then why not just tell us what it's about? Is it a front-end for the next generation of casino slot machines to sell to Indian casinos?

[ThePiachu]

OK, I'll bite. If it's open source, then why not just tell us what it's about? Is it a front-end for the next generation of casino slot machines to sell to Indian casinos?

In such a rapidly developing community someone might take the idea and finish it before I have the chance to.

[Zeilap]

OK, I'll bite. If it's open source, then why not just tell us what it's about? Is it a front-end for the next generation of casino slot machines to sell to Indian casinos?

In such a rapidly developing community someone might take the idea and finish it before I have the chance to.

Surely that's a good thing? That's pretty much the spirit and purpose of open source software.

Sounds more like you want to call it open source but dual license for personal vs commercial use in order to make some money. Of course, this is fine, many projects do this, but in this case, there would be no interest in using for personal use - who's going to set up a gambling site that they run on their local machine to gamble against themselves? As soon as you allow others to gamble, it becomes commercial.
The other problem if you try to dual license is that the open source libraries that you use in building this project may no allow relicensing.

[ThePiachu]

Surely that's a good thing? That's pretty much the spirit and purpose of open source software.

Sounds more like you want to call it open source but dual license for personal vs commercial use in order to make some money. Of course, this is fine, many projects do this, but in this case, there would be no interest in using for personal use - who's going to set up a gambling site that they run on their local machine to gamble against themselves? As soon as you allow others to gamble, it becomes commercial.
The other problem if you try to dual license is that the open source libraries that you use in building this project may no allow relicensing.

Well, there is more ways than one to make money off software. At any rate, we'll see how things will work out.

[dooglus]

[...] open source software [...]

[...]

[...] I think about using Unity3D for the front-end, with everything else being up for debate. [...]

Unity3D is proprietary, and not available for any free operating systems as far as I can tell.

I'd prefer not having the project depend on something like that.

[ThePiachu]

Unity3D is proprietary, and not available for any free operating systems as far as I can tell.

I'd prefer not having the project depend on something like that.

Well, the point of being being open source would be code transparency, rather than going for things like a GNU license or what have you. On the other hand, one could just use Unity to develop some higher-fidelity game software, while also creating a basic version of the software from scratch using more common technology.

At any rate, such things are still up for negotiation and not set in stone.

[dooglus]

Well, the point of being being open source would be code transparency, rather than going for things like a GNU license or what have you.

My biggest problem with Unity3D is that I can't run it.  Any game that requires Unity3D won't run on OS of choice.

I also object to using non-free software in general, but not enough to stop me using it.  I use adobe's Flash player on a daily basis for instance.

[ThePiachu]

My biggest problem with Unity3D is that I can't run it.  Any game that requires Unity3D won't run on OS of choice.

I also object to using non-free software in general, but not enough to stop me using it.  I use adobe's Flash player on a daily basis for instance.

I guess from a software development standpoint that might be an issue. However, there are other things to program that won't be done in Unity - the server side for example.

As for running Unity software, I think it can be deployed on most common PCs - http://unity3d.com/unity/multiplatform/ . It has support for Linux, and can be deployed as a web app and even be ran from flash.

[rickylford]

OK, I'll bite. If it's open source, then why not just tell us what it's about? Is it a front-end for the next generation of casino slot machines to sell to Indian casinos?

In such a rapidly developing community someone might take the idea and finish it before I have the chance to.

Surely that's a good thing? That's pretty much the spirit and purpose of open source software.

Sounds more like you want to call it open source but dual license for personal vs commercial use in order to make some money. Of course, this is fine, many projects do this, but in this case, there would be no interest in using for personal use - who's going to set up a gambling site that they run on their local machine to gamble against themselves? As soon as you allow others to gamble, it becomes commercial.
The other problem if you try to dual license is that the open source libraries that you use in building this project may no allow relicensing.

Just because he's planning to open source it after release doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid reason of not wanting to release the idea now. Open source later doesn't mean he can't make money off of it. And just because it's open source doesn't mean the only way he can make money is by licensing the software. Apparently you don't have much of a grasp of how software development works.

[danieldaniel]

OK, I'll bite. If it's open source, then why not just tell us what it's about? Is it a front-end for the next generation of casino slot machines to sell to Indian casinos?

In such a rapidly developing community someone might take the idea and finish it before I have the chance to.

Surely that's a good thing? That's pretty much the spirit and purpose of open source software.

Sounds more like you want to call it open source but dual license for personal vs commercial use in order to make some money. Of course, this is fine, many projects do this, but in this case, there would be no interest in using for personal use - who's going to set up a gambling site that they run on their local machine to gamble against themselves? As soon as you allow others to gamble, it becomes commercial.
The other problem if you try to dual license is that the open source libraries that you use in building this project may no allow relicensing.

Just because he's planning to open source it after release doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid reason of not wanting to release the idea now. Open source later doesn't mean he can't make money off of it. And just because it's open source doesn't mean the only way he can make money is by licensing the software. Apparently you don't have much of a grasp of how software development works.

I don't think he meant that OP CAN'T make money off of the software, he just meant that it ruins some of the purpose of being open source to begin with.

[rickylford]

OK, I'll bite. If it's open source, then why not just tell us what it's about? Is it a front-end for the next generation of casino slot machines to sell to Indian casinos?

In such a rapidly developing community someone might take the idea and finish it before I have the chance to.

Surely that's a good thing? That's pretty much the spirit and purpose of open source software.

Sounds more like you want to call it open source but dual license for personal vs commercial use in order to make some money. Of course, this is fine, many projects do this, but in this case, there would be no interest in using for personal use - who's going to set up a gambling site that they run on their local machine to gamble against themselves? As soon as you allow others to gamble, it becomes commercial.
The other problem if you try to dual license is that the open source libraries that you use in building this project may no allow relicensing.

Just because he's planning to open source it after release doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid reason of not wanting to release the idea now. Open source later doesn't mean he can't make money off of it. And just because it's open source doesn't mean the only way he can make money is by licensing the software. Apparently you don't have much of a grasp of how software development works.

I don't think he meant that OP CAN'T make money off of the software, he just meant that it ruins some of the purpose of being open source to begin with.

If that's what Zeilap meant, then understand it doesn't ruin any purpose of being open source. If he wants to develop the project and release it online so that his company begins making money with it and then releases it as open source a month after his company has put the script through it's paces, then he is will within his right to do so. Just because he plans to make money with it after it's release doesn't mean he has to give his idea away right now, regardless of being open source or not.

Just because a script is open source doesn't mean you can't make money with it. Nor does it mean you HAVE to accept collaboration from the inception of the idea on building the script.

[nyusternie]

Well, the point of being being open source would be code transparency, rather than going for things like a GNU license or what have you.

My biggest problem with Unity3D is that I can't run it.  Any game that requires Unity3D won't run on OS of choice.

I also object to using non-free software in general, but not enough to stop me using it.  I use adobe's Flash player on a daily basis for instance.

I would have to agree with dooglus, simply on the principle that I generally don't like closed source (especially when it can be avoided). You may want to consider this library as an alternative to Unity3D http://www.libgdx.com/.  You won't get Unity's fancy IDE, nor their galleries of assets or any Xbox syndication deals. But what you will get is an Apache License, a healthy developer community and oodles of good karma.

Also, why not consider going HTML5 web-app (does your idea really require installation to a platform). Here is a great library that I have been working with for my own endeavors http://www.createjs.com/.  I'm currently developing a platform for open-source "monetized" game development using bitcoins (all provably fair of course).

If you're more comfortable, you can PM to discuss how open source + bitcoin + provably fair = very happy gamers 

[KJTetc]

Hey Piachu aren't you the guy that made btc tip bot really popular?

[DPony13]

If you need a musician/ digital music producer,
Feel free to contact me

[ThePiachu]

Hey Piachu aren't you the guy that made btc tip bot really popular?

I might be one of the people that helped it spread, but it's probably not just me. I run http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinEvangelism/ though .

[Hyena]

I'm an independent game developer. Just wanted to add that unity is sucky sucky, if you're taking that route you could as well as use gamemaker or whatever shit that takes away your freedom to solve your problems with an open mind.

I've been thinking of bitcoin games myself too and a lot but I generally dislike casino games. My ideal bitcoin game would be skill based arcade game with competitive multi player elements. Imagine tank or bomberman but you must insert a coin to play online and if you beat everybody you'll be getting their coins too. Obviously fuck unity because so simple games could be implemented on HTML5 / javascript + websocket so they would be automatically multi platform.

If you're interested I've developed a websocket <-> raw TCP proxy in C++ for unix OS but it can also be run in windows using cygwin. The proxy accepts websocket connections and translates these to normal TCP/IP for your TCP/IP game server.

Also, I have this other idea. You know how taxi drivers and barmen get tips for their service. I think that programmers should have the same opportunity and with bitcoin it can easily be done.