Which is a fair point. But kinda besides the split leading to a split in community and content to some degree.
Sounds like API specifications and an implementation of those could establish a path forward?
Certainly a lot of effort, but I assume these replications (with stolen code) at least supported discoverability and certainty on the APIs in use.
How complex is libogc?
Exposure may be the incentive but I've seen divergence between split communities. Crossposting is another activity, another barrier. Sure, it may just be two clicks, but if a reasonable number of users feel at home in one of the two, they likely won't look at the other. Especially when much of it is duplication.
I could tell you how I would like it to be, but it's probably not what others think. I find most of programmerhumor not funny.
To me, iiiitttt - and the short description fits it to some degree - should be about ridiculous stuff in IT. Be it ridiculous programs, behaviors, or users.
Programmerhumor seems like it could be something different. Or not. Joke languages, silly experiments and demonstrations like extra bad UI, or jokes (opposed to real occurrences).
🤷♀️
/edit: Also, sidenote, I dislike this community's name - purely because it's not memorable nor easily writable.
that and a split community meaning less content in each
Interactions look very impactful, nice work!
Almost! Time for a disk failure!
Do you have backups? :P
I don't know how much experience you have [in developing games or software], but to me
I expect it to be ready in about four years.
I’m working on a 4X grand strategy game, which is basically at least four games smashed into one.
sounds to me like it'll more realistically take 8 to 12 years or more realistically end up with less than was planned and the original plan cancelled in one way or another.
I'm also skeptical about the shared synergy effects of individually released titles. Trading Game and Colony Management Game sound like very different things. While you can reuse and share some aspects to them, if the gameplay logic is separate, they will diverge and make it harder to keep a shared base, and gameplay specific stuff is separate anyway. If you go this route, be mindful of this and design for a shared base only to a degree where it makes sense.
As for your listing of plus and minus side, I find the plus side much more convincing, both in what they say and impact.
It's better to reduce scope and risks, and gain experience. It's better to develop a following. It's better to learn about the whole process and expectations - towards yourself, how it will work out, success, etc.
"I might get sidetracked" will be a thing either way. I guess you mean by working on and improving the smaller titles instead of the summation title of all of them. This assessment is not convincing to me - specifically with the huge scope of the alternative in mind.
I don't know about your current following, but increasing exposure and titles seems like it would have a higher chance of increasing your following and satisfying them to me.
If your mini-games turn out to be bad rather than seeing it as a downside, take it as a chance to improve and gain feedback, or cut costs and risks. If that's the case and without those you'd have released a huge investment and title that is bad and nobody wants to play or buy. Sounds much worse to me.
Even with smaller titles released, once concluded, they could be bundled or iterated on into the bigger title you had originally planned. So I don't think it's one or the other, but a much less risky and more productive way of building towards that vision that has many uncertainties.
I don't think it's a very innovative or surprising or novel development or release strategy. It just makes sense.
"Press enter to start" - I press numpad enter and it adds another player :P
IIRC I've had pip fail like that too. Unable to build a lib it included.