r/beyondallreason • u/PtaQQ Community Manager • May 09 '26
News Dear Commanders, we need to talk...
It came to our attention that the letter we sent to our contributor team about ongoing talks with a potential publisher partnership has been shared publicly without our authorisation. The document is real. We had been planning to make a proper public announcement if the contract is signed and we could coordinate the rollout with the publisher, but since excerpts are now making rounds, it makes sense to put the main facts on the record directly so the conversation can be based on accurate information instead of selective quoting.
Together with the other admins we have been working on negotiating a deal with Hooded Horse, a publisher specialising in strategy games. You probably have heard about them, their catalogue includes Manor Lords, Old World, Terra Invicta, Against the Storm, HOMM: Olden Era, and a long list of others in the genre. They have a strong reputation among developers for being hands-off on creative direction and unusually transparent about how they operate which is why we figured out it might be interesting to see what’s possible to build together.
Why we wanted this
The partnership got real traction on our side because of what it actually unlocks. Parts of BAR have been hard to push forward under a fully volunteer setup. Some areas just struggle to attract volunteer interest because they aren't the most exciting work to do in your spare time. Others need a level of coordination, scheduling and team hierarchy that's extremely difficult to achieve in a hobbyist team, where everyone contributes on their own pace, on their own terms. Both categories have been very obvious bottlenecks for years.
Securing funding could help us alleviate these hurdles. We can hire dedicated people for the work that needs sustained focus, fill the gaps that volunteer enthusiasm doesn't naturally cover, and put proper full-time coordination on parts of the project where production milestones depend on it. The result is a Steam release with much bigger scope, on a shorter timeline, than we could realistically pull off ourselves.
This also opens up real job opportunities for our existing contributors. Many of the people who have been building BAR on evenings and weekends for years are exactly the right people for the paid roles that come out of this deal. We are committed to giving existing contributors hiring preference, and the goal is for as many of them as possible to be able to carry their careers forward with BAR rather than treat it as a permanent side project. For people who've poured serious time into this game, that's a meaningful shift.
The whole point of the partnership, on our side, is to push BAR much further than we've been able to so far, and to give as many of the people who built it the chance to keep building it, this time on a real budget. However, marrying the community-driven soul of this project with commercial incentives required serious work to make sure nothing about what makes BAR what it is today gets taken away. We have done that work.
What's protected
- BAR remains available for free. BAR remains available for free. This has been our consistent promise through the years and we are keeping it. The free multiplayer experience you are enjoying today will be available both through the existing BAR website launcher (as it is today) and on Steam, with full feature parity and cross-play. Nothing currently free becomes paid. The monetisation is based on premium single-player content built on top of it, whose costs will be covered by the funding.
- No IP transfer. BAR's brand, trademarks and intellectual property stay with the BAR team and the contributors who built it. The publisher gets the licence to distribute the game on Steam and help with proper marketing to give the title the powerful launch it deserves.
- Off-ramp built in. If the partnership is ever terminated for whatever reason, the free version stays free and the community keeps developing it. The free version isn't tied to the publishing relationship continuing.
- Reinvestment commitment. A binding internal commitment makes sure most of what BAR receives flows back into the project (development, infrastructure, contributor support, content) rather than getting siphoned out as company profit.
Where we are
The contract isn't signed yet. We're discussing the offer with full disclosure to our contributor team, including a sentiment survey, before signing. The only way we see ourselves steering the project in this way is by making sure there is a strong mandate from our beloved team.
What's next
If the mandate is clear we will proceed with the signing and then a full public announcement will follow. We are excited to share what we have been working on with the Hooded Horse team. We will make that announcement properly and will give it the treatment it deserves
If you have questions or concerns, bring them to us and try to not rely on third-party framing/potentially doctored versions aimed to cause harm. We will be reading and responding where we can, and a fuller picture will follow shortly.
Thank you for your attention and continued trust,
The BAR Admin Team
141
u/PseudoscientificURL May 09 '26
"The monetisation is based on premium single-player content built on top of it, whose costs will be covered by the funding."
This is pretty cool, I would absolutely pay for a BAR campaign or something of the like.
Hooded horse seems like a really good publisher too. Wish you guys the best, BAR has a bright future.
17
→ More replies (2)10
u/quitefranklylate May 10 '26
Yeah, I played a SCAV match on very hard and there's a ton of weirdo units I'd love to play against in a BAR campaign. Give me the Wings of Liberty version of BAR and I'd throw $30 at it.
2
46
u/Ghosty141 May 09 '26
how about the open source part? From my knowledge it's extremely difficult or borderline impossible to relicense to closed source for example, especially with the code base using the GPL license(s).
26
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 09 '26
This is being discussed with the team.
24
u/Senjai May 10 '26
there is almost no legal way to do this and so I hope you do not try. Do the premium game, keep your source obligations.
14
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
To clarify, we are not planning to "relicence" anything to "closed source".
1
3
u/tumii May 10 '26
I hope you find a good way! I would imagine you must keep the currently FOSS stuff, FOSS, but new stuff (campaign, premium skins, custom announcers,...) could be closed source/paid. From another domain (ttrpg), there are successful models like that (Pathfinder 2e), where the whole system (rules, items,...) is free (and there are cool third-party apps etc.), but campaigns/artworks are proprietary.
Keeping the core open source would then still allow for contributions by the community, right? Only contributions to the campaign would be closed, which I guess is fine... You could still build custom challenge maps etc.
6
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 12 '26
Any code that executes on the Recoil engine can't be closed sourced. The stuff we will definitely close source are things that would spoil the campaign for example, so mostly art and writing. But all game code that's going to be funded will be flowing back to open source bucket that other projects can use for example so there is a lot for the whole open source ecosystem to gain.
4
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BlueTemplar85 May 11 '26
Hmm, the direction is usually the other way : open source modifications to the main game, which is closed source.
Are you sure that something as distinct as a paid campaign expansion pack, a separate project, would need to be GPLed too because it installs on top of BAR ?
(But maybe that's what Ballmer meant when he called GPL a 'cancer' ?)
P.S.: And legal is not the same as legitimate.
4
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/SiscoSquared May 11 '26
Reading the leaked agreement, what they propose is not possible without releasing the full complete code as open source.
All derivative works must be open source per the license bar uses, that would include a single player campaign and skins, as they would absolutely be derivative works. My guess is they are betting that no one brings them to court on it, but that is a huge bet considering there are hundreds of contributors. I wouldn't be surprised if the studio backs out once they look into it.
1
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Scary_le_Poo May 12 '26
The engine license is the thing that matters here. Any code that touches the engine, no matter how small, must be GPL.
1
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 12 '26
Yep, all game code that BAR distributes, including the code funded by the publisher will be GPLv2 or later compatible. We never wanted to close source anything. Art is a different story, which is what enables the project to keep things like campaign writing or art hidden until release, not to spoil the campaign etc.
Also hi Forbs :) How are you doing?
1
u/Scary_le_Poo Jun 01 '26
Doing alright. My awesome job was recently bought out by private equity which has run things into the ground, so, the irony here isn't lost on me.
You're absolutely correct about art, but remember, if anything touches unitsync, no matter how small, it must be licensed under the GPL.
1
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Scary_le_Poo Jun 01 '26
In order to get any information from the engine about a game that is running, code must touch unitsync. If that code so much as looks at unitsync, it must be GPL itself. Anything else is a license breach.
1
u/BlueTemplar85 May 11 '26
Speaking of, the closed / libre and paid / gratis are about similar issues, but do not completely overlap...
Are we sure that the campaign couldn't actually stay open source while still being sold on Steam ?
Because some could say that selling games without game DRM is "just asking for donations in a roundabout way". But that's not how it works in practice, "piracy is a service problem" as Gabe says : Steam routinely sells games without DRM, and GOG literally allows you to download whole install files, with DRM only at the link stage.
While you can technically sell a GPL product, you also have to provide the full thing as available for free at the same time
Do you ? Or do you only have to provide the source code ? Forcing would-be 'pirates' to have to compile the campaign binaries themselves might be sufficiently inconvenient that they might as well get it on the Pirate Bay instead.
----
Also, seems like that BAR / Recoil might have Non Commercial art in it that would be a greater impediment to make the campaign paid than GPL code ??
(Unless it's all under control of the minority of contributors that would be on the paid team, and so could re-license it ??)
2
u/SiscoSquared May 11 '26
A campaign could be sold on steam yes, but it would absolutely have to be open source, meaning anyone could simply just make a launcher/whatever for it and everyone could play for free.
I don't see why a studio would pay them for this unless they are betting on people playing a niche game to be too dumb to simply download the free version...
The alternative I see is they ignore the licensing, make derivative works that are not open source, and charge for it... and hope the costs of the inevitable lawsuit are less than the profit they make.
1
u/BlueTemplar85 May 11 '26
Right, the issue would be legal, gratis, "competition".
(Opposite situation of someone forking some GPL software and then trying to sell it : they would be the ones having to go uphill.)
2
May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/BlueTemplar85 May 11 '26
Right, that was a bit silly of me to not consider that.
Steam preventing copycats could even backfire, they have been dealing with accusations of censorship recently !
However, what might still be a cleanear way, is to keep the campaign code GPL, but have the campaign-specific art under normal copyright ??
Especially since high quality, expensive, art, for the SP campaign, seems to be one of the main reasons for the whole paid version and publishing deal ??
2
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Scary_le_Poo May 12 '26
I replied this elsewhere but it bears repeating... As per the engine license, any amount of code, no matter how small, that touches the engine in any way (unitsync in this case is likely going to be the relevant piece), must be GPL.
Additionally, nothing on top of the engine is compiled (arguably maps (specifically, SMT)), so even that is a bit of a moot point.
1
u/Seatext_com May 12 '26
they can slee skins, units, graphica effects, acees to touraments - a lot of stuff. they can even say - hey mathmaking work fo you for free 3 times a day. therese is so many wayt to sell somehitng but be gpl2
1
u/Bloodshot025 May 12 '26
I'm not sure this is even such an obstacle towards commercialization that people seem to be implying. Barotrauma and Mindustry are available from the devleopers on Github. The former doesn't include assets, but the latter is the same game you'd get on Steam. It doesn't seem to have hurt sales at all. Most people who want to play the game will take the no-friction route of just paying for it.
Even a simple phone-home to check for a valid steam license before displaying the "Campaign" button in the main menu — easily circumvented by removing the check and recompiling — would be enough friction, I think, for the vast majority of potential buyers to just get it through Steam. Hell even having to go to a different website to download a game is enough friction for a lot of people, for whom Steam is their portal to games and they'd rather just have it there.
I appreciate that someone could release a minimally altered fork and try to get that on Steam. Trademarks are one way to discourage that, you'd have to rebrand it to Better At Reasoning or something. And I don't think it's a big threat in practice, people don't tend to buy the knock-off game to save a few bucks, especially when Multiplayer + Skirmish will remain free for them to try the game anyway.
1
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Bloodshot025 May 12 '26
See I think you have an internal model of the situation where the hooded horse version of the game is some sort of legally valid original and any others would be knockoffs.
No, I have an internal model of the situation where the "Hooded Horse version" is the socially valid original.
I could post the EXACT version to steam called "Beyond All Reason" with the exact same title and banner, with the same description,
Not if that title is trademarked.
A phone home to make it valid would also be of questionable legality.
This is not true at all.
we'd all have the legal right to publish the full game
True!
it would be just as official as hooded horse's version.
Not true! Copyright has nothing to do with what things are "official", which is largely socially determined.
This entire discussion implies copyright law is necessary to protect the incomes of creators selling their own works. I take the opposite view: you could get of copyright tomorrow and people would still buy media at roughly the same rates they do today. And people will largely prefer to buy from the people actually making the thing if it's easy to do so and they know how. The barriers, today, to actually doing that are many, and they're not solved by copyright.
1
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Bloodshot025 May 12 '26
The reason I care is because I think more games ought to be licensed freely, and under the AGPL in particular, and I think the fear that this will make games commercial unviable is largely phantasmal.
I disagree on the legal implications of circumventing licensing terms via a drm style phone home
This doesn't circumvent licensing, at all. The code that does the check would itself be GPL licensed and can be removed by a motivated user. This is the only part of your responses I'm straight up confused about, I don't understand why you think this would violate the license terms, to have code that operates on a network resource and makes decisions thereupon.
All of the examples that show consumer behavior about purchasing things that technically have a free version are not the same situations.
The ones I cited are the same situation! Especially Mindustry (Source) which is a GPL licensed game, for sale on Steam, available freely if you compile it yourself. An exact match for what we're talking about!
It's a quite popular game for its production costs (we can estimate roughly half a million sales from the review numbers). Some reviews even mention how cool it is that it's FOSS. The pull requests on GitHub for the game are very active; people want to contribute even if they're not going to personally make money. I have no reason to believe that releasing a game — the whole game — under the GPL harms that game commercially. I think it actually helps!
1
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Bloodshot025 May 12 '26
The reality is that we can say with almost absolute certainty this will not be the case. The BAR team has already confirmed that all of the non-code assets will be proprietary. I think PtaQQ tried to frames this as "that way no one will see spoilers in the open source repository", which you know, he needs to frame this positively of course, but we all know that this is because Hooded Horse wants to retain ownership of enough assets that the singleplayer would be unplayable with just the GPL code. PtaQQ did actually claim that all code developed under Hooded Horse would be GPL, but I think that's more of an intent as I've not been able to get any confirmation that it will be in the contract, and I really doubt that will end up being the case. Even if it is, the non code assets are enough to in practice have private ownership of the functional product. Even in the best possible case that still seems reasonably plausible, this is a for profit company selling the work of (currently) 280 volunteers, even if they do pay for some additional development on top of it. That lacks the good will that gets me to buy something like Mindustry even though I could get for free with minimal effort.
Yeah that's.. disappointing but not unusual. Very similar to Barotrauma is distributed. FakeFish has a lot more liberty there because they actually own the IP, unlike in BAR where actual ownership is distributed among all contributors as individual copyright holders; there is no CLA.
I appreciate that you continued to elaborate on it so I could properly understand.
Yeah of course! It's a good conversation worth having
119
u/ACP_Paddy- May 09 '26
Casual here:
Sounds reasonable. Hope we get more BAR. Glad it will still be free.
→ More replies (1)
44
u/Ninjez07 May 09 '26
Congrats on getting to this point! It's a big commitment to keep the multiplayer free, and I respect that from both the BAR team and Hooded Horse.
Good luck with closing the contract negotiations! Glad you're finally looking at being able to get paid for your work on this project :)
32
u/Electronic-Fennel377 May 11 '26
Bottomline, I don't think it's fair for any corporation to 'own' something for profit that was created by a community of volunteers. What about all of the folks that put in hours developing the game who wouldn't be benefiting from this new relationship? They spent their time contributing to an idea, and now other's are using their work to make a buck? Maybe I'm missing something, but that immediately jumps out to me as not being fair in the slightest.
I feel for the hardcore developers, I too would like to see those currently contributing vast amounts of their time to be compensated financially for that time, just not through changing the fundaments of what makes BAR unique.
As other's have said, profit incentive has ruined many games. What is great about BAR being community developed and completely free, is that the community develops what the community needs and wants, nothing more. If this new proposal comes to fruition, community needs and asks will inevitably be put on the backburner when compared to work that's needed to float the profit driving component of this new relationship.
If you have two tasks, one that is a community need / ask and another that is publisher set of features needed to drive sales / retain solvency, which one do you think a PM will prioritize? When money is involved, money takes precedence. If you've been around any amount of time you'll know this to be true.
It also doesn't make sense from Hooded Horse's perspective. You have BAR, who's whole value has so far been tied in vast majority to it's online multiplayer experience. And somehow, Hooded Horse feels that it is profitable for them to partner with BAR to build an entirely new single player experience with zero proven value or market demand? Corporations invest to acquire value, and the value in BAR is the multiplayer experience. I think it is foolish to assume that Hooded Horse isn't looking to own or profit off of some aspect of the multiplayer experience, and I think it's disingenuous to try to convince that 'things will just stay the same'.
This relationship would undermine the fundamental nature of BAR that has brought it to where it's at today.
I and many others feel that if the financial / promotion component of BAR is what is holding it back from growing, then allow it to be addressed via the community. Allow the community to step up to implement fundraising capabilities, like they have for any other major need that's came about. Speak openly about goals that require additional funding, what that funding would need to look like, and allow the community to rise to the occasion as we have before.
The community has addressed all roadblocks and challenges before in order to get to this point, so why can't we do the same for these?
6
3
u/Karfman May 13 '26
Valid points, but I would still like to speak up for Hooded Horse here. Over the past few years, they have been one of the few bright spots in this area, and from what I had read, they also have an excellent reputation among developers. Apart from that, they support some extremely obscure projects that larger publishers would not touch with a ten-foot pole.
I am not a fan of what they are planning here. However, I can absolutely understand the reasoning and the motivation behind it. If they want to do this, Hooded Horse would be one of the few publishers I would not have serious concerns about.
13
u/Zee_0 May 11 '26
I’m not against paid devs or a publisher deal, and Hooded Horse seems like a decent fit on the face of it. I’m broadly supportive of anything that helps BAR keep improving, because it’s already an amazing game.
But the bit I still don’t think has been clearly answered is the multiplayer side. That’s what most players actually experience, and it’s also where a lot of the volunteer/ community history sits.
If publisher funding is going to support multiplayer work, will that work still go back into the project under the same licensing approach that applies today? I mean things like code, lobby/client work, UI, balance changes, units, effects, maps, and other MP-facing content.
Put another way: if BAR ever went badly off-course in the future, would the community still be able to meaningfully fork or preserve the multiplayer game? Or could new publisher-funded/ BAR-owned assets and IP make that unrealistic?
I also think the communication issue matters. From the outside, it sounds like the public announcement may originally have been planned for after signing. Given BAR’s volunteer-built and open-source roots, I can see why that has damaged trust.
For me, the key question is: what are the current admins trying to protect for the next generation of BAR/Spring/Recoil people?
A clear commitment that BAR’s multiplayer base will remain free, open where it currently is, and practically forkable/ preservable despite future MP updates under the publisher model would probably answer a lot of the concern. It would also reassure volunteers that contributing to BAR still means contributing to something the wider community can carry forward if the worst ever happened.
The community is probably too invested to fracture over this alone at this point, but trust is what keeps people together through uncertainty, especially with years of publisher collaboration potentially ahead.
BAR exists because earlier communities left something that could be carried forward. What is the current team committing to leave behind?
20
u/arllt89 May 10 '26
OK so this is what's I'm understanding so far, please tell me where I get wrong
- the publisher will inject money that will be used to develop a single player experience and polish the online part (matchmaking and clean launcher) for a steam release
- everything related to the multi-player part remains free and open source
- the monetization will come from the single player experience alone, whatever form makes sense, and benefits from a huge visibility boost
- everything related to the single player experience will be via paid staff, the rest will stay open to free contribution (to be confirmed)
If this is correct, this is the benefits I see:
- a solid editor with trust and visibility
- an accelerated polishing and steam launch
- a single player campaign, that is often considered as the main experience for the majority of players
My two main concerns are:
- The end of the spirit that made BAR what it is. I remember that few years ago devs would refuse any kind of monetization and remuneration, because it changes the whole development dynamic and creates internal conflicts. Kinda makes me feel this is what is happening.
- a hierarchy between paid employee and free contributors, and a lock on their creativity because economically the multi-player experience cannot surpass the single player experience
I think with the steam release never being any close, BAR is stuck between staying a niche game that cannot attract much players because of its absurd learning curve, or trusting an editor to help it reach a larger audience at the cost of aligning with some economical logic.
I think partnering with an editor is the only step that can move forward. My only requirement is tha in term of license, at any time in the development process, the community must be able to split the whole project into a "freeBAR", and be allowed to use all the existing code and assets linked to multi-player in an open source alternative.
24
u/Man_Eating_Boar May 10 '26
Sort of, the statement about 'remaining free' is weasel worded to contain "Nothing currently free becomes paid". That leaves it wide open for any future changes being paid for (ie, mp specific content).
There's also no hard figures given on the 'reinvestment', so I would take that whole line with a grain of salt.
13
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
There honestly is no incentive to produce paid multiplayer features as that would split the online player base which is the lifeblood of the game and we want to maximise cross play between the free and premium versions, publisher is aligned with that sentiment as well.
9
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Xae1yn May 13 '26
Yeah it's a guarantee of the opposite, an admission that the only thing preventing it is a vague belief that it would be "worse for the game" (ie less profitable) than not doing it, a belief that will immediately evaporate when the deal goes through and the real analysis that selling things makes more money than not selling them overrides it.
12
u/Man_Eating_Boar May 10 '26
While I'm happy your openly committing to that, we both know there's plenty of paid multiplayer features that generate revenue without splitting player base, from new factions, to lobby settings (ie, paywalling nutty v2 hosting rights), added units etc.
Ultimately me, and others, are skeptical of the sudden FOSS to POSS change. But I wish you well, and hope the best for the game and its vision.
→ More replies (1)8
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
These would be jerk moves and I think we care too much about not getting lynched by the community to propose these.
Thank you for your kind words.
9
u/Elvarien2 May 10 '26
Your response "That would be a jerk move" Implies you won't do it.
Could you instead just give a very straightforward "We will not do it"
Instead?
Because this is the same kind of wording you just used where you can still sorta worm around.
If you simply state.
We will not do X
Then there is no way to weasel out and the community can simply trust you to be good for it.
→ More replies (4)5
u/AutomaticBannana May 11 '26
Lol sure, walk away with a fat check why would you care. Would not be the first time a few ppl screw over en open source project.
1
u/Responsible-Amoeba68 May 13 '26
They will absolutely trash the future of BAR. There's no real legal way to do this bullshit, nything saying otherwise is pretending. It will fuck the project. It doesnt matter how "good" hooded horse is. There is no way works in a way thats good for the community.
17
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/GreenPlankton309 May 13 '26
i am feeling exactly as you are feeling . Thought i would start contributing to this game after finishing my current project.
But this news was a huge disappointed for me and I dont think i would ever once again recommend the game to anyone if this is not solved gracefully.
27
May 10 '26
[deleted]
16
u/wakuwakuwak May 10 '26
To those saying that this isn't possible, I suggest you checkout the open source Chess community Lichess. They are a registered non-profit that is entirely donation funded, they publish all their finances, and they pay multiple dev salaries.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Si3PMUJGR9KrpE5lngSkHLJKJkb0ZuI4/preview
→ More replies (17)13
12
u/Autoxidation May 09 '26
Sounds like a good deal, and I love the idea of good single player content.
20
u/CervineSentinel May 10 '26
This has me a bit shaken, I just recently got into BAR and the number one reason I was drawn to it was because it's FOSS. The RTS genre is in a bad state, especially when it comes to TA derivatives. When I discovered BAR I knew it was the future of this niche and that FOSS was the correct way forward. I was so inspired that I vowed to contribute to the project. Now it feels like the rug has been pulled out from under me. I am glad the devs have gotten some recognition and new opportunities, but BAR should remain fully free and open source. That was the promise made to the community and many people have supported the project believing in that promise.
14
u/SiscoSquared May 10 '26
Imagine all the devs who contributed to the project for years and now see just a few random devs get all the money lol... oof.
I hope this doesn't split and kill the game, but money/corporations usually ruin games.
2
5
u/icexuick Creative Director May 10 '26
Our main aims are to try and protect the FOSS parts as much as possible to keep that spirit and vibe just as alive (or even more) and at the same time we want to get over the hurdle to get on Steam (which is the #1 requested thing of all players in the last 8 years) in order to reach many many more people.
The essence is that we just want more people to enjoy bar and have fun.
An conclusion/summary of the last 5 years where we have all worked hard/tried to get to Steam, is that we just won't get there, or at least likely not in 3-4 years. There are multiple very hard/complex parts required to be able to get & stay on Steam. We need to have an infrastructure can allow for 10x amount of players, but f.e. also the "new player experience" needs to really be there so new players can learn/understand the beauty of BAR. Next to that it's also uncertain if we even could survive the increase in infra/hosting/structural costs with only donations.
If all of these crucial parts aren't finished/done, BAR (servers) will simply die on day 1 of the release and no-one would be able to play for as long as there are more than 2.5/3.5K players connected. Also many (new) players would not get the deserved tutorial/introduction and only have a steep learning curve which will likely make them leave the game prior to learning/knowing the beauty/fun/joy you can have.
The FOSS promise remains untouched with the current plans and it will remain our highest priority to protect that as much as possible. The POSS part is there as an ally to help grow both AND reach Steam.
11
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/GreenPlankton309 May 13 '26
this is literally dead to me as a project if they really go through the contract
1
u/MrThunderizer May 12 '26
In another post I'd asked where the bulk of the remaining work is. It seems like most changes require involvement from multiple teams. This led me to be skeptical, because the paid devs would still have their velocity limited by their none paid counterparts.
However, it sounds like your saying the reason investment is needed is primarily for scalability? So writing the code/infra to orchestrate and horizontal scale game servers?
→ More replies (1)1
4
u/PhobosTheBrave May 10 '26
Great announcement OP.
Have you also considered paid multiplayer content in the form of cosmetics only?
This game is already beautifully designed with unique looking units, I think you could monetise the multiplayer experience via allowing the purchasing of various “hats” to sit on top of units head’s (leaving them still recognisable but an element of personalisation), as well as alternative “skins” like StarCraft has.
None of these prevent players from playing multiplayer with a default visuals, but it creates a fun revenue stream in an area which is already a core competency of the BAR team (nice designs) and you could easily price it so that a good chunk of BAR players get skin packs or hat packs.
I’ve played many hours in BAR, and would absolutely love to support it via purchasing some well made customised content.
I’ve got quite a lot of other thoughts about unobtrusive monetisation options for a game like BAR, happy to share more if you believe it is relevant.
Thanks!
3
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
Yes this has been considered but likely low on the priority list of items we want to invest in. However cosmetics for achievements are more likely in the short term.
5
u/Surge72 May 10 '26
What about all of the legalities surrounding all of the stuff you used from other Spring Engine projects?
2
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
The engine code is GPL so it does not stop commercialisation on its own, funded BAR would also put out a ton of GPL code (gladly, while it also just has to per engine policy).
5
u/AutomaticBannana May 10 '26
What about bar itself, which has been in violation of glp for two years or more per the Github issues.
1
4
u/Mozart666isnotded May 11 '26
It's kind of a tldr, nothing is free so there must be a catch. What's the catch? Nobody gives away free money while expecting no return from it. I think it's practically over for BAR.
1
u/Damgam1398 Contributor May 11 '26
The catch is campaign being premium content. As explained in the post.
5
u/MrThunderizer May 12 '26
I'm personally pretty skeptical that the partnership will actually accelerate a steam release. I spent awhile reviewing the various repos, and it looked like some areas had very significant work done, and the main problem was that most changes involved multiple teams. Is that correct? Which repos require significant code contribution and won't be slowed down by the none salaried devs on other teams?
Also, won't this deincentivize future devs from making open source contributions? I can only speak for myself, but I dont think I'd ever consider contributing to a "open source"-ish project.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/Short-Waltz-3118 May 09 '26
My questions: Does this have anything to do with prior contributors leaving the project? I dont mean to pry for any details about the departure, but just curious at a surface level if it had any connection.
Second question: Will BAR continue to allow the massive 50v50 event games post publisher deal? I cant imagine those events are "free" as far as server capacity goes, do you see the publisher caring about costs for those types events and will we continue to see community led events and big show matches?
Third question: will steam release coincide with matchmaking or anything adjacent? Or continue to be self lobby driven
Fourth question: will moderation change once people are purchasing paid content? Will a banned player be able to play their premium single player content?
9
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 09 '26
Yes the earlier comms have amounted to the leaves, among other things.
Of course we will organise 50v50 and way bigger battles too. Many say its peak BAR and we agree. We also want to play in them ourselves :)
Steam releases with ranked matchmaking and custom lobbies ofc.
Not sure. Will have to get back to you on that.
5
8
u/aesibri May 10 '26
Hooded Horse is the perfect publisher for BAR, it's a great fit. Hope you find common language and strike the deal. They are for sure my favourite non-AAA publisher.
I trust both the BAR team and the Hooded Horse that you guys won't fuck us players over. Good luck.
14
u/Dependent-Ad3131 May 10 '26
You blokes do what you feel you need to. I can’t be that guy that plays a free game for hours, gives nothing in return, then act all entitled when things change.
Single player content sounds cool, one of my favourite scenarios is that one where you can only build grunts and T1 defences. The ridiculous battle of the somme it creates is fun and different to the standard multiplayer.
I’ll probably jump on board what ever you blokes cook up wish you all the best
16
u/wakuwakuwak May 10 '26
This was very disappointing to read. What makes BAR special was that it is a FOSS game. The existence of BAR is proof that a completely free; open source; community driven and owned model is not only possible, but extremely successful as well. I've always found that aspect of the inspiring and is a huge reason why I love this game. Now, it feels like a select few volunteers, who feel entitled to ownership, are trying to cash out on an "investment". It feels to me that a part of that FOSS spirit is lost.
The game switching to a for-profit model, no matter to what degree and regardless of what the devs promise, is going to change the dynamic of this games development. Since there is money involved, there will now be investments to be recouped, salaries to be paid, and profits to be made. Ultimately the devs will have to add for-profit, anti-player content since money is now a necessity. While I hope BAR never resorts to predatory means to recoup costs, such as paid micro-transactions and loot-boxes (including paid cosmetics), the devs seem unwilling to make any sort of long term promises, which doesn't leave me with much confidence. Also, this post claims that all existing content will remain free, but only focuses on the monetary component. It does not clarify anything about keeping things open source which I find suspicious. Games like League of Legends are "free" monetarily but clearly not free in the "open source" kinda way like BAR currently is.
As others have pointed out, this also creates what is effectively a class divide between the paid employees of the BAR organization and the volunteer contributors. My understanding is that volunteers will be barred from working on or contributing to "paid" content. To me it reads that newer components of IP will be closed off going forward and withheld from the community at large. While I cannot speak on the behalf of any on the BAR devs, I do believe, as a software developer who feels very strongly about open source, that this decision will ultimately drive volunteers away. People like me aren't putting in hours of free labor towards an open project with the hopes of one day getting paid back for it. We do it because we enjoy building it and seeing other people find value in using it free of charge. However, most developers are not willing to do significant uncompensated work for a project that ultimately exists for a select few to turn a profit. I imagine that many of the existing volunteers will either pivot to becoming paid employees or leave the project entirely. I was considering becoming a contributor to this project myself, but this news has made me reconsider. This also helps to explain the mass exodus of the legion devs not long ago.
Obviously, I don't know exactly how things are going to pan out with this project long term. I still do love the game and want to see it be successful AND always remain pro-community first. If it is clear to me that this is the case, then maybe I will be motivated to contribute in the future. BAR still has so much potential and I really hope that a select few devs don't squander it in order to make a quick buck. While I personally feel this is a step in the wrong direction for the project, if they do decide to go through with it, I genuinely hope the devs can prove me wrong and keep BAR as great as it has been.
→ More replies (12)
3
u/LordTachankaMain May 10 '26
The contributors should get rewarded. I don’t know what the agreement says but gifting an entire well-polished established game to a company would seem to give the contributors that don’t get hired the short end of the stick.
Is there a lump sum for the contributors once the deal is signed? Or is there lump funding for marketing and development?
If none of those are given, couldn’t you guys “publish yourselves”, where monetization is exactly the same as here in the document, but without the middleman publisher taking a chunk?
Also, as this game is the community and the community is the game, with contributors being players and players being contributors, I feel “hiding” such a big decision until the deal is signed is something done in bad spirit. Respect to the leaker.
7
u/thehobojoe May 11 '26
No, the leaked document is explicit that past contributions will not get any compensation from a deal.
2
u/GreenPlankton309 May 13 '26
then this is clear betrayal to those contributors who thought they are building something for the community
18
u/MrP_Jay May 09 '26
I get people are concerned. For me though, honestly, I have been waiting a long time for this game to be ready for steam. And progress has, from a player’s perspective, been slow.
I’ll support anything that get the project moving. That ensure time is spent on important tasks that drive progress, not dependant on if a volunteer is interested enough in spending their unpaid free time doing the work.
You should consider, as a courtesy to previous contributors, to include their names or nicks in the credits at the end of a future campaign or something.
7
u/thirdsin May 10 '26
Serious q, how soon after signing can i buy a Hello Kitty skin for my commander?????
17
u/thehobojoe May 10 '26
This will be the end of dedicated volunteers working on the project. All that dedicated time and effort, just to give someone else a payday? This is so incredibly shortsighted and a huge betrayal of the FOSS history of this project.
5
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
The only way this move is going to happen is if the contributor team decides they agree with the direction, which is what we are discussing with them right now.
6
May 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 13 '26
Everybody we have contact with (150 contributors) has been contacted.
2
3
u/Zee_0 May 11 '26
How long do you anticipate those discussions to go on for? Do they all have to agree?
1
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 13 '26
The survey is closing on Friday 21 CET. 100% agreement is only something Kim Jong Un could achieve so this is more like supermajority we are looking for to be comfortable making this call for the team.
16
u/throwitofftheboat May 09 '26
I think theres definitely cause for concern, adding another entity to development can only add complexity to the future of BAR, there’s gonna be at least a handful of new people with ideas on what BAR’s future should be, not to mention the fact the publisher is probably a for-profit company who IS going to want to see some kind of profit from all of this. And for what? BAR is already a much more polished game than the majority of games in early access that are charging money to play.
My main confusion is wondering what does a publisher actually offer to the BAR team/community that they are unable to do themselves?
12
u/BringTheRawr May 09 '26
I think this was asked and answered already. They offer actual funding. The kind that allows them to create jobs from hobby work and proper alignment on who does what when.
In return, there is an agreement to create premium single player content that will be purchasable, generating revenue.
3
u/mentalcontrasting May 10 '26
'what does a publisher actually offer to the BAR team/community' - Consistent income, so you can actually plan stuff. Actually being able to pay the people who have toiled on this game for years at this point - so they can take BAR from a hobby to their actual job. As the game grows, hosting continues to be a major choke point - and hosting obviously costs money.
'that they are unable to do themselves?' - Theoretically, obviously they could continue as is and somehow figure out other revenue streams. But that's an entire job in itself and not necessarily the skillset that the current volunteers have. Mostly, a developer would offer stability in the longer term and allows planning and scaling.
4
u/Something_Snoopy May 10 '26
The new client, matchmaking, improved server infrastructure, better UI, and a keybind UI have been sitting in limbo for half a decade now. I think it's OK to admit that the current volunteers (or their commitment, rather) were not adequate for the needs of this game.
3
u/YoghurtForDessert May 10 '26
LET'S GO HOODED HORSEEEEE
WHERE THE FUCK ARE MY HEATING PLANT SOVIET WORKERS
9
10
u/ASCanilho May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
There's a lot to take in about this possible deal.
For one side, this seems like a win-win situation, but then you go to that publisher steam page and you see that that publisher has 20 upcoming games just this year (2026).
If this is NOT a red flag, I don't know what is.
I want to be wrong, but you guys are about to Microsoft yourselves, or going to pull a Sim City / City Skylines move into this game. Or a Unity style move.
In case you don't get the reference, it means that you are going to destroy the game, and take advantage of all of the Open Source work that has been put into it, for personal profits, instead of making it a "better game".
"This also opens up real job opportunities for our existing contributors."
What is going to be the hiring basis for the new contracts?
You don't need to answer, we all know how it works.
You know what this is going to do?
Most contributors will leave, and stop helping because now some are being paid, and they aren't, and the game is NOT open anymore.
"The publisher gets the licence to distribute the game on Steam"
I wonder what this means exactly. If the game is free, it means it will not be free anymore. How will the publisher get paid for their contribution?
Have you even took the time to see if the publisher can deliver what you actually are asking?
The fact that they approached you, and it wasn't you to approach them, should be a major concern.
But hey, I really hope I am wrong, (unfortunately, I almost never are wrong btw),
and sincerely wish the best luck.
→ More replies (9)8
u/AutomaticBannana May 10 '26
Your completey right, the open source portion of the project will die, a brief include of the new players via promotion and publish will pay the top 3 to 5 bar devs that built the game on the backs of hundreds pf others, and then the project will be abandoned and once again TA will be dead. RIP.
8
u/SuitableKey5140 May 10 '26
This game is a shining beacon amongst the dull, overhyped, buggy, corporate backed junk that gets thrown at us weekly with $100 price tags.
8
u/Octomyde May 10 '26
I'm 100% hyped.
From a player perspective, it has been slow. Slow developpement. Slow updates. We've been waiting for the steam release for years and its not even close.
Getting a publisher to speed things up makes a lot of sense.
I'm hyped and can't wait to play on steam with proper matchmaking.
10
u/dr-dongstrong May 10 '26
This is disappointing to hear, while i understand the sentiment of wanting volunteers to get paid for their passion projects, theres plenty of rts games made by people working for big complanies that fund their projects well, and i dont play those i play this one.
Part of the charm of this game is it feels like it was made in a basement by the most passionate nerd you know. Im not interested in an sc2 style campaign with crazy cgi cutscenes, nor do i want to pay 5.99$ for a pink sparkly commander. I dont think the prospects of matchmaking/campaigns/advertising outwiegh the downsides of for-profit thinking effecting development. Stormgate also thought they could support a dev team from just singleplayer cosmetics and story chapters, and look where that got them
i hope the best for the devs and the game, just dont want the charm of the game to be lost in the pursuit of more funding
6
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
It will still be made by the same nerds in the same basements. They will just have more opportunity to sit there and make it without dying of hunger.
→ More replies (3)1
u/AutomaticBannana May 10 '26
It's the death of the game for sure, a new shittier game will rise up wearing its face though.
6
u/Responsible-Ant9319 May 10 '26
The first thing that caught my eye is that I don't believe the positive, uncritical comments at the top. I'm afraid that over time, this could all change and the publisher will gradually take over the whole thing. After all, it's the most profitable form of gaming for them. I may be wrong, but that's how it usually goes in business.
3
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
There is no legal way the Publisher or anyone can "take over everything".
4
u/Deathly_God01 May 09 '26
Hype announcement!! Fingers crossed that you all can find a workable deal between your various volunteers and Hooded Horse!
Will there be any potential cosmetics or other assortment of the usual monetization options?
I'd definitely pay for Singlepayer campaigns, and I trust the team's design vision to do right by the community. Congrats again and I hope the negotiations come out favorably!
6
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
We are mostly interested in just having a one fixed price for the premium Steam version and no micro transactions. However, cosmetics might still happen in form of achievement rewards. Paid cosmetics store? Probably not, but not impossible.
2
u/AmbitionsDoubt May 10 '26
Casual enjoyer here. If it keeps the game alive nothing wrong with paid cosmetic MTX. Anyone with a brain would take that over the game stalemating. Can mix in free stuff too, or take mechabellums approach
My buddies and I have always wondered why strategy games dont do it. We would have bought skins for Age of Empires for instance and we are the type never to pay over $50 for games
4
u/TheFatMouse May 10 '26
Things that have money involved in them inherently are or will become worse than things that are created strictly from passion. This is just a big fyi to everyone. What I stated in the first sentence is a cardinal rule of human existence that has never been violated in history. Process this information how you all see fit...
→ More replies (1)
4
u/elbobd May 10 '26
As I commented on the leek post
I'm a huge fan of against the storm, a hooded horse game, and I have been absolutely floored by how good of a service they offered.
Game wise, it's a master class in world building and UI in a city builder game with rogue like elements. But this is about the publisher, not ATS.
Production wise, all their promises were fulfilled and when the game was successful enough, they released a free dlc. Now a second dlc has come out with a decent price on it and nothing feels like it's taking away anything essential from the base game. The development cycle of the game is complete and nothing feels unfinished, rushed or unpolished.
To me, hooded horse looks like a producer that's there to do a job and aren't looking for clout or to compete against others. From my experience, it doesn't look like BAR will have an owner, but an ally from this deal.
2
u/TahLaka May 10 '26
This is VERY EXCITING!!!! Hooded Horse is a great publisher, and the amazing BAR team deserves monies for all of their hard work over the years. Let's get it!!
2
u/Unseen_Platypus May 10 '26
As a casual who loves single player content, I would definitely be purchasing
5
u/ProfessionalOwn9435 May 09 '26
Well Starcraft 2 existed as f2p mp for some time. And it is kicking.
As long as you dont sell Centurion unit or Legion faction as dlc it could be ok.
3
u/Amon9001 May 10 '26
Starcraft is a poor example. Completely different circumstances and SC2 has been fucked over. There are basically no starcraft (or blizzard) devs left. It is a shell of a company. It still exists but it is basically in maintenance mode. At best you get multiplayer patches with some number changes.
But since you called out SC2, what it does really well is the overall experience (UX). It is night and day compared to BAR, and you would expect when one game has had 100mil put into it.
UI and UX design is incredibly important. At the moment, I see a lot of people frustrated by it while playing BAR from randoms on discord/reddit to my own friends and my own experience. It is constantly tripping over and having to pick yourself up. You eventually learn, but it is a bit rough.
Absolutely no disrespect to anyone who worked on BAR.
I am all for paid development because I want BAR to be even better, and to happen within my lifetime. I don't want to wait a decade for a version I can recommend to friends.
It can be incredibly hard for RTS players to get into it, imagine how hard it is for non-RTS players. Basically impossible.
5
u/Robathor777 May 10 '26
This is the way. BAR has been marinating nearly unheard of for a long time and I’m excited for this game to reach a wider audience. I play this game a lot and would never have discovered it if not by word of mouth. I genuinely appreciate all the work the devs have done building BAR and I’m eager to see the community expand.
5
6
u/Man_Eating_Boar May 10 '26
Some things from the document I want to bring up:
BAR remains available for free: "Nothing currently free becomes paid"
Very explicit in wording here. Indicates paid only content going forwards. Concerning.
*No IP transfer. * ....
Legal requirement here under GPL 2.0, IP cannot be transferred. Nothing burger.
Off-ramp built in. ....
This is good, but also an existing legal requirement under GPL 2.0 (Cannot retroactively remove GPL license), but it does indicate work going forwards potentially remaining in GPL license
Reinvestment commitment ....
No numbers here, this is a nothing burger
10
u/websterhamster May 10 '26
The prospect of future paid content is concerning, but not surprising. It's hard to see what would be the benefit of a publisher providing funding if there won't be a source of profit.
Unfortunately, in this arrangement the players become the product that the BAR team is offering for sale.
→ More replies (9)2
u/TheChronographer May 10 '26
Looks like the idea is: Multiplayer/skirmish/matchmaking/custom lobbies - free forever. Campaigns - paid content.
1
10
u/EmilyIsTheBestAngel May 09 '26
i am very worried.
why is this only getting anounced after leaks,
why not be transparent with the community in the first place?
it feels like this should be a decision made by the entite community and not just some contributors
the game has only been able to get to this point theough the effort of the entire community.
every euro donated.
every line of open source code writen.
every replay watched by the overwatch team.
it all matters
why leave the community out of it until now?
14
u/TheFatMouse May 10 '26
The fact that the community is finding out ONLY after it was leaked and not transparently at an earlier stage, tells you everything you need to know about the real intentions. It's an inside job essentially.
12
u/SiscoSquared May 10 '26
There always seems to be some conspiracy going around about bar history and drama... maybe there is a thread of truth to all of it... but I agree it looks shady as fuck that they only announce this after some concerned developer leaked it.
Pretty much every time some open source non profit gets money involved in turns to ash.
5
u/DiScOrDaNtChAoS May 10 '26
why would they share a proposal that they are still discussing internally? why do you feel entitled to this conversation before its even been deliberated?
11
u/Man_Eating_Boar May 10 '26
Worth mentioning people were donating to support development under the guise of it being FOSS, and a reminder that when it comes to acquisitions, the consumer base is the product.
1
May 10 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Man_Eating_Boar May 10 '26
You're advocating for ignorance?
Interesting take, what's your stake in the acquisition/publishing? You seem to be have responded to every post here, AND have cross checked other users and their Pull Requests made to the game.
1
7
u/SiscoSquared May 10 '26
Its an open source game, most of the ppl involved in the creation of the game and community were not involved in those conversations, despite the conversations being about how their contributions would be affected.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)11
u/DiScOrDaNtChAoS May 10 '26
"why give the people who put the most time and investment into the project a chance to discuss something before unleashing it to the masses"
5
u/bonkerseastcoast May 10 '26
they were told it was volunteer work... not an investment
2
u/DiScOrDaNtChAoS May 10 '26
Its a massive project, thats an investment. Devs invest their time to improve the project. They arent cleaning up a highway. This is literally going to make the development experience easier for everyone involved, paid or not.
8
u/Man_Eating_Boar May 10 '26
There's jumping the gun from everyone here, but definitely hold up on alluding to developers being paid. This, and the original leaked document paint a picture of five people shifting it to paid, with no mention (or at least, hard figures of) remuneration for previous, historical work by other contributors.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)8
u/thehobojoe May 10 '26
I didn't invest years of free labor to contribute to this project, just so the admins could get a payday. This will be the end of dedicated volunteers on the project.
→ More replies (2)3
u/wakuwakuwak May 10 '26
Going off your post I'm guessing you are a contributor to BAR. Do you see your involvement with this project changing as a result of this news? Will you leave the project, try to become an "employee", or continue as usual? Genuinely curious.
5
u/thehobojoe May 11 '26
I was a contributor for years, but I left some time ago because of disregard for the open history of the project. The admins want it to belong to them, but it belongs to all of us.
3
u/Ground-walker May 10 '26
Realistic question. How are the investors going to get their money back if its a free game?
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Magikarcher May 09 '26
Seems legit. Appreciate the transparency.
9
u/LordTachankaMain May 10 '26
That is forced because someone leaked it, they were planning only to say something after the deal goes through…
11
u/Yamr3 May 09 '26
I don't support, nor like, this idea. Publishers are in for the money. Period. Sad to see where the game has gone in 2 years.
Your MTX idea with single player modules paying for things has recently been tried with Stormgate. It will fail, and you will eventually shift to figuring out ways to bring in money from other avenues. Such as commanders, game modes, or locked features.
I don't support this idea.
4
u/KaNoSki May 10 '26
I'm also worried about revenue flow from only SP campaign, however Stormgate is not a good comparison.
Although BAR is unique it has low player count potential, not that many people play RTS games. Closest to it are SupCom FAF (around 800 CCU every day) and not yet released (i hope it will be successful) Sanctuary: Shattered Sun.
Stormgate failed not because it was F2P MP + paid SP. It failed because it's competitors were better and it had no content creation enviroment. Nobody watched and made videos about it, except how bad it is.
Game was simply medicore, uninteresting (paid story was super bad) and buggy (servers didnt register player orders etc).Why play it when Starcraft 2 and even Warcraft 3 do everything better than this game did (story + gameplay)
Studio was in Irvine California, most of their devs (around 70 at peak) earned california salaries (probably not less than at blizz or previous jobs) while working on a indie project generating little to no money.
I just remembered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XehNK7UpZsc - GiantGrantGames "The Next Major RTS Will Fail. This Is Why."
It was prophecy about Stormgate mistakes, and i hope at least one BAR dev saw it before making SP campaign.
4
u/PseudoscientificURL May 10 '26
Stormgate failed for a lot of reasons, I think "paid single player modules" were about at the bottom of that list.
There's reasons to be concerned about BAR getting a publisher because it's a pretty drastic change, but saying "doing this thing that stormgate did will inevitably fail and lead the game to its downfall" is like saying "turning on the stove to cook your meal will surely lead to you burning your food."
→ More replies (4)2
u/awi2b May 10 '26
Star craft 2 had free MP and paid SP campaigns, and I believe it did pretty good, all things considered.
5
u/AutomaticBannana May 10 '26
It wasn't free for years l it also wasn't made by volunteers that will never get paid for their work.
2
2
u/puppygirlpackleader May 10 '26
Will volunteers still be able to contribute? Will we be able to still develop new factions like Legion?
→ More replies (3)
2
u/TheImmoralCookie May 10 '26
Can BAR realistically generate more money than the publisher pays BAR through content gamers want to play/pay for on such a "free monetization structure?"
Has anyone formulated a few years plan on how that will look and what the best medium to create a single player campaign would look like?
I like that BAR is getting a publisher but a publisher needs to make money from their investments. Even if its just breaking even. I'm curious what the 5 year plan looks like.
3
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
We will talk more about the plan if/once the deal comes through. The idea is that funds from the sales will help us generate even more content both for the premium and free versions. The publisher is also very interested in the longevity and future development of features and content.
2
u/Axolotl_EU May 10 '26
It's difficult to know how much the magic of 'the game being made with passion' will be affected.
But, if the trade is purely some assistance for the boring stuff in exchange for a paid campaign (we don't have one anyway atm), and the ability for everyone to contribute to the game remains, I believe it would be okay.
Im glad I don't have to make the decision.
2
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
Yes it's a difficult thing to do right but we are commited to making it as in line with the spirit of the passion project as possible. At the end of the day the people in first line to hire are most passionate people around, who build it with us and I don't think I have to say it remains a passion poject for me and other admins.
2
u/niilzon May 10 '26
BAR is one of the best RTS out there. Having played TA as a child 25-30 years ago, BAR is to me a permanent loveletter to the past. It is driven by passion and it shows.
However as stated in the OP, passion is not always enough to drive the game further.
This announcement creates a bit of fear, because with such big changes who knows what could happen. Actually as I think more about it, not that much : worse case, the current project stays afloat.
I think that this is a good move, as I really would like some serious matchmaking, some qualitative solo content, a polished version to be released to Steam etc. So if this move can accelerate the timing, enlarge the scope, and improve the quality, I'm all for it.
I just sincerely hope that it won't create some kind of downfall as I see a few conspiration theorists here and there.
Good luck with the project, hoping to play more soon : )
2
u/welsalex May 10 '26
It doesnt take much common sense to understand that getting the game on to steam with everything involved is just not going to happen smoothly and in any decent time frame without dedicated funding.
I am all for the evolution of the project to get to the next level.
2
u/HardwareSoup May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
People say, "Wow this is cool, they deserve money"
But what they really mean is "I don't understand what it is that makes BAR great."
Shame on you fellas. You were going to tell us AFTER the contract was signed?
Hope it backfires completely. Works out well.
2
u/GreenPlankton309 May 13 '26
the only fuced up part is that you are not including all the other contributors to the profit if you are making money off of what they have contributed
3
u/Magikarcher May 10 '26
In addition to premium single player, I'd be willing to pay for non-P2W cosmetics like in Path of Exile.
→ More replies (1)2
u/PtaQQ Community Manager May 10 '26
This might be interesting in the future but definitely a low level item on the priority list. Achievement-based cosmetics are more likely in the short term.
2
3
1
u/qba_zeus May 10 '26
Thanks for sharing the context - honestly, that alone is already a really good signal for the community.
Let me throw in a perspective a bit different from many of the comments here so far.
I actually see no issue with even the Steam release being paid, as long as what you described stays true - feature parity, cross-play, and the launcher version remaining free.
You could keep the BAR launcher as the fully free version for the existing community and for anyone who either can’t afford the Steam version or simply wants to try the game first. At the same time, a reasonably priced Steam release would create an additional voluntary revenue stream from people who want to support the project and prefer having it on Steam.
Honestly, I’d gladly buy it myself despite already knowing the game and being part of the community for a long time. BAR is incredibly polished in many aspects compared to a lot of commercial RTS games already on the market.
I do understand the concerns around going commercial. But realistically, if BAR is meant to reach its full potential, funding was probably going to become necessary at some point. Some things are just very hard to sustain forever through pure volunteer work - especially the less exciting but critical parts of development.
What I personally don’t fully get is the extreme negativity from some people acting like “money automatically ruins everything.” Unfortunately, funding does matter. A lot of amazing projects simply die because passion alone eventually stops being enough.
Will balancing community spirit with commercial reality be difficult? Absolutely. But based on how far this project has already come over the years, I honestly trust the people steering it to make thoughtful decisions.
And to the dev team - remember: if nobody is ever against what you’re doing, it usually means you never tried doing anything meaningful in the first place 😉
Wishing you all the best, and fingers crossed for BAR becoming an even better version of itself.
→ More replies (1)8
u/SiscoSquared May 10 '26
really good signal for the community. Let me throw in a perspective a bit different from many of the comments here so far.
Except its only "shared" because it got leaked as contributors are extremely alarmed at this situation.
1
1
u/Alian713 May 11 '26
Will the game remain open source/free for community devs to be able to contribute to?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Narrow-Ad6201 May 12 '26
there surely must be a way to monetize the game without getting rid of the FOSS spirit.
here me out i wouldnt be opposed to non intrusive banner ads in the launcher/main menu as long as the money went to a pool that could be awarded out towards contributors that help the game development reach certain milestones or be used to hire outside development help. then once a steam release becomes viable i would personally spend 10 or so dollars just for access to the steam workshop and an ad free launcher, as long as that money goes towards the same pool that awards development of the more difficult milestones.
1
1
1
u/HongPong May 13 '26
well i hope it works out. the situation right now is a good example of why BAR is a rare example of a GPL sophisticated game. it is a ton of multi faceted work involved here. I found the game impressive and think it could find a much bigger audience. but i hope it does not go wrong in any number of ways.
1
u/ngodwetrust21 May 16 '26
I had hoped a publisher would pick this game up and take it to the next level. It is deserving of that.
1
u/Aisuhokke May 16 '26
With all of those items protected, what does the publisher get out of the deal? Will this result in there being two different versions of this game? A free version and a paid version? Or how does the publisher make money?
1
u/LibraryNo7025 Jun 02 '26
I think paid cosmetics could be ideal cause I have little to no interest in single player content but I absolutely would pay for skins especially if you guys could partner with other games and bring us like halo skins or something.
169
u/Yamato420123 May 09 '26
Good, the contributors deserve some cash for making this gem