I would expect it from a private corporation. I would not expect it from a government agency.

Usually, a government agency is more interested in getting people to create things. The motivation is that by offering a prize, they encourage people to create things. Acquiring the thing is not the point. Of course, they need the right to depict the product, but they do not usually want to use it for anything and everything that they want, in perpetuity, including the right to make derivative works (without your permission, I might add).

The way that this is designed, I would not want to encourage anybody that I know to participate in it. You may disagree, but we probably have different thresholds for what we deem to be acceptable risk.

Let me put it another way. If I were to pour my heart and soul into this project, the absolute maximum value that I could extract is $20k, which is ~$13.7k after taxes. That is the ceiling. That is it. Why would I do something that would take so much time for so little potential? I would rather risk my time on something that has no ceiling. I would give the same advice to anyone. Never settle for anything when there is an artificially-imposed cap on the earning potential.

This isn't designed for anyone to pour their heart and soul into it. Contestants are to make a "lightweight" (their word) game. They added a ceiling (to varying degrees) not just to the payout, but also to the submissions

The rules are designed so that there will be absolutely no encumberance to them using your submission in any way that they want (if you win 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place). From limiting datasets to stipulating the license to a requirement of patent unencumberance and broad IP permissions.

The section 508 requirment is also very telling. Whatever wins, they plan to copy-and-paste it into their own website at the very least.

If I were to do this, then I would pour everything I had into it, because that's the way that I do things. And so, I read all the rules, and decided that I didn't like the terms.

The only reason that I commented here in the first place is because the terms were so eggregious (in my opinion) that I felt that others should be warned about the danger and the extent to which they must sacrifice their IP in order to win the contest.

This contest could have been so much better. Sadly, it sounds like the terms were written by some greedy corporation looking to find a cheap way to mass-producde games. ($35k for 3 games is a bargain, but only if you're the buyer!)

> Whatever wins, they plan to copy-and-paste it into their own website at the very least.

That's not a subtle "gotcha". That's the stated goal of the project.

> The rules are designed so that there will be absolutely no encumberance to them using your submission in any way that they want (if you win 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place). From limiting datasets to stipulating the license to a requirement of patent unencumberance and broad IP permissions.

The rules not only do that for them, but for anyone else (the direct grant of rights would be sufficient for them, asking for the most permissive license available where there is a choice establishes that for other people.) This is consistent with this being a public interest project.

> Why would I do something that would take so much time for so little potential?

It makes zero economic sense to do this, but some people are driven by things that aren't economic.

They dissuade most of them from participating by saying it can't be partisan and must get an E rating.

Making a game about civics that's "non-partisan" seems completely impossible to me, at least to do honestly.

Their ideal game seems to be flappy bird with links to the Library of Congress website on completing some kind of level.

I agree the rules seem a bit too much.

But, if you win I assume you would still keep the right to produce "derivative works" yourself which Government has no rights to. So you could start maintaining and improving the game and sell the improved version.

I'm not a lawyer so do your own investigation into whether that is possible or not.

You are correct, and that was actually my first thought. If you win (1st, 2nd, or 3rd place), they have rights to your game and the right to make their own derivative works. And you have rights to make derivative works. But then I thought of how this could play out.

So you make "UltraCiv" for the competition and win. You decide that it was a good idea and decide to expand on it. You make "UltraCiv: Election Paradox". Now you have something successful. They make "UltraCiv: City Manager". You can't stop them, because you already gave them permanent rights. They claim that they only use it for "educational use", which is 100% true, since it is an educational game. So was Oregon Trail. In this case, however, your franchise is tainted.

It's just poisioning your own well and IP.

Again, someone will win $20k, but that someone won't be me. I'll put my efforts elsewhere.

The reason government is trying to get outside developers creating this game is that they don't have the talent for that, nor are they in the business of creating games in general. They would probably not have a program for continued improvement of games provided by 3rd parties.

Whoever wins the competition however is a talented creative developer. If government wanted to develop the game further they would probably be happy to contract with the original developer if they have further budget for that. But if not, you the creative developer could create your own follow-up game which government could not copy without your permission.

I think the winner will be somebody who is already developing games. They have the process and tools in place already. It won't be me (either).

I feel like you are doing the legal equivalent of reading the side effect warnings of an over the counter drug and freaking out.

Those rules that are freaking you out? Literally just the same expectations you would have around a gift, except made strange and unfamiliar by specificity.

You also seem to be reading the language around use as indicative of a plan to resell your software which is utterly bizarre.

I'm also not seeing anything that would indicate a cap on profits. You seem to have decided that if people can see the source that means you can't sell it? That does not make any sense. Let alone the ability to make improvements and sell that as a closed source offering.