Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

[Compyfox]

Please let me set a couple of things straight before we continue the discussion.

Point 1) The participation by a well known and one of the leading German Music Creation Magazines is just annoying. Nothing against a little promotion, but where do we draw the line for "commissioned work" and "certain companies"?





Point 2) Wavesfactory...

(a) Are you sure about that? I bought their W-Buzz for Kontakt. It was priced at €9.95 EUR back in 2013.

Wavesfactory responded with this:

Hey guys!

Just to clarify the confusion between W-Buzz and SnareBuzz.
W-Buzz was a sample library for Kontakt containing samples from an electric bass recorded through a mic positioned at the wires of a snare drum.
SnareBuzz is an audio effect plugin that simulates the snare wires coded by me as I'm learning how to do plugins right now.

Same concept, different beasts! One was a sample library and the one is an audio effect that doesn't use samples at all.

It's like saying "this painting should be removed from the gallery because he already used the blue colour in another painting".

Personally, I find this move a bit strange. So it's more bugging me than a clear rule violation. The analogy that "other developers shouldn't have joined then either" wouldn't work in this case. Because they did (!) create new tools based upon their skill set and their already developed, internal SDKs. Nothing that was released prior.





Which brings me to Point 3) AutoTonic

This one is a clear violation of the rules. While the development time of over 4 years can be debated upon, same with the "reuse of assets" (e.g. a saturation module, a specific filter, etc). The clear violation here is that the "full version" of the software has been released in July 2016. The "Player" is basically a run-down version of the already released commercial tool (both being possible to be bought individually, or via subscription). "AutoTonic Player" acts as their demo version.

And this breaks the rules according to this sentence:

Your entry must be an original creation made by you (your team / crew / company / family). Of course you may reuse code / modules / development frameworks, but the actual plug-in / application / sound library should be a new, original creation, not just an obviously cut-down subset of a program you have already written

The biggest thing is the lack of quality plugins, too much halfbaken programming course examples are in the challenge this year. A few cool ideas but no real invention. Just my point.

While this is definitely a point for debate (not in here though) - it's nothing new and happened since the first Developer Challenge in 2006 (which was announced way in advance, therefore better preparation time).

This thread on the other hand is supposed to talk about (possible) rule violations and (possible) changes for the better in the future. Making a good impression at NAMM is one thing, though I'm fairly sure that the CEO's of KVR (and therefore MUSE Research) are already part of the NAMM (may it be as visitors, or friends, we will never know)

But this is just a drop in the ocean IMO.

IMO we need to talk about the prize distribution (a concern I'm having for years at this point), what happens if somebody clearly violates the rules and you're getting caught during the process (as it clearly happened here). How do we report this? Will something even happen?! If not, what message will this be for future Developer Challenges?

Also... can we maybe pull this challenge off yearly, or every other year? To get some sort of rhythm/habit with this as this draws just as much attention to KVR, as does the One Synth Challenge, the Mix Challenge and the "Music Cafe Songwriting Competition". And can we slightly modify the rule set in the future (e.g. Points Distribution not only for the "top 5" candidates).

[DSmolken]

1 and 2 seem completely OK to me. 3 does seem bad, but I haven't actually downloaded it (one of the entries which don't seem useful to me from the description) so that's just going by what's posted in this thread. I suspect if this entry won, there would be heavy controversy and a problem.

I think having regular timing would help a lot, but that would require a grand prize sponsor well in advance, wouldn't it? That seems to get complicated.

[Compyfox]

1 and 2 seem completely OK to me. 3 does seem bad, but I haven't actually downloaded it (one of the entries which don't seem useful to me from the description) so that's just going by what's posted in this thread. I suspect if this entry won, there would be heavy controversy and a problem.

Why should this be a problem post the challenge?

It (nr 3) is a clear rule violation and it "sneaked in" among all other legit entries. I am surprised that it hasn't been addressed sooner.



Maybe we need an additional layer of security during the submission period, or 1-3 days between the final day of the entry submission and the challenge voting process to check if all entries are legit. That assumes, that the people submitting already have a webpage and don't lie to the challenge hosts.

No matter how you twist and turn it, the rules on that behalf haven't changed in years... it's a clear violation. Why should we cut this some slack, as this is not fair to all other participating developers and sound designers.

I think having regular timing would help a lot, but that would require a grand prize sponsor well in advance, wouldn't it? That seems to get complicated.

Not complicated at all. Sponsors and prize donors can address this within hours if you talk to these people in advance (speaking from experience here, not only with the Mix Challenge).



See, if the Developer Challenge team (hosts) were to announce now, that the next challenge will start in November 2017 and the submission period is during the course of October, both possible participants and sponsors have enough time to get prepared (beta testing included).

Add another twist to the rule set and say that "plugins need to be coded during a period of August to end of October <insert year of challenge>" and then you also enforce creativity within a limited time period. "What can you do within three months?!", which in turn also gives a time limit for the sound designers rather than collecting bits and pieces here and there, and merely bundling it prior to the deadline.


There are many possibilities - but the hosts need to be open ears, responsive even.

So far, I've not seen any response towards the rule violation. And there is also no way to get in touch with the hosts regarding that very same issue. Something that is(!) possible with the other three well established Challenges here on KVR.




Room for improvement?
Plenty...

[elassi]

Waaaaaay too much fuzz here. (2ct)

[Taron]

Compy has this thing about making these really long posts with all quotes and hardly any new information. That makes it all look so much more fuzzy than it is, really. He's made one most excellent point (3), which should get recognized and properly be dealt with just to make sure the DC is not without supervision. The first two are justified complaints, but I somehow believe it's not necessary to get too worked up about them.
1) I personally just don't understand why a magazine could stoop so low, or what's that saying? Is it just somebody's garage business?
2) Snarebuzz is alright, but not a competitor, really. It is a very transparent concept that doesn't require a plugin, but makes for a nice inspiration. I don't think they did anything morally questionable there. Just...hmm...also a tiny bit pitiful in my book. They must really struggle somehow.

So, yeah, I heard and understand the whole point of not having the DC be an INDI challenge, but I would somehow expect more pride from the professionals to deliver at least something a bit more respectable, I think, or more experimental. I know, if I somehow become a professional VST developer, which I would love to absolutely, I would come back to here frequently with really wild experiments, some fun stuff that just takes an extra risk, you know, or is something special to share an extra bit of happy developing with everybody. That's all.

Dang, now it's me making a long post?! ...but NO QUOTES, yay!

[Aloysius]

Point 2) Wavesfactory...

(a) Are you sure about that? I bought their W-Buzz for Kontakt. It was priced at €9.95 EUR back in 2013.

Wavesfactory responded with this:

Hey guys!

Just to clarify the confusion between W-Buzz and SnareBuzz.
W-Buzz was a sample library for Kontakt containing samples from an electric bass recorded through a mic positioned at the wires of a snare drum.
SnareBuzz is an audio effect plugin that simulates the snare wires coded by me as I'm learning how to do plugins right now.

Same concept, different beasts! One was a sample library and the one is an audio effect that doesn't use samples at all.

It's like saying "this painting should be removed from the gallery because he already used the blue colour in another painting".

Personally, I find this move a bit strange. So it's more bugging me than a clear rule violation. The analogy that "other developers shouldn't have joined then either" wouldn't work in this case. Because they did (!) create new tools based upon their skill set and their already developed, internal SDKs. Nothing that was released prior.

So, are you agreeing that your previous statement is false?

2) the release of Wavesfactory's SnareBuzz is questionable, as the concept was once released as "Kontakt Sample Set" (which was part of their freebies back in the days, they're removed from their page now). The developer however said that this is a "plugin and not like the old sample concept"

Do you think that foreign governments are hacking the developer challenge vote?

[GaryG]

I don't think 2) is an issue at all.

My analogy would be someone releasing a synth bass soundset one challenge then coding a bass synth for the next. So they have a thing for synth bass but totally different products.

[Ivan_C]

I have already told you that the author of Snare Buzz didn't know how to code a c++ plug-in on his own like 6 months ago. He is really really skilled in making Kontakt instruments (Mercury is really awesome, and I'm not saying that just because I know the author, I have been playing with it a lot lately), but he has always hired freelancers to make c++ development. So it is more than honorable if he has been able to release something which is "complete" all alone for the KVR DC, after having taken c++/JUCE lessons for a few months, moreover something that is again a big improvement of a concept he has used some years ago, with everything being recorded and coded from scratch.

What's your point guys there, that beginners shouldn't participate at KVR DC ? That anything that is not up to the current standards of freeware plug-ins shouldn't even exist in a developer contest ? I have seen a few times already how some of you have been criticizing the "quality" of the entries this year, in comparison with the other years, and I really don't like that at all. Do you want to bash beginners to prevent them from doing a contest like that again ? How do you think people who have released something this year are going to feel when they read that :

The biggest thing is the lack of quality plugins, too much halfbaken programming course examples are in the challenge this year. A few cool ideas but no real invention. Just my point.

but I don't think that these two things won't be discarded/disqualified. Hooray for rules and fair price distribution (another thing that kind of annoys me with this year's challenge).

one have to say it. weakest DC ever imo.

I was a bit surprised not to see entries from some old DC vets, but hey. Anyway, my 2 cents.

A lot of the entries seem rushed. Some of them require certain files (that seem to be messing on my machine). The ones that do work, are either buggy, or have no presets to showcase what they're supposed to do without going through the manuals - which not all of them do come with.

If it was me, I think it would be better to do a developer challenge with voting people being only developers, instead of musicians which have everything and have very high standards, so the beginners would be more encouraged to participate and to improve their skills from a contest to the next one.

Again, for me, the real point of such a contest is to have a lot of people releasing together some thing with their current level of skills, and learning a lot of things in the process, so they would want to do it again. Optionally, the KVR DC are cool because every time everyone might want to use in his current workflow a few entries (I still use Emissary a lot for example). But pleasing everybody in KVR forums, which wouldn't even be possible if every participant was a clone of Urs Heckmann (since some people are able to troll him about Repro-1, WTF), has never be the point in my opinion.

And yeah, if you're wondering, I'm a little pissed right now.

[Compyfox]

Are you trying some US political HPC crap on me, Aloysius?
It's still questionable to me - end of story.


Are we still trying to ignore the actual rule violation with AutoTonic?

Waaaaaay too much fuzz here. (2ct)

What, that I talk about somebody breaking established rules?

So, yeah, I heard and understand the whole point of not having the DC be an INDI challenge, but I would somehow expect more pride from the professionals to deliver at least something a bit more respectable, I think, or more experimental. I know, if I somehow become a professional VST developer, which I would love to absolutely, I would come back to here frequently with really wild experiments, some fun stuff that just takes an extra risk, you know, or is something special to share an extra bit of happy developing with everybody. That's all.

I am not saying that the Developer Challenge shall remain "independent". In fact, U-HE joined back in the days (one of the most well known/respected companies to date), Tokyo Dawn Labs and Variety of Sound kicked off their "history" via the Developer Challenge as well, so did XOXOS... So the more participation, the better. If it's more on the independent developer side of things, so be it. They also deserve the spotlight.

What I am criticizing or rather pointing out, is that there is a lack of class so to speak, and that the rule set does not define what happens if a company/magazine/individual that is already successful in the wild (read: way before the Developer Challenge), and probably covered in terms of the prices (the NAMM deal especially), basically wins the competition.

Of course, a person can say "I withdraw" and it will be forwarded to the next in line (in fact, something like that is mentioned in the rule set). But why not state right from the start "participant does refrain from the the possibility to access the winning pool"?

This way, points can be given to those that actually offer good and creative tools.




Unless "change" and "upholding rules" is bad... then I wasted not only my time, but also everyone else's.

[Ivan_C]

However I agree that if one is breaking the rules it should be disqualified. And in my opinion, the Beat Magazine entry and Snare Buzz didn't break any.

[Ivan_C]

I am not saying that the Developer Challenge shall remain "independent". In fact, U-HE joined back in the days (one of the most well known/respected companies to date), Tokyo Dawn Labs and Variety of Sound kicked off their "history" via the Developer Challenge as well, so did XOXOS... So the more participation, the better. If it's more on the independent developer side of things, so be it. They also deserve the spotlight.

What I am criticizing or rather pointing out, is that there is a lack of class so to speak, and that the rule set does not define what happens if a company/magazine/individual that is already successful in the wild (read: way before the Developer Challenge), and probably covered in terms of the prices (the NAMM deal especially), basically wins the competition.

Of course, a person can say "I withdraw" and it will be forwarded to the next in line (in fact, something like that is mentioned in the rule set). But why not state right from the start "participant does refrain from the the possibility to access the winning pool"?

This way, points can be given to those that actually offer good and creative tools.

To summarize your point, you mean : beginners should be forbidden, successful companies should be forbidden, people working for magazines should be forbidden, and it's ok for indies if they are not "too much indie", skilled enough but not too much. Did I get it right ?

[Aloysius]

Are you trying some US political HPC crap on me, Aloysius?
It's still questionable to me - end of story.

That's one way to avoid answering a question I suppose.

'It's HPC' ... No it's not.

'It's crap' ... No it's not.

'It's questionable' ... Have you read the posts from Ivan_C?

[elassi]

But pleasing everybody in KVR forums...

More than a decade ago I had a talk to a professor of TH Köln (Cologne) about the pleasure of running a personal website. We laughed about the moment we both realized that we (too) often adressed the needs of 14-year-old kids flying by and leaving a 'substantial' comment...

But that's another story - though perfectly fitting to KvR.

[DSmolken]

However I agree that if one is breaking the rules it should be disqualified. And in my opinion, the Beat Magazine entry and Snare Buzz didn't break any.

Pretty much, yeah. Though, really, if somebody breaks the rules, doesn't get a lot of votes and loses anyway, then disqualifying them is kind of a moot point.

But I'd like to see more talk about how to possibly improve things in the future. It would be especially interesting to hear from devs who wanted to enter but decided not to, or tried but didn't get an entry completed in time. What would have helped them get into this one?

[Compyfox]

In response to Ivan_C's last post:
Now we can twist and turn everything to everyone's personal opinion. That was fast, prior to page 3.


No - I'm saying that if you want to join, just join. If you're a professional, a newbie, a well established independent dev, company collaborators. Doesn't matter.What I would like to see changed however, is a "balance" for all of this.

Like I said... does a (well established, popular/successful) German Magazine really need to be at NAMM, especially if it's already present there with reporters and doesn't need to expand to the US market (since the magazine is not translated anyway)?

What about other well established developers? Do they join for the prize money? For fame? For free promotion?



It was brought up in well adjusted manner... how can we encourage "new people", or small independent developers if the already known devs basically floor all others? Or if the feedback is absolutely devastating? Or in this particular case - rule violations have no repercussions?

However I agree that if one is breaking the rules it should be disqualified. And in my opinion, Snare Buzz didn't break any.

Valid opinion - so there is another vote for the disqualification of AutoTonic.

'It's questionable' ... Have you read the posts from Ivan-C?

You mean the current one after your blurbs, or the one from the other thread?
I said - it's my opinion. You don't agree with it, fine. Moving on.

The matter at hand is still the rule violation and what can be improved rule wise in the future. Don't feel like contributing, don't derail the thread. That simple.

...We laughed about the moment we both realized that we (too) often adressed the needs of 14-year-old kids flying by and leaving a 'substantial' comment...

But that's another story - though perfectly fitting to KvR.

What a way to tick off the KVR community and criticizing those that don't swim with the masses.

Pretty much, yeah. Though, really, if somebody breaks the rules, doesn't get a lot of votes and loses anyway, then disqualifying them is kind of a moot point.

I don't think so.

Not disqualifying the participant would mean that future participants can do the same and get away with it. That is in no way okay IMO. Not necessarily what you'd call "poster child behavior".

Also - chances are (a huge chance even) that people don't even read the Developer Challenge Chat, and therefore not see the criticism about this particular release. So people will give points and the developer has a chance to (theoretically) win the challenge.


It's not that simple I'm afraid.

But I'd like to see more talk about how to possibly improve things in the future. It would be especially interesting to hear from devs who wanted to enter but decided not to, or tried but didn't get an entry completed in time. What would have helped them get into this one?

Curious about that as well.

I remember discussing this with C.Budde and bootsie back in the days. But I also seem to remember that the participation was a turnoff due to various reasons (time constraints, harsh criticism, non filled expectations from the sides of the "users"/voters, etc).