LINUXGAMES

Linux Games Podcast Free-as-in-Beer Ads

September 19th, 2006 by TimeDoctor

If you run your own open-source, or free software, or hell, even binary only but free-as-in-beer software: You can send me a brief (20-40 second) audio only advertisement in mp3 only for your open-source/free software game. You must own or not include any audio included in your advertisement. So this means no Iron Maiden songs, or creative commons. This is all CYA stuff so we don’t get in trouble, and you don’t either.

If you have a problem with the mp3 nature, don’t write in, or comment.

If you have any other suggestions for the podcast in general, put them in the forum.

If you have suggestions for these short ads, put them in the forums or this post thread. We reserve the right to refuse ads for games that suck, and any that you aren’t really part of the team on, without consent from their team/maintainer/whatever. The deadline for entries for this weekend’s podcast are Friday the 22nd, my apologies for announcing this so late. Any entries late will be considered for future podcasts. If we air your advertisement and you decide you don’t want it aired in the future, e-mail me again. This is a free service provided solely for free-as-in-beer games to get better exposure in a simple way. Please use the highest quality audio files possible when making your mp3 so that the end result doesn’t sound poor. Thanks!

9 Responses to “Linux Games Podcast Free-as-in-Beer Ads”

  1. kccricket Says:

    [troll]
    The path to highest audio quality is through OGG.
    [/troll]

    Seriously though, it’d probably be better to explain why you only want MP3 submissions rather than taking the “my way or the highway” approach. I assume whatever software you’re using doesn’t like OGG Vorbis.

    Ooops, did I just comment on your choice of audio codec? Silly me.

    Also, don’t people release their works under certain CC licenses so that people can use their works for projects like this? You seem to be making decisions without logical basis.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    See the comma?
    “If you have a problem with the mp3 nature, don’t write in, or comment.”

    That means if you have a problem, you either don’t write in or you comment. So you’re safe. B-)

  3. Paul-Donnelly Says:

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to also accept lossless audio files such as .wav, .aiff, and .au? Since you’re going to encode to mp3 anyway, the final sound quality should be a bit higher if the file doesn’t go through the lossy encoder twice. The three formats I mentioned can be imported by Audacity, a good program for stitching the clips together and matching levels, as well as by any audio program worth its salt, so accepting them would be no extra work for you. Flac would be another good solution if file sizes are a bigger problem for you than the extra decoding step.

    We audio guys tend to think about these things a lot.

  4. zborgerd Says:

    Eh?

    What’s the point if the final MP3 is only going to be 83kbps anyway? You “audio guys” should know that the loss in quality from 128kbps (or higher) to 83kbps (in the same format) is going to make any previous encoding’s lossiness unnoticeable.

    This isn’t like picking a format for archival quality copies. This appears to simply be about picking the most efficient method of transfering audio for what will, in the end, be a low bitrate postcast.

  5. zakk Says:

    [i]“This isn’t like picking a format for archival quality copies. This appears to simply be about picking the most efficient method of transfering audio for what will, in the end, be a low bitrate postcast.”[/i]
    Exactly.

  6. Anonymous Says:

    More people are annoid by the sound-compression artifacts that have the distinct fealing of listening to falling water throu a tall bean-can. The people want to hear the voices, in a low-bandwidhth data-stream or small file that shouldn’t cause any more than 5 MegaBytes over any 60 minute timeslice.

    This is not possible when the filtering on those internetwork telephone conversations allows all the breathing and background noise. An efficient choice would not bode well for the introductory music, or are we here to talk?

  7. Anonymous Says:

    what

  8. kccricket Says:

    [q]This isn’t like picking a format for archival quality copies. This appears to simply be about picking the most efficient method of transfering audio for what will, in the end, be a low bitrate postcast.[/q]But isn’t ogg more efficient (i.e. a smaller file size) than MP3 at the same bitrate?

  9. Slacker Says:

    [q]But isn’t ogg more efficient (i.e. a smaller file size) than MP3 at the same bitrate?[/q]Doesn’t really matter in the end which is better or not… he’s already stated he wants mp3 only. End of story. :)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.