Indie & OpenSource

[lucidquiet]

Sorry guys, but I have to ask. How many indie games are open source? The reason I'm asking is cause some people really preach open source -- especially anyone who's read the Cathedral and Bazar. I agree with "some" of the points, but not all -- and I'm not really sure that they fully apply in the gaming industry. Maybe game engine building, but the actual game?

L-

[Coyote]

Check out http://www.prairiegames.com

Most open-source games are volunteer, freeware efforts that never end up getting completed (unlike most hobbyist non-open-source game efforts which... ummm... also never get completed). I think it's because of one of those open-source myths that if you make your code open-source, a community of dilligent, hard-working and talented developers with nothing better to do will spring up overnight and take over the ugly grunt-work and carry the project to a completed state.

A lot of game developers carry the fear that making their source code open source will cut them off from profitability. Granted, if your game is code-heavy and content-light, that's an issue... there's always a worry that someone else will take your hard effort and end up reaping all the benefits.

Prairie games is actually using a highly modified version of the Doom 2 engine released under GPL. Naturally, their own engine is likewise now GPL. Josh's take on the issue is that code is a liability rather than an asset. It will be interesting to see where that goes. Of course, Minions of Mirth is a multiplayer RPG, which means it is EXTREMELY content-heavy... and of course the content isn't free or open at all.

There are several games USING open source tools or components (Freedom Force and the Temple of Elemental Evil used Python as a scripting language, for example). If you don't have the viral GPL attached to what you are using, it's a lot easier to take the plunge and use open source. Richard Stallman himself has admitted that Open Source may not be highly applicable to games.

[GBGames]

Open source affects your manner of marketing.

Open source doesn't mean you aren't selling. I could sell you a copy of Debian that I burnt for however much you let me charge you. To some people, my ability to give them a disk might be worth $10 to $20 rather than for them to download it for hours or days.

That said, if you release your game under the GPL, for example, you are granting the right of your users to redistribute the software in binary and source form. What you aren't guaranteeing is the redistribution of your data files.

If you made a Tetris game, you don't really have much in the way of data. Anyone can put their own graphics in place of yours and it will work just fine.

If you made an RPG, then legally no one can redistribute the graphics, the scripts, etc. They can write their own, sure, but to play with your data and therefore your game, they will legally have to pay.

If you aren't creative, you will think, "But if I give out the source, then anyone can buy one copy and just give it away for free!"

Yes, by putting it under such a license, you are giving permission for them to do so. However, this still doesn't mean you can't sell your software.

Games are interesting. You can't charge for access to the source under the GPL. Most software can be funded through support contracts, but that isn't likely to work for games. You need to get creative in what you are charging for.

Charge for expansion packs. You can't legally play the GPLed Doom game without the game files, requiring you to pay for the game.


Or don't charge for the game at all. User your open source game to act as advertising for your commercial game. In fact, you could release an open source version of the game and be in control of all changes. That way, you can release a commercial, non-GPLed version as well. Check out Tuxracer, the Qt library, etc.

The benefits of an open source game: people will be inclined to port it for you. Writing it yourself you might get a Windows game ported to the Mac, but with a fan following with access to the source, they could port it for you to the BSDs, Linux (on more than the x86 platform), etc.

Bugs can be fixed by fans, which means your game will be more robust.

Disadvantages:
-if your game is badly designed, cheating is easier since users have access to the source. bzflag last I heard allows people to cheat without the server doing any kind of checking.

-nothing prevents someone from illegally copying your data files, but that is the case with closed source also

-the inclination to believe that Free software means freeware needs to be overcome, by users and developers alike

The GPL isn't the only license available, so others might be better suited to games. However, open source licenses do lend themselves better to engines and libraries if you intend to sell the game traditionally (closed source).

[GBGames]

Check out http://www.prairiegames.com

Most open-source games are volunteer, freeware efforts that never end up getting completed (unlike most hobbyist non-open-source game efforts which... ummm... also never get completed). I think it's because of one of those open-source myths that if you make your code open-source, a community of dilligent, hard-working and talented developers with nothing better to do will spring up overnight and take over the ugly grunt-work and carry the project to a completed state.


Very true. Sometimes it is accurate, like for famous and popular projects such as GLTron and freeciv, but looking at a lot of projects on sourceforge.net will show you that they don't all get picked up. Making it open source doesn't allow you to say, "Let's make the best RPG ever!" with any more confidence that people will join you. So open source games are just like closed source games in this regard.

[Coyote]

I haven't used it, but I've been very interested in the Ogre3D graphics engine. It's LGPL, which means you can dynamically link it to your game without releasing your actual GAME CODE for free. That's a very nice alternative. Of course, if you make any changes to the engine itself you'll need to release those changes, but that's no big deal. I doubt any indies working on a sub-million/year budget are going to be coming up with any algorithmic graphical breakthroughs that would be worth maintaining as a trade secret for a competitive advantage.

Another thing that gets kind of fuzzy is the definition of source code. In the Minions of Mirth example, the engine itself is open source. But it runs a scripting engine, and the real 'game' is contained in the script code. So by blurring the line between data and code, Prairie Games doesn't have to worry too much about someone duplicating their product and eating their lunch. The core engine code is really just a small part of it.

[GBGames]

I haven't used it, but I've been very interested in the Ogre3D graphics engine. It's LGPL, which means you can dynamically link it to your game without releasing your actual GAME CODE for free. That's a very nice alternative. Of course, if you make any changes to the engine itself you'll need to release those changes, but that's no big deal. I doubt any indies working on a sub-million/year budget are going to be coming up with any algorithmic graphical breakthroughs that would be worth maintaining as a trade secret for a competitive advantage.


Well sometimes engines get tweaked for different reasons, so if you release your game with engine tweaks, no matter how small, the source has to be included. If you don't release it (like personal tools you developed and don't intend to share) then tweak all you want and you don't have to worry about distributing the source until you distribute the tool itself.

But yeah, indies probably won't want to work directly on the engine if they can help it.

[princec]

I've open sourced all my code. I got ridiculed for it but so what?

Cas :)

[GBGames]

What? When did you open source Alien Flux or Helix? Or are you referring to something else?

[oNyx]

He referrs to Alien Flux, LWJGL and SPGL (so far). Helix isn't his game.

Well, mind you it's "just" the source without media.

[Greg Squire]

I don't think making your game open source is going to hurt you much at all (at least in terms of sales). For one, most customers don't know what "Open source" even means. All they care about is playing the game, so all long as you have a compiled version for download, you're good with them. Only developers (and maybe potential publishers) are going to give you grief over this. It's up to you what you want to do really, but most don't decide to go this route.

[20thCenturyBoy]

Princec's decision to open-source the code to Alien Flux is a boon to the Java game development community. It lets them get a look at professional quality game code, something which is a lot less common for Java devs than C++ devs, for example. Hopefully it will inspire them to create games of similar quality. It's in his interest to see Java progress as a gaming platform so I think going opensource was the right decision. I doubt his actual customers care one way or the other.

20thCB

[princec]

I don't think making your game open source is going to hurt you much at all (at least in terms of sales).LOL! No, it's not likely to make my sales any worse...

Cas :)

[Coyote]

I think the biggest issue is with giving competition a leg up. Especially if the 'competition' is someone who can simply duplicate your art resources, make a few tweaks, and release it as freeware. It's hard to compete with a free clone.

But if your game has a LOT of content requirements, it's not much of an issue. And id Software had a pretty good idea - once the commercial viability of a game / engine has run its course, there's really not much of a concern with open sourcing it. Except for the embarassment of showing how sloppy a coder you are.

[EpicBoy]

And in Carmack's case, that embarassment is offset by millions of dollars and a garage full of Ferrari's. :)

[JRitter]

Hello,

This is Josh Ritter from Prairie Games...

In a past life, I shipped 12 retail titles that were not independent... they have all since come down off the shelf... and are now 100% dead... if our independent company had been behind these game they would still be available, supported, and selling...

We at Prairie Games believe strongly in the strength of the Open Source model for independent game development... and we're using it. I have been over this thousands of times... It's very obvious to me and I don't need to defend it anymore... I believe 100% in what we are doing and how we are doing it.

It's refreshing to see some of the viewpoints in this thread... there's nothing scary, evil, or unknown about Open Sources... unless you are Microsoft or Electronics Arts... and even then, you really don't have anything to worry about... they'll adopt this stuff and turn a buck on it... just watch... they already are... Python and Lua are two good examples... there are others...

There's a lot of good, quality technology you can use... for free... heck, Quake3 will be GPL'd within the next three weeks... it's an incredible engine that is still being used by AAA games, as of THIS YEAR... Call of Duty: United Offensive anyone?

Of course, if you can't stand to work under the GPL... limit yourself to other Open Source licenses... or don't use Open Source technology at all... Who cares, as long as you are happy and get a game done...

-Josh Ritter
Technical Director
Prairie Games, Inc
http://www.prairiegames.com

[Kai Backman]

I agree with the paraphrased Josh that code is mostly a liability. I'm using a lot of Open Source components myself (OGRE, Lua, CEGUI, Boost etc) and have seriously considered releasing the game source under the GPL. The only reason against it is purely practical. I don't yet see much value for anyone else in our custom C++ code. Open Source works best for commodities, pieces of software that don't provide a competitive edge. For indies that includes most C++ components we write, but probably excludes scripting and definitely excludes art.

[GBGames]

I have been over this thousands of times... It's very obvious to me and I don't need to defend it anymore... I believe 100% in what we are doing and how we are doing it.


Well, since this is your first post on this forum, I'd love to see the threads elsewhere where you have gone over your argument. I plan on using open source tools to make my game, but I think I will take id's approach and open source the code to the game itself years after the initial release. I'm also wondering if making the game open source immediately isn't such a bad idea (will I lose sales, even though more platforms can be supported?, etc).

I'd love to see your insight.

[Siebharinn]

I don't get it. If I (as a coder) team up with an artist, and we both put in 100 hours on a project, why is my contribution a liability and his an asset? Why should my efforts be given away and his protected as "content"?

The code to a game is just as important as the content. Without it, you have pictures and sounds, but no game. It takes time to develop code, and my time has value.

I think that projects like LWJGL are ideal for open sourcing. The proof of that was in the Linux and Mac ports. Cas didn't have anything to do with those (correct me if I'm wrong) , but as a result of those, he was able to expand AF's target audience to two other platforms, with no real effort on his part. Plus, the people that did the porting now having a gaming library that they can use in their own projects. A win for everyone.

Open sourcing AF, on the other hand, makes no sense to me. Who gains from that? Perhaps someone wanting to see how to do a Java game. Is anyone going to post bug fixes or improvements to AF? Not likely. Is anyone going to take the AF source and use it as a base for a similar game? Again, not likely. I don't know that it actually hurts Puppy Games to do that, but aside from community good will (which doesn't generate sales), how has it helped?

Id's use of open source is different. It has no value to them anymore, and by opening it, they ensure that their games will be around forever. And possibly sell a few copies for the content, but that's not the point - those products are effectivly dead.

Indie games have a much longer lifespan than retail games, so opensourcing them for posterity makes less sense.

Take care,
Bill

[princec]

I OS'ed Alien Flux purely as a gesture of goodwill to all the Java n00bs I have to deal with every day. And of course to show off my l33t sk1llz. It wasn't for gain.

Cas :)

[GBGames]

I don't get it. If I (as a coder) team up with an artist, and we both put in 100 hours on a project, why is my contribution a liability and his an asset? Why should my efforts be given away and his protected as "content"?


No one said they should. If you don't want to give away your code, don't. Why react as if someone was threatening you?



The code to a game is just as important as the content. Without it, you have pictures and sounds, but no game. It takes time to develop code, and my time has value.


And some people think that taking the time to develop code that others could just as easily do or have done is a waste of their valuable time. One of the things people are always encouraging here is to use existing technology rather than take the time to roll your own. Open source 3D engines are a perfect example of things that people take advantage of to save time.



Open sourcing AF, on the other hand, makes no sense to me. Who gains from that? Perhaps someone wanting to see how to do a Java game. Is anyone going to post bug fixes or improvements to AF? Not likely. Is anyone going to take the AF source and use it as a base for a similar game? Again, not likely. I don't know that it actually hurts Puppy Games to do that, but aside from community good will (which doesn't generate sales), how has it helped?


I can't speak for Cas, but open sourcing your project can be done for many reasons. Goodwill is an awesome thing, so don't belittle it. Being profitable is a goal for any company, but I refuse to put profits before my company's reputation. Merck is a company that supposedly had something like that as its mission statement, but they ignored the warnings about the danger of one of their products. Now they are suffering the consequences.



Id's use of open source is different. It has no value to them anymore, and by opening it, they ensure that their games will be around forever. And possibly sell a few copies for the content, but that's not the point - those products are effectivly dead.

Indie games have a much longer lifespan than retail games, so opensourcing them for posterity makes less sense.


Cause all indie developers stay in business forever. Sometimes people leave the industry completely. Sometimes they value their time, preferring that other people be able to fix the bugs instead of taking the time to do so themselves. When people say that code is a liability, they mean that most end-users don't complain that a sprite looks funny or that it is preventing them from doing their work. Artists generally provide an asset and are done. Code, on the other hand, has to be maintained.

And a beef I have with arguments such as yours: who made the law that said if you open source your code you shouldn't get payment for its distribution?

[Dan MacDonald]

Well, since this is your first post on this forum, I'd love to see the threads elsewhere where you have gone over your argument.

JRitter created some controversy with his OpenSource approach on the GarageGames forums. There was quite a lot of yelling and hair pulling he's probably tired of discussing it and not in a big hurry to re-create the same event here. That said JRitter might not realize that many of the people who frequent these forums do not frequent the GG forums and there is a fairly different atmosphere here.

[JRitter]

@Dan: Exactly :)

@GBGames: Here ya go, this is from a .plan of mine specifically about the GPL, though most of it applies to Open Source as a whole:

Firstly, I want to clear up a major point of confusion: The GPL has nothing to do with commercial usage. It is a copyleft license that basically says, when you release a binary that contains GPL sources, you need to release all the sources that have been linked to create that binary. It is not a commercial license, as such it does not forbid commercial exploitation.

I have put a lot of thought into independent game making with the GPL. In many ways, independent games can uniquely benefit from GPL released code. I stress independent because major publishing houses will most likely fear the GPL, or could want you to combine your game with something like Gamespy. GPL and proprietary are incompatible.

Some points on making games under the GPL, please note the lack of religion:

1) Content doesn´t fall under the GPL. This is the crux for games using the GPL to be commercially viable. It is also why games need to be viewed differently than other GPL products, where the source is the product.

2) Consumers don´t care in any way, shape, or form that the source code for a game is available.

3) Only code for which a binary is released needs to follow the GPL. The entire tool-chain can remain closed source, etc. Lack of tools creates a significant barrier in generating a game´s content. A k-rad "programmer" can´t simply snag the code and make something that competes with your product.

4) Collaboration is much simplified from using code that requires a per coder license. Host a CVS on sourceforge, etc.

5) Security issues with multiplayer games exist. Password protected servers are a good option(play among friends)... as is cheat detection with banning on the server. The game sources to Quake III Arena and UT2003 are available, as are many other games. In many ways, having the sources available aids the community of your game to police itself. Server sources/rules for non-player hosted games can be kept closed source.

6) The copyright holder on any code can choose to relicense their original sources under a different license at any time. This doesn´t retroactively remove the GPL from code already released under it. Though, the course can be changed. It is also possible to dual license sources, GPL + closed source option (usually for $$$).

7) You are free to use other GPL sources + any sources under a GPL compatible license.

8) Others have to live by the same rules you do... and if they have hangups about the GPL they´ll skip right past your code. If they don´t, more power to them, they still have to create a game + content, possibly without any tools. While, you are forging ahead making new games.

The choice for independent game developers isn´t whether or not to use Open Source code. It´s whether to use:

A) Proprietary code + open source licenses that are compatible
B) GPL code + open source licenses that are compatible

Of course this is all secondary to team formation and management... but that is another topic altogether.

-Josh Ritter
Technical Director
Prairie Games, Inc
http://www.prairiegames.com

[Siebharinn]

-GBGames -
No one said they should. If you don't want to give away your code, don't. Why react as if someone was threatening you?

I didn't think anyone was threatening me. The statement was made that source code is a liability, not an asset. I was questioning that comment.



- GBGames -
And some people think that taking the time to develop code that others could just as easily do or have done is a waste of their valuable time. One of the things people are always encouraging here is to use existing technology rather than take the time to roll your own. Open source 3D engines are a perfect example of things that people take advantage of to save time.

The original question was whether people write open source games, *not* whether or not they use open source tools or engines. If an OS tool meets your needs, go for it. But that's a different thing than whether or not to opensource your project.


- GBGames -
I can't speak for Cas, but open sourcing your project can be done for many reasons. Goodwill is an awesome thing, so don't belittle it. Being profitable is a goal for any company, but I refuse to put profits before my company's reputation.

I wasn't belittling goodwill. I was saying that it doesn't generate many sales. A company with a great reputation and no sales goes under, like Pyrogon. Generating goodwill at the expense of profits is the short road to bankruptcy.


- GBGames -
Cause all indie developers stay in business forever. Sometimes people leave the industry completely.

Of course not. If you're going out of business (probably because you spent too much time on goodwill and reputation), then by all means, open the code. That's basically what id has done. Their games will be around forever. I already said that.


- GBGames -
Sometimes they value their time, preferring that other people be able to fix the bugs instead of taking the time to do so themselves.

I'm sorry, but if a company finds fixing bugs to be a poor use of their time and wants the community to do it for them, then I'm heading the other direction.


- GBGames -
When people say that code is a liability, they mean that most end-users don't complain that a sprite looks funny or that it is preventing them from doing their work. Artists generally provide an asset and are done. Code, on the other hand, has to be maintained.

Then that's a misuse of the word "liability".


- GBGames -
And a beef I have with arguments such as yours: who made the law that said if you open source your code you shouldn't get payment for its distribution?

Show me a practical example of where that's not true. I don't know who made the law, but don't shoot me for pointing it out.

[Siebharinn]

- JRitter -
1) Content doesn´t fall under the GPL. This is the crux for games using the GPL to be commercially viable. It is also why games need to be viewed differently than other GPL products, where the source is the product.

*This* is my basic gripe with open source games. Why is the content special? Why is the code that I write different than the texture that the artist makes? Why altruistically give the source away, and then protect the content as sacred intellectual property? Why release the code, and then erect barriers (copyrights on IP, closed toolchains, etc) to hamper someone from actually using it? I don't get it.

[JRitter]

I believe the value to the *consumer* is the game. The consumer is first in my book...

I am not in competition with our artists over who is more valuable... in fact, I am marrying one of them :)

Edit: .. and on your edit, we don't plan on hampering anyone... the hope of course being that someone uses the tools to make cool stuff, mods, etc for our game... I simply point it out as an option...

-Josh Ritter
Technical Director
Prairie Games, Inc
http://www.prairiegames.com

[Siebharinn]

Sorry, wasn't trying to sneak in an edit, just trying to be clear. :)

I guess my question then, is how does the consumer benefit with open source? Mods and extensions and stuff? That's not exclusive to open source - look at Unreal and Neverwinter Nights. Making the game extensible is a very good thing.

[JRitter]

In our case, it's the choice of engine... which helps to make the game better...

We'll be moving to Quake3 very soon (once it's GPL'd*)... This, in my opinion, is the strongest engine available to independent game developers to date...

We're talking tools, overall design, bots, path finding, networking, rendering (an efficient shader system, bezier, awesome radiosity), GUI, physics, server/client gameplay modules, retargetable VM, sound/music system, input, console system, documentation, cross platform support, etc... it's a complete package... and has proven itself many, many, many times... just this year it was used for Call of Duty: United Offensive...

Check out our video linked here: http://www.prairiegames.com/games.html

It was made by 2 people using a heavily modified Quake 2 ... This was actually branched from Quake2Evolved, Open Source in action... As with Quake1/2 GPL, I fully expect to see people adding all kind of coolness to the Quake3 engine (including pixel shaders)... and the GPL ensures we'll be able to use these addtions commercially...

We've already been retooling to Quake3 and things are a whole lot better now :)

-Josh Ritter
Technical Director
Prairie Games, Inc
http://www.prairiegames.com

* - Carmack announced on Slashdot that it'll be going GPL by the end of the year

[Siebharinn]

- JRitter -
In our case, it's the choice of engine... which will help to make the game better...

Ahhh...That makes more sense, thanks.

[milo]

I think the real reason that id open-sources their old engines is to ensure that there is a market for their current engines. The companies that spend big bucks to license the latest Doom or Unreal engine do so because they need to compete on the basis of having the latest bells and whistles. Id actively encourages this business practice by allowing any fifteen year old hacker to use last year's bells and whistles for free. This has the potential to flood the market with games that look really good, but not quite as good as can be obtained if you spend lots of money for the latest and greatest engine, thereby forcing their paying customers to upgrade or look outdated.

I must admit that I don't see why it would be an advantage to the typical indie game developer for said developer to release the source for any of their own games. I agree that there is very little risk involved in doing so. I just don't see any meaningful reward either.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[JRitter]

You have to give to get in some cases... By releasing our source code, under a GPL compatible license, we can use GPL code... The Quake3 engine, and an active community of developers improving said engine, is a meaningful reward for doing so... again, the GPL ensures that we can use all work done on the GPL Quake3 engine commercially... check out what people have done with GPL Quake1/2... it's flat out amazing...

I don't think that being Open Source is going to matter one way or the other to our paying customers... They're just buying a game.. and have already done so with pre-orders...

We don't broadcast the fact that we are Open Source on our web site... it's just noise... it simply doesn't matter to 99.9% of the people visiting the site...

-Josh
http://www.prairiegames.com

[GBGames]

Thanks for the info, Josh! I am seriously considering releasing my games under an Open Source license now instead of waiting five years like I was originally planning.

[milieu]

I'm planning on using OGRE, which is LGPL, for my game's engine. I gave it some thought, and I realized that my code is not going to be the reason for customers to buy the game. Customers buy the finished product, which is a synthesis of art, design, and code that forms an experience.

So, I'm planning to release as much of my code as possible. I'd rather have my code out there so others can learn from my mistakes. Letting someone else see how I managed to implement a sound subsystem is not going to hurt my sales.

Considering that the only reason I can use OGRE is that literally thousands of hours of work was donated in a similar manner, I consider it the least I can do to give back something.

In my case, the customer benefits because I might actually finish the game. If I had to start from scratch, I'd still be working on lighting normals in 2010.

[JRitter]

Why not use SDL (http://www.libsdl.org/index.php) for sound? ... or was this just an example? :)

-Josh

[Coyote]

I think the biggest benefit you get is from being able to use other source code and tools that have a compatible license. There's a pretty sizeable library of code out there that is free and under a GPL-compatible license. Of course, it cuts you out from using code under an incompatible license, so it's not perfect. LGPL is a much sweeter deal in that case.

I've recently begun exchanging source code a little with another indie studio - we help each other out quite a bit. It was a little painful at first, because I've had the whole ingrained corporate response that every crappy line of asterisks is worth gold in IP value. Then I got over myself, and realized that my code really ain't anything special. I do not have anything so cool and wonderful I should treat it as a trade secret. I've already gained a benefit by putting in the hours to generate the code. If my code helps them get stuff done a week faster, and they reciprocate and give me something that helps me get stuff done a week faster, we've got a total win/win scenario going here.

GPL just tries to push this on a larger scale. I'm personally not too keen on it - not enough to start GPL'ing my source code all over the place. But I think if I were in Josh's shoes, and could shave off many, many man-months using a particular GPL engine over some other engine, I'd be willing to use it.

[JRitter]

@Coyote: I totally agree... and really I ain't no zealot... I am just a man with a plan...

In the past, I spent a lot of time on the Garage Games forums... this thread would be burned alive or censored there, as past ones have... it's a shame those boards are so incredibly slanted... their loss, censorship of such topics will only hurt them... Garage Games is a cool thing otherwise...

Nice forums here...

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[milieu]

Why not use SDL (http://www.libsdl.org/index.php) for sound? ... or was this just an example? :)

-Josh

It was just randomly selected. When I get around to sound, I'll probably look for someone else who has already done all the hard work. ;)

[luggage]

That's part of the problem with the OS for me.

Releasing source code to a game is, as we seem to agree, not going to harm sales and relatively pointless.

However, it seems like there's an opinion that OS is great because they get access to good quality engines with free upgrades. This is strictly a one way benefit. Are those same people who use Quake 2\Ogre 3D contributing back to those engines?

That's what I thought the spirit of OS was - not using it to just save yourself a huge amount of work and making money on the back of someone else's effort.

[GBGames]

I'm sure that people who use Ogre are also making improvements. It only makes sense that it is not only possible but also being done. At the very least, developers might make requests or bug reports, which help the Ogre developers a lot.

[milo]

You have to give to get in some cases... By releasing our source code, under a GPL compatible license, we can use GPL code... The Quake3 engine, and an active community of developers improving said engine, is a meaningful reward for doing so...
Ohhhh. I see, thanks. Clearly what you are doing would be a benefit in some cases, but it's pretty far removed from what I do.

[Vectrex]

Ogre is great, the forums are amazingly tolerant of stupid newbies questions (me ;) ) and the core devs respond to just about everything.

milieu/everyone: for a game framework for ogre go to www.yake.org and wait for the 0.2 release soon. It incorporates ogre/physics/sound/events/network/replication and lots of annoying game structures for you! YAY OS! :D Plus the 3dsmax plugin handles all the scene construction and binding of physics etc. Those guys are super helpfull too and if anyone wants to replicate their 3dsmax plugins for Blender that'd.. be nice ;)

[Aldacron]

Are those same people who use Quake 2\Ogre 3D contributing back to those engines?

If you Google for 'Quake engine' you'll find a great many Quake 1/2 codebases available. Some of them started as a branch of another. Josh already mentioned his PrairieEngine started from QuakeEvolved. And now his modifications are available at sourceforge. Ogre users frequently contribute patches and add extensions/tools. Just read through news postings on the website to see where these have been announced. Additionally, there is a C# port of OGRE called Axiom that is available, and Java bindings have been created. So the answer to your question is a resounding 'yes'. When a community builds up around an OS project, you can bank on people contributing changes and making them available either by contribution to the project maintainer or by hosting a branch somewhere else.

I think though that there ought to be a distinction in this discussion as to the reasons for making a game open source. There's a big difference between deciding to do so just to make an OS game and doing so because you want to use a GPLed (or other viral OS licensed) engine. I'd argue that there could, quite likely, be little tangible benefit in the former case. But in the latter case you will almost certainly benefit from the beginning as the whole basis of your decision is the cost/benefit of opening your code to use that GPLed engine. And it's in that situation that I see OS being very good for indies.

I normally avoid the GPL like the plague, because it's just too viral for my taste. I'm happy to contribute my bugfixes/changes to a project, but forcing me to open all of the other code that uses that GPLed code is harsh. That's why I normally prefer BSD-style licenses like LWJGL uses. But when the Q3 engine source is released, I'll be making an exception to my anti-GPL stance. I'm anxious to get my hands on it, and would have no problem opening my game code to use it.

[JRitter]

But when the Q3 engine source is released, I'll be making an exception to my anti-GPL stance. I'm anxious to get my hands on it, and would have no problem opening my game code to use it.
This rocks... and reading it actually gave me a rush...

I was quite anti-GPL, then I came to realize that the GPL ensures I can use derivatives of my own (and other's) work... in whole, and not just some crippled form as with the LGPL... the LGPL is actually my least favorite OSI license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses)... it's flawed and being broken all over the place...

When you ensure usage, as the GPL does, you must use force... this is what turns many people off... I happen to appreciate it... It means that I don't have to ask anyone's permission... and they can't deny me usage of derivatives, again, in whole...

... and there are other licenses I like, as with the BSD:

We're releasing our OpenSRD (http://www.prairiegames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=66) library under the BSD license... OpenSRD is an implementation of Third Edition rules (under the Open Gaming License)...

I also believe that proprietary software is fine... I just strongly believe, that for our studio, using Open Source technology is a much bigger win...

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[luggage]

but how many users of Ogre are there compared to how many people contribute to Ogre itself?

put it this way would you honestly be happy if someone took OS code you made and developed software that raked in money whilst not giving you a penny?

[BigZaphod]

but how many users of Ogre are there compared to how many people contribute to Ogre itself?
I think that is irrelevant. More people just using/leeching Ogre without giving back does not in any way hinder the development of Ogre.


put it this way would you honestly be happy if someone took OS code you made and developed software that raked in money whilst not giving you a penny?
This is exactly the notion you must be comfortable with before you ever open source your code or use other GPLed libraries/code in any project you intend to ever release. You simply MUST be at terms with the possibility that someone else may make millions off of your idea. If you honestly are excited and want the world to have your idea, then this won't be a problem. It is an idealism thing.

Just because you open source something doesn't mean you are giving up your rights to make millions from your own hard work, either. If you were just as capable as the other person of making money with it, then go ahead and do it. Being open source does not prevent you from making money with your hard work.

I'm not sure what you know about the MySQL database, but there's a company behind MySQL even though MySQL is open sourced. They charge money if you want to embed MySQL in your program and not GPL the rest of your commercial system. Since they own the code, they can relicense it at their own discretion. This is perfectly legal and allowed and it is one avenue you can take. You cannot use the GPL and insist that others who use your software NOT make money, but the GPL does force them to open their code. If they don't want to do that, just let it be known that they can contact you for a closed commercial license and pay an appropriate fee for it. Everyone can win that way. The community gets to freely see and use your GPLed code, but commercial companies can optionally buy rights to your code and use it as if it were their own. It isn't as good as free, but if the price is right, the cost/benefit ratio may actually work in your favor.

[JRitter]

Our game, as we envision it, could not be made without the Open Source technology we use... we simply don't have the $$$, time, or man power to develop everything we need...

I lose absolutely no sleep on the idea of being "ripped off"... and I have thousands and thousands of hours into development...

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[luggage]

I lose absolutely no sleep on the idea of being "ripped off"... and I have thousands and thousands of hours into development...

That's because you're the one doing the "ripping off". It sounds harsh but as you mentioned you're thousands and thousands of hours into development time. You've saved a *lot* of money off somebody elses effort - will you consider giving them a slice of the cash pie?

[GBGames]

I understand that Open Source and the GPL specifically is not for everyone. One thing people have to realize is that open source is not like a proprietary license. If you don't like the idea of someone else having the ability to redistribute your code that you worked so hard on, then no, it isn't for you.

Are you ready to accept that by using the GPL for your code that you are telling people that they have the right to read, change, redistribute, and run the program? Cause that's what it is. I like arguments such as, "But if it's open source, then anyone can pirate it!" because what the arguer is most concerned about is "piracy" where the user is legally in the right, and this argument comes up because the whole idea of open source and the GPL in particular is misunderstood.

I like this thread though. It's opened my eyes to just how much more directly Open Source can figure into my development plans.

[JRitter]

"They" is pretty nebulous, but ok... I'll bite...

They have the exact same rights we have to every single line of source code... if they want to use it, they get more than they gave... if not, it's their choice...

Last I checked, "they" didn't help make any levels, sound effects, GUI art, game design, promotional materials, setup our business, market, etc, etc, etc... There's a whole lot more to making a game than source code...

We'll have earned every dime we make from this... believe me... and our primary technology provider is id Software... Do you really think they are going to feel "ripped off"??? Carmack knows EXACTLY what the GPL allows and disallows... He's pretty smart after all... :)

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[GBGames]

That's because you're the one doing the "ripping off". It sounds harsh but as you mentioned you're thousands and thousands of hours into development time. You've saved a *lot* of money off somebody elses effort - will you consider giving them a slice of the cash pie?

He's under no obligation to do so. If anything, by using Open Source, he's supporting the developers, which encourages more development in Open Source.

The developers of Open Source software not only expect commercial use, it is encouraged. Zope was originally proprietary, and the developers open sourced it. Now everyone knows what Zope is, and the developers were able to leverage the fact that they were the only knowledgeable users to sell their web development services.

To call it "ripping off" is to ignore the fact that Open Source development is done purposely so that users and other developers can use it. It is a different mindset from treating source code as a treasured secret.

[JRitter]

The developers of Open Source software not only expect commercial use, it is encouraged.

Exactly...


Open Source development is done purposely so that users and other developers can use it. It is a different mindset from treating source code as a treasured secret.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

If you are worried about someone cashing in on your work, or worse yet you cashing in on someone else's work, pretend Open Source doesn't exist and move on... otherwise, why project your feelings onto others... I suppose because it's easy to be indignant for other people... not my baggage...

If someone ever makes a game with all of this stuff... we'll have already made two... and so on... and ya know what, more power to them... maybe we can incorporate some of THEIR work into OUR games!!! All fingers point to the source...

There is some awesome stuff in this thread... very cool!!!

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[Mike Wiering]

Last year, I made my games Sint Nicolaas and Zwarte Piet open source (http://sint.sf.net/). I doubt that anyone has ever compiled them, so far I've only had one question about the source, appearently from someone who wanted to make the game open his website. But people just take the executable and bundle it with spyware/malware, for example http://sinterklaas.game.feestpagina.com (installs X-CallSwitch dialer!!!). I think that is sick.

[luggage]

So I presume you will be going Open Source with all of the data assets too then?

--edit-- that's not aimed at you Mike :)

[JRitter]

@Mike: That blows ... bastards will not be stopped... I hope this doesn't affect your viewpoint on publishing your sources... that would be letting the bastards win...

@luggage: Your presumption is incorrect... I am sorry if you disapprove, but we wouldn't be in business if we gave the game away... By the way, your website is very snappy...

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[luggage]

Why is the code worthless and why is the data highly prized?

[JRitter]

That has already been addressed in this thread... by myself and others...

I view our games as a whole... I am not hung up on some arbitrary notion of code vs. content value... The game has value...


-Josh

[luggage]

That's really my point about Open Source, at the end of the day you get people who give 100% of what they have (eg. Ogre) at the other end you have people who preach Open Source but only give back 50% (if that) of what they do.

--edit--

I keep trying to respond but you keep editing your post making it slightly tricky. I'm not that fast a typer :)

[JRitter]

What do you care?

... and I absolutely don't see this anything like you do ... sorry...

-Josh

[luggage]

I'm just trying to understand some of the reasoning behind Open Source.

I've raised questions as they've occured to me - some you've answered, some you haven't.

Thanks for answering the ones you have though.

[JRitter]

I am just really glad to see this topic not be COMPLETELY incendiary... that more than anything excites me :)

Edit: On the reasoning of Open Source... There are many reasons for many people... there is no "answer"

... and really, the Ogre development team would be VERY pleased if someone went on to make a successful title with their stuff... just ask them... I am sure they are perfectly aware of the situation... Does their happiness make sense even if no $$$ is exchanged? Absolutely!!! They aren't in it for that... if they were, Ogre probably wouldn't exist... On the flipside, some of the devs probably are or want to make commercial games with the library... and they couldn't make the library alone... others are using it as a resume to get a job, etc...

I think a primary reason is that it's cool... people just do cool things and want to share them... you can't always buy coolness and coolness isn't always "fair"... Open Source is both a selfish and unselfish thing... it's as deep as it is wide... It can work for you... it can even work against you... it isn't a magic bullet or a religion...

I believe it's a worthwhile thing to get a grip on... and as more people do, Open Source technology becomes more accepted and powerful... I am typing this message in Firefox btw... :)

Prairie Games, Inc is a commercial entity using and writing Open Source code... and we are thrilled by the rapid growth of Open Source technology... We need all the help we can get!!!

-Josh Ritter
Technical Director
Prairie Games, Inc
http://www.prairiegames.com

[Vectrex]

for me OS is about people helping people to not reinvent the wheel everytime, whereas the assets are much more personal thing I think. It's like to be able to paint having to figure out how to make paint and canvas from scratch. people will gladly tell you how to make it because in the end it's what you do with it that's the real 'art'. The Ogre guys are great because they see what their work can achieve when used by people with different skills than them. I don't think there would be a game that uses Ogre that doesn't fully credit them as it's such a huge help. Frankly anyone who wants to make a game and decides that making a 3d engine from scratch is the way to go is a bit nutty ;)

[Dan MacDonald]

The OpenSource movement has left a bitter taste in a lot of peoples mouths. Partly because it has really become a religion to some people. They act a lot like those sandwich board wearing wackos walking around college campuses screaming at people to repent before they reap the fire and brimstone. A lot of the bitter taste comes from the anti Microsoft sentiment, a lot of people genuinely like using windows, they like visual studio, the like earning a nice salary writing three tiered web applications in c# from some corporate entity. Then some raving loonie comes running by and scrams at them for being so stupid as to actually use Microsoft products and pisses on all the work they do... ya, people get sick and tired of being likened to the sons of Satan for using windows and .NET (or other Microsoft centric technology or platform)

The concept of open source is pretty cool though, it hails back to an older day, a hacker ethic. Computers were these big cool, new, things and only a select group of people could use them. It was like a big club, people were coding up cool new things and sharing them with one another just for the pleasure of sharing and learning from one another. For example if I had a really robust 2D game engine that I had used for several successful titles and I posted a link to the source on these message boards. That would probably be pretty cool, people would download it, check it out maybe use some of it.

That's sort of what open source is all about once you filter out the zealots. Ogre is a very cool rendering engine, lua is an awesome embeddable scripting language. Firefox is a great browser, eclipse is a cool IDE. I know these aren't the most shining examples of open source, and perhaps some of them aren't even open source. But I do know that they are great products contributed to by a community of people who thought it would be cool the help out. I appreciate that sense of community and the products it has produced.

No one is suggesting that everyone should release their code and give their projects away for free. That's pretty stupid, but I think JRitter has found a nice balance. By releasing his source, he gets to use some pretty sweet technology. That doesn't prevent him from selling his game and honestly, if you read my other thread about community. I bet he'll get a lot of sales from members of the open source community who want to support what he's doing.

[BigZaphod]

Why is the code worthless and why is the data highly prized?

Open source is a whole different economy. You are encouraged to borrow, hack, edit, and whatnot (but not steal, you must always give credit). You are encouraged to contribute back. In fact, you are almost required to contribute back to the community with the GPL because the GPL says that you must also open your own code if you use GPL code within your project anywhere.

It is really an issue of scale. Open source is designed around a very large scale concept. The concept is that the entire world benefits from use and production of any code. Think about that a second... It is a pretty major concept and it might not be how you are used to thinking. That's not to say you are wrong, but just that you may not be used to thinking on this same scale. And you are free not to. I'm just trying to explain where the ideas come from. :)

Basically, I think the best way to describe it is sort of like this: It is like the idea of karma. Let's say you do a good deed. You help an old lady across a busy street. She doesn't pay you or anything, but you helped her anyway. She's happy that you helped her and it lifted her spirits. She goes on her way into the store she was headed to. She buys her things and goes to check out. Because she's in such a good mood, she's cheerful to the cashier who had been having a bad day. The cashier cheers up and starts to feel better. The old lady moves on. She goes out the door, down the block, and she sees a homeless man on the street. Feeling pretty good today, she gives him a dollar and moves on. Back in the store, the cashier is feeling better. He smiles to the customers when they walk in now. He's really feeling pretty good. More people smile back at him. It makes him even happier! The customers start feeling good, too. Not everyone, mind you, but most pick up on it. They, in turn, go on with their lives and also do perhaps one extra good thing that day. Perhaps it is small, but it is good and slightly unusual. And this goes on and on and on. Good deeds and happiness feed on themselves. (As does hate and anger.) Given enough time, it will get back round to you when someone holds a door open as you struggle with an armful of bags. You won't recognize it, but it is there.

This is the same idea as open source. You may not give back directly to the project(s) you are using, but if the license is GPL, then you have to give your source code to the world. Someone will happen across it someday, use it, see your example, and maybe build their own version from your base. Then that person will release their version (which includes your version and maybe some of the original project you used as a basis). Someone else comes along and does the same with this new version. Perhaps this guy gets really into it and pushes your original framework in new directions. The next thing you know, he finds a bug in the code you first borrowed but never contributed to. He submits a patch to the maintainers. Even though you never directly contributed to the project, the fact that your project existed actually influenced future development of the code you had been using. All without any real effort on your part. It just happened. And when you go to build another project from that same original base, you naturally go get the latest version. And, unbeknownst to you, you had a small hand in making the new version better. Thus you and everyone who is using the new version profit. Good deeds multiply!

Does that make sense?

Now, on to the other part... Content can be covered under an open source-like license known as the Creative Commons (Google it if you haven't heard of it). It isn't as wide spread yet, but I imagine it will be some day. And when it is, the same things will start to happen there as is happening in the code realm--people will make art, sounds, songs, novels, etc. for public use. Others will freely build upon that work and also release back into the community. Eventually ideas mold, change, adapt, and the original authors may be influenced by them; causing further creation of original works which start the cycle all over again.

Notice how there's no money in any of this. :) It is an idealistic vision, but you are not bound by it. Don't like the GPL but find something licensed by it terribly useful? Then ask to pay the developers for their time and get it licensed so you can use it in a closed source manner. Simple as that. Now, if that GPL project is based on other GPL projects, you have to go all the way down the line until you pay everyone for the right. Note how quickly expensive large projects can become. Also, though, consider how much it would have cost you to develop all that from scratch.. Which is a better investment? Paying all those people for their time and efforts (which may be considerable), or just using the GPL yourself and giving a little something back to the world that is willing to give you so much for free?

It isn't that code is worth less than anything else, it is just that the mindset around code has been evolving away from the traditional measures of value and towards, I think, something far greater for all mankind, in a way. It isn't just a license--it is a whole philosophy. Almost a way of life. :) Which is why it turns into a religious war so often...

EDIT:
I can't say I always subscribe to the happy hippie notions of open source myself, but that doesn't mean I can't understand it. I rather like the idea, personally, but sometimes it isn't always practical. Not yet. I actually think that, given time, the whole concept of value surrounding computer programs (games, etc) will change. That may be slightly idealistic, but hey, it could happen. Right now most of you out there sell games, right? (I haven't yet ;)) What is the value of a game? Entertainment. It isn't that your code is closed. It is simply how fun your game is. Some people who have the skills will download the source, the art, and compile it and make it work for free, sure, but is that the majority? Will the majority of people ever know how to do that? No. Those are the same people who could rather easily figure out ways to crack your game's copy protection, or just go on a p2p network and find a purchased version someone else is sharing. Those who want your game for free will find a way. But if you are giving to the community, and others are using you as a base, then there will be a natural good will directed back at you--and that will likely include money. The only real major danger with open source and games, I think, is cheating in multiplayer systems. And I'm sure with enough creativity, there'd be ways around that, too. (Well, maybe.)

Ok, I'm going to stop now. I feel like maybe I'm just rambling now. Tis late. I should sleep.

[JRitter]

I combined LGPL/BSD code with proprietary code in our retail products and thought, "This is great!" ... When I decided to go independent, I lost access to the technology... for instance, we used Havok physics which is a very expensive library... I thought, "This sucks, I don't want to be in this position again!!!"...

I worked quite a bit with a certain proprietary engine and was limited by it's license in ways I didn't want to be limited... (and I didn't like the tech all that much, but that's another topic)...

I started with the BSD/LGPL mindset... It took me a couple years to get in tune with the GPL. Now that I am, I often think... "What were you thinking?!?!?! This is great!!!" It's possible that the GPL isn't for everyone... though, I admit to having a difficult time seeing this now... :)

I am a proud VC6 + XP user... like them both... neither are GPL... I don't care, at all...

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[Ricardo C]

Why is the code worthless and why is the data highly prized?

Code is by no means worthless, or the open source movement wouldn't be so active.

However, artistic content tends to remain propietary because it's what gives the game mass market value. Joe Sixpack doesn't give a toss what engine I use, but he does care about the artwork and (where applicable) the storyline content of the game.

[luggage]

There's a difference between Open Source engines and Open Source games. As I've mentioned with an engine 100% of it is there to be reused. With a game, if you don't supply the data then it's virtually useless, indeed...
Someone will happen across it someday, use it, see your example, and maybe build their own version from your base. <snip>
It ends right after "Someone will happen across it someday" as the code won't be useable. If I have a gui system that runs from text files without those the game goes nowhere.

Sometimes the wheel does need to be reinvented whether we like it or not. If it didn't then we'd still be using wooden ones with metal rims. If everyone decided to use Ogre rather than roll their own where would the new technology come from? You'd hardly get far by trying to cram stuff into an existing engine if the codebase doesn't fit.

Look at the Quake 2 engine, how many different versions of it are there? Why? How is the original engine benefitting from sprouting off several branches?


However, artistic content tends to remain propietary because it's what gives the game mass market value. Joe Sixpack doesn't give a toss what engine I use, but he does care about the artwork and (where applicable) the storyline content of the game.

Joe Sixpack does care about code. He just doesn't realise it. If he moves the mouse and the lovely drawn pointer goes nowhere, he'll care.

If the people who are saying Open Source is great believe in it so much then let them be trailblazers and open source their data as well. They don't because the risk is someone else will build their game, make some changes o improve it and release it. Yet they fully expect the OS engine writers to do this.

Open Source is great if everybody else is doing it! ;)

[EpicBoy]

I'm really not seeing your aversion to OpenSource, luggage. How is it a bad thing? It's like licensing a game engine - you do it to save yourself the development effort. If you're going to build a wheel but the guy over there already has one built that suits your needs and is willing to give it to you for free ... why not accept it?

I mean, I know there's the machismo "not invented here" syndrome that infects a lot of developers, but once you mature past that you begin to realize that code sharing is indeed a great thing.

As Carmack once said, "Programming isn't a zero sum game. Giving someone else information or source code doesn't take that knowledge or experience away from me."

[GBGames]

If the people who are saying Open Source is great believe in it so much then let them be trailblazers and open source their data as well. They don't because the risk is someone else will build their game, make some changes o improve it and release it. Yet they fully expect the OS engine writers to do this.

Open Source is great if everybody else is doing it! ;)


Well, people do that, but they are also being realistic and aren't trying to sell those games since anyone can redistribute them. I believe the free version of Tuxracer is like that. All distros have it.

So you're right. People who don't release the game data under an Open Source license are doing so because they don't want to risk someone else taking their game and releasing it themselves. People who do actively encourage it. No one is getting ripped off because everyone understands what's going on.

I think you're getting hung up on code value vs art value and think that just because something is open source it must mean it has less value than something that doesn't. This just isn't the case.

[luggage]

I'm not against Open Source at all, sorry if it's come across like that. I think it has it's place and it's uses, for things like 3d engines\libraries it's perfect. It's reuseable code and can benefit if people submit fixes\patches. This is the good aspect of OS.

For things like games it's not so good. If I gave out the source code to one of our games it's useless without the data. If people truly believe in OS then they'd OS everything about their game. Trouble is they don't because they don't want someone else to take their game, rebuild it and improve on it - but that's what they're preaching is a benefit of being OS.

The above obviously doesn't apply to everyone. Cas has released useful code that people can benefit from and this is certainly a good thing. It's mainly aimed at people who would use an OS engine then release their (virtually useless) game code as OS but without the data then take the moral high ground that they're helping the OS community.

Disclaimer: I'm not aiming this at anyone who's posted on this message or anything, just my personal opinion.

[EpicBoy]

Well, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that id softwares Open Source contributions have been useless. Lots of community projects have cropped up based on them and we now have things like ZDoom because id released the code.

Without the data.

[GBGames]

I also wanted to add that a common misconception is that when you make an open source game, you are taking work you spent a great deal of time on and just giving it away for nothing.

The actual facts usually point to a project that is either formed from the outset as open source or an existing project being open sourced because the benefits to its own development are better this way.

In the first case, development time and costs can be decreased dramatically. This is not always the case, since an open source project is just as likely as a proprietary project to fail in pre-alpha, but when you do get people enthusiastic about helping your project, it goes a long way.

In the second case, Zope is a great example that I already mentioned.

When you stop thinking of your code as something to guard against theft, then you can understand why people are so willing to share what they made.

About bug fixes: no one relies on the community to fix their bugs for them. But if you have the community pointing out, "Hey I love this game, but I found a bug. Here's the fix." it makes it a lot easier to support, right? Even if they don't provide the fix, knowing the bug exists is infinitely more valuable than not knowing.

[luggage]

But as I said, releasing engine source code without data is fine and a good thing.

And, as already mentioned, I don't think id's motives are entirely based on helping the OS community. By releasing their old engines they increase the value of their latest engine. If it was truly OS then why isn't their latest engine available from the go?

[GBGames]

But that just serves to show that going Open Source isn't always about being nice to others. Nothing prevents you from capitalizing on it, and just as with proprietary software, nothing prevents someone from being a jerk about it either. Check out the XFree86 project drama for an example of what to do if you want to destroy your project by being a jerk.

[EpicBoy]

If it was truly OS then why isn't their latest engine available from the go?
Because they aren't a charity.

At any rate, Carmack shares code because he likes to do that sort of thing. I seriously doubt it impacts their bottom line in any major way - and even if it does, I can almost guarantee that is NOT his motivation in doing the releases.

[the2bears]

In fact, you are almost required to contribute back to the community with the GPL because the GPL says that you must also open your own code if you use GPL code within your project anywhere.

No, and this is an important distinction. Very important. The GPL says you must open your own code if you *distribute* your project that uses GPL code.

I can use GPL code at the office, for a project that only runs internal to my company. I do not have to open that source. If I distribute to others, internally, I *do* need to make the source available to them. But only to those I distribute to.

Bill

[the2bears]

Why is the code worthless and why is the data highly prized?

I think we all agree code is not worthless, but code does have some key differences from other artistic creations.

Your computer is running on the code you install on it. Free (sorry for quoting OS dogma) does not mean $0, it's "liberty". You have freedom with what the code does. In many cases I like knowing that I can fix code or look at code that I run on my machines.

Art content is much different in that respect. The creative commons license has already been mentioned - though I'd like to share my first exposure to it. I found a song on the site, an "unplugged" guitar work. The artist shared it, and a young girl who played violin added her track to it. The result was fantastic, better than either independently.

Not for everyone I know, not trying to preach, but there really are some benefits. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants whether we open our source or not. No one should think they're creating stuff solely on their own anyway.

Bill

[DragonsIOA]

Personally I like the general OS idea, but I don't care for the GPL much. I guess it really depends on what kind of game you're making. For most games, the data assets are going to be what sells the game. But for a few games like mine, most of the assets are generated with code. The static data assets are easily replaced (on purpose for modding), so forcing me to release all the source code would effectively be giving the game away for free. So I had to pass on a few libraries that would have saved me alot of time.

[Aldacron]

For things like games it's not so good. If I gave out the source code to one of our games it's useless without the data. If people truly believe in OS then they'd OS everything about their game. Trouble is they don't because they don't want someone else to take their game, rebuild it and improve on it - but that's what they're preaching is a benefit of being OS.

Those who have bought the game already have the data. Imagine this scenario:

Joe Customer notices some graphics glitches on his hardware. Being a hobbiest game programmer, he downloads the source from your website, tinkers with it, and manages to get a fix for it. On his website, he uploads his modified source and posts to a community site that anyone with this bug can download the fix from his site. You stumble across it later, take a peek at it, and incorporate it into your code base. Now, people who buy your game will get the fixed version.

Aside from bugfixes, those who love to tinker will inevitably add all sorts of bells and whistles, alternative game modes, and what have you. Some of them will be active members in the game's community and will make their improvements available to all. You will be able to take advantage of that.

By open sourcing the code and not the data, you are saying "Hey, you can do whatever you want with the code but you can't redistribute my data." Those who own the game will benefit, you will benefit, and maybe even get a few extra sales (the only reason I bought Quake 3 was so I could tinker with the game code).

There's a hump you have to get over to really appreciate the concept. I remember when I first saw the README in the Q2 engine source distribution a few years ago. It seemed absurd to me that someone uising the engine would want to release a commercial game under a GPL license, and even more absurd that someone would pay $10K for a commercial license for such an old code base. But after seeing Josh Ritter's plans (and his OS thread at GG a while back), the worm started to turn.

It's not hypocritical at all to open the code and not the data. If you did open the data, not many people would buy the game would they? The point of opening the source is not about being charitable and doing good deeds (well, maybe for the overzealous). It's about scratching someone else's back in the hopes that they'll scratch yours. The Q3 engine, once GPLed, will save me many man hours of coding and testing, and that is well worth the price of releasing my game under GPL. And as an added bonus, any improvements I make to the engine (hardware vertex/pixel shaders anyone?) I can then apply to my copy of the Q3 game :)

[luggage]

I can totally see where you're coming from. Thanks. That side of the argument I can understand and appreciate it is a good thing.

The contradictory part for me though is that some guy spend thousands and thousands of hours writing an OS engine for people to use. Now, people can take that lock, stock and barrel and use it. The people using the engine to make a finished game don't want to release their stuff lock, stock and barrel because it would hit them in the pocket.

It's like someone standing up in front of you and telling you how good OS is because people can take the code and make improvements to it, then they'll release it back and everyone benefits from better code. However, why doesn't the same ideology apply to the entire game? Releasing the code and data means people will be able to upgrade the code and make bug fixes, they'll be able to create new levels and upgrade existing artwork. The game will be better - isn't this what OS is all about? The only reason people don't do that is because it might cost them sales. For me this is a two faced point of view. "we don't mind earning money off the back of someone else's work but damned if someone might make money off ours".

Like I said, I'm not against OS, some very good arguments have been raised and I've either had questions or played the devils advocate in this thread.

There was an interesting article here (http://www.joemarini.com/articles/notOpeningEverything20041121.php) about OS.

Another interesting question, which was kinda touched on in that article is what happens to your companies worth if all your source is freely available? I know for our business our source code has a value, if someone wanted to buy us out then it's a very important asset.

I know some have said the source isn't valueless but would a potential buyer see it that way?

[JRitter]

Beyond simply "sharing", very few of the advantages described in this thread apply to the content of our game. Maybe some day artists will use Creative Commons more, for now doing so would put us right out of business. Anyone could repackage our game and offer it for free. Now that smells like a commie plot if ever I heard one! :)

Additionally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using your copyright to make $$$. This includes proprietary software. Go for it.

What's interesting about this question:

However, why doesn't the same ideology apply to the entire game?
... is the use of the word ideology. That's very political or religious sounding... you've also evoked the "spirit" of Open Source... while condemning people for "preaching" about it...

Perhaps some of this is devil's advocate, fine... if not, the thing you appear to be missing is that there is no ONE answer. People have different takes on the subject. My own personal one is this:

Our use of Open Source software is primarily a business decision. It lets us make our game better, faster, and for less money. Secondly, I think by opening our sources, we may attract some help for our products. Thirdly, I think that Open Source development is very cool and I want to be a part of it. There are other reasons of course...

I have no worries about letting people benefit from my work. Especially when I have benefited from others. I am not hung up on arbitrary judgements of value, morality, or fairness. I see no problem in making $$$ either... I happen to like $$$, very much...

Some of the highest quality software on the planet is Open Source. It's also gaining acceptance and steam... In terms of proprietary software, I am not interested or disinterested in it. I know by depending on it I can lose control of my own source code, as I have experienced first hand. I also cannot use any GPL code. Quake3 is a GPL codebase I specifically want to use.

A lot of people see Open Source as a threat to their job or profitability. Progress is like that... The choice is all too easy for me. Note the word 'me' in that sentence.

-Josh Ritter
Technical Director
Prairie Games, Inc
http://www.prairiegames.com

[luggage]

In terms of proprietary software, I am not interested or disinterested in it. I know by depending on it I can lose control of my own source code, as I have experienced first hand.
I don't understand that. You described something earlier on but I don't see how the same situation would crop up if it's your own company.


... is the use of the word ideology. That's very political or religious sounding... you've also evoked the "spirit" of Open Source... while condemning people for "preaching" about it...
I used the word because people seem quite preachy about OS.

[JRitter]

I don't see how the same situation would crop up if it's your own company.

Writing everything in house is not an option unless you are either a very large company, making a very small game, or suffer horribly from "not invented here" syndrome...

If you choose to depend on propreitary code:

... and the company making it folds or discontinues the product... you are screwed

... and the company stops selling/supporting the version of the code you are dependent on, you are screwed

... and the company raises the price, you are screwed

... and the code is a per seat license... it can add up darn fast... thus screwing you when you need to bring help on board...

... and there are source level changes/fixes/tweaks you need to make, but you don't have a source license, you are screwed...

... and you've invested a ton of work in your OWN code that utilizes the proprietary code... and then for any reason you can't use the proprietary code any longer... YOU ARE SCREWED!!!

These are all real world experiences I have had while making games with proprietary technology... of course Open Source doesn't solve every problem... but it sure goes a long way to solving these...

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[luggage]

I suppose it all depends on what you're writing.

Most of the issues you mention stem from money. If you're willing to pay for the source\programmer seats\etc, then most of those issues might not have occured.

We decided to invest the time and effort in writing our own engine code as it safeguards our future, gives our company another asset and means we have things under our control. No publisher I've worked with would be happy with the game's source code being freely available and we like to keep our options open regarding said publishers.

I've looked at a few OS projects and a lot have suffered from over engineering and a "too many cooks" syndrome. Some also branch off and that just complicates things, especially when you want features from another branch.

We felt by depending on an OS engine it would cause us more problems than it solved.

I'm pretty much bored with this topic now. My feelings are that OS has it's place but it's certainly not the best solution for everybody. That goes for using OS and making your own game OS.

Each to their own I guess.

[JRitter]

I've looked at a few OS projects and a lot have suffered from over engineering and a "too many cooks" syndrome. Some also branch off and that just complicates things, especially when you want features from another branch.

This is generalizing which a lot of people do ;) (Did you catch that? good)... Quake3 (soon), SDL, Python, Zope3, Mozilla, Linux, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Ogre, Lua, and so, so, so many more projects with incredibly high coding and documentation standards... You may have no use for these but that doesn't lend credibility to such a statement... Of course there is crap Open Source code... come on...

(Aside: I think SDL (http://www.libsdl.org/index.php) is a good fit for *any* homegrown engine, not all the code you write gives you an edge, that's common though flawed thinking.. saving time on basics is a very good idea... the SDL people work on hardware compatibility and crossplatform support as well... While you're working on *basics*, your competitors are making their GAME better, marketing it, etc... and I am willing to bet SDL has a much better API and documentation than your platform layer. Oh wait, it doesn't look like you have a platform layer. Your games are Windows only? Ouch. Mac sales are quite good for indie titles... and if you do it right, trivial to generate.)

Unless you have something no one else has, I don't see an engine "safeguarding the future"... anyway, safeguards are always temporary...

I also haven't had the experience you have had with publishers... they want quality product they can make money on... period. Edit: In fact, many games are now using Open Source code. Bloodrayne2 used ODE, Baldur's Gate (and a number of others) uses Lua, Temple of Elemental Evil uses Python, a BUNCH of games use SDL, and there are many other examples... heck, a past publisher of mine shipped a games based on GPL Quake, and yup... the source was burned on the CD... no problem.


We felt by depending on an OS engine it would cause us more problems than it solved.
There are facts and then there are feelings... there is experience and then there is projection... there is also, as you mention, boredom.

I'm not bored or disillusioned with the topic. While I haven't gained any new information from your posts, I have enjoyed reading and writing responses to them... There is great insight in this thread... and frankly, I feel less like an island. Very cool.

For me, the game is all that really matters. Good luck with your current and future ones.

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[luggage]

I'm sorry you feel it's a generalisation and at no point do I say the source code I mentioned is "crap". I consider Lua, Python and Ogre all over engineered. Too many people spinning propellers. I can't comment on Quake 3 as it's not released yet, Quake 2 suffers from the branching problem I mentioned (I noticed you didn't have Quake 2 in the list but referenced it earlier as a good example of OS). The others I have no experience using and I'm sure they're very good.

Ogre is a strange one, I liked it from my first glance. Sat down to use it and just ran into problem after problem. I've just looked back over it and they're talking about branches, bug fixes, deprecated functions, functionality that's broken. One of the issues I had was having to install STLport. When I came to send libraries of non Ogre related code to other people (clients and contract programmers) they couldn't link them unless they had STLport as well. I presume there's ways around this but it took a lot of effort to get rid of it and then I had to go back through and rebuild every library that I'd compiled before.

Now they're talking about dropping VC 6 support because it's too much hassle to support. What on earth are they doing where they're having that kind of trouble? I've never ran into problems 'supporting' VC 6. The only realistic option is to upgrade to .NET which may or may not be affordable. We could switch to MingW\Dev-C++ but neither of those IDE's (IMO) come close to Visual Studio. And then we'd have to get all our contract programmers to switch to that IDE as well.

Those are the kind of issues I didn't want to get bogged down in by using an OS engine.

As far as I'm aware at any time an OS licence can be revoked by the original owner and that includes all previous versions and branches that are in use not just future work. You have exactly the same problem as using propreitary code in that at a moments notice the carpet can be pulled from underneath your feet.

And don't get me started on Lua - all I'll say is if you're looking for a scripting language for your game - use AngelScript don't bother going near Lua.

Also, at no point have I said that games don't use OS software - I know of lots of projects that use OS components. Thing is, none of those require the source to be distributed with it as well. I'm sure the publisher would have something to say about that - and that was my point.

[JRitter]

... use AngelScript
Since you are plugging an Open Source library...I am guessing your "argument" mainly stems from the GPL... The GPL is "hardcore" Open Source... and (luckily) no one mandates using it... Your concern for those who do is noted, and discarded... at least by me.


As far as I'm aware at any time an OS licence can be revoked by the original owner and that includes all previous versions and branches that are in use not just future work.
You are misinformed.


And don't get me started on Lua
I won't and I hope others don't either...

-Josh

[luggage]

(Aside: I think SDL is a good fit for *any* homegrown engine, not all the code you write gives you an edge, that's common though flawed thinking.. saving time on basics is a very good idea... the SDL people work on hardware compatibility and crossplatform support as well... While you're working on *basics*, your competitors are making their GAME better, marketing it, etc... and I am willing to bet SDL has a much better API and documentation than your platform layer. Oh wait, it doesn't look like you have a platform layer. Your games are Windows only? Ouch. Mac sales are quite good for indie titles... and if you do it right, trivial to generate.)

You'll find a Mac version of Puzzle Word if you look close enough, we didn't handle the conversion but it didn't take the guy long to do it (and he did a great job www.redmarblegames.com).

I'm surprised you feel brave enough to state what you think our API looks like. Our engine code is compatible with DirectX 7, 8, 9 and XBox. We also have hooks which allow us to use Renderware if required so you can add Gamecube, PS2, another Xbox, and more PC on top of that.

Give us a mac and it would take a couple of days if that to write a mac version of the library. Hell, we could write a version that wrapped SDL. It's all about designing a clean API - get this right and other things fall into place.

One of the things you seem to miss is that we don't write the *basics* every time we write a game. What's the point in worrying about headstarts anyway? Some of these guys have been in the Indie game business far far longer than I have. No amount of SDL will claw that back. I don't consider Indie development a race, I don't even consider myself in competition with these guys. There's a big enough market for us all and I'm more than happy to see other have success.

What would all the people who use SDL do if the license was no longer valid? (not that I'm saying that would happen but you never know ;) ). Some people will find SDL a brilliant handup, and we considered using it. However we wanted to support 3d games and found OpenGL didn't run on a lot of PC's. (that's changing over time and if we did mac version of our library it would be OpenGL but I'm sure you get what I mean).

[luggage]

Since you are plugging an Open Source library...I am guessing your "argument" mainly stems from the GPL... The GPL is pretty hardcore... I agree... and (luckily) no one mandates using it.

At no point have I said OS is not a good thing - I have distinctly said that it has it's place. I just don't think it's the answer to all of our problems.

Regarding licence revoking, I took that from the following website...

http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html


It seems to have been presumed by many people that if software is relicensed then that only applies to future versions of the software; it can't retrospectively effect versions that were released under the original license. This is a false assumption. If for example the original developer of SSH wanted to relicense all existing versions of the software developed by him, including the GPL version that OpenSSH is based on, that could legally be done. We are fortunate that it hasn't been done in any high-profile project so far. The prospect that it could happen to something like the Linux kernel doesn't bear thinking about.

If it's wrong then I apologise.

[JRitter]

I'm surprised you feel brave enough to state what you think our API looks like. Our engine code is compatible with DirectX 7, 8, 9 and XBox. We also have hooks which allow us to use Renderware if required so you can add Gamecube, PS2, another Xbox, and more PC on top of that.

DirectX, itself, is compatible from 7->9, and again windows only... Renderware is compatible with Gamecube, PS2, and XBox... (it's also expensive crap that has NOTHING to do with indie development.. and yes, I have actually used this too, BEFORE Electronic Arts bought it)

While all this hard won compatibility may sound impressive to someone who hasn't much clue... I do.

-Josh

Edit: My statement was in regards to the platform layer... and yes, I am willing to bet SDL has you beat for API and documentation... I, of course, might be wrong... You may have the most incredible layer above DirectInput, etc ever!

Unless you are looking to push the boundries of 3d technology and content creation rolling your own 3d engine and art pipeline is a really bad idea. That is, unless you are not looking to push the boundries at all. Making technology and making games is seldom inclusive.

On Ogre, I'm not personally using it... I believe Quake3 is a better choice. Though, as you mentioned the VC6 thing as a big deal. You could have taken the 20 minutes to fix the VC6 build and contributed it back or not... not a deal killer, though other issues may be... and I have the strangest feeling their VC6 build is fine as of this second.. someone most likely did fix it...

Edit2: ... I really can't stand BS, sorry guys... I'll take a break now and hopefully someone can elevate the thread once again...

[luggage]

DirectX, itself, is compatible from 7->9, and again windows only... Renderware is compatible with Gamecube, PS2, and XBox... (it's also expensive crap that has NOTHING to do with indie development.. and yes, I have actually used this too, BEFORE Electronic Arts bought it)
While that may sound impressive to someone who hasn't much clue... I do.

-Josh

Edit: ... and yes, I am willing to bet SDL has you beat for API and documentation... since you don't have a platform layer, other than DirectX and "hooks for Renderware"... I, of course, might be wrong... bets aren't sure things...

Edit2: ... I really can't stand BS, sorry guys... I'll take a break now and hopefully someone can elevate the thread once again...


you have completely missed the point. You criticised our API by saying it has no platform layer because you look at our website and only saw PC games. We haven't implemented a Mac layer because we haven't got a Mac. Our engine is written to allow other platforms added with ease.

Our engine isn't a DirectX 7 one that will obviously run on later versions, I presumed you were intelligent enough to realise that that's taken for granted. We do work other than indie games and it means we have to support several different versions of DX. Our engine will run under DX 9 and use the DX 9 features, it will run under DX 8 and use those features, it will run under DX 7 and use those features, it will run on the Xbox and use those features. As I said it will run with Renderware so we can use those features which includes it's multiplatform support ergo it makes our engine multiplatform. Incidentally the "expensive crap" is used in over 25% of console titles now and that's going to get even higher now EA have adopted the "crap".

I know what Renderware can do, and I used it "BEFORE Electronic Arts" too, along with other rendering\phsyics\sound engines. I was simply demonstrating that plugging other platforms\api's into our current technology is easy because we have a platform layer. As I said, we could write an SDL version and then we'd have all the SDL platforms for our code.

Before you start saying something is "BS" try and understand what's been said. You can only take my word for it but I've used SDL, I know what the API is like and I can tell you that it hasn't "got us beat". I can see both sets of API's - you can't.

[JRitter]

This is completely off topic... I am sorry to have made the SDL comment in comparison to your API...


I presumed you were intelligent enough to realise that that's taken for granted.

I also underestimated your experience... you haven't come off as such...

-Josh

[luggage]

I also underestimated your experience... you haven't come off as such...

Not sure what you mean but I get the sense it's a bit of a dig. Please keep it in an email as it's not fair on others who read the board. If I'm wrong then I apologise in advance.

That's my final say on things. Good luck with your game, I'm looking forward to seeing it finished.

[JRitter]

I presumed you were intelligent enough to realise that that's taken for granted.

Hmmmmm... I wonder what this implies... could it be??? Nah...

... and I meant exactly what I said... my take on your experience changed drastically with the last post... whoever's "fault" that is... it clouded my understanding of your statements... as in, DirectX compatibility being 7->9 ... which would be typical of who I thought i was corresponding with... my mistake ultimately, I should have asked... though, how often does that happen in a forum...

Blah... must escape this thread now.. there's always one nail that won't get pounded down :) It's ok... I get a bit fixated... it's a strength, usually! hah!

-Josh

[milieu]

Ogre is a strange one, I liked it from my first glance. Sat down to use it and just ran into problem after problem. I've just looked back over it and they're talking about branches, bug fixes, deprecated functions, functionality that's broken. One of the issues I had was having to install STLport. When I came to send libraries of non Ogre related code to other people (clients and contract programmers) they couldn't link them unless they had STLport as well. I presume there's ways around this but it took a lot of effort to get rid of it and then I had to go back through and rebuild every library that I'd compiled before.

Now they're talking about dropping VC 6 support because it's too much hassle to support. What on earth are they doing where they're having that kind of trouble? I've never ran into problems 'supporting' VC 6. The only realistic option is to upgrade to .NET which may or may not be affordable. We could switch to MingW\Dev-C++ but neither of those IDE's (IMO) come close to Visual Studio. And then we'd have to get all our contract programmers to switch to that IDE as well.


Ironically, I suspect the reason they are dropping VC 6 is precisely the problem you had: STL support. VC++ .NET has excellent STL, while any earlier version of VC++ has a completely broken and buggy implementation.

I'm using VC++ .NET, and I never had to deal with any STL issues when compiling Ogre. It cost $100, and it was worth every penny. I wouldn't waste any more time on VC 6 unless you have to.

[Siebharinn]

Hey Josh -

You make a lot more sense over here than you did in the GG forums. :)

[JRitter]

Thanks... though it would still appear I "care too much" as it were... I can still get derailed into bickering and spending too much time in a thread... I am happy with most of what I said, the last few posts not so much... hopefully they offset... :rolleyes:

It was certainly more difficult discussing this there... which has very little to do with me...

I really want to see independents succeed whatever way they decide to make their game.

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

"It takes a big man to cry... but, it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man..." - Jack Handy

[Dan MacDonald]

Honestly, JRitter likes using OpenSource he says it makes sense for his business. In doing so, he gets to use a pretty nice engine to make his game. He states that from his perspective OpenSource makes more business sense then any of the closed source alternatives. He also acknowledges that other people may have different perspectives and therefor OpenSource might not be right for them.

It's so easy, why do we have to poke him and prod him and try to get him to change his mind? Does it really matter if JRitter wants to release his games source? He'll either dig his own grave or be successful, until then it's rather pointless to try and change each others minds. I honestly can't see how releasing a game's source is going to hurt it's sales.

[princec]

Didn't hurt mine any...

Cas :)

[Dan MacDonald]

You could even make the argument that there is incentive for malicious users to take the AF code and hack the online highscores system. I don't know but I think Cas would have complained by now if that had happened ;)

[JRitter]

Thanks Dan...

I really don't feel poked or prodded... overwhelmingly people are on the same page... and are saying similar things in respone to the same "against" points brought up again and again...

If I am wrong about the viability of the GPL specifically for independent game development, I have a lot more than one crow to eat.

I haven't read anything and can't think of a single reason, why this would be the case... and things are going great for us..

-Josh Ritter
http://www.prairiegames.com

[Siebharinn]

What is strange about this thread is that it has me looking at OS a little differently than I did before. I've used OS tools for a long time, but I've never really considered forking a project and turning it into a commercial product. But I bought a Torque license to do effectivly what JRitter is doing: save a ton of code writing and leverage a community of people making improvements. It never even crossed my mind to look at the Quake source to do the same thing.

I jumped onto sourceforge today and looked through a bunch of the game projects. Quite a lot of code written, and many are similar to ideas that I have written down in my idea book. Of course, many(!) are stuck in the pre-alpha stage, but there are some good nuggets as well.

I think I understand now. :)

[Nutter2000]

You could even make the argument that there is incentive for malicious users to take the AF code and hack the online highscores system. I don't know but I think Cas would have complained by now if that had happened
Ah... now that's just asking for a dig about AF! but I won't... :p


Personally, I'm a great beleaver in using the right tools for the right jobs, I've worked with propreitary code as well as open source and I can see both Luggage's and JRitter's points of view, even if they did turn it into a simmering slag fest at the end :p

My feelings are that using propreitary code is just the same as hiring a team to do the job for you, you get a polished product, usually very good support and you get it now. The problem is you pay for it, and if there's a problem then you need to put in a feature request and have to wait on their schedule.

Open Source projects also provide high quality free solutions, and you have the source code if need be. The trouble is, as Luggage pointed out, many teams give up leaving it half-finished, or try and turn it into everything for all people ending up with bloatware. Also, there are publishers who wouldn't touch OS with a barge pole, it partially stems from the fact that they don't really undestand OS (I mean lets face it, just from this discussion topic alone not many people do fully), and partially from the fact that if they're funding a game they want to be assured that if there's a problem then it can be fixed quickly by people who have actually written the code.

personally, I'm with luggage, even although I'm using OS libraries (because I'm a one man coding team and it'll save me a hell of a lot of time and money), I'm not comfortable with giving away my own source, hence I'm looking at LGPL or equivelent OS not GPL. What JRitter said has definately made me think about that a bit more about that and made some good points, but not enough to make me want to take the gamble.

I think that Open Source works well for tools and engines but not necessarily for actual game code.

[JRitter]

Here's something to think about...

Take Torque... it's a capable enough engine... and anyone in the world has access to a source license for $100.

How many people actually make something that even resembles a saleable game with it?

A game is all the bits added together... each component isn't much by itself... and it's really hard to get them all together in one spot...

Source code is becoming less and less of a limiting factor... and we're seeing more and more people think this way... I think that's great.

-Josh

[20thCenturyBoy]

Not really fair to have a dig at Ogre, after all it's only at 0.15 or thereabouts!

[Vectrex]

yes ogre IS at 0.15 and they are planning the v1.0 for the next release.
ogre is very professional and is carefully planned out by Sinbad the main designer/coder. If you use a decent ide like 7.1 then you will have zero problems compiling. vc 6 is shite and anyone taking themselves seriously should get 7.1. Ogre is trying to not be held back by old techology hence the dropping of vc6 work arounds, hacks and dodgy stl. It bugs me no end that someone would complain about the 'branches, bug fixes, deprecated functions, functionality that's broke' in an engine that's not even at v1.0.. Anyway the branches are for interface breaking changes so early adopters can still use an older branch, very considerate of them for a pre v1 product.

[EpicBoy]

Oddly, many companies have shipped games using VC6. I wonder how they managed?!

[Coyote]

I just wanna poke and prod Josh for data about how successful this whole experience has been for him, once he ships & sells.

In retrospect, I wish I'd started with an off-the-shelf engine for Void War. But I did a lot of things backwards for Void War, as I was nearly halfway through development before I got serious about making it a commercial product (as opposed to just a "gee, whiz!" exercise). I'm going to be keeping my eye on MoM to see how that works out with an open-source engine. We'll see if Josh is still championing the cause two years from now.

From this vantage point, I can't see a serious reason why he wouldn't be.

[JRitter]

Ah... well, even if I am wrong I make it right...

We're in this to make $$$, believe me.

We check our gnuts at the door.

-Josh