4 ms·

Yup, perfect example. Ironically game development is one if the areas where tech & algo is discussed widely and openly(which is what GDC used to be before it b

Yup, perfect example. Ironically game development is one if the areas where tech & algo is discussed widely and openly(which is what GDC used to be before it became a bit more commercialized). Most studios are happy to share their latest pathfinding/ai/rendering techniques which is almost always held close to the chest in other industries.

sevensor 10y ago
Even more perfect because 2048 was the open-source clone, and we're not even mentioning Threes, the game on which it was based.
- macintux 10y ago
  Yeah, I've always been annoyed at the lack of recognition Threes tends to get.
  - scott_s 10y ago
    Threes is great, and I bought it when I realized 2048 was based on it. And the makers of Threes were right! I have never gone back to 2048, but I still sometimes play Threes.
Bartweiss 10y ago
That's an interesting point - game companies are particularly defensive of their code, but shockingly willing to share the latest shader techniques and other insights most fields treat as secrets.
- cableshaft 10y ago
  I think that's just because that for the most part, their competitive edge is the creative work as a whole, not some particular technique. Their techniques doesn't save corporations that could purchase their software time and money, for example, it just helps make one aspect of the game look or feel cool.
  - vvanders 10y ago
    That's a part of it for sure. I think another piece is that everyone I knew in the industry was there because they loved games and money wasnt a primary(but was an important) concern. For instance I knew every title locally under development long before(6+ mo) it was even leaked because there's a sense of shared community in that industry.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    > their competitive edge is the creative work as a whole, not some particular technique. Never worked in the industry (and don't have a desire - though one time I did), but I'd have to say that's spot on. You can have all the fancy shader tech and other 3d gismo engine whatever at hand, but without the story/plot and creative content, anything you made using it wouldn't amount to much. ...and that content is very difficult to make! Even a simple 2D game can have a load of content and design behind it that can't be easily replicated for a new title by a single person. Though this kinda argues against why more companies don't release their engines and tech as open source - especially once the tech has "aged out" (fortunately, a few companies have - like Id Software, among a couple others). Even with these releases, though, you don't see a slew of others coming out with games and such based on the code.
    - BoysenberryPi 10y ago
      Game dev here. People don't share engines because there is no reason to. Unless I'm trying to license my engine out like Crytek or Epic there is no reason for me to open source my entire engine. You can talks all the time about the interesting parts of engines, tools, and techniques but there is no reason for a company to just be like "here is our engine bye"
      - spacelizard 10y ago
        25 years ago people would have said the same thing about OS kernels, and yet here we are. Some of the underlying problems I see are that the game industry is still young and hasn't really standardized everything yet. Because of that, there is still ruthless competition between the hardware and GFX card vendors. Vulkan is a step in the right direction, but it will obviously take time for it to become adopted. A lot of it is also driven by the popularity of consoles and mobile devices which are still largely locked-down walled gardens. They intentionally make it difficult to share code between platforms too. But, soon enough game developers will get sick of writing the same code over and over again, just as OS developers did in the 90s. Once this happens you'll start to see a lot more ad-hoc code sharing which will pave the way for more engines being made free software.

sevensor 10y ago

Even more perfect because 2048 was the open-source clone, and we're not even mentioning Threes, the game on which it was based.

macintux 10y ago
Yeah, I've always been annoyed at the lack of recognition Threes tends to get.
- scott_s 10y ago
  Threes is great, and I bought it when I realized 2048 was based on it. And the makers of Threes were right! I have never gone back to 2048, but I still sometimes play Threes.

Bartweiss 10y ago

That's an interesting point - game companies are particularly defensive of their code, but shockingly willing to share the latest shader techniques and other insights most fields treat as secrets.

cableshaft 10y ago
I think that's just because that for the most part, their competitive edge is the creative work as a whole, not some particular technique. Their techniques doesn't save corporations that could purchase their software time and money, for example, it just helps make one aspect of the game look or feel cool.
- vvanders 10y ago
  That's a part of it for sure. I think another piece is that everyone I knew in the industry was there because they loved games and money wasnt a primary(but was an important) concern. For instance I knew every title locally under development long before(6+ mo) it was even leaked because there's a sense of shared community in that industry.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  > their competitive edge is the creative work as a whole, not some particular technique. Never worked in the industry (and don't have a desire - though one time I did), but I'd have to say that's spot on. You can have all the fancy shader tech and other 3d gismo engine whatever at hand, but without the story/plot and creative content, anything you made using it wouldn't amount to much. ...and that content is very difficult to make! Even a simple 2D game can have a load of content and design behind it that can't be easily replicated for a new title by a single person. Though this kinda argues against why more companies don't release their engines and tech as open source - especially once the tech has "aged out" (fortunately, a few companies have - like Id Software, among a couple others). Even with these releases, though, you don't see a slew of others coming out with games and such based on the code.
  - BoysenberryPi 10y ago
    Game dev here. People don't share engines because there is no reason to. Unless I'm trying to license my engine out like Crytek or Epic there is no reason for me to open source my entire engine. You can talks all the time about the interesting parts of engines, tools, and techniques but there is no reason for a company to just be like "here is our engine bye"
    - spacelizard 10y ago
      25 years ago people would have said the same thing about OS kernels, and yet here we are. Some of the underlying problems I see are that the game industry is still young and hasn't really standardized everything yet. Because of that, there is still ruthless competition between the hardware and GFX card vendors. Vulkan is a step in the right direction, but it will obviously take time for it to become adopted. A lot of it is also driven by the popularity of consoles and mobile devices which are still largely locked-down walled gardens. They intentionally make it difficult to share code between platforms too. But, soon enough game developers will get sick of writing the same code over and over again, just as OS developers did in the 90s. Once this happens you'll start to see a lot more ad-hoc code sharing which will pave the way for more engines being made free software.