3 ms·

I think it's dishonest and unexpected to consider the engine to not be part of the game. When I buy a game, I expect that it comes with an engine, in addition t

I think it's dishonest and unexpected to consider the engine to not be part of the game. When I buy a game, I expect that it comes with an engine, in addition to the art and the business logic. I buy with the expectation that it'll run on the stated hardware platform, e.g. Windows and some specific version of DirectX. In that particular case, DirectX is a set of APIs provided by the OS vendor to develop games on their OS. It's part of Microsoft's platform. In the GBA's case, Nintendo's platform is the hardware and their SDK. If I'm remembering correctly, there's an open SDK to replace Nintendo's, because the latter isn't (legally) available to homebrewers. But, the libraries linked from the SDK are universally distributed with the game. If someone wrote homebrew on the Nintendo SDK, I'd say it's impossible for it to be "open", because not everything that is distributed as part of the game is open. Going another direction, with a specific example: The entire "business logic" of the game Dark Forces: Jedi Knight II is available as source. Literally, human-readable scripts packaged in a trivial archive format. Just have to write the engine, right?

derefr 9y ago
> If someone wrote homebrew on the Nintendo SDK, I'd say it's impossible for it to be "open", because not everything that is distributed as part of the game is open. I think this comes down to a particular design decision of the GBA homebrew SDK (https://github.com/devkitPro/libgba https://github.com/devkitPro/libgba) to not be ABI-compatible with the official SDK. Consider, as a contrasting example, C#. Microsoft's official SDK is closed source. Mono is open-source. But Mono's runtime libraries are ABI-compatible with the official runtime libraries. In the case of the GBA, you'd expect/require a binary release to be "shipped with" the official runtime libraries linked in. But with C#, you don't expect that; you just expect to receive the binary containing the individual business logic, and then use the runtime library you have available (Microsoft's on Windows; Mono everywhere else) to run it. > The entire "business logic" of the game Dark Forces: Jedi Knight II is available as source. Literally, human-readable scripts packaged in a trivial archive format. I would say that this is open-source, yes. Consider the case where someone uploaded, say, the "business logic" (and assets) of an RPG Maker game, back when ASCII/Enterbrain's own runtime was the only one available. Now there are plenty of open, ABI-compatible interpreters. So this is at least open-source code now, no? Or, for another example, consider original-Doom .wad files. If you released one of those back in 1993 under a GPL license, it might not mean much—but today there are open DOOM clones for literally everything. One difference here is that those interpreters don't have Doom's original IP (asset packs) included in them; they expect you to add them in. But does that make the .wad file itself less open as a product? Not everything needs to be standalone. You could have an open-source expansion or mod for a closed-source game. You can interpret a level or level-pack in just such a manner.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > I think this comes down to a particular design decision of the GBA homebrew SDK (https://github.com/devkitPro/libgba https://github.com/devkitPro/libgba) to not be ABI-compatible with the official SDK. I think it comes down to the fact of SDK libraries being statically, and inextricably, linked into the ROM. > [about DF2:JK] I would say that this is open-source, yes. I'd say it isn't. First, the license is just as closed as the rest of the code. Second, it's not "the game" unless there's an engine to pair the data+code elements with. And since there's no open engine to go with the closed-but-readable code, I wouldn't use the words "open source" with any part of it. > So this is at least open-source code now, no? If an open engine is available, then the combination of the open game logic and open game engine would be open. Otherwise you could say "An Open engine for X" or...well, a nicely-packaged way to describe open game assets on a closed engine would be called "a mod for X" or a "total conversion", I suppose. > But does that make the .wad file itself less open as a product? The .wad itself could be open, but it's not "a game". It's a set of game assets. Pair it with an engine, and it's a game. Pair it with a different engine, and the same assets might be a significantly different game. The whole wad+engine game couldn't be open until at least late 1997 when the Doom source was released. > But with C#, you don't expect that; you just expect to receive the binary containing the individual business logic, and then use the runtime library you have available (Microsoft's on Windows; Mono everywhere else) to run it. Right. C#, Java, etc are expected to have an external, completely separate runtime as a dependency. When there isn't an open runtime available, it's the situation that used to be called something like "the Java trap".

derefr 9y ago

> If someone wrote homebrew on the Nintendo SDK, I'd say it's impossible for it to be "open", because not everything that is distributed as part of the game is open. I think this comes down to a particular design decision of the GBA homebrew SDK (https://github.com/devkitPro/libgba https://github.com/devkitPro/libgba) to not be ABI-compatible with the official SDK. Consider, as a contrasting example, C#. Microsoft's official SDK is closed source. Mono is open-source. But Mono's runtime libraries are ABI-compatible with the official runtime libraries. In the case of the GBA, you'd expect/require a binary release to be "shipped with" the official runtime libraries linked in. But with C#, you don't expect that; you just expect to receive the binary containing the individual business logic, and then use the runtime library you have available (Microsoft's on Windows; Mono everywhere else) to run it. > The entire "business logic" of the game Dark Forces: Jedi Knight II is available as source. Literally, human-readable scripts packaged in a trivial archive format. I would say that this is open-source, yes. Consider the case where someone uploaded, say, the "business logic" (and assets) of an RPG Maker game, back when ASCII/Enterbrain's own runtime was the only one available. Now there are plenty of open, ABI-compatible interpreters. So this is at least open-source code now, no? Or, for another example, consider original-Doom .wad files. If you released one of those back in 1993 under a GPL license, it might not mean much—but today there are open DOOM clones for literally everything. One difference here is that those interpreters don't have Doom's original IP (asset packs) included in them; they expect you to add them in. But does that make the .wad file itself less open as a product? Not everything needs to be standalone. You could have an open-source expansion or mod for a closed-source game. You can interpret a level or level-pack in just such a manner.

khedoros1 9y ago
> I think this comes down to a particular design decision of the GBA homebrew SDK (https://github.com/devkitPro/libgba https://github.com/devkitPro/libgba) to not be ABI-compatible with the official SDK. I think it comes down to the fact of SDK libraries being statically, and inextricably, linked into the ROM. > [about DF2:JK] I would say that this is open-source, yes. I'd say it isn't. First, the license is just as closed as the rest of the code. Second, it's not "the game" unless there's an engine to pair the data+code elements with. And since there's no open engine to go with the closed-but-readable code, I wouldn't use the words "open source" with any part of it. > So this is at least open-source code now, no? If an open engine is available, then the combination of the open game logic and open game engine would be open. Otherwise you could say "An Open engine for X" or...well, a nicely-packaged way to describe open game assets on a closed engine would be called "a mod for X" or a "total conversion", I suppose. > But does that make the .wad file itself less open as a product? The .wad itself could be open, but it's not "a game". It's a set of game assets. Pair it with an engine, and it's a game. Pair it with a different engine, and the same assets might be a significantly different game. The whole wad+engine game couldn't be open until at least late 1997 when the Doom source was released. > But with C#, you don't expect that; you just expect to receive the binary containing the individual business logic, and then use the runtime library you have available (Microsoft's on Windows; Mono everywhere else) to run it. Right. C#, Java, etc are expected to have an external, completely separate runtime as a dependency. When there isn't an open runtime available, it's the situation that used to be called something like "the Java trap".