14 ms·

According to MVG on youtube the Doom 1&2 engine is Unity. I have no idea why that is the case though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh7nZ9t2eJA https://www.y

by davesmith1983 7y ago

According to MVG on youtube the Doom 1&2 engine is Unity. I have no idea why that is the case though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh7nZ9t2eJA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh7nZ9t2eJA Also apparently they have slowed down the Midi Soundtrack as well.

jonny_eh 7y ago
Probably to make porting easier. Keep in mind they can't use all the homebrew GPL ports, since they don't own that source code, so can't strip the GPL from them.
- liability 7y ago
  What would stop them from releasing a GPLv2 port, with source, other than their own stubbornness? The Switch's DRM would preclude GPLv3, but not v2, no? Also it would be easy for them to hire somebody to write a new port the right way with whatever license they please. It's freakin Doom!
  - davesmith1983 7y ago
    I know people don't like Bethesda (neither do I) but generally there is normally solid reasons why companies don't do such things. A lot of the time there is other stuff in that source code or attached to the source code that they can't release. They could have a bunch of internal signing keys etc (which may need to embedded in the source). Also Nintendo, Sony etc may specifically not allow GPL code on their platform. There could be a bunch of very good reasons we may never be privy to.
    - liability 7y ago
      I find these theories difficult to square with previous releases of Doom on locked platforms like iOS apparently being proper source ports. Even if it's not a community engine, they should have access somewhere to code with agreeable licensing. Or at least, they should be capable of hiring a community source-port developer to throw together a new source port based only off the original code (which Bethesda would be free to license as they see fit, on account of owning the copyright.) My personal theory is Bethesda doesn't respect the franchise and turned over responsibility of it to somebody young who probably had plenty of experience with Unity, but little to no experience working on an engine written in C.
      - davesmith1983 7y ago
        The fact of the matter is that neither of us know.
        liability 7y ago
        I don't know, which is why I said I'd like for them to explain it. In the meantime, they will not enjoy the benefit of doubt from me, and I don't think you should give it to them either. We're not operating in a vacuum here, Bethesda already has a well earned negative reputation.
        davesmith1983 7y ago
        I will be buying Doom Eternal. I've basically built a new pc for it. I won't be buying these ports as I have the originals anyway.
        liability 7y ago
        Fair enough, Doom Eternal looks like it should be pretty good, provided Bethesda doesn't fuck up the release with busted DRM, etc.
- seba_dos1 7y ago
  Porting Doom to Unity on a platform where a perfectly fine port of SDL already exists can't really make it much easier.

jonny_eh 7y ago

Probably to make porting easier. Keep in mind they can't use all the homebrew GPL ports, since they don't own that source code, so can't strip the GPL from them.

liability 7y ago
What would stop them from releasing a GPLv2 port, with source, other than their own stubbornness? The Switch's DRM would preclude GPLv3, but not v2, no? Also it would be easy for them to hire somebody to write a new port the right way with whatever license they please. It's freakin Doom!
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  I know people don't like Bethesda (neither do I) but generally there is normally solid reasons why companies don't do such things. A lot of the time there is other stuff in that source code or attached to the source code that they can't release. They could have a bunch of internal signing keys etc (which may need to embedded in the source). Also Nintendo, Sony etc may specifically not allow GPL code on their platform. There could be a bunch of very good reasons we may never be privy to.
  - liability 7y ago
    I find these theories difficult to square with previous releases of Doom on locked platforms like iOS apparently being proper source ports. Even if it's not a community engine, they should have access somewhere to code with agreeable licensing. Or at least, they should be capable of hiring a community source-port developer to throw together a new source port based only off the original code (which Bethesda would be free to license as they see fit, on account of owning the copyright.) My personal theory is Bethesda doesn't respect the franchise and turned over responsibility of it to somebody young who probably had plenty of experience with Unity, but little to no experience working on an engine written in C.
    - davesmith1983 7y ago
      The fact of the matter is that neither of us know.
      - liability 7y ago
        I don't know, which is why I said I'd like for them to explain it. In the meantime, they will not enjoy the benefit of doubt from me, and I don't think you should give it to them either. We're not operating in a vacuum here, Bethesda already has a well earned negative reputation.
        davesmith1983 7y ago
        I will be buying Doom Eternal. I've basically built a new pc for it. I won't be buying these ports as I have the originals anyway.
        liability 7y ago
        Fair enough, Doom Eternal looks like it should be pretty good, provided Bethesda doesn't fuck up the release with busted DRM, etc.
seba_dos1 7y ago
Porting Doom to Unity on a platform where a perfectly fine port of SDL already exists can't really make it much easier.