4 ms·

Source available games (don't even need to be "Open Source" or "Free and Open Source") benefit greatly from modding, keeping games alive much longer and making

by tpxl 6y ago

Source available games (don't even need to be "Open Source" or "Free and Open Source") benefit greatly from modding, keeping games alive much longer and making them better even in the very short run. I dabble in game design and the plan is making the game code open/libre (not the assets or trademarks though) after some time passes (years or maybe even decades, depending on the success) so others can learn from it, extend it and maybe even sell it is quite a draw for me.

webmaven 6y ago
> I dabble in game design and the plan is making the game code open/libre (not the assets or trademarks though) after some time passes (years or maybe even decades, depending on the success) so others can learn from it, extend it and maybe even sell it is quite a draw for me. Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those? Also, one thing I've noticed is that for many ostensibly open source game code releases where assets are withheld, often no placeholder assets are provided either, without which the code sometimes can't be built, or if built can't be run or tested, which can present a significant barrier to the use or reuse of the code. All the more so when the original assets are in some idiosyncratic, non-standard, and possibly even undocumented, format.
- tpxl 6y ago
  I quite literally meant the code to be something like MIT/GPL licensed and art/sounds licensed something preventing commercial use, but all being available. This should make replacing sounds and art rather trivial. > Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those? Code is code, if it produces output, it is owned by the user :) (assuming the "code" doesn't produce copyrighted content). EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > Code is code, if it produces output, it is owned by the user :) (assuming the "code" doesn't produce copyrighted content). Right, I'm thinking specifically of code like shaders that do produce copyrighted content. > EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't. I'll not claim to speak for your reasons, but in general the motivation seems to be defense of things like trademark/trade dress or restrictive franchise licensing and adaptations to other media. Eg. If Doom's assets were entirely free of any and all restrictions, anyone could have produced a Doom movie (including an inevitable Rule 34 version), not to mention sequelae.
    - tpxl 6y ago
      > Right, I'm thinking specifically of code like shaders that do produce copyrighted content. What do you mean by this exactly? What I meant was "code" that produces a Disney movie for example. > anyone could have produced a Doom movie This would actually be great if you ask me! What I fear the most is someone renaming the project and selling it as their own with no added value.
      - reificator 6y ago
        > What I fear the most is someone renaming the project and selling it as their own with no added value. https://youtu.be/fbJdS-nLjQY?t=28 https://youtu.be/fbJdS-nLjQY?t=28 (WOLF3D, not Doom, and IIRC it was licensed from id, but still relevant I think)
        tpxl 6y ago
        If I understand correctly, this is a re-skin of the game in a different setting? This is something I'd have no problem with :)
        reificator 6y ago
        Yep, that's Super 3D Noah's Ark NSFW review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNvQYiM6bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNvQYiM6bw

by tpxl 6y ago

webmaven 6y ago

> I dabble in game design and the plan is making the game code open/libre (not the assets or trademarks though) after some time passes (years or maybe even decades, depending on the success) so others can learn from it, extend it and maybe even sell it is quite a draw for me. Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those? Also, one thing I've noticed is that for many ostensibly open source game code releases where assets are withheld, often no placeholder assets are provided either, without which the code sometimes can't be built, or if built can't be run or tested, which can present a significant barrier to the use or reuse of the code. All the more so when the original assets are in some idiosyncratic, non-standard, and possibly even undocumented, format.

tpxl 6y ago
I quite literally meant the code to be something like MIT/GPL licensed and art/sounds licensed something preventing commercial use, but all being available. This should make replacing sounds and art rather trivial. > Some assets are code (procedural content, for example) though, how do you feel about those? Code is code, if it produces output, it is owned by the user :) (assuming the "code" doesn't produce copyrighted content). EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't.
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Code is code, if it produces output, it is owned by the user :) (assuming the "code" doesn't produce copyrighted content). Right, I'm thinking specifically of code like shaders that do produce copyrighted content. > EDIT: Why do I treat code differently from assets? I have no clue tbh, but probably has to do with I can do code and thus can give it away, and can't do assets and thus can't. I'll not claim to speak for your reasons, but in general the motivation seems to be defense of things like trademark/trade dress or restrictive franchise licensing and adaptations to other media. Eg. If Doom's assets were entirely free of any and all restrictions, anyone could have produced a Doom movie (including an inevitable Rule 34 version), not to mention sequelae.
  - tpxl 6y ago
    > Right, I'm thinking specifically of code like shaders that do produce copyrighted content. What do you mean by this exactly? What I meant was "code" that produces a Disney movie for example. > anyone could have produced a Doom movie This would actually be great if you ask me! What I fear the most is someone renaming the project and selling it as their own with no added value.
    - reificator 6y ago
      > What I fear the most is someone renaming the project and selling it as their own with no added value. https://youtu.be/fbJdS-nLjQY?t=28 https://youtu.be/fbJdS-nLjQY?t=28 (WOLF3D, not Doom, and IIRC it was licensed from id, but still relevant I think)
      - tpxl 6y ago
        If I understand correctly, this is a re-skin of the game in a different setting? This is something I'd have no problem with :)
        reificator 6y ago
        Yep, that's Super 3D Noah's Ark NSFW review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNvQYiM6bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNvQYiM6bw