4 ms·
Licensing is a huge issue. If the game is on consoles, that's a whole big chunk of code that has to be removed from the open source version. Console SDKs are us
by genocidicbunny 2y ago
Licensing is a huge issue. If the game is on consoles, that's a whole big chunk of code that has to be removed from the open source version. Console SDKs are usually under very heavy NDAs -- even indirect references to how the SDK works might get you into legal hot waters. Many middlewares, even for stuff like compression, are also usually under pretty punitive contracts. Older games had fewer of those problems, but practically speaking most well known releases in the last 25 years would have to have someone go through and sanitize the codebase, and that can be extremely time consuming. And depending on the specific game, stripping out all that stuff might leave behind just a useless skeleton of code because so many of the basic components that make up the game engine are third-party. Imagine getting access to a game's source code where the entire animation, loading, physics, rendering and many other small systems had been ripped out. You're usually not left with a whole lot of other stuff in those situations.
- duskwuff 2y agoNot just for code, either. It's common for games to use licensed graphic/sound assets, either wholesale (e.g. a finished character model) or as components (e.g. a texture or sound). Licensing terms for these assets are generally incompatible with an open-source release.
- genocidicbunny 2y agoYeah I didn't even want to wander into the minefield that assets might be. Code alone is usually enough to make open sourcing infeasible, assets are even more complicated because there's way more unique assets than 'code components' in most games. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of individual assets that need to somehow be curated for release.