4 ms·

I'm still a bit confused on why Source is close sourced when Valve moved on to Source 2 over a decade ago. I suppose it'd becsuse there's some basic overlap, bu

I'm still a bit confused on why Source is close sourced when Valve moved on to Source 2 over a decade ago. I suppose it'd becsuse there's some basic overlap, but they still also feel comfortable releasing their gsmes' source?

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
> when Valve moved on to Source 2 over a decade ago. I feel like that's irrelevant, because the same logic can be used to justify having Source2 open as well. After all, what value is there in keeping the game code private at all? The only things I can think of are a) anticheat, b) NDA'd 3rd party code, and c) protecting important secret sauces made by the company itself a) and b) are both solved by simply not releasing those portions of the code, while c) is a bit moot. Any competitor can already (legally) RE the binaries and recreate any juicy proprietary algorithms, unless they're patented. But in that case they would be protected even if the source was released so it's still the same situation.
- LegionMammal978 2y ago
  b) can get dicey, depending on how hard the 3rd party in question wants to defend their copyrights. Google v. Oracle was resolved on the basis of being transformative, not on the basis of class and function declarations being too insignificant to copyright. So if you can't even keep the 3rd-party headers, you're left with a bunch of function calls that you have to piece together the meaning of.
  - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
    You could just strip out all mentions of the 3rd party component on the codebase. Let the community figure out how to plug in a replacement.
    - nemothekid 2y ago
      >Let the community figure out how to plug in a replacement. Far more likely the community kicks up a huge stink about how Valve released a crippled engine.
      - maccard 2y ago
        Like this exact thread where they release the game and the top comment is "but the engine isn't available".
      - account42 2y ago
        This is just concern trolling now. Game source code releases are often not 100% complete due to parts that coulen't be released.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >I feel like that's irrelevant, because the same logic can be used to justify having Source2 open as well.on I'm not fully up to date but I'm under the impression that Source 2 is currently used by their modern games. I don't think that's the case for Source 1. The same logic wouldn't apply. >After all, what value is there in keeping the game code private at all? Pretty much what you said. It's all down to cost-benefit at the end of the day and of they think there's more cost (perceived or otherwise) to releasing source 2 code they won't bother.
jamesfinlayson 2y ago
There are still games being developed on it: https://vghe.net/source-engine.html https://vghe.net/source-engine.html There are maybe four still in development and due hopefully this year, plus Apex Legends is still going strong.
- account42 2y ago
  "games" here being mods and indie games. I doubt Valve is making much if anything in engine licensing fees from these.

EMIRELADERO 2y ago

> when Valve moved on to Source 2 over a decade ago. I feel like that's irrelevant, because the same logic can be used to justify having Source2 open as well. After all, what value is there in keeping the game code private at all? The only things I can think of are a) anticheat, b) NDA'd 3rd party code, and c) protecting important secret sauces made by the company itself a) and b) are both solved by simply not releasing those portions of the code, while c) is a bit moot. Any competitor can already (legally) RE the binaries and recreate any juicy proprietary algorithms, unless they're patented. But in that case they would be protected even if the source was released so it's still the same situation.

LegionMammal978 2y ago
b) can get dicey, depending on how hard the 3rd party in question wants to defend their copyrights. Google v. Oracle was resolved on the basis of being transformative, not on the basis of class and function declarations being too insignificant to copyright. So if you can't even keep the 3rd-party headers, you're left with a bunch of function calls that you have to piece together the meaning of.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  You could just strip out all mentions of the 3rd party component on the codebase. Let the community figure out how to plug in a replacement.
  - nemothekid 2y ago
    >Let the community figure out how to plug in a replacement. Far more likely the community kicks up a huge stink about how Valve released a crippled engine.
    - maccard 2y ago
      Like this exact thread where they release the game and the top comment is "but the engine isn't available".
    - account42 2y ago
      This is just concern trolling now. Game source code releases are often not 100% complete due to parts that coulen't be released.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>I feel like that's irrelevant, because the same logic can be used to justify having Source2 open as well.on I'm not fully up to date but I'm under the impression that Source 2 is currently used by their modern games. I don't think that's the case for Source 1. The same logic wouldn't apply. >After all, what value is there in keeping the game code private at all? Pretty much what you said. It's all down to cost-benefit at the end of the day and of they think there's more cost (perceived or otherwise) to releasing source 2 code they won't bother.

jamesfinlayson 2y ago

There are still games being developed on it: https://vghe.net/source-engine.html https://vghe.net/source-engine.html There are maybe four still in development and due hopefully this year, plus Apex Legends is still going strong.

account42 2y ago
"games" here being mods and indie games. I doubt Valve is making much if anything in engine licensing fees from these.