5 ms·

I don't know many other popular commercial games with their up to date code based on GitHub. By posting Source source, it opens up learning opportunities for n

I don't know many other popular commercial games with their up to date code based on GitHub. By posting Source source, it opens up learning opportunities for new developers and all other sorts of BS. For example, the way they do their sphericals didn't occur to me and for my next project I'll know better...

spacelizard 13y ago
It's certainly nice that you can study this code freely, but that isn't a good reason for anyone to use it. The restriction stating that "you can only use this to make mods of valve games" seems particularly ridiculous. For indie developers, there are plenty of free (as in freedom) replacements that are probably better to use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Free_and_open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Free_and_... For one, a properly free game engine will allow you to develop actual games, not just Half Life and Team Fortress mods.
- tomku 13y ago
  This code is not a "game engine", let alone a properly free one. It's an SDK specifically to make mods for the Source engine. It only has the code to build mod DLLs, not the main engine source code.
kaoD 13y ago
It's not the game code. It's just a mod development kit which has been available forever. This is just the latest version uploaded on GitHub. Not much of interest here. Do you want a truly open game company? Take a look at iD. THAT is Open. Many FLOSS games would be nothing without iD. John Carmack is the man. He releases actual engine code (not SDKs) and under GPL license! And that guy truly revolutionized 3d graphics (though iD's latest games are not very appealing to me) and instead of keeping the techniques as industrial secrets he releases his knowledge[1]. Seriously. Carmack is awesome. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail
- Argorak 13y ago
  This comparison is flawed. Carmack releases the code _after_ the game engine is well out of the licensing period and not used anymore. Source is an ongoing effort and can still be licensed. Anything that is "in production" at ID software is as closed as with Valve.
  - kaoD 13y ago
    So Valve released Half-Life 1's source code? I'd love to give it a read. Quake 1/2/3 (and other ID games) are available for sale in several platforms (Steam among them[1]), so they ARE still commercially available. I think my comparison wasn't flawed at all. Carmack's the man. He deserves the credit. [1] http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake
    - Alphasite_ 13y ago
      And the source for Doom 3 BFG was released and that was not long after release at all, and it has components for the newer unreleased in it as well.
    - Argorak 13y ago
      It is true that GoldSrc is not released and Valve is (technology-wise) not an "open company" at all and I don't oppose that. Also, I wrote that the (ID) engines are closed while still sold for licensing - that has nothing to do with whether the old games are still available. The assets and levels are not free after all, so this just gives you the ability to buy those. I want to oppose the view that ID is an "truly open" company. A "truly open" company would release the code while it is still in active use. It is a great feat that ID does this and it certainly puts them ahead of Valve in that regard, but this doesn't mean that they are "truly open". All their "active" games are very much released in the same fashion as Valve does it: closed source, open SDK.
      - kaoD 13y ago
        Sorry, I misinterpreted the licensing bit. I guess you have a valid point. Anyways, ID is still way ahead, not only of Valve but of all game companies (AFAIK). Game engines are not as easy to license free as other software since you cannot monetize support, and often the code carries industrial secrets (which is their edge over other free game engines). I guess ID's stance is the best compromise one could achieve. I keep my point: Carmack deserves credit for what he does and his respect to software development as a whole.

spacelizard 13y ago

It's certainly nice that you can study this code freely, but that isn't a good reason for anyone to use it. The restriction stating that "you can only use this to make mods of valve games" seems particularly ridiculous. For indie developers, there are plenty of free (as in freedom) replacements that are probably better to use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Free_and_open_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Free_and_... For one, a properly free game engine will allow you to develop actual games, not just Half Life and Team Fortress mods.

tomku 13y ago
This code is not a "game engine", let alone a properly free one. It's an SDK specifically to make mods for the Source engine. It only has the code to build mod DLLs, not the main engine source code.

kaoD 13y ago

It's not the game code. It's just a mod development kit which has been available forever. This is just the latest version uploaded on GitHub. Not much of interest here. Do you want a truly open game company? Take a look at iD. THAT is Open. Many FLOSS games would be nothing without iD. John Carmack is the man. He releases actual engine code (not SDKs) and under GPL license! And that guy truly revolutionized 3d graphics (though iD's latest games are not very appealing to me) and instead of keeping the techniques as industrial secrets he releases his knowledge[1]. Seriously. Carmack is awesome. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume#Depth_fail

Argorak 13y ago
This comparison is flawed. Carmack releases the code _after_ the game engine is well out of the licensing period and not used anymore. Source is an ongoing effort and can still be licensed. Anything that is "in production" at ID software is as closed as with Valve.
- kaoD 13y ago
  So Valve released Half-Life 1's source code? I'd love to give it a read. Quake 1/2/3 (and other ID games) are available for sale in several platforms (Steam among them[1]), so they ARE still commercially available. I think my comparison wasn't flawed at all. Carmack's the man. He deserves the credit. [1] http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake http://store.steampowered.com/search/?term=quake
  - Alphasite_ 13y ago
    And the source for Doom 3 BFG was released and that was not long after release at all, and it has components for the newer unreleased in it as well.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    It is true that GoldSrc is not released and Valve is (technology-wise) not an "open company" at all and I don't oppose that. Also, I wrote that the (ID) engines are closed while still sold for licensing - that has nothing to do with whether the old games are still available. The assets and levels are not free after all, so this just gives you the ability to buy those. I want to oppose the view that ID is an "truly open" company. A "truly open" company would release the code while it is still in active use. It is a great feat that ID does this and it certainly puts them ahead of Valve in that regard, but this doesn't mean that they are "truly open". All their "active" games are very much released in the same fashion as Valve does it: closed source, open SDK.
    - kaoD 13y ago
      Sorry, I misinterpreted the licensing bit. I guess you have a valid point. Anyways, ID is still way ahead, not only of Valve but of all game companies (AFAIK). Game engines are not as easy to license free as other software since you cannot monetize support, and often the code carries industrial secrets (which is their edge over other free game engines). I guess ID's stance is the best compromise one could achieve. I keep my point: Carmack deserves credit for what he does and his respect to software development as a whole.