4 ms·

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 eff

by 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.
    - Argorak 13y ago
      I agree on that. It is just that in my opionion, strong wording with regards to software freedom should be reserved to those that practice it. In context of the industry, ID is unusually open and releasing their old engines is a valuable service to our community. It just doesn't really map to what the software linked represents, because thats a scheme that ID uses as well. Also, they were widely applauded for that as well, just for providing the tools to manipulate their games that deeply. Also, credit where credit is due: Valve is generally very relaxed stance on using their assets for anything non-commercial, e.g. in their Moviemaker (and even allow youtube ad revenue). This is codified: http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html For ID, using assets is not regulated. Oh, the many degrees of freedom :). I don't understand the amount of mischief Valve is getting for providing something nice, even if it can be improved.

by Argorak 13y ago

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.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    I agree on that. It is just that in my opionion, strong wording with regards to software freedom should be reserved to those that practice it. In context of the industry, ID is unusually open and releasing their old engines is a valuable service to our community. It just doesn't really map to what the software linked represents, because thats a scheme that ID uses as well. Also, they were widely applauded for that as well, just for providing the tools to manipulate their games that deeply. Also, credit where credit is due: Valve is generally very relaxed stance on using their assets for anything non-commercial, e.g. in their Moviemaker (and even allow youtube ad revenue). This is codified: http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html http://www.valvesoftware.com/videopolicy.html For ID, using assets is not regulated. Oh, the many degrees of freedom :). I don't understand the amount of mischief Valve is getting for providing something nice, even if it can be improved.