12 ms·

Valve Announces Source 2, and It’ll Be Free

390 points by goeric 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
comex 12y ago
In addition to the business model, another key question: source available or not? For reference: the Half-Life (GoldSrc) and Source Engine SDKs, long free to download for modders, are on GitHub these days, but don't contain the complete engine source code. Note: The above space previously claimed the full GoldSrc code was available, because that is what I read somewhere and is repeated at least at [1], but this appears to be incorrect. Sorry :| [1] https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Goldsource https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Goldsource
- jzelinskie 12y ago
  Do you have a link to the GoldSrc engine on GitHub?
  - daxelrod 12y ago
    I think it's here, as part of the HalfLife source: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/halflife https://github.com/ValveSoftware/halflife
    - angersock 12y ago
      That's just the HL1 SDK--there isn't any engine source in there worth mentioning AFAIK.
      - comex 12y ago
        Yep, I am wrong. Serves me right for repeating what I read somewhere without verifying it myself. Too bad.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
fekberg 12y ago
How does Source and Steam fit together? Would it make sense to lower a potential fee for Steam exclusive games built on Source? Would it be "risky" trusting the same company with both the game engine and distribution? It's really great seeing Source 2, Unreal Engine and Unity lowering the bar for game developers to deliver their products.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  How does Source and Steam fit together? Source is an engine, Steam is a distribution platform. I think the only truly significant interplay is: - Source games will probably behave well with the Steam Overlay and probably work in Big Picture Mode with controllers - Steam recognizes the Source libraries as a distinct element, so you only have to download the Source engine once even if you have many games that use that engine
  - Ambrosia 12y ago
    I could see it being even more integrated: play the game while it downloads (like Guild Wars back in the day)
  - dtech 12y ago
    > Steam recognizes the Source libraries as a distinct element I don't think that's correct, all Source1 games include their own copy of the engine and aren't automatically updated to newer versions etc. (Valve does update them though). The engine download is only for mods and some 3rd-party games.
    - rjaco31 12y ago
      What do you call Source1 games? I'm pretty sure I had a common source download for CS:S, DoD:S and HL:DM
      - reubenmorais 12y ago
        The games you mentioned _used_ to run on the same branch of the engine, and when that does happen you only download it once. Most shipping Source games today use distinct branches of Source. There's a Portal 2 branch, a DotA branch, a TF2 branch, a CS:GO branch, etc.
zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
Unreal, Unity and now Source within just a few days from each other... It looks like the game engine market is commoditizing rapidly.
- lstamour 12y ago
  Or opening up to broader distribution and the long-tail community of less bankrolled developers?
- Nmachine 12y ago
  You can't even give your engine away now.
- SwellJoe 12y ago
  They've begun to realize that owning a platform is at least as valuable as owning an engine and game development shop.
- davidwparker 12y ago
  It's also GDC (Game Developers Conference) this week, so that may have something to do with it.
- hcarvalhoalves 12y ago
  I have a (possibly crazy) theory: Companies like Valve and Epic have already amortized the cost of development of their engines - those are codebases that span 16 years, and both companies had multiple commercial successes. All it took was Unity to give a little nudge. Now, IMO, the reason for giving so much for free is to keep a player out (Unity) and milk the cow one last time with the eventual royalties. I think it's clear by now the next generation will be real-time raytracing (engines like Brigade [1]), so I wouldn't doubt they are already working on those, and to be sold in the old model. [1] http://brigade.otoy.com http://brigade.otoy.com
  - z3phyr 12y ago
    Real Time Ray tracing is still very far off. Brigade serves as a good proof of concept, but a lot of things are yet to be researched and implemented to make it viable in commercial sphere. Seeing the progress, I do not think commercial real time ray traced game will be a reality any time soon in this decade.
chc 12y ago
Based on the context of the "free for content developers," it sounds to me like they mean it will be free for people developing add-on content for existing games, not that it will be free for people making their own games.
- AimHere 12y ago
  That's a grey area surely. Much of Valve's output has been people making completely new own games out of existing games - CS, TF2 and Dota all began life as mods to very different games. I think that they'll have monetisation in place either through royalties like Epic, or just their cut of Steam sales. I don't see why they'd worry that someone used Source to make a brand new game they're almost sure to profit from anyways.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  Nah, that wouldn't be noteworthy. Valve has always allowed use of GoldSrc and Source for modding at no cost, it's pretty much their thing.
- squeaky-clean 12y ago
  I agree. If it was free for game development, they would have said "game developers" and not "content developers." Someone in /r/gamedev posted a link to this press release. [0] It looks official, and steamdb is usually reputable. Here's the most relevant section, it definitely doesn't sound like Source 2 will be free for original game development. > "The value of a platform like the PC is how much it increases the productivity of those who use the platform. With Source 2, our focus is increasing creator productivity. Given how important user generated content is becoming, Source 2 is designed not for just the professional developer, but enabling gamers themselves to participate in the creation and development of their favorite games," said Valve's Jay Stelly. "We will be making Source 2 available for free to content developers. This combined with recent announcements by Epic and Unity will help continue the PCs dominance as the premiere content authoring platform." [0] https://steamdb.info/blog/source2-announcement/ https://steamdb.info/blog/source2-announcement/
unethical_ban 12y ago
Odd that idTech, known historically as a corss platform engine that was unique for being opened after its profit was done, is now seemingly one of the more closed engines on the market.
- djloche 12y ago
  They sold the company, and now Carmack at Oculus. It makes sense that the values of the company have changed.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Too bad how Carmack was unable to shape the culture in the company he co-created in the first place. Seems like he remained always an outsider.
    - leoc 12y ago
      Masters of Doom makes Carmack sound as responsible for ID's culture problems as anyone else. (Mind you, I'm not sure how reliable that impression is: in some places the author gives the impression that he'd pencilled in Carmack as the designated baddie of the story.)
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        I've read the book as well. I'm not sure what to make of it in terms of why id went the way it did. Anyway, Carmack remained, and after Romero left I believe he had a leading role in id. Yet he seemed to remain isolated in his principle of opening up his code now and then. Since Carmack has left id has been a fully closed house of software. Pretty sad. At the same time, I dont care since they did not make any notable game recently anyway.
  - CmonDev 12y ago
    "...the values of the company have changed..." - a polite way of saying "the founders sold out".
joshu 12y ago
Half-Life 3 confirmed?
- keyle 12y ago
  I wonder when that's going to get old. On an odd note, they did deny "source 2" to ever exist until recently. So, I guess there is hope for you.
  - geon 12y ago
    Developing the engine (even if it is mostly incremental enhancments from the games released over the years) must have taken up signifficant resources lately. If the engine is "done" now, there should be people available to work on new titles.
    - spuz 12y ago
      Chances are, they are developing the engine alongside a new game built on that engine. That is after-all how most game engines are built.
      - geon 12y ago
        That would be the "mostly incremental enhancments from the games released". Releasing something publicly makes a huge difference.
  - eru 12y ago
    > I wonder when that's going to get old. At least people can't make Duke Nukem Forever jokes any more.
  - nindalf 12y ago
    I don't think Source 2 was a surprise to many. Most of the people in the Dota 2 and CS:GO communities have been expecting it for a long time. Valve even explicitly stated[1] in early December that they planned "a major improvement to Dota 2’s engine that [they] are aiming to release in the first half of next year" [1] - http://blog.dota2.com/2014/12/future-changes-frostivus/ http://blog.dota2.com/2014/12/future-changes-frostivus/
anandaverma 12y ago
Awesome. After long time something interesting from valve
- BinaryIdiot 12y ago
  Ouch. Steam box stuff and VR not that interesting? Though I'd really love for them to FINALLY announce a Half Life sequel.
  - thrillgore 12y ago
    New game announcements typically don't come at GDC. PAX is around the corner though.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Steam Box and VR is interesting, but only if it actually happens. So far we've seen next to nothing from the Steam Box idea except a ton of companies releasing small form-factor PCs that were originally slated to run Steam OS but then switched to Windows when Valve decided to back out.
- justicezyx 12y ago
  the 10MM prize pool dota2 championship isn't interesting?...
malkia 12y ago
And to top that, not exactly an engine - but a level editor used by several Sony Studios, it also uses a framework that Sony released months ago: https://github.com/SonyWWS/LevelEditor https://github.com/SonyWWS/LevelEditor https://github.com/SonyWWS/ATF https://github.com/SonyWWS/ATF (the framework) https://github.com/SonyWWS/SLED https://github.com/SonyWWS/SLED (Debugger? for lua?)
locusm 12y ago
Check out Project Reality for a great example of a very engaging game that will benefit from game engine licensing like this. Current version is BF2 based and some of the best squad based gameplay I have experienced.
- krustchinsky 12y ago
  Very interesting that I find this here! I was on the PR2 team for awhile before things stagnated. I don't think the team at this point over at realitymod.com would benefit from anything happening at EA in regards to BF2's license. A lot has changed and things are moving very slowly nowadays. You might want to check out Squad (joinsquad.com)
  - locusm 12y ago
    I did take a look at some Squad footage that was released from the team months ago, looking forward to its release.
curiously 12y ago
I can't find any information on steam, thought thats where the news would be. anyways, not sure what source 2 will look like, but if it means that we can use the existing source code for games like counterstrike or any of the valve's fps series, then for fps indie developers this is a welcome news. we should see an explosion of new types of fps games with the availability of such base to build new games from, add new content, new modes of play etc.
mutagen 12y ago
The article attributes all these free engines to Unity but I think they've missed 20+ years of videogame history. First, Valve has always been very open to game mods. Some of their most popular franchises (TF & CS) grew out of the mod community around HL1 and they've always made tooling available for the Source engine. HL1 was based on the Quake engine and id has always embraced the mod community. Id software has also contributed greatly by open sourcing their old engines. The Torque Game Engine (Tribes) was opened up to low cost licensing by GarageGames in the early 2000s. Unreal has long made their tools available for free, though licensing wasn't quite favorable to the indie developer until more recently. Blender made an attempt at including a game engine but it never really took off from my point of view, although they're still including and improving it. Even Blizzard's inclusion of map tools with Warcraft 3 spawned one of the biggest gaming trends of the past 10 years, DOTA / MOBA games. Though these have all been recreated with other engines (including Valve's Source), the inclusion of modding tools with games is part of the story and some of the competition that the current crop of free tools must face. Open source deserves a mention as well. Ogre 3D, the above mentioned Blender, and other engines and especially tools have sprung up in a variety of games and often fill missing gaps in asset creation. Unity certainly deserves some credit, however. Their simple tooling, relatively early start on mobile, and aggressively lowering the barriers from side project to published game has definitely moved the goalposts for game tooling. The Unity Asset Store is also a great thing. I've really only scratched the surface though. XBox DNLA deserves a mention, the role of the iPhone and mobile in general has been huge, Minecraft's until recently ambiguous quasi-open source nature, and there's many more. We're in a golden age of game creation and I hope to play some amazing new game ideas. I realize there's also going to be an abundance of mediocre imitations from creators like me but its all part of the fun.
- vidarh 12y ago
  I'd go much further back. The idea of turning the game engines and tooling into a commodity dates at least as far back as the early 80's, and I'd expect it dates back to before that too. The first game creation tools I used, were: The Quill, 1983: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quill The Games Creator, 1984: http://www.lemon64.com/?mainurl=http%3A//www.lemon64.com/games/details.php%3FID%3D1018 http://www.lemon64.com/?mainurl=http%3A//www.lemon64.com/gam... Shoot-'Em-Up Construction Kit, 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-%27Em-Up_Construction_Kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-%27Em-Up_Construction_Ki... At least SEUCK has been used to make commercial (indie) games, and I think The Quill has too. While not free, these were cheap. Cheap enough that kids were getting them.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
CmonDev 12y ago
"Announces ... Free" - as if they had a choice.
- ygra 12y ago
  Was Source even licensed as extensively as Unreal or idTech? I got the impression that most Source games were Valve's own and licensing the engine wasn't really a priority (or source of revenue) for them.
  - jsheard 12y ago
    Not even close, most of the licenced Source games were existing HL2 mod projects being moved to a commercial standalone format. The only high profile original game ever developed on it outside of Valve was TitanFall, and they had to rewrite a good chunk of the engine to bring it up to modern standards.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
      I thought they rewrote stuff because they were using it as a prototyping tool, and its design didn't quite fit their game?
      - forgottenpass 12y ago
        A project like Titanfall isn't going to be able to treat an engine as a blackbox library. They're going to spend a lot of time tailoring that engine to their needs. Anytime a game developer is asked to publicly comment on using an external party's engine, that developer is probably a producer and wants to make their project look good. They don't want their game to be seen on the same level as games that CAN get away with treating the engine as a blackbox. The exact reasoning they give (or internet apocrypha) are generally not very useful to understanding the changes they do make.
eklavya 12y ago
Speaking of open source games, I hope openage becomes playable soon. I loved/still love Age of empires. Although, I have been playing 0ad and it's pretty good but has to cover a lot of ground in performance region.
CHY872 12y ago
So it'll be: You can use it for free, but you have to sell it on Steam? Valve will still get their pound of flesh.
mangeletti 12y ago
The thing that boggles my mind is how there seems to be concern about this concept of charging 5% (like Unreal 4 does). In my mind (not a game developer - tell me if I'm way off here), the framework gives you about 90% of the work up front (10s of thousands of man hours). Then, once you finish your game and it's a success (sales-wise), you pay only 5% of your revenue. This seems like a wonderful deal, right?
- joshstrange 12y ago
  Especially when game devs are giving 30% of the sales (starting from the first $1 they make) to the marketplace where they sell their games...
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  The article just noted that as a fact, and it is. Unless you're an established studio I'd just pick whichever engine/environment you find most appealing and worry about the money when you actually make any.
- SoMuchToGrok 12y ago
  I agree that 5% to the engine developer is a wonderful deal - however, having a working game engine in no way means 90% of the work is done. That's when the really difficult work begins. Video games need to trigger an emotional response in order to be successful. From visual design, to audio design, game rules/logic, controls, testing, marketing...this list goes on. It's far more than raw tech resources; psychology is a huge factor in game development.
  - ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
    Yes and no. Consider that an engine are all the resources that go into cutting down trees, gathering materials, making pigments, etc. that all go into the resources of painting a masterpiece on an easel. You could certainly do all those things, but you don't need to if you want to create a new masterpiece.
- jxm 12y ago
  Very inclined to agree. Especially with such a small percentage charge, it seems pretty fair to pay for the work that goes into the framework that makes the game even possible.
thrillgore 12y ago
I'm interested in knowing if Source 2 will only be targeting PC and Steam Machines, or if Valve has plans for Xbox/PlayStation/Wii and iOS/Android/Windows Phone.
- waterfowl 12y ago
  hopefully mac also, I think all of valve first party titles run on mac so I would hope they wouldn't drop it for source 2(and mythical HL3)
  - cupofjoakim 12y ago
    Due to the new steam machines running on linux there's a high probability for the games to work for os x as well. I think (can't find the reference right now) that gabe newell really want games to be able to run on all major pc os's.
bobofettfett 12y ago
Half-Life 3?
connerbryan 12y ago
From a purely gamedev perspective, examining the Source engine taught me a lot about engine development, so it's exciting to hear about the next version. Valve's articles on how they implemented networking in Source are particularly useful and interesting[0]. [0] https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_Networking https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_...
arca_vorago 12y ago
Honestly I'm hoping Source 2 is everything I dream it can be. I've been focused on asset creation instead of game logic so that I have leeway in deciding on engine (which right now for me is UE4).
ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
Can any developer comment on Source, Unity, and Unreal and how well they handle mods after the fact? Modding in PC gaming adds such an incredible level of value and creativeness that it being a constant afterthought is bordering on criminal. Steam Workshop is an interesting mechanic, but it would be nice if an engine set out a baseline in advance that didn't require using additional services.
oatmealsnap 12y ago
Can Source 2 really compete with UR4 and Unity5? HL2 was amazing for it's time, but the reason that Portal looks so good is because most of the animations and lighting effects are pre-rendered.
erose 12y ago
Headline abuse. The quote is "free for content developers."

390 points by goeric 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

comex 12y ago

In addition to the business model, another key question: source available or not? For reference: the Half-Life (GoldSrc) and Source Engine SDKs, long free to download for modders, are on GitHub these days, but don't contain the complete engine source code. Note: The above space previously claimed the full GoldSrc code was available, because that is what I read somewhere and is repeated at least at [1], but this appears to be incorrect. Sorry :| [1] https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Goldsource https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Goldsource

jzelinskie 12y ago
Do you have a link to the GoldSrc engine on GitHub?
- daxelrod 12y ago
  I think it's here, as part of the HalfLife source: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/halflife https://github.com/ValveSoftware/halflife
  - angersock 12y ago
    That's just the HL1 SDK--there isn't any engine source in there worth mentioning AFAIK.
    - comex 12y ago
      Yep, I am wrong. Serves me right for repeating what I read somewhere without verifying it myself. Too bad.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

fekberg 12y ago

How does Source and Steam fit together? Would it make sense to lower a potential fee for Steam exclusive games built on Source? Would it be "risky" trusting the same company with both the game engine and distribution? It's really great seeing Source 2, Unreal Engine and Unity lowering the bar for game developers to deliver their products.

sliverstorm 12y ago
How does Source and Steam fit together? Source is an engine, Steam is a distribution platform. I think the only truly significant interplay is: - Source games will probably behave well with the Steam Overlay and probably work in Big Picture Mode with controllers - Steam recognizes the Source libraries as a distinct element, so you only have to download the Source engine once even if you have many games that use that engine
- Ambrosia 12y ago
  I could see it being even more integrated: play the game while it downloads (like Guild Wars back in the day)
- dtech 12y ago
  > Steam recognizes the Source libraries as a distinct element I don't think that's correct, all Source1 games include their own copy of the engine and aren't automatically updated to newer versions etc. (Valve does update them though). The engine download is only for mods and some 3rd-party games.
  - rjaco31 12y ago
    What do you call Source1 games? I'm pretty sure I had a common source download for CS:S, DoD:S and HL:DM
    - reubenmorais 12y ago
      The games you mentioned _used_ to run on the same branch of the engine, and when that does happen you only download it once. Most shipping Source games today use distinct branches of Source. There's a Portal 2 branch, a DotA branch, a TF2 branch, a CS:GO branch, etc.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago

Unreal, Unity and now Source within just a few days from each other... It looks like the game engine market is commoditizing rapidly.

lstamour 12y ago
Or opening up to broader distribution and the long-tail community of less bankrolled developers?
Nmachine 12y ago
You can't even give your engine away now.
SwellJoe 12y ago
They've begun to realize that owning a platform is at least as valuable as owning an engine and game development shop.
davidwparker 12y ago
It's also GDC (Game Developers Conference) this week, so that may have something to do with it.
hcarvalhoalves 12y ago
I have a (possibly crazy) theory: Companies like Valve and Epic have already amortized the cost of development of their engines - those are codebases that span 16 years, and both companies had multiple commercial successes. All it took was Unity to give a little nudge. Now, IMO, the reason for giving so much for free is to keep a player out (Unity) and milk the cow one last time with the eventual royalties. I think it's clear by now the next generation will be real-time raytracing (engines like Brigade [1]), so I wouldn't doubt they are already working on those, and to be sold in the old model. [1] http://brigade.otoy.com http://brigade.otoy.com
- z3phyr 12y ago
  Real Time Ray tracing is still very far off. Brigade serves as a good proof of concept, but a lot of things are yet to be researched and implemented to make it viable in commercial sphere. Seeing the progress, I do not think commercial real time ray traced game will be a reality any time soon in this decade.

chc 12y ago

Based on the context of the "free for content developers," it sounds to me like they mean it will be free for people developing add-on content for existing games, not that it will be free for people making their own games.

AimHere 12y ago
That's a grey area surely. Much of Valve's output has been people making completely new own games out of existing games - CS, TF2 and Dota all began life as mods to very different games. I think that they'll have monetisation in place either through royalties like Epic, or just their cut of Steam sales. I don't see why they'd worry that someone used Source to make a brand new game they're almost sure to profit from anyways.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Nah, that wouldn't be noteworthy. Valve has always allowed use of GoldSrc and Source for modding at no cost, it's pretty much their thing.
squeaky-clean 12y ago
I agree. If it was free for game development, they would have said "game developers" and not "content developers." Someone in /r/gamedev posted a link to this press release. [0] It looks official, and steamdb is usually reputable. Here's the most relevant section, it definitely doesn't sound like Source 2 will be free for original game development. > "The value of a platform like the PC is how much it increases the productivity of those who use the platform. With Source 2, our focus is increasing creator productivity. Given how important user generated content is becoming, Source 2 is designed not for just the professional developer, but enabling gamers themselves to participate in the creation and development of their favorite games," said Valve's Jay Stelly. "We will be making Source 2 available for free to content developers. This combined with recent announcements by Epic and Unity will help continue the PCs dominance as the premiere content authoring platform." [0] https://steamdb.info/blog/source2-announcement/ https://steamdb.info/blog/source2-announcement/

unethical_ban 12y ago

Odd that idTech, known historically as a corss platform engine that was unique for being opened after its profit was done, is now seemingly one of the more closed engines on the market.

djloche 12y ago
They sold the company, and now Carmack at Oculus. It makes sense that the values of the company have changed.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Too bad how Carmack was unable to shape the culture in the company he co-created in the first place. Seems like he remained always an outsider.
  - leoc 12y ago
    Masters of Doom makes Carmack sound as responsible for ID's culture problems as anyone else. (Mind you, I'm not sure how reliable that impression is: in some places the author gives the impression that he'd pencilled in Carmack as the designated baddie of the story.)
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      I've read the book as well. I'm not sure what to make of it in terms of why id went the way it did. Anyway, Carmack remained, and after Romero left I believe he had a leading role in id. Yet he seemed to remain isolated in his principle of opening up his code now and then. Since Carmack has left id has been a fully closed house of software. Pretty sad. At the same time, I dont care since they did not make any notable game recently anyway.
- CmonDev 12y ago
  "...the values of the company have changed..." - a polite way of saying "the founders sold out".

joshu 12y ago

Half-Life 3 confirmed?

keyle 12y ago
I wonder when that's going to get old. On an odd note, they did deny "source 2" to ever exist until recently. So, I guess there is hope for you.
- geon 12y ago
  Developing the engine (even if it is mostly incremental enhancments from the games released over the years) must have taken up signifficant resources lately. If the engine is "done" now, there should be people available to work on new titles.
  - spuz 12y ago
    Chances are, they are developing the engine alongside a new game built on that engine. That is after-all how most game engines are built.
    - geon 12y ago
      That would be the "mostly incremental enhancments from the games released". Releasing something publicly makes a huge difference.
- eru 12y ago
  > I wonder when that's going to get old. At least people can't make Duke Nukem Forever jokes any more.
- nindalf 12y ago
  I don't think Source 2 was a surprise to many. Most of the people in the Dota 2 and CS:GO communities have been expecting it for a long time. Valve even explicitly stated[1] in early December that they planned "a major improvement to Dota 2’s engine that [they] are aiming to release in the first half of next year" [1] - http://blog.dota2.com/2014/12/future-changes-frostivus/ http://blog.dota2.com/2014/12/future-changes-frostivus/

anandaverma 12y ago

Awesome. After long time something interesting from valve

BinaryIdiot 12y ago
Ouch. Steam box stuff and VR not that interesting? Though I'd really love for them to FINALLY announce a Half Life sequel.
- thrillgore 12y ago
  New game announcements typically don't come at GDC. PAX is around the corner though.
- freehunter 12y ago
  Steam Box and VR is interesting, but only if it actually happens. So far we've seen next to nothing from the Steam Box idea except a ton of companies releasing small form-factor PCs that were originally slated to run Steam OS but then switched to Windows when Valve decided to back out.
justicezyx 12y ago
the 10MM prize pool dota2 championship isn't interesting?...

malkia 12y ago

And to top that, not exactly an engine - but a level editor used by several Sony Studios, it also uses a framework that Sony released months ago: https://github.com/SonyWWS/LevelEditor https://github.com/SonyWWS/LevelEditor https://github.com/SonyWWS/ATF https://github.com/SonyWWS/ATF (the framework) https://github.com/SonyWWS/SLED https://github.com/SonyWWS/SLED (Debugger? for lua?)

locusm 12y ago

Check out Project Reality for a great example of a very engaging game that will benefit from game engine licensing like this. Current version is BF2 based and some of the best squad based gameplay I have experienced.

krustchinsky 12y ago
Very interesting that I find this here! I was on the PR2 team for awhile before things stagnated. I don't think the team at this point over at realitymod.com would benefit from anything happening at EA in regards to BF2's license. A lot has changed and things are moving very slowly nowadays. You might want to check out Squad (joinsquad.com)
- locusm 12y ago
  I did take a look at some Squad footage that was released from the team months ago, looking forward to its release.

curiously 12y ago

I can't find any information on steam, thought thats where the news would be. anyways, not sure what source 2 will look like, but if it means that we can use the existing source code for games like counterstrike or any of the valve's fps series, then for fps indie developers this is a welcome news. we should see an explosion of new types of fps games with the availability of such base to build new games from, add new content, new modes of play etc.

mutagen 12y ago

The article attributes all these free engines to Unity but I think they've missed 20+ years of videogame history. First, Valve has always been very open to game mods. Some of their most popular franchises (TF & CS) grew out of the mod community around HL1 and they've always made tooling available for the Source engine. HL1 was based on the Quake engine and id has always embraced the mod community. Id software has also contributed greatly by open sourcing their old engines. The Torque Game Engine (Tribes) was opened up to low cost licensing by GarageGames in the early 2000s. Unreal has long made their tools available for free, though licensing wasn't quite favorable to the indie developer until more recently. Blender made an attempt at including a game engine but it never really took off from my point of view, although they're still including and improving it. Even Blizzard's inclusion of map tools with Warcraft 3 spawned one of the biggest gaming trends of the past 10 years, DOTA / MOBA games. Though these have all been recreated with other engines (including Valve's Source), the inclusion of modding tools with games is part of the story and some of the competition that the current crop of free tools must face. Open source deserves a mention as well. Ogre 3D, the above mentioned Blender, and other engines and especially tools have sprung up in a variety of games and often fill missing gaps in asset creation. Unity certainly deserves some credit, however. Their simple tooling, relatively early start on mobile, and aggressively lowering the barriers from side project to published game has definitely moved the goalposts for game tooling. The Unity Asset Store is also a great thing. I've really only scratched the surface though. XBox DNLA deserves a mention, the role of the iPhone and mobile in general has been huge, Minecraft's until recently ambiguous quasi-open source nature, and there's many more. We're in a golden age of game creation and I hope to play some amazing new game ideas. I realize there's also going to be an abundance of mediocre imitations from creators like me but its all part of the fun.

vidarh 12y ago
I'd go much further back. The idea of turning the game engines and tooling into a commodity dates at least as far back as the early 80's, and I'd expect it dates back to before that too. The first game creation tools I used, were: The Quill, 1983: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quill The Games Creator, 1984: http://www.lemon64.com/?mainurl=http%3A//www.lemon64.com/games/details.php%3FID%3D1018 http://www.lemon64.com/?mainurl=http%3A//www.lemon64.com/gam... Shoot-'Em-Up Construction Kit, 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-%27Em-Up_Construction_Kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-%27Em-Up_Construction_Ki... At least SEUCK has been used to make commercial (indie) games, and I think The Quill has too. While not free, these were cheap. Cheap enough that kids were getting them.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

CmonDev 12y ago

"Announces ... Free" - as if they had a choice.

ygra 12y ago
Was Source even licensed as extensively as Unreal or idTech? I got the impression that most Source games were Valve's own and licensing the engine wasn't really a priority (or source of revenue) for them.
- jsheard 12y ago
  Not even close, most of the licenced Source games were existing HL2 mod projects being moved to a commercial standalone format. The only high profile original game ever developed on it outside of Valve was TitanFall, and they had to rewrite a good chunk of the engine to bring it up to modern standards.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    I thought they rewrote stuff because they were using it as a prototyping tool, and its design didn't quite fit their game?
    - forgottenpass 12y ago
      A project like Titanfall isn't going to be able to treat an engine as a blackbox library. They're going to spend a lot of time tailoring that engine to their needs. Anytime a game developer is asked to publicly comment on using an external party's engine, that developer is probably a producer and wants to make their project look good. They don't want their game to be seen on the same level as games that CAN get away with treating the engine as a blackbox. The exact reasoning they give (or internet apocrypha) are generally not very useful to understanding the changes they do make.

eklavya 12y ago

Speaking of open source games, I hope openage becomes playable soon. I loved/still love Age of empires. Although, I have been playing 0ad and it's pretty good but has to cover a lot of ground in performance region.

CHY872 12y ago

So it'll be: You can use it for free, but you have to sell it on Steam? Valve will still get their pound of flesh.

mangeletti 12y ago

The thing that boggles my mind is how there seems to be concern about this concept of charging 5% (like Unreal 4 does). In my mind (not a game developer - tell me if I'm way off here), the framework gives you about 90% of the work up front (10s of thousands of man hours). Then, once you finish your game and it's a success (sales-wise), you pay only 5% of your revenue. This seems like a wonderful deal, right?

joshstrange 12y ago
Especially when game devs are giving 30% of the sales (starting from the first $1 they make) to the marketplace where they sell their games...
UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
The article just noted that as a fact, and it is. Unless you're an established studio I'd just pick whichever engine/environment you find most appealing and worry about the money when you actually make any.
SoMuchToGrok 12y ago
I agree that 5% to the engine developer is a wonderful deal - however, having a working game engine in no way means 90% of the work is done. That's when the really difficult work begins. Video games need to trigger an emotional response in order to be successful. From visual design, to audio design, game rules/logic, controls, testing, marketing...this list goes on. It's far more than raw tech resources; psychology is a huge factor in game development.
- ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
  Yes and no. Consider that an engine are all the resources that go into cutting down trees, gathering materials, making pigments, etc. that all go into the resources of painting a masterpiece on an easel. You could certainly do all those things, but you don't need to if you want to create a new masterpiece.
jxm 12y ago
Very inclined to agree. Especially with such a small percentage charge, it seems pretty fair to pay for the work that goes into the framework that makes the game even possible.

thrillgore 12y ago

I'm interested in knowing if Source 2 will only be targeting PC and Steam Machines, or if Valve has plans for Xbox/PlayStation/Wii and iOS/Android/Windows Phone.

waterfowl 12y ago
hopefully mac also, I think all of valve first party titles run on mac so I would hope they wouldn't drop it for source 2(and mythical HL3)
- cupofjoakim 12y ago
  Due to the new steam machines running on linux there's a high probability for the games to work for os x as well. I think (can't find the reference right now) that gabe newell really want games to be able to run on all major pc os's.

bobofettfett 12y ago

Half-Life 3?

connerbryan 12y ago

From a purely gamedev perspective, examining the Source engine taught me a lot about engine development, so it's exciting to hear about the next version. Valve's articles on how they implemented networking in Source are particularly useful and interesting[0]. [0] https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_Networking https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_...

arca_vorago 12y ago

Honestly I'm hoping Source 2 is everything I dream it can be. I've been focused on asset creation instead of game logic so that I have leeway in deciding on engine (which right now for me is UE4).

ChikkaChiChi 12y ago

Can any developer comment on Source, Unity, and Unreal and how well they handle mods after the fact? Modding in PC gaming adds such an incredible level of value and creativeness that it being a constant afterthought is bordering on criminal. Steam Workshop is an interesting mechanic, but it would be nice if an engine set out a baseline in advance that didn't require using additional services.

oatmealsnap 12y ago

Can Source 2 really compete with UR4 and Unity5? HL2 was amazing for it's time, but the reason that Portal looks so good is because most of the animations and lighting effects are pre-rendered.

erose 12y ago

Headline abuse. The quote is "free for content developers."