-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|698|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
SoCoder -> Link Home -> Dev-News


 
Afr0
Created : 30 May 2011
 

They're probably lying...



https://www.gearboxity.com/content/view/645/33/
... but assuming they're not, do you think it will be any good?
And will it be open sourced? Now that could be interesting!

 

Comments


Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 04:32
shroom_monk
Why would it be open-sourced? It's a proper retail game, developed by a proper studio.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 05:13
Jayenkai
Why wouldn't it be, surely 50,000,000,000 different dev'rs have seen it's various stages of code by now

(Aside : No, it won't be.)
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 05:33
Afr0
I think it might be, a lot of FPSs have been open-sourced.

Half-Life 2
Half-Life
Wolfenstein 3D
Doom
Doom II
Doom III (when Rage is released)
Quake
Quake 2
Quake III
Noone Lives Forever
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 06:40
shroom_monk
Half Life 2 isn't open source. You can buy a license to develop on the Source Engine, if you're a dev, but that's really expensive. It's not really open source.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 06:40
JL235
@Afro: some of the engines for the games you listed have been opened source, but most of the games you mentioned haven't themselves been. Most of their content and game code are still not open source.

I don't know about now, but lots of the engines I've seen built to run Quake 1 said you needed your own copy in order to run the game on their engine.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 08:09
Afr0
I don't know about now, but lots of the engines I've seen built to run Quake 1 said you needed your own copy in order to run the game on their engine.


True, but that's because the source-code is (obviously) configured to run with the original art assets. There's no problem with doing a full-rewrite, of sorts, but then you have to provide your own assets.

Half-Life 2 is open-source. I don't know the specifics of the licensing, but it doesn't surprise me if you can't earn money off of the Source engine without paying for a license.

I believe the original Duke games were open-sourced as well, but I can't remember what engine they were built on.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 08:19
JL235
Engine != Game.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 08:34
Afr0
Still.
All the above games were open sourced.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 09:30
JL235
No they weren't, because their content wasn't open sourced. If you want to play HL2 you have to buy it, regardless of how open it's engine might be.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 11:10
Afr0
If you want to play HL2 you have to buy it, regardless of how open it's engine might be.


False. You could make a bunch of levels in the Valve Hammer Editor and a bricky Gordon Freeman in Blender and play along (technically you couldn't because you need a valid Steam account to download the source, but that's besides the point).
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 11:12
shroom_monk
So what you're saying is you grab the engine open source, then rebuild all the levels in Hammer yourself, without knowing their content, effectively building the game yourself, and then you have it? That doesn't strike me as open source. And for the record, there is no Freeman model in the game.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 11:16
Afr0
without knowing their content


If you wanna see how the level look/plays, there are tons of playthroughs on YouTube.
You'd have a hard time replicating the sounds, but whatever..

Edit: You could record the dialogue yourself with a cheap mic.

Also... I'm not sure about the other games, but HL2 relies chiefly upon physics, meaning that the levels are not really scripted at all.
So that part would have been taken care of for you too.

Secondly, I feel as though we're arguing over a definition. A game's sourcecode != 'engine'. The engine is the sum of all the components which makes the game tick (graphics code, sound code, network code), but doesn't contain any game-specific code at all.
The sourcecode for Doom III has already been released (including the scripts for the levels), but the engine (idTech4) won't be released until Rage is.
You could argue that you don't have the full sourcecode for the game unless you have the engine-code, but you can't argue that 'engine' == 'game'.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 11:32
Jayenkai
Platdude Forever, with sexy pixel ladies!!
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 18:56
steve_ancell
Jayenkai Platdude Forever, with sexy pixel ladies!!

Yeah, what he just said!
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 19:58
JL235
Given enough time I could write my own copy of Windows, therefore (by your argument) Windows is open source.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 21:17
CodersRule
DD is correct here.. quite obviously.
Being able to look at a game and recreate it makes it open source?
...
Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 00:33
Afr0
Why are we even mixing assets into this?
Just because a game is open sourced, it isn't typical to give away its assets for free also.
'Open source' usually indicates the source only, it's kinda in the name...
Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 00:34
Afr0
Given enough time I could write my own copy of Windows, therefore (by your argument) Windows is open source.


False. Windows' source wasn't released. See above post.
Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 03:30
JL235
Without the game assets, it's not a game. So it's not open-source at all.

Afr0 False. Windows' source wasn't released. See above post.

You didn't get my point.

And actually parts of the Windows XP kernel have been made open-source, in a very restricted way, for educational use at selected universities.
Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 03:44
Afr0
Without the game assets, it's not a game. So it's not open-source at all.


'Open source' usually indicates the source only, it's kinda in the name...
Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 04:57
JL235
Your just presuming the source in 'open-source' always refers to source code. It doesn't. It refers to more then that, and there is more to HL2 then just source code.

This is a circular debate, but the fundamental fact remains that most of those games you have listed are _not_ open source. Their engines might be, but that doesn't include the game.
Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 06:28
shroom_monk
And, back to the main point, there's not really much point for Gearbox to open-source Duke.
Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 07:58
Afr0
Your just presuming the source in 'open-source' always refers to source code. It doesn't. It refers to more then that, and there is more to HL2 then just source code.




Their engines might be


Sourcecode != engine.
Thursday, 02 June 2011, 16:29
steve_ancell
Safest option: Ask the developer what you can and cannot do
Saturday, 11 June 2011, 06:16
spinal
This argument seems to be going round in circles...

To me, and open-source project would HAVE to include all required assets for it to be considered truly open. Open-source is just another name for free (licence not money) software, you can do very little with source code alone, with open-sorce/free software you are legally able to change ANYTHING and redistribute, you can do that if you have no legal right to any of the assets (gfx/sound etc.) So any open-source software that does not entitle you to redistribute the assets in not open-source.
Saturday, 11 June 2011, 06:39
HoboBen
The distinction is between an open source game, e.g. Tremulous, and an open source engine, e.g. the Quake engine, but not the Quake game with assets.

Saying that though, has anyone played the DNF game/demo yet?

Graphically, I don't see what people were complaining about; it looks great to me.

Gameplay-wise, I'll probably wait until it's on sale for ~£7