Support us on Patreon
PayPal
So in the aftermath of my rather hastily put together article about Steam coming for Linux, I thought I should balance it out. After the masses of comments (hey it was a lot for us here!) and chatting to Cheese, I have been educated!
So, free and open source games are preferable yes but as we know they are not always an option, we won't be seeing the likes of Left For Dead 2 from Valve having any kind of source code release for example. Sidenote I will still buy commercial closed source games but I get why having the source is much preferred...well better late for me than never right!
What is stopping game developers going open source?
The way I see it from seeing the comments and from other developers I have spoken to personally it boils down to 4 things:
1) Developers don't understand how they can make money if they open up their source code
2) If they get the above then they are afraid that someone will completely rip their game off - it can happen but people can and will do this anyway
3) They don't know how to deal with code contributions/don't want to deal with contributions including copyright issues and the time it can take to manage it all
4) We need a good list of examples to show that it can be done
How can we solve these issues as a community?
Educating not only the developers themselves but the gamers, the people who actually purchase their games, let them understand why it is important to have the source code available which includes but is not limited to:
How to make money from opening up your code?
Well there are a good few ways to do it, rather than mumble on you should look the examples below to see exactly how they do it, I am a gamer after all not a developer so you would understand it more seeing from their side. Arx Fatalis is currently my favourite example of this in action:
Games that have done it!
Licensing/Copyright issues
One of the best ways to license the code (this is my opinion) is to put it under a GPL license that way any modifications to the code anyone uses would need to also be open source under the GPL (if my understanding is indeed correct). It doesn’t mean you need to put your art, sounds etc under the GPL either so don't think that!
So if say someone ported your engine to a new platform, they would need to release it under the GPL and you would still be free to use it for yourself as the original creator (eg. listing it on your website for sale along with the art, sound etc assets for that platform) as long as it still stays under the GPL (it would of course be double nice to credit the person/people who did the work for you ;)).
The only thing to remember about doing it that way is if you wanted to re-license the work, you would need permission from all contributors who's code you put back into the main branch of the code.
That is just one of the many ways to deal with the copyright and licensing issues, to each their own path but that's usually the most popular one.
So if in future if you know a developer who is beating hard on not opening up code or a gamer who just doesn’t care or understand why it is important, maybe send them to this article?
What are your thoughts you lovely bunch of outspoken gamers? Hopefully this time I hit the correct mark. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
So, free and open source games are preferable yes but as we know they are not always an option, we won't be seeing the likes of Left For Dead 2 from Valve having any kind of source code release for example. Sidenote I will still buy commercial closed source games but I get why having the source is much preferred...well better late for me than never right!
What is stopping game developers going open source?
The way I see it from seeing the comments and from other developers I have spoken to personally it boils down to 4 things:
1) Developers don't understand how they can make money if they open up their source code
2) If they get the above then they are afraid that someone will completely rip their game off - it can happen but people can and will do this anyway
3) They don't know how to deal with code contributions/don't want to deal with contributions including copyright issues and the time it can take to manage it all
4) We need a good list of examples to show that it can be done
How can we solve these issues as a community?
Educating not only the developers themselves but the gamers, the people who actually purchase their games, let them understand why it is important to have the source code available which includes but is not limited to:
- More trust between the developer and their player base, which yes can increase sales!
- People can offer bug fixes and improvements
- People can and will port them to other platforms (see games list below)
How to make money from opening up your code?
Well there are a good few ways to do it, rather than mumble on you should look the examples below to see exactly how they do it, I am a gamer after all not a developer so you would understand it more seeing from their side. Arx Fatalis is currently my favourite example of this in action:
Games that have done it!
- Arx Fatalis opened up their engine but kept their assets closed (so you still need to buy the game, but the code is freely distributable under the GPL). Out of that has come Arx Libertatis which is a port of the games engine to run under different operating systems - Linux included with of course bug fixes along the way.
- Frogatto - GPL code with a dual license, if you contribute they accept the submissions and put it into the GPL code base for the official engine but you transfer your copyright to them (so they can still use it to make money) they sell the game on ios and Android for example.
- iD software frequently release their game engines as open source once they have been out for some time, out of these releases come projects like ioquake3 (so you can run games like Quake 3 Arena etc with improvements) and also iodoom3 (same sort of thing)
- Wikipedia's list of open-source games with some form of closed assets is probably thought the single best place to look for a list
- Wikipedia’s list of commercial games released as freeware is also a good place to pick up info from
Licensing/Copyright issues
One of the best ways to license the code (this is my opinion) is to put it under a GPL license that way any modifications to the code anyone uses would need to also be open source under the GPL (if my understanding is indeed correct). It doesn’t mean you need to put your art, sounds etc under the GPL either so don't think that!
So if say someone ported your engine to a new platform, they would need to release it under the GPL and you would still be free to use it for yourself as the original creator (eg. listing it on your website for sale along with the art, sound etc assets for that platform) as long as it still stays under the GPL (it would of course be double nice to credit the person/people who did the work for you ;)).
The only thing to remember about doing it that way is if you wanted to re-license the work, you would need permission from all contributors who's code you put back into the main branch of the code.
That is just one of the many ways to deal with the copyright and licensing issues, to each their own path but that's usually the most popular one.
So if in future if you know a developer who is beating hard on not opening up code or a gamer who just doesn’t care or understand why it is important, maybe send them to this article?
What are your thoughts you lovely bunch of outspoken gamers? Hopefully this time I hit the correct mark. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
I must say that every exemple you are refering, where games whose the source code was released much later after the game launched.
0 Likes
Quoting: "toor, post: 4546"I must say that every exemple you are refering, where games whose the source code was released much later after the game launched.
Considering all the DRM they are adding to prevent copying, releasing the source code while the games are relevant will just make them a whole lot easier to crack.
0 Likes
I doubt that's an issue. The pirated game is usually already available on day one.
0 Likes
Good summary, but you didn't mention the Frogatto case, very interesting IMHO.
I don't think any developer should go open source without making sure it would be good for him/her. Free software should be a win for everyone, as much for the user as for the developer. It's worked for others, it could work for games too.
One reason for developers to go opensource is collaboration but this is where the game industry seams weak. There's a lot of competition and very little to no collaboration. Great amounts of collaboration could go on the technical level, I mean game engines, and the competition should be taken to the creative level. I think specially indie games could benefit from that collaboration. One way for indies to go opensource could be considering the use of free engines, tools and libraries and collaborate in their development, that way they're helping each other and saving money on licenses, making users happier and earning more money from their sales.
I don't think any developer should go open source without making sure it would be good for him/her. Free software should be a win for everyone, as much for the user as for the developer. It's worked for others, it could work for games too.
One reason for developers to go opensource is collaboration but this is where the game industry seams weak. There's a lot of competition and very little to no collaboration. Great amounts of collaboration could go on the technical level, I mean game engines, and the competition should be taken to the creative level. I think specially indie games could benefit from that collaboration. One way for indies to go opensource could be considering the use of free engines, tools and libraries and collaborate in their development, that way they're helping each other and saving money on licenses, making users happier and earning more money from their sales.
0 Likes
Cheeseness Jun 6, 2012
Sorry, Liam - I should have mentioned that stuff like Frozenbyte's source releases were done so under non-free licences.
As berarma says, the big thing is making sure that a source release (or a Free Software release) must be in line with a developer's goals and visions, and they need to understand the implications are as well as what the impacts (both positive and negative) will be for their users/communities.
It's relatively unexplored territory, and understandably, many of those developers who are aware of and see positive aspects are still wary of the unknowns (mostly relating to whether or not it's possible to draw a revenue stream from an open sourced game). For most developers who have gone down that path (again, as berarma has pointed out), the way to mitigate those unknowns is to wait until a game has either recovered its development costs or passed its peak of profitability, and then release source. I'd be very interested to see how Doom 3's sales have been after their source release - I know that's when I bought it ;)
As berarma says, the big thing is making sure that a source release (or a Free Software release) must be in line with a developer's goals and visions, and they need to understand the implications are as well as what the impacts (both positive and negative) will be for their users/communities.
It's relatively unexplored territory, and understandably, many of those developers who are aware of and see positive aspects are still wary of the unknowns (mostly relating to whether or not it's possible to draw a revenue stream from an open sourced game). For most developers who have gone down that path (again, as berarma has pointed out), the way to mitigate those unknowns is to wait until a game has either recovered its development costs or passed its peak of profitability, and then release source. I'd be very interested to see how Doom 3's sales have been after their source release - I know that's when I bought it ;)
0 Likes
Woohoo! Another license thread!
Oh well. I guess I'll chime in on BSD vs. GPL. I've had to program and do systems administration on UNIX in the bad old days when the most basic tasks had to be documented and coded a dozen different ways since there was the BSD way, the SysV way, the Solaris way, the Irix way, the AIX way, OSF-1 way, the HPUX way ... and on and on and on. Just look at an old version of the Armadillo book. Every example had to have several variations. It wasn't that one vendor did it better (and there certainly wasn't one that did everything better). It's that everyone started with the same basic source code and had to "differentiate" (aka try to obtain a lock-in). It was killing UNIX.
Life before the GPL was a PITA for UNIX users and developers alike. Now I look at Apple, Google and Apache trying to push everything BSD-like licenses and I dread we will return to those days. The fact that it's easier and perhaps more profitable to not contribute code back will encourage history to repeat itself. Then add the likes of Canonical & Lennart regularly saying "Screw compatibility with the standards. We know better!" We're cursed by smart people with short memories.
Oh well. I guess I'll chime in on BSD vs. GPL. I've had to program and do systems administration on UNIX in the bad old days when the most basic tasks had to be documented and coded a dozen different ways since there was the BSD way, the SysV way, the Solaris way, the Irix way, the AIX way, OSF-1 way, the HPUX way ... and on and on and on. Just look at an old version of the Armadillo book. Every example had to have several variations. It wasn't that one vendor did it better (and there certainly wasn't one that did everything better). It's that everyone started with the same basic source code and had to "differentiate" (aka try to obtain a lock-in). It was killing UNIX.
Life before the GPL was a PITA for UNIX users and developers alike. Now I look at Apple, Google and Apache trying to push everything BSD-like licenses and I dread we will return to those days. The fact that it's easier and perhaps more profitable to not contribute code back will encourage history to repeat itself. Then add the likes of Canonical & Lennart regularly saying "Screw compatibility with the standards. We know better!" We're cursed by smart people with short memories.
0 Likes
Frozenbyte and Introversion examples removed since they aren't very good ones.
Will look up frogatto forgot all about it :P
Will look up frogatto forgot all about it :P
0 Likes
A vital article on this theme: [URL='http://blog.semisecretsoftware.com/open-sourcing-your-game-while-its-still-popul']Open Sourcing your Game while it's still Popular. [/URL]
It talks about the experience of open sourcing Canabalt.
It talks about the experience of open sourcing Canabalt.
0 Likes
Quoting: "berarma, post: 4554, member: 131"One reason for developers to go opensource is collaboration but this is where the game industry seams weak. There's a lot of competition and very little to no collaboration.
That's not quite true. I went to GDC back in 2004, and I was pleasantly surprised at how open and helpful game developers are (both indies and AAA devs). I was at the IGF Pavilion, demonstrating my Fashion Cents game which was a finalist that year, and lots of devs came by, looked at the game, and offered great suggestions for improving gameplay in areas I hadn't thought about (e.g., a 2-click alternative to drag and drop for laptop users with trackpads, printing the colors of the pieces on tooltips for color-blind users, ideas for additional power-ups, etc). They also offered publishing tips, and in some cases introduced me to publishers they knew. Most game developers I met weren't at all like the reclusive basement/bedroom coders that I envisioned.
Some indies also collaborate together on various things of mutual interest. I worked with with Gianfranco Berardi at GBGames, Roman Budzowski at Anawiki Games, and Ilya Olevsky at Valen Games (which has since closed up shop) on our Linux ports - we all worked together over e-mail to figure out how to build distribution-independent binaries, and freely shared information we learned. Erik Hermensen over at Caravel Games put me in touch with Jerry Jo Jellestad, who spent many patient weeks over e-mail teaching me the ins and outs of building Linux binaries and installers - he certainly didn't have to do that, given his busy schedule. Gianfranco and I still frequently collaborate to this day, helping test each other's games, sharing new Linux tips we come across, marketing tips, etc.
Going open source would certainly help devs collaborate better, though I don't see devs jumping in and helping code each other's games. Rather, I see devs looking at each other's code to see how they made something work. But then again, the aforementioned guys and I have privately shared some code over the years help each other get something working, so we didn't necessarily need to publicly open our source for that.
0 Likes
Quoting: "Sofox, post: 4574"A vital article on this theme: [URL='http://blog.semisecretsoftware.com/open-sourcing-your-game-while-its-still-popul']Open Sourcing your Game while it's still Popular. [/URL]
It talks about the experience of open sourcing Canabalt.
Great link! Thanks for sharing that!
0 Likes
See more from me