Source 2 Will Be Completely Free To Use

Does this mean that there won't be any DirectX support in Source 2? Or did you just exclude that since Linux users wouldn't really care about that?

Whats your source to affirm that?

Whats your source to affirm that?

Valve.

Whats your source to affirm that?

It has been all over the news the last couple of days. It is confirmed, no doubt about it. What has not been confirmed however is what features it will have in terms of various rendering algorithms and techniques or whether it comes with source code(Like UE4) or not(Like Unity 5).

For what I can discover on the internet, certain sites says It will be free, for content developers (wich means taht only will be free if you develop stuff for Valve existing games), and others say the same that here, that will be completly free for developing games. Not a single word on this on the steam official pages, nor universe steam pages, nor other valve pages...

I hope this is really official, and Im happy for the ones that choses this engine.

Does this mean that there won't be any DirectX support in Source 2? Or did you just exclude that since Linux users wouldn't really care about that?

Hopefully no DirectX support.

If they focus their attention on OpenGL support, it'll work across all platforms, and not just Windows.

For what I can discover on the internet, certain sites says It will be free, for content developers (wich means taht only will be free if you develop stuff for Valve existing games), and others say the same that here, that will be completly free for developing games. Not a single word on this on the steam official pages, nor universe steam pages, nor other valve pages...

I hope this is really official, and Im happy for the ones that choses this engine.

" (wich means taht only will be free if you develop stuff for Valve existing games),"

No, it means no such thing EVERYONE who uses an engine/creates a game is a "content creator". They didn't say it was free for only MODDERS. You are confusing the two terms here. The Source SDK is already free for modders. So if that was all they meant their announcement wouldn't make any sense, the "has to be available on Steam" wouldn't really make sense either. The whole thing about there being no royaties also only makes sense for commercial games.

Check it out: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/03/04/source-2-is-actually-free-like-for-free/

Not sure why you wouldn't want to sell your game on Steam, as it's the biggest store around.

If I were a developer I should think it won't be a problem.

But as an user I am, (and an anti-DRM one), this concerns me.
You say that : it's the biggest store of PC gaming by digital distribution.

Which means that if they grow a bit more enogh, they could turn into a monopoly.

Not a single word on this on the steam official pages

We will be making Source 2 available for free to content developers.

Not sure why you wouldn't want to sell your game on Steam, as it's the biggest store around.

If I were a developer I should think it won't be a problem.

But as an user I am, (and an anti-DRM one), this concerns me.
You say that : it's the biggest store of PC gaming by digital distribution.

Which means that if they grow a bit more enogh, they could turn into a monopoly.

Saw your comment coming.

But I agree to an extent. DRM is pointless as it's easily circumvented by someone and then, by extension of people downloading the cracked copy, everyone, so for one it's a wasted effort to implement. Secondly, allowing it opens the doors to locking games with bloatware which might also introduce security holes. I only am okay with running the distribution platform I intended to run in the first place and nothing else. Thirdly, the Steam smartphone app makes no mention of DRM, so if you're not careful, you'll buy a game with useless bloatware such as GFWL.

Points two and three are the most important to me. DRM for games isn't always as bad as it is for movies (who loves being talked down to like a thief by the MPAA and being forced to watch trailers on a legitimately purchased disc, anyway?), but IMO it would be a better world without, so I avoid DRM beyond Steam's own and have a bit more interest in buying DRM-free games.

Not sure why you wouldn't want to sell your game on Steam, as it's the biggest store around.

If I were a developer I should think it won't be a problem.

But as an user I am, (and an anti-DRM one), this concerns me.
You say that : it's the biggest store of PC gaming by digital distribution.

Which means that if they grow a bit more enogh, they could turn into a monopoly.

except with Steam, choice of DRM or not is left up to developer and monopoly is not even remotely possible since all other platforms hold that honour (yes, i was sarcastic) them selves. there is zero chance Steam could ever be player in XBoxLive or on PSN

Saw your comment coming.

Ha, ha! You know me well at this site, folks! ;-)

But I agree to an extent. DRM is pointless as it's easily circumvented by someone and then, by extension of people downloading the cracked copy, everyone, so for one it's a wasted effort to implement.

I do know that at the begining the culprits were the developers who thought they'll shell more copies if they put DRM on games.
And if you ask me some years ago, I should be agree with their piracy argument.

I'm talking about the time when involving in game development was a lot more risky enterprise than today.
Risk for the amount of time and money to invest and the fear of low sales.

For that reason, the publishers saw DRM as a method to ensure the people who play their games pay for it.
But now, we are in the crowdfunding era.

With crowdfunding you :

-Get an idea of the amount of people interested in buy your product.
-Get the funds directly from the customers.
-Get fresh ideas from the crowd of how to improve the product to be more interesting for more customers.

And finally, ignore fund concerns leaving the risk on the crowdfunders.
So, now that even disctingised development studios make use of crowdfunding, DRM has no point for them, but an annoyance for the buyers.

And the pity thing about all of this is that developers still think like before.

IMO it would be a better world without, so I avoid DRM beyond Steam's own and have a bit more interest in buying DRM-free games.

Good phylosophy.

The thing is that there's no real DRM-free alternative beyond GoG and some games on HumbleStore.

About the monopoly argument, it's difficult (but really difficult) to see any new AAA game to be released in any other distribution system than Steam.

And that's because Steam grants developers a prebuilt easy DRM system to bind their games (which is the way they want to publish).

Steam created the system, Steam provided it and make this kind of "dependence" to developers. And now that it's innecesary, Steam wants to continue with it because is its way of business.

So I look with bad eyes this kind of movements when come from a dominant position. Now it's free if you "at least" publish it on Steam. Tomorrow could be "mandatory and exclusive". Shenanigans I say.

We will be making Source 2 available for free to content developers.

"... Windows PCs, Macs, and Linux PCs ..."! :)

We will be making Source 2 available for free to content developers.

"... Windows PCs, Macs, and Linux PCs ..."! :)

Yeah, they've gotten a lot better at their naming conventions lately. If you read through the whole thing though, you'll find this at the bottom:

the leading platform for PC, Mac, and Linux games and software

Just a minor slip-up though.

The big question I don't see enough people asking is what happens if you can't get your game on Steam. If the engine being "free" requires that, then that's a big omission from the statements that have been made.

If it turns out that Source 2 developers will be able to bypass the current hurdles to publishing on Steam, then that has some pretty big implications as well.

Does this mean that there won't be any DirectX support in Source 2? Or did you just exclude that since Linux users wouldn't really care about that?

Hopefully no DirectX support.

If they focus their attention on OpenGL support, it'll work across all platforms, and not just Windows.

Sorry to get you out there, it has DirectX support, but will fully support Vulkan.

I'm ready for Vulkan 100%.