Insurgency Tactical FPS Still Looking To Support Linux, Developers Working On A Solution

Quoteour programmer is working on a different solution

Hope this isn't just a wine wrapper.

The engine guys probably moved to Source 2 and Dota 2 to get that done

Wow. After reading all this, now I understand why so many indie developers try to build their own engine.

One just should take a look at the wiki. And all the code. And any piece of documentation. Source is a great engine but it's awful to get started with it as there's no information that's available to any potential developer.

Just take the output of the 'vpc /h' (help of Valve Project Creator):
It has some strange options which are not really well documented and then:
'Further details can be found on Valve Internal Wiki on VPC.'

Horribly outdated in general too, I'd say source is not really a great starting point for game dev's.

You just don't know what you are up too.
The release notes with feature-overview haven't been updated for years. Which SDK has most recent code? Can I see what the current source engine features are without prior licensing?

SourceEngine for others is just not really much than a Code Drop. One should definitely know that.

@ liamdawe I appreciate you taking the time to bring this into the spotlight. Also thanks for the reply on my Insurgency update request :)


Im hoping we get to play this game soon.

Quoting: GuestTo top things off we also received a huge bill regarding the licensing of middleware that had been, unbeknownst to us, included with the Source Engine but not covered in the original License deal. Not only that, but we’d need to pay for a separate license for each platform released. It was a big hit financially, which put us at a loss in terms of the mac and Linux ports.

The final straw came in September last year, after what should what was promised to be a fairly straightforward PS3 port. Started in May, with the PS4 still far on the horizon and with a projected development time of only 2-3 months, it seemed like a safe goal to reach. We were excited to see how Dear Esther would be received by a new branch of gamers, but unfortunately we hit issues early on. First, having to license yet more middleware for Source, and then obtaining the additional PS3 source code for the Engine. This was all happening around the time of the departures at Valve, which unfortunately included our main contact for all things Engine related, and subsequently we spent weeks trying to find someone else who could point us in the right direction. This had a cascade effect on the whole project leading to months of delays, coupled with the contractor’s inexperience with the engine, communication problems, and then finally the PS4 release date announcement, we decided it was time to pull the plug, at significant cost to us.

[/quote]
So, when deciding which game engine to use, you can go with Source, which has tons of very expensive HIDDEN licensing fees that you pay even before you start developing, and has less and less support especially for multi-platform, being quite outdated anyway, and even more so being restricted to being used ONLY with Steam. OR, you can choose any number of the free and/or open-source engines that don't cost you a dime, are reasonably well-documented, and you can get support from other devs in the friendly and open community at any time, and you're never really restricted in any way. Even Unreal Engine 4 is extremely reasonable, paying only a % of profits AFTER a certain amount of profits.

Why is anyone even developing using the Source Engine anymore when you stuck with bastardly crap like this. It's an insane joke. Steam/Valve, much like Micro$oft Window$, is just a money exploiting scheme, squeezing as much money from consumers as possible in every way possible, including influencing development of games used through their systems, and putting as little work as possible into making and supporting the products. Thus, it should be known and referred to as Valve'$ $team.

Quoting: MajorLunaC

Quoting: Guest

QuoteTo top things off we also received a huge bill regarding the licensing of middleware that had been, unbeknownst to us, included with the Source Engine but not covered in the original License deal. Not only that, but we’d need to pay for a separate license for each platform released. It was a big hit financially, which put us at a loss in terms of the mac and Linux ports.

The final straw came in September last year, after what should what was promised to be a fairly straightforward PS3 port. Started in May, with the PS4 still far on the horizon and with a projected development time of only 2-3 months, it seemed like a safe goal to reach. We were excited to see how Dear Esther would be received by a new branch of gamers, but unfortunately we hit issues early on. First, having to license yet more middleware for Source, and then obtaining the additional PS3 source code for the Engine. This was all happening around the time of the departures at Valve, which unfortunately included our main contact for all things Engine related, and subsequently we spent weeks trying to find someone else who could point us in the right direction. This had a cascade effect on the whole project leading to months of delays, coupled with the contractor’s inexperience with the engine, communication problems, and then finally the PS4 release date announcement, we decided it was time to pull the plug, at significant cost to us.

So, when deciding which game engine to use, you can go with Source, which has tons of very expensive HIDDEN licensing fees that you pay even before you start developing, and has less and less support especially for multi-platform, being quite outdated anyway, and even more so being restricted to being used ONLY with Steam. OR, you can choose any number of the free and/or open-source engines that don't cost you a dime, are reasonably well-documented, and you can get support from other devs in the friendly and open community at any time, and you're never really restricted in any way. Even Unreal Engine 4 is extremely reasonable, paying only a % of profits AFTER a certain amount of profits.

Why is anyone even developing using the Source Engine anymore when you stuck with bastardly crap like this. It's an insane joke. Steam/Valve, much like Micro$oft Window$, is just a money exploiting scheme, squeezing as much money from consumers as possible in every way possible, including influencing development of games used through their systems, and putting as little work as possible into making and supporting the products. Thus, it should be known and referred to as Valve'$ $team.

Well, although I'm myself no fan of source - where do you find stuff to support your claims, namely:
- being quite outdated (we simply don't know)
- restriction to Steam

And I also would not agree on them being a money exploiting company - they make it clear to everyone that this is just a code drop. There were requests giving source to others but they don't want to provide support as this simply does not fit into their company. So they just code-drop it.
The way they do not provide any documention publically and the way the wiki is horribly outdated - I think - clearly shows, and should clearly show, that they just wont give any support. If people wanna use it they are completely free to do so - provided they have the money.

Also I'm actually pretty sure that Valve tells you that there are something like 'hidden costs', but dont say which just because they simply have lost the overview themselves.
They say that there is some middleware used which might give additional cost to the developers. This is basically typical Valve-attitude to things. They are bad licensors but just because they dont try to.
But the thing that distincts them from MS although, is that they do not advertise their products: They do not claim having the best engine.
"Gabe Newell has described the creation of content with the engine's current toolset as "very painful" and "sluggish"."

If one is using the Source Engine they are on their own, and I think that Valve makes this point rather clear. In this way I would not blame Valve but anyone deciding to use the source engine.


Last edited by ljrk on 9 August 2015 at 4:37 pm UTC

Oh great, can't wait when I'll be able to stop using Wine for this one :) This is one of my favourite games and maintaning two Steam clients (one native and one run under Wine) is a slight inconvenience :)

Quoting: tcit

Quoteour programmer is working on a different solution

Hope this isn't just a wine wrapper.

It's confirmed not to be a Wine wrapper.

what people need to understand is that the source engine is heavily reliant on Havok for physx and related stuff, which is what the developpers mean with 'hidden licencing costs' since Havok's licencing is a bit cringeworthy

Quoting: MajorLunaCSo, when deciding which game engine to use, you can go with Source, which has tons of very expensive HIDDEN licensing fees that you pay even before you start developing, and has less and less support especially for multi-platform, being quite outdated anyway, and even more so being restricted to being used ONLY with Steam. ...

Why is anyone even developing using the Source Engine anymore when you stuck with bastardly crap like this. It's an insane joke. Steam/Valve, much like Micro$oft Window$, is just a money exploiting scheme, squeezing as much money from consumers as possible in every way possible, including influencing development of games used through their systems, and putting as little work as possible into making and supporting the products. Thus, it should be known and referred to as Valve'$ $team.

t's not valve that's getting the licencing fees, source is not outdated, it's been updated multiple times and the engine now is a lot different from the source engine when it was first released, and it's not tied to steam, otherwise titanfall would be on steam, since it runs on the source engine

there's a reason valve is developping their own physx engine for source2 instead of again relying on Havok to do the physics


Last edited by loggfreak on 10 August 2015 at 3:26 pm UTC