CRYENGINE source code now available on github

Given that CryEngine V is PWYW... it is almost as near to FLOSS as it can be, without actually being FLOSS. I wonder what the hold up(s) is for them to go that extra step. They sell support for the engine, but that business model could continue if they engine was GPLed or MITed or something like that. They take PWYW donations but again that is also something they could continue with.

Then there is the matter of 3rd party code but there are many different ways to deal with that. You could have a linking exception if you went with the GPL or some other copyleft license. You can choose a non-copyleft license. You can replace those bits with FLOSS alternatives. Just some options. What middle-ware do they use that would block A FLOSS release?

Edit:

Their license does not cover simulations or the like. Do they have many licenses for those purposes?


Last edited by Kristian on 24 May 2016 at 12:49 pm UTC

Hmh, not as open as other engines, since even publishing requires a support license.

Though, it's not that bad, but I like other models better.

Publishing requires a support license? Where are you getting that from?

Edit:

Quote2. Grant of License

2.1. Grant: Subject to strict and continuous compliance with the restrictions of this Agreement Crytek grants to Licensee a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-assignable, non-sublicensable, limited license (the “License”) only:

2.1.1. to install and run the CryEngine pursuant to the CryEngine Documentation;

2.1.2. to develop, maintain, extend and/or enhance CryEngine pursuant to the CryEngine Documentation;

2.1.3. to develop Games using CryEngine and to render such Games in object code form (including the CryEngine Assets and the CryEngine Redistributables) pursuant to the CryEngine documentation;

2.1.4. publish, distribute, sell, sublicense or exploit in any other way Games developed and rendered during the Subscription Period in object code form only and only under terms consistent with and no less protective of Crytek’s rights than those contained in this Agreement in perpetuity.....

Last edited by Kristian on 24 May 2016 at 1:00 pm UTC

Right, during the subscription period, having none, you're not allowed to publish.

That language is probably a left over from when they were charging a monthly subscription fee. As far as I can tell everyone who has signed up for the engine/registered an account can publish a game using CryEngine V. This understanding seems to be most consistent with their markerting and information materials:

"Our business model is simple: We give you access to our amazing technology, including full engine source code. You Pay What You Want for it. That’s it. No royalties. No obligations. Your price."

"Our Groundbreaking Technology. Your Price.
CRYENGINE is now available as a Pay what you want service, allowing users to set their own price for it. If you like the service we provide, we suggest contributing to its ongoing development. You can also choose contribute up to 70% of any payments to our new Indie Development Fund, which we will use to support promising indie games built with CRYENGINE."


"CRYENGINE
What's Included?
The latest version of CRYENGINE with all its features
Full Engine Source Code
Full commercialization for any games created
100% royalty-free
Access to all supported platforms
Primed for VR development
Buy and sell assets on the Marketplace
Access to Learning resources"

"Full commercialization

Users can commercialize any games they develop using CRYENGINE as they choose, without being tied to any distribution platforms or middleware services."

"We firmly believe that the people benefiting from a game’s success should first and foremost be its creators. That’s why games developed with CRYENGINE are 100% royalty-free, no matter how much you earn."

I really don't quite understand some aspects of this, does this mean Chris Roberts and Star Citizen could pay only $1 for the entire use of the engine? lol


Last edited by TheRiddick on 25 May 2016 at 2:00 am UTC

Quoting: TheRiddickI really don't quite understand some aspects of this, does this mean Chris Roberts and Star Citizen could pay only $1 for the entire use of the engine? lol

Large projects and developers almost invariably pay for support. Having the engine creators basically "in the team" actually often saves developers considerable sums of money due to less of their own expensive time spent stumbling on the quirks of the engine and more easily getting in fixes and tweaks instead of doing work-arounds in their game code. The only ones likely to pay trivial amounts are penniless indies, which is fine. This model enables both kinds of developers to make use of the engine.

Chris Roberts and co licensed CryEngine long before PWYW so paying $1(it is actually literally PWYW now, so you can pay nothing if you want) was never an option for them. But like tuubi said, AAA developers want official support and that is something you have to pay for seperately.

CryTek actually has membership subscriptions packages of $50/month and $150/month for those that can't afford a full custom asupport package: https://www.cryengine.com/get-cryengine/service-packages

But none of that is strictly needed to use the engine. You can use the engine, make games using it, get full source code access for the engine, tools, shaders, etc and all those things for $0 if you want. You can use that access to create fully commercial games that you sell on GOG, Steam, XBLA, PSN, in physical brick and mortar retail stores all without paying anything to CryTek. 0 royalties, 0 revenue sharing of any kind, 0 profit sharing of any kind, 0 one off fees of any kind, 0 subscriptions fees. Nothing. Completely free of charge.

So their revenue sources are as follows: PWYW fees + the subscription packages(the aforementioned $50/month or $150/month programs) + support packages + enterprise licensing(https://www.cryengine.com/get-cryengine/full-license) + revenue from the marketplace(30% of non-member revenue + 20% of member revenue).

I just don't see anything about that business model that is incompatible with say LGPL licensing.


Last edited by Kristian on 31 May 2016 at 9:09 am UTC

Quoting: KristianI just don't see anything about that business model that is incompatible with say LGPL licensing.

Can you legally restrict LGPL in the said ways? Like, you can't make simulators or architecture software using this source code and such. Doesn't it contradict with the GPL nature?


Last edited by rkfg on 2 June 2016 at 5:34 pm UTC

Quoting: rkfg

Quoting: KristianI just don't see anything about that business model that is incompatible with say LGPL licensing.

Can you legally restrict LGPL in the said ways? Like, you can't make simulators or architecture software using this source code and such. Doesn't it contradict with the GPL nature?

That is indeed the one exception. But if they were to go with the GPL instead of the LGPL they could sell GPL exceptions, a business area they don't have now. So I suppose it comes down to how big the simulator and architecture business is for them and how much of that they would miss out on if they went with the GPL. Can those industries live with GPL's requirements/restrictions?


Last edited by Kristian on 2 June 2016 at 6:42 pm UTC