Terraria dev Re-Logic donates $100K to Godot Engine and FNA, plus ongoing funding

Licensing for closed source games with UPBGE is simple...

... until you want to do console ports...

For example, apparently the console SDK's are distributed only under certain conditions, governed by a non-disclosure agreement. If they don't give the SDKs to people using GPL licenses, when actually it's none of their business who owns the code and who else has rights to it, then it is a matter for the trade regulatory authorities.

So you want licenses for what you're allowed to link against and redistribute ruled invalid? You realize that would destroy the GPL, right?

Wow, talk about putting their wallet were their mouth is. Just bought Terraria to show my support for this kind of attitude.

Hm. Yeah, I've been sort of thinking I'm in the mood for a Terraria kind of game. Maybe it's time.
Edited to add: Bought it.

So far, not that happy with my choice. I can't figure out how to pause, I can't figure out how to access a main/options menu, and I really want to do that because all the UI elements, like what appears to be an inventory thing with like a sword and an axe and stuff, plus stuff some guy has said to my character, are so bloody tiny I can't make them out, and I really hope there are some options that can fix that.
(also can't figure out how to save the game, also would like to remap the wasd it uses because it also uses the mouse and I prefer to mouse lefthanded)

Maybe if I can figure out how to make it let me play the game, it will be a good game.

You can open the inventory with escape, then there will be a settings button in the bottom right (the settings menu pauses the game too). In the settings, there's a UI Scale slider, which should help with the small UI. there's also an autopause option if you want the game to pause when you open the inventory, and a controls menu (though I haven't really touched the controls personally).

Here's screenshots, in case I wasn't clear enough
https://imgur.com/a/f7lGNr1

For example, apparently the console SDK's are distributed only under certain conditions, governed by a non-disclosure agreement. If they don't give the SDKs to people using GPL licenses, when actually it's none of their business who owns the code and who else has rights to it, then it is a matter for the trade regulatory authorities.

So you want licenses for what you're allowed to link against and redistribute ruled invalid? You realize that would destroy the GPL, right?

No. I mean Microsoft or Sony may simply be not handing out the SDKs with the system APIs to people they don't like (i.e. GPL users). And maybe also handing out SDKs only if people sign NDAs. NDAs could include any type of condition including discrimination against GPL users. If they're doing things like that, then that is a big trade regulatory issue that needs to be fixed. From the GPLv2 side everything is great.

Nice - despite having lots of games to get through I just purchased Terraria. how can you not support these types of moves? thanks for the heads up up on tModLoader.

Wow, talk about putting their wallet were their mouth is. Just bought Terraria to show my support for this kind of attitude.

Hm. Yeah, I've been sort of thinking I'm in the mood for a Terraria kind of game. Maybe it's time.
Edited to add: Bought it.

So far, not that happy with my choice. I can't figure out how to pause, I can't figure out how to access a main/options menu, and I really want to do that because all the UI elements, like what appears to be an inventory thing with like a sword and an axe and stuff, plus stuff some guy has said to my character, are so bloody tiny I can't make them out, and I really hope there are some options that can fix that.
(also can't figure out how to save the game, also would like to remap the wasd it uses because it also uses the mouse and I prefer to mouse lefthanded)

Maybe if I can figure out how to make it let me play the game, it will be a good game.

You can open the inventory with escape, then there will be a settings button in the bottom right (the settings menu pauses the game too). In the settings, there's a UI Scale slider, which should help with the small UI. there's also an autopause option if you want the game to pause when you open the inventory, and a controls menu (though I haven't really touched the controls personally).

Here's screenshots, in case I wasn't clear enough
https://imgur.com/a/f7lGNr1

That worked. Things are considerably more do-able now. I can actually see the stuff in the inventory and the craft window thing and so on. Understanding how to get them to happen is still kind of wonky, but I've at least made a few things.

Godot's engine license is MIT, meaning that a company can come along and take massive amount of contributions to the Godot engine from the more social companies, and then build on it without releasing the engine tech in return : https://godotengine.org/license/ . Crytek suffered from this when they licensed CryEngine to Star Citizen - Crytek had a deal where, in exchange for opening the source code and assistance, they'd get access to bug fixes and optimisation improvements made by Star Citizen.

I don't really see the connection between Godot and Crytek. Godot's engine already is Open-Source unlike CryEngine which never have had a free/open license. Also Godot, unlike Crytek, are not developing and releasing their own games. A huge risk and the main reason for Cryteks financial troubles was several titles that did not hit their sales targets. Cryteks and CIG had (as far as we can know) a normal licensing where CIG got the source code for CryEgine in exchange for money and patches. This is very standard in the industry. The agreement almost certainly did not force CIG to use CryEngine, a fact that will be important later. If it did that would the direct opposite of industry standard.

But Crytek was in financial trouble and sold a copy of their engine to Amazon, who released it for free with an unethical anti-competitive restriction (that games that uses it have to rely on Amazon's Twitch / AWS integration IIRC).

Crytek made many stupid decisions over the years. Not releasing a new installment in their popular Crisis series may be the biggest, but also expanding the studio to focus on niche VR games. The worst and also most desperate was to sell their engine to Amazon. They then re-named it Lumberyard, added some integration to their different services and most importantly made it free for AWS customers. This means if you were developing a multiplayer game, and very likely already an AWS customer, there was zero reasons to use Cryengine instead of Lumberyard. Not only zero you would actually lose money if you used CryEngine instead of Lumberyard.

Star Citizen got away with not giving code back by "switching" to Amazon's copy : https://bit-tech.net/news/gaming/crytek-sues-cig-rsi-over-star-citizen/1/ . Star Citizen eventually settled out of court with Crytek, presumably when they got enough money to cover damages.

What do you mean "got away"? Why would they not switch? Also by being essentially the same engine it almost wasn't a "switch". The whole situation is so bizarre and unique because no other company in the industry has made the decisions Crytek took. Their court case was very weak and from my recollection most of it was dropped. However legal battles are long and costly and it's in most cases cheaper to settle. But many analysts made the conclusion that Crytek's case was on shaky ground.

I can only assume you have some sort of hidden agenda attack CIG. That's fine by me as I don't care for them. I don't care for Crytek either. I my opinion Crytek dug their own grave and have only them selves to blame for their misfortune. If CIG in the future should fail there will be books written on their many mistakes and dubious business strategies. But at least to my mind "fooling" Crytek will not be one of them.

Terraria isn't my cup of tea but maybe i'll give it a purchase just to support Re-Logic.

I didn't like Terraria the last time I tried it, but my son has been asking for it. Gonna have to grant his wish because these guys are amazing with this news.

Godot's engine license is MIT, meaning that a company can come along and take massive amount of contributions to the Godot engine from the more social companies, and then build on it without releasing the engine tech in return : https://godotengine.org/license/ . Crytek suffered from this ..

I don't really see the connection between Godot and Crytek. ..

I meant it as a practical example in society, where a lot of work is shared - and there is no reciprocity - for what ever reason. And how it results in duplicated work - social inefficiency. I was talking about the social phenomenon.

I recalled reading about the Crytek case in the news some time ago, but Ananace mentioned, in the post which I then liked, that during the discovery phase of the trial it emerged that Star Citizen had in fact sent their bug fixes and optimisations upstream as they agreed to, but presumably Crytek missed it. That's correct right? (I can't find a source talking about discovery with a casual google). So that's seems fine?.

The basic philosophy of opensource is reciprocity - share and share alike as CC licenses put it. It's a basic part of how a group species like humans evolved and succeeded compared to solitary species - it allows members of the species to specialise enough to understand and manipulate nature, safe in the knowledge that others specialise in other areas give back to the greater whole.

Recent developments in the game industry shows people learning about social concepts that the Open Source movement revolves around. This is despite the anti-social proprietary model promoted by Microsoft and their Windows ecosystem. The emergence and success of middleware engines shows the value in avoiding losing lifetimes of professional work to duplication. The gradual increase in sharing of code - by for example Crytek, Lumberyard, and Unreal Engine - shows the benefits of sharing tech.

What's missing with shared source arrangements like Unreal Engine's, is enforcing reciprocal sharing, with copyleft licenses.

Another issue with Unreal Engine is, even if a huge game project gives back improvements worth 1-2% of the total dev budget, they won't get a 1-2% cut of future revenue - even if Unreal Engine pays them a lump sum in return. Unreal could make far more money from the contributions from multiple games than the profit of the game that made the improvements (the game could also be a financial loss despite being technically good).

[quote=Nim8]

Star Citizen got away with not giving code back by "switching" to Amazon's copy : https://bit-tech.net/news/gaming/crytek-sues-cig-rsi-over-star-citizen/1/ . Star Citizen eventually settled out of court with Crytek, presumably when they got enough money to cover damages.

What do you mean "got away"?

If you read the article, the claim was that Crytek shared the source code to the engine and gave technical assistance in exchange for getting back modifications. And Star Citizen didn't give back the improvements. A quick search gives this article that links to the original claim :

"Section 7.3 of the GLA states that "[a]nnually during the Game's development period, and again upon publication of the final Game, Licensee shall provide Crytek with any bug fixes, and optimizations made to the CryEngine's original source code files (including CryEngine tools provided by Crytek) as a complete compilable version."

I can only assume you have some sort of hidden agenda attack CIG. That's fine by me as I don't care for them. I don't care for Crytek either. I my opinion Crytek dug their own grave and have only them selves to blame for their misfortune. If CIG in the future should fail there will be books written on their many mistakes and dubious business strategies

Actually, since CiG are crowd funded - they aren't as motivated by share holders and corporate greed..yet. I like Star Citizen generally. Although their marketing tactics to persuade individuals to give huge amounts of money for starting ships is dodgy, and may even promote grindy game design at launch to justify the crowdfunding price: I mean it would be odd if a very expensive ship was grindable in a perceptively short time. They also seem to have some sort of microtransaction for in-game currency even after launch, that will certainly compromise game design. They have seemingly not ruled out further monetisation of gameplay.

From an Open Source point of view there's limited socialness in Star Citizen as a project. Even though everything is crowdfunded and all "risks" are taken by those funding - presumably any future profits made go to a limited number of owners? And apparently some company brought a 10% stake and board seats in return for small $46 million in funding. These funds should have just been crowdsourced, or loaned with a maximum limit on payback - rather than give away a percentage of profits in perpetuity and have to think of shareholder interests from outside the space genre while doing game design. $46 million is less than 10% of the current $ 600 million crowdfunding alone. And even though the 10% shareholder gets seats at the board, the people who crowdfunded don't get 90%+ more seats to balance it. Star Citizen should see if the investor is amenable getting his return for his money in the form other than a percentage of the project and board seats. For example a large fixed sum given gradually as profits come in, or just simply give back 10% of the projects current worth to him ($60 million).

In addition, devs who created Star Citizen don't have an arrangement to receive compensation for any low pay, with interest and inflation on top. Traditionally game industry devs are underpaid compared to other engineering industries, terribly underpaid early in their careers, and may work very long hours so the payment per hour is low, not to mention bad workplace conditions at the whims of management and owners.

Devs also don't have an arrangement to reap the fruits of their work with a share of the profit, unlike at a company like Valve. This is even though the Star Citizen project was crowdfunded, and funders would prefer devs get profit, if funders were to sacrifice their share of the profits. There's also no guarantee excess profits will go towards devs in the form of more jobs - at least 10% will be taken out of the gaming industry by that investor. The rest is at the mercy of the values and vision of who ever owns Star Citizen.

A Valve type project structure where revenue is distributed to devs based on contribution is better. And a copyleft engine license should exist for a project that was crowdfunded to the tune of half a billion+ dollars.

However, compared to all else that goes on in the industry - with share holders taking billions out of the gaming industry each year and predatory monetisation on top - Star Citizen isn't that bad, at least so far.

This drama was a long time ago when both Star Citizen and Crytek were managed badly, and also had their own lack of funding compared to what they were trying to do. But those issues are pretty common in the closed source gaming ecosystem, and the structure of companies and ownership.

Funding issues are exacerbated by consoles walling off the gaming industry. Star Citizen, at least initially, will likely miss out on revenue because a massive portion of the gaming ecosystem is walled off by Sony and Microsoft, with a large cut for publishing.

In a world where consoles weren't walled off, consoles would be binary compatible with desktop code, like the Steam Box is. And game projects could release independently whenever they could get code performing well on a set of hardware. Star Citizen should run on latest gen consoles even now. Games would also be able to release using their preferred store. That store should ideally be a cooperative non-profit opensource project. One which should have an opensource game recommendations and discovery system similar to the Valve algorithms, set to criteria created by completely independent academics, reviewers, and players.

As it is, there's a lot less exposure for crowdfunding projects because consoles are walled off, even more so when console users who hear about crowdfunded projects can't run the early access versions, or even the launch version. I mean Microsoft gave up 10 million+ sales of just 2 games by using them as XBoX exclusive ammunition in their war with Sony.

With the current situation, it's the people working on game industry projects, related hardware projects, and their families, that suffer - not to mention the public who ultimately give 100% of the money in the game industry, and society that suffers whatever the long term social costs (a non-predatory game has some worth?) are of having games (entertainment/art) that are less inspiring, inferior, less accessible, expensive, and predatory.


Last edited by Nim8 on 24 September 2023 at 7:39 am UTC

What's missing with shared source arrangements like Unreal Engine's, is enforcing reciprocal sharing, with copyleft licenses.

Even non-copyleft licenses enforce reciprocal sharing in some ways, by allowing for forks, meaning that one entity does not maintain absolute control of the code. Shared source arrangements are fundamentally different from open source, even from the most "permissive" open source licenses. Mind you, I'm a copyleft fan myself.