Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Publishing free software video games

writefreesoftware.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: Publishing free software video games

#81

Post by JohnFen »

pserwylo wrote: post #20
progval wrote: post #14

This is targeted toward "securing your game’s legacy", but it seems to be missing a crucial part of some games: servers. When games have a required online component, servers shutting down are the most likely reason the game becomes unplayable, more than the client not working on current platforms. So another option that could be added to the list would be to make the server free software (or at least share its binari…

I write and maintain a GPLv3 multiplayer game for Android to satisfy a creative itch. While writing the game, sustainability of the server component is top of my mind. I'd hate for the game to stop working for others down the line because I lose interest or am otherwise no longer able to tend to it. For those interested, I've documented the process I adopted to try to increase the bus factor beyond one [0]. I want pe…

I love your approach! In the early days, this was how most games with an online component worked. Here's hoping it comes into wider fashion again.

In the meantime, keep on rocking it!

Re: Publishing free software video games

#82

Post by JohnFen »

noduerme wrote: post #35

>> But my code is embarrassing! This has always been the first reason I haven't open-sourced some of my code. The second being that it's also totally useless, and lots of people could write it better.

Take heart -- I've been in a position to see the source to a lot of high-end software, including some games, Windows, etc.

One thing that it all has in common is that the source is rarely better than ugly. It's unlikely that yours is any worse than most others.

Re: Publishing free software video games

#83

Post by feoren »

User23 wrote: post #77
feoren wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They explicitly say they have no position on artwork Right, the FSF has always had the view that software developers are the only creative professionals who must be shamed for not releasing their hard work for absolutely free. Authors are allowed to hold copyrights on their books, artists on their paintings, musicians on their music; but programmers? Fuck them if they even THINK about trying to maintain control of…

> I suppose you’re not a big fan of right to repair either then? Nobody is forcing you to write or use free software. However, freedom is intrinsically valuable, and there’s a huge difference between being able to control your own computing hardware vs reading second rate children’s books. > I want to make money in proportion to the value I add to the world That’s a pretty thought, but nobody does. Perhaps you should…

>

I suppose you're not a big fan of puppies then?

> right to repair

This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright except that you lump them both together under "freedom". That's your arbitrary grouping, not mine. You're free to use tape to fix your copy of Harry Potter if it rips. Nobody has ever disputed that. You're not free to mass produce copies of it and sell it for profit.

I am arguing that it's okay that an author enjoy copyright protection on the book, and you're here saying "you're telling me I can't even tape a ripped page in MY copy of Harry Potter!?". It's inconceivable to me that you're making that argument in good faith. I simply do not believe you that you don't see the difference in those situations. If you're about to make the argument that in order to repair a John Deere tractor, you need the right to copy their code into your own competing line of tractors, you've gone off the deep end.

> Perhaps you should revise your expectations to be realistic?

Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma?

Re: Publishing free software video games

#84

Post by uzerfcwn »

tsimionescu wrote: post #76
uzerfcwn wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't know of any popular game that didn't have DRM and didn't have very strict IP implications on fan content (say, after the early 90s maybe?). It's not like the teams behind the original DOTA or CS or TF ever made money selling those, and would have likely been blocked even if they tried. Warcraft 3 (2002, 2003) was infamously lax on IP, leading to e.g. several big DotA clones that employed the modders (Dota2 f…

League of Legends never stepped on Warcraft trademarks as far as I know, even though they were a clone of DOTA. Valve and others battled it out legally with Blizzard over the DOTA name and eventually won, but this was definitely not Blizzard's intention - and of course they didn't use any Blizzard-created art in the final game. Note that I don't think anything in the W3: reforged terms of service would prevent a new…

> Valve and others battled it out legally with Blizzard over the DOTA name and eventually won, but this was definitely not Blizzard's intention - and of course they didn't use any Blizzard-created art in the final game.

Had Blizzard owned DotA IP, I believe Valve would've had to steer much further away from the map, character and item design. IP extends beyond just art and naming, see e.g. Tetris vs Mino [1]. The case wouldn't have been a guaranteed win for Blizzard, but the early releases of Dota 2 were really closely copied from late releases of DotA, so the argument is there.

> Note that I don't think anything in the W3: reforged terms of service would prevent a new game being created based on a W3 mod, it would just prevent it from using the same name and art as the mod. This is exactly what happened to all other successful mods, with Dota2 being pretty much the sole exception.

Keyword being successful. Many maps have standalone ports that kept their predecessor's name [2][3][4][5], but only Dota 2 is really successful. And again, I believe these wouldn't exist or would've made large changes if Blizzard owned the IP of Warcraft 3 mods.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/defining-tetris-how-c...

[2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/578350/Element_TD/

[3] https://store.steampowered.com/app/537680/Sheep_Tag_2/

[4] https://store.steampowered.com/app/469600/Legion_TD_2__Multi...

[5] https://store.steampowered.com/app/676580/NEO_Impossible_Bos...

Re: Publishing free software video games

#85

Post by User23 »

feoren wrote: post #83
User23 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose you’re not a big fan of right to repair either then? Nobody is forcing you to write or use free software. However, freedom is intrinsically valuable, and there’s a huge difference between being able to control your own computing hardware vs reading second rate children’s books. > I want to make money in proportion to the value I add to the world That’s a pretty thought, but nobody does. Perhaps you should…

> I suppose you're not a big fan of puppies then? > right to repair This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright except that you lump them both together under "freedom". That's your arbitrary grouping, not mine. You're free to use tape to fix your copy of Harry Potter if it rips. Nobody has ever disputed that. You're not free to mass produce copies of it and sell it for profit. I am arguing that it's okay that an…

>

Computer programs are radically different from literary and artistic works. It’s unsurprising that laws that were designed for paper books are less than a great fit for software. Indeed, software probably shouldn’t be eligible for copyright protection at all. Recipes which are another species of algorithm aren’t accorded copyright protection because they are simply a set of instructions.

> Perhaps we should all work to bring about the world we want to live in, instead of playing Prisoner's Dilemma?

In that case you should be paying the users of your proprietary software because you are observably reducing the value of their computer compared to a free alternative.

Re: Publishing free software video games

#86

Post by bentley »

My favorite proprietary game that went to free licensing is Star Control 2: The Ur‐Quan Masters.

Wikipedia: “Released to critical acclaim, Star Control II is widely viewed today as one of the greatest PC games ever made, and has appeared on numerous publications lists of the greatest video games of all time.”

Available as ‘uqm’ in most package managers, or from https://sc2.sourceforge.net/.

Re: Publishing free software video games

#87

Post by TheMode »

brohee wrote: post #75
TheMode wrote: post #23

What we need are programs compiled down to some minimal instruction sets, simplifying the implementation of custom vm able to run such software. The source does not mean anything if there is no working compiler, or if the compiler doesn't support your new shiny platform. It is the same for servers. Having the source for a whole hosting service depending on some specific hardware doesn't matter. If we decide to truly…

SCUMM VM is now like that, plenty of Point and Click games https://github.com/scummvm/scummvm

My main point is that you shouldn't depend on code to be able to run the program, but on the spec. Hence the emphasize on the spec being simple to implement.

There is no way to ensure that a vm/compiler will last forever, especially given the infinite amount of potential platforms. Binary search as a concept will last longer than ScummVM.

Re: Publishing free software video games

#88

Post by hgs3 »

whateveracct wrote: post #53
hgs3 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Games are a combination of art and code. Why should programmers be the only one's required to release their work under a viral license? Artist should as well.

I mean I do think it's fine if you wish to try to take this route. Nothing morally wrong or anything. But I think the art itself isn't just like code. It's not just the bits used to make images on screen. There are characters, stories, ideas, and worlds being created derived from the artist's personal life and philosophy. That's the actual appeal, and there are more downsides to making your IP open like this than the…

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think game code - which is responsible for the mechanics and "feel" of a game - is merely "bits used to make images on screen." To me game code is as unique as the artwork. However, the purpose of the engine code is as you describe so maybe it could be FOSS? Maybe LGPL?

Re: Publishing free software video games

#89

Post by tsimionescu »

uzerfcwn wrote: post #84
tsimionescu wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

League of Legends never stepped on Warcraft trademarks as far as I know, even though they were a clone of DOTA. Valve and others battled it out legally with Blizzard over the DOTA name and eventually won, but this was definitely not Blizzard's intention - and of course they didn't use any Blizzard-created art in the final game. Note that I don't think anything in the W3: reforged terms of service would prevent a new…

> Valve and others battled it out legally with Blizzard over the DOTA name and eventually won, but this was definitely not Blizzard's intention - and of course they didn't use any Blizzard-created art in the final game. Had Blizzard owned DotA IP, I believe Valve would've had to steer much further away from the map, character and item design. IP extends beyond just art and naming, see e.g. Tetris vs Mino [1]. The cas…

Given that League of Legends, Dota 2, and Blizzard's own Heroes of the Storm all share virtually the same map today, and are not engaged in any IP battles over it, I don't see any reason to believe Blizzard owning the original IP of the DOTA mod would have made any difference in terms of blocking the map design from being reused in other games. If anyone could have owned this map design, either Riot or Valve would have already sought to block the others from using it.

Re: Publishing free software video games

#90

Post by uzerfcwn »

tsimionescu wrote: post #89
uzerfcwn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Valve and others battled it out legally with Blizzard over the DOTA name and eventually won, but this was definitely not Blizzard's intention - and of course they didn't use any Blizzard-created art in the final game. Had Blizzard owned DotA IP, I believe Valve would've had to steer much further away from the map, character and item design. IP extends beyond just art and naming, see e.g. Tetris vs Mino [1]. The cas…

Given that League of Legends, Dota 2, and Blizzard's own Heroes of the Storm all share virtually the same map today, and are not engaged in any IP battles over it, I don't see any reason to believe Blizzard owning the original IP of the DOTA mod would have made any difference in terms of blocking the map design from being reused in other games. If anyone could have owned this map design, either Riot or Valve would ha…

That's really stretching the meaning of "virtually the same map". LoL and Dota 2 maps look similar on the minimap (HotS not so much), but they're drastically different when you start looking at points of interest and juke paths. In contrast, Dota 2 used to have almost exactly the same map as DotA (differences being shops and hero selection, which were changed from ingame units to actual UI menus).

Not to mention that Dota 2 also copied the exact skillsets of heroes and items. Not just likeness, but even most silly bugs that were due to the Warcraft engine.

Edit: Anyways, this is getting sidetracked. My point is that Warcraft 3 was lax with intellectual property for the longest time, and mods like DotA most certainly leveraged that.

Post reply on HN