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

EA Open Sources Command and Conquer: Red Alert, along with other games

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–339 of 339 posts

Re: EA Open Sources Command and Conquer: Red Alert, along with other games

#331

Post by jamesfinlayson »

account42 wrote: post #270
jamesfinlayson wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought about this recently - probably Valve is reluctant to because people are still licensing both the GoldSource and Source engines (I think the last GoldSource engine license was in 2020 but the game hasn't even been announced; I think four Source engine games are due this year). If EA released the Nightfire engine code (very advanced GoldSource engine fork) that would be great though! But it's sad that John Ca…

This might be an argument if those engine licenses were more than a rounding error in Valve's profits. I seriously doubt that that's the case.

I think it's more to protect the current licensees though - I have no idea how much an engine license costs, but I don't think it's cheap, and I'd be pretty annoyed if I'd dropped that money a year or two ago only to find out that the engine costs nothing.

That said, I'd be a little surprised if any more engine licenses to get sold so maybe give it a couple of years.

Re: EA Open Sources Command and Conquer: Red Alert, along with other games

#332

Post by jamesfinlayson »

klaussilveira wrote: post #260
jamesfinlayson wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought about this recently - probably Valve is reluctant to because people are still licensing both the GoldSource and Source engines (I think the last GoldSource engine license was in 2020 but the game hasn't even been announced; I think four Source engine games are due this year). If EA released the Nightfire engine code (very advanced GoldSource engine fork) that would be great though! But it's sad that John Ca…

I completely forgot about Nightfire! What an amazing game it was.

I know! I played some multiplayer (against bots) not long ago and I don't remember it from the first time around, but there were no blood decals. I wonder if Gearbox just developed one low-violence version that they could sell in all markets.

Re: EA Open Sources Command and Conquer: Red Alert, along with other games

#333

Post by tuantruong »

SXX wrote: post #83

Whoever pushed for this at EA - my deepest respect is with you! Original C&C was rewritten from scratch long ago, but open source version of Zero Hour is such an amazing gift. PS: if you want to send respects to the person who did it you can do it on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jim-vessella-62726825_from-th...

respect to the dude, what a great act !

Re: EA Open Sources Command and Conquer: Red Alert, along with other games

#334

Post by account42 »

nyarlathotep_ wrote: post #315

Looking at the README for Red Alert specifically and the various requirements, how is it possible that these run on modern Windows? OFC they're distributed via Steam as binaries + libs etc, but are they including these ancient versions of DirectX and the other dependencies with the downloads? Are these still compatible? I know Windows has/had for years remarkable backwards compatibility, but that's always been a sour…

Yes, windows provides backwards compatibility for these old DirectX versions. They are probably mapped to a newer version internally. It doesn't take that much work to pull this off.

Re: EA Open Sources Command and Conquer: Red Alert, along with other games

#335

Post by account42 »

nicce wrote: post #7

> To use the compiled binaries, you must own the game. > This repository and its contents are licensed under the GPL v3 license, with additional terms applied. Please see LICENSE.md for details. It does not sound open-source to me...

Maybe read LICENSE.md before making such claims. The additional terms are about limitations of liability and being explicit about what is not covered (e.g. trademarks). The GPL allows such additions.

Re: EA Open Sources Command and Conquer: Red Alert, along with other games

#336

Post by account42 »

nicce wrote: post #31
Macha wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it sounds like the Red Alert code is available under GPLv3 (plus some additional "we want to be very clear, this doesn't cover the trademark" terms tacked on), but you can't build it without DX5, which gets compiled into the binary, thereby making the binary non-free. Someone could port it from DX5, GCL, and HMI and produce something that builds as GPL. The other part is it doesn't include the game assets or…

That sounds reasonable, but they could have worded it differently. They first statement about DX: > or write new replacements (or remove the code using them entirely) for the following libraries; But, they say that binary is proprietary regardless, no conditions. So it is very difficult to say. If the code compiles without assets (no mention about them, it sounds like it should compile), then the resulting binary sho…

They don't say the binaries are proprietary. "To use the compiled binaries, you must own the game." is not a statement about licensing, which is why it is not under the "license" section. It's a statement about completeness of the repository: it doesn't include the game data which you need to obtain separately buy buying the game. This is pretty much standard for open source releases of old games.

Re: EA Open Sources Command and Conquer: Red Alert, along with other games

#337

Post by account42 »

nicce wrote: post #25
dubcanada wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does open-source mean it's free? I don't think that is what it means, it just means the source is open, viewable, and you are free to use it as per the licensing.

Yes, it actually means that. https://opensource.org/osd

No it doesn't. You are allowed to require payment before you provide a copy of open source software.

Re: EA Open Sources Command and Conquer: Red Alert, along with other games

#338

Post by Doxin »

lucb1e wrote: post #201
bee_rider wrote: post #74

I only glanced at the code in ANIM.CPP but for a C++ program from 1997 it looks kinda nice, right? The methods are all short, with some descriptive comments at the top of each one. Inputs and outputs described. Nice index at the top of the file. I’ve seen worse!

I made some games as a teenager and had the experience that I was basically forced to stop projects because they got too complex. Game Maker had only limited support for things like variable scoping; you really need to isolate components and have them all do their own defined thing to make it not grow too complex or you'll fix one bug and cause two new ones. Even more so as a team, I can only imagine, though I never…

And then there are games like undertale that have all the dialog trees in a single gigantic 1000+ line switch statement.

Determination can make up for a lot of deficiencies in other areas.

Post reply on HN