quote: But this really applies to the Linux community, since the geek percentage is way bigger than for example the Windows so,,umity (if there is such a thing). Most people running Linux know how to compile stuff.

Just because you make it in Linux doesn''t mean you can''t distribute it to the general public as a Windows executable! One of the things Linux does best is porting!

But you have a point, comparing gaming to Linux distrubutions is unfair. But I''m just throwing out ideas here. Which ones you take is entirely up to you. And copy-protection is harder (impossible in the geek world) if you decide to open-source everything. Which is why I don''t really recommend it, unless you''re not shooting for $$.

I like Godfree^''s suggestions. They''re practical for both sides of the issue.


"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away" --Henry David Thoreau

I think it was someone from Loki (feel free to correct) who suggested a similar open-source games model. I''m not sure how well this would work...say, for example, that the Unreal engine was OSS. Would people actually buy the game, or would they wait for the mod-making community to release some free versions, which include all the art, levels, music, and so on? I guess the question is, who do we think can make a better game: the game company, or the community? I''m really not sure...

Martee
Magnum Games

I''ve said it before, and I''ll say it again. The value of a big, successful, commercial game is not in the art, it''s in the code. The technology. If a company creates a state-of-the art 3D engine, or a extremely powerful AI system, it gains an advantage over all other game companies. If they release the code as open source and try to get people to buy the game (i.e pay for the media) they will have lost that edge.

That''s why opensourcing the top-notch games will not happen.

quote: Original post by Lord Chaos

I''ve said it before, and I''ll say it again. The value of a big, successful, commercial game is not in the art, it''s in the code. The technology. If a company creates a state-of-the art 3D engine, or a extremely powerful AI system, it gains an advantage over all other game companies. If they release the code as open source and try to get people to buy the game (i.e pay for the media) they will have lost that edge.

That''s why opensourcing the top-notch games will not happen.

Oh yeah, C&C: Tiberian Sun has voxels, but we soon found out that didn''t make people like it. Along your reasoning, Worms: Armageddon shouldn''t have sold as many copies as it did. Wer''re talking cartoon-quality here.

It''s the fun factor that matters, not the technology factor!


"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears, however measured or far away" --Henry David Thoreau

Read my post again.

"If a company creates a state-of-the art 3D engine, or a extremely powerful AI system, it gains an advantage over all other game companies. If they release the code as open source and try to get people to buy the game (i.e pay for the media) they will have lost that edge."

I didn''t say that just because you have superior technology, you will be successful. BUT, if you have superior technology, you will have an advantage. And in 99% of the cases, it''s not about the fun factor, it''s about advertisement. For example, Looking Glass Studios went down, even though they made innovating and fun games (according to all the reviews), but still they sold bad.

And I still think that the value of a game is in the code. Code can be reused. Code can be modified. Code is knowledge. Good code is a huge advantage. Code IS hard cash, in game programming. OpenSource does NOT apply to games the same way as it does to huge office applications or operating systems.

Why do people always rant about making the code free, and make people pay for the media? How about making the media free, but pay for the code?

Quake, Doom and Wolf3d are open sourced code but you have to pay for the media. SO they are not true open source software.

------------------------------
#pragma twice

sharewaregames.20m.com

Just because we''re using Linux it doesn''t mean we should make all our products open source. I think it''s something very personal.

Even if I don''t release the game or etc opensource, I can release something I made for the project, like a library for loading a weird 3D format found in some 3D program etc.)

If I think that my code is something from another world, maybe I won''t want to share it. Personally, I think I would want.

The point is to help humanity, not do homework for them

Hey, Blizzard could do like ID, since Diablo II is complete and selling like hell they could give us the source of Diablo



Gaiomard Dragon
-===(UDIC)===-

quote:
Quake, Doom and Wolf3d are open sourced code but you have to pay for the media. SO they are not true open source software.

Eh? It''s Open SOURCE not Open MEDIA! I have only skimmed through the Open Source Definition, but I don''t see anything that says that Open Source software must be totally free.