




Is Open Source An Advantage For Game Developers? 493
chas7926 writes "OSNews.com is running an article that claims that the open source development model is not a very effective way to develop high quality games. Even the exceptions are not much of a threat to major label products. Does open source development only make sense for products like web servers and operating systems?"
Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Interesting)
No creativity in game design, just in artwork.
I've seen a lot of slick opensource games (Super Tux is really coming along, too), but they're all derivatives or direct clones of existing games.
Where is the real creativity?
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Insightful)
For an original game, that means you'll need a good idea (pretty rare in itself), a rudimentary (or better) engine -- that you'll have to code yourself, plus sufficiently well designed graphics and sound to get people interested.
That basically requires four separate skill sets, whereas writing a web server etc, needs at most two of those, and probably only one. And if you can't get your critical mass of developers, you're just another semi-abandoned sourceforge page.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well Carmack has release the engines for Doom, Quake, and Quake II. Granted their not state fo the art, but I still enjoy a good game of Doom deathmatch. Also look at all the features that are supported by doom these days. OpenGL, mouse look, jumping (from a standstill), and more. Sure most of the creative doom and quake mods are simply counterstrike clones, but they are perfectly good engines that you could make an original game with. The diversity of games cloned with the4 engines prove that.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that game mods, and level builders is the way to look at it. The original company built the engin
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Insightful)
much like how linux gained it's foot hold in the webserver & OS market. the game industry is just a bit further behind the curve.
how much longer will 'indies' (ie small non-publisher-affiliated dev houses like id) be able to compete against the mega dev studios like rockstar or EA? it's coming to the point where the return on investment is becoming too high, most companies simply can't even enter the market because of the cost of entry.
if you can suddenly shave off $250,000 + off of your startup costs (by using an open-source engine as opposed to licensing the tech), or more (as opposed to developing the tech from the ground up, which could cost millions), why wouldn't developers want to go the open-source route?
the main issue at this point is publisher resistance. publishers are the 'old school' business-mindset like the RIAA and the MPAA - they refuse to acknowledge that open-source exists and that it might be useful to their businesses.
in the game industry, it's all about the IP - if you own the IP then you can make money, whereas publishers look at open-source and are just scared away because of the simple words 'open source'. it implies to them that they don't control things...
It all comes down to the licenses and misconceptions about the requirements of those licenses.
GPL is the death of any game-related project for example. It is the kiss of death to a game library or toolset.
publishers have to know that they can close the source of the product, even for a short period around the release date (that crucial 3-5 months after release) so that they can make their money back...then once the game is out and 'old news' then they are more open to releasing code into the open-source field again.
Open source is slowly creeping into the industry, more from the toolset and libraries side of things, slowly sneaking in from the sidelines. Recent games like chrome used open-source physics engines (ODE), Id releases their old tech as open-source, but this doesn't really count because no one has ever used a gpl'd license and actually released a product with it afterwards...see my above comment about the gpl regarding that...
i personally feel that it's only a matter of time. we were at E3 last year and had really good responses from everyone we spoke with and have been making some great inroads with universities and other schools looking to work game developing into their courseware.
so, yes there ARE projects out there that are 'self-starting' and have been around for several years...it's just a matter of time until the rest of the industry notices and starts paying attention.
1. they laugh at you
2. they ignore you
3. they fight you
4. you win.
so far we're on step 2 - we've been laughed at, we are currently being ignored, next phase is the most interesting, when the 'old-school' mindset tries to drag it's heels avoiding the inevitable.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know that it's necessarily true, though. I'm starting to think that a "walled garden" approach might be best... keep particpation limited somewhat, and keep the product hidden from the public until it's done, and then release the source. Is there anything inherent in open source methodology that would make this impossible, or is it just that the current perception of open source doesn't involve walled gardens?
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Insightful)
2. they ignore you
3. they fight you
4. you win.
Although I don't mean to pick on the parent poster specifically, I see this line of reasoning (paraphrasing a popular quotation) quite often applied to open source software.
We would all do to remember that being laughed at or ignored is not necessarily an indicator of guaranteed future success. Sometimes people ignore products that are genuinely hopeless, too. Perhaps there are some types of software development that genuinely don't lend themselves to a full-on open source apporach.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please show me where you can obtain a commercial quality console or PC game engine and tools for free.
"the main issue at this point is publisher resistance. publishers are the 'old school' business-mindset like the RIAA and th
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like the gaming industry has been terribly innovative in itself either.
In a very real sense, they are all incredible knock offs of each others products with a wee bit of modification.
Hell, the top games in the industry are merely there to act as a advertisement to sale their wonderful new engine.
The whole arguement is senseless anyway. There is no true difference between an open source and a closed source creation of a game. Depending on the project size, you may need a few people or a team of individuals to handle the task.
The difference in the end being, one project may or may not have been made by professionals and the other project was indeed created by professionals. The added bonus is the open source project has freely available code.
Some of the greatest games we have seen to date were not made by professionals. Remember, Counter-Strike is just a modification and was made by some people via the free Half-Life SDK.
Again, it's a senseless arguement, the developement cycle can be nearly the same with an open source project. They imply there are strict management stereotypes which are followed when a project is not created outside of the work place.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that companies in the game industry don't attempt to directly clone existing games. They get very heavily inspired by existing titles and copy lots of features from them, even using a popular game as a prototype, but they don't simply attempt to write an exact version of a game right down to the name. You see this all the time in hobbyist game development.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you write something completely commercially unviable, like a direct clone of a game that's been out for thirty years, you almost have to give it away.
Back in my emulation days, crummy emulators were almost always free, while the really great ones (Magic Engine, for example) were shareware. When the crummy ones got to the same level of greatness, many of them would turn commercial, too. A community is a great thing if you don't have the knowledge or time individually to create a polished product...but if you create something new and fantastic and desirable on your own, you may as well ask for money. It's the eternal trade off: do you accept the burden of responsibility with a little cash, or do you give up reimbursement in exchange for the technical assistance of the community?
There's also the issue that many creative people are more interested in creating then dealing with the technical hassles often associated with OSS. I've noticed that the average shareware game for the Mac is prettier and more innovative (in terms of interface, usually) than the average Windows game. And I've never seen a Linux-only game I was interested in playing (Angband and Nettrek excepted, but only due to nostalgia)...the ones I've played were visually flat and uninspired.
Of course, the development of cross-platform game environments could change all that. If you can develop a game that looks good on a mac but will run on Linux/Windows/etc, why the hell not do so?
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a HUGE difference between "copying ideas from another game" (which is what most people do) and trying to copy a game right down to the fine gameplay details (frozen bubble)
Cost. (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, game companies end up in the toilet so often, I can't think they could easily toss the unique part of their work into the public domain and not suffer for it financially.
I think this would be a good place for 5 year software patent
Re:Cost. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cost. (Score:4, Insightful)
No it is a genuine risk for your project to be dependent on a 3rd party library. If it is an established and well regarded library than it is a very low risk. If the library is also under development then it is a high risk.
Re:Cost. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe planning is the problem with most open source games. We went into this project knowing it would be a painful, difficult process and accepted that before hand. It's not all fun and games but it is a heck of a lot of fun.
Re:Open Source doesn't mean you can ignore the law (Score:3, Interesting)
The courts have recently ruled [com.com] that "peer-to-peer software developers were not liable for any copyright infringement committed by people using their products, as long as they ha
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I can see where you're coming from. There definitely haven't been any innovative games created by professionals. Definitely not Commander Keen, The Sims, Doom, Quake, Battlefield 1942, Deus Ex, GTA3, PopCap games, Everquest... Nope, none at all.
Did you read the article? He points out some very important differences. Let me add another: code control. I don't want people whom I don't know poking around in code that they don't necessarily understand. I don't want people who don't understand data structures trying to add 'features' to my code. Games push the limits of your CPU and GPU all the time. You don't want to do that because of inefficiencies in the code. You want to do that because you're adding effects that people have never seen before. Or you want to make your units more intelligent then other players.
What strikes me as funny about your argument is that most of the innovation that has gone into games in the last 10 years is stuff that players generally don't even notice. Better pathfinding. Increased polygons count through more efficient storage. More textures used better. Better AI. Random map generation.
But players don't notice these things.
They just notice how this unit is similar to this other unit in this other game.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude. If you don't want people messing with your project, don't give them CVS commit access, and ignore unsolicited patches. Result? Complete control over your code.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:2, Funny)
See, when _I_ pointed this out in a previous article, _I_ was immediately modded through the floor by the 'Open Source IS CREATIVE IT JUST IS BAD MAN GO AWAY' crowd, so much so that I required several week's rest on a quiet Greek island before I could resume normal activity.
Whereas _you_, by way of contrast, are at +4.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:2)
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:3, Interesting)
What's interesting about that list is not only that they're all great open source games, but also that they're cross-platform!
Life is good for open source gaming.
Re:Why is Frozen Bubble used as an example? (Score:3)
Knock-off's are open sources "core business" (Score:3, Insightful)
I apologize if this sounds like a dig but please bear with me. Aren't knock-off's what most open source projects are all about. Sometimes it's a literal knock-off, Linux/BSD being knock-off's of proprietary Unix environments. Literal knock-off as in a Unix user knows how to use the system, Unix apps generally compile and run, not literal as in source cod
FOSS developers don't tend to be gamers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:FOSS developers don't tend to be gamers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:FOSS developers don't tend to be gamers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is certainly no knock against open-source development, just a statement of the current state of things.
Or good open source code favors developers (Score:5, Insightful)
You hinted at the heart of the issue: Who write open source software? Well, developers of course! And for whom is having the source open and free most advantageous? Developers, of course! My non-programmer friends and family don't really care about source code, but I do. And despite all the open source software I use, the only times I've ever really used to source was when I was programming. That is, I was using the infrastructure code such as a Java library from Apache Jakarta or tweaking some PHP or Python code for a wiki I wanted.
The most successful open source and free software projects are those that are directly used by developers -- where developers are the end user. This means things like web servers, languages, operating systems, libraries, etc.
Bruce Perens once even said it here on Slashdot (can't find the link at the moment) but open source development tends to favor software which can be developed incrementally. This isn't especially true of games. Games moreso than any other software product are a media production like a movie or book. It just doesn't fit with the open source development model as well. That doesn't mean that it can't work, but that the best and most successful open source tools will be those that are closest to the source of free software -- developers.
no OSS films? (Score:3, Informative)
okay, it's a bit tricky to have all your pre-edit artwork lying around for someone to edit into their own film but independent film-making is *very* alive and well.
Here's just one festival [bangshortf...stival.com]
You can easily find plenty more, even in your local area there's probably a film making scene.
Chicken and Egg (Score:5, Insightful)
Generating Eye Candy
Good game play
Considering all the enthusiastic LAN Party / Overclocker / Case Modding folks out there I would think Linux Distro's would appeal to them. The challenge is having the return on investment for the very labor intensive bits.
Re:Chicken and Egg (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like the Doom 3 and Unreal engines? They're not going to be open source until their respective developers judge that they have earnt all they can from them in licensing fees. Those earnings, incidentally, are already factored into the general budget for a big name game. I'd be surprised if long development time games like Half Life 2 and Doom 3 actually made much of a profit just on the retail game sales; I'd imagine that a fair chunk of it comes from licensing the engine.
The trouble with open sourcing the engines is that you can no longer charge those licensing fees, yet you still have to expend the time and money to develop the engine in the first place.
Re:Chicken and Egg (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree with that. It is quite possible (and dealt with in a gazillion different OS licenses) to distribute source for free, yet require license payments if said source, or a derivative thereof, is used in a commercial offering.
In fact, I would argue that due to the extremly high visibility of game engine software (a
Re:Chicken and Egg (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble with open sourcing the engines is that you can no longer charge those licensing fees, yet you still have to expend the time and money to develop the engine in the first place.
I think this statement pretty much proves the open source development model. ;)
You see, the reason the situation is as you've stated is because each game design company is having to make a new engine from scratch. Because the technological advancement involved in making a game provides a more marketable edge on the game
Completely open MMPORG - including "cheats" (Score:2, Interesting)
Then I realized it had already been invented in 1969 by some CompSci geeks based on some theoretical work at the RAND corporation...
Al Gore still? (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone should know by now that Al Gore didn't say he invented the Internet. (Just as we all should know by now that a Beowulf cluster of anything is cool.... we've imagined it. BSD is dead and goatse.cx is the worst thing we've seen)
Vinton Cerf even gave a good portion of credit to Gore [mintruth.com]:
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people
have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet.
Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as
Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect
on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore
was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people
were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.
As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high
speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and
the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected
official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have
a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and
scholarship.
Re:Al Gore still? (Score:5, Insightful)
A: Everyone should know by now that Al Gore didn't say he invented the Internet.
That's why, in my twisted mind, I thought it was funny, but it seems mods don't like twisted humor.
If you take into account that "Funny" doesn't give you karma, you can understand that "Funny" posts are just trying to be humorous, and not looking for mod points, and there's no need to be offended by them. Maybe I just tried to make a joke and you didn't find it funny. Maybe you should have understood that it was a joke, because it was
Especially, if he had actually said that he invented the internet (he said he took the initiative in creating it, a mistake, but not by far) , the joke would have died ages ago. I find it funny because it's a stupid comment to make. Alright.
Maybe I'm saying this in the wrong room.
Ok.
I'll leave.
Open-source art (Score:5, Insightful)
To make open-doom you'd also need open-source zombie models, open-source hell-growth textures and open-source moaning sounds.
Not true (Score:2)
Re:Open-source art (Score:2, Interesting)
With no compensation beside the enjoyment of the graphics and the games folks will do quite a bit.
Freeciv is a good example, isn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I do agree that open source model does not encourage games that are graphic intensive that involves a lot of artwork.
Re:Freeciv is a good example, isn't it? (Score:2)
Re: Freeciv is a good example, isn't it? (Score:2)
> However, I do agree that open source model does not encourage games that are graphic intensive that involves a lot of artwork.
Which could be a potential plus, since game companies, like Hollywood, have been focusing too much on effects and too little on substance.
Re:Freeciv is a good example, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, Freeciv is a very obvious and uncreative copy of the original Civilization. This is not bad, but it's not showing the open source model works well for games. At best, the open source model works well for cloning - this is why we have Freeciv, Stratagus, desktop environments that mimick Windoze, and MS Word and Office clones. Heck, even GNU/Linux is a UNIX imitation.
There is also original development, but it tends to produce only very simple or even proof of concept things - which is not even bad in a world where bloatware is the standard.
Re:Freeciv is a good example, isn't it? (Score:2)
But hey, we do have six hundred and forty-seven variants of Angband, two hundred and thirty-eight variants of NetHack, and nine thousand three hundred and twelve Tetrises.
And did anyone ever catch that wumpus?
Re:Freeciv is a good example, isn't it? (Score:2)
Re:Freeciv is a good example, isn't it? (Score:2)
Different Exceptions (Score:5, Informative)
Frozen Bubble? nah...
My Exceptions would be BZFlag [bzflag.org], Battle for Wesnoth [wesnoth.org], and FreeCiv [freeciv.org].
Re: Different Exceptions (Score:3, Informative)
> Battle for Wesnoth
Casual site visitors should note that the actual game looks much nicer than the screenshots would lead you to expect. This is a very polished (and fun) game, though still in pre-release v.0.8.3.
Re:Different Exceptions (Score:4, Interesting)
http://cannonsmash.sourceforge.net/
Re:Different Exceptions (Score:2, Interesting)
And as an added bonus, let me mention Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe [sourceforge.net] (main page down, unfortunately, but the files are there
Re:Different Exceptions (Score:3, Informative)
My Exceptions would be BZFlag, Battle for Wesnoth, and FreeCiv.
I used BZFlag and FreeCiv as the two exceptions in the last paragraph of the actual article. Did you read it?
Adam Geitgey
It might not be open source... (Score:5, Insightful)
When companies like ID release the 'game source' (not the actual engine code, but the code to the game) it helps mod makers, and ultimately gets more people to play the game, especially in it's modified form.
Eventually they released the source to games like Wolf3D, Doom, and Quake but that doesn't really hurt them. Heck, the Quake source code was stolen from Crack.Com where Dave Taylor was doing a port, and that didn't seem to affect them much at all.
Re:It might not be open source... (Score:3, Interesting)
Level design can be done the same way. Something like CUBE [fov120.com]'s multiplayer, online level editor would allow anyone to drop by and improve the levels.
But unlike a general purpose application with obvious goals, games are carried by the vision of one or two people usually - and the essence of 'collaboration' is marred by this leadership. Usually e
Well yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that this isn't an attack on Open Source; there are many things it does well. But like distributed computing it takes advantage of a squandered resource that's already there (spare cycles = free developers). Against an effecient supercomputer (dedicated developers) it can't compete. Whereas agaisnt a _broken_ supercomputer (Microsoft), it can.
Just my 0.02$
Re:Well yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's gonna take you 3 years to put out just a beta of your game, you're gonna fall behind.
Although, opensource mods for Q3A or Unreal are generally a lot better because it requires a HELL of a lot less work. the game's engine is already there, and if you just use the 3d engine to make a totalconversion, you're gonna have a much better product in a much shorter period of time than coding the thing from scratch.
i'm surprised that there's not more opensource initiatives dealing with mods. Especially since you can now you can pick up Q3A for 10$ in bargain bins.
Here's another exception: (Score:2)
Of course, there is no single player mode and it has nowhere near the eyecandy of closed-source shooters, but it is a notable exception.
"One play" games are the problem here. (Score:2)
Re:"One play" games are the problem here. (Score:3, Interesting)
its the media (Score:3, Insightful)
good games dont start and finish with the code.
quite true ! (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't open source everything... (Score:3, Informative)
Contents-driven development (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Contents-driven development (Score:3, Interesting)
And for those of you who would sco
Settlers of Catan (Score:3, Informative)
Soo.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frozen Bubble, Freeciv, neverball, Torcs, Battle for Wesnorth, cube etc.
Ok, those are nice and fun games. But,save perhaps a few simulators,
they are rather simple games. Simple but fun.
Where are OSS games like Knights of The Old Republic, Ratchet and Clank,
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. I like such games, never seen anything
open source remotely like it.
That's the kind og games we're talking about.
Re:Soo.. (Score:3, Insightful)
My point exactly.
Game developemnt is hard, it takes _alot_ of resources other than plain coding (mappers,animators,modellers,sound recordings, etc.).
collaborate on technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Story-based games, especially, deserve to be presented in a final, polished form. For that reason, I would not expect it to be released early and often. There is also a question of artistic integrity. Game designers, amateur and professional alike, have strong ideas. Can they share authorship with some dude on the Internet?
These kind of discussions... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately OSNews has a bad reputation in always bringing up such kind of discussions, which always ends in flamewars and trolling. Please let us be smarter than them!
Updates (Score:2)
And who wants to patch and recompile their favourite game every weekend?
two games as counter-point (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither have the fancy graphics, but for amount of hours spent (wasted) and general challenge / gameplay I think they are hard to beat.
And remember, in 'scoring mode', Nethack does not have any "saved game" so if you die the game is over. It's quite an accomplishment to actually finish the game. How far would you get in Doom 3 if you had to restart from the beginning everytime you died? Note that in Doom 3 (and all modern games) the map is constant; in Nethack levels are generated every time to start a new game.
(And if you want graphics there are mods on Nethack (and others) that add GUI interface. IMHO a good game is still good even if it's done in ASCII. Graphics should only be necessary to add to it.)
Re:two games as counter-point (Score:2)
Yeah right. Nethack again.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, i played angband and adom a lot, but in the end its nothing else then the simple most stupid "kill, get xp, kill, get xp, get item, kill..." repeated since 1978. No innovation (oh, wow, you can play a TOURIST class. he has a camera. WOW) and no gameplay appeal for anyone who doesnt have his free time to burn (like a typical geek).
Most stuff is created by need... (Score:2)
One set of models, textures/bumpmaps, sounds, animations and background, all made to fit together and work in an engine. For entertainment, it is a lot harder to get the proper team together and make that push.
I think particularly the engine-specificness is a killer. If I designed this über-cool monster with this
Not impossible, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
artists (Score:5, Insightful)
while open source programmers are certainly capable of the technical aspects of a game, it is in the overall presentation that is lacking. For example, there aren't going to be too many people willing to write an entire musical score to accompany a OSS game, nevermind having an orchestra perform it.
since open source generally means "in the programmer's free time" and "with basically no monetary resources to aid development" don't expect a game with the presentation values of Doom or Half-Life.
Digital artists are needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider also fact that contrary to code artwork is not reusable in most cases. Every time you have to reinvent the wheel.
Re:Digital artists are needed (Score:4, Interesting)
doom bad example (Score:2, Interesting)
The challenge since 1995 with the mainstream rise of 3d environmental games was to create "a game where you can do what you want and go where you want" this is all well and good, but utterly useless when trying to create a concise game. Believe it or not t
Flightgear (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Homepage:FlightGear is an open-source project. This means as long as you abide by the terms of the GPL license you may freely download and copy FlightGear. Anyway can have easy and open access to the latest development source code. Being an open-source project, we have made our file formats open and easily accessible. We support standard 3d model formats and much of the simulator configuration is controlled through xml based ascii files. Writing 3rd party extensions for FlightGear (or even directly modifying the FlightGear source code) is straightforward and doesn't require a large amount of reverse engineering. This makes FlightGear an attractive option for use in private, commercial, research, or hobby projects.
FlightGear is known to run on Windows, Linux, Mac OS-X, FreeBSD, Solaris, and IRIX platforms allowing the user run on their platform of preference.
Re:Flightgear (Score:4, Informative)
Valve.. hah (Score:2)
Games are one of the few exceptions (Score:2)
Certainly some games are exceptions, true classics that will stay forever. But these are more like movie classics than software classics.
Parts of games could easily be designe
Is Open Source An Advantage For Game Developers? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a good observation that there are very few good large open source games. I think the reason is simple: OSS depends on developer interest, and developers get demotivated after a while. This is why we have many good but simple games (e.g. the KDE games), but few large games.
There's a wider issue (Score:2)
Games are not tools. (Score:4, Insightful)
But with a open game, there is no business to be done. No $$ is returned. This is why we probably will never see IBM and the likes contributing to an open game. The only exception I could forsee is that an online game could be free, but subscription to servers would be charged.
Sure there are some developers which on their free time develop open games. Thats why there are a few. But because there are practically no developers payed by companies to develop open games, there are simply less effort going into open games than in web servers and operating systems.
The Obvious Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem of course, is the costs of bandwidth and server space needed.
OS Gaming hasn't moved much, but there is hope (Score:3, Insightful)
However I think one of the key points to move Open Source gaming further ahead lies in the tools, the engine and the data freely available, once we have reached a point where there is 'enough' of it available, we might see free games poping up. It won't be the hollywood blockbaster games, but it will be little short-stories and stuff which can be done by two or three persons. Some years ago you needed to basically start with a blank sheet of paper and no tools when you wanted to start a game, today we have at least a bunch of tools (Gimp, Blender, Wings3d, ...) available for creating content, in the sound area there is still much missing, but we are moving slowly forwards. We also have a bunch of libraries and engines, which while not being up to Doom3 standards, still might be enough for a homebrewn game, that said, with every game that uses them, they will of course also mature a bit more. On the content side however we are still at a very low level, however in large part that might be due to the lack of proper license and to the lack of tools in the past, thing might hopefully change a bit in the future.
Why I think it might work in the long run? Imagine in another five years we might have a repository full of 3d models, textures and sound. Now somebody comes along and wants to create a game, all he has todo is to select a collection of models and textures that will fit his story, point&click them together in some 3d editor and just add his dialogs lines to them. Some ready-to-use 3d engine will do the rest. Sure it won't look commercial quality, especially not like commercial-quality will look in five games. But a game created by such building blocks wouldn't look like it would look today, full of one-color box placeholders, but instead it would be full of well done 3d models. Sure there is still balancing and fixing needed, but those building blocks could reduce the entry level for game creation by quite a bit. It might not work for all games, but it might be still provide a good amount of entertainment. It won't replace commercial game development for sure, but it will be a good addition.
At it stands now however we have still a huge lack of manpower, not just artists, but also programmers who are able to work on a game, since even on the code side of a game, there is some kind of art involved that an average application programmer might not be able to provide. This lack of people is most likly caused by the lack of games on Linux, since those interested in game development are naturally also interested in games.
So if you are an artist or programmer who wants to move Linux gaming forward, stop complaining and do something, join projects which interested you be it games or the content-creation tools, which are at least equally important. If you don't know a project that would be worth joining, join us at the Game of the Month [slashdot.org] on Happy Penguin [happypenguin.org] where we pick a game every once in a while and try to polish it, thus joining forces and focusing it on a single project for a short period of time. Don't expect to end up with a Doom3, but your contribution can make a difference and might provide the gamers with another good game.
Re:OS Gaming hasn't moved much, but there is hope (Score:3, Informative)
Open Source *Middleware* (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that open source middleware makes perfect sense. It is reused between products and between companies. The primary consumers are themselves programmers. It benefits from
I believe this so strongly I started a project four years ago to produce open source middleware for 3D rendering in games--
G3D (http://g3d-cpp.sf.net).
It is now used by commercial game developers as well as hobbyists, researchers, and students. There are various networking, physics, and sound packages. We need more open source middleware for games, particularly on the tools side, where Blender and GIMP aren't yet sufficient alternatives to 3DS MAX, Maya, Photoshop, and level editors.
-m
Re:Costs (Score:5, Informative)
The only downside to using DirectX (which comes with a very mature SDK, samples, docs, and helper libraries these days) would be if you cared about porting to non-Microsoft platforms. This is, of course, a real consideration for some, but certainly not for all.
Re:Costs (Score:4, Informative)
What exactly did I miss here?
kb
game developer
who never had to pay anything to MS so far for using Direct3D
Re:Costs (Score:2)
Re:Duh.... it's the content not the machine (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Duh.... it's the content not the machine (Score:2)
to do just about anything, thus beeing big, overly complicated, and
often a bit slow. Crystal Space is getting there(as in huge) now, and
yet it hasn't one of the nicest thing an engine needs, which is good
iterfacing and converters for content creation.
Someone should perhaps convince garagegames to opensource their Torque
engine, it's really nice
Re:open sores is a failed business model (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh please! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been said before and I'll say it again and again until OSS developers understand it:
ENTERTAINMENT SELLS PLATFORMS.
If you want wide adoption of Linux or any other truly open source platform. You MUST MUST MUST get joe six-pack to buy into it and most people don't care about computers for anything other than entertainment. Once this happens, then businesses will begin to adopt OSS on the desktop because their users will already be familiar and their training costs will be lower.
All this BS about who can and can't have certain software because of this or that restriction, the GP (general public) not only doesn't care they don't even want to care. If a Linux platform is created that allows end users to:
1. Listen to CDs
2. Get on the Internet.
3. Watch video clips.
4. Do their personal finances.
5. Capture and email pictures to Grandma
6. Capture and work with video.
7. Sync their iPods, IPaqs, Palm, or *insert other device here*
8. Play Games they are familiar with (FPS, RPG, MMORPGs, RTS, "the Sims" *shudder*)
8. Play games with 3D acceleration
out of the box with no hassles, THEN the GP will buy it and not until. Once the GP buys into it then your pool of available talent increases dramatically and companies will invest in improvement. And not only that, if it is compelling, the public will PAY for it (Profit!). If given the choice of a yearly/monthly subscription rate or being able to tar/rpm/apt/etc to install software, the average public will pay every time if its quick and painless.
Now some distros have been doing a good job. I just installed Mandrake 10 for the first time and they almost have it right. I love OSS and am reasonably familiar with how the major environments work, but even I have my limit. It should not take me 30-60 minutes post installation to get most of the features I've listed above.
Ah well, I'll continue to use Fedora on my servers and Mandrake as my desktop until someone gets it right.
Look at that Karma burn!!
Re:Oh please! (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the GP buys into it then your pool of available talent increases dramatically and companies will invest in improvement.
Can you support this assertion, because I don't see why it's true.
Having millions of non-programmers using the software won't add appreciably to the programming talent pool. It will probably provide more bug reports, which is good, but will also dramatically lower the average quality of bug reports, which is very bad.
And how will having millions of desktop users convince compan
Re:Oh please! (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, let's compare installing Windows XP with Fedora Core 2 here (I choose FC2, because I installed it over my XP partition last night).
Installing Windows XP:
0. Insert disk. Wait for it to churn. Let it reboot (automatically). Enter language and network settings.
So now it's installed. This is what has to be done next.
1. Install service packs/security fixes (3 hours, but unattended).
2. Log in when it's done. Download and install latest NVidia drivers (10 minutes).
3. Download and install drivers for my HP printer (10 minutes).
4. Install sound drivers.
5. Install commercial DVD playing software (10 minutes, including fiddling to make it see the DVD drive which for some reason it didn't by default).
So Windows has already taken 3 hrs 20 minutes after installation. It WON'T sync with iPods/iPaqs by default until I:
6. Install some software to do so (depending on the device) - probably 10-15 minutes.
With Fedora Core 2.
0. Install FC2. One reboot.
1. Double click on the little red exclamation mark to fetch updates (45 minutes but unattended).
2. Install NVidia drivers. (10 minutes - no reboot required).
3. Discover I don't have to worry about the printer because the FC2 installer picked it up.
4. Install two RPMs (one for Xine and one for libdvdcss) to play DVDs (10 minutes).
5. Copy (no, not re-install) - just copy because there's no registry madness - the game I was playing on RedHat 8 (Return To Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory).
The thing is OSS gets held to a higher standard. Most people never install Windows or the drivers because it all comes pre-installed. If you actually install Windows XP from scratch, it really is no easier than a recent desktop Linux distro, and takes considerably longer due to the size of the security updates - which only cover the base OS.
On Windows, I would now have had to install all the other things (an office suite for example) that just come by default with a good desktop oriented Linux distro.
If you're installing both OSes from scratch - and therefore comparing like with like - you'll find it's considerably more effort to get a useful Windows install - I wager to get all those features you're after, even ignoring the time to patch the OS so it won't get owned in minutes, you'll spend at least half an hour installing drivers and rebooting. The last Windows XP install I did (for work - build an image for a fairly standard PC, with no unusual hardware) was well over half an hour installing drivers just to make the basic hardware - the ethernet card (not detected by Windows XP), the video card (a common as muck Intel chipset that comes with most business desktops - not detected by XP), the sound hardware (again, very common sound hardware - but not detected by XP) and mainboard chipset (a standard Intel chipset - not detected by XP!). The Knoppix disk I use to run our "factory" disk ghost imaging of the 70-odd machines we're deoploying on the other hand recognises all of this hardware. Linux has supported the hardware in these boxes (with the exception of the Broadcom ethernet hardware) for years. Of course, the normal user doesn't see this because they buy the machine with Windows XP pre-installed from Hewlett-Packard.
The irony is the fact that Linux supports so much hardware out of the box and Windows doesn't is partly because manufacturers don't support Linux, therfore the community has to write OSS tools for syncing with Palms and phones and printer drivers - and as these are OSS too, they get put on the Linux distro install disks so they are there ready for you on a default install, whereas with a fresh Windows install you're having to go through a pile of driver CDs to make your devices work because Microsoft doesn't have the freedom to put this on their XP installation disk.
There are many criticisms that can be