Computer games and open source/free software

[lazygamer]

I posted a topic like this last night, but it got deleted. I doubt it was the moderators(do you delete threads, or just put them in the dead thread zone?), because the forums were down just after I posted it.
(luckily I copy and past my threads for safety)

NOTE :o pen source AND free software are always being refered to, not just one of them. I know there's a difference.

This will be one long rant. It started out small, but grew really large. I may be longwinded and bad at writing something, so forgive me if need be.

Ok imagine all that stuff about free software and open source. Great, cool etc.

One thing that NO ONE, not even Stallman mentions is COMPUTER GAMES! These are the negelected black sheep of the free software world, no one says how they should be, no one ponders their status. Everyone seems to think that there is more important things to a system then games(wrong).

Ironically, computer games might be the ONLY software that woulden't work out as free... Or would it?

A computer game is not some important productivity application. No one will suffer or be locked in to unfair corporate control if the source code is not available. Great amounts of effort are made to create an engine, an engine which isn't as reuseable as other types of code, an engine which may only be used a few times.

Would there still be incentive to make games and try to make money off them like they currently do with GPL stuff? It seems like games REALLY rely on their proprietary aspect to survive.

Ok but there is some serious dents to this argument. If games were free software, they would still cost cash, but could legally be "pirated"(which counts as copying not pirating). In the current market there is incentive to buy a game rather then pirate it. Warez sites are horrendous, P2P serivces are unreliable, and there is copy protection that makes burning more of a hassle for the less technically inclined. Don't forget about the size of the downloaded game, even with DSL(DSL is heavily dependant on finding a FAST download). With free software, these games would be available on lots of no-bullshit, easy to find download links. "Pirating" open source games sounds bad until you consider that there is a massive amount of pirating anyways.

The other aspect is price fixing. Computer games make excessive profits, have un-needed costs(ADVERTISING OF ALL SORTS! Stupid fucknuts, quit advertising and make a better game, or use the money saved from advertising to drop the price), and must make up for piracy in these costs. Alot of piracy comes from the price itself! Even after all these factors are taken care of, the price is still fixed! Sure it may go down, but only moderately.

Ok how can open source games possibly work? I went into this thread with a "nay" ideal, and after thinking some, left with a "HELL YA!" ideal. Imagine:

Open source games would have much lower costs, they may even sell really good too. Everyone knows that they can buy a copied version, but buying a copied version would prevent the game companies from making more games. With open source games, the corps can fuck off, the programmers are the kings now! They only have some menial labor corprate-ish staff to run the less cool functions of the company. People may suddenly be inspired to buy ONLY from the game companies(not 3rd party people selling $5 burnt CD's), because they would know the evil old style corps of the gaming past are dead. You see they would have a moral obligation.

People who bought pirated versions woulden't be freeloaders. They would be those who are too poor to afford the regular prices(well not everyone, some would be freeloaders), and are getting to be part of the community anyways. Kinda like giving to the poor. In the current corporate game development system this ideal would not work, people are robbed of morals because they hate the companies and are disatisfied at them. Open source brings new morals and a new sense of community and honor.

This would also turn into an excellent anti evil corporation system(evil corps, as in corps that happen to be bad corps, not corps in general). Start making too much excess profits that you hoard for yourself or waste on fruitless mass advertising, your company dies(because you didn't put that money back into games). Only the morally pure companies survive.

Ok but it gets even better. There is no restrictions on the source, companies team up directly or in-directly. Game engines start doing shit that is absolutely amazing, and these engines get more and more optimized. With the optimization that comes from all the companies no longer using new hardware to pick up the slack, developers could make games that run good on older hardware, or need newer hardware to run and use amazing technology. Everyone is moving in one direction, greater and greater games.

Linux companies sell service, game companies sell you a game to put on top of their engine(and a box+manual, and some tech support!), an engine which is far more modable then something like Half-life.

This leads me to one of the greatest parts of all. People could make mods for their favorite games in a way that has never been done before. They can either rip the damn thing apart so the game can work the way they want it, or just use the high level game scripting tools that the developers provide with it. Also, these mods could be totally free projects with no burnt CD available. Or, people might start mod teams who rely on people buying their very low priced mods(much lower then the cost of the actual low cost main game) to continue being able to do this in their spare time.

The only problem is a lack of standards. So maybe people would try to create mods that are based on one company's engine for proper compatibility and much better support(as people flock to one engine, more and more tutorials and coders become available). This may negate the advantage of modifying the source code to make your game better. However, chances are the engines would be pushed to such a high level of excellence(due to open source), that mod makers would end up never having to use the raw source code(the scripting language does everything)!

Heard about h4x0r strike 2 for Full-life? Dammit I don't have Full Life, well I want to try this out. I'll just download Full-life for free and perhaps buy it if I like h4x0r strike 2. With current games, whether people bother making a mod depends on how many people own the main game. With open source games, developers are free to choose whichever engine works the best for their needs.

With so many advantages, how could open source games get any cooler? To stay in buisness as a full time company, the actual game developers(not just small time stuff, the big trend forging leaders), would need to staffed by alot of members that are vastly superior to the average talented spare time designer(perhaps superior to the average current gaming industry worker). Companies would be reduced to elite organizations of the best minds in the gaming world, making even better games and engines for all!

What does everyone think of my gaming utopia concept? To me it sounds like free software can lead games into a new age. Perhaps Linux could start this very soon, but it may not work properly until Microsoft is dead for a few years. People will still be used to their past morals of rampant pirating(after Microsoft is dead), not understanding the moral light of the new open source OS's that are everywhere.

Chances are everyone will move to Mac and Linux, so will the game companies. In theory, if the community was behind them, open source developers would destory closed source developers. This could be accomplished either by converting them or destroying them. The GPL would be a deadly bug, converting companies outright(by using GPL code and complying with the rules), or giving them a major disadvantage in competing with open source companies(because they decide to avoid using GPL code). Sure they could steal GPL code and break the GPL, but they would get raped by the FSF.  

Another advantage for open source game companies, people would be more inclined to buy open source games. They can do more with it, they cost less, and they are helping to bring about a future Utopia.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: lazygamer ]

[Calum]

i agree, but it generally takes one generation to make a real change in anything.

as for Stallman not mentioning games, he does indeed mention them in his essay 'Free as in Freedom', although briefly. he is talking about his vision og GNU/HURD as a totally Free Software operating system and he says that everything you can do with proprietary software would ideally be replicated by some piece of Free software, including games. i am paraphrasing, but i think it's important that he didn't say 'including office software' or 'including mp3 sharing'. It's obvious that games are not ignored by stallman, and probably a lot of other people, but games are HARD and tend to use a lot of tricks that other programs have no need to use, they tend to want direct control of the hardware et c, and what with Free software's need to be cross platform (unlike win32) and what with the inherent complicatedness of the operating systems compared with win32, that coupled with the fact that there's still so much other stuff to be done to these systems to make them the 'ideal' system, means that its no wonder that games are made almost exclusively for the system that is seen as the 'easy way out' and also win32 is seen as where all the market share is.
Of course the market share lies with win32, since they sell their systems by force, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of linux (for instance) using people who are NOT part of any market share (since they got their systems for free) who would still pay for games.
Sadly, many moronic game studios appear to think of Free software users as people who firstly would pirate their games (and so they are not predisposed to helping them in any way) and secondly (and more importantly) would not pay for any games anyway, since they got their system for free.

Well, as you can see, the onus is on the game producing morons who produce for win32 only. If less people buy their games, and more people email them telling them that they missed out on a sale because they only produced closed source win32 games, then maybe they will take notice.

With games though, the same revolution needs to occur that occurred for x86 home user operating systems in the '90s.

[Refalm]

quote:lazygamer: I posted a topic like this last night, but it got deleted. I doubt it was the moderators(do you delete threads, or just put them in the dead thread zone?), because the forums were down just after I posted it.

Well, don't blame us for the "Hop To" menu being so close to the "Delete Topic" button  

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Refalm ]

[voidmain]

Stallman says "all software". Games are not special, they are "software". Stallman *only* cares about the "Free as in Freedom", not the monetary free. Some games *are* Free. Quake2 for instance was released under the GPL, it is Free.

They don't even have to make their source publicly available. They just have to include it on the CD that they sell. That is what Stallman wants. He believes that when he purchases a piece of software, that he should also get the source code with it. So if the software doesn't work exactly as he needs he could change it so it does work that way. Another reason is just to inpect the code and make sure there is no funny business going on.

Sure, most people wouldn't look at the source code. But it would certainly benefit others.

[lazygamer]

Heh starting to understand open source/free software more and more each day.  


Ok I just got this great idea today! Who can lead(or dig roots for) this glorious revolution now? Or at least start a niche industry that gets out of the whole mass market and high cost/super corporate world of modern computer games. The answer is fanmade game projects aka freeware games.

I have a friend who is in Destiny, they were considering on the possiblity of releasing it commerically through a publisher. My friend is skeptical and is afraid that the publisher will simply steal their game, and they would be unable to launch a lawsuit of any form.

I mentioned about the possiblity of working as an individual(or group of) selling burnt copies of the game. He felt that there was no room for small indivduals in mass publishing and CD burning industries, basically these places only cater to those they feel are big enough.

Problem alright, but here's the solution. The Linux distro companies act as the publishers for these freeware games. The games are available for free from the net, or in a box(from the distro) with manual, CD, and some free tech support from the distro company. Of course ALL games published must be GPL or BSD-license, if not then no deal. This helps take advantage of the relatively advanced and profitable burning, printing, and shipping resources available to established distro companies.

Ok as publisher the distro detucts all physical costs, and takes a certain % of the leftover cash as profit. The rest goes to the team. Now how does the team divide up something as chaotic as a freeware game project? That's for the team to decide, as when you step up to the big leagues you must be prepared to make some big changes yourself. Sounds too much like the current game system? Remember that, in theory, the actual makers of the game receieve a much greater % of profits then their commerical counter-parts. Of course this theory can be backed up by thinking about the nature of the game's creation.

There is other good advantages to using the distro companies. They are alot more trustworthy, and would be greatly damaged by the bad press from shafted freeware games who did not receive profits.  

What's in it for the distros?

1)Helping to solve the lack of Linux games, particularly by providing "innovative" games that are free from the evil of the mass market. This has a good effect in the long run.

2)Free advertising. The game would always have the distro's corporate name.

3)Extra total profits. In theory, the distros can provide a % of profits to the small freeware game teams, equal to what commerical developers get(keyword is PERCENTAGE). They can provide this while makes extra money and totally covering the cost of the production of the games. This is of course worst case scenario payment wise. Even if worst case scenarior ruled, getting paid guranteed money for something that would of otherwise been released solely free(can still be downloaded though), is still a pretty good deal.

Ok so how do games get sponsored? The key here is that a distro offers a sponsorship policy, and you go to them. You come to them with a finished product, or a mostly finished product, and you enter into negotiations. There is no publisher style mile stones, you want in, you make the damn thing yourself and they'll finance you... free of charge. Of course there's a catch. The company must be satisfied with several aspects of the game before they will truly accept it for sponsorship. Of course they won't let just any game in(even if it's perfectly bug free, looks nice etc.), but they would be far more lax in concept fascism.

One more important concept, their MUST be a linux version of the game. The company will sell Win32/Mac versions, but only because it makes extra money(money means survival) and it helps the Freeware group survive. Sure, it's slightly heretical, but survival is important for power.

Even though there woulden't be any "community source code improvement" for a long time, the inspiration of cash that drives commerical developers would be there, this would end up raising quality(and raising the chance of project success) because people are inspired to work harder.

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
Stallman says "all software". Games are not special, they are "software". Stallman *only* cares about the "Free as in Freedom", not the monetary free. Some games *are* Free. Quake2 for instance was released under the GPL, it is Free.

They don't even have to make their source publicly available. They just have to include it on the CD that they sell. That is what Stallman wants. He believes that when he purchases a piece of software, that he should also get the source code with it. So if the software doesn't work exactly as he needs he could change it so it does work that way. Another reason is just to inpect the code and make sure there is no funny business going on.

Sure, most people wouldn't look at the source code. But it would certainly benefit others.

whether you know it or not, you have a way with words.
i would have taken ten times longer to say this and still not said it as well as you did. well done on summing it up.

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
whether you know it or not, you have a way with words.

Thanks, now only if I could spell! I really should proofread more often...