QuakeII Indie Platform

#21 I don't really understand what gpl has to do with q2's viability as an indie platform. I'd much rather hear technical arguments.


-brad

#22 Josh- heres one of the best Q2 distro's ive seen!
www.planetquake.com/quake2max/q2max_feat.shtml

Heres a FPS MMORPG usnig q2
www.global-gaming.com/Dominion/dominion.php?PHPSESSID=398dc3613da8c8b2369c92d510...

#23 Ignore my earlier comments, I misinterpreted part of the GPL FAQ. The pertinent section is:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense

So you can NOT make a "plug-in" for the Q2 engine and then selectively close source that part. Oh well.

Brad: Q2 is great as an indie platform, and in fact the biggest impediment is the license and its perception, hence the discussion. Indies typically don't have $10K lying around for a license.

#24 I don't want to stoke any flames, but I get the impression that GPL, LGPL and other home-brewed agreements have never been tested in court, have not been rigorously reviewed by lawyers, and that the text of the licenses themselves is fairly unclear. The fact that people don't know whether GPL applies to linked in libs is one example of that. Just an irrelevant aside.

One thing I will say about open source, so you have servers that authenticate the client. What prevents me from writing my own server to do the authentication, and having the client go to that server instead? Server authentication might make sense when the server has a bunch of info like in a MMORPG, but in an FPS one server is as good as another. You can see this in Blizzard games, people have created an alternate set of servers that don't perform CD checks. If the client is open source it seems like it would make doing that a lot easier.

In a MMORPG, you must be connected to a real server to actually play the game. That isn't true for most FPS or RTS games. Just fake the authentication server, problem solved.

I don't think indies should worry about piracy too much, just pointing out that an authentication server doesn't seem like a very strong idea.

The thing about games is that content is a big part of the game. If you have the code to Websphere App Server you HAVE Websphere App Server, the only thing missing might be some images on some help screens. But in games the levels, sounds and music are the game. If you just have the engine you really don't have all that much.

#25 Well, if you are thinking about abiding by any license... READ IT :)

GPL isn't a "home-brewed" license btw... cripes...

Rigid thinking killed the indie...

-J

#26 James:

I agree with the not proven in court, no GPL/LPGL has ever gone to trial, but you are incorrect in that the licenses haven't been scrutinized by lawyers, because they have indeed, agreed though as this means nothing without precedent, still I don't think a game would last the public backlash that would come as a result of flaunting the agreement even if the GPL was shown to be tissue paper, and something tells me that that fight would go to the highest court eventually once it starts.

Brian:
my comment was more directed towards the 'q2 is useless it is gpl, so lets not even talk about it' side. I suppose I would like to see more commercial license level arguments, as there are people seeking those options.


-brad

#27 Another minor consideration... I'm quite familiar with the warez scene, and I personally know some of the "famous" crackers. (I didn't say I'm a pirate, please no flames!). As many as 75% of the folks who trade in warez, _never_ use them. They do it for the bragging rights of owning 100000 hot CDs. Of the remainder, almost half will still buy your product, provided it's reasonably priced, and they enjoyed the cracked version.
If you are truly worried about finding your game on some ISO site, and you haven't the means/heart to use an authentication server, there is but one guaranteed route you can take. Massive content. The more CDs your product takes, the less chance it will be distributed. A great example was Baldurs Gate, which took 5 CDs, plus 1 more for the expansion. This game was rare on any illegal site, simply because no-one felt like the effort of rarring and uploading that much content. They _are_ still passed around, albiet no where near as often, nor in as many areas.

#28 If I decide to Open Source my codebase, I'll truly be able to collaborate with the world...

At what point do I decide to fork and close source my work? When it makes sense, and not a second before... I need the free help...

Take a look around YOUR codebase... see that, yeah... it's Open... and you are using it... oh my gawd!!! They're coming for you!! This discussion is just further proof that many programmers are missing out on great opportunities... due mostly to ignorance and fear.

I have more than one poker in the fire... I make the best decision I can, case by case... closing off the world in this case, is probably not in MY best interest...

Open Source software is making $$$ all around you... Open Your Eyes.

-J

#29 Josh,

I really hate to continue the religious argument this thread has become, but I would like to find some answers. You've been evangelizing for Open Source, GPL or otherwise, for a long time. You continue to say it can make money. I say, show me the money.

For instance, Red Hat does not make money selling Linux. They make money from supporting Linux. AFAIK, that is the way most of the OS companies make money. That does not seem to be a good way to make money from games, but, as I have asked before, I would like to see the way. If there are other ways of making money from OS code, I would like to see some concrete examples because I have looked around and I don't see a lot of evidence.

Also, your statement about forking off your code and closing in the source makes me wonder. Are you sure you can do that? Once you GPL your code, I cannot see how it could be pulled back. You cannot statically link to it and anything you do that is brought to market must be distirubted in source as well. I'm not a lwyer, nor do I claim to be an expert in OS licensing. I'm just asking the question so I can understand better. If there is a clause in the GPL that allows the original owner to get special treatment, that seems interesting, but it also seems a little unfair to those people that contributd to the code base.

GG gets contributions to the Torque code base, but we are very upfront about the fact that we intend to make money from the results.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#30 One method for maintaining control of a GPL project is requiring that contributions assign copyright back to the maintainer, thus allowing the maintainer to at any time change the licensing. He can't take back what was already released as GPL, but he can re-release it with different licensing, or not release it at all.

Of course, I think Jeff is right. Nobody's making money off GPL software unless you're selling support. And that's a terrible place to be.

#31 First off i'll just say q2 single player is the best game ever made.

Id says you can do what ever you want with the code as long as you release the source, and the original media is Id's and cant be sold. (umm this is how i understand it), so if you put your own maps, models, art, sound ect... in the q2 code you could sell it (as long as you make the source available).

Common now, i'm sure you realize not everyone looks at game codes , in FACT most people grab games to play for the fun of it. So i think you could make money with it if you play your cards right.

Personally the most fun i have had with coding is modding the q3 source and is the main reason i boughtit.

I bought The V12 engine to learn. And cant wait for q4 or doom3 sources to be released cuz i will be modding both.

Torque has come along way but has a long way to go. I think its overly complicated for a mod maker to get into it, (i like to see a thriving mod community). I dont see it happening with torque.

I also dont see how gg could benifit makeing it open source. I was really suprized when they announced the licence change, tho it dint change my (underline my) over all veiw. Its just a learning experience. (personaly i think alot of people would be better off if they had this veiw for the time being).

But to each there own.

keep on learning.

#32 special clause that gives the owner special rights?

GPL is for the user, the owner can do anything he wants with his code. He can GPL it, take it, add whatever to it, and never open it. Thought I'm sure he'd get a nasty email from gnut hippy boy RMS.

GPL is cool for learning, but it demands, and has a rather commie principle at it's core (principal? RMS?). If you want to give code away or 'free it' BSD is the best, it's really saying 'do whatever just give me credit'.

course no one has really figured out how to make money at it, the important thing is the 'freeing' part, the money part 'really isn't their problem'. The general business model is 'charge for support' or 'release a dulled down version GPL and demand submissions give up their rights so we can roll all the cool stuff into the closed tree'. Technically you have to make the source 'available with the binary' but there is a camp (sect) of gnuts that interpret it further and say that you have to release source to 'everyone that asks'.

still dunno what this has to do with q2 =D


-brad

#33 Trolltech makes money of Qt.
Id Software still makes money of Quake 2 license sales...even though Quake 2 is GPL.
Suse makes money of distribution.

I'm sure there's more. I believe it's very possible to make money using a dual license, one of which being GPL (or open source or whatever).

Another thing I wanted to mention/ask. If you develop a game using the GPL quake 2 first, then realize you want to purchase the commercial license, I'm guessing it prevents you from using improvements from the community which has worked on the GPL version. You would have to start from the stock Quake 2 source...right? or am I wrong?

#34 Yacine:

Usually you have a submission policy that turns all rights to submissions over to the maintainer (you). Muds used to do this so they wouldn't have problems with rotating wizards/coders. As long is it is understood up front it's fine, but don't expect enthusiastic patch submitters if they know your goal is commercial and they get no piece of the action.

-brad

#35 Brad,

Do you have an example of a license where the rights are turned over to the original creators? Drifting OT, but I think that's actually a good model for engine licensors, because they now have an upsell in that they can say (I think), "The engine is GPL, but license our engine and you can use any of the forks that are available".

That would be a pretty strong incentive to get a license, and it's something I wish id would have done with their Q2 stuff since you can have minor forks (e.g. portability work, etc.) that don't change much but which can't be used as a base for a commercial license without getting permission from EVERY contributor.

#36 I cut and pasted from the following docs but it won't post (prolly have a 'hot air' filter on me)

www.evermore.de

/lib/AGREEEMENT

check out AGREEMENT in tubmud's tarbal; (evermore is derived from tub)

available at:

heute.cs.tu-berlin.de 7681

Jeremy prolly has more resources, this was very common in the mud arena.

-brad

#37 A Partner of Garagegames is a great example of a company making money off GPL software. Who you say? Lindows.com. Most of their money is made off of selling GPL software (the rest is their program where you can get prereleasse software, access extra "cool" forums, etc) Lindows does not have a free version. You must pay 129 bucks to get it. Lindows is GPL. They may have 1 or two programs packaged on the cd that are not GPL.. but the majority.. the part that people are buying it for is GPL. Also redhat makes money off their server versions of linux as well as the personal and professional editions. The servers are very expensive but for corporations. The only thing they do not make money off of is the Downloadable edition of redhat. Which is basic and to use their software update utility (to keep security updates etc) you have to fill out a survey every 2 months to reactive your demo account.. and then you only get 1. There are other distros like SuSe who do not offer a free version so you have to buy it. Since they are still in business I would assume they are making money from GPL software. This is just talking about linux distros. I am sure there are other examples out there as well.

My current game will be released under the GPL just like my old one. So I am going to see how well it turns out since this time I wrote a game to target a larger audience.

-Tim aka Spock

#38 Actually, pointing to the distros as money making examples does not work. Except for Red Hat, none of them make money. Thay are all losing money and are still working on old VC$ or begging for contributions.

Lindows has had literally millions of dollars in start up capital put in by Michael Robertson. Their plan is to eventually make money from their Click and Buy store. But, they are not yet making money.

The only money making examples I have seen here are the usual suspects. I know there will eventually be some better examples, but I think it will always be difficult to make money from OS software. I love it, and use it, but I think it is a tough biz model.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#39 Jeff,

I believe the points I have made are anything but religious. I'll point you to the 10 points I make at the top of this post. These are points geared to making and selling games.

Video games are in a unique position in the Open Source world. Their content is the true worth.

I have said repeatedly that GPL isn't my favorite license, in fact I don't even use GPL code, except where it is dual licensed. If closing my source is important to me, with a dual licensed GPL or with BSD, MIT, LGPL, I can. This doesn't mean I will throw away proprietary code where I can use it. I try to leverage everything to my advantage. Which is a good idea these days.

The one GOOD thing about the GPL is that it sucks so bad. This makes people willing to pay to get rid of it's limitations. Again, people pay to have the limitations of the GPL lifted. Dual license. For some reason people like to sit around talking the GPL into a circle, while totally missing this... *shrug*

People make money off their work, technology needs work all the time. People make money off what they know, technology needs people who know about it. People make money off technology that is being widely used, opportunities arise in the most unlikely of places. In this context, people make money off their games.

For retail this path doesn't necessarily work. In fact, our last contract with THQ probably would have made this impossible. But hey, for my indie work... I don't have to bother with THQ now do I... companies and their licenses getting in my way doesn't help ME.

I am very serious about my development efforts. I see the benefits of not being limited to a small development community eating up the $10k to id Software very quickly. Maybe I am special... but I don't think so.

Of course, you have every right to sell Torque code... you guys have worked your ass off on it and in freeing it from corporate tyranny. It just don't think it is a good fit for my indie efforts... for a lot of reasons. On a retail project these conditions shift, and voila.

Sometimes it would be nice to have your cake and eat it too :)

-J

#40 Need more evidence. Who are some more indie game developers that:

1) use GPL quake 1 or 2 or some other GPL/LGPL engine for all of their game code. not open source. GPL or LGPL.
2) charge for their games. donations don't count.
3) use downloading as the primary distribution method

More questions:
1) how many of these have substantial revenue from sales of their GPL game?
2) do the developers think that using the GPL is a positive/negative overall, and why?