QuakeII Indie Platform
by Prairie Games · in General Discussion · 03/15/2003 (5:10 am) · 98 replies
I have spent the last couple days reviewing Quake II again... in the context of an indie game project I may be launching...
I don't think Q2 is a very good fit for my retail interests... but for my indie development it could very well be...
Things I like about Q2:
1) The codebase is reasonably small, it's division lines are clear.. I can reasonably expect to refactor the code... the code has been bullet tested across many projects
2) Q2 has a small and streamlined art/code pipeline without tons of confusion for supporting "AAA" art content, which I don't have resources to produce anyway
3) The most lacking part of Quake2 for this project is skeletal animation which is trivial to add via Cal3d... this has 3dsmax and Milkshape exporters
4) It performs *incredibly* well on modern hardware, and will give people with older gear a smooth/enjoyable experience
5) It's networking was designed pre-broadband... again efficiency.. fully supports cooperative play
6) GPL means I can host a CVS with no worries.. allowing me to use Open Source development methodology... I view this as *extremely* important
7) Q2 is $10k for closed source use which I find reasonable... in a pinch, I can GPL the codebase and still sell the game for $$$.. GPL doesn't mean noncommercial, get it straight already :)
8) The platforms, doors, triggers, destructible brushes, etc are still very cool... has some excellect premade/editable game functionality
9) If I want to go lowend/avoid *all* hardware issues, it has a software renderer ...
10) I am *very* familiar with the q2 tools source code, and the engine I have found to be readily digestible
-J
I don't think Q2 is a very good fit for my retail interests... but for my indie development it could very well be...
Things I like about Q2:
1) The codebase is reasonably small, it's division lines are clear.. I can reasonably expect to refactor the code... the code has been bullet tested across many projects
2) Q2 has a small and streamlined art/code pipeline without tons of confusion for supporting "AAA" art content, which I don't have resources to produce anyway
3) The most lacking part of Quake2 for this project is skeletal animation which is trivial to add via Cal3d... this has 3dsmax and Milkshape exporters
4) It performs *incredibly* well on modern hardware, and will give people with older gear a smooth/enjoyable experience
5) It's networking was designed pre-broadband... again efficiency.. fully supports cooperative play
6) GPL means I can host a CVS with no worries.. allowing me to use Open Source development methodology... I view this as *extremely* important
7) Q2 is $10k for closed source use which I find reasonable... in a pinch, I can GPL the codebase and still sell the game for $$$.. GPL doesn't mean noncommercial, get it straight already :)
8) The platforms, doors, triggers, destructible brushes, etc are still very cool... has some excellect premade/editable game functionality
9) If I want to go lowend/avoid *all* hardware issues, it has a software renderer ...
10) I am *very* familiar with the q2 tools source code, and the engine I have found to be readily digestible
-J
#62
03/16/2003 (3:21 pm)
Ah ok. I remember we had a conversation about a gap in the market; the Not So Massively Multi-Player Online Game (NSMMPOG). :) I haven't had the time to keep up with your latest developments.
#63
Show me one successful game product that is open source AND still makes money. Or rather, one that STARTED OUT as open source. I dont think Q2 is a fair example, becuase the game itself wasnt open source at the time (and if it were, I'd have expected to see about a billion quake clones within 4 months).
Fact is, Quake2 codebase is kind of a curiosity now, good for learning, good for indie development, but not "WORTH" anything in commercial terms. Thats why its open source.
Q2 may still make money, the same way Commander Keen might, in that its a relic, a throwback to the earlier ID days. Now its in plenty of bargain bins, plenty of mod/content packs etc. Thats not to say it would make money if sold from scratch as open source NOW.
So. I stand unconvinced until someone shows me a clear target. I think many open source projects are actually just funded by people who have no clear commercial idea's, or who cant stand the "business" i.e. geeks.
Phil.
03/16/2003 (5:51 pm)
I'm with Jeff, show me the money!Show me one successful game product that is open source AND still makes money. Or rather, one that STARTED OUT as open source. I dont think Q2 is a fair example, becuase the game itself wasnt open source at the time (and if it were, I'd have expected to see about a billion quake clones within 4 months).
Fact is, Quake2 codebase is kind of a curiosity now, good for learning, good for indie development, but not "WORTH" anything in commercial terms. Thats why its open source.
Q2 may still make money, the same way Commander Keen might, in that its a relic, a throwback to the earlier ID days. Now its in plenty of bargain bins, plenty of mod/content packs etc. Thats not to say it would make money if sold from scratch as open source NOW.
So. I stand unconvinced until someone shows me a clear target. I think many open source projects are actually just funded by people who have no clear commercial idea's, or who cant stand the "business" i.e. geeks.
Phil.
#64
Guess you weren't clear... or changed your mind...
I disagree... If you can't make a decent game with Q2, you are relying too much on tech. All that shines is not gold.
As far as Q2's crust, I'm a pretty good judge of technology... I know what is and what isn't there... I also know how to leverage... and improve upon solid groundwork...
Fundamentally Q2 and Q3 are nearly the same engine... mostly cosmetic changes (a kick ass shader language)... in fact, Q2 has a much more solid base to build cooperative multiplayer off...
It's a highly focused engine... I also know exactly what $10k is worth in this world... and in terms of my career... it doesn't amount to diddly.
-J
03/16/2003 (6:43 pm)
Phil,Quote:
Josh, simply add paletted texture support to the Q2 engine, add cally's boned animation and youve got what essentially amounts to halflife.
I agree, for a specific type of game, Q2 is absolutely knockout.
Guess you weren't clear... or changed your mind...
I disagree... If you can't make a decent game with Q2, you are relying too much on tech. All that shines is not gold.
As far as Q2's crust, I'm a pretty good judge of technology... I know what is and what isn't there... I also know how to leverage... and improve upon solid groundwork...
Fundamentally Q2 and Q3 are nearly the same engine... mostly cosmetic changes (a kick ass shader language)... in fact, Q2 has a much more solid base to build cooperative multiplayer off...
It's a highly focused engine... I also know exactly what $10k is worth in this world... and in terms of my career... it doesn't amount to diddly.
-J
#65
03/16/2003 (6:57 pm)
Ryzom (www.ryzom.com) is an MMPOG being developed by Nevrax (www.nevrax.com, www.nevrax.org) using an open source engine that they are writing themselves. I had a discussion with one of the developers and they said their money-maker (as I can't think of a better phrase for this right now) is their artwork, not the engine. There are a couple of videos floating around on one of the French community sites that are very impressive. 
#66
If GG ever decides to use one of the flavors of OS licensing for the Torque, it will be because the pressure comes from inside our company. Right now, we are very happy with our licensing, and feel it is just a different form of allowing source to be in the hands of users. Not very many companies take our approach, and we feel GG is pretty progressive.
Jeff Tunnell GG
03/16/2003 (7:12 pm)
My posts in this thread were not in relation to Torque, nor was I inferring that Josh is an OS zealot. I was curious on several points regarding OS software and the marketability of that software.If GG ever decides to use one of the flavors of OS licensing for the Torque, it will be because the pressure comes from inside our company. Right now, we are very happy with our licensing, and feel it is just a different form of allowing source to be in the hands of users. Not very many companies take our approach, and we feel GG is pretty progressive.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#67
... and I respect GG's position... I actually meant for this to be a discussion on Q2 as an indie platform...
Not licenses and Torque.. but yeah, it always comes flying in...
-J
03/16/2003 (7:16 pm)
Jeff,... and I respect GG's position... I actually meant for this to be a discussion on Q2 as an indie platform...
Not licenses and Torque.. but yeah, it always comes flying in...
-J
#68
Everywhere I turn, there's the man keeping me down!!! :)
-J
03/16/2003 (8:23 pm)
Here's a rather gruesome tidbit... the final word has come in, the Q2 tools are *NOT* GPL, meaning that no matter what you do, you have to pay $5k... if you are making a commercial product.Everywhere I turn, there's the man keeping me down!!! :)
-J
#69
Come to think of it, it also works for MySQL. So I don't know.... I don't think it's as flawed as you may think.
03/16/2003 (8:39 pm)
Jeff, phil, while there may not be many, I would like to point once more to Trolltech and their Qt library as an example which works. Not that I really think should follow this path, but it can work. You just have to do it properly.Come to think of it, it also works for MySQL. So I don't know.... I don't think it's as flawed as you may think.
#71
From what I've read online, the command-line compile tools for Quake2 are, in fact, GPL. Only the editor (Radiant) is not. If you use an open third-party editor such as Quark and just have it use the Quake2 command-line tools you should be in the clear.
IANAL, I do not work for id, etc. So do your own confirmation of this information.
03/16/2003 (11:21 pm)
Joshua,From what I've read online, the command-line compile tools for Quake2 are, in fact, GPL. Only the editor (Radiant) is not. If you use an open third-party editor such as Quark and just have it use the Quake2 command-line tools you should be in the clear.
IANAL, I do not work for id, etc. So do your own confirmation of this information.
#72
Indeed the command line tools are a problem... actually, it's not a terrible problem.
Thing is, Q2 would be a GREAT fit for the game I am noodling... not a FPS either :)
-J
03/17/2003 (12:12 am)
George,Indeed the command line tools are a problem... actually, it's not a terrible problem.
Thing is, Q2 would be a GREAT fit for the game I am noodling... not a FPS either :)
-J
#73
I mean look people are still creating new Playstation games and they are selling, they don't get a lot of advertising time but they are still making someone money . . .
For a single player game aimed at hardware behind a couple of generations I think QuakeII is not such a bad choice.
Now the licensing issues are simple also, if you PLAN on making a commerical title, license the code outright, if you are doing a "learning experience" or some other non-commerical project the GPL is probably fine.
Here is a story of how powerful OpenSource can be . . .
Also look at the database Interbase as an example of Open Source at work, maybe working too well if that is possible.
Borland decides that Interbase is old tech and not worth paying someone to support, the Open Source it, and have 2 paid engineers to "custodian" it and support it for all their existing customers so not to alienate them.
A very powerful community forms around the Open Source version of Interbase, it starts getting lots of bugs that Borland let stand for YEARS get fixed, it gets new modern functionaly over a few months instead of never, and really picks up steam! People that never would have considered it start using it on small departmental level projects and it is more popularity than ever.
Borland see the popularity and success and declares it closed source again! A side project called Firebird gets started from the last version of the Open Source, it maintains the momentem and the Borland Interbase has pretty much stagnated where it was when they took it back in house.
Problem is once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back in.
And Borland is back to square one, Interbase is kinda dead again, but for a different reason, Firebird is alive and well and is what everyone is using instead!
03/17/2003 (12:49 pm)
If you can live with the constraints of the BSP rendering in QuakeII and the extremely small spaces it restricts you to, it would give you a commanding niche market for all the 'casual' games that stay 3 - 4 generations behind in hardware . . .I mean look people are still creating new Playstation games and they are selling, they don't get a lot of advertising time but they are still making someone money . . .
For a single player game aimed at hardware behind a couple of generations I think QuakeII is not such a bad choice.
Now the licensing issues are simple also, if you PLAN on making a commerical title, license the code outright, if you are doing a "learning experience" or some other non-commerical project the GPL is probably fine.
Here is a story of how powerful OpenSource can be . . .
Also look at the database Interbase as an example of Open Source at work, maybe working too well if that is possible.
Borland decides that Interbase is old tech and not worth paying someone to support, the Open Source it, and have 2 paid engineers to "custodian" it and support it for all their existing customers so not to alienate them.
A very powerful community forms around the Open Source version of Interbase, it starts getting lots of bugs that Borland let stand for YEARS get fixed, it gets new modern functionaly over a few months instead of never, and really picks up steam! People that never would have considered it start using it on small departmental level projects and it is more popularity than ever.
Borland see the popularity and success and declares it closed source again! A side project called Firebird gets started from the last version of the Open Source, it maintains the momentem and the Borland Interbase has pretty much stagnated where it was when they took it back in house.
Problem is once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back in.
And Borland is back to square one, Interbase is kinda dead again, but for a different reason, Firebird is alive and well and is what everyone is using instead!
#74
03/17/2003 (1:22 pm)
What exactly are your requirements for this project Joshua?
#75
@Mike: Persistent 3d MUD Dungeon Crawling game like Nethack, theme to be decided. If I get anywhere with it today I'll post some more.
-J
03/17/2003 (1:46 pm)
@Jarrod: I am pretty much done talking about Open Source here, I am glad to see that you get it... a lot of time the people that license code don't make anything... it's all the people around them that do... and then this usage opens up new avenues... Like all things, it isn't black and white... though some chose to view the topic this way.@Mike: Persistent 3d MUD Dungeon Crawling game like Nethack, theme to be decided. If I get anywhere with it today I'll post some more.
-J
#76
Have you looked at Ogre, which I think is under LGPL. It doesn't have networking (considering the Q2 was pretty darn good in that area), but it does look to have a bright future. Or am I way off mark and/or blinded by sheer stupidity!? ;)
03/17/2003 (1:47 pm)
Cool Nethack!Have you looked at Ogre, which I think is under LGPL. It doesn't have networking (considering the Q2 was pretty darn good in that area), but it does look to have a bright future. Or am I way off mark and/or blinded by sheer stupidity!? ;)
#77
Q2 is small and I can wield it in one hand...
Q2 also means I can light my head on fire and run across multiple communities.
Most importantly, for the game I am thinking of, Q2 is a very good fit.
-J
03/17/2003 (2:44 pm)
Mike,Q2 is small and I can wield it in one hand...
Q2 also means I can light my head on fire and run across multiple communities.
Most importantly, for the game I am thinking of, Q2 is a very good fit.
-J
#79
03/18/2003 (6:02 am)
Well my $0.02 is that I would have liked to participate along with Josh's ActionRPG stuff but couldn't because there was no way for him to allow a CVS distribution for participants. Josh did the right thing at denying collaboration until issues were (which evidently haven't been) worked out with allowing his own CVS branch of the TGE codebase. I grasp the difficult issues and don't presume to have any answers. The outcome of all this is that a vision of enhancing the codebase (Josh's and whoever wished to assist) has been left to wither. It certainly has been evident that this frustration has lead to many discussions (which have been good and basically well controlled) and anguish. A chance to enhance the codebase for a particular set of requirements will probably now be lost. Technocrats (Josh?) that have an ability to persue enhancements certainly feel frustration when their efforts at enhancing something get left to wither due to circumstances beyond their control. So the alternate is to find an avenue where those frustrations are least impacted. I have touched on a set of issues that I wish I had answers for but alas can only sympathise. I don't presume to speak for any parties but wish these issues could be worked out. I will continue to support GG and their excellent community base. Nowhere else do I find such openness and frank, intelligent discussions for all issues of game development. Rock on.
#80
I really would like to use the QuakeII codebase to make a game... specifically, I would like to use the Open Source QuakeII codebase...
BUT:
It isn't possible to create a (extremely) low budget game using the GPL'd Quake II due to the tools not being released under the GPL. This means that anything you do with Quake II for $$$, even if you release your code (under whatever license)... you will have to pay id Software the sum of $5000. Sound like GPL to you? Nope... it isn't...
I also didn't like a "prior approval" clause I noticed... bah...
Anyway...
I think it's clear that while id Software is very cool for releasing their source, their intent is not to make it "easy" to make commercial products with their technology. I know I can make a game with it... and I know $5000 isn't a killer... this isn't the point...
After reading Jeff's .plan today, the contrast between these strategies is remarkable...
The Power of Positive Thinking...
-J
03/20/2003 (5:21 pm)
Alright... I've landed on this...I really would like to use the QuakeII codebase to make a game... specifically, I would like to use the Open Source QuakeII codebase...
BUT:
It isn't possible to create a (extremely) low budget game using the GPL'd Quake II due to the tools not being released under the GPL. This means that anything you do with Quake II for $$$, even if you release your code (under whatever license)... you will have to pay id Software the sum of $5000. Sound like GPL to you? Nope... it isn't...
I also didn't like a "prior approval" clause I noticed... bah...
Anyway...
I think it's clear that while id Software is very cool for releasing their source, their intent is not to make it "easy" to make commercial products with their technology. I know I can make a game with it... and I know $5000 isn't a killer... this isn't the point...
After reading Jeff's .plan today, the contrast between these strategies is remarkable...
The Power of Positive Thinking...
-J
Torque Owner George McBay
As it relates to game engines, I think the Nebula approach is pretty much perfect -- Open Source the core engine for everyone's benefit using a BSD-like license, but keep the game-specific code to yourself. This is, at a high-level, also pretty similar to what GarageGames did with Torque and Marble Blast. Torque's source is available (if not 'Open') and some Marble Blast specific enhancements trickle back into TGE, but the main game code stays with them. If GG released the full Marble Blast code, I don't believe it would really help many people anyway, unless they were writing a Marble Blast clone, and the worse-case downside is 30 Marble Blast clones, all very similar just with new art and a few new levels...