Open Source Game
by Duion · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 02/21/2013 (6:52 am) · 13 replies
For a long time I have now considering about how to make an open source game, I always liked the concept of open source, but never had the opportunity to realise such a thing as an open source game, because of missing knowledge and missing free tools.
But now things changed a lot, with Torque3D for the first time there exists a fully functional open source game engine, while other open source games only idle on some byproducts of the old Quake/Doom engine and also other open source tools improved that they are functional now.
I spend the last few month learning about how to use Torque-engine, concept work, modeling, texturing and level design and think I can manage the basics of that parts now, because I really wanted to make this going, but now I realised that for one person alone it's to much work and I still would have to learn all the coding and scripting stuff.
So now my question is, if someone else likes this idea and wants to help. The only thing that is really missing is someone who knows about coding and some little deeper knowledge about the engine to make the basics work, like adding some scripts on how the game will work, some behavior about things in the game and about implententing weapons, characters, vehicles and so on. I could provide free 3D-models to populate the world, textures, 2D-artwork, levels, weapons and maybe characters and I also found others willing to participate, but they are only artists, too.
Maybe it's a bit idealistic to make it all free, because people will not like to participate, if the don't get money for it, because as I also experienced now, it's a lot of work. I'm still thinking about the marketing and if someone has a better concept for it, I would be open for that, but my main idea was to have an archive of assets and some pre created gameplay dynamics, that are freely accessible for everyone to realize what they want and also people could still sell their games based on that, in the old way for fixed prices or so, they just would have to give credit on what they take and do not claim it as their own work.
But now things changed a lot, with Torque3D for the first time there exists a fully functional open source game engine, while other open source games only idle on some byproducts of the old Quake/Doom engine and also other open source tools improved that they are functional now.
I spend the last few month learning about how to use Torque-engine, concept work, modeling, texturing and level design and think I can manage the basics of that parts now, because I really wanted to make this going, but now I realised that for one person alone it's to much work and I still would have to learn all the coding and scripting stuff.
So now my question is, if someone else likes this idea and wants to help. The only thing that is really missing is someone who knows about coding and some little deeper knowledge about the engine to make the basics work, like adding some scripts on how the game will work, some behavior about things in the game and about implententing weapons, characters, vehicles and so on. I could provide free 3D-models to populate the world, textures, 2D-artwork, levels, weapons and maybe characters and I also found others willing to participate, but they are only artists, too.
Maybe it's a bit idealistic to make it all free, because people will not like to participate, if the don't get money for it, because as I also experienced now, it's a lot of work. I'm still thinking about the marketing and if someone has a better concept for it, I would be open for that, but my main idea was to have an archive of assets and some pre created gameplay dynamics, that are freely accessible for everyone to realize what they want and also people could still sell their games based on that, in the old way for fixed prices or so, they just would have to give credit on what they take and do not claim it as their own work.
About the author
http://www.duion.com - Human Paradigm Specialist
#2
Since the release of Doom as GPL I have thought it would be awesome to look at licensing artwork to people as "the game". They could use a nice pre developed engine, and the artists could be compensated for their work. I think this could have a market.
Another take on this would be getting artists to create a "base" set of resources for the game release. Then allowing each artist to sell packs directly to people. This would be similar to how Second Life works. Just make sure you treat people fairly and provide a mechanism for protecting peoples art assets as best you can. There is no absolute protection.
I think when you get down to it that you will get the most participation if some sort of monetary gains are involved. This would be analogous in some ways to code that is licensed as GPL vs BSD, MIT or LGPL. If a coder cannot reasonably benefit from their efforts your going to get limited participation.
02/21/2013 (2:59 pm)
I could see this being an issue on networked games. The main reason is because black hat hackers now can more easily cheat the system. So it might require more thought in how you validate network data on a server. Or course even without source this is an issue...Since the release of Doom as GPL I have thought it would be awesome to look at licensing artwork to people as "the game". They could use a nice pre developed engine, and the artists could be compensated for their work. I think this could have a market.
Another take on this would be getting artists to create a "base" set of resources for the game release. Then allowing each artist to sell packs directly to people. This would be similar to how Second Life works. Just make sure you treat people fairly and provide a mechanism for protecting peoples art assets as best you can. There is no absolute protection.
I think when you get down to it that you will get the most participation if some sort of monetary gains are involved. This would be analogous in some ways to code that is licensed as GPL vs BSD, MIT or LGPL. If a coder cannot reasonably benefit from their efforts your going to get limited participation.
#3
and the art is well, thing is there would be models or art in general that was not just made with different skill sets but with different understanding so
what is it worth when u look at Blendswap or OpenGameArt where u can get plenty of free models but then again quality is a big problem
and ofc TurboSquid or well there are plenty of asset stores, evne ther are models that well shouldnt even be sold just because the quality is not worthy
i think an expanded GG Asset Store would be the best thing! there could be some kind of quality judgement and so on.
02/21/2013 (3:12 pm)
Frank has expalined it probably best, teh main question would be about codeand the art is well, thing is there would be models or art in general that was not just made with different skill sets but with different understanding so
what is it worth when u look at Blendswap or OpenGameArt where u can get plenty of free models but then again quality is a big problem
and ofc TurboSquid or well there are plenty of asset stores, evne ther are models that well shouldnt even be sold just because the quality is not worthy
i think an expanded GG Asset Store would be the best thing! there could be some kind of quality judgement and so on.
#4
And I also made the experience that free assets are often useless, if they were not designed to be used with a specific game engine. You end up needing so much time to convert them, that you almost could recreate them from sratch in that time, but thats all not the main problem.
The hacking thing is always an issue, but you could play with people you know, it's a thing of trust, if someone wants to cheat he will find a way. I found the main reason for people to cheat is the profit, thats one reason I want to stay away a little from the commercial things, the project just has to sustain itself.
The artwork thing is not an issue for me at the moment nor the code thing, as there will be not much code at the beginning, just some scripts would be needed for different styles of gameplay.
My main goal is to get something running quick and it has to be open source, because I see so many people with their dreams, but most of them never get to a finish or even a playable beta, but I could not find a marketing model for this so far, that does not limit freedom, I would even give out things for free, but not all people think so or can do so.
02/21/2013 (4:09 pm)
The base of artwork I could create my own if necessary, it was not supposed anyway, that anyone can use his own models, it needs to be approved by someone who knows what is needed, it's to complicated anyway, my idea was to let others use the ingame editor to place pre-build objects, this is simple and fun and leads to results very fast.And I also made the experience that free assets are often useless, if they were not designed to be used with a specific game engine. You end up needing so much time to convert them, that you almost could recreate them from sratch in that time, but thats all not the main problem.
The hacking thing is always an issue, but you could play with people you know, it's a thing of trust, if someone wants to cheat he will find a way. I found the main reason for people to cheat is the profit, thats one reason I want to stay away a little from the commercial things, the project just has to sustain itself.
The artwork thing is not an issue for me at the moment nor the code thing, as there will be not much code at the beginning, just some scripts would be needed for different styles of gameplay.
My main goal is to get something running quick and it has to be open source, because I see so many people with their dreams, but most of them never get to a finish or even a playable beta, but I could not find a marketing model for this so far, that does not limit freedom, I would even give out things for free, but not all people think so or can do so.
#5
Whatever you decide to do keep us updated via blogs or otherwise. It does sound very interesting and a cool idea.
I also like the idea of making simple game place holder objects and selling them very cheap. It would provide a small income stream for artists/developers for reinvestment into other assets and code bases. I know that a simple example object might provide a good starting point for artists for something like vehicles/players. It might be worth a dollar or two.
02/22/2013 (1:02 am)
@Duion,Whatever you decide to do keep us updated via blogs or otherwise. It does sound very interesting and a cool idea.
I also like the idea of making simple game place holder objects and selling them very cheap. It would provide a small income stream for artists/developers for reinvestment into other assets and code bases. I know that a simple example object might provide a good starting point for artists for something like vehicles/players. It might be worth a dollar or two.
#6
03/03/2013 (10:00 pm)
I will give it a try, just started a blog where I will put all my progress on:
#7
Maybe this is a good compromise, this way it would be free for everyone to use as long as he keeps it open source and noncommercial and if someone really finds a use for it in closed source/commercial, then there will still be room for a relicensing.
03/06/2013 (7:46 am)
So far I think to release it under creativecommons BC-NC-SA 3.0 license creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.enMaybe this is a good compromise, this way it would be free for everyone to use as long as he keeps it open source and noncommercial and if someone really finds a use for it in closed source/commercial, then there will still be room for a relicensing.
#8
about the license:
I believe completely open source game are not so good because there is little to no full-time development,there is mostly part-time because the developers have their main job to think about.Full open source games need fund and there arent many willing to donate.
Also i believe a retail model is also bad no matter the price even if $1 because people want to see/test the product before buying it.
I would recommend for starters a free model with some updates for basic features and graphics quality and if a certain quality and milestone is reached the complete game (source code,3d models,art etc.) will be released if a certain amount of money is collected lets say by kickstarter.Then when a 2nd milestone is reached there will be again a crowdfund campaign.
03/07/2013 (6:47 am)
I am starting now to learn torque3d and i would like to help with your project. Contact me if you need any help.about the license:
I believe completely open source game are not so good because there is little to no full-time development,there is mostly part-time because the developers have their main job to think about.Full open source games need fund and there arent many willing to donate.
Also i believe a retail model is also bad no matter the price even if $1 because people want to see/test the product before buying it.
I would recommend for starters a free model with some updates for basic features and graphics quality and if a certain quality and milestone is reached the complete game (source code,3d models,art etc.) will be released if a certain amount of money is collected lets say by kickstarter.Then when a 2nd milestone is reached there will be again a crowdfund campaign.
#9
At the moment there is no important changes in code/script side, but this may change later and there should be a guideline for others who may want to contribute and reuse things.
So what do you think, would the GPL license be a good solution?
I need some help in decision making, so I can put this up.
04/12/2013 (5:37 am)
Is anyone here who has an idea how to license the thing? For the artwork a creative commons license can be used, but these kind of licenses do not work well for code related stuff. This is why other open source projects use creative commons for artwork and something like GPL for code.At the moment there is no important changes in code/script side, but this may change later and there should be a guideline for others who may want to contribute and reuse things.
So what do you think, would the GPL license be a good solution?
I need some help in decision making, so I can put this up.
#10
GPL sounds good at first, but it tends to lock code into being GPL only and stagnates development. You can see this by looking at GPL projects around the internet. The projects that are thriving are using MIT/BSD/LGPL. Many of the formerly GPL projects are shifting to LGPL, MIT and BSD for this reason. The GPL projects that thrive are large tools like gcc, the linux kernel, GNU tools, Blender, etc.
Edit:
Oh, and another thing. I won't contribute to a GPL/LGPL version of Torque. I plan on keeping all of my Torque contributions as MIT to be maximally compatible with the GG code bases.
04/12/2013 (12:09 pm)
I specifically avoid projects that use the GPL if I can. I will and have contributed to GPL projects, but for something I might want to use for a commercial adventure in the future I stay far away. There is a reason GG chose the MIT license. If you are having issues making this decision I think you need to research licenses more. GPL sounds good at first, but it tends to lock code into being GPL only and stagnates development. You can see this by looking at GPL projects around the internet. The projects that are thriving are using MIT/BSD/LGPL. Many of the formerly GPL projects are shifting to LGPL, MIT and BSD for this reason. The GPL projects that thrive are large tools like gcc, the linux kernel, GNU tools, Blender, etc.
Edit:
Oh, and another thing. I won't contribute to a GPL/LGPL version of Torque. I plan on keeping all of my Torque contributions as MIT to be maximally compatible with the GG code bases.
#11
I thought about just keep the MIT, but then I read a thread about why the MIT is not that good forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4328
The MIT license says, that this license has to be in all copies or substantial portions of the software, so it is not very clear what this is.
From browsing some code or script files from torque I noticed, that in most of them there is a comment at the beginning with this license, but not in all files.
So is there really a need to write this license into every of the thousands of files and all files that are based on that or have lines copied out of it?
04/12/2013 (12:21 pm)
Yes, I thought of that, but since I am not a coder, I don't have much experience in that.I thought about just keep the MIT, but then I read a thread about why the MIT is not that good forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4328
The MIT license says, that this license has to be in all copies or substantial portions of the software, so it is not very clear what this is.
From browsing some code or script files from torque I noticed, that in most of them there is a comment at the beginning with this license, but not in all files.
So is there really a need to write this license into every of the thousands of files and all files that are based on that or have lines copied out of it?
#12
Since the original license has to be in it and if someone writes his own credit text after it, does it have to be included also in all related products, since it is also MIT ?!
You could leave the original text in it, which says copyright by garagegames, but that is not really correct if you have written something your own.
These are things that are a little bit confusing.
04/12/2013 (1:55 pm)
So keeping the MIT seems to be the best option. But what happens if you write a script for example based on Torque, how would that be credited?Since the original license has to be in it and if someone writes his own credit text after it, does it have to be included also in all related products, since it is also MIT ?!
You could leave the original text in it, which says copyright by garagegames, but that is not really correct if you have written something your own.
These are things that are a little bit confusing.
#13
If you intend people to contribute then create an entity that people can be a part of and/or assign copy right over to that entity. That entity can be you, or it can be an organization. You may want to consult a lawyer for the latter. If you intend to give code back to GG then just assign to them.
You cold also have people contribute and assign copyright to themselves for specific source files. So in a complex dev environment that might be easier to track where source contributions come from.
No matter what license you choose you will have to come up with how to assign copyright. Often times a person starting the project will dwarf all other contributions so that people don't mind assigning changes or additions to the original author. Just make sure you are clear how you intend to handle copyright. Especially if you intend to make a commercial product at some point.
04/13/2013 (8:52 pm)
If you want to copyright your code just put your copyright on the code. Then put see license.txt for the license. The license does not necessarily need to be in the file.If you intend people to contribute then create an entity that people can be a part of and/or assign copy right over to that entity. That entity can be you, or it can be an organization. You may want to consult a lawyer for the latter. If you intend to give code back to GG then just assign to them.
You cold also have people contribute and assign copyright to themselves for specific source files. So in a complex dev environment that might be easier to track where source contributions come from.
No matter what license you choose you will have to come up with how to assign copyright. Often times a person starting the project will dwarf all other contributions so that people don't mind assigning changes or additions to the original author. Just make sure you are clear how you intend to handle copyright. Especially if you intend to make a commercial product at some point.
Torque Owner Richard Ranft
Roostertail Games
The tough part would be figuring out profit shares based on contributions. I'm guessing it would end up being pretty complex because you have to deal with art, design, audio, code, writing, etc.
Over all I like the idea, but on closer look it is complicated.