So,... what's the situation on the Dark engine source code? - by Cliftor
Rekrul on 4/5/2009 at 05:15
[QUOTE='[insert cool name here];1827364']Please excuse a stupid question from one rather ignorant of these matters, but what would the significance of having the code be? What secrets would be unlocked?Having the source code is the first step in writing a whole new version of the game engine that will run without problems on more modern systems, and may add new features. For example, after the source code to the Doom games was released, many people wrote "source ports". The original game ran in DOS, but the ports run under Windows. They have support for better lighting effects, higher resolution textures and fully 3D models for the enemies (Doom used 2D sprites). Programmers could fix the bugs (no more sudden death, or bodies sticking through walls), add graphical improvements, like flickering light from torches, tweak the controls, like adding support for more mouse buttons, etc.
Quote Posted by Macha
How hard is reverse engineering to do? This is definitely lying out there somewhere. Legal issues? If it was leaked who would find the source?
Source code is usually heavily commented so that the programmers don't have to remember what every line of code does. Not only does the compiled program not have any comments, the code is changed into something that is more effecient for the computer to run and which no longer resembles the original source code. You have to go through it bit by bit and try and figure out what each part does. Then, even when you think you've got it all figured out, you discover that two seemingly unrelated parts interact in ways that don't seem to make sense.
Quote Posted by Ringer
Well really I cannot understand the preference to use the dark engine...An engine that is extremely hard to get get running on modern OS's, and in all probability will soon be impossible to run on the forthcoming Windows OS.
While we are building and playing Dark mod maps the "purists" will still be praying to the master builder for their legendary Dark engine source code.
I don't think anyone wants the source code so that they can just patch a couple bugs and use it as-is. That would probably be the immediate result, but the eventual goal would be to use the source code as a reference to build a new version of the engine that will handle all of the old levels as well as having more modern features.
Quote Posted by MoroseTroll
My heart do agree with you, but my mind - do not. We are living not in the Thief universe, so we should submit to the (copyright) law. Therefore we should find other way to get the Thief sources.
The reality is that unless someone gives the copyright holder a huge wad of cash, you're never going to see the source code. The original Thief games have about as much value to them as the last picture you drew in crayon when you were a kid. They don't care how badly the fans want it. Unless there's some financial incentive for them to expend time and energy on tracking it down, they're not going to bother.
Quote Posted by jtr7
You do NOT have permission. Get yer hands outta my cookie jar! Apparently you subscribe to the notion, "Everything's legal as long as you don't get caught." And you must think that we fear retribution greater than a letter of warning with a promise of legal action should we not comply with their wishes. You must also have zero respect for the devs, TTLG, and us to sneer at our (creepy-yet-adoring fan-) respect for the devs. We have no right. We may believe we have entitlement, but that is at Eidos' whim.
Everyone who is using one of the patched executables or DDFix to patch their copy of the Thief games to run on more modern systems is breaking the law. Here's the relevant portion of the Thief 2 EULA (my copy of Thief Gold seems to have a blank EULA box);
Quote:
The following restrictions shall apply to your licence:
- you will not reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, translate,
adapt, modify or otherwise alter the product in whole or in part nor attempt to do any of the above under any circumstances unless and to the extent permitted to do so by applicable law
Is there an applicable law that specifically states that you are allowed to modify copyrighted computer games if necessary to get them to work on your system? If not, then all these fan-made patches are illegal and should be immediately taken off the net, and everyone using them should immediately erase them.
Additionally, all those who bought used copies of the game are also breaking the law according to the EULA;
Quote:
- you will not
sell, rent, lend, sub-license or otherwise exploit for profit or otherwise this product (in whole or in part) but you may give away the entire product provided you do not keep any copies of the software program or the accompanying materials
So if you paid any money for your used copy, it's illegal.
Quote Posted by Albert
What's the situation on OpenDarkEngine?
Don't hold your breath. I'm sure the author means well, but the percentage os such projects that actually get completed is somewhere around 5%.
jtr7 on 4/5/2009 at 05:22
All the EULA stuff was done with the devs knowledge and cooperation back when they were hanging around here. Every time a new line is crossed, the majority don't kid themselves that there could be disapproval. It helps that we respect the spirit of the EULA and don't kill profits, rather, we give incentive for more people to hunt down and buy the games. More often than not, people state here that they bought their copy new. The devs played the FMs and Eidos gave the devs their blessings to give us the editors, knowing what that implied. No assumption should be made, especially out of arrogance and entitlement. Respect and encouragement of continuing to send money for legal copies Eidos way has earned us leeway.
Preservation and removal of hard-coded and obsolete limitations are the main reasons for us wanting the source code. Preservation and the ability to keep the code working with newer and newer systems, so we can have Thief and FMs as long as we live, if we so choose. It's no different than art preservation, music preservation, book preservation, classic automobiles, renaissance fairs and historical reenactments, preservation of homes, antiques, furniture, toys, arcade games, Ataris, synthesizers, guitars, and so on. The thing that sets this source code apart from the others, is that it's virtual, not concrete.
eddy on 4/5/2009 at 06:19
What does an EULA have to do with actual law?
In many countries, terms of usual EULAs are not valid. For example terms that prohibit selling of used copies are illegal in Germany.
Similar things apply to reverse-engineering etc..
MaxDZ8 on 4/5/2009 at 06:36
Quote Posted by Rekrul
Everyone who is using one of the patched executables or DDFix to patch their copy of the Thief games to run on more modern systems is breaking the law. Here's the relevant portion of the Thief 2 EULA (my copy of Thief Gold seems to have a blank EULA box);
(omissis)
Is there an applicable law that specifically states that you are allowed to modify copyrighted computer games if necessary to get them to work on your system? If not, then all these fan-made patches are illegal and should be immediately taken off the net, and everyone using them should immediately erase them.
I agree. As far as I know the only widely available method is black-box-analysis, which is far less powerful and more time consuming.
Reverse engineering here must be justified by necessity. I don't think a game would ever qualify.
Quote Posted by Rekrul
Additionally, all those who bought used copies of the game are also breaking the law according to the EULA;
So if you paid any money for your used copy, it's illegal.
I had the impression this was still under heavy debate by the industry. There's a huge amount of country-specific legislation involved but in my context this statement needs explicit approval and could possibly invalidate the whole EULA.
By sure, it is not so a clear cut internationally-speaking.
Quote Posted by Rekrul
Don't hold your breath. I'm sure the author means well, but the percentage os such projects that actually get completed is somewhere around 5%.
I hope performance improvement will take place sooner or later.
In the linked thread, BrendaEM writes:
"I tried opde-0.2.9 on my Thinkpad T61P 2.2GHZ, Gefore 8700/570m. It got about 18 FPS at 1920x1200 in OpenGL. ... I am probably forcing some AA and Anisotropic too."
Wait. 18FPS? Unless BrendaEM was running aniso16x and AA8x I am worried.
Volca on 4/5/2009 at 06:51
The black box reverse engineering worked wonders for me in the past (although it is quite time consuming). It is not 100% successful though.
Quote Posted by MaxDZ8
I hope performance improvement will take place sooner or later.
In the linked thread, BrendaEM writes:
"I tried opde-0.2.9 on my Thinkpad T61P 2.2GHZ, Gefore 8700/570m. It got about 18 FPS at 1920x1200 in OpenGL. ... I am probably forcing some AA and Anisotropic too."
Wait. 18FPS? Unless BrendaEM was running aniso16x and AA8x I am worried.
Yes, there sure is some space for performance improvements (Although I hardly get below 100 FPS most of the time on one AMD core at 2100MHz with 8800GTS). The current performance mostly depends on CPU speed, as with the original engine.
The level structure is heavily partitioned so half of the frame time is usually spent calculating the visibility set. Also the texture counts are quite high so batch counts are an issue as well. I'd love to spend some more time thinking how to optimise that but it would mean too much concentration is done on one topic - I'd like to finish the 2D rendering work and get to work on simulation topics rather than that.
But you're invited to analyse the problem and/or improve the rendering if you'd like ;)
jtr7 on 4/5/2009 at 07:02
The copyright/intellectual property/piracy argument goes nowhere. It's a waste of time, and only a fresh idea will give it any worth. And when it fails to make a dent in greedy public opinion, it too will become worthless to repeat it anymore. RESPECT! Without respect one becomes the enemy and leads to things getting worse for the majority. Every...single...time. Learn from history, or make a solid attempt. Stop biting the hands that work hard to please us so we can put food in their mouths.
Boycott companies that make crap games over and over, but support the good companies and employees that are generous with us.
Rekrul on 4/5/2009 at 08:09
Quote Posted by jtr7
All the EULA stuff was done with the devs knowledge and cooperation back when they were hanging around here. Every time a new line is crossed, the majority don't kid themselves that there could be disapproval. It helps that we respect the spirit of the EULA and don't kill profits, rather, we give incentive for more people to hunt down and buy the games.
Just for the sake of discussion; I'm a little unclear on how a (theoretically) leaked copy of the source code would in any way harm the company. I mean, the source code, or even a source port is useless by itself without all the data from a full copy of the game. Having a guaranteed way to run the games problem-free on modern systems would give even more incentive for people to hunt down and buy the games. Unfortunately not enough incentive for the company to bother releasing it though, since they only pay attention to sales in the millions.
Quote Posted by jtr7
Respect and encouragement of continuing to send money for legal copies Eidos way has earned us leeway.
Leeway, but not much support. The fact that fans had to come up with patches to keep the games running, shows how little value they have to Eidos, or whatever company now owns the rights to them. Even without the source code, it would probably have been much easier for a team of Eidos programmers to come up with an authorized patch than it was for whoever made the existing ones. However, Eidos didn't care, just like most every other game company ceases to care about games that are older than a year or two. Sure, they'll continue to maintain a FAQ and host patches, but contact them with a problem not covered by the FAQ and they can't help you.
Quote Posted by jtr7
Preservation and removal of hard-coded and obsolete limitations are the main reasons for us wanting the source code. Preservation and the ability to keep the code working with newer and newer systems, so we can have Thief and FMs as long as we live, if we so choose. It's no different than art preservation, music preservation, book preservation, classic automobiles, renaissance fairs and historical reenactments, preservation of homes, antiques, furniture, toys, arcade games, Ataris, synthesizers, guitars, and so on. The thing that sets this source code apart from the others, is that it's virtual, not concrete.
Yes, I understand that.
The thing is that the reason the source code hasn't been released probably has less to do with the company protecting its IP, and more to do with the fact that they simply don't care enough to bother doing something that they won't get any financial reward for. Wave a few million under their noses and see how fast this "missing" source code shows up. Until then, you might as well be asking them to go find a penny they dropped down the sewer a decade ago, because that's about how much value they put on the Dark Engine source.
sparhawk on 4/5/2009 at 11:34
Quote Posted by qolelis
It most likely took me less time than it took you writing your post :p
Which is exactly the reason why internet petitions are not seriously considered by CEOs. They are cheap and easy to get people to sign it.
jtr7 on 4/5/2009 at 11:37
Maybe nowadays, but it worked like a charm for us for the other editors, and all we needed was for the right people to know of its existence.:)
Rekrul: Eidos didn't make nearly enough money from the games to keep paying staff to patch it for us every time we needed one, especially after both LGS had to be bailed out again and again until it couldn't be done anymore, and then after ISA shut down. Plus, too many here were crapping all over the company and devs about the mistakes, like poo-flinging monkeys. Patches were released before too much time passed after the games went on shelves, and they gave us tools, and didn't warn us against keeping the games running on new systems--even continuing to sell the games years later, knowing most people had to look at TTLG's FAQ to make it work.
Quote Posted by Rekrul
Just for the sake of discussion; I'm a little unclear on how a (theoretically) leaked copy of the source code would in any way harm the company. I mean, the source code, or even a source port is useless by itself without all the data from a full copy of the game. Having a guaranteed way to run the games problem-free on modern systems would give even more incentive for people to hunt down and buy the games. Unfortunately not enough incentive for the company to bother releasing it though, since they only pay attention to sales in the millions.
I don't believe it would harm them at all; HOWEVER, I have no right whatsoever to assume that I can go ahead without permission, and we are asking, and begging first--not only to get permission and the source code, but it would give these cool projects that are hindered by the lack of it a great boost.
As I've suggested elsewhere, they may not be against the idea at all, but against spending money on someone to go dig through files or shelves or boxes to find it for us, clean out anything they don't want us to have, and get it out to us. When the LGS people showed up at ISA, they saw their old systems on the desks, and it was an odd experience to see the old desktop wallpapers and such. Eidos liquidated the LGS assets, but kept a lot of it for themselves. Whatever was done to the data on the hard drives, and spindles of CDs, the devs never knew, don't know, or won't tell.
qolelis on 4/5/2009 at 15:14
Quote Posted by sparhawk
Which is exactly the reason why internet petitions are not seriously considered by CEOs. They are cheap and easy to get people to sign it.
OK, so we should do something that would require a little more effort, like sending personal handwritten letters to anyone it may concern and keep doing it for a long while. For that, we would need a physical address. For starters, we could all handcopy (you know, pen and paper-style) the text in the petition and send that.
We could show up in person at the office. We could gather outside with banners and slogans. We could contact the media or make sure that media contacts us. We could
spam the entire net mention it everywhere we go. We could bug them forever. We could do performances in the streets. We could do all sorts of crazy stuff until everyone knows about it.
If that's not enough, we could start a collection for "bribe money" to which people can donate and if we ever get enough (whatever "enough" is) we can offer it if we get the source code in return. People were at least quite willing to donate for new TTLG hosting.
We could, but we probably won't...
