Valve and Linux... my, my, things are getting interesting! - by lost_soul
polytourist97 on 4/8/2012 at 08:45
Reading Stallman's exact quotations, he seems more at odds with the idea of promoting "non-free" software (i.e. the games that steam provides access to) using Linux as a selling point, rather than having problems with Steam promoting Linux use. He even goes on to say that if it encourages more people to migrate to Linux, then it would probably be worth any clashes in ethics, because it would allow people more freedoms in their OS choice. I don't see this as too extreme a standpoint. His philosophy is total freedom of software, and charging for software inhibits upon certain freedoms.
I'm actually quite surprised at how pragmatic his point comes across. Essentially he submits that the more that people are inclined (and able) to use Linux the better, which Steam on Linux is sure to allow, so he's really not that against it.
june gloom on 4/8/2012 at 10:14
Yes, but his idea that software -- i.e. games should be free is naive at best, downright delusional at worst. Releasing a AAA game like Dishonored or Fallout or Skyrim for free doesn't put food on the dev team's plates.
polytourist97 on 4/8/2012 at 11:50
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Yes, but his idea that software -- i.e. games
should be free is naive at best, downright delusional at worst..
Is it though? There are a lot of free games available within the various Linux package managers, on android marketplace, and just via the internet through independent channels (LEGITIMATE channels I mean). Also, the rise in prominence of the free-to-play business model (and I'm referring to the more recent model, a la Team Fortress 2: giving users the freedom to decide what monetary commitments they wish to make towards the game without it hindering their access) suggests AAA titles not only can be "free", but competitively lucrative by following such a model. Is that to say ALL games could or should be distributed in such a way? No, but free (high quality) games
are actually happening.
But of course, one doesn't get involved in open source software development solely as a way to make ends meet (that I'm aware of). So to expect food on your table from contributing to such a project is probably not the best plan.
lost_soul on 4/8/2012 at 14:47
I was hoping this Stallman argument wouldn't show up here. It has been said a million times. You can release the source code to a product but STILL SELL the assets like levels, models, textures, etc. That just means the gamers (like me) won't get fucked over and left with a malware-laden executable that we can't make reasonable use of down the line. However, it is more profitable to leave people with encrypted blobs so you can make them buy the same game over and over again.
Only down side to the open engines would be that it would likely be easier to cheat in online games if everyone has the engine source. I suppose you could have a checksum system, but what is to stop the gamer from just commenting that out of the code and recompiling it?
Phatose on 4/8/2012 at 19:50
More then just cheating, it would make any kind of version control near impossible, since the version reporting code can be changed just as easily as anything else. Online play becomes an instant nightmare.
And by 'still sell the art assets', you mean 'still sell the art assets, packaged in a way that allows for convenient modification,alteration and redistribution by the end user', right? Cause hey, we care about the end users freedoms more then anything.
heywood on 4/8/2012 at 23:06
Quote Posted by polytourist97
Is it though? There are a lot of free games available within the various Linux package managers, on android marketplace, and just via the internet through independent channels (LEGITIMATE channels I mean). Also, the rise in prominence of the free-to-play business model (and I'm referring to the more recent model, a la Team Fortress 2: giving users the freedom to decide what monetary commitments they wish to make towards the game without it hindering their access) suggests AAA titles not only can be "free", but competitively lucrative by following such a model. Is that to say ALL games could or should be distributed in such a way? No, but free (high quality) games
are actually happening.
Stallman's definition of free is not no-cost. When he says free he's referring to the licensing model not the price. Free software is software that can be freely modified, tinkered with, redistributed, forked, etc. Free-to-play software like TF2 doesn't qualify as "free software". It's still proprietary.
Quote Posted by lost_soul
I was hoping this Stallman argument wouldn't show up here. It has been said a million times. You can release the source code to a product but STILL SELL the assets like levels, models, textures, etc. That just means the gamers (like me) won't get fucked over and left with a malware-laden executable that we can't make reasonable use of down the line. However, it is more profitable to leave people with encrypted blobs so you can make them buy the same game over and over again.
They would likely use DRM to protect the assets even if the source code to the engine is free. Even if they didn't use DRM, the license on the assets would still be proprietary. It wouldn't count as free software by Stallman's definition.
All I really want is a game to be opened up to modification at some reasonable time after the release date.
lost_soul on 5/8/2012 at 01:59
IIRC Stallman has said that it counts as free software even if the assets are closed. You may have a point though when it comes to levels/maps where they're pre-compiled. Technically they still have a "source" and are most of the time "closed source" in that you don't get the unprocessed levels the devs originally made.
Yakoob on 5/8/2012 at 03:27
Quote Posted by heywood
They would likely use DRM to protect the assets even if the source code to the engine is free. Even if they didn't use DRM, the license on the assets would still be proprietary. It wouldn't count as free software by Stallman's definition.
That's still a shitty viewpoint, as a programmer. So what, the stuff artists makes is all valuble and propriety and can be "sold" but not the code I wrote? Screw that, i deserve as much payment as the artists for the work I have done.
Quote Posted by polytourist97
There are a lot of free games available .... Team Fortress 2 ... Is that to say ALL games could or should be distributed in such a way? No, but free (high quality) games
are actually happening. .
True, but those games still aren't "free;" you still can opt in to pay for the DLC and bonus content. By definition, a 100% free game could not exist as no one would willingly donate millions of dollars at a project knowing they won't see any profit. Games aren't charity.
That, and as explained above, Stallman refers to "free" as in source code released, rather than "you don't need to buy the game to play."
Briareos H on 5/8/2012 at 05:59
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Screw that, i deserve as much payment as the artists for the work I have done.
John Carmack is about a million times better at programming than you and still releases all of his code. I don't think his ego is hurt when he does. After a few years, your precious little algorithms usually aren't worth much, especially in games where things go forward with technology extremely fast. And there are so many game programmers anyway that no one can rightfully believe that they program in a new and unique way.
And gg at understanding (also, gg at thinking that if the code is open-sourced, the programmers aren't paid??). People were not implying that game art has more intrinsic value than code (although I'll add my opinion that it has in most cases), but that in order to make a game future-proof and 'open' while still requiring for people to buy it, only releasing the code is necessary.
There is not a single reason why all games shouldn't see their codebase open-sourced 3 to 5 years after release unless the developer is still pushing updates at that point.
Briareos H on 5/8/2012 at 06:14
The point is moot anyway considering the amount of COTS and third-party shit that are thrown into games today.
