Yakoob on 5/8/2012 at 06:20

---

No one's harping on artists to release their raw *.PSD files or MAX/Blender model files. That's my point. Why should code be treated different?

Also way to assume I am against releasing source code or think I am better than Carmack. Strawman gonna straw.

lost_soul on 5/8/2012 at 07:16

---

Coders can still get paid for their skills even if it is open source. There's a game I like, but it doesn't have a feature I want. I don't know jack about programming beyond writing scripts, and I'm too old to learn. I would pay someone to implement the feature I want.

or...

This game has a bug that annoys the hell out of me. The developers stopped supporting it forever ago. So, I'll pay someone to fix it.

Admittedly this hasn't happened, because when I want a feature in an open source game, it has usually already been implemented by someone who wanted the exact same thing but had the skills to make it happen... e.g. Darkplaces

An exception is EDuke32. I *would* pay somebody to implement a reliable TCP/IP play system with an integrated server browser. Of course I wouldn't pay much, but if enough players got together........ you see my point.

lost_soul on 5/8/2012 at 16:34

---

Why is it funny? I'm suggesting people get paid for the work of building something. If they want paid again, they have to build something else (just like everyone else). Do you honestly prefer the current system where you have to pay a company for a product they never even had anything to do with the creation of because they "bought the rights"?

Yakoob on 5/8/2012 at 17:51

---

Alright I admit I was just being grumpy and obtuse, and you do have a strong point. However, I still have an issue with Stallman's ideas, which are more evident in non-gaming programming jobs.

Basically, think of enterprise software, tools, or even web apps, that don't really rely on graphics or other assets; the code alone is what makes the application. According to Stallman's beliefs the source code should be released for free, which would not only lose a lot of potential sales, but also spring up tons of "copypasta programs" (i.e. someone recompiles with a few tiny tweaks and calls it its own) that would create false competition and further put the programmer's success into the realm of marketing rather than pure coding abilities (as if that wasn't already the case).

Now I know it doesn't prevent anyone from still selling software, and Linux distros themselves do sell their CDs online. I'd be curious to see how well this model has worked for them, financially, though; I genuinely don't know. Maybe it's more viable than I give it credit. (as a funny anecdote, I actually did buy my first linux CDs, which were actually a Polish rip off of red hat, because I was just a 12yo kid who wanted to learn linux and didn't know any better at the time).

EDIT: also, while you dont need original art files for future-proofing compatibility, one could argue they would be a useful asset for all the texture/model/upgrade mods that are common for many games.



This is entirely not how game development works, and (aside from fan-started small indie projects) never will.

heywood on 6/8/2012 at 08:26

---

Red Hat is interesting because they started out selling boxed copies of free software with documentation, and also selling add-on support. In those days, they made nearly all their money selling the boxed copies because most people didn't have the bandwidth to download a whole OS. Once the Linux delivery model changed from primarily boxed copies to primarily downloads, so did Red Hat's strategy. They dropped Red Hat Linux, started sponsoring the Fedora fork of RHL and pitching it as the free alternative for home users, and then created Red Hat Enterprise Linux with a different license model. RHEL is open source, but distribution is controlled by strict licensing of Red Hat trademarks. Red Hat makes their money by selling subscription licenses for RHEL, and technically they are selling commercially licensed trademarks bundled with open source software. RHEL is not free, you don't have a perpetual license to use it, and you can't transfer or redistribute it.

The 'give away software and sell support' model is viable for small consulting businesses, but I don't think it's proven successful for Linux vendors. By sticking with a more traditional business model, Red Hat has been profitable and growing. But Canonical, whose business model is support & services, is less than 1/10 the size of Red Hat and loses money despite having the #1 Linux distribution by market share.

Back to games...

I like the way id software releases source code to their engine & tools once it's obsolete and no longer has significant commercial value. But that's not nearly as good as opening up the games to modification. While both are nice, having DromEd + access to Thief assets is a lot nicer than having source to the Dark engine. It's also a lot more in keeping with a key principle of free software: allowing your users to make derived works. It doesn't make sense to count games as free software if the assets are closed, but it wouldn't be the first time Stallman didn't make sense to me.