Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wasteland 2 To Run On Unity Game Engine

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by lapis
    Look the absurd of Grim Dawn.They expect almost 300% of funding to do a simple port of linux.
    A "simple port" to Linux, huh?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      It's mentioned in many places like kickstarter. Too bad they didn't choose Unigine.
      Unigine didn't offer source access or free support. It was a nice, calculated advertisement.

      Here's a fallout-alike demo done in Unity:



      and another



      Unity is more than capable of handling Wasteland 2.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by lapis View Post
        I was trying to say this.Funding a Open Source project is a lot better because the people have free acess to the source code .It's a lot more easier to port to linux.We need to invest on entirely opensource projects .Not proprietary project which "promises" linux 'port" at cost of (much)more money.(Look the absurd of Grim Dawn.They expect almost 300% of funding to do a simple port of linux.

        I prefer to pay much more for a 100% opensource project than pay a linux port for proprietáry project.
        You never addressed my point. If they do not release their game code (and their is nothing to force them to) it does not really matter if they use a free engine.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
          You never addressed my point. If they do not release their game code (and their is nothing to force them to) it does not really matter if they use a free engine.
          This is I was trying to say .We need invest only games which uses a opensource license on all content (including game code,content graphics,sound,music and game engine) even if we pay much more.For example ,is more better investment to pay 0AD developers than a "port" on a proprietary game.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
            Unigine didn't offer source access or free support. It was a nice, calculated advertisement.
            This makes sense.

            Here's a fallout-alike demo done in Unity:


            Unity is more than capable of handling Wasteland 2.
            It looks even better than Van Buren and has the spirit. Thanks a lot.

            Comment


            • #36
              It's entertainment software. Don't much care if it's open source or not - at least not until 10 years from now when the creators stop keeping the binaries up to date. I'm just happy that my desktop platform of choice is getting noticed and considered valuable enough to support.

              Let's all demand that The Avengers movie gets open sourced. I get dibs on Agent Coulson's BFG.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rustybroomhandle View Post
                It's entertainment software. Don't much care if it's open source or not - at least not until 10 years from now when the creators stop keeping the binaries up to date. I'm just happy that my desktop platform of choice is getting noticed and considered valuable enough to support.

                Let's all demand that The Avengers movie gets open sourced. I get dibs on Agent Coulson's BFG.
                You do not understand. If we pay for the product we have right to use as we wish. For example, a product cost 100 000 and we pay for it 200 000, then it should go into the public domain or free software.

                It is not a simple problem of updates, but the right to reuse content without paying restriction.

                For example, we pay a lot for Windows 95 and it was not for the public domain. So it is worse than socialism. You have no right of ownership of the software.

                It is unfair to pay for something eternally.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by lapis View Post
                  You do not understand. If we pay for the product we have right to use as we wish. For example, a product cost 100 000 and we pay for it 200 000, then it should go into the public domain or free software.

                  It is not a simple problem of updates, but the right to reuse content without paying restriction.

                  For example, we pay a lot for Windows 95 and it was not for the public domain. So it is worse than socialism. You have no right of ownership of the software.

                  It is unfair to pay for something eternally.
                  I have written it before. It all comes out of the fact, that a bad sales model has been picked as standard. Programs and games should be payed for continuously in order to receive updates. Something like what Codeweavers do with Crossover.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by lapis View Post
                    It is not a simple problem of updates, but the right to reuse content without paying restriction.
                    Nice sentiment, but no. Games are expensive to make, and expecting them to just give it away is expecting too much. That's what you are really implying here, since nobody would pay for it if it were just free.

                    And "but they already got paid for it" is also a naive, bordering on dumb argument, so don't even go there.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by rustybroomhandle View Post
                      Nice sentiment, but no. Games are expensive to make, and expecting them to just give it away is expecting too much. That's what you are really implying here, since nobody would pay for it if it were just free.

                      And "but they already got paid for it" is also a naive, bordering on dumb argument, so don't even go there.

                      It's nothing giving for free.We are Paying for the product. People PAY to development of project and after this is released on opensource.It's not free because we PAY (funding on Kickstarter) for the development of game.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by lapis View Post
                        It's nothing giving for free.We are Paying for the product. People PAY to development of project and after this is released on opensource.It's not free because we PAY (funding on Kickstarter) for the development of game.
                        You seem very upset that you're not getting something you haven't paid for.

                        At no point in Wasteland 2's pitch was there a promise to release either the engine or the assets under a Free Software license.

                        If you gave them your money on the basis that they would do that, then you need to read better.

                        If you didn't give them your money, then no harm no foul - they are 101% within their rights to pick the terms under which to produce their product, and end users are 100% within their rights to decide whether or not to back the project on that basis (e.g. I've not pledged to games without Linux ports, as is my right)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by directhex View Post
                          You seem very upset that you're not getting something you haven't paid for.

                          At no point in Wasteland 2's pitch was there a promise to release either the engine or the assets under a Free Software license.

                          If you gave them your money on the basis that they would do that, then you need to read better.

                          If you didn't give them your money, then no harm no foul - they are 101% within their rights to pick the terms under which to produce their product, and end users are 100% within their rights to decide whether or not to back the project on that basis (e.g. I've not pledged to games without Linux ports, as is my right)

                          Hey mono guy ,I know they don t promise release anything using a Free Software license. And they are on their right to do this.

                          But it's not logical because the society pays to develop a game but it's not for society even if society paid for this.When you pay for a product ,the product is your property .

                          Why on copyright side this dont happen?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by lapis View Post
                            Hey mono guy ,I know they don t promise release anything using a Free Software license. And they are on their right to do this.

                            But it's not logical because the society pays to develop a game but it's not for society even if society paid for this.When you pay for a product ,the product is your property .

                            Why on copyright side this dont happen?
                            It's not "society" that paid anything.

                            It's a collection of individuals. Those individuals have made the empirical decision "I consider the proposed benefits X to be worth my money Y". Every one of those users has accepted the terms under which the product will be developed.

                            Everyone who paid $15 or more paid that on the understanding that they'd receive a closed-source game for Windows, OSX or Linux. Initial release, with the expectation of the occasional patch. That's what they'll get!

                            If you want to encourage people to support Free Software projects instead, then by all means, do so. Any suggestions of Free Software games, developed by dedicated teams with deep experience of developing compelling games?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by directhex View Post
                              It's not "society" that paid anything.

                              It's a collection of individuals. Those individuals have made the empirical decision "I consider the proposed benefits X to be worth my money Y". Every one of those users has accepted the terms under which the product will be developed.

                              Everyone who paid $15 or more paid that on the understanding that they'd receive a closed-source game for Windows, OSX or Linux. Initial release, with the expectation of the occasional patch. That's what they'll get!

                              If you want to encourage people to support Free Software projects instead, then by all means, do so. Any suggestions of Free Software games, developed by dedicated teams with deep experience of developing compelling games?
                              Even if a group of individuals accepted the proposal is not based on logic, because individuals have paid the entire project development. And when you pay for the entire product development you have the right to ownership of the product. It's like selling a physical product and the person does not obtain ownership of the product (even if paid for all costs of producing the product).

                              People do not fight for ownership of the product because they dont know they have this right. And they have this right, because they paid for it entirely. Nobody would be stupid to pay entirely for a product and not wanting to own it.

                              This is called socialism. The person pays, pay, pay and never receive the right to property product.And remember, socialism is theft. Because the person paid more than the cost of the product and still be obliged to accept that the product will never be yours.

                              It happened with Windows 95. We pay very expensive and beyond the cost of the product. And we do not have the public domain Windows 95.Copyright in past have 14 years .Today it's 90 years.An absurd and a complete socialism os software.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by lapis View Post
                                Even if a group of individuals accepted the proposal is not based on logic, because individuals have paid the entire project development. And when you pay for the entire product development you have the right to ownership of the product. It's like selling a physical product and the person does not obtain ownership of the product (even if paid for all costs of producing the product).

                                People do not fight for ownership of the product because they dont know they have this right. And they have this right, because they paid for it entirely. Nobody would be stupid to pay entirely for a product and not wanting to own it.

                                This is called socialism. The person pays, pay, pay and never receive the right to property product.And remember, socialism is theft. Because the person paid more than the cost of the product and still be obliged to accept that the product will never be yours.

                                It happened with Windows 95. We pay very expensive and beyond the cost of the product. And we do not have the public domain Windows 95.Copyright in past have 14 years .Today it's 90 years.An absurd and a complete socialism os software.
                                I don't think "socialism" means what you think it means.

                                And you're confusing Kickstarter with Gambitious, which gives you what you're talking about

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X