Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rich Geldreich On The Concerns Of Open-Sourcing In The Game Industry

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    When you develop open-source shooter (example) and after hard work and lots of manhours receive only 1/10 of the money you expected to make - you'd start to appreciate closed source. Because your game could be forked to hundred different games out of your control and quite a lot of these could make money - to people who forked it.

    Open-source would be like gift from God for cheat-service providers who have built their business to selling subscription cheats for your and other games. Easy as hell to produce various bots and figure out other exploitable vectors with source code in hand. And after onslaught of cheaters - when you failed to contain them - your game would simply die. Players do not want contest of aimbots, they want to play.

    Often enough there are no free open tools of sufficient quality for particular tasks. Have you noticed that free engines generally look like shit compared to commercial engines. Unreal Engine and Unity perhaps make eventually difference here.


    Battlefield 2 was written using Python. You should check the plethora of mods (https://www.moddb.com/games/battlefield-2/mods) that grew out from that game. Game itself is officially dead, it's mods may stlll be alive as separate games (Project Reality for example) https://www.realitymod.com/

    What's wrong with being a consumer? Plenty of Linux users want "things simply to work". It's a reason there are distros like Ubuntu and others who try to provide full desktop experience without fucking around on command line. Linux and any operating system is usually tool for doing some task not. When you work as a lumberjack, you do not want to fix your axe or chainsaw in every 2 hours, you want to do your actual work and cut trees.

    Aren't they correct? Principle and idea is pretty much what communists tried to make work in more than one sense.
    The big one:

    With the jury-rigged patchwork nature of Linux. there ain't much point making commercial game for Linux. Each kernel version would bring need to fix something in the game, anticheat engine or new issues with drivers. Nobody pays game devs for support and bugfixes. Maybe it would work for long term supported distros which are not breaking random shit overnight,
    Like I said, there seems to be quite a bit of culture difference here. I think GNU/Linux works fine the way it is. GNU/Linux desktops work fine the way they are. They work fine for the people who actually like using them. You've more or less proved my point. They are incompatible cultures. GNU/Linux does not need games, we don't need game developers, and we don't need gamers. We are doing just fine without you.

    1. Game Devs wanna earn money. They do so with things like DRM that conflict with our ideals. They sell to users who also don't care about our ideals. Thats fine. However its becoming very clear we aren't your target audience. We have very much different values and different priorities. anti-cheating tech will reduce our Freedom, all for the games we won't play anyway, and if we play them, won't likely pay for either.

    2. Free Software will allow people to tinker with game code. In all honesty, most of us care more about user Freedom than you do about your game, which we likely won't play for anyway, and certainly won't pay for.

    3. Here is a better comparison. Linux is like a semi-truck. Its not easy to drive, takes skill, but its meant for getting work done.

    4. Linux is already a big name prime time OS that is already widely supported on a wide variety of platforms. It already has fantastic support, and many companies already invested. Its already earned a solid reputation as a UNIX replacement with the largest names in industry. Its seen as a very reliable go to. Despite this "patchwork" of various sources, there are a few big names that give cohesive solutions like Intel, Canonical, and Redhat. The only market linux doesn't have a serious presence is the desktop. Even still, Linux desktop users are some of the most productive people, hackers, engineers, designers, admins, programmers, researchers, etc... It doesn't have many of the features windows has on the desktop because most of its expert poweruser base would have a shit fit because they don't want them. Again, we're not your audience.

    5. Here is the big one: This is not your target audience. You already have one, that shares your values on Free software, and anti-cheat stuff. We do not. We do not need you.

    Comment

    Working...
    X