DeviluitionX: Enjoying The 23 Year Old Diablo Game Atop An Open-Source Engine

[blubbaer]

The sources look odd. Some parts look like the result of reverse engineered code.

See this for instance: https://github.com/diasurgical/devil...ource/sync.cpp

EDIT: confirmed. IDA is mentioned here https://github.com/diasurgical/devil...s/CHANGELOG.md

Is this legal? I'm afraid not

They also mention it in the FAQ section in the readme: "That is the result of decompiled code. Whenever a program is compiled, much of the source is optimized and stripped away, so it's nearly impossible to decompile it back. Have patience. Everything will be cleaned up eventually."

IANAL and this is definitively not legal. If Blizzard sues them then that is IMO okay. It would be better for them if this was a clean-room implementation but now it is just legally and morally wrong and this blocks many potential contributers to participate.

[Ungweliante]

They also mention it in the FAQ section in the readme: "That is the result of decompiled code. Whenever a program is compiled, much of the source is optimized and stripped away, so it's nearly impossible to decompile it back. Have patience. Everything will be cleaned up eventually."

IANAL and this is definitively not legal. If Blizzard sues them then that is IMO okay. It would be better for them if this was a clean-room implementation but now it is just legally and morally wrong and this blocks many potential contributers to participate.

It is legally wrong in some countries.

But I completely fail to see why is morally wrong. I think the DMCA in the US is the morally wrong one here.

[kuco]

If I'm able to recreate the taste of Coke (Cola) by "reverse engineering" their secret recipe they'd sue me for sure. If I alter their recipe a little, things might be different. It's a messy system. Let's just hope for the best (Blizzard doesn't care).

[ldesnogu]

It is legally wrong in some countries.

But I completely fail to see why is morally wrong. I think the DMCA in the US is the morally wrong one here.

Don't you think it's morally wrong to distribute code that isn't yours and protected by copyrights? And furthermore code that belongs to a program that is still sold? I find it wrong and this has nothing to do with the DMCA which I despise.

[cybertraveler]

Don't you think it's morally wrong to distribute code that isn't yours and protected by copyrights? And furthermore code that belongs to a program that is still sold? I find it wrong and this has nothing to do with the DMCA which I despise.

What do you mean code that is "yours"?

If Ungweliante owns their hard drive and their computer, then they can arrange the bits on that hard drive how ever they want and use them however they want. If Ungweliante owns their human body, then they can memorize the code and say it aloud whenever they please.

When people talk about owning code or a movie or a picture etc, then they're talking about owning something conceptual: either a number or a pattern. Not only is this unnecessary, it's impractical to enforce in any way (see: THE INTERNET), it requires that people's physical property rights are violated and most importantly: it is a form of mind control. Numbers and patterns play a huge role in how people think and communicate. To say that some people can exclusively control particular numbers or patterns is to say that they have exclusive control over that thinking. Obviously: in practise, copyright and patent law is ineffective at mind control unless it's taken to 1984 type extremes (which I expect some people would love to occur). So in its current state it's impossible to enforce the way they want. It ends up just being disruptive.

If you steal my keyboard: we have a problem.

If you try to stop me using my body freely: we have a problem.

If you attempt to manipulate the electrons and hard drive bits within my computer outside the bounds of what I have clearly, implicitly give you permission to do so (sometimes called hacking): we have a problem. That would be a property rights violation. You would be physically controlling my physical property outside the bounds of what I agreed to.

However: if while browsing the web, you come across a number derived from a pattern that I originated and you chose to share it with others: we have no problem. I do not wish to control your mind, your body or your hard drive.

[Danniello]

With the basics in place, this open-source Diablo engine re-implementation will begin working on "quality of life" life improvements like game controller support and high quality scaling.

It would be awesome if they decide to add HD resolutions support. I mean native, wide screen resolutions. I know that it will change game because much more will be visible than in original and in this HD mode definitely multi-player will be disabled, but anyway - it would be awesome play Diablo 1 with native resolution!

PS. I know that there are already Diablo HD mods, but they are also changing game a lot: new quests, new items, changed difficulty, balance, etc. I would like play in almost vanilla Diablo but in HD

[skeevy420]

Don't you think it's morally wrong to distribute code that isn't yours and protected by copyrights? And furthermore code that belongs to a program that is still sold? I find it wrong and this has nothing to do with the DMCA which I despise.

It isn't being sold though...unless you count the ones Amazon and eBay have that are all from 3rd parties and don't actually contribute to Blizzard. Diablo 2 is the oldest one Blizzard actually sells and still makes money on.

7 or 8 years or so after a company quits selling a product. Can't say that I feel too bad in that scenario.

That said, I'd rather them do a method that requires one to have the game files on hand and a script that extracts and uses any code/artwork/etc from Diablo with what they wrote...like how you need a legit copy of Final Fantasy 7 with all the mods at Qhimm or how OpenMW requires you to own Morrowind.

[Spooktra]

If I'm able to recreate the taste of Coke (Cola) by "reverse engineering" their secret recipe they'd sue me for sure. If I alter their recipe a little, things might be different. It's a messy system. Let's just hope for the best (Blizzard doesn't care).

That's not quite right: For instance MacDonald's "special sauce" is just Thousand Island Dressing with mustard an garlic, there's nothing stopping you from selling burgers with that type of dressing on it. You couldn't call it Big Mac Sauce or something similar but you could sell it.

Coke is the same, there's nothing stopping you from making a cola with the exact same ingredients, it's barely more than sugar, coloring and water, you just can't call it Coke but just look at all the colas in the market and the machines that let you make your own cola.

[Spooktra]

Don't you think it's morally wrong to distribute code that isn't yours and protected by copyrights? And furthermore code that belongs to a program that is still sold? I find it wrong and this has nothing to do with the DMCA which I despise.

I write code, one of my majors in college was Comp Sci, but I do not think code should be eligible for copyright protections under the current system. In the U.S. copyright last for the life of the author + 75 years and then it reverts to the public domain but what about in the case of a corporate entity that can in theory "live" forever. Patents expire, depending on the type in as little as 10 years, and I would argue it takes a lot more effort and money to create something unique eligible for a patent than it does to write a piece of code.

I think most software should only be eligible for a copyright term of 5 years and after that it should revert to the public domain because realistically, the way computers change, most software is pretty obsolete within 5 years.

[Black_Fox]

It isn't being sold though...unless you count the ones Amazon and eBay have that are all from 3rd parties and don't actually contribute to Blizzard. Diablo 2 is the oldest one Blizzard actually sells and still makes money on.

It is being sold: https://www.gog.com/game/diablo