If only defunct games went open source

[arnab_das]

Why cant dead and defunct games like medal of honor, project igi go open source? no one plays these games thanks to call of duty etc.

when quake went open source linux saw a huge surge in the no of FPS games, eg. nexuiz, alien arena, etc.

if more games could release their codes (i dont mean the 'happening' games, but the ones which have reduced popularity now like the ones i cited above), linux could shed its tag of being gamer unfriendly.

[aeiah]

its mostly because the developers dont have the right to change the code's license, and those that do, the publishers, want to hold on to the intellectual property.

take one of your examples, medal of honor: it's getting remade and released on major platforms this year with an afghan setting to compete with call of duty.

[mickie.kext]

id Software opensources engines (bare-bones of game without levels and story) of their old games so open source community made some nice games on top of their engines.

Nobody opensources whole games probably because that would to certain extent undermine sales of their new games. It will stay that way until some company make first move and start making money out of open source games over paid multi-player subscription or something...

[aeiah]

a lot of new games now use the unreal 3 engine. this thing is a few years old and must be the most popular engine to use for major games. they're making a load of cash from licensing it and are unlikely to opensource it for years, if ever

[arnab_das]

a lot of new games now use the unreal 3 engine. this thing is a few years old and must be the most popular engine to use for major games. they're making a load of cash from licensing it and are unlikely to opensource it for years, if ever

thats a real shame though. but why did quake then decide to go open source? just curious.

[Nevon]

That's what I don't quite get either. I could totaly understand that you might not want to (or even be able to) open-source your entire game. Some day you might want to re-release it or something. But why not open-source the engines at least? I'm quite sure that open-sourcing the engine of an old, not very popular game would bring more interest in the game, and at the same time stimulate indie game development.

[madnessjack]

thats a real shame though. but why did quake then decide to go open source? just curious.
Technically it didn't, the engine did. So all the artwork and levels (the resources - the important stuff basically) isn't in the public domain.

So basically if Medal of Honor used a similar engine to Quake (for example, I don't think it actually does) there wouldn't be much point open-sourcing it.

[Simian Man]

That's what I don't quite get either. I could totaly understand that you might not want to (or even be able to) open-source your entire game. Some day you might want to re-release it or something. But why not open-source the engines at least? I'm quite sure that open-sourcing the engine of an old, not very popular game would bring more interest in the game, and at the same time stimulate indie game development.

If the engine would be useful in making quality games, the company wouldn't want to open source it because they can license it to others. If the engine wouldn't be useful in making quality games, nobody would use it because we actually have quite a few quality game engines out there.

By far the hardest part of making a great game is content not code, so it's kind of a moot point in my opinion anyway.

[Grenage]

That's what I don't quite get either. I could totaly understand that you might not want to (or even be able to) open-source your entire game. Some day you might want to re-release it or something. But why not open-source the engines at least?

There's no motivation for them to, no money to be made.

[Nevon]

There's no motivation for them to, no money to be made.

I'm not so sure. As I said, releasing the engine (not the game) under a liberal license could spark interest in the original game - thus creating sales that wouldn't otherwise have happened.


If the engine would be useful in making quality games, the company wouldn't want to open source it because they can license it to others. If the engine wouldn't be useful in making quality games, nobody would use it because we actually have quite a few quality game engines out there.

Look at the Quake engine. That was open sourced, and has allowed the creation of plenty of new games. It's certainly not the latest and greatest as far as FPS engines go, and thus not a lot of companies would be interested in purchasing a license for it.


By far the hardest part of making a great game is content not code, so it's kind of a moot point in my opinion anyway.

Sure, content is definitely the hardest part of most game development. But just look at how many indie game development projects there are that have loads of content available, but not a lot of code to show for it. If you go to pretty much any indie game development forum, you'll see the same thing. People who have a script, character designs, game design documents, graphics, etc. But no code.

[gsmanners]

They don't release their engines' source code because if people saw it, the developers would die from shame. :D

[Richard1979]

Technically it didn't, the engine did. So all the artwork and levels (the resources - the important stuff basically) isn't in the public domain.

So basically if Medal of Honor used a similar engine to Quake (for example, I don't think it actually does) there wouldn't be much point open-sourcing it.

Yep, Medal of Honor did use the Quake engine and so did Call of Duty 1.
I remember playing them years ago on Windows and having to use software to force the refresh rate to 85Hz because Windows didn't handle OpenGL properly.

In theory if you got enough people to make great artwork, textures, sounds, models and everything else you could make an open source game that is better than Call of Duty.

EDIT: Here we go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_3
There is even an open source version of Medal of Honor but it seems to have been abandoned.
This game is very active though and looks great: http://www.smokin-guns.net/

[ciborium]

Sure, content is definitely the hardest part of most game development. But just look at how many indie game development projects there are that have loads of content available, but not a lot of code to show for it. If you go to pretty much any indie game development forum, you'll see the same thing. People who have a script, character designs, game design documents, graphics, etc. But no code.

Sounds like the WIP thead in the AGS forum. (http://www.bigbluecup.com/yabb/index.php?PHPSESSID=imnjdbdbquq5odamvc71fdgjd2&board=8.0)

[phrostbyte]

They don't release their engines' source code because if people saw it, the developers would die from shame. :D

:lolflag:

You reminded by of a certain commercial game engine I had the pain of working with. I don't want to name them because they are pretty good guys. :)

[arnab_das]

Yep, Medal of Honor did use the Quake engine and so did Call of Duty 1.
I remember playing them years ago on Windows and having to use software to force the refresh rate to 85Hz because Windows didn't handle OpenGL properly.

In theory if you got enough people to make great artwork, textures, sounds, models and everything else you could make an open source game that is better than Call of Duty.

EDIT: Here we go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_3
There is even an open source version of Medal of Honor but it seems to have been abandoned.
This game is very active though and looks great: http://www.smokin-guns.net/

hey thanks for the links. :)

never knew of this game, looks really good. btw, here are other games (alongwith smoking guns) which were nominated for the independent gaming awards, this is open source gaming at its best. take a look: http://www.moddb.com/games/smokin-guns/features/best-indie-game-2009

[Khakilang]

That goes for Warcraft too. Although it was created in 2003 it was not converted to open source due to its ever popular DOTA.

[3rdalbum]

Not all the code in the engine will belong to the game's developer.

[koleoptero]

If the quality of free/opensource games improved to the point of being comparable to the quality of proprietary games which do you think people would choose? The games companies won't help make that happen.

[gsmanners]

There are quite enough quality free games to keep you occupied for a long time if you look around. The thing about games is that they are like movies. I think most people play them for their notoriety and social aspect (peer pressure).

So, on the contrary, quality is actually a liability for successful games. For games to be successful, they need to not just hook a player's imagination, but they also need to encourage creative modification by players.