ROFL HZ going open source

D0ZeR

This just in:

1) 64 bit server being demo'd at WinHec.

2) Client stuff:
<David-Skalkaar> The client will continue to be updated... but I will let you know that we've started the design for an entirely new client... ground up rewrite.
<LaughingOtter> And is there a rough, approxamite, subject to revision as needed, ETA? ;-)
<Fridlekh> David: By "Ground Up re-write", I hope you mean using a new core rendering engine, or at least alchemy 3.0
<David-Skalkaar> LaughingOtter: since the design stage for a complete rewrite has just recently begun, it would be premature to discuss timeframes. And yes, I do mean a complete rewrite.
<David-Skalkaar> They are discussing the desired properties of the new client and simulation as well.
<Fridlekh> Have you descided on an engine yet, or planning on writing your own?
<Dragoniade> I wouldn't think TG has the man power to write an engine from scratch.
[10:56.16] * Enoeth has joined #tazoon
[10:56.21] <Fridlekh> My only desire in a new clinet: consistent >= 30 FPS performance
<David-Skalkaar> Frid: I can only say that several open-source engines have been evaluated as part of the work already done. No more private engine licensing.
<Fridlekh> OGRE perhaps?

JDexter

---

But I am done with posting about this game let it live or die I really don't care.

GUILD WARS IS HERE AND IT MAKES HZ LOOK LIKE A KIDS GAME. cya

---

This is you, yesterday.

Man, please live up to your word already.

D0ZeR

---

Originally posted by JDexter




But I am done with posting about this game let it live or die I really don't care.

GUILD WARS IS HERE AND IT MAKES HZ LOOK LIKE A KIDS GAME. cya

This is you, yesterday.

Man, please live up to your word already.

---

 

I know but I been saying for a long time what this game needs is a new engine. I just can't believe they are going open source. One thing I will say if they do this and make it work I will be playing the game. So I had to post it here.

I also have to say maybe it has been my complaining that has finally made them listen. Which is a good thing.

majoch

Heh speaking of Guild Wars , I am seriously debating whether to get that one via download this eve or swing by EB tomorrow.  I have cancelled 3 SWG accounts due to CU not to my liking, picked up MxO, reactivated 1 EQ2 account so have room left in the budget for 1 more.

JelloB2000

Open source doesnt mean that it magically becomes a great engine. It means that it might sometimes get updated, there are a TON of open source program out there that get updated once per year depending on how popular they are.

Horizons is not popular atm compared to most mmorpg:s, and still IRC is not official information.

Also open source = hacks only if you swallow M$ propaganda. Seen any virus to ANY open source program?
(Look at *-unix variants, there are very few safety issues.)

KlausW

As much grief as the dev team has caught over the decision to use a proprietary engine, going open-source seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't think anyone is under any illusions that rolling out a new client is going to happen any time soon; six months to a year seems to be a reasonable time frame.

The fact that development of a totally new client has begun implies that TG has enough investment backing for it to plan on remaining operational for at least a year, most likely two. If their funding was questionable, they'd be looking at continuing to try to improve the current client.

Thorongil

---

Originally posted by D0ZeR
Also I thought it was hard to charge when using open source code? I see major hacks coming.

---

I wanted to just comment on this statement. Regarding open source, first off, you have companies making hundreds of millions (and one company I know making billions) of dollars off Linux, which is written with the GNU license. How? Go study what they've done because not only do they fulfill the license but they even have the approval of people like Richard Stallman who created the GNU license.

But beyond this, there are several "open source" licenses out there and some, like the Eclipse license, the Apache license, the BSD license, and others, specifically allow you to take the code and use it in commercial programs if you give proper copyright credit.

So it really depends on the open source license for whatever components they choose to use.

As to whether it will be better or worse, open source projects tend to depend on achieving "critical mass" of developer interest but once they do, they always, every single time, end up with higher quality and better performing product than their commercial competitors. MySQL has one fifth the bugs of Oracle or SQLServer and runs faster on large (multi-terrabyte) databases. Linux likewise. Eclipse and Netbeans, the two growing open source IDEs are also showing this. JBoss, the J2EE open source container does this. There are tons more examples.

The reason why is simple - more eyes looking at the code and discussing design ideas. Above a certain threshold the open source projects bring so much more brainpower to the table on the problem they address that no commercial company can afford to do the same thing.

So the issue on the open source graphics engines will be if those engines ever achieve critical mass large enough to really push them forward. If they do, then they will turn out to be great products but until then they suffer from the same manpower limitations of commercial products and from additional constraints as well.

In short, if something is widely popular and easily commodotized, you are probably better off building an open source version of it. (Note that companies that contribute code to open source software projects can write that all off as charitable contributions against their taxes too, so codebases that don't make lots of money by themselves can be easily maintained and improved with low financial costs.)

gopher65

I happened to be in IRC when the above quote was made. Immediately after the quote ends, Fridlekh again asks DB if the new client would be ready before his 1 year sub (cancelled) sub ran out in December. David answers (paraphrased) "I think Fridlekh you know it would take longer than that;)".

So it will be at least 1 year I would imagine. Probably longer. So at earlist I would say Late summer early fall 2006. What surprises me is that Tulga thinks they have enough cash in pocket to keep going that long. I knew they got some new investors; those people must have given them more money than I thought.

Somnulus

"QUAKE II is one of id Software’s all time best-selling titles, and as of December, 2001 this critically acclaimed engine is also available under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") ^[2]. With more advanced hardware and software rendering and updated network code, the GPL'd QUAKE II engine is the best value in engine licensing - period. The recent success of Soldier of Fortune and Anachronox prove that in the hands of a talented developer, the QUAKE II engine can power a game that looks as good as almost any action game on the market.

The best news on the QUAKE II engine is that it is FREE if you abide by the terms of the GPL, which puts one of the most recently successful game engines within reach of even start-up commercial developers. For teams that don’t want to operate under the GPL, we’re also offering a "non-GPL" QUAKE II engine license for a flat fee of $10,000 per title ^[3] with no backend royalty whatsoever. This means that you can grab the source and tools from our FTP site and sign a separate agreement with us, allowing you to keep your source modifications confidential (if you like). This is the same engine that has powered Hexen II, Heretic II, Kingpin, Daikatana, Sin, and Soldier Of Fortune. The tools have not yet been released under the GPL and are still available for non-commercial use only. These tools can be licensed from id Software for $5,000/project, or there are a number of other third party tools that can be used. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heck, using the Quake II engine as a starting point and modifying it may bring better results.  And in reality, technically, under the GNU GPL you only have to offer to provide the modified source; you don't actually have to post it anywhere and only have to provide it if someone explicitly requests it.

 

"Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)"
 

Many people aren't aware that they have access to some powerful game engines for the development of games and that the only restriction on using them is stating that the modified source code is available upon request.

Is the Quake II engine the answer? Probably not in this case, but any other engine that has fallen under the GNU GPL is really fair game.  I think most players would be more interested in playing the game than they would in requesting a copy of the source code, at any rate.  In addition, you have the advantage in an online game of conducting checksums on your released client for every subscriber; they don't take very long (shorter than most normal patches) and combined with other software checks, they can easily reveal changes to the client.  In that event, the patcher automatically downloads the authentic client and installs it on the subscriber's system, overwriting any hacks.

It's not sure-fire, but it is the most cost-effective route with reasonable client security.  Even the $10,000 flat rate with no royalty backend for the Quake II engine is still very reasonable and obviates the GNU GPL.  Certainly much more reasonable than the Quake III license for $250,000.