Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Games
What if Doom 3 were open sourced?
By Frans Englich
on
August 04, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
ID Software has released all its major games under the GPL as soon as
newer ID releases take the spotlight. But what if Doom 3, the most
advanced game engine on Earth, were open sourced from the start?
Since 1991, Texas-based ID Software has showed the gaming industry how state-of-the-art gaming engines are created with each and every new release. Be it Doom, Quake 3 or any of ID's other titles, the next steps in physics engines and 3D rendering have been taken. No wonder the ID code bases have been licensed for games such as Half Life and Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
But what truly amazes me is how the ID folks have kept their passion for the craft despite their monetary success and celebrity. Whether it's answering questions for the KDE project, helping with game engine modifications such as Quakeforge, or in general paying respect to the community, ID is good at keeping the conversation going. The architectures are open, there are plenty of tools for game modification, and the majority of the games are open sourced. When ID's native Linux binaries aren't there, the GPLed source code has ensured platform independence, be it for Wolfenstein 3D or Doom 2.
One doesn't have to read the game-specific news media to have heard that the big thing in the game industry is ID's upcoming Doom 3. Judging from the screenshots and video clip from the game, it without doubt is unseen before.
ID Software releases its games under open source licenses when they have started collecting dust and the spotlight is seeking their new games. While the source is of great interest for the loyal community, it's not much more than that.
When ID releases Doom 3 -- the next milestone in gaming technology -- what would happen if it were released under an open source license right away instead of waiting?
- As did Linux, it would turn the gaming industry upside down by making it a happy place for small and medium-sized enterprises, and by shifting it to a service orientation. As an operating system, a 3D engine is a far too big and complex project to write from scratch, but when standing on the shoulders of giants large accomplishments can be made. Small gaming companies, and the innovation they bring, would flourish.
- When Doom 3 is the engine behind games, and its development takes on the speed and perfection of open source, the technical aspect of gaming would already be taken care of. We would see game development conquer new areas -- new technical features, and deep explorations of story line, art and design.
- 3D engines are not only of interest in games. Ordinary programs, ranging from medical systems to CAD programs, also need 3D capabilities. With the Doom 3 engine, such projects would have a new horizon, especially those that lack the resources to develop or purchase their own, such as educational and government projects. The push ID would give such projects would be invaluable.
- The engine would become a generic software component installed on most systems, referenced by games, effects in desktop environments and ordinary programs.
- When a game can be built with the Doom 3 engine, does it make any sense going the proprietary path? The gaming industry would be converted to open source in two seconds. Open source's unique ability to establish open standards would make itself present. Goodbye DirectX!
What is hindering ID from taking this giant leap for the computer industry, if not fo all of mankind?
Judging from ID's close relationship with the gaming community and its passion for the craft, it cannot be a lack of motivation -- I think they would observe the development such a decision would spur with great interest.
Could it be financial reasons? MySQL is released under the GPL, and MySQL AB makes money on proprietary licenses (paradoxical as it first may seem). As long as a company is liked, open source is a fine business model.
Fear of losing control? That open sourcing a piece of software would lead to "anarchy" is a myth created by misunderstanding open source and Internet marketing. If the open sourcing was done in a way suitable for Doom 3 (which would radically differ from ID's previous source releases), ID would still be in charge.
What about legal aspects? Certainly. Considering the engine's close involvement with the hardware, the developers may have signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), but they can easily be circumvented by leaving those parts out or doing workarounds. ID may also have signed contracts (such as licenses of the engine) which prevent them from moving toward open source licenses.
ID Software has systematically, again and again, revolutionized. Open source is storming the market. And now, due to groundwork that is only recently completed, it is about to start moving into gaming.
Shouldn't open source be ID Software's next move if it still wants to be "The" gaming industry innovator?
Copyright (C) 2004 Frans Englich
Comments
on What if Doom 3 were open sourced?Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
what exactly is this 'speed and perfection' of the open source model? If open source is so great, why didn't it produce an advanced 3D engine? No, it took a single genius ( Carmack ) to produce this. Now I like the ~fruits~ of OpenSource, but I see ALot of value to the closed source / small team model. -MC
I agree, there's no convincing argument here for ID to open source the engine. They'd need to completely redo a business model that has worked for them for at least 12 years now.
DirectX is NOT a 3d engine. It is a 3d api and this is a whole different thing.
Also not all games can be built with the Doom 3 engine. Making an engine means taking compromises to show beautiful graphics. If you need one feature missing because of the compromise taken, you cannot use that engine. Also the Doom 3 engine pumps very few polygons. It uses normal maps to enhance their aspect and to give the impression of an highly detailed scene. This solution is uber great for such a game (the graphics is beautiful indeed) but useless for a desktop application.
"When a game can be built with the Doom 3 engine, does it make any sense going the proprietary path?" - games can already be built using the doom3 engine. You just have (rightfully) to pay. And you don't even play much if you compare that cost with the whole cost of making an AAA game. Simply that engine is not the solution for every problem. Try to make it run on a PS2 or try to use it for a Mario style game..
Before writing an article on engines, take the time to learn what an engine is and how it works. And why CAD and videogames are different.
Thank God, the gaming industry is not opensource and I still have a work.
Also not all games can be built with the Doom 3 engine. Making an engine means taking compromises to show beautiful graphics. If you need one feature missing because of the compromise taken, you cannot use that engine. Also the Doom 3 engine pumps very few polygons. It uses normal maps to enhance their aspect and to give the impression of an highly detailed scene. This solution is uber great for such a game (the graphics is beautiful indeed) but useless for a desktop application.
"When a game can be built with the Doom 3 engine, does it make any sense going the proprietary path?" - games can already be built using the doom3 engine. You just have (rightfully) to pay. And you don't even play much if you compare that cost with the whole cost of making an AAA game. Simply that engine is not the solution for every problem. Try to make it run on a PS2 or try to use it for a Mario style game..
Before writing an article on engines, take the time to learn what an engine is and how it works. And why CAD and videogames are different.
Thank God, the gaming industry is not opensource and I still have a work.
You're quite a moron yourself. DirectX is not a 3D API...Direct3D is that part, the rest (DirectMusic, DirectSound, DirectPlay, DirectInput, DirectLyupyourass) has each a completely different purpose...
To be true even the doom engine is not just a 3d engine. And Direct3D is no more, it's called DirectX Graphics. Look at the concepts not the names. The fact is that Doom 3 engine and DirectX Graphics (or D3D or whatever) are two different things, ditto.
Really Direct3D is still there and it's half DirectX Graphics (which is made of D3D and D3DX).
However you're right the main point is the confusion between a game engine and an API.
However you're right the main point is the confusion between a game engine and an API.
Doom3's engine is OpenGL, not DirectX.
I don't really see a convincing reason here for Id to release the Doom 3 engine under an open source license early, as he proposes. However, his point about DirectX (or the graphics part of it, anyway) was that since Doom 3 is OpenGL rather than DirectX, it would tip development efforts strongly away from DirectX towards OpenGL. Whether the release of the Doom 3 engine would have such a drastic effect is debatable, but he was not confusing an API with an engine; he simply knows that the Doom 3 engine is based on a different API, OpenGL.
Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2004 05:28 PM
You want code? Write it.
GPL is one of those licenses that force you to give away everything for free. You'd wish Carmack had to live from selling T-shirts, caps and CDs ?
Maybe copyright the ISO layout like the OpenBSD guys as it was any good? Geez...
GPL is one of those licenses that force you to give away everything for free. You'd wish Carmack had to live from selling T-shirts, caps and CDs ?
Maybe copyright the ISO layout like the OpenBSD guys as it was any good? Geez...
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2004 05:32 PM
Let me add that ID will still be "The" gaming industry innovator, because ATI and Nvidia have worked and learned a lot from Carmack.
And it will continue this way, even if you're still a GPL zealot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
And it will continue this way, even if you're still a GPL zealot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2004 07:06 PM
"You want code? Write it."
Modern software uses large numbers of libraries written by other people, ID's games included. If nothing else you need libc and OpenGL (or Direct3D or whatever). You want to write those?
"GPL is one of those licenses that force you to give away everything for free."
Look on it as payment for everything you get for free under the GPL. You'd prefer BSD? With that you *do* have to give everything away for free.
"You'd wish Carmack had to live from selling T-shirts, caps and CDs ?"
Yeah, no-one makes a living from Open Source. Apart from MySQL, RedHat, SuSE, everyone using Apache and Linux, etc. IBM and Apple use it, the film industry is getting big on it. Gaming is dragging its heels on this one.
Modern software uses large numbers of libraries written by other people, ID's games included. If nothing else you need libc and OpenGL (or Direct3D or whatever). You want to write those?
"GPL is one of those licenses that force you to give away everything for free."
Look on it as payment for everything you get for free under the GPL. You'd prefer BSD? With that you *do* have to give everything away for free.
"You'd wish Carmack had to live from selling T-shirts, caps and CDs ?"
Yeah, no-one makes a living from Open Source. Apart from MySQL, RedHat, SuSE, everyone using Apache and Linux, etc. IBM and Apple use it, the film industry is getting big on it. Gaming is dragging its heels on this one.
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2004 09:10 PM
BSD is much more free than GPL, you *don't* have to give away for free, you can close it if you want to.
But you *do* have to give everything for free under GPL.
At least you don't have to give your IP rights to FSF and can change license whenever you want.
About making a living from Open Source, what do you propose the gaming industry to sell? Support? Bah.
But you *do* have to give everything for free under GPL.
At least you don't have to give your IP rights to FSF and can change license whenever you want.
About making a living from Open Source, what do you propose the gaming industry to sell? Support? Bah.
At least you don't have to give your IP rights to FSF and can change license whenever you want.
Just to not that you do not give your IP rights to the FSF when you GPL your code. You retain all rights. This includes the right to re-license and/or duel license.
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2004 10:50 PM
"BSD is much more free than GPL, you *don't* have to give away for free, you can close it if you want to. But you *do* have to give everything for free under GPL."
&$#%. What FUD this is.
If you license your software under the BSD license, you're giving it to *anyone* to do *anything* with. You don't necessarily receive *any* payment whatsoever, even if others continue the development and enhance the product.
With the GPL, if others improve your software, they must pass on those improvements if they distribute the software at all. That is the guaranteed payment you get from the GPL.
What you say is true if you're one of those parasites that's using code others release under the BSD. You don't have to give it away for free. But when you use GPL code, you have to return your improvements to the community if you distribute the changed code. But it wasn't ever your code in the first place, so why complain? It's up to the copyright owner to say who gets to do what with his code.
"At least you don't have to give your IP rights to FSF and can change license whenever you want."
You never, ever have to give your rights to the FSF just because you use the GPL. Only a small fraction of GPL projects do this. They have a name: the GNU Project. If you give your copyright rights to the FSF, the only things you lose are your copyright rights, including the right to dual-license. But you're guaranteed that the code will be released under the GPL for all eternity to come, so you haven't lost much of anything if you weren't planning on using multiple licenses. And your software gets the free legal protection of the FSF. That's a pretty nice deal.
As I've said, you can relicense code that you own the copyright to, no matter which licenses it's already released under. If you don't own the copyright to all the code, like in the case of the Linux kernel, you don't have that option, but if that's one of your concerns, you could, like the FSF, require all contributors to give their copyrights to you. The same thing would apply whether you used the GPL or the BSD license.
God. Sometimes I think people will never get it.
&$#%. What FUD this is.
If you license your software under the BSD license, you're giving it to *anyone* to do *anything* with. You don't necessarily receive *any* payment whatsoever, even if others continue the development and enhance the product.
With the GPL, if others improve your software, they must pass on those improvements if they distribute the software at all. That is the guaranteed payment you get from the GPL.
What you say is true if you're one of those parasites that's using code others release under the BSD. You don't have to give it away for free. But when you use GPL code, you have to return your improvements to the community if you distribute the changed code. But it wasn't ever your code in the first place, so why complain? It's up to the copyright owner to say who gets to do what with his code.
"At least you don't have to give your IP rights to FSF and can change license whenever you want."
You never, ever have to give your rights to the FSF just because you use the GPL. Only a small fraction of GPL projects do this. They have a name: the GNU Project. If you give your copyright rights to the FSF, the only things you lose are your copyright rights, including the right to dual-license. But you're guaranteed that the code will be released under the GPL for all eternity to come, so you haven't lost much of anything if you weren't planning on using multiple licenses. And your software gets the free legal protection of the FSF. That's a pretty nice deal.
As I've said, you can relicense code that you own the copyright to, no matter which licenses it's already released under. If you don't own the copyright to all the code, like in the case of the Linux kernel, you don't have that option, but if that's one of your concerns, you could, like the FSF, require all contributors to give their copyrights to you. The same thing would apply whether you used the GPL or the BSD license.
God. Sometimes I think people will never get it.
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2004 11:05 PM
"If you license your software under the BSD license, you're giving it to *anyone* to do *anything* with. You don't necessarily receive *any* payment whatsoever, even if others continue the development and enhance the product.
With the GPL, if others improve your software, they must pass on those improvements if they distribute the software at all. That is the guaranteed payment you get from the GPL."
This is the main DEFECT of GPL. Free code should be free to become private of those who enhance it. This way third parties will be able to make money on the product and they will invest more and more to enhance it. And many products derived from the OS one will see the light. We don't need free products that kill the market, we do need free products that spark innovation. You call them "parasites" while I hope every day someone takes my sw and makes money on it. That are different points of view. But with the GPL poit of view, software market will sooner or later become like china or cuban economy. Where there isn't real (enforced) private property innovation stops.
With the GPL, if others improve your software, they must pass on those improvements if they distribute the software at all. That is the guaranteed payment you get from the GPL."
This is the main DEFECT of GPL. Free code should be free to become private of those who enhance it. This way third parties will be able to make money on the product and they will invest more and more to enhance it. And many products derived from the OS one will see the light. We don't need free products that kill the market, we do need free products that spark innovation. You call them "parasites" while I hope every day someone takes my sw and makes money on it. That are different points of view. But with the GPL poit of view, software market will sooner or later become like china or cuban economy. Where there isn't real (enforced) private property innovation stops.
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 05, 2004 01:20 AM
It's not a defect of the GPL, any more than the ability to 'close' BSD code is a defect of the BSD license. The two licenses simply serve similar, but slightly different goals.
The BSD license serves the goal of allowing *anybody* to incorporate a certain set of code into *any* project. It's the ultimate in freedom for developers. End-users, on the other hand, very seldom get to see any of the BSD licensed code they are using, because it is very often incorporated into closed projects.
The GPL serves the goal of allowing *anybody* to see how a particular set of code works and modify it. It's the ultimate in freedom for end-users. Developers on the other hand have to recognize that it means they can't change the license.
Quite simply, if you don't want to use the GPL license for your code, you simply don't use code which was licensed by someone else under the GPL. Just as simply, if you don't want your code to be hidden inside a closed-source project, don't license it under the BSD license.
If you're looking for the best of both worlds, look for code licensed under the LGPL. You can use it in closed-projects (so long as you link to it dynamically), and your end-users get all the same rights to mess with the code that you had.
The BSD license serves the goal of allowing *anybody* to incorporate a certain set of code into *any* project. It's the ultimate in freedom for developers. End-users, on the other hand, very seldom get to see any of the BSD licensed code they are using, because it is very often incorporated into closed projects.
The GPL serves the goal of allowing *anybody* to see how a particular set of code works and modify it. It's the ultimate in freedom for end-users. Developers on the other hand have to recognize that it means they can't change the license.
Quite simply, if you don't want to use the GPL license for your code, you simply don't use code which was licensed by someone else under the GPL. Just as simply, if you don't want your code to be hidden inside a closed-source project, don't license it under the BSD license.
If you're looking for the best of both worlds, look for code licensed under the LGPL. You can use it in closed-projects (so long as you link to it dynamically), and your end-users get all the same rights to mess with the code that you had.
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 05, 2004 12:41 AM
What if I've done 95% of the product and used 5% GPL code, and want to dual-license it? I can't, I have to give everything away for free. And I mean unrestricted access to 95% of the product source code developed by myself over which I have absolutely no control after adding a single GPL line. A good reason not to touch it with a ten foot pole.
If GPL *was* free I'd be able to use it to do whatever I want. But I can't. I'd rather develop BSD code so at least someone can do something useful with it.
If someone would do just a small fix over my BSD code and sell it, I could easily give him a run for his money. So the product would have to be really much better. Competition generates innovation. BSD *feeds* competition. GPL *kills* it.
"If you give your copyright rights to the FSF, the only things you lose are your copyright rights, including the right to dual-license. But you're guaranteed that the code will be released under the GPL for all eternity to come, so you haven't lost much of anything if you weren't planning on using multiple licenses."
Precisely, you lose the right to change license.
Because you gave your IP rights and lost decision power over your own code.
"God. Sometimes I think people will never get it."
I hope you're right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
If GPL *was* free I'd be able to use it to do whatever I want. But I can't. I'd rather develop BSD code so at least someone can do something useful with it.
If someone would do just a small fix over my BSD code and sell it, I could easily give him a run for his money. So the product would have to be really much better. Competition generates innovation. BSD *feeds* competition. GPL *kills* it.
"If you give your copyright rights to the FSF, the only things you lose are your copyright rights, including the right to dual-license. But you're guaranteed that the code will be released under the GPL for all eternity to come, so you haven't lost much of anything if you weren't planning on using multiple licenses."
Precisely, you lose the right to change license.
Because you gave your IP rights and lost decision power over your own code.
"God. Sometimes I think people will never get it."
I hope you're right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 05, 2004 01:29 AM
If you don't want to release under the GPL, simply don't incorporate GPL code into your project.
Or, put more generically, if you don't want to obey the terms of a license, don't incorporate code covered by that license into your project.
If the 5% of the code that is GPL is so critical that you can't replace it on your own, then I fail to see the problem with following the license. If it's something you can replace, go ahead and replace it and release under whatever license you like.
With the prior BSD license (with advertisment clause) would you have argued that only 5% of the code was BSD licensed, so you shouldn't have follow that license?
Of course, I also note that you skipped completely over the fact that you don't *HAVE* to transfer your copyright to the FSF in order to release under the GPL. If you want a good example of a project which uses the GPL that the FSF doesn't own every copyright to, simply check out the Linux kernel. (The FSF does own some copyrights there, because some people have contributed code to the kernel and transferred their copyright to the FSF.)
Or, put more generically, if you don't want to obey the terms of a license, don't incorporate code covered by that license into your project.
If the 5% of the code that is GPL is so critical that you can't replace it on your own, then I fail to see the problem with following the license. If it's something you can replace, go ahead and replace it and release under whatever license you like.
With the prior BSD license (with advertisment clause) would you have argued that only 5% of the code was BSD licensed, so you shouldn't have follow that license?
Of course, I also note that you skipped completely over the fact that you don't *HAVE* to transfer your copyright to the FSF in order to release under the GPL. If you want a good example of a project which uses the GPL that the FSF doesn't own every copyright to, simply check out the Linux kernel. (The FSF does own some copyrights there, because some people have contributed code to the kernel and transferred their copyright to the FSF.)
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2004 11:05 PM
>>About making a living from Open Source, what do you propose the gaming industry to sell? Support?
how about selling games. Nobody ever said anything about making the game itself open source, just the engine code that drives the game. How hard could that be? they already are making their living selling games.
So id opens its engine, and drops some employees. Then those companies who were paying id great piles of money to develop the engine hire those employees, and some new startups add some new developers to the collection. We have more developers PAID to work on the game engine, and now all of the companies have to pay less than they did before, because the sales overhead to sell the engine to other game companies is gone. Welcome to the world of co-operative engeneering.
What's more, the engine would probably be ported to more platforms(game machines, linux, etc.) so that there would be an even larger market for games based on that game engine.
PS. LGPL would probably be better than GPL for the game engine. This would definately allow the game itself to be closed source. Maybe your GPL zealot is looking for more games to spend money on. How is that a "freebie"?
PPS. this was the logic that the Japanese auto makers used some 20-30 years ago to invade the U.S. auto market. It is true that it nearly ruined the US auto makers, before they finally figured out how to work this system.(some did die -- remember AMC?) I suppose that now a) all cars are free, b) all the auto workers and designers and engeneers have to volunteer their time and c) there are no financially solvent auto makers.
how about selling games. Nobody ever said anything about making the game itself open source, just the engine code that drives the game. How hard could that be? they already are making their living selling games.
So id opens its engine, and drops some employees. Then those companies who were paying id great piles of money to develop the engine hire those employees, and some new startups add some new developers to the collection. We have more developers PAID to work on the game engine, and now all of the companies have to pay less than they did before, because the sales overhead to sell the engine to other game companies is gone. Welcome to the world of co-operative engeneering.
What's more, the engine would probably be ported to more platforms(game machines, linux, etc.) so that there would be an even larger market for games based on that game engine.
PS. LGPL would probably be better than GPL for the game engine. This would definately allow the game itself to be closed source. Maybe your GPL zealot is looking for more games to spend money on. How is that a "freebie"?
PPS. this was the logic that the Japanese auto makers used some 20-30 years ago to invade the U.S. auto market. It is true that it nearly ruined the US auto makers, before they finally figured out how to work this system.(some did die -- remember AMC?) I suppose that now a) all cars are free, b) all the auto workers and designers and engeneers have to volunteer their time and c) there are no financially solvent auto makers.
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 05, 2004 12:18 AM
You still haven't answered what do ID 3D engine developers like Carmack gain from it.
I guess you just don't have a clue.
So ID drops a few employees just to become good fellows who help the "community", and they're garanteed to have work on other similar projects??? Based on an already finished engine???
Would you hire former developers of a finished 3D engine if all you wnat to develop is content?
Typical GPL narrow-minded.
I guess you just don't have a clue.
So ID drops a few employees just to become good fellows who help the "community", and they're garanteed to have work on other similar projects??? Based on an already finished engine???
Would you hire former developers of a finished 3D engine if all you wnat to develop is content?
Typical GPL narrow-minded.
Re:Just another GPL zealot looking for freebies.
Posted by: rhysweatherley on August 05, 2004 08:44 AM
You still haven't answered what do ID 3D engine developers like Carmack gain from it.
A better engine for Doom 4, perhaps? Carmack doesn't have a world-wide monopoly on game engine developers, but right now he cannot use the skills of third-party developers as they don't work for him.
While some people don't think it is possible to speed up the Doom 3 engine to run on modest hardware, I'm sure there are hundreds of programmers who would be willing to give it a try just for the bragging rights alone. How many more sales will Carmack make if he doesn't have to force his customers to buy a new computer first?
Typical GPL narrow-minded.
Typical anti-GPL narrow-minded. Ignoring the network effects of harnessing people who you cannot otherwise hire directly.
Sure, some Id developers may not longer be needed at Id. But then, if a developer is not providing value for money, exactly why should they be given a job? Id isn't running a programmer charity.
The people commenting on this article clearly know nothing about Open Source and very little about gaming. I've worked in both areas professionally.
Game engines are ideal for Open Source. Games use large numbers of third-party libraries, indeed they often license and extend entire third-party engines. You need to pay people to do this work, so you won't lose your job to Open Source, you'll keep it because that kind of work is harder to outsource than engine and tool writing. And under the GPL you "pay" for this code with your own code.
The art and scripts for the game can be closed or can be released under another license, that's one area a game can add and keep value. But gaming already shares code in the form of those third-party libraries and engines, often paying to keep it closed and buggy. Formalise this sharing with Open Source, keep your job, and make more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,better games faster and for greater profit.
Game engines are ideal for Open Source. Games use large numbers of third-party libraries, indeed they often license and extend entire third-party engines. You need to pay people to do this work, so you won't lose your job to Open Source, you'll keep it because that kind of work is harder to outsource than engine and tool writing. And under the GPL you "pay" for this code with your own code.
The art and scripts for the game can be closed or can be released under another license, that's one area a game can add and keep value. But gaming already shares code in the form of those third-party libraries and engines, often paying to keep it closed and buggy. Formalise this sharing with Open Source, keep your job, and make more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,better games faster and for greater profit.
ID makes an awful lot of money off of <A HREF="http://www.idsoftware.com/business/technology/" title="idsoftware.com">licensing its engines</a idsoftware.com>. The Quake III engine, which is now almost four years old (albeit with RTCW improvements from 2001), still sells for $500K per game plus royalties IIRC.
Most - if not all - of the games based on the Quake III engine made no significant changes at all to the game code. So it is quite possible that third parties could take the code, build their games and statically link their artwork, levels, sounds, and so forth to the GPL'd engine, enabling the actual game data to remain proprietary. ID would lose millions of dollars in revenue because of this.
Even if some companies chose to license the engine commercially, ID would still lose out, because instead of providing merely the engine, they would have to provide additional benefits to justify the cost - namely advanced technical support - thereby reducing their profits still further.
This is the reality - it is NOT going to happen.
Re:Commentors Know Nothing About Open Source
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2004 08:31 PM
Games use large numbers of third-party libraries, indeed they often license and extend entire third-party engines.
>> Have you ever seen a serious commercial game using SDL or Genesis3D ?
You need to pay people to do this work, so you won't lose your job to Open Source
>> There are companies selling libraries and engines which will lose work.
you'll keep it because that kind of work is harder to outsource than engine and tool writing.
>> It takes less people anyway, due to the shear amount of coding you'll find in the public
And under the GPL you "pay" for this code with your own code.
>> This is something almost no companies could afford.
The art and scripts for the game can be closed or can be released under another license, that's one area a game can add and keep value.
>> The why Valve is so worried for losing HL2 sources ? crap
But gaming already shares code in the form of those third-party libraries and engines, often paying to keep it closed and buggy.
>> There are companies who live making this libraries and engines and I can't figure out why they should lose their work because some other competitor released an engine sources publicly.
Formalise this sharing with Open Source, keep your job, and make more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,better games faster and for greater profit.
>> make less profit, have competitors using your own code to steal your business. No better games, since noone will risk investing months researching new pieces of codes just to have all competitors using them in a month. Can't think of Carmack being happy to see the next Unreal using all his shaders for free.
>> Have you ever seen a serious commercial game using SDL or Genesis3D ?
You need to pay people to do this work, so you won't lose your job to Open Source
>> There are companies selling libraries and engines which will lose work.
you'll keep it because that kind of work is harder to outsource than engine and tool writing.
>> It takes less people anyway, due to the shear amount of coding you'll find in the public
And under the GPL you "pay" for this code with your own code.
>> This is something almost no companies could afford.
The art and scripts for the game can be closed or can be released under another license, that's one area a game can add and keep value.
>> The why Valve is so worried for losing HL2 sources ? crap
But gaming already shares code in the form of those third-party libraries and engines, often paying to keep it closed and buggy.
>> There are companies who live making this libraries and engines and I can't figure out why they should lose their work because some other competitor released an engine sources publicly.
Formalise this sharing with Open Source, keep your job, and make more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,better games faster and for greater profit.
>> make less profit, have competitors using your own code to steal your business. No better games, since noone will risk investing months researching new pieces of codes just to have all competitors using them in a month. Can't think of Carmack being happy to see the next Unreal using all his shaders for free.
Take a look at what's happened with the Quake 1 and 2 engines, which are available under both GPL and commercial licenses.
The GPL versions have had significant updates made to the engines, but no original content has been released. The coders and artists have done amazing work making Quake 1 look as good as Quake 3. But they're not creating any new games, just revising what Id has already done.
The system requirements for playing Doom 3 are fairly steep. I wouldn't be surprised if the level and model editors require similar amounts of resources. That's also going to reduce interest in the Doom 3 engine.
Also, take a look at the mod communities. Even without GPL'd game engines they produce a ton of content -- some high quality and innovative, some not.
The GPL versions have had significant updates made to the engines, but no original content has been released. The coders and artists have done amazing work making Quake 1 look as good as Quake 3. But they're not creating any new games, just revising what Id has already done.
The system requirements for playing Doom 3 are fairly steep. I wouldn't be surprised if the level and model editors require similar amounts of resources. That's also going to reduce interest in the Doom 3 engine.
Also, take a look at the mod communities. Even without GPL'd game engines they produce a ton of content -- some high quality and innovative, some not.
Well, not that I think Doom 3 as GPL would be a good thing but I think you just made the point of why game programmers wouldn't lose their jobs. Basicly the Open Source crowd is more interested in the code than the content. Game companies could make their money selling the content while coders could work on perfecting the engine for various tasks.
Their name is not ID as in identification, but Id
or id as in ego.
or id as in ego.
I agree. I was going to state this same thing in my post (Linux games post) but didn't.
Also, I've heard people pronounce the name as if it was two seperate letters. Also wrong. It's not pronounced "I.D.", but simply, "id". As in, "I did this.", but without the first "d" on the word "did".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
Also, I've heard people pronounce the name as if it was two seperate letters. Also wrong. It's not pronounced "I.D.", but simply, "id". As in, "I did this.", but without the first "d" on the word "did".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
I for one have never worked in the gaming industry or with open source professionally. But I agree with alot of the points in this article.
If id really was to release their latest monster under the GPL, surely it would turn every single head in the gaming industry and beyond.
id has always been a leader in the gaming market. A bold move like this could have other game developers follow in id's footsteps. It could even lead to more "commercial" games for the GNU/Linux platform. Something every penguin gamer out there would agree with and would like to see happen.
If id really was to release their latest monster under the GPL, surely it would turn every single head in the gaming industry and beyond.
id has always been a leader in the gaming market. A bold move like this could have other game developers follow in id's footsteps. It could even lead to more "commercial" games for the GNU/Linux platform. Something every penguin gamer out there would agree with and would like to see happen.
Given his experience and the OSS developer's experience in 3D gaming development, someone explain me what would Carmack gain from sharing his 3D engines.
What could he possibly learn from those who still have a lot to learn to reach his feet?
Yet he does share<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
What are those good OSS things made with Doom and Quake engines? What value did the OSS developer community did with those engines?
My opinion so far is that he would be completely ripped off and gain nothing from it. He already has reputation, and ID already releases GPL 3D engines.
What could he possibly learn from those who still have a lot to learn to reach his feet?
Yet he does share<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
What are those good OSS things made with Doom and Quake engines? What value did the OSS developer community did with those engines?
My opinion so far is that he would be completely ripped off and gain nothing from it. He already has reputation, and ID already releases GPL 3D engines.
People don't evaluate if open source is the right use of resource when talking about it, as the author's POV has suggested.
As long as it is a game, why the industry needs to optimize around one or a few models? It is for pure enjoyment, and diversity in content is better in both art and unqiueness.
Is there many bug huntings to do with developing a game, say, when comparing to the OS or web browser development?
Finally, do more developers really help in game development? Or will it take more time to manage development?
id did very well in the Doom and Quake engine, and as far as technology is concerned, 3d algorithm is highly specialized and not in the same arena as building GUI. I don't think number of developers would increase the quality of a game engine in this regard. It is just a specific application to run for entertainment.
As long as it is a game, why the industry needs to optimize around one or a few models? It is for pure enjoyment, and diversity in content is better in both art and unqiueness.
Is there many bug huntings to do with developing a game, say, when comparing to the OS or web browser development?
Finally, do more developers really help in game development? Or will it take more time to manage development?
id did very well in the Doom and Quake engine, and as far as technology is concerned, 3d algorithm is highly specialized and not in the same arena as building GUI. I don't think number of developers would increase the quality of a game engine in this regard. It is just a specific application to run for entertainment.
I´m a big fan of GPL and Free Software but I don´t think that games would do well under Free Software. Simply because they are sold per unit and have short time to live.
ID does good to give source after a while under GPL.
If there is a free software engine then its should be build up from the begining as a free software engine so artist can make games and sell them.
ID does good to give source after a while under GPL.
If there is a free software engine then its should be build up from the begining as a free software engine so artist can make games and sell them.
and programmers lose work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(
It would run on computers people actually own
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 04, 2004 11:12 PM
Doom3 Minimum PC System Requirements:
PC Processor Type Intel® Pentium® 4 processor, AMD Athlon™ processor
PC Processor Speed 1.5GHz
PC Operating System Windows 2000, Windows XP
PC System Memory 384MB RAM
PC Hard Drive Space 1.7GB
PC Video 64MB DirectX 9.0b 3D-compatible ATi Radeon or nVidia GeForce video card
I have everything except the processor, I have a 800Mhz Athlon, GeForce 4 64mb,and 512MB Memory. Nobody I personally know has a computer that matches every single one of the minimum requirements!
So let's see:
Game $54 (Bets Buy) for the game, computer upgrades ($400), Open Source Version that runs on current computer under linux (Priceless)
For everything else there's Windows!
PC Processor Type Intel® Pentium® 4 processor, AMD Athlon™ processor
PC Processor Speed 1.5GHz
PC Operating System Windows 2000, Windows XP
PC System Memory 384MB RAM
PC Hard Drive Space 1.7GB
PC Video 64MB DirectX 9.0b 3D-compatible ATi Radeon or nVidia GeForce video card
I have everything except the processor, I have a 800Mhz Athlon, GeForce 4 64mb,and 512MB Memory. Nobody I personally know has a computer that matches every single one of the minimum requirements!
So let's see:
Game $54 (Bets Buy) for the game, computer upgrades ($400), Open Source Version that runs on current computer under linux (Priceless)
For everything else there's Windows!
Re:It would run on computers people actually own
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 05, 2004 07:04 AM
You must look at this as a long term investment,
when you update your computer in round about
1+ year you will surely match the minimum Requirements, and many like you will then
buy & play the game, when Quake3 came out,
fall'99
you had to match some of these requirements
- MMX enabled Processor from Pentium 200+<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..
- an opengl enabled voodoo2 with 8mb
or equivalent, like my Banshee with the
v2 opengldriver did<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
- 64 mb Ram (I think 32 also worked)
at that time machines like
Pentium 166 w/o mmx were std., and 32 mb Ram
(PS/2 EDO) were common, and the common
3D exploder in your System was the good o'l
"3DFX Voodoo 1" or "Voodoo Rush",
(the Voodoo2 was not cheap at all)
and later there was a patch, with it you could
play q3 with the "Voodoo Rush"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
as you can see our machines that time barely
matched the framerate featured Hardware class,
but we played the game also when the framecounter
went down to "5" frames per second, we keept
on fragging each other, but often ourselves
because it was fun, and the game was an exciting
flexible input & response System
and I think your machine is able to run Doom3,
but nor you will have high framerates,
nor you will see stunning visual effects,
but the game is there and it is great,
the atmosphere will glue your eyes to the monitor,
and make your heart beat faster,
(but this also happens when you encounter
an epileptic shock symptom<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) )
and the same way our machines evoled, (we kept playing quake3 till now, and keep playing)
the frameratecounter grew over the "99" to
the "125"'s to the "200"'s etc.. etc..
some day we enabled high detailed geometry,
the other day high detailed textures,
the next day there was the eye'freaking
LIGHTMAP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D
when you update your computer in round about
1+ year you will surely match the minimum Requirements, and many like you will then
buy & play the game, when Quake3 came out,
fall'99
you had to match some of these requirements
- MMX enabled Processor from Pentium 200+<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..
- an opengl enabled voodoo2 with 8mb
or equivalent, like my Banshee with the
v2 opengldriver did<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
- 64 mb Ram (I think 32 also worked)
at that time machines like
Pentium 166 w/o mmx were std., and 32 mb Ram
(PS/2 EDO) were common, and the common
3D exploder in your System was the good o'l
"3DFX Voodoo 1" or "Voodoo Rush",
(the Voodoo2 was not cheap at all)
and later there was a patch, with it you could
play q3 with the "Voodoo Rush"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
as you can see our machines that time barely
matched the framerate featured Hardware class,
but we played the game also when the framecounter
went down to "5" frames per second, we keept
on fragging each other, but often ourselves
because it was fun, and the game was an exciting
flexible input & response System
and I think your machine is able to run Doom3,
but nor you will have high framerates,
nor you will see stunning visual effects,
but the game is there and it is great,
the atmosphere will glue your eyes to the monitor,
and make your heart beat faster,
(but this also happens when you encounter
an epileptic shock symptom<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) )
and the same way our machines evoled, (we kept playing quake3 till now, and keep playing)
the frameratecounter grew over the "99" to
the "125"'s to the "200"'s etc.. etc..
some day we enabled high detailed geometry,
the other day high detailed textures,
the next day there was the eye'freaking
LIGHTMAP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D
The engine is amazing, and Carmack already sold his soul to make it run on the hardware that it does currently, no ammount of open source help is going to improve it that much.
What open source would let us do is strap a bloody flashlight onto our helmet before we head off into the dark.
What open source would let us do is strap a bloody flashlight onto our helmet before we head off into the dark.
The engine is amazing, and Carmack already sold his soul to make it run on the hardware that it does currently, no ammount of open source help is going to improve it that much.
Possibly true, but we won't know unless we try. I was delighted to discovered that GTA3 ran alot better under winex than when I booted to windows and played it there. I had a TNT32 card and it ran well under Winex but was unuseable in windows until I upgraded the video card. The differences between Direct3D and OpenGL could really be put to the test. As other posters have said it's the engine not the game I want to see open sourced. I'll gladly buy a boxed set if I don't have to upgrade my computer and or use windows to run it.
Based on the replies, this article should have made clear that releasing the engine would not necessarily include releasing the game or any of the art. In all likelihood, it wouldn't even mean sacrificing their engine developers, since somebody *will* have to pay to build the next great engine, and a lot of recently fired developers probably aren't about to do it from the goodness of their hearts.
It would likly shift their ability to make money heavily toward very high quality art and story-telling (not that they don't need that now), and allow for a lot of less experienced folk to get their feet wet and possibly a few to stand out above the rest.
All these "GPL freeloaders" arguments really lack depth. I haven't seen a formal study, but most of what I read would suggest that people and businesses who rely on Free Software of any kind tend to contribute resources to ensure that those projects continue. Those that use it and contribute nothing are probably not making any money and probably fairly harmless. The occasional bad apples seem not content until they are violating the licenses and wind up in court.
So what if hundreds of people suddenly seize on a GPL'd Doom engine and start producing content? The first to make anything useful of it will be submitting a resume, contributing new code, or simply donating money to keep things going. The rest are just hobbyists or effectively students (who also are known to contribute code and make donations, BTW).
It would likly shift their ability to make money heavily toward very high quality art and story-telling (not that they don't need that now), and allow for a lot of less experienced folk to get their feet wet and possibly a few to stand out above the rest.
All these "GPL freeloaders" arguments really lack depth. I haven't seen a formal study, but most of what I read would suggest that people and businesses who rely on Free Software of any kind tend to contribute resources to ensure that those projects continue. Those that use it and contribute nothing are probably not making any money and probably fairly harmless. The occasional bad apples seem not content until they are violating the licenses and wind up in court.
So what if hundreds of people suddenly seize on a GPL'd Doom engine and start producing content? The first to make anything useful of it will be submitting a resume, contributing new code, or simply donating money to keep things going. The rest are just hobbyists or effectively students (who also are known to contribute code and make donations, BTW).
...And would you mind passing some around to the rest of us?
Creative owns patents on part of the engine, and ID was forced into a deal to use EAX sound technology so they could implement a fast shadowing algorithm. Unless that part of the engine is rewritten, or Creative decides to give up patent enforcement rights (unlikely), the engine cant be open-sourced (at least in its entirety).
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040728-4048.h<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ml
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040728-4048.h<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ml
I recall the article you're mentioning. They already had a solution in place, but decided to go with creative because it was simply better. So they could revert to what they had and release that.
They probably have a hole bunch of other licenced code, to make it impossible.
Opening game engines tends to be _bad_ as far as the online experience goes. It simply lowers the barrier for making 'enhancements' that unbalance play- look at the Quake 1 and 2 communities now.
Unfortunately, this is one of those times...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 05, 2004 08:28 AM
when the state of the art is best served by keeping things proprietary for a time before opening them.
id makes their profits from their games and from licensing technology. They actually make more money because they're generous when it comes to support. It could almost be called Open Support in contrast to Open Source.
id makes their profits from their games and from licensing technology. They actually make more money because they're generous when it comes to support. It could almost be called Open Support in contrast to Open Source.
it's got patents in it, like the one from creative labs. so Id cannot open source it under any license even in the future (unless creative decides to give that patent away for free for use in open source projects, for example).
also, if Id decides to release the doom 3 engine under GPL, every program that makes use of it will have to be GPL as well. maybe Id can just issue it as LGPL or some other license? but then the patent issue applies...
that's why software patents suck!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P
also, if Id decides to release the doom 3 engine under GPL, every program that makes use of it will have to be GPL as well. maybe Id can just issue it as LGPL or some other license? but then the patent issue applies...
that's why software patents suck!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P
This article only makes sense if you understand mysql AB's business model (maybe the author should have included an explanation to keep the discussion more focused).
The point is that Mysql AB primarily does not directly sell to the end user (excluding tech support and certification). They sell licenses to commercial software vendors who want to use Mysql in their products without having to release the products source code under the GPL.
Dual licensing is KEY, here, though. People point out that no entirely new games have been created from the previously GPLed Id games, but they were GPLed AFTER they were old technology and proprietary software companies could not base their products on the code. If Id were to dual license Doom 3, development would progress in the Open Source community (being new and cool, it is bound to have a significant Noosphere) AND new proprietary "forks" of product based on the engine would come from the commercial software companies (resulting in Revenue to Id).
The authors point is that Doom is becoming too big a project for Id to finance with its old business model. You can look at the time between release dates of the different Doom versions to grok this. How long before a Doom 4? Maybe never? If Id were just to Open Source Doom 3 while it is relevant, but also provide a license for proprietary vendors, Id might see a greater return as its development costs decrease greatly and its revenue stream turns to a steady stream from a roller coster ride (peak at release, bottom out between release).
Deciding whether to change or WHEN to change business models is a very complex and sophisticated problem that I am sure the guys at Id are capable of fragging their way through. However, discussing the matter in open forums like this doesn't hurt . . .
The point is that Mysql AB primarily does not directly sell to the end user (excluding tech support and certification). They sell licenses to commercial software vendors who want to use Mysql in their products without having to release the products source code under the GPL.
Dual licensing is KEY, here, though. People point out that no entirely new games have been created from the previously GPLed Id games, but they were GPLed AFTER they were old technology and proprietary software companies could not base their products on the code. If Id were to dual license Doom 3, development would progress in the Open Source community (being new and cool, it is bound to have a significant Noosphere) AND new proprietary "forks" of product based on the engine would come from the commercial software companies (resulting in Revenue to Id).
The authors point is that Doom is becoming too big a project for Id to finance with its old business model. You can look at the time between release dates of the different Doom versions to grok this. How long before a Doom 4? Maybe never? If Id were just to Open Source Doom 3 while it is relevant, but also provide a license for proprietary vendors, Id might see a greater return as its development costs decrease greatly and its revenue stream turns to a steady stream from a roller coster ride (peak at release, bottom out between release).
Deciding whether to change or WHEN to change business models is a very complex and sophisticated problem that I am sure the guys at Id are capable of fragging their way through. However, discussing the matter in open forums like this doesn't hurt . . .
Finally a reasonable comment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D
With dual license hobby stays hobby and commercial stays commercial.
Other companies could try out the GPL version before deciding whether they want or not to develop a product based on Id's engine. If they want it then they would buy a license of the commercial version and use some of the work they already developed while experimenting with the GPL version. And could keep everything proprietary. In gaming industry this means profitable.
And GPLers wouldn't feel that their contribuitions could be ripped of by proprietary companies.
And the good part is that this doesn't mean firing developers or losing revenue. Sounds brilliant to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
With dual license hobby stays hobby and commercial stays commercial.
Other companies could try out the GPL version before deciding whether they want or not to develop a product based on Id's engine. If they want it then they would buy a license of the commercial version and use some of the work they already developed while experimenting with the GPL version. And could keep everything proprietary. In gaming industry this means profitable.
And GPLers wouldn't feel that their contribuitions could be ripped of by proprietary companies.
And the good part is that this doesn't mean firing developers or losing revenue. Sounds brilliant to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
The companies wouldn't *have* to license for commercial uses if they didn't make any modifications to the engine that they didn't mind redistributing. If the 3D engine were realeased, it's likely you'd see it's *more* than separate enough from the levels and pictures to allow any non-engine content to be distributed under a proprietary license.
You guys fail to realize that MySQL/Apache/Linux make money off corporate sales. They don't make a dime of end users of linux (students/home-users).
Doom3 is for end users and not for corporate types.
Get over your GPL dogma. As many above have said, Carmack doesn't need OSS help!. He's at a totally different plane in terms of programming ability.
I can challenge any one of your OSS/GPL zealots to come up with a Doom3 engine - you can't so stop offering your help and trying to destroy id's business.
I just got back from Linux Expo and NO BODY except IBM and the server guys are making money. Repeat after me: DOOM3 IS NOT A SERVER PRODUCT!.
Doom3 is for end users and not for corporate types.
Get over your GPL dogma. As many above have said, Carmack doesn't need OSS help!. He's at a totally different plane in terms of programming ability.
I can challenge any one of your OSS/GPL zealots to come up with a Doom3 engine - you can't so stop offering your help and trying to destroy id's business.
I just got back from Linux Expo and NO BODY except IBM and the server guys are making money. Repeat after me: DOOM3 IS NOT A SERVER PRODUCT!.
You're right. GPL only sells services, not products.
I can't writ ean OS kernel eitehr. But that doesn't stop me from finding and fixing bugs.
I can't write a web server on the level of apache. But that doesn't stop me from finding and fixing bugs in apache.
Hell, I don't author NEW C code, but I can FIX existing C code written by others.
That's the power of open source. What makes you think Carmack is the sole programmer on Doom3? Oh that's right he isn't. He's hired other programmers. Why? He can't do it all himself. Since you revere Carmack as a god walking the keyboard; maybe you could bring yourself to admit the programmers he hired can make mistakes? If he didn't need help, why did he hire other programmers?
The day Id releases a game like Doom3 that needs no updates, has ZERO bugs, and all the features people want (such as Co-op play a la counterstrike et al.), you MIGHT have a valid point.
As it sits, you don't.
I can't write a web server on the level of apache. But that doesn't stop me from finding and fixing bugs in apache.
Hell, I don't author NEW C code, but I can FIX existing C code written by others.
That's the power of open source. What makes you think Carmack is the sole programmer on Doom3? Oh that's right he isn't. He's hired other programmers. Why? He can't do it all himself. Since you revere Carmack as a god walking the keyboard; maybe you could bring yourself to admit the programmers he hired can make mistakes? If he didn't need help, why did he hire other programmers?
The day Id releases a game like Doom3 that needs no updates, has ZERO bugs, and all the features people want (such as Co-op play a la counterstrike et al.), you MIGHT have a valid point.
As it sits, you don't.
What would happen? ID would go out of business, because almost all of their revenue comes from licensing of their engines. Sure, we could get a top of the line 3D engine *today*, but tomorrow we'd be stuck with yesterday's technology because ID wouldn't be around anymore to make a new engine.
They get 15% of their revenues for licencing their engine. Besides they could have it under a duel licence, you can either pay and release your game under a closed source licence, or not pay and release it under GPL. Other reasons have been discussed, but cost is not the main one.
Carmack is the best. He's got the best people and algorithms are named after him. I doubt that open-sourcing it would do any better. A lot of this comes down to judgement calls - is it worth it, detail/quality/speed tradeoffs. Each time, Carmack pushes the envolope of each.
Now, what the author proposes in the benefits is something completely different. What he is doing is talking about BSP and WAD editors. You can do a lot with that. Plus they released quake-c, which allowed you to program a lot of the engine yourself, just not the rendering.
This I think would be a good idea - dual license the WAD editors, Quake-C and the rest. But the 3d rendering engine can remain id's.
Now, what the author proposes in the benefits is something completely different. What he is doing is talking about BSP and WAD editors. You can do a lot with that. Plus they released quake-c, which allowed you to program a lot of the engine yourself, just not the rendering.
This I think would be a good idea - dual license the WAD editors, Quake-C and the rest. But the 3d rendering engine can remain id's.
Releasing the Doom 3 engine open source might some day make sense but it is not clear open source licenses work for non commodity or specialist items. In time maybe it will happen but I'd bet right now people are queuing up to license it.
I'm even less convinced about the game. A lot of games are one, or a small group of peoples artistic vision and its about as opensourceable as a painting. I don't think the Mona Lisa would have worked as a large group project.
I'm even less convinced about the game. A lot of games are one, or a small group of peoples artistic vision and its about as opensourceable as a painting. I don't think the Mona Lisa would have worked as a large group project.
would be a game that had the co-op features that some of us are looking for. Since Doom 3 doesn't have it, it is essentially worthless to me (I don't play first person shooters in deathmatch and I don't play them by myself...)
Eric Raymond already wrote about this in 1999!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 24, 2004 11:38 PM
Hello,
Eric Raymond already wrote about this issue, even about iD Software releasing its games.
<A HREF="http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/" title="catb.org">http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaa<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> /magic-cauldron/</a catb.org>Magic Cauldron article.
Very clever writing.
Must read.
Regards.
Andre Felipe
af-machado AT uol.com.br
Eric Raymond already wrote about this issue, even about iD Software releasing its games.
<A HREF="http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/" title="catb.org">http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaa<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> /magic-cauldron/</a catb.org>Magic Cauldron article.
Very clever writing.
Must read.
Regards.
Andre Felipe
af-machado AT uol.com.br
I don't know about that...
Posted by: gonzeaux on August 04, 2004 04:12 PMI am pretty sure that the Doom 3 engine will be open sourced, and it will be awesome when it does.
#