A proposal -- the community can contribute if the code if open-sourced

[Mallard]

Hi everyone,

 

I finished PoE and enjoyed it immensely. I'm proud to have contributed my $140 as a backer.

 

I'm also optimistic about the game's future -- it is a fundamentally solid game that only needs bugfixes and some gameplay tweaks to sit alongside the IE games.

 

I guess that's the reason I'm so frustrated.

 

It seems that, for every ten people reporting the same error (or suggested tweak), progress is bottlenecked by the sheer limited number of programmers at the company. This is no fault of theirs -- a complex cRPG, particularly with RTwP combat, requires a tremendous expenditure of manpower to test for bugs, experiment with gameplay, and optimize performance on multiple platforms.

 

Given the outspoken community and the excitement about the game, the company is sitting on a vastly untapped resource of players and programmers. This type of project screams out that it would benefit from open-sourcing the game code.

 

Open-source allows for intense peer review, rapid customization by the end-user, and frees up players to experiment with gameplay tweaks. It's exactly what's needed when you have two outspoken, conflicting viewpoints over a component of a project (e.g. engagement).

 

Of course, there are potential drawbacks: future story details may have been left in the game code, and the Unity engine uses a proprietary license for some components.

 

I understand there will be some skepticism. I don't have any game design experience, and I'll acknowledge up front that I'm a supporter of open-source through the FSF and EFF.

 

But I also put forward the following: Was there not, before this project, considerable skepticism of crowd-funding a game -- let alone a RTwP cRPG -- before that idea proved a success?

 

Please at least consider this idea -- you have a huge community of backers who are enthusiastic about this project, and could make valuable contributions.

[Mallard]

I wanted to clarify my proposal.

 

I'm referring specifically to the program code -- the part of the software that does the number-crunching during combat, rendering of graphics, loading of saved games, and so on. 

 

These are the kinds of things that I feel would benefit from the community's contributions. That said, in addition to bugfixing, it would be great to see what kinds of mods the community could produce with the full source code.

 

The other thing to clarify is, making the source code publicly available does not mean the game would suddenly become free of charge; you would still need to purchase a complete copy of the game, complete with art assets, to actually run the software. 

 

None of this would require that Obsidian give up creative control of the story or setting; it would only mean opening up a complex software project to many more people, who can contribute via strength in numbers. 

 

Think of the community that NWN created -- and that was a toolset, not the complete source code. 

 

Hope that clarifies my suggestion -- are there any other backers who feel the same way and have suggestions?

[Luridis]

You cannot do much without the full licensed version of Unity. The engine isn't open source and that will drive most contributors away.

 

When you mention NWN, you're talking about modding. That is already being done for PoE.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Luridis

[Emptiness]

A wise man once said "If you're good at something, never do it for free.".

 

Encouraging software companies to "tap into" the reserve of programmers willing to program for free is bad for code and bad for coders.

 

 

The other thing to clarify is, making the source code publicly available does not mean the game would suddenly become free of charge; you would still need to purchase a complete copy of the game, complete with art assets, to actually run the software.

 

Actually, that's more or less exactly what it would mean.  It is possible to pirate software without access to the source code, but giving away the source code to your software is literally giving away your software.

[Yonjuro]

A wise man once said "If you're good at something, never do it for free.".

 

Encouraging software companies to "tap into" the reserve of programmers willing to program for free is bad for code and bad for coders.

 

 Nonsense. Some of the best software available (and most successful both in terms of user base and money) is open source. Some programmers get paid to write open source software; others volunteer.

 

 

 

Actually, that's more or less exactly what it would mean.  It is possible to pirate software without access to the source code, but giving away the source code to your software is literally giving away your software.

 

 Wrong again. The source code can be open without the data used for the game being open or vice versa. There are lots of possibilities. As you said, it is possible to pirate a game without the source code; you should be able to think about that for about one second and realize that you are making no sense.

 

 Whether open sourcing the code is a good idea for Obsidian depends on a lot of factors and is their decision, but your general statements about open source are unfounded and ridiculous.

[Althernai]

Whether open sourcing the code is a good idea for Obsidian depends on a lot of factors and is their decision, but your general statements about open source are unfounded and ridiculous.

While I completely agree with you about the usefulness of open source code, given the way PoE is structured, it is not really Obsidian's decision. Every aspect of PoE is tightly integrated with Unity so unless you have a Unity license or you are good at hex editing, making any changes to PoE (even things one would think are simple and were possible in the IE games) is going to be nearly impossible.

[WebShaman]

Has anything along these lines been tried?

 

Not meaning open source but doing a game on those pillars?

 

Just curious.

[vril]

This isn't really the kind of game that would benefit from an open source.

[WebShaman]

If it gets a toolset, I disagree.

[bonarbill]

Good luck.  If you knew anything about programming, you would know that unity is a closed source.

[WebShaman]

I understand that.

 

Perhaps the question should be "why hasn't the open source community made an open source game platform"?

[jackjack]

Perhaps the question should be "why hasn't the open source community made an open source game platform"?

Perhaps the answer is nobody is crazy enough to do that amount of work gratis. I know I'm not.

[WebShaman]

Well..someone was crazy enough to make an open source operating system, which is a hell of a lot more work imho.

[bonarbill]

I understand that.

 

Perhaps the question should be "why hasn't the open source community made an open source game platform"?

 

Um, pretty sure Unreal 4 is open source.  That's how the community was able to port it to linux because epic had a chance to do it.

Edited April 19, 2015 by bonarbill

[WebShaman]

If true...why wasn't the game done in that, I wonder...

 

Frustrating.

[Peanuckle]

If true...why wasn't the game done in that, I wonder...

 

Frustrating.

The Unreal 4 engine isn't suited to the isometric RPG style of games.

 

Wouldn't mind playing a first-person view of Pillars, though. Could be fun.

[WebShaman]

I don't think that is totally true - Tekken 7 is done with U4 - so one can get a 3rd person view.

 

It is then just a question of camera.

[Dadalama]

Actually GemRB is supposedly on it's way to becoming it's own engine.

[luzarius]

even if POE gets no modding support, I'm hoping POE 2 will at least get some modding love.

[Bryy]

A wise man once said "If you're good at something, never do it for free.".

 

Encouraging software companies to "tap into" the reserve of programmers willing to program for free is bad for code and bad for coders.

As well as bad for companies in general.

 

There are a reason why things like NDA and copyright law exist. There's a reason why newbie writers can't just pitch a Batman story to a DC Exec at a personal lunch.

[Emptiness]

A wise man once said "If you're good at something, never do it for free.".

 

Encouraging software companies to "tap into" the reserve of programmers willing to program for free is bad for code and bad for coders.

 

 Nonsense. Some of the best software available (and most successful both in terms of user base and money) is open source. Some programmers get paid to write open source software; others volunteer.

 

"Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose."

 

Obsidian created this game to make money; they are not then going to immediately turn around and give everyone the right to use, modify and distribute their software for no fee (unless they think of a way to somehow make even more money by doing it).

 

So what is the plan here?  That Obsidian will retain the rights to the software, but programmers will volunteer to update, debug, and expand that software without remuneration?  Who is going to take them up on that deal?  People deserve to be paid for the work they do, when that work is being used to make money for someone else.

 

I get that there is Open Source software out there that is making money, and that there are people out there volunteering their time on Open Source projects, but I expect that those are two different sets that don't overlap much.  Where they do overlap, you'll find gullible people being taken advantage of to their detriment.  It hurts the industry as well, because instead of a programmer filling a programming job you've got one less programming job available but the same number of programmers looking to earn an income.

 

 

Actually, that's more or less exactly what it would mean.  It is possible to pirate software without access to the source code, but giving away the source code to your software is literally giving away your software.

 

 Wrong again. The source code can be open without the data used for the game being open or vice versa. There are lots of possibilities. As you said, it is possible to pirate a game without the source code; you should be able to think about that for about one second and realize that you are making no sense.

 

The fact that Obsidian might not publish the data separately would be no impediment to piracy at all.  Pirating software implies access to a copy of the software, which implies possession of a copy of the non-code data.  Since we're talking about someone willing to do illegal things, naturally they will simply copy and distribute that data with their pirated version of the software.

 

 

 Whether open sourcing the code is a good idea for Obsidian depends on a lot of factors and is their decision, but your general statements about open source are unfounded and ridiculous.

 

Yes, it is Obsidian's decision whether to convert their for-profit game into an Open Source game.  Since that would eliminate all future profit (from sale of the software) and surrender to their competitors all of their hard work, it seems very unlikely to happen.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is more ridiculous to think that it will happen than it is to think that it will not.

[Emptiness]

Well..someone was crazy enough to make an open source operating system, which is a hell of a lot more work imho.

 

There are a lot of open source operating systems.  My impression is that they are generally the product of academic research.  So while those programmers are not being compensated for their work, they are doing that work either as part of learning how operating systems function or as a means of academic advancement.

 

There's no reason why that couldn't work with a game (and it has, because there are open source games), but we're not really talking about whether an open source game is possible.  We're talking about whether Obsidian is going to take their profitable new game and convert it into an open source game.

[Bryy]

Yes, it is Obsidian's decision whether to convert their for-profit game into an Open Source game.  

And this is never going to happen. Especially with a game they created to try to become not only financially stable but financially independent. 

 

TF2 only went free because the TF2 shop and Steam make Valve money hand over foot.

[Dadalama]

It's moot, Unity isn't there's to give away. If you're a coder, it might take a while but look at GemRB, it can be used to make a new game. There's a lot more work to it than, say, gamemaker but it's functional now and it's (I think) still updating.

 

http://www.gemrb.org/wiki/doku.php?id=newgame:newgame

 

If you run linux, it's in the Arch and ubuntu repositories but not in debian stable (at least since the freeze). But it's also for windows and mac.

[PrimeJunta]

A lot of OSS is written by programmers on company payrolls. Suppose a company needs a UI framework for Javascript for their product, don't like any of the ones available, and want their customers, subcontractors, and so on to be able to extend the UI's in their products. One way to solve this is to make one and open-source it, contributing any improvements made to it when making their stuff. If things go well, their customers will start contributing too. Everybody's still paid for their work, but they're collaborating on a common foundation which becomes available for anyone to use.

 

P:E is not really a candidate for OSS in my opinion. It's too specific. A big chunk of its base -- most of Unity -- is already OSS. A lot of the middleware and other parts of the base -- Unity Professional -- isn't. In theory it should be possible to separate out the features and tools that are general to any party-based isometric cRPG, or even real-time with pause cRPG, into a set of OSS modules you could plug into Unity, but unless it's built that way from the ground up it is not going to be a small undertaking, and asking Obsidian to do that from the goodness of their hearts is asking a quite a lot. And in any case it wouldn't help improve P:E specifically; it'd be more interesting for studios making new games.

 

I'm fairly certain we will see more and more things like this happening in the future though. I can imagine a situation where you could make pretty sophisticated games by connecting up these kinds of pieces to a platform, adding in assets from open-source libraries, and then "just" designing the gameplay and content. And, of course, contributing back any new but reusable assets (models, animations and such) for someone else to use in turn. I would like that, and we're already some way towards it.