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

[Noer]

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.

No, he is not talking about modding.

"The original release of Neverwinter Nights includes the game engine, a game campaign that can be played as single player or in multiplayer mode, and on Windows releases, the Aurora toolset used for creating custom content that would run in the same engine."

He is talking about the toolset given with the game that allowed players to create custom content.

Why do you come up with "I think I know what you mean - you mean THAT" thinking?

If you do not know what he is talking about then why do you even start any discussion?

You are right on modding it is being done for PoE but it is only for experienced users who can crack inside the game code and have programming skills.

[Elerond]

 

There's a reason no game developper that has any sort of success has released an open-source game, apart possibly from Valve who have the absurd Steam cash cow to print money with. Open source is not profitable at all, and games are expensive stuff. 

 

Aquaria disagrees.

 

 

Which is probably why Bit Blot has not released new game after it release in 2007. And their last updates in their Twitter and Home page are from 2011 when they released iOS version of the game.

[Dadalama]

it's been a while since I took a look at unity, didn't know there was a unity 5 out.
 

Any experiences running it on wine?

[LeonKowalski]

Unity is entirely irrelevant for modding of game code ... most of the game code could have been handled in say external Python files (like with ToEE) without the Unity license getting in the way (they would have had to do the integration of Python with Unity themselves, but it's not a big deal ... it's been done before). Most of the data could have been in seperate well documented files without the Unity license getting in the way. Only for adding 3D content the Unity license might have gotten in the way, but I'm sure if the developers had wanted to find a way they could have (like they did with NWN2, which had much bigger license hurdles).

 

Making a code base moddable pretty much goes hand with making it maintainable and debuggable (it prevents you from taking stupid short cuts to "save" time, which don't really ever save you any time in the end). If they had spend the time to architecture it right for modding I don't think we would have seen the patch 1.04 cluster****, which broke as much or more than it fixed.

Edited April 24, 2015 by LeonKowalski

[perilisk]

For most of the things people would want to change (rules, AI, etc.), it's probably something Obs could open up (I would hope it would mostly be scripts rather than code anyway). The question is whether they have the resources to really do that.

 

Given that Steam is now letting people make money off of Workshop, the benefits of modding capabilities for a game for all parties might be even higher than before (or it might be a cluster**** of epic proportions; I imagine we'll just have to see how it shakes out for Skyrim). For customers, it could mean more and better mods,  with the downside of needing to pay, but probably less than DLC prices. For modders, of course, it means earning at least a little money to justify the time expenditure. It will also be a source of revenue for Obsidian, since the company selling the game also takes a cut. That alone could financially justify releasing modding tools.