Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lachek]

Any chance of a Linux version, even *sob* closed-source? Not having any knowledge of what languages or libraries were used in the development process I cannot say for sure, but it would appear to me that there is little or nothing particularly stopping the game from being compiled for Linux with a little bit of effort.
Thoughts?

[flap]

Apparently it works under WINE

[aoanla]

Which (functionality under Wine) is nice, but rather under the category of a workaround rather than a solution. (Personally, I find the sound doesn't work in Wine on my install, but that may be a local issue.)

[Gakidou]

Sound not working isn't too much of a problem for most people. (Does anyone not turn it off after their second game?) The bigger problem is that saving and loading takes alot longer in WINE than on Windows, and sometimes the game will stall for a few seconds at a time.

Still, I don't know how easy it would be to get DF to compile to work natively on Linux; the game is developed with Visual (something or other), so chances are it would require a bit of reworking to get it to compile with something like GCC...

[lachek]

quote:the game is developed with Visual (something or other), so chances are it would require a bit of reworking to get it to compile with something like GCC...

No question there, but the good news is that it's using OpenGL for tile placement and runs reasonably well under WINE. It might be portable using Winelib (someone smarter than me could qualify this). Since the game interface is relatively straightforward, the data assets are in an open format, and most of the game logic appears to be handled with rather simple data structures (though amazingly well carried out with exceptional attention to detail   ) it really should be a lot simpler than many other porting efforts I've seen carried out. If the code was GPL'd, I'm sure that wouldn't take long.

I saw elsewhere that Toady isn't considering open sourcing his code at this point as he's looking to potentially supplement his income from this game - something I fully support. So the question is, how large of a supplement would you require to open source it?  

[Gakidou]

quote:Originally posted by lachek:
<STRONG>

No question there, but the good news is that it's using OpenGL for tile placement and runs reasonably well under WINE. It might be portable using Winelib (someone smarter than me could qualify this). Since the game interface is relatively straightforward, the data assets are in an open format, and most of the game logic appears to be handled with rather simple data structures (though amazingly well carried out with exceptional attention to detail     ) it really should be a lot simpler than many other porting efforts I've seen carried out. If the code was GPL'd, I'm sure that wouldn't take long.

I saw elsewhere that Toady isn't considering open sourcing his code at this point as he's looking to potentially supplement his income from this game - something I fully support. So the question is, how large of a supplement would you require to open source it?    </STRONG>

Heh, that old gambit, eh?

While I would love an open-source DF, I'm wondering how well it would work for Toady. My understanding of the way a person will generally try to make money off of open source games is to release the engine and then charge for content.

Putting aside the fact that I can not think of an instance where that has worked, what is interesting about DF infact ISN'T the fairly traditional Tolkienesque setting, but the engine itself, and the simulation which it runs. (Actually, I'm not a lawyer but it looks like the raw and data files are already licensed fairly freely; the only thing I notice that stops them from being basically equivalent to BSD or MIT licenses is the non-commercial requirement.) If he were to release the engine open source, I doubt many would pay him for content files which can be easily written by anyone already.

So, if Toady were to open source DF, I only see two options for him. The first would be for him to set up a ransom, as you suggest. If we are able to get him a certain amount of money by a certain date, he opens the source code of the current game. While that might be a nice lump sum, when that happens Toady essentially has handed over all of his work; there might be little incentive for him to keep on working on improving DF, as any new changes he adds could likely be quickly copied by the open project. Honestly, I don't believe that getting the source code to DF at the expense of losing a developer like Toady would be worth the loss.

The other option would be to open certain portions of the source code under something like the BSD license, such as the display or keyboard codes. Others could then set about working on fixing them up to work cross platform. Because unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't require that derivatives open source themselves, Toady would then be free to take the results and implement them back into DF proper. I mention display and keyboard codes because they are likely the most OS dependent, and also because they are the things that would need to be edited to add in fan-requested features like tilesets and mouse cursor support, but of course Toady is the one that knows what parts of the source code could be opened without being a possible impediment to a commercialized Dwarf Fortress.

Anyways, those are my thoughts, and I really think that offloading the work on tileset and display problems to others would allow Toady to focus more on the simulation aspects of the game which are really the most interesting. However, it is all of course Toady's call, and I especially don't want us to pressure him too much about the subject like what seems to have happened a while back with ADOM.

[Aquillion]

quote:Originally posted by Gakidou:
<STRONG>My understanding of the way a person will generally try to make money off of open source games is to release the engine and then charge for content.

Putting aside the fact that I can not think of an instance where that has worked,</STRONG>

Not so.  The more common method is to release an early 'episode one' or so for free, then use the engine with a few enhancements and new content to make an episode two or three which you charge for.

And does it work?  Well, there's this company you might've heard of called Id.  They released, for free, the first episode of a tiny little game called Doom.  I don't know if you'd call it a financial success, though; it was more of a niche thing.

In the same way that Dwarf Fortress cannibalized many of the the basic mechanics of Armok, a future "Chapter III" building on that could eventually be sold and form the basis for an actual business.

Now, I don't know if that could repeat in this day and age, but you can hardly blame Toady for trying... and that also, I suspect, why he wouldn't "hold the source for ransom" for any reasonable amount of money.  It's not so much that he wants to get a big pile of money out of Dwarf Fortress; it's that he wants to get a business out of it.  He wants to be able to keep working on it full-time, while being able to afford food occasionally.

At least, that's what I've gathered from what he said before.  I could be totally off on all this, though.

[ September 01, 2006: Message edited by: Aquillion ]

[Gakidou]

quote:Originally posted by Aquillion:
<STRONG>Not so.  The more common method is to release an early 'episode one' or so for free, then use the engine with a few enhancements and new content to make an episode two or three which you charge for.

And does it work?  Well, there's this company you might've heard of called Id.  They released, for free, the first episode of a tiny little game called Doom.  I don't know if you'd call it a financial success, though; it was more of a niche thing.

In the same way that Dwarf Fortress cannibalized many of the the basic mechanics of Armok, a future "Chapter III" building on that could eventually be sold and form the basis for an actual business.

Now, I don't know if that could repeat in this day and age, but you can hardly blame Toady for trying... and that also, I suspect, why he wouldn't "hold the source for ransom" for any reasonable amount of money.  It's not so much that he wants to get a big pile of money out of Dwarf Fortress; it's that he wants to get a business out of it.  He wants to be able to keep working on it full-time, while being able to afford food occasionally.

At least, that's what I've gathered from what he said before.  I could be totally off on all this, though.

[ September 01, 2006: Message edited by: Aquillion ]</STRONG>

My understanding was that Id initially released the first bit of Doom as shareware, not the source itself; essentially, they were doing what Toady is doing now. While Id did later release the source for the engine of Doom, that was later, after they had gone on to make bigger and better engines.

Anyways, the fact that it could be difficult to sustain a business based on completely open-sourced game was one of my points. What I am more saying is that Toady could release portions of the source code that are not directly related to the game itself, but instead the rendering of the game. Done with the proper license (he would want to avoid using GPL, obviously), it would be possible for him to put modified code back into DF and still have the game and all derivatives be completely his to own and sell as he pleases.

[Toady One]

The FAQ should simply be taken at face value.

I dislike programming... but even worse for me is talking about technical this or that, and schedules, and coordinating, and needling code-jocks, and other irritations.  Now, I don't mind going over the forums or checking saves, and that kind of thing.  It's not quite fun, but it's not miserable.  However, I write games because the end result is interesting and fun, and for me, the current situation is working.  We share games because it's great to let other people have fun with them too.

As I understand it, we're still about where we were at with porting.  I like the idea of porting, I think it's a good thing, but it also runs afoul of all of the issues I've listed above.  Mucking around with an alphabet soup of licenses and sending this or that piece of code to whoever would suck for me.  If it were easier to handle myself, it would be a different matter, but apparently it's not, or at least, I don't remember hearing anything that wouldn't involve me setting up some kind of restricted access online source thingy for trusted individuals, or sending this to that and reading this license about that when I get it back to make sure I can do this and that, or some such thing.  I don't want to deal with it.  It's probably frustrating that I think this way, but it's my life, and that's how I feel about it right now.

As to the notion of our business model:  Bay 12 Games will never sell a game -- when there's a Chapter III, that will be free too.   If it were somehow possible to sell a Chapter III profitably, that would say, what, that "we are now able to live independently because we decided to start restricting access to our games to those that can afford them or steal them"?  That's not what we want to do.  I understand other people make a living that way, and I'm not judging them, since you could come up with an equivalent formulation for my day job and judge me as well.  However, our games are not a job for us.  If all of you keep us afloat, that rules, and that's the only way it's going to happen.  If you'd rather download our games for free and only pay for the games that demand it of you, that's fine too.  It's up to you to choose how you express your interest in what's available, and ultimately that will determine what continues to be available.

[Aquillion]

Hrm.  If that's all it is, there are ways you could make the game open-source without your having to worry about license issues (beyond picking the initial license, which wouldn't require more than a little reading.)  You can release source under a license that puts whatever restrictions you want on how other people us it, while letting them make derivative works like ports, all without giving up any rights yourself or having to deal with the porters directly at all.

The license spaghetti and other issues you're referring to happen when you start accepting patches from other people and so on... but just releasing the source doesn't mean that you have to do that.  You can allow others to make 'downstream' ports and other things working completely seperately from you.  Even if you decide that you want to accept a specific patch or whatever as a one-time thing, you can easily avoid problems by indicating that anyone who submits a patch to you grants you full creative control over it.  A little harsh-sounding, perhaps, but that lets others contribute small patches and fixes without causing any problems for you.

Or, to make a long story short:  You can release the source and let other people do limited things with it, without changing anything about the way you are working with it now.

[ September 01, 2006: Message edited by: Aquillion ]

[Toady One]

A license is only as powerful as my will to enforce it, to my knowledge.  If I were to place restrictions in it, I'd have yet another issue to monitor, and a very unpleasant one at that.  It seems like whatever license I choose would be effectively meaningless in that sense, since I don't have time for the follow up.  So if we are considering a restriction free license, it seems likely to interfere with our "business model" as I described it.  But that's only my first impression.  I haven't thought hard about it because I usually start with my second objection.

If I released the source to everybody, it wouldn't just go downstream away from me, no matter what the intentions are, at least not in the sense that matters to me.  It's not just accepting patches or actually working with people I'm talking about.  It's communications of any kind regarding source.  I don't like programming or computers.  I'll occasionally talk about specific topics when I need to, but that's it.  It's all I want to handle.  There are lots of people that would port the game better than I can without a word to me, but those aren't the people I'm talking about.  Waking up with an email asking about why I did this or shouldn't I do this or isn't it conventional to do this or am I stupid or what or oh couldn't I just spend that extra time to implement something more elegant or whatever is more than I wanna deal with.  The most well-intended questions about specific implementations bug me a little, just from my own general dislike of the subject, but even worse, many of the programmers I've met become feral when released near another person's project.  It's a pet peeve, sure, but why would I bring that upon myself?  It already happens now when the source isn't even available.

Well, come to think of it, I don't mind technical questions from people who are starting up on making their own games, since that's to be encouraged, although I probably don't give good advice anymore since I don't know very much about what little packages are available these days.  Even a little technical algorithm type chatter about my own stuff is fine, as long as it centers around what's happening in the game.

I should probably stop ranting and go to bed.

[Abalieno]

quote:Bay 12 Games will never sell a game -- when there's a Chapter III, that will be free too. If it were somehow possible to sell a Chapter III profitably, that would say, what, that "we are now able to live independently because we decided to start restricting access to our games to those that can afford them or steal them"? That's not what we want to do. I understand other people make a living that way, and I'm not judging them, since you could come up with an equivalent formulation for my day job and judge me as well. However, our games are not a job for us.

See, the problem is that you haven't created just another game. You have created a little masterpiece that is absolutely unique. I'm addicted to the game, I love it and, more than that, I love to see it actively developed, with so much ambition behind and some quality DESIGN that is RARE to find bundled with a "programmer".

There's so much that you've planned for this game that I want absolutely to see. Hopefully sooner than later.

The point is: could you close yourself in a room and work on the game fourteen hours a day... Please?  

That's why we talk of money. Because, as a player, I just wouldn't want you to do something else, build other games or having you distracted because you need also a real work.

Other people can teach math. You have to bring this dream onward, instead ;p

Instead of paying for a "full" game once I'd gladly pay for continued support and new features. But I also come from the mmorpg genre.

[bremac]

quote:Originally posted by Toady One:
<STRONG>Waking up with an email asking about why I did this or shouldn't I do this or isn't it conventional to do this or am I stupid or what or oh couldn't I just spend that extra time to implement something more elegant or whatever is more than I wanna deal with.  The most well-intended questions about specific implementations bug me a little, just from my own general dislike of the subject, but even worse, many of the programmers I've met become feral when released near another person's project.  It's a pet peeve, sure, but why would I bring that upon myself?  It already happens now when the source isn't even available.</STRONG>

Strange, that's what the programmers of Glest have to say too. It pretty much amounts to: "The source is under the GPL, but don't annoy us, we won't merge any patches you send us, and we'll locate any patches we want to use."
NetHack does that too - they just pick up patches from SLASH'EM when they want them, and don't bother dealing with the community otherwise. (Again, releases just have an additional source release for porting, there's no open development.)

Not to pressure you or anything though, I just mean that there are examples of such practices working out. (Personally, I've never actually experienced that kind of criticism/hounding on any project I'm on, despite the largest having over 8000 users registered on the forums. Thus, I'm unable to relate.)

[ September 01, 2006: Message edited by: bremac ]

[Toady One]

Your code is probably cleaner than mine.  He he he.

[Aquillion]

It can't be worse than Dungeon Crawl's, and nobody ate Linley when he released it.  When he was first starting out he lacked knowledge of things like, say, enumeration, so everything was defined by arcane ID numbers that were only documented in his head.  They eventually fixed that with global search-and-replaces, but for years you'd have people wielding weapons with the identifier MONS_TYPE_OGRE or something like that.  And I don't think anyone ever really figured out how dungeon generation worked.

Granted, the state of that code did cause Dungeon Crawl development to grind to a halt once Linley stopped working on it, despite a fairly large team trying to make sense of things.  And Dungeon Crawl is a sort of bad example for the merits of open source in any case, since IIRC its license was stuck in a sort of license hell for a while as a result of a poorly-chosen license early on...  they had to go back and find everyone who had ever sent in a patch to change it or something like that.

But, anyway, bad code can be sort of endearing!  It's like arcane scripture or something.  Most people who look at the Dungeon Crawl source to try and fix one bug or another end up coming out wondering how it works at all.