Why help complete this? If they would be willing to have an open source D2 out there, they can just release the original source code. It would seem even more "ideal" to me.
Fun (or sad) fact: they apparently lost a lot of the source code and assets. Looks like they were able to recover most of the code, but not the assets [1]
They said they lost the source code pre-release, but managed to reconstruct most of it. Given that it was released and that there have been many patches, I think the source code is fine.
I think the only thing they really lost are the hi-def assets from which the lower-def ingame assets were created.
They said "It would make it very difficult for Blizzard to do a Diablo 2 remaster because all the assets we used are pretty much gone. They'd have to make them from scratch."
I can't think of any other way of interpreting it.
To be fair it wouldn't surprise me - this sort of thing was pretty common back then. You'd create high def 3D models and then render 2D sprites etc from them.
Can you point to where? I can't find it, and a quick search for "resolution", "high", "quality", "def" turned up nothing. They say they lost the art assets but a bunch of pixel art tilemaps would fit that description, especially if they were composited down during the build process.
I don’t think games are well adapted to open source. For starters, it’d be very hard to build an adjacent business like Red Hat, and there are very significant time and capital requirements even for smallish projects.
These might be the reasons why the model never caught on like it did for generalist software.
> I don’t think games are well adapted to open source.
Not as end products, but it's pretty insane how much is available these days as far as free engines and tooling. Both in terms of beer (UE4 is free for all but the most successful of projects) and libre (Godot, LÖVE, loads of others).
And, finally, there are also a small number of pure OSS labour-of-love titles, like the incredibly ambitious 0ad: https://play0ad.com/
None of this really disputes the notion that commercial game development is not (and has never really been) well suited to open source development. But it's nonetheless interesting to look at how these things have evolved over time.
In an ideal world, you'd always get a fair exchange for whatever you gave away. Currently money seems to be the most versatile. I remember I rented a room from a friend. He told me that his grandfather got a 100 year lease on that apartment, with an option to buy. He never did, since the lease was incredibly low. Paying for something isn't always unfair.
So you think, your specific set of habits and ethics is hardcoded to humanity in general?
I doubt so, because I know enough people who act the way, I like people to act.
In other words, I try to find a way to work towards change in culture. History shows that can be done and has been done multiple times. Every succesful open source project is a step towards that. Wikipedia is a step towards it. Blender. Inkscape. LibreOffice. Linux. VLC. And so on. I believe and hope we improve in that direction.
There are some open source games but they tend to be more like engines than proper games, or are very niche. Some rather popular example:
- Nethack: Maybe the most "complete" open source game I can think of, if you like ASCII characters for graphics.
- Freeciv: The engine is original, but the game logic and assets are a complete ripoff.
- Stepmania: a DDR clone, useless without user contributed (and often illegal) songs.
- SCUMMVM: that's an engine, not a game
There are also plenty of smaller games, some of them of playable but they tend to be at "school project" level. Well below the standards for popular indie games.
As for OpenDiablo2, it is yet another engine, not a game.
I think the open source model can make good engines, because everyone can pick it up and contribute the few features they want, allowing for gradual improvement that the original developers can benefit from.
But for a complete game, you usually need a more global approach, and a lot of work making assets, open sourcing will probably benefits your competitors more than you: once your game is complete, there is little need for you to take advantage of the work of others.
Wing Commander (not sure about the name, played it a long time ago)
Endgame: Singularity
All of those are really good free software games that I played myself. There are a lot more, but I have not played them so I don’t really know how good or bad they are.
I interpreted your statement as "humans are the way they are face it. So they will always give only, when they have to."
Which I don't believe is true. And you apparently neither. So lets call it a misunderstanding.
And yes, I also do not believe, that anyone changes by moral judgment. I certainly did not became a free software activist by reading RMS moral codex. I became it, by listening to inspiring people in my university. By the local linux groups who spend their free time, to help other people. By reading about and using free software. To the point, where I thought, yes, this really makes sense. The world would be such a better place if open source would be the default. Not just for software, but also hardware. Medicine. Knowledge in general.
Utopian? Maybe, but still worth working towards it. And even if the default of the industry will be IP-restricted forever - what has been achieved so far, is very useful already today.
If you work for free, I'd love for you to take a shot at my project! :D Nope, there's nothing in it for you, except the feeling of JOY to work on my plan on taking over the world.
“Every Man Lives By Exchanging” means that everyone is constantly giving and taking in an exchange. That exchange can be free monetarily or not, doesn’t matter.
It’s only when third parties interfere with this natural law that some people take way more than they give.
> It’s only when third parties interfere with this natural law that some people take way more than they give.
So if I read correctly you are saying, that nobody ever took more than he gave if not for a third party interfering? And that this is a law of nature?
Because if that actually is your claim I would love to read the evidence on that. Having studied history, I very much doubt that ver being the case. Also archeological evidence as far as I am aware of doesn't corroborate your words.
Monthly subscription ala Patreon for new features, assets etc.
Could very well be a combination of the two, starting out with some KickStarter then going through an "eternal alpha" via Patreon.
Of course lots of potential issues with this, like people rebranding and pretending to be devs, taking donations for themselves etc. But in theory it could possibly work.
Why, they'd offer consulting for a fee, of course! On such things as how to most effectively level your char, or perhaps they'd sell you a neat yet overpriced user manual that they wrote for their free software, or perhaps they'd offer printed maps for a price. :D
Jokes aside, there are loads of ways to earn money off free software, though usually you'd have to accept competition. I agree that it's probably not viable for a game, however, though there are some open source game projects out there, such as UFO:AI.[1]
D2 could have come with a source directory and a make file then been sold just the same way it was. If they were woried about how it would effect priacy they could have added the source directory in a patch a year later.
In an ideal world, they would have found a way. I feel like the "ideal world" cue didn't communicate as effectively as I expected that this is fantasy realm.
Games are actually pretty well adapted to open source (well, unless anti-cheating solutions are required, but most games don't need that). Releasing the game's code as FLOSS doesn't prevent the art assets from being sold in order to be able to play the game and there are plenty of examples that followed this model, either at release or some time after.
How accessible is game code to a modern web dev that understand memory management and such, but never really uses C/C++ outside of coursework?
If I pull in Diablo / Half-Life / Shadows of Chernobyl source, am I going to see pretty clean files in an organized fashion that I can open with a modern IDE or a code dump?
Because they don't give tools to law enforcement agencies to enforce their local laws. As a platform, it would be within their power and their right to do so. I think that is preferable to them doing the enforcing themselves.
It's a fascinating comment, in a few ways. I can say I have never been somewhere and wondered 'would a Google streetmap car come here', I don't think it works in that way. The closest similar judgement I can relate to is being somewhere without network coverage. I don't really want to be there, it's weird and makes me think about how different it would be to live somewhere with no coverage. So perhaps then, it's simply noticing the absence of something we thought if as ubiquitous. A mental model, revealed as wrong, or distorted.
Jarring is a good term for that too.
It looks like it would have taken the driver perhaps 10 minutes to negotiate the town, significantly improving the imagery. I would be interested to know how Google determines what should and shouldn't be included at locations such as these.
I've made a list of similar 'one-horse'-type towns to visit during a future one-in-a-lifetime trip around my home country (Australia). Growing up in a country town there (population roughly 25k at that time), things are indeed different than in the capital cities, and I imagine even 'more different' the smaller the population.
Even a nebula is absurdly empty. A particularly dense nebula might have ~10k particles per cubic centimeter floating around in it. Even that is vastly more empty than the vacuum we create inside particle accelerators and such.
I'm not an expert in this area at all, so I pulled that comparison out of a few different articles and wikipedia.
According to [1], the pressure inside the LHC is somewhere between 10^-11 and 10^-10 mbar. That's between 10^-9 and 10^-8 Pascals. CERN also says that it's "a vacuum almost as rarefied as that found on the surface of the Moon." According to [2], pressure on the surface of the moon is between 4x10^-11 and 8x10^-10 Pa. The upper limit is quite close to 10^-9 Pa, so let's say that CERN can manage 10^-9 Pa on a good day.
According to [3], the inside of a nebula is 100-10k times more dense than general interstellar medium. (The "10k particles per cubic cm" figure also comes from the same page.) According to [2], interstellar medium in the Milky Way averages between 10^-15 and 10^-14 Pa. So the pressure inside a nebula should be between 10^-13 and 10^-10 Pa. Another comparison using the number of particles per cubic cm [3] yields a figure between 10^-14 and 10^-12 Pa. The difference is probably due to temperature, but anyway both results are significantly less than the LHC.
We can probably make better vacuums on a smaller scale, though.
Except they are not extinguishing Linux as a whole, simply phasing it out of their own OS offerings. Linux itself is still alive and thriving, and will continue as such even after it has been replaced in Android and/or its successor.
The classic EEE strategy aims to eliminate a competitor entirely. If that was Google's plan (which I doubt), it was doomed to fail from the start.
The classic EEE strategy is to "extinguish" the desirability of the open source offering compared to the perceived trick MS stuff, so the community shifts to the commercial offering.
The message content is fine, even laudable. It's the tone that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
I've been choosing gnu tools over non-free ones whenever I could for over ten years now, and I deeply believe in the GPL, but the condenscending attitude that a part of that community displays is annoying and counter-productive.
I was also dismayed by the lack of choices in smaller smartphones a few months ago when my Nexus 4 died.
I tried an LG G5 for a while but couldn't handle the larger screen.
It's not iOS, but I got a Sony Xperia ZX2 Compact as a replacement and I find that it struck exactly the right balance between enjoyable screen size and being able to operate the phone with one hand.
Doesn't this Commons Clause goes specifically against one of the core principles of Free Software? The whole idea is that a Free Software license should not restrict what you can do with said software.
Even the most restrictive FS licenses like GPL will not prevent me from selling consulting services around the product licensed under it.
If you combine this clause with a Free Software license, it sounds to me like it is no longer FS. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
> Even the most restrictive FS licenses like GPL will not prevent me from selling consulting services around the product licensed under it.
At least this doesn't prevent buying those services. If I obtain the program from some party A, then A redistributed it to me. Then if I contract B to work on/with the software, B is not bound by the contract because they did not redistribute it to me. However, though I can pay B, neither of us can sell the enhancements though, if enhancements were made.
Moreover, I can't use the software to run any kind of business, because that's might be a product or service that arguably derives substantial value from the software.
