Source Code?

I don't get why anybody would think they could not continue to use the engine after making the code accessible. They only give access to people who own the game. They can put restrictions on it so nobody may use it without them allowing it. Etc. People will not stop buying the game just because the source code is accessible (especially not if the source code alone is actually missing all art assets, so you need the game AND a ton of technical knowledge to compile it.

Really the only thing that could happen where more bug fixes thanks to pull requests from community members. If they put heavy coding guidelines in place I doubt they would be swamped in processing those either.

you were trolling there I take it?

Well the UI system that current provides definitely is harder to replace than some sound library.

Fair point. I just wanted to answer the quoted post.
I hear you and can get behind your reasoning for the client side of things. For the server side I am not sure. Releasing the source would basically amount to allowing private servers - something I do not think Uber are actually keen on. But that is just a gut feeling, mind you, without any backing whatsoever.
So yeah, I would be as happy as the next guy if they went open source, they just do not look the part to me right now.

The so praised server release the forums is so angry about means just that. Private servers are planned since forever, they are a "little" late, but they sure will happen. The source doesn't matter for that.

With Human Resources building on PA's engine and being advertised as requiring Uber's PlayFab servers for play allow me to remain skeptical about private servers.

On a more reconcilliatory note: What would you expect to be the first major community addition to PA's code, just in case?

Well based on what I currently do I'd get unit positions to work on my minimap.
But I dunno. The possibilities are endless. It would also suddenly allow the most crazy gameplay mods.

The HR code would simply miss whatever is required to make it easily work out. I am sure that's possible. Not to mention I strongly hope HR will be offline as well. I won't even back it if it is online only.

This is all well and good, but my main point was that there are plenty of other ways to have a profitable and quality product than sheer monopoly on said product.
Giving the source code is in the spirit of charity, of course, but to me it's in the spirit of 'we're not okay with having a monopoly'.

To me it just means to be able to mod more than in 99.999999% of all other games.

Yea, but companies want to earn money and giving stuff away for free does not do that. You're basically saying "hey, give us that stuff you were working hard to create for free and then find some other way to get paid". Not very practical, don't you think?

It's cool that opensource exists, but come on... Your post sounds like: give me your stuff because Open Source (tm).

I don't get this "we want it for free". They won't give the game for free away. The source alone won't be helpful to play the game, especially if it misses all art assets or similar.

Also they don't have to do it for free (although the community has already paid for it's creation), they could have a crowdfunder (kickstarter) to open the source. That's how programs like Blender became open source.

Two words: Red Hat

Being open source have nothing to do with making money at all. With proper licensing code will be never used for commercial game development or ported to console just because game development companies don't use stuff under viral licenses.

Also personally I understand anything like that won't happen anytime soon, but we're talking here about some very far future where PA likely will make Uber zero profit and they decide to not support it any more. At this point they don't lose anything if give us source code.

Honestly, if Uber were to actually release a licensed copy of their source code, it wouldn't be as crazy as you all might think. Open source does not necessarily mean free.

For one, it seemed relatively simple for Epic to release the Unreal Engine with an indy license that has limitations on how you can use the source. No legit business is going to use UE to make a game and then try sell it while breaking the license - game making is such an expensive process they would be incredibly stupid to try. Same with the PA engine - nobody is going to try to pass it off as their own and make money on it without running into serious issues.

The biggest downside is that people would be able to go through the code and point out security vulnerabilities and stupid code, but then again, every single person who's coded knows these things happen.

Second biggest downside is showing your work to the world and getting it critiqued by people who have way more time than you do.

But, on the flip side, you'd gain likely several very dedicated and passionate fans who can assist and make things better... for free. Imagine what FA:F would look like if they could have licensed the engine for indy prices.


Hell, I'd support a kickstarter to raise some funds to clean up the engine, get it on Github, and make it public-presentable!

I think there should be some 'badge' for open source pledge saying something like:
"We pledge to give the source code once the game is no more patched/developed for 3 years"
The important part is the code. I don't think it's important to cover the data, but that would be a plus.

That would allow people to port old title to new operating system, fix bugs, upgrade the multiplayer part ( I can't play anymore Total Annihilation on the internet with a friends )
For a good example of open sourced game, see Warzone 2100: http://wz2100.net/

Now that I think of it, I'm quite sure developpers could get some found on kickstarter to open source their old game.

That's a down-side?

Unlike Uber's closed source development right now, which gets absolutely no critique at all?

Make it a year.

Here is my thoughts on this -

Look at Epic Games Unreal Engine and Its subscription model - They provide full source code as well as regular binaries releases for an AAA Ready game engine. That said - It does not do RTS Games very well. At least with out more effort than normal.

That said - Uber can license out their engine for a low cost with a low royalty. 5 percent gross revenue or so.

The royalty would allow Uber to develop their engine post game launch and the low cost would cover maintenance such as bandwidth, etc.

It would also allow people to contribute fixes and new features to Uber's engine. They just need to maintain an active subscription.

Further more - A public road map for the engine would go a long way to building developer trust and the like.
That said - They do not need to open source their engine - You need an active subscription to access the source code.

I would like to end with there is not a whole lot of RTS specific game engines out there with large open spaces.

Heh. Yeah, it's not really a downside per se, more of a 'oh crap I have to show this IN PUBLIC??' kind of thing. Nobody works on something in full-press mode without making some seriously kludgy workarounds.

I dunno, maybe I'm naive - what's the downside to releasing your game code under a subscription model / license? Only thing I can think of is that it would add a bit of overhead to make your code available to the public and manage contributions and the like.