Do you find open source games interesting/good thing as a gamer?
@games I am a game developer working on game called Mushy Score. I decided that my niche would be to create open source games. I think these could be helpful for developers or teachers to teach about games and how they are made. Most open source games are small game jam games, but there are few “real games” that are open source like 0 A.D. and Doom. As a non-developer do you think open source games could be good thing?
I don’t have any input as a dev but I do enjoy finding, learning about and playing open source games. There is something about it that I find interesting and although most of them are not great I check back every so often on my favourites.
Having it open source, does not make it good. I think I’d prioritise making it fun, try to.make a profit, and then open sourcing it. I don’t think having it open source will help you sell copies… you might sell less. Make your money first, have a feasible business strategy, so you don’t go bust. Then try to keep the game alive vis open sourcing it.
I’m a gamer and I love it. Without it I wouldn’t be able to play my favorite such as Open Transport Tycoon or OpenRA. We need more to make old games better.
I think if I really wanted to contribute open source have code, I’d look into working on something longer Godot.
The main issue i see with open source gaming is that most games rely at least as much on things like artwork and level design as they do on coding, but the open source ethos isn’t very popular with artists and art-adjacent professionals, so fully open source games usually have to make do with very little art, or amateurish art.
If you contribute to an open source engine, you’re writing code that will go into real games without needing non-software people to work for free.
The only open source game I know is Pixel Dungeon, and I love that one because it has spawned so many derivatives. So I guess I’d support it if it were more common.
Yes, but you have to remember that the developer community is absolutely tiny compared to the number of gamers.
It’s a neat gimmick, but 98% of the people who could be your audience will get nothing out of the game being open source.
I would really like it if certain specific games were more open source and more moddable, for example stellaris has an annoying formula hard coded that makes combat balancing and weapon modding very difficult. On the other hand, games like openRA exist and I’m not playing that and I’m not doing anything with the source either. That one even has fully functioning multiplayer, but it’s so built in that it’s hard to reuse for anything else. So you might end up being torn between making the game really good and making the tools and code really good.
I think the biggest appeal of open source games is as a learning resource. Maybe. idk.
Also, may I suggest panda3d, which I’m shilling for at every opportunity that I get, because it’s neat, 3d, open source and runs with C or python?
I think they are a good thing, since in general you get better compatibility with more esotheric hardware, for example i’ve seen people run godot games on raspberry pi boards, which is pretty nice; also as you mentioned doom and 0 A.D., both of them have prolific modding communities because it’s easy to make mods when you have the source of the game, and in the case of doom in particular the fact that it’s open source allowed people to build lauchers to make it run on newer computers without needing dosbox and co. To even have a chance to play.
I’m a dev, but not a game dev, and I think that open source games that are popular are more likely to stay around, even if the original dev team stops working on it as it can be forked, which is pretty awesome for longevity. Also other “real” open source games: osu! and Veloren.
Doom’s engine was made open source in 99, which was instrumental for opening up modern source ports and the current modding scene which I’d argue is one of the strongest.
If you actually want to make games for a living, then don’t do open source. Have people pay for enjoying your work. If it is a hobby, open source may be beneficial, because you can then team up with other hobbyists.
You can charge people for open source software. Most people on Steam won’t bother building your game from source even if it’s not difficult and you distribute the assets freely.
Fair point. But then, would anyone actually care that it is open source? I am not sure if there is a larger target group that would be more inclined to buy a game because of that. Maybe you can use it for marketing though?
Marketing would be one and open source, democracy and freedom (fediverse anyone?) are kind of getting popular I think. Probably good to jump in now.
Besides that, open source means your game will probably outlive you. For example, the assets are mostly what the game looks like and they often are excluded so you cant just build it from source but you can help make it better.
And if your game is good, people will just clone it. See gta and minecraft.
A game with open source is better than the same game with closed source, basically by definition.
A problem open source games tend to have, is that they often have an overly democratic development process. Art by committee can at best closely resemble another piece of art. It also makes it hard to reject ideas and kick out people who pull in the wrong direction.
The focus also often ends up on the code being presentable rather than the game being engaging. Real games that are made in reasobable time and have the necessary tons of little tweaks and adjustments needed to be fun have HORRENDOUS code as a result. Few developers are willing to settle for that if they know the world will scrutinize their code and judge them for it.
I really like GNOME’s games. Flightgear is a good project too. But “real games” are usually very large projects that require several thousands of hours of labour so I think open-source is not the way to go for them, unless they choose a paid source code way with the price of a single license set to thousands or even millions of dollars (which is still not a very good way because it can be abused by the original developer)
Open source is better for the longevity and distribution of games, also for knowing it isn’t malware. I wish more games were open-source, the industry likes trade secrets and DRM but that isn’t sustainable (most games have been lost over time, and we’re probably close to 99% of source material and documentation being extinct).
I’m a fan. I’ve been playing a heap of Shattered Pixel Dungeon lately which is a fork of Pixel Dungeon. I think it’s really cool that anyone can make their own fork of a base project and tweak it how they like. Especially if the original ever gets abandoned.
I’m a game dev by trade, but more of an artist than a programmer, but I like to work on little hobby projects and being able to look into source code is really helpful and nice.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
I don’t have any input as a dev but I do enjoy finding, learning about and playing open source games. There is something about it that I find interesting and although most of them are not great I check back every so often on my favourites.
Here is a list for anyone interested
@B0NK3RS Thanks for sharing!
Having it open source, does not make it good. I think I’d prioritise making it fun, try to.make a profit, and then open sourcing it. I don’t think having it open source will help you sell copies… you might sell less. Make your money first, have a feasible business strategy, so you don’t go bust. Then try to keep the game alive vis open sourcing it.
I’m a gamer and I love it. Without it I wouldn’t be able to play my favorite such as Open Transport Tycoon or OpenRA. We need more to make old games better.
I’ve only tried open source games once or twice, but I support any open source software, so as a concept I totally think it’s a good thing.
I think if I really wanted to contribute open source have code, I’d look into working on something longer Godot.
The main issue i see with open source gaming is that most games rely at least as much on things like artwork and level design as they do on coding, but the open source ethos isn’t very popular with artists and art-adjacent professionals, so fully open source games usually have to make do with very little art, or amateurish art.
If you contribute to an open source engine, you’re writing code that will go into real games without needing non-software people to work for free.
0ad is pretty good imo
The only open source game I know is Pixel Dungeon, and I love that one because it has spawned so many derivatives. So I guess I’d support it if it were more common.
Yes, but you have to remember that the developer community is absolutely tiny compared to the number of gamers.
It’s a neat gimmick, but 98% of the people who could be your audience will get nothing out of the game being open source.
I would really like it if certain specific games were more open source and more moddable, for example stellaris has an annoying formula hard coded that makes combat balancing and weapon modding very difficult. On the other hand, games like openRA exist and I’m not playing that and I’m not doing anything with the source either. That one even has fully functioning multiplayer, but it’s so built in that it’s hard to reuse for anything else. So you might end up being torn between making the game really good and making the tools and code really good.
I think the biggest appeal of open source games is as a learning resource. Maybe. idk.
Also, may I suggest panda3d, which I’m shilling for at every opportunity that I get, because it’s neat, 3d, open source and runs with C or python?
I think they are a good thing, since in general you get better compatibility with more esotheric hardware, for example i’ve seen people run godot games on raspberry pi boards, which is pretty nice; also as you mentioned doom and 0 A.D., both of them have prolific modding communities because it’s easy to make mods when you have the source of the game, and in the case of doom in particular the fact that it’s open source allowed people to build lauchers to make it run on newer computers without needing dosbox and co. To even have a chance to play.
I’m a dev, but not a game dev, and I think that open source games that are popular are more likely to stay around, even if the original dev team stops working on it as it can be forked, which is pretty awesome for longevity. Also other “real” open source games: osu! and Veloren.
Doom’s engine was made open source in 99, which was instrumental for opening up modern source ports and the current modding scene which I’d argue is one of the strongest.
If you actually want to make games for a living, then don’t do open source. Have people pay for enjoying your work. If it is a hobby, open source may be beneficial, because you can then team up with other hobbyists.
You can charge people for open source software. Most people on Steam won’t bother building your game from source even if it’s not difficult and you distribute the assets freely.
Fair point. But then, would anyone actually care that it is open source? I am not sure if there is a larger target group that would be more inclined to buy a game because of that. Maybe you can use it for marketing though?
Marketing would be one and open source, democracy and freedom (fediverse anyone?) are kind of getting popular I think. Probably good to jump in now.
Besides that, open source means your game will probably outlive you. For example, the assets are mostly what the game looks like and they often are excluded so you cant just build it from source but you can help make it better.
And if your game is good, people will just clone it. See gta and minecraft.
A game with open source is better than the same game with closed source, basically by definition.
A problem open source games tend to have, is that they often have an overly democratic development process. Art by committee can at best closely resemble another piece of art. It also makes it hard to reject ideas and kick out people who pull in the wrong direction.
The focus also often ends up on the code being presentable rather than the game being engaging. Real games that are made in reasobable time and have the necessary tons of little tweaks and adjustments needed to be fun have HORRENDOUS code as a result. Few developers are willing to settle for that if they know the world will scrutinize their code and judge them for it.
So yeah, go for it! But beware the pitfalls :)
It’s nice my unreadable code is getting the attention it deserves
I really like GNOME’s games. Flightgear is a good project too. But “real games” are usually very large projects that require several thousands of hours of labour so I think open-source is not the way to go for them, unless they choose a paid source code way with the price of a single license set to thousands or even millions of dollars (which is still not a very good way because it can be abused by the original developer)
Open source is better for the longevity and distribution of games, also for knowing it isn’t malware. I wish more games were open-source, the industry likes trade secrets and DRM but that isn’t sustainable (most games have been lost over time, and we’re probably close to 99% of source material and documentation being extinct).
I’m a fan. I’ve been playing a heap of Shattered Pixel Dungeon lately which is a fork of Pixel Dungeon. I think it’s really cool that anyone can make their own fork of a base project and tweak it how they like. Especially if the original ever gets abandoned.
I’m a game dev by trade, but more of an artist than a programmer, but I like to work on little hobby projects and being able to look into source code is really helpful and nice.