Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wish List"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Source Code Release Notes and Comments
imported>MegaBurn |
imported>MegaBurn |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
It will work if they decide to take this route. | It will work if they decide to take this route. | ||
--[[User:MegaBurn|MegaBurn]] 12:48, 20 April 2006 (EDT) | --[[User:MegaBurn|MegaBurn]] 12:48, 20 April 2006 (EDT) | ||
===Original Post with Discussion=== | |||
I rewrote the request on the article page and moved the original text with all related comments to this page. If anyone has a problem with this just look at the very top of the Wish List, it clearly states to keep the discussion on this page. I doubt they care if it hits a hundred pages as long as the main Wish List article remains short and to the point. This is an "archive section" please do not edit. --[[User:MegaBurn|MegaBurn]] 19:27, 27 April 2006 (EDT) | |||
However unlikely, I request that Bethsoft release all Oblivion engine and Construction Set source code (which they own full rights to). The proprietary middleware can be readily left in closed sourced linked libraries. This would allow the modding community to expand into the realm of engine tweaking and further software development. Its clear that Bethsoft will get a full return on their investment in developing the Oblivion engine, if they haven't already (note the record sales announcements). So effectively there is nothing to lose and this is already paid for, by us, their customers. If done correctly this can become a major "win win" move for Bethsoft. | |||
The best case scenario, as I see it, is the development community this release creates would be able to develop open source replacements to the proprietary closed source middleware and then expand the engine to support other RPG sub-genres, and implement full multiplayer. In effect that would save Bethsoft the licensing fees for the middleware, and possibly development time (big money) on adapting the engine for future expansion packs, and possibly Fallout 3. The worst case scenario is the development community does not form (unlikely) and some of the source code is stolen by open source projects (likely) or maybe non-US based game developers (unlikely). | |||
(see notes on the discussion page) | |||
--[[User:MegaBurn|MegaBurn]] 11:43, 20 April 2006 (EDT) | |||
:Extremely, if not absolutely unlikely. It makes no business sense to provide the public with the very tools that would allow them to compete with you. Every company understands that the modding communities are capable of producing conversions that can even match the quality of the commercial product by using the sheer unpaid and often professional will and manpower. Why would Bethsoft allow someone else access to the technology, when they can create, given time and resources, a better game for free. That would tarnish their image and dellutes the value of the IP the company owns and this is very important in the corporate world. We can expect some goodwill when one or two generations of the engine have passed (that's how iD releases their Quake engines, when no body needs them but for educational or hobby purposes). I hope that Bethesta does that with Morrowind to allow her megahit title to live on, tho... ---[[User:RaynerApe|RaynerApe]] | |||
::True, its extremely unlikely and a rather unconventional approach, but even releasing the full construction set is unconventional. More importantly, you hit the nail on the head in terms of what the modding community can do. Its all a matter of how this is structured. If they just blindly released the source code then, yeah, sales would suffer and IP control would be lost. Being smart about it, tapping the community, and managing access to some sort of developer's network would do it. Think about the sheer man power aspect, really tapping into the community could turn Bethsoft into a game production power house shipping titles with hundreds of hours of game play every year rather than every 4 yours. In time it could even get to the point where content is being released faster than people can play it (thats true of mods now). IP control is all in the fine print, if signing up for a developers network program required signing a non-compete with clearly stated ownership rules then in asset terms Bethsoft would wholly own contributed IP so theres no real risk there. I really don't like the concept of having to pay for access something like that, but it would filter out people who aren't serious about working on it or who might seek to exploit it, so maybe paid access could come with discounts/vouchers on game orders placed with Bethsoft directly. Bethsoft has done extremely well for themselves by taking the road less traveled, this is more like blazing a trail through thick underbrush. If they're smart about it and work with the community directly, they could do great things for the future of the game industry while getting even richer in the process. Given Oblivion's success there is no question about their having the wherewithal to fund another web server (or three), dedicated CVS/SVN server, RPC based compile server (TES@Home!), a T3 (or two) to link it all, and hire a few people to manage it all. Not cheap but certainly feasible. | |||
::I'm serious about this, they release the source code and I'll gladly sign on to commit my free time to improving their AI engine and probably a half dozen other things. For starters they're missing decent NPC companions (think real character development, not just script functions), faction level AI, and I think a custom chatter bot paired a TTS engine could handle dynamic dialog without voice acting... (even if they didn't release the source code I'd sign on if asked, have to finish Openlancer first, it will have the best AI engine seen in a game to date or I'll die trying). --[[User:MegaBurn|MegaBurn]] 06:47, 22 April 2006 (EDT) | |||
: The Elder Scrolls V: WikiTamriel? Silly as it seems at first, you raise a very good point, MegaBurn. A whole heap of dedicated fans familiar with programming (of which Oblivion seems to have plenty) could generate ''suggestions'' for improving code much faster than the original coders could. I don't know enough to be certain, but I could almost see releasing the source code with no way to compile: sort of a "Look, but don't touch" thing. Then it falls to BethSoft to actually edit the code for release, but the community can point out errors or pointers for improvement. (Plus, think about how releasing source code to a game currently on the market would change the gaming industry. It'd be crazy...) The largest good-faith issue I can see (piracy being an obvious issue, but related to system abuse rather than improvement) would be the source code's complexity. It would take a dedicated team of programmers just to make sure that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity issues with complexity] don't arise. Sounds very interesting, though. [[User:Grundulum|Grundulum]] 15:59, 22 April 2006 (EDT) | |||
::Read only source code is semi-possible. Some of the middleware source code cannot be released, Bethsoft cannot release anything they don't own. So without the middleware code a functional engine build can't be compiled. Theres nothing to prevent someone (or a team) from replacing the missing middleware with an open source package or developing one themselves. As for piracy, this would have zero effect on piracy, without the 4 gig of game data the source code or even main game executable is near useless to the average player. Releasing the source code isn't really crazy, it might be within the game industry but lots of programs ship with the source code. However m$ and some other greedy multinationals would have you believe open source is evil communism or some such. Open source is the future, nothing can it stop that now. Even m$ will give in one day and go full open source, just as soon as it costs them more to remain closed source than go open source. For Bethsoft to go open source now its just jumping on the bandwagon before most of the other major players in the game industry. Also keep in mind open source doesn't mean free, they will have to write their own license or tweak an existing one. --[[User:MegaBurn|MegaBurn]] 18:54, 27 April 2006 (EDT) | |||
== How about spitting the page into several sections? == | == How about spitting the page into several sections? == | ||