I heard the developer has been working on porting Caves of Qud to the Godot engine [External Link] in response to Unity's new install fees. Even though I don't play this game, I wish them the best all the same.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tohur

Quoting: Talon1024IMHO, this is a good example of why we should insist on native Linux ports instead of relying on WINE/Proton for everything.

Typically Native ports are worse off then running games in proton as to be frank 98% of the game industry can still give a rats arse about linux.. At least with Proton Valve can step in and brute force games to be compatible were as with native ports we are stuck with what ever half assery devs gives us

I believe Epic Games (Unreal Engine), Unity Technologies (Unity3D), and other game engine vendors are, at least in part, to blame for how shoddy their Linux support is.

And if the Windows version doesn't work via WINE/Proton, I'd take a shoddy native Linux port over that. At least the native Linux port works...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

When a game developer does a rerelease like this, one would assume they would test the game on Windows. If the game works on Windows, but is broken on Linux (but not because of Anti-Cheat middleware or DRMalware), it leads me to believe the game would work on Linux if the developer bothered to work on, and regularly test, a native Linux port of the game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

IMHO, this is a good example of why we should insist on native Linux ports instead of relying on WINE/Proton for everything.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: Talon1024

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: BloodScourgeHmmm... Not too fond of this license. Open the code under a FOSS license, keep the assets close/proprietary, if you don't want someone to resell the game as is. Best of both world... :huh:

Yeah, that's the normal way, not really sure why they do it like this.

So that the developers can keep making money from the game, whilst having the source code available to anyone who wants to tinker with it, port it to Linux, or whatever.

I whole-heartedly approve of that kind of business model, and I believe more game developers should do this. It's a win-win situation for both the original developers and Linux/FOSS fans.

I think you're misunderstanding. I was agreeing with what BloodScourge pointed out. Releasing the code is the normal way, not giving the entire assets - so devs have no real problem continuing to sell the game.

The business model I "wholeheartedly agreed with" was the one where the developers release all the code and none of the assets, so that people would still have to buy the game to play it, even if they have access to the source code.

However, the developers may need to release some of the assets so that other developers or contributors can properly play around with them in the engine's editor. But seeing as how Haxe/OpenFL doesn't have an editor (at least AFAIK), it is indeed weird that they would release all the assets free of charge under a proprietary license.

My best guess at this point is that the developer wants to confine their assets to this game, and they don't want the assets being used in other games or things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: BloodScourgeHmmm... Not too fond of this license. Open the code under a FOSS license, keep the assets close/proprietary, if you don't want someone to resell the game as is. Best of both world... :huh:

Yeah, that's the normal way, not really sure why they do it like this.

So that the developers can keep making money from the game, whilst having the source code available to anyone who wants to tinker with it, port it to Linux, or whatever.

I whole-heartedly approve of that kind of business model, and I believe more game developers should do this. It's a win-win situation for both the original developers and Linux/FOSS fans.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This license agreement change should go on the FSF's long list of ways [External Link] proprietary products mistreat their customers. I don't know what categories it would fall under, however.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: axredneckIs it made by the same person who added Vulkan to GZDoom?

It's made by the person who added post-processing effects like Bloom and SSAO to GZDoom, back when there was the QZDoom fork.

One good reason for having a Vulkan-focused fork of GZDoom could be to try and improve performance with super fancy mods like Wolfenstein: Blade of Agony. The developers have received a lot of complaints about poor performance, and a port like VkDoom offers an opportunity to optimize the renderer for modern computers, which potentially means higher framerates.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Remember Blender Game Engine? There's a modern fork of it called UPBGE [External Link]. I've never tried it myself, but they claim it lets you make your game from start to finish without leaving Blender.

If you've taken an interest in game development, and you're a Blender fan, you may have heard of Armory3D [External Link]. It's completely separate from UPBGE, but it sounds very similar in how it works with Blender.

And last, but not least, one of my favourite game engines is GZDoom [External Link], the culmination of over 20 years of bug fixes and feature additions to the id Tech 1 engine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

If only more game developers would follow the examples set by the early id Software and the early Frictional Games, and release their source code...

I know that's just a pipe dream, however.

And nowadays, access to the source code isn't even required in order for developers to do visual upgrades or "remasters" like this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments