Any idea why freeware suddenly dropped from the indie scene at about the time you mention?Hetdegon wrote:You mean it's more up-to-date with gzdoom's current code? (I see no reference of GLOOME in the original post here, and the GLOOME main post is more a declaration of intentions than a technical review, so forgive me if it's something that needs to be asked, as that post only lists a lower base version).
Well in that case what I don't see is a reason to go with GLOOME at all. GZDoom fixed a lot of things post 1.8.x, so...yeah.
Still, I'd like to know your take on the whole ease of use and convenience compared to other available engines for indies, which was the main body of my post. Now, again I reiterate that I find this interesting and usable. But that's because I am already invested in GZDoom. Again, this is no master troll question and I am just curious about your opinion, I feel that as a "product" it's going to be limited to people in these forums, and indies wanting to make something commercially distributable (because the concept of freeware died like 5 years ago in the scene at large) have other options available for free and use more "industry-wide" skills (C#/Mono, Lua, modeling stuff more advanced than MD3, shaders...) that can be used for a "career". Maybe I am reading too much in the "GZDoom for indies" tagline?
[REL/FINAL] GZDoom-GPL 2.4 - now with software renderer
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
Probably has something to do with the economy crashing and rise of Steam.
- Hetdegon
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:55 pm
- Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
- Location: Chireiden
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
Well, I was there and I am not even entirely sure. Excuse me if the post is a bit verbose and incomprehensible, it's bedtime here. (zzz)
I was mostly active in roguelike circles, but also frequented some more general forums, where people would post their games for free, as a means to create a portfolio, practice, showcase concepts or just for the hell of it. Similar to the ZDoom forums.
Then it's like gamedev suddenly became trendy overnight, with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that. For every legit project thread, there were like 9 idiots who had no idea what they were doing and just wanted "easy cash" to become the next Notch, and ronin musicians and artists looking for projects to get hired into. Oh, and "code beggars" ("I HAVE THIS IDEA BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CODE, WHO WANTS TO DO IT FOR ME? I'LL PAY YOU WHEN IT INEVITABLY MAKES ME RICH!". Yeah, that was a PLAGUE). Some places closed, others adapted. That's pretty much what I saw happening. Very quickly and suddenly, with no buildup at all. In the space of a few months, no one remained with the freeware mindset.
The roguelike side of things was affected even more, as it used to be 95% FOSS. There was some drama when commercial games were allowed into roguelike of the year votings, which led to infighting among the purists, the devs, and the newcomers, and other people taking advantage to prevent a "rival" game from winning. I ran out of the scene a few months after that, burned out from medieval fantasy stuff after working with the TOME team, so I am not entirely sure of what happened since then.
As for the reason, I can only guess it was because of Minecraft being a sudden hit, as it came out a bit before all that, but I don't have solid evidence of it other than it being the most notorious thing that happened around that time.
I paint a bleak picture, but well, there were advantages. As gamedev is now mainstream-ish, there are more and better tools than back then, and good games are still being made. I still miss those times though, it was more about making games than making bank.
I was mostly active in roguelike circles, but also frequented some more general forums, where people would post their games for free, as a means to create a portfolio, practice, showcase concepts or just for the hell of it. Similar to the ZDoom forums.
Then it's like gamedev suddenly became trendy overnight, with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that. For every legit project thread, there were like 9 idiots who had no idea what they were doing and just wanted "easy cash" to become the next Notch, and ronin musicians and artists looking for projects to get hired into. Oh, and "code beggars" ("I HAVE THIS IDEA BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CODE, WHO WANTS TO DO IT FOR ME? I'LL PAY YOU WHEN IT INEVITABLY MAKES ME RICH!". Yeah, that was a PLAGUE). Some places closed, others adapted. That's pretty much what I saw happening. Very quickly and suddenly, with no buildup at all. In the space of a few months, no one remained with the freeware mindset.
The roguelike side of things was affected even more, as it used to be 95% FOSS. There was some drama when commercial games were allowed into roguelike of the year votings, which led to infighting among the purists, the devs, and the newcomers, and other people taking advantage to prevent a "rival" game from winning. I ran out of the scene a few months after that, burned out from medieval fantasy stuff after working with the TOME team, so I am not entirely sure of what happened since then.
As for the reason, I can only guess it was because of Minecraft being a sudden hit, as it came out a bit before all that, but I don't have solid evidence of it other than it being the most notorious thing that happened around that time.
I paint a bleak picture, but well, there were advantages. As gamedev is now mainstream-ish, there are more and better tools than back then, and good games are still being made. I still miss those times though, it was more about making games than making bank.
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
So basically the gold rush mentality hit. Sigh. I expected better, but I'm honestly not surprised.
RE: Minecraft: The sheer amount of Minecraft/survival game clones are why I roll my eyes whenever someone earnestly suggests indie titles are the cure to dried-up, stale AAA franchises. A franchise is a franchise is a franchise no matter what its budget is.
My thoughts are indies should either do the best at what they want to do or at least stop pretending they're trying to ride someone else's coattails. Just saying.
That much said, looking forward to seeing what can/will be done in DooMing circles, between GLOOME and GPLZDooM here.
RE: Minecraft: The sheer amount of Minecraft/survival game clones are why I roll my eyes whenever someone earnestly suggests indie titles are the cure to dried-up, stale AAA franchises. A franchise is a franchise is a franchise no matter what its budget is.
My thoughts are indies should either do the best at what they want to do or at least stop pretending they're trying to ride someone else's coattails. Just saying.
That much said, looking forward to seeing what can/will be done in DooMing circles, between GLOOME and GPLZDooM here.
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
TheZombieKiller was kind enough to remove the ASM stuff which prevented this from compiling under certain circumstances... I had my ASM tools installed so it built successfully for me during my initial testing phases - it didn't occur to me at the time it might not compile for other people. So that's fixed now, thanks TZK! Also merged everything the latest revision GZDoom has as of today.
- leileilol
- Posts: 4449
- Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:16 am
- Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
- Location: GNU/Hell
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
What about Zdoom-GPL? I mean, I can care less for the whole "you need opengl4 for 1993 game!!! software render removed!! its a shit!" aspect, and want a fast bare software renderer with decoracs stuffs.
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
Someone else who cares enough about software rendering can do that... not me!
- Marisa the Magician
- Posts: 3886
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:15 am
- Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
- Operating System Version (Optional): (btw I use) Arch
- Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
- Location: Vigo, Galicia
- Contact:
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
Ehhh, I'm personally interested in software rendering myself, but I don't think I'd be able to come up with anything efficient or even remotely usable by ZDoom.
- Arctangent
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:53 pm
- Contact:
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
Based on what I've seen from both you and Nash, I get the feeling you'd be more suited to tackle it, to be honest. Especially since ZDoom-GPL would require modifying some aspects of the renderer, whereas this is mostly ( if not entirely ) just GZDoom with everything non-GPL stripped.leileilol wrote:What about Zdoom-GPL? I mean, I can care less for the whole "you need opengl4 for 1993 game!!! software render removed!! its a shit!" aspect, and want a fast bare software renderer with decoracs stuffs.
- Marisa the Magician
- Posts: 3886
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:15 am
- Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
- Operating System Version (Optional): (btw I use) Arch
- Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
- Location: Vigo, Galicia
- Contact:
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
It's mostly just the Build stuff that needs to be replaced, right?
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
Yep, as far as video rendering is concerned, Build is the only offender.
Then there's some OPL related stuff -- it's easy enough to get rid of the MAME OPL core, but the problem is that MUSLIB's license is fucktarded as well so you basically have to rewrite all the MUSLIB-derived parts as well, or just cut off OPL emulation and playback entirely.
Then there's some OPL related stuff -- it's easy enough to get rid of the MAME OPL core, but the problem is that MUSLIB's license is fucktarded as well so you basically have to rewrite all the MUSLIB-derived parts as well, or just cut off OPL emulation and playback entirely.
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
If I were to imagine someone who would realistically spearhead the endeavor, it's either Randi or Blzut... most probably Randi because he knows the software renderer the best around here.
- Marisa the Magician
- Posts: 3886
- Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:15 am
- Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
- Operating System Version (Optional): (btw I use) Arch
- Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
- Location: Vigo, Galicia
- Contact:
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
I've been reading up on OPL libraries and it seems adplug (which is LGPL2) uses an old version of the MAME core that is GPLed.
- TerminusEst13
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:08 pm
- Contact:
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
Software renderer being removed is less because a shit (I love how it looks, myself) and more because of all the copyrighted Build code. Ken Silverman's a genius but his code is kind of legally wonky, so the menagerie of splices and chewing gum and duct tape holding it together would have to be rewritten.leileilol wrote:What about Zdoom-GPL? I mean, I can care less for the whole "you need opengl4 for 1993 game!!! software render removed!! its a shit!" aspect, and want a fast bare software renderer with decoracs stuffs.
Still, if someone could do it, I suspect a lot of people would be all over that shit.
-
-
- Posts: 3144
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:59 pm
- Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support
- Contact:
Re: [source] GZDoom-GPL - GPL'ed GZDoom for indies
Not really realistic. Consider the value proposition here. While there are a lot of differences, making ZDoom GPL in practice comes down to being able to sell a game using the engine. Thus for one of us to spend time making ZDoom GPL the only return is that other people would be able to make money off our work. Given that Randi is the one that's pulling in BUILD code I'm assuming that ripping it out isn't on the table any time soon. I similarly have no intrinsic value to seeing ZDoom be GPL, so the ripping out perfectly good code isn't in my plans even if I'm technically able to do the work.Nash wrote:If I were to imagine someone who would realistically spearhead the endeavor, it's either Randi or Blzut... most probably Randi because he knows the software renderer the best around here.
The only way this is going to happen is if someone is able to do the work AND is developing a game they wish to sell on the engine. (I suppose the second condition could be swapped for "philosophically motivated to waste time," but I'm not sure how many of those people satisfy the first condition.)
Side note: GPL proponents would be quick to point out being able to use GPL libraries and being able to be a part of distro repositories. On point one the counter argument is we can use code like FMOD Ex and BUILD which is not GPL. On point two, we're talking about the same repositories that want to cripple ECWolf's sound engine because I forked SDL_mixer and thus is code duplication. Not really seeing the incentive.
To be clear: I license my code liberally such that people can use it commercially. I'm not against that at all. I'm just saying it's silly to think that we have any interest in spending time to allow that when it provides no direct benefit to us. It's really no different from the reason why Nash, TerminusEst13, and Marrub aren't currently learning their way around the software renderer to do the work themselves and no amount of requesting/complaining is going to change their minds.
MAME is actually looking to relicense last I heard.MarisaKirisame wrote:I've been reading up on OPL libraries and it seems adplug (which is LGPL2) uses an old version of the MAME core that is GPLed.