Is it ok to create commercial game with ZDoom?

[Zen3001]

Sry if this bugs you. I was just trying to argue the "there are mods so let's not buy games" point. the realm667 assets were just one type of mods I mentioned and I'm not necessarily saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they're not nearly as good as full games like ion maiden.

[Kinsie]

the realm667 assets were just one type of mods I mentioned and I'm not necessarily saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they're not nearly as good as full games like ion maiden.

That's not what you were arguing at all. You were directly comparing mods using R667 stuff to Unity asset flips.

[Zen3001]

I put the unity comment in brackets with a "kind of"

[JadedLexi]

There is nothing inherently wrong with asset flips in general, what is wrong however is people continuously using those to make shovelware games to sell them for cheap. That is not the asset's fault, though. You're acting like asset flips automatically make something suck.

[wildweasel]

Friendly reminder that most of Doom's sound effects came directly from a sound effects library - arguably the same thing as a modern "asset."

[SouthernLion]

Friendly reminder that most of Doom's sound effects came directly from a sound effects library - arguably the same thing as a modern "asset."

I remember the first time I heard Doom's door open / door close sound play in Outlaw Star before a ship blew up, I was like WTF? lol

[leileilol]

A GPL (strictly open source and commercial use permitted for any purpose) game like my own i'd have no legal abilities to use those libraries unfortunately. Do you know how hard it is to reproduce iconic Sound Ideas material from scratch? I used to have a habit on calling out allegedsound engineers that have claimed to have created Sound Ideas sounds themselves with the bullshit foley theory defense lol

Same goes for those 3 explosion clips you'd always see in the mid-90s on in everything. I would have liked to use them as a production in-joke but instead i'd have to really strain myself in Blender's smoke sim to make barely similar fx.

[Chris]

A GPL (strictly open source and commercial use permitted for any purpose) game like my own i'd have no legal abilities to use those libraries unfortunately.

Game assets are separate from the game code. The licensing of code and the licensing of media for the game can be different. Even Stallman agrees with that.

Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. A free game need not be gratis. It is feasible to develop free games commercially, while respecting your freedom to change the software you use. Since the art in the game is not software, it is not ethically imperative to make the art free.

Emphasis mine. If you want to make a game where the assets are also free/libre, that's of course your prerogative, but it's not necessary for free software like the GNU GPL promotes.

[leileilol]

Even Stallman agrees with that.

I've heard that spiel way too many times from vocal nontributors before (along with "GPL only recognizes human-readable code"), but that's besides the point. It's about asset libraries and when/where it's appropriate/inappropriate for them and where it contradicts the poor Realm667=asset flip analogy

[Matt]

That seems to be the opposite conclusion of what I came to here, but he wrote the thing so presumably he'd know better than me!

But how do you run software like a game but without any graphics or sounds? Just a plain layman's understanding of "a single program" seems to include the whole package.

[Chris]

it contradicts the poor Realm667=asset flip analogy

Well, the issue there is the poor definition of the term "asset flip". In all cases I've seen the term used, it doesn't relate to the assets themselves, but rather the project that uses the assets in the most bare-bones uncreative way possible, and then fools people into buying what they slapped together. That is to say, a project "flips" assets (usually using free or cheap assets, but not necessarily) to make money on a low-quality product, it's not a matter of assets being "flippable" by their quality and/or cost. Low quality assets can be used creatively to make a fun and interesting game, and that wouldn't be an asset flip. While high quality licensed assets can be used uncreatively for a generic "game" to fool people into buying, which would be an asset flip.

I suppose the confusing factor would be that such games will almost never make their own unique assets (that costs more money), and instead buy/use the cheapest assets they can find (which inevitably a lot of other people will too) that can fool people into buying what they put together. But it's not the fact that the assets are free/cheap and often used that makes something an asset flip, nor is it the quality of the assets. It's the fact that the game itself had no effort put into it and was sold to make a quick buck, that makes it an asset flip.

[Geoffthegameguy]

So, I came across this thread trying to answer a similar question! I have some questions too, and I'm really sorry if they've already been answered, but my questions are is it legal to use GZDoombuilder as my design engine? Also, what does editing the source code entail, I know the changes need to be published, I just want to know if there are specific changes that need to happen.

[Gez]

is it legal to use GZDoombuilder as my design engine?

Yes of course. Why wouldn't it be?

The toolset you use should not have any bearing on the status of what you've created with it. You can write free software with a closed source proprietary IDE (e.g., using Visual Studio to compile GZDoom); and inversely you can write closed software with free development tools.

I just want to know if there are specific changes that need to happen.

It's perfectly fine to use the engine as-is.

[Geoffthegameguy]

Spectacular! Thank you for clearing things up!