open source?

[maxxor]

would the devs consider offering the code up to the community with the licenses of linux like you can improve on it but the company still owns it and you arent allowed to commercialize it yourself.

[kerbiloid]

To shoot down KSP-2 on take-off.

[Lisias]

56 minutes ago, maxxor said:

 you arent allowed to commercialize it yourself.

So it's not Open Source like Linux.

The Open Source Initiative defines what they consider Open Source, and most the industry follows suit with then.

What you describe sounds more like what it's being called Shared Source, as Unity does.

That said, I don't think they will.  Neither should. This model doesn't copes very well with the Game's Industry, were some coding tricks and performance are usually an edge over the competition and so you seek to leverage on the code by hiring the best developers.

Giving that source for free for the competition would allow them to leverage on your developers at your expense.

 

 

47 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

To shoot down KSP-2 on take-off.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Lisias
manually merged two posts

[Snark]

18 hours ago, maxxor said:

would the devs consider offering the code up to the community with the licenses of linux like you can improve on it but the company still owns it and you arent allowed to commercialize it yourself.

I'd say this one would be a definite non-starter.

That said, if you want to improve on KSP2, you'll be able to do so-- with mods.  It's being designed so you can mod the heck out of it.

[linuxgurugamer]

19 hours ago, maxxor said:

would the devs consider offering the code up to the community with the licenses of linux like you can improve on it but the company still owns it and you arent allowed to commercialize it yourself.

Ummm, no?  They are spending millions of dollars developing KSP-2, they will want a return on that.  Making it open source would totally negate the revenue stream

[Lisias]

9 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Ummm, no?  They are spending millions of dollars developing KSP-2, they will want a return on that.  Making it open source would totally negate the revenue stream

Not necessarily. See Red Hat, that is doing pretty good with this model.

However, you are right on the TTI's revenue stream. Their business model doesn't copes with Open Source Development model - or perhaps it's the other way around.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 minute ago, Lisias said:

Not necessarily. See Red Hat, that is doing pretty good with this model.

However, you are right on the TTI's revenue stream. Their business model doesn't copes with Open Source Development model - or perhaps it's the other way around.

I wasn't talking about Redhat; I didn't make a generalization.  I was talking specifically about KSP-2 .  For a gaming company, open source is not compatible with profits.  For a company like RedHat, they get revenue as a result of the open source (ie:   support contracts, etc)

 

[Lisias]

9 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I wasn't talking about Redhat; I didn't make a generalization.  I was talking specifically about KSP-2 .  For a gaming company, open source is not compatible with profits.  For a company like RedHat, they get revenue as a result of the open source (ie:   support contracts, etc)

Well, since you typed "the revenue stream", and not "their revenue stream", I concluded you was talking generically.

However, Open Source can be profitable to a gaming company. Do  you know Epic Games? The Unreal Engine is open source, besides not being "Libre Software". It all depends of the business model you want (or can afford) for your product.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Well, since you typed "the revenue stream", and not "their revenue stream", I concluded you was talking generically.

However, Open Source can be profitable to a gaming company. Do  you know Epic Games? The Unreal Engine is open source, besides not being "Libre Software". It all depends of the business model you want (or can afford) for your product.

A game is not an Engine, different markets.

 

[Lisias]

2 minutes ago, Master39 said:

A game is not an Engine, different markets.

He said Gaming Company, not games!!!

[The Aziz]

That's just nitpicking at this point. Gaming, game production. Not software that can be used to produce games.

[paul23]

On 10/11/2019 at 11:29 AM, Lisias said:

That said, I don't think they will.  Neither should. This model doesn't copes very well with the Game's Industry, were some coding tricks and performance are usually an edge over the competition and so you seek to leverage on the code by hiring the best developers.

 

 

 

Like the very small changes between chrome and firefox constantly giving one or the other the edge in responsiveness? Yet firefox does just fine being free software for most part?

[dave1904]

9 hours ago, Snark said:

I'd say this one would be a definite non-starter.

That said, if you want to improve on KSP2, you'll be able to do so-- with mods.  It's being designed so you can mod the heck out of it.

You've meet them right? Can we trust them in your oppinion? So many broken games on release. 

[csiler2]

2 hours ago, paul23 said:

Like the very small changes between chrome and firefox constantly giving one or the other the edge in responsiveness? Yet firefox does just fine being free software for most part?

Yeah, because Chrome's parent company pays Mozilla lots of money to guarantee that Google is the default search engine of Firefox. Mozilla also gets a kickback for every search you perform using Google. In addition, Mozilla gets a lot through donations from other companies and individuals because Mozilla maintains a lot of other useful open source cross-platform products that are extremely useful for software development.

The scope of Mozilla's products and their usefulness to the companies and individuals that donate to them makes KSP look microscopic by comparison. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Edited October 12, 2019 by csiler2

[paul23]

Mozilla also started very small. It's not like they suddenly came to be.

[Snark]

4 hours ago, dave1904 said:

You've meet them right? Can we trust them in your oppinion? So many broken games on release. 

Not sure what you're asking.  Trust them for what?  Trust them to be moddable (which is what you quoted me on)?  Or trust them not to ship something broken (which you say in the quote here, and which has nothing to do with moddability)?  Those are two completely different things.

Short answer:

• "Will it be moddable?" I absolutely trust that the game will be as moddable as heck-- at least as moddable as KSP 1.  You can take that to the bank.  I'm extremely confident in saying that, for several reasons that I'll explain below.
• "Can we trust that it won't be broken?"  I have no way of knowing that (any more than you or anyone else does).  However, I assume that it likely won't be "broken".
  • Why it's impossible to know:  Like any game (or, indeed, any software product), there's no way for anyone to know that without actually getting hands on the it to see the results of their design and their QA after they release.
  • Why I assume it'll be fine:  Because my default assumption is that they're competent and know how to do their jobs, and I assume they're reasonably well funded.  I have no reason to think that they're not.  Bear in mind that they've shipped other games before and have experience in this area.  Also bear in mind that TTI shopped around for a dev shop to do KSP2, and chose Star Theory.  Star Theory had to compete against other dev shops for the contract, and presumably they wouldn't have won unless they could present a reasonably compelling case that they could pull it off.

 

Why you can take it to the bank that the game will be moddable as heck:

1. Because they'd have to be absolutely stark raving stupid not to, and there is no evidence that they're stark raving stupid.  KSP critically depends on moddability-- that's a huge part of what's kept the game so successful after all these years, and engages a huge number of players.  They know this.  They want to make money off of selling the game, so they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by leaving out such a crucially important feature.
2. Because they said so.  They've come right out and said it, and there's no reason for them to lie about this, and strong reasons not to lie-- the market for the game would implode.  Relevant quote from them, that came up during the discussion of moddability:  "We know that we're not just building a game, we're building a platform, and we want people to be playing this for many many years."
3. Personal observation:  They're believable, on a technical level.  I'm a professional software engineer, and I'm also a pretty experienced KSP modder.  When we met them in person, I (and other modders) asked them various pointed questions around moddability, and they had good answers for all of them-- and I know what a person who knows what they're talking about sounds like.  I won't go into all the technical details here, because 1. it would be really long and 2. wouldn't make sense to someone who's not a programmer and/or KSP modder themselves, but the upshot is that it was pretty clear to me that they know what they're talking about and have been diligently working on this.  And they mentioned some specific stuff that would make it actually more moddable than KSP1 in certain ways.
4. Personal observation:  They're believable, on a personal level.  I was there in the room when Nate Simpson, their creative director, was talking about it.  He's a highly believable guy.  He's very much a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of person, and is absolutely stark raving bonkers about KSP; he's been a fan of the game longer than I have, he's the biggest KSP fanboi imaginable.  When he's talking about the game he gets so excited he practically bounces, he's like a big puppy.  He clearly adores KSP 1 and is absolutely thrilled to be in charge of the game for KSP 2.  And he's enthusiastic about the moddability story.  Now... take a step back for a moment and put yourself in his position.  Let's say there's a thing that you adore, that you've loved for many years, and has a particular aspect of it (e.g. moddability) that you really love and want to preserve/enhance.  And then let's say someone puts you in charge of its successor.  Of course you're going to want that thing-you-love about it to be at least as cool in the new thing.  Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that for some reason your hands were tied and you couldn't deliver that and had to ruin it-- would you be happy?  No, you'd be miserable and grouchy and it would show.  TL;DR:  We're in good hands in that regard, folks.  Nate's a very up-front kind of person and it's clear that he loves KSP moddability and he's excited about what they're doing with KSP2, so I think it's a safe assumption that it'll be fine in this regard.

 

[Lisias]

4 hours ago, paul23 said:

Like the very small changes between chrome and firefox constantly giving one or the other the edge in responsiveness? Yet firefox does just fine being free software for most part?

Good developers write good code no matter the company's business model. The big thing is the Business Model, however - it's from there that comes the money that pay the good developers - so they will do whatever is needed to keep the money flowing.

Using Epic Games as an example - they open sourced the Unreal Engine, but not their games. 

Mozilla makes their incoming from donations. Epic Games from selling games.

The restriction about Open Source was never on the technical level, but on the business model.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Lisias
Kraken damned auto-completes. :(

[dave1904]

4 hours ago, Snark said:

Not sure what you're asking.  Trust them for what?  Trust them to be moddable (which is what you quoted me on)?  Or trust them not to ship something broken (which you say in the quote here, and which has nothing to do with moddability)?  Those are two completely different things.

Short answer:

• "Will it be moddable?" I absolutely trust that the game will be as moddable as heck-- at least as moddable as KSP 1.  You can take that to the bank.  I'm extremely confident in saying that, for several reasons that I'll explain below.
• "Can we trust that it won't be broken?"  I have no way of knowing that (any more than you or anyone else does).  However, I assume that it likely won't be "broken".
  • Why it's impossible to know:  Like any game (or, indeed, any software product), there's no way for anyone to know that without actually getting hands on the it to see the results of their design and their QA after they release.
  • Why I assume it'll be fine:  Because my default assumption is that they're competent and know how to do their jobs, and I assume they're reasonably well funded.  I have no reason to think that they're not.  Bear in mind that they've shipped other games before and have experience in this area.  Also bear in mind that TTI shopped around for a dev shop to do KSP2, and chose Star Theory.  Star Theory had to compete against other dev shops for the contract, and presumably they wouldn't have won unless they could present a reasonably compelling case that they could pull it off.

 

Why you can take it to the bank that the game will be moddable as heck:

1. Because they'd have to be absolutely stark raving stupid not to, and there is no evidence that they're stark raving stupid.  KSP critically depends on moddability-- that's a huge part of what's kept the game so successful after all these years, and engages a huge number of players.  They know this.  They want to make money off of selling the game, so they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by leaving out such a crucially important feature.
2. Because they said so.  They've come right out and said it, and there's no reason for them to lie about this, and strong reasons not to lie-- the market for the game would implode.  Relevant quote from them, that came up during the discussion of moddability:  "We know that we're not just building a game, we're building a platform, and we want people to be playing this for many many years."
3. Personal observation:  They're believable, on a technical level.  I'm a professional software engineer, and I'm also a pretty experienced KSP modder.  When we met them in person, I (and other modders) asked them various pointed questions around moddability, and they had good answers for all of them-- and I know what a person who knows what they're talking about sounds like.  I won't go into all the technical details here, because 1. it would be really long and 2. wouldn't make sense to someone who's not a programmer and/or KSP modder themselves, but the upshot is that it was pretty clear to me that they know what they're talking about and have been diligently working on this.  And they mentioned some specific stuff that would make it actually more moddable than KSP1 in certain ways.
4. Personal observation:  They're believable, on a personal level.  I was there in the room when Nate Simpson, their creative director, was talking about it.  He's a highly believable guy.  He's very much a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of person, and is absolutely stark raving bonkers about KSP; he's been a fan of the game longer than I have, he's the biggest KSP fanboi imaginable.  When he's talking about the game he gets so excited he practically bounces, he's like a big puppy.  He clearly adores KSP 1 and is absolutely thrilled to be in charge of the game for KSP 2.  And he's enthusiastic about the moddability story.  Now... take a step back for a moment and put yourself in his position.  Let's say there's a thing that you adore, that you've loved for many years, and has a particular aspect of it (e.g. moddability) that you really love and want to preserve/enhance.  And then let's say someone puts you in charge of its successor.  Of course you're going to want that thing-you-love about it to be at least as cool in the new thing.  Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that for some reason your hands were tied and you couldn't deliver that and had to ruin it-- would you be happy?  No, you'd be miserable and grouchy and it would show.  TL;DR:  We're in good hands in that regard, folks.  Nate's a very up-front kind of person and it's clear that he loves KSP moddability and he's excited about what they're doing with KSP2, so I think it's a safe assumption that it'll be fine in this regard.

 

 Sorry but I am just so afraid of being hyped for something. I have been hoping for years now that a more stable and moddable KSP comes and was always very disappointed when people said it would never happen. KSP1 has its limitations, 1 of them is axial tilt and I have heard its in stock KSP2. If not stock then moddable atleast. I am just so afraid it will end up being a disaster because there are so many these days. I know its only a game but KSP is more than a game to me. Thanks for you're reply and it gives me some confidence. After all 2 of the games I was the most hyped for were Rome2 and Arkham Knight. I do not know how much you game but I am sure if you are a software engineer you heard about them on release.... 

Edit and to clarify I meant trust them in general. You covered the 2 major things anyway. Modding and Stability. I do not care that much about balance since KSP is a platform and everyone has their own version of the perfect game. Mods will handle that. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by dave1904

[runner78]

15 hours ago, Lisias said:

Well, since you typed "the revenue stream", and not "their revenue stream", I concluded you was talking generically.

However, Open Source can be profitable to a gaming company. Do  you know Epic Games? The Unreal Engine is open source, besides not being "Libre Software". It all depends of the business model you want (or can afford) for your product.

Unreal Engine is NOT open source. In the EULA: "You are permitted to post snippets of Engine Code, up to 30 lines of code in length. online in public forums for the sole purpose of discussing the content of the snippet..."

 

[Lisias]

17 minutes ago, runner78 said:

Unreal Engine is NOT open source. In the EULA: "You are permitted to post snippets of Engine Code, up to 30 lines of code in length. online in public forums for the sole purpose of discussing the content of the snippet..."

I said "open sourced", non capitalized letters. meaning a verb. I didn't meant Open Source, capital letters, noun, as defined by the OSI. But granted, I need to be understood - there's no point on using development lingo while arguing with non professionals.

What do you think of calling them "Shared Source"?

Quote

Epic grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable (except as described in this Agreement) license to use, reproduce, display, perform, and modify the Licensed Technology for any lawful purpose (the “License”).

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula

[maxxor]

as lisas meant i think i was missunderstood by wrong wording. just like unreal if fans wants to go in and tweak the performance or do total conversions.
the mods on ksp is a tacked on layer where some modders do things much better than the base game. theres always going to be some guy that just gets the code like no other and can boost fps like the memgraph thingy.
i dont want the company to give it away i want them to make it truely available for core fans not just a hidden layer for cosmetic mods.
the non profit thing doesnt hold up witcher 3 was released with no drm and was still a best seller. darksouls doesnt sell worse because surge2 steals their gameplay

[Xd the great]

41 minutes ago, maxxor said:

the mods on ksp is a tacked on layer where some modders do things much better than the base game. theres always going to be some guy that just gets the code like no other and can boost fps like the memgraph thingy.
i dont want the company to give it away i want them to make it truely available for core fans not just a hidden layer for cosmetic mods.

This is highly dependent on good software engineers, and unless Star Theory manages to get every single software engineerers in the world, they cannot guarentee that the game will be the best. They can only make sure it is good enough.

[paul23]

On 10/12/2019 at 11:04 PM, Lisias said:

non-transferable,

Funky, since the eu high court (highest court one can go to), ruled in 2009 already that "non transferable" licenses are not a thing. And any license is transferable.  This was as part of the oracle vs usedsoft case: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=124564&doclang=EN 

 

I'm wondering what those license makers think to achieve by directly invalidating their license?

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, paul23 said:

Funky, since the eu high court (highest court one can go to), ruled in 2009 already that "non transferable" licenses are not a thing. And any license is transferable.

Different countries, different laws. Here in the US, non-transferable licenses is a thing. (Except when state or local laws override it.) 

2 hours ago, paul23 said:

I'm wondering what those license makers think to achieve by directly invalidating their license?

More profit.

[ModZero]

I doubt it can be open sourced in any meaningful way. It likely contains plenty of licensed 3rd party code that they can't just re-license to AGPL or whatever. Even if they spent the effort of separating the licensed code from their own, it's likely you couldn't run it or build it without the bits they can't even show you (at least with the engine they can show it to you and you likely can download it yourself).

Otherwise we could speculate about e.g. releasing the code but not any of the assets, for example, or releasing the code for KSP1 (again, likely contains closed source code they don't have ownership of, so it's a bit of a fantasy) — that wouldn't be unheard of, notably ID Software did something like that multiple times.