next »

[motorsep]

Before I post in the Paid work section, I wonder if anyone here modded Doom 3 or any of the prior iD Software games.

I am looking for someone who is interested in AI and knows C++, but it seems like with UE4/Unity craze it's virtually impossible to find a programmer to poke at id Tech 4 engine (Doom 3), whether it's for money or for profit share or for fun.

Has anyone modded Doom 3 / Quake 4 in the past (C++ gameplay; scripts)?

[Layl]

For what reason are you looking towards id Tech 4 instead of a more up-to-date engine?

[motorsep]

For what reason are you looking towards id Tech 4 instead of a more up-to-date engine?

I've been working with idTech engines for a long while and have tools/workflow designed around id tech 4. The engine has complete gamecode, AI and multiplayer. There are quite a few mods and a few games made with id tech 4, so if a reference is needed - it's all there.

I am using Doom 3 BFG as a base (idTech4 + idTech5), so it's not the actual ancient idTech 4 with ARB shaders :-)  I got an entry for it in IndieDb: http://www.indiedb.com/engines/storm-engine-2-working-title

It really shouldn't be any different whether developing for idTech 4 (gameplay) or CryEngine or Source or UE4 (C++; not blueprint). idTech 4 has enough comments, clean code and whitepaper written on AAS (Area Awareness System).

[umen]

As c++ developer i can feel you with the unity craze. this is unbelievable ..
any way my question , is it legal to mod the Doom engine and release it as your game for sale ?

[motorsep]

As c++ developer i can feel you with the unity craze. this is unbelievable ..
any way my question , is it legal to mod the Doom engine and release it as your game for sale ?

Well, Unity is useful for certain types of games, and if there is a skilled programmer on the team, who is well versed in creating solid, easily expandable and adoptable to several game types, gameplay framework. Plus AI, plus networking developers. Not to forget that Unity based games can be released on various platform.

I just don't see myself realistically releasing on several platforms, plus I don't have any of those programmers on my team Nor I find Unity being robust engine for an FPS game.

id Tech 4 / Doom 3 BFG engines are under GPL license, so you can do anything you want with it, including commercially exploiting it (while complying with GPL terms for the code). I already released one game commercially using heavily modified Quake 1 engine (also under GPL license).

[umen]

GPL is bad if you don't want to release your source ,
you must release your source also .
or there is something that im missing ?

[motorsep]

GPL is bad if you don't want to release your source ,
you must release your source also .
or there is something that im missing ?

You aren't, that's correct. Any modification made to the original source will have to be released under GPL. That only covers engine/game code. Assets/scripts will remain proprietary.

I don't see how it's bad.

[umen]

Hey i know your game saw it like 3-4 years ago even played the demo i think ...
well if you are using the scripts to run the game so i guess GPL is ok
so why you need c++ developers if the next game is GPL ?

[motorsep]

Hey i know your game saw it like 3-4 years ago even played the demo i think ...
well if you are using the scripts to run the game so i guess GPL is ok
so why you need c++ developers if the next game is GPL ?

GPL is ok in any case if you are aiming for PC/Mac/Linux/mobile/Nvidia console/SteamMachines. I highly doubt anyone would care to "steal" GPL code, especially when there are much better solutions floating around in the form of middleware and out-of-the-box engines. Plus, for GPL code to be used, the codebase into which your code would be merged has to be GPL too (or GPL compatible).

So I don't really see why having open code is a bad idea

Note that while engine is GPL, a game made using such engine is not GPL, unless the author specifically license the content under GPL. So no, my current project isn't a GPL game, even though I use GPL engine.

I need C++ developer because engine/game code is C++ and scripting language is similar to C++.

[Layl]

Similar to C++ != C++. In my opinion the majority of knowledge needed to work with a language isn't the language itself, but its ecosystem. Build tools, libraries, where to ask questions, that kind of stuff.

Also, releasing for consoles will most likely not work out well, GPL may conflict with whatever NDA contract the console manufacturers may require you to sign.

[motorsep]

Similar to C++ != C++. In my opinion the majority of knowledge needed to work with a language isn't the language itself, but its ecosystem. Build tools, libraries, where to ask questions, that kind of stuff.

Here is what official dev page for Doom 3 modders says: http://www.iddevnet.com/doom3/script.php

Notepad++ is all you need to code Doom 3 script. I script for my game when it comes to basic stuff. Having experience modding Doom 3 would definitely help with understanding how the engine/game works. Script itself if super simple.

Also, releasing for consoles will most likely not work out well, GPL may conflict with whatever NDA contract the console manufacturers may require you to sign.

GPL is 100% in conflict with consoles. But releasing on a console isn't easy, even with current gen consoles. And it's not cheap either. That's why I don't see a good reason to avoid using Doom 3 engines since I am PC only at this time (note that I don't really advocate using any other GPL engine as none of those come with complete gameplay codebase).

On the bright side, Nvidia console (TegraX based) and Steam Machines welcome GPL engines. So releasing on new consoles (if they will come out and form sizable segment on the market) is possible even with GPL engine.

[Sik]

Also, releasing for consoles will most likely not work out well, GPL may conflict with whatever NDA contract the console manufacturers may require you to sign.

I think PC is the only major platform left that still allows the GPL. Everything else requires programs to be behind locks.

[Dacke]

Any platform where you can install your own software is fully compatible with GPL. For example Linux/Win/Mac/BSD, Android, Windows phone, browsers, TI-calculators etc. etc. The only case where you get a possible problem is when users are blocked from running their own software on required hardware.

Software released under GPL gives users these freedoms.

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

[umen]

Look , im not Lawyer but in my day job where it is big telecom , the Lawyers Prohibit וs to use any GPL framework or any thing related in our products or part of our product,
i don't know if you know this term, but this license also known as "Cancer type of license " once its there you dont know when it will hit you
so Watch out .
and by the way you have so many option this days  ..

[Layl]

Look , im not Lawyer but in my day job where it is big telecom , the Lawyers Prohibit וs to use any GPL framework or any thing related in our products or part of our product,
i don't know if you know this term, but this license also known as "Cancer type of license " once its there you dont know when it will hit you
so Watch out .
and by the way you have so many option this days  ..

GPL is like this by design, it's intended to make anything it touches GPLed as well. That's the point of using GPL.

Any platform where you can install your own software is fully compatible with GPL. For example Linux/Win/Mac/BSD, Android, Windows phone, browsers, TI-calculators etc. etc. The only case where you get a possible problem is when users are blocked from running their own software on required hardware.

This isn't strictly true. The reasons it might conflict with some platforms is when the platforms' APIs are NDAed. That NDA will prevent you from releasing the source, while the GPL meanwhile will require you to release it.

[Dacke]

GPL is basically equivalent to CC-BY-SA: you can use the code for whatever you want as long as you share your changes under the same license. But you can freely link to non-GPL code from GPL code, without the non-GPL-code having to be relicensed.

"Cancer" is one popular propaganda term, from companies that prefer much more restrictive (proprietary) licenses and even EULAs. The other perspective is that it guarantees the freedoms of end users. Which is not in the interest of big telecom, obviously. But it works perfectly fine if you are in control of your own software or work for ethical employers (in my case, universities).

Layl:
I made the implicit assumption that end users can't freely run their own software on platforms with NDAed API:s, but you may be right.

[motorsep]

Using GPL in non-game dev software development is tricky. The reason I say that is due to a lot of proprietary work that might be going into the code. It's something that might give an edge to a competing company. So you'd definitely don't want to share the code.

It's much simpler with game dev. I doubt that an indie dev can come up with anything that isn't in UE4 or Unity already. Usually talented individuals like that get acquired by Unity or Epic, and I haven't heard a story where someone rejected a lucrative offer

With UE4 engine having open source code, and Epic encouraging learning from it, I highly doubt using GPL engine will hurt a developer in any way, besides limiting said developer to what middleware (s)he can use with GPL engine and what platforms to release on.

My reasons for using Doom 3 BFG engine have nothing to do with GPL "freedoms" or even money. I simply know the tech, have a pipeline setup around it and the engine has solid game code, so I don't have to re-invent the wheel.

Going with UE4 for example would not only take me a lot of time to learn the engine, but also a lot of time to create solid gameplay framework (which means either finding like minded individual for profit share or paying a lot of money for a contract programmer). And I am short on time/money nowadays (day job and all)

So, back to the subject - has anyone here modded any of Quakes or Doom 3 or maybe HL1? I find it surprising how very few people have a modding background nowadays :/ (modding in a sense making mods like we used to for Quake, rather than making hats for TF2 :D )

[Cheesegrater]

But you can freely link to non-GPL code from GPL code, without the non-GPL-code having to be relicensed.

Not freely. There is an exception in the license for linking to system libraries, but if the non-GPL code you are linking does not meet that definition you can't use it.

has anyone here modded any of Quakes or Doom 3 or maybe HL1?

I have, but its been 15 years give or take. I mostly remember being annoyed that none of the headers had include guards.

[Layl]

Not freely. There is an exception in the license for linking to system libraries, but if the non-GPL code you are linking does not meet that definition you can't use it.

I think the rule is that it has to be an OSI approved license. However GPL is so complex and daunting that it could require all code to be written by trained rhinos for all I know.

[Cheesegrater]

True, The FSF maintains a list of GPL compatible licenses, but (of course) they all require source to be open as well.

The idea is to close the loophole where someone writes all their new stuff in a separate closed source library.