• Donut@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      29 days ago

      The second game is the ultimate version that Rogue Legacy 1 should have been, and I say this with a lot of love and hours into the first game. It takes everything from 1 and turns it up the maximum and then some.

  • Kissaki@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    It’s been over 10 years since we released Rogue Legacy 1, and in the pursuit of sharing knowledge, we are officially releasing the source code to the public.

    https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/

    License head

    Rogue Legacy 1’s source code is made available under a custom license. Basically, you can compile yourself a copy, for free, for personal use. But if you want to distribute a compiled version of the game, you might need permission first. See the EXCEPTIONS.md page for more information.

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      29 days ago

      License seems to be quite permissive, isn’t it? I specifically checked. Unless you mean strict copyleft.

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        Custom license, not free for commercial use. Assets are still proprietary. https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/blob/main/LICENSE.md

        I guess the main benefactor will be the modding scene. Indie devs can make deals with Cellar Door Studios to get a commercial licence with additional conditions. It might be close to open source in practice if the commercial licences are handed out generously.

        • Gamma@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          29 days ago

          Sounds reasonable for a game’s source code to me, I don’t see anyone claiming it’s “open source”

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          29 days ago

          Regarding the proprietary assets, I used to give it some thought, and came to a conclusion that other than selling consultance services, selling assets is the only way to make money while creating something open source. That’s why now I don’t find proprietary assets to be something bad.

      • toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        Just to clarify, licenses are free software or open source when they fit the definition of those terms, aka the 4 freedoms and whatever open source requires, but both require being able to use the software without restrictions. So this isnt open source.

        • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          29 days ago

          This is an opinion which is not universally shared. Even Stallman doesn’t agree with this definition.

          • TootSweet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            29 days ago

            Anyone who disagrees ought to go get their own term rather than appropriating “Open Source” and/or “Free Software”.

            I’ve heard “source available” used.

            • Kacarott@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              29 days ago

              “free software” very clearly means some software you can use for free (which this isn’t), but “open source” very clearly means openly accessible source code, which this is.

              • TootSweet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                29 days ago

                “Free Software” very clearly means this, and “Open Source” very clearly means this.

                Again, get your own terms. “Freeware” and “source available” are just sitting right there.

          • jeremyparker@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            29 days ago

            Since there’s one open source that’s more strict and one that’s more permissive, for the more strict one, we should indicate that it’s like the value of a variable: it has a specific meaning that doesn’t change. With that understanding, Rogue Legacy is open source, but Trisquel is “open source”.

            (I was going to go with Tux Kart instead of Trisquel for that joke, but my heart couldn’t handle throwing shade at Tux Kart.)

            Edit: I’d just like to interject for a moment. What I’m referring to as Tux Kart, is in fact, SuperTuxKart, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Super+TuxKart

            • toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              29 days ago

              Lets not do open washing here. Its not open source, as that would require it having an open source compatible license, which it does not have, see the open source definition:

              https://opensource.org/osd

              1. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
        • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          You can redistribute modified code / binaries, just no commercial use.

          • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            29 days ago

            I deleted my comment because I didn’t really care to get into it with the weird custom license, but widely speaking if it’s not distributable without condition, it’s not open source.

            EDIT- And it’s okay that it’s “only” source-available, it’s a creator’s choice how their works are used in the world. But I would argue this project license doesn’t fit the spirit of this lemmy community.

            • lad@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              29 days ago

              if it’s not distributable without condition, it’s not open source

              MIT and GPL are not open source then, since they impose conditions. Open source by your definition would be some like WTFPL or Unlicense

              • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                29 days ago

                Without explicit license? Without contacting the administrator for permission? This is what I mean by conditions. There’s no need to be pedantic, if the software isn’t available for commercial use how can it be open source? I cannot modify this and redistribute or package it without getting in touch with a project representative.

  • P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    29 days ago

    Unrelated but how does one gains profit from an open source project? I heard that Doom is open sauce, but it’s still a commercial game…

    • TeddE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      Honestly? They’re probably going to continue to offer the game on Steam and it will probably continue to trickle in revenue. Most people who are interested in the game have already bought it, so it’s never going to draw in millions again.

      The game is currently listed at $15, but goes on sale frequently for $3. I bet many new players would be happy to pay steam $3 for the cloud save and steam’s easy game management, as opposed to compiling from source for every new PC install.

      Finally, the gameplay loop between Rogue Legacy and Rogue Legacy 2 are pretty similar. This means the the original is a good extended demo for the sequel which is .$25, but up to 50% off. Frankly, it’s a great marketing move at this stage in the game’s lifetime.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        The source code being available doesn’t allow you to play the game. To actually play it, you’d still have to buy the game. Unless you figure out how to play it without any artwork.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          Huh, yeah. Usually when the source is released it includes the assets too, but this does not. I don’t know how useful it is for “education” then. You can’t tinker with it and see how it effects things, so it’s harder to really understand why things work the way they work.

        • TeddE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          29 days ago

          Still bet someone will create a new set of assets that fit like a glove for preservation purposes. But kinda sucks that it’s not quite as useful as I was naïvely thinking.

    • ShankShill@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      29 days ago

      The assets aren’t free and open source. If you want to legally use the open source code to play a game, you’ll either need to buy the game to get the assets or use an alternative like freedoom.