Rogue Legacy is a great game, and I hear the second one is sweet too
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…
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Legend
Can’t wait for the mods with thousands of new traits .
not open source :(
License seems to be quite permissive, isn’t it? I specifically checked. Unless you mean strict copyleft.
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.
This is an opinion which is not universally shared. Even Stallman doesn’t agree with this definition.
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.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
What is Free Software? - GNU project
The four essential freedoms
A program is free software if the program’s users have the four essential freedoms: [1]
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
I don’t know however if it is illegal to use the source code without having bought the game first, so I don’t know if toothbrush is correct with their point.
Something that I find could prevent it from being called free or open-source software is the fact that you are not allowed to make derivative works for comercial use.
You may not alter or redistribute this software in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. This includes, but is not limited to, selling altered or unaltered versions of this software, or including advertisements of any kind in altered or unaltered versions of this software.
– https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/blob/main/LICENSE.md
“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.
Thanks, I know what free software is. Open source != free software.
toothbrush was talking both about free software and open source and you claimed that Stallman disagreed with the notion that free software must allow to be used without restrictions (which I misread as run in toothbrush’s comment and only now realized that they weren’t talking about running)
That’s why I talked about free software, but I’m sure at least the commercial use part also applies to open source (since business is mentioned as an example in the point about discrimination against field of endeavor in the OSD)
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
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.
Sound reasonable for a game’s source code to me, I don’t see anyone claiming it’s “open source”
Makes sense to protect the studio’s reputation against potential droves of crappy, barely altered clones with scam ads.
Well, we are in the lemmy subforum named “open source” so its implied.
Fair point!
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.
deleted by creator
You can redistribute modified code / binaries, just no commercial use.
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.
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
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.
deleted by creator
I love hate that game. Fuckin bullshit sometimes!
