muzzy

Members
  • Content count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About muzzy

  • Rank
    Super Action Fan

Converted

  • Display Backer Tags
    Yes
  • URL
    http://muzzy.net/
  • Location
    Finland
  1. Taking up the Mantle

    Well, they chose CPAL 1.0 license, according to which they grant everyone "a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license" to "use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work". While Double Fine is still the copyright owner of the original source code, everyone is free to use that code with restrictions laid out in the license (which aren't many). Basically, modifications to the original work must be clearly documented and kept available for one year after releasing a modified version, no big deal. I'm not really interested in doing that myself, though, just pointing out the possibility in case someone else has energy to tackle it
  2. Taking up the Mantle

    The license they chose definitely allows using the lua code with anything and everything without much restrictions at all. I could make my own spacebase clone, use their lua sources and sell my version just fine. That would only apply to the lua sources though, so all graphics and sounds and things like that would have to be recreated from scratch, along with parts of the rendering engine that exist as their proprietary extensions to the MOAI engine.
  3. Taking up the Mantle

    If the game ever does reach 100% open status (i.e. a playable version, even if it's with 2d graphics, can be redistributed in full without paying anything to DF), I'll be joining the party and writing some code too.
  4. Taking up the Mantle

    Well... they sort of gave a license for the lua code, but it's only mentioned in the motd see http://blog.spacebasedf9.com/motd/motd.txt CPAL 1.0 is quite a generous license, allowing even commercial use of the code. Then again, they aren't using the vanilla MOAI engine but they have some modifications made to it, so it'd require quite some work to break free from DF. Rendering engine and asset toolchain are probably the biggest problems, they're apparently custom stuff and they aren't available. Check out the following blog posts from 2013: http://blog.spacebasedf9.com/post/65295743247/are-there-plans-to-eventually-open-up-the-engine http://blog.spacebasedf9.com/post/68286747146/hi-there-i-noticed-your-game-is-written-in-lua If someone were to rewrite the DF's MOAI-extensions and recreate game's graphics/audio assets, we could perhaps have the entire game 100% open source and freed from Double Fine's hands. If that were to happen, the modding community might become alive again. Maybe DF's original version of the game would be revitalized as well when people could get a non-DF version for free, eliminating the reason for the modding work boycott.
  5. Lowering expectations for DoubleFine

    Yeah, it was crazy how feature creep was seen more important than playability. Everyone's telling the same story, the game got worse to play with each patch. Even in the very end DF tried to resort to artificial means to bring attention to the project, ceasing all communication about the progress so that the final version would be more newsworthy... which backfired massively and is the primary reason I can't forgive what they did. It's called lying (by omission) to lead the customers to believe one thing while the truth is the exact opposite of it. The existing customers, people who had already paid for the game, were not important to the studio. Double Fine tried to attract new customers with the new features instead of focusing on the core gameplay and I believe this short sightedness caused the downfall. A solid game with good gameplay would've brought in more customers (and thus more money) than a bunch of unfinished and unrefined features.
  6. Modding License?

    I was asking about the possible revocation because they have chosen a rather interesting license. That license allows proprietary software to use the source code too, so someone could make their own version of spacebase and start selling it while using Spacebase's game code. The assets would have to be recreated, and the core engine has some extras on top of MOAI that would have to be implemented too. If someone starts a project to liberate Spacebase so that the entire game can be distributed for free (or even sold without DF's permission), I think DF might cry copyright infringement and they might regret their choice of license...
  7. Modding License?

    Yes, indeed. How long has this been there? Also, not having a copy of the license with the code feels super iffy. Could Double Fine change their mind later and say they never granted this license, and that post in the startup screen was a mistake? Or is this for real now and irrevocable? If there's a copyright infringement disagreement, is it enough to show a screenshot of the startup screen to prove they granted this specific license to use the code?
  8. The Future of Spacebase DF-9?

    Nice video. The wonderful newbie trap of one O2 generator only supporting 2.5 people instead of the stated 3 - good luck surviving with just one...
  9. The Future of Spacebase DF-9?

    And as the final FINAL F-You they never provided a license with the source code. Everyone making mods are infringing on Double Fine's copyrights in a way that's an actual crime (at least in my country, Finland). They need to grant us a license that states what we're allowed to do with the code, but it appears they no longer care now that the gaming news sites aren't writing about this fiasco any longer.
  10. The Future of Spacebase DF-9?

    We know the whole team was dismantled, although we don't know if they were all fired. They did lay off quite a few people though, so there might not be anyone left who was involved in the game's design. This would make it very unlikely that the development would ever continue beyond simple bugfixes. You can find the above quote here: http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/15918/
  11. The Future of Spacebase DF-9?

    Contacting DF's support is useless. There is no development team for DF-9 anymore and nobody's working on the game currently, the whole team was laid off. Double Fine might eventually address some of the existing issues later, once other projects are finished and their programmers end up having nothing else to do.
  12. So, is the game bug-free now?

    The oxygen system is broken by design in more than one way. Anyway, it gets a little bit philosophical when you wonder what exactly should be called a bug and what not. Now that the development is over, are the issues with game really "bugs" since they were intentionally left broken? Or are they just bad design? The above questions were rhetorical, btw, I'm not really interested in discussing them again. There's no authority to answer how things should be, so we could just as well conclude that the game has no bugs whatsoever and any crazy/broken behavior is just meant to be that way and the player is supposed to deal with it...
  13. JP's post is fairly strong and emotional and assures that the development is ongoing. Even if he doesn't directly say how long the work will continue, it gives the wrong impression. He wrote that message with a tone of dedication and passion, something that Double Fine didn't have for the game even if he himself did. However, starting from the first words of the post, he speaks of Double Fine and not himself. He is giving the impression that this dedication is shared by the company as well, which is highly misleading. He already knew they were wrapping things up when he wrote that post, so it's difficult to understand why he chose his words the way he did. Then again, I suppose it's because he's a programmer and not a writer or a lawyer. Ironically, the communication strategy he explains in the post is probably to blame for how I read the post itself. They were maintaining an intentional communications silence and this resulted in significant emphasis on that one single post, making it much more meaningful than it was meant to be.
  14. It seems we agree about a lot of things, even about the gamble. And although it was a bit ugly and definitely a moral hazard, I also agree the gamble itself was an acceptable move. As you say, the problem was communication. However, I see it differently than you do, as I see more than just the lack of transparency at play. They didn't simply hide the gamble, they actually communicated on that very subject by answering questions about development status. By giving assurances that the development was ongoing, they acted like buying the game was not taking part in any sort of gamble at all. Had it been all passive silence it would've been a case of "buyer beware", but it's different since they actively reinforced the idea that the development was going to continue even though they knew otherwise. This is the beef of the issue to me.
  15. It's impossible to get indisputable facts about Double Fine's motives, and it's perfectly possible that they're just incompetent and not evil. My speculation isn't based on complicated assumptions though, everything stems from the simple contradictions in the things DF has said and done. These contradictions demonstrate a level of corporate selfishness that definitely feels "evil", thus the harsh words. That's not the issue. I'm okay with them killing the failed project and I'm not blaming them for that decision. However, the fans saw the signs and were asking if the project was being cancelled, and DF assured them that everything was going as planned. Afterwards Tim said it was never clear the development was going to end, while JP revealed that the decision to wrap things up had happened much earlier. These conflicting statements are making me uncomfortable, especially since DF never bothered to clarify the issues afterwards. I understand you'd rather give them the benefit of doubt, but I see plenty of evidence that DF isn't being honest about what happened and what they did.