Steam Greenlight and EDuke32 Projects "Who wants to reach a broader auidence? I do!"
#1 Posted 13 July 2012 - 01:16 PM
For those of you who don't keep up with Steam news, earlier this week they announced Greenlight, which is basically a way for developers to upload their games to Steam and allow the Steam community to play and rate your games. The goal being that if your game is popular/successful enough, Steam will include it in the Steam Store (either monetized or free-to-play). Here's the Greenlight site with more specifics:
One of my first thoughts of this was using the EDuke32 engine to make a game and release it there (or even possibly other mods/TCs). Long story short, monetizing anything with EDuke turns into a huge mess and I'm actually trying to figure out who all would need shares of the cash. But so far the general consensus is that there isn't licensing issues for releasing free stuff on there. There's some concerns that Steam won't allow it at all since GPL stuff is a pain in the ass for distributors, but assuming they allow it, I'm looking forward to finally making something new in Duke and releasing it to a much broader audience through Steam.
#2 Posted 14 July 2012 - 05:12 PM
#4 Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:22 PM
This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 14 July 2012 - 06:22 PM
#5 Posted 14 July 2012 - 06:59 PM
charge - no commercial exploitation whatsoever.
appropriate license arrangement with me. Contact information is
on my web site.
#6 Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:49 PM
#7 Posted 14 July 2012 - 08:09 PM
Derivative referring to Duke Nukem 3D stuff specifically.
#8 Posted 15 July 2012 - 02:51 AM
Those products would be covered by a different license, I think, so there's no contradiction. But why not ask Ken? If he refuses or demands substantial amounts of $$$, nothing is lost. If he agrees to getting x% of the actual revenue (as opposed to a pre-set sum), then it could be viable and everyone wins.
A minor legal-techy problem is (I think; I'm not a lawyer) that parts of the copyright are held by the people that contributed to the engine, like JonoF or qbix (well, and Plagman and yours truly...). I'm unsure what implications this has exactly though.
#9 Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:55 AM
Such a thing don't exist, there are plenty of material in an "Eduke32 project" such as arts and sounds and Build license simply won't cover it all no matter what.
But it may prevent you from including a copy of Eduke32 executables.
#10 Posted 15 July 2012 - 06:08 AM
#11 Posted 15 July 2012 - 06:21 AM
#12 Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:43 AM
I'm curious what, in your mind, the difference between selling something like Duke in DC or WWIIGI or any of the other BUILD based addons or games, and a project that is spawned from here? I don't think something like Duke Plus or whatever should be sold (ignoring the part about not selling the original game assets), but what I meant was a completely new game from scratch using EDuke as the engine.
#13 Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:50 AM
#14 Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:52 AM
#15 Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:52 AM
James - I don't disagree, I've worked with Unity a lot and I've released a few things in it. I don't think it's a great engine to make an FPS in though.
EDuke32 Projects :: Grins of Divinity TC, The AWOL Project, A* Pathfinding
This post has been edited by Reaper_Man: 15 July 2012 - 11:02 AM
#16 Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:49 PM
#17 Posted 15 July 2012 - 09:09 PM
#19 Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:35 AM
So, money aside, is anyone interested in the idea of distributing their TC through Steam? That was kind of my original point, haha.
#20 Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:56 AM
So I guess I have no strong feelings one way or the other about if it is good or bad for the community as a whole.
This post has been edited by Marked: 16 July 2012 - 12:05 PM
#24 Posted 27 July 2012 - 08:55 AM
For me, putting an EDuke32-derived game on a commercial platform like Steam isn't so much about making money, since it's clear that when divided by everyone who's been involved will maybe get you a month's supply of pizza at most. Rather, I'm much more interested to see an independently created game based on the engine attract a different audience than "people stuck in 1996" and to show them that what is lacking in technical merits can be more than compensated by originality and the "fun factor". Ideally it would be a meta-project where a large portion of the community is involved, but I guess I'm dreaming here. A requirement should be that the game bears no relation to Duke and isn't a clone of another game for trademark reasons. So stuff like The 8th Visage and Tenebris would pass, DukePlus and Sonic 3D would not.
#25 Posted 27 July 2012 - 09:59 AM
If I could work full-time on EDuke32, I would focus 100% on making it a good tool for anyone to quickly prototype and develop games; that's always been my vision.
#26 Posted 27 July 2012 - 01:46 PM
The other problem is that most of the forum don't want to leave 1996. Look at what's happened in the HRP thread over the past few weeks with sprities and other game-tech luddites. People are still releasing mods with sector-based automobiles for pities sake! I think if you put some of that stuff in front of modern gamers, or present that as an example of what your 'gaming system' can do, you will have a laugh riot on your hands. There was a push to get some Polycounters over to help with the HRP and the flat response was "No matter how good the models look, they are going to look like crap amidst all of those ancient sector based maps. Thanks but no thanks." The sad truth is that an awful lot of Dukers like it like that and don't want to change it at all.
I think to really progress, we need to jump ship and use something else. I know that 3DR/Gearbox are probably not going to allow that, but it is going to take YEARS to advance EDuke to even half the ability that even Doom 3 has. As an example, since the release of the source code, people have been developing SSS and other funky shaders. One guy is even developing a complete mod studio including a mega-texture creator complete with painting tools!
#27 Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:03 PM
I don't want to insult the hard work you've put into the HRP, but when you make a post suggesting that us 'classic' Dukers are a problem that really irritates me.
#28 Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:28 PM
If you want Duke to look just like it did in 1996, then that's great, be happy. If you want to present it as a modern game engine, then it IS a problem.
Completely apart from the point of this thread, 'classic' Dukers can be a problem for those trying to modernise it. Just look at what's happened to the HRP thread in the last month.
This post has been edited by Tea Monster: 27 July 2012 - 02:29 PM
#29 Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:40 PM
It's nothing to do with attitude, at all. At the end of the day people are trying to squeeze modern technology into an engine released in 1996. The team's efforts on the Polymer engine are admirable, make no mistake. However it will never be able to complete with UDK or Unity, or whatever. This isn't an insult, but the modernisation is a losing battle since it's not just lighting effects that make something look 'modern' The sheer amount of work required would mean you might as well just make your own indie game and potentially be able to earn money through it.
And I don't have time to check the thread, but I can't see how they can be a 'problem' to you. If someone's being a pain in the ass about changes and you've exhausted all diplomatic options, either just ignore them or report them (I don't even know why someone who prefers classic mode would check out the HRP section in the first place)
#30 Posted 27 July 2012 - 03:48 PM
People will make 2.5d structures in a Build engine based game. Especially if you take in account that just a few know how to use Build editor and 3D softwares.
I understand that a lot of people put effort behind HRP. But Duke 3D was very successfull when it was released, and part of it is because of the art. It's no surprise that a lot of players still prefer the classic one, no matter how modern HRP got.
I am not sure if I understand what you meant here. But I don't think "reinventing" Duke 3D is worth any monetary investment.
This post has been edited by Fox: 27 July 2012 - 09:30 PM