Return to “General”

Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#61
In his Kickstarter update, Josh said, "I will prepare the source code for release." So I assume he'll do exactly that. Not shelve it, not sell it, not sit on it for 2-5 years until he's ready to try again, but release it within the next few months in some form.

The only question, I think, is what that form is/should be.

As I said earlier, this could be anything from just dumping it into a public repository with a "public domain" statement and letting anyone do anything they want with it, to giving control over the code to some individual (I do not mean me) who will put together a team to bring what's there into a state that allows a working game to be completed, even if that game is not the original vision.

The first option would be Josh making a grand gesture of washing his hands of LT. The second option, which admittedly applies a somewhat generous definition of "release," would be the most practical path toward completing LT as a game.

I personally hope for the second option. Give a small group of dedicated, competent people exclusive access to the code. I don't think he'd want to, but Josh could certainly participate as a team member in coding new parts of the whole system. (Imagine unleashing him on the things he actually enjoys doing.) Then if, even with some features removed (such as the procedural generation of infinite star systems or a closed economy), the team agree, "Nope, parts of this code are interesting but the thing as a whole can't be extended into something that can work as a game," then they can always dump it into a public repo.

If the code goes fully public right away, then I expect there'll be competing groups grabbing it, arguments about ownership, possible legal complaints if (depending on licensing) someone tweaks the code and tries to sell it, etc. And the possibility that a more-or-less working Limit Theory game that lots of us can play gets made goes way down.

Unfortunately, I suspect that latter option is what will happen. I guess we'll just have to wait and find out.
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#62
Hyperion wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:06 pm
However given the responses from the community and the backers, I'd guess that the outcome would be around 85% saying no, just release the source code. 10% saying sell it and issue refunds. and 5% saying sell it and restore your personal savings.
Not that it is important, as I assume such a sale to be hugely unlikely, but I am curious why you think so.
I would guess more 90% going for sell and restore as much as possible his savings if such an opportunity happens (with a sub-variant of releasing it to backers as well) and 8% may want a share, with 2% wanting to dictate Josh what he can and cannot do.
At least if the forum and the backers comment on kickstarter are representative.
Image
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#63
hey guys

apart from one or two posts, I've been only lurking for the past 4 or 5 years. it's a pity that it comes to an end now, but after 6 years of developing almost alone, it's not that surprising. i find josh's idea to open source the code a good one. maybe he can release it under an MIT license or sth that would still allow for commercial use. that way it would be open for a company or the community or both to do something with it.
as a computer science student reading the devlogs was always very interesting. just to see what goes on in the head of another programmer who is actually a genius :).

i wish josh all the best for his future. may this be at least an extraordinary piece of his CV.

regards
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#65
I have strong doubts that we will ever see anything playable directly coming from the codebase when it's released. Large codebases are difficult enough to get stuck into. Here, we have a codebase where the lead developer is no longer working on it and (I assume) is not available for consultation. Also, we have been told that the codebase isn't in a great shape (mid-refactoring). My expectation is pretty low (like, zero) that anybody will be able to transform it into a game without similar kind of funding to that which was raised on the first KS.

What it might be useful for is as inspiration for specific techniques. But I wouldn't suggest anybody gets their hopes up that it'll turn into a game.
Nobody suspects a Toreador …
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#66
ToreadorVampire wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:41 am
I have strong doubts that we will ever see anything playable directly coming from the codebase when it's released. Large codebases are difficult enough to get stuck into. Here, we have a codebase where the lead developer is no longer working on it and (I assume) is not available for consultation. Also, we have been told that the codebase isn't in a great shape (mid-refactoring). My expectation is pretty low (like, zero) that anybody will be able to transform it into a game without similar kind of funding to that which was raised on the first KS.

What it might be useful for is as inspiration for specific techniques. But I wouldn't suggest anybody gets their hopes up that it'll turn into a game.
Then all hope is gone from the Galaxy...
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#69
Flatfingers wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:50 pm
Lemar wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:23 pm
Philip Coutts wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:57 pm

Then all hope is gone from the Galaxy...
From which one? Remember infinite number of procedural generated galaxies :lol:

...what if "infinite procedurally-generated star systems" was the one feature that had to be cut so that everything else promised for LT could be delivered?
Sold.
I'm actually not keen on the infinite side of LT, I was FAR more keen on the factions and economy.
Pirates and Politics don't matter if you have infinite space and infinite factions after all.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#70
That was always my thought as well. If you can just move on and find something better, what's stopping you from ripping everything up, draining it dry of easily-mined resources, and moving on? I mean yeah, there's the exploration aspect, but to be honest, exploration doesn't mean much if the places you're exploring don't mean much.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#72
"..what if "infinite procedurally-generated star systems" was the one feature that had to be cut "

Most space game devs want more solar systems, more galaxies, more stars...more...etc...

I'd be happy with ONE planetary system!

Saturn has 61 moons. the rings have TRILLIONS of mine able objects. You could spend the rest of your life exploring that planetary system.

Have thousand of orbiting space stations, thousands of moon bases.

Create a vibrant economy betwixt the hundreds of factions.

fight for the moons..Fight for the newly terraformed Titan.

BEWARE the pirates of Mimas!
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#73
RedDwarfMining wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:02 pm
I'd be happy with ONE planetary system!
I've been considering making my own space game for the longest time, and while it would be very cool to have dozens or hundreds of stars, or use PCG and have billions, I have been thinking more and more lately that just one system is more than enough if the gameplay is clever about it. c:
Moving toward the future at 60 minutes per hour.
I-War 2 thread
Epic Limit Theory Limerick
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#74
Flatfingers wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:50 pm
...what if "infinite procedurally-generated star systems" was the one feature that had to be cut so that everything else promised for LT could be delivered?
...I had promoted this direction in the heated discussion we had in the beginning of 2017 when I said he should take the 2014 engine thingy, cut back features especially when they aren't directly correlated towards "FUN". Never understood what infinite had to do with fun...
So in short: SOLD

Also tremendous amount of time was wasted on thinking / building towards making it being highly modable? Why would one who never delivered a game waste time on such a thing. Focus focus on the right thing.

Just funny reading the last comments how we all agree that we had some smaller version in mind (even so with some differences on what to leave out) we left this poor guy trying to climb the mount everest (his too big impossible version) instead of telling him more of what we wanted (the more possible version)....one could think we let him fail on purpose :twisted: so that after he handed over the engine we can make it how we want it :lol:
Post

Re: Don't release the code yet

#75
Lemar wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:27 am

Just funny reading the last comments how we all agree that we had some smaller version in mind (even so with some differences on what to leave out) we left this poor guy trying to climb the mount everest (his too big impossible version)
No, not true for me, but given the current status of development, I am more than happy to pare it down to the core: a single solar system, with multiple planet biomes (with different races), the wonderful AI, and realistic mining/ economy and no magic black holes where a death-star destroyer magically comes into being.
Randomness could be like in Eve, where wormholes come briefly to life, and if they close, you've one helluva journey back home.
Keep it simple, everything is the same solar system, but it doesn't have to be small.
As a first version of LT, keep it all flat, but as the engine matures, go 3d.

Start off with a single working (and modular) game.
Then as new features become available, plug them in (or not, everyone has their own tastes).

Get that wonderful UI up and running that Josh gushed about, and we all shot him down saying he should be developing features and not working on a nice programming gui.

There was a game project that ran for years, talking about having a realistic and transitional vector from space to a planet.
After 5 or 6 years, they changed their perspective, and now they have a PVP solar system in dev (ask Cornflakes, he's on their Alpha), and look where they are now.

Vanilla LT was an amazing proposal, and no surprise (now) that it just is not feasible without some major funding and a big enough company that it won't all fall through (again).
So take the parts that work amazing (like the expo version of the game), plug in a few more features, planets, mining and the beautiful build-trees that Josh talked about with Research.

I absolutely loved the idea of working on a "attack the opposition for money" vs conventional gather/questing, and it truly set LT apart from all other games.

It is not the end of the world, maybe for Vanilla LT, but there is so much more that it can be.

So release the source, fully documented, on what works and what doesn't.
We, the LT community, will get it working, tested etc. and we can all get the game we want to "mod" into.
Simples
:)

P.S. Yes, I do condone that Josh wipe his hands (and mind) clean of LT and take a break from it all. Go back and get your degree Josh, we'll still be here, should you ever want to pop in and say Hi.
I've completed my mourning for Vanilla LT, and oh so very much, want to see something good come from what Josh attempted.
YAY PYTHON \o/

In Josh We Trust
-=326.3827=-

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron