A story-based exploration game about the very far future. With the help of two Artificial Intelligences, explore a universe conquered by humanity, uncover your purpose in it, and try to stop it from falling apart.
(tldr, open source software has come a long way, and it’s more than possible to create a full game without leaving Linux.)
So I’ve been a full Linux user for a couple years now, and a hobbyist game dev for way longer. I’ve always tried to make the most out of free tools, so I’ve used a lot of FOSS tools for game development before.
Going with that philosophy, Year Unknown’s development has cost $0 (not counting store fees or my time), and the development is done with almost entirely FOSS software like Godot, Blender, GIMP, and Audacity. The only exception is Reaper, which is my DAW of choice (but to be fair, it’s a really good DAW).
The game itself is a narrative-driven exploration game set in the very far future, where humanity has found a way to make the universe last forever. The game’s story covers a lot of existential issues that come from the premise, revealed through two characters you can talk to through terminals.
I know there’s other developers who have done the same, but I thought I’d share my experience, and I can answer questions about the workflow if you’re curious, or trying to do something similar. Also, if the game seems interesting to you, a wishlist would be very appreciated!
I’ve considered it, although it’d be a situation where it would probably just be the game code without assets (sounds, textures, etc.), since those are under different licenses. Also, it’s not really a “living” game like most FOSS games - once it’s released it will pretty much be in its final form. So if I make the code public it’ll mostly just be for reference.
Why not releasing assets? Or looking for free/open assets in the first place?
Why the code would be ‘just for reference’, if the game needs to be ported or if you lose the source code, releasing it under a libre licence will be pretty useful.
No, I definitely want to do it. Just want to be forward about the limitations. But putting it up for preservation and reference is still really valuable imo.
i’m procrastinating on a game also made using only free software. i want to release the code without the assets under a free software license (just like doom). but if i do this i can’t release the game on consoles unless i don’t accept contributions. because of devkit NDAs
Damn, really? You can’t just separate out the console-specific code? I wasn’t going to release on console for a few reasons but I’ll have to keep that in mind if I ever want to.
maybe, actually. i could technically turn the game into a library and put the parts of the engine that handle input and output in a separate application. but i’d have to find a license that allows this. i don’t remember the details about linking libraries in the GPL 3, iirc the LGPL has something to do with libraries. but this would also allow others to include the game library into a proprietary application, providing they don’t make any changes to the code
true, but this would make it difficult to update the console version because i can’t include contributions from the pc version in the console version. i’d have to maintain two versions instead of just one. or not update the console version, but that’s not a good solution either.
say a contributor fixes a bug, i wouldn’t be able to use the same code in the console version because this code is property of the contributor and is GPL licensed. but the console version would make references to a proprietary console API of which i can’t share any information, thus can’t add the code. so i’d have to find a different way to fix the same bug or leave it as is
Well, I’d say libre software comes with an activist approach on this kind of non-sense. It would be appropriate to make some kind of statement regarding this issue.
You can make contributes sign an CLA to allow the licenses you need for the console release. Some people may not want to but it seems like a reasonable compromise if you want to support consoles.
I take it you’ll be giving back to the community and releasing your game under a libre license then?
I’ve considered it, although it’d be a situation where it would probably just be the game code without assets (sounds, textures, etc.), since those are under different licenses. Also, it’s not really a “living” game like most FOSS games - once it’s released it will pretty much be in its final form. So if I make the code public it’ll mostly just be for reference.
So yeah but errrr no…
Why not releasing assets? Or looking for free/open assets in the first place?
Why the code would be ‘just for reference’, if the game needs to be ported or if you lose the source code, releasing it under a libre licence will be pretty useful.
No, I definitely want to do it. Just want to be forward about the limitations. But putting it up for preservation and reference is still really valuable imo.
Ok, regarding to the assets you can release them under their initial licence with the code on another one. It’s not a problem.
You can even publish things under multiple licences if they aren’t exclusive (I’ve done this on my game).
i’m procrastinating on a game also made using only free software. i want to release the code without the assets under a free software license (just like doom). but if i do this i can’t release the game on consoles unless i don’t accept contributions. because of devkit NDAs
CC: @rah@feddit.uk
Damn, really? You can’t just separate out the console-specific code? I wasn’t going to release on console for a few reasons but I’ll have to keep that in mind if I ever want to.
maybe, actually. i could technically turn the game into a library and put the parts of the engine that handle input and output in a separate application. but i’d have to find a license that allows this. i don’t remember the details about linking libraries in the GPL 3, iirc the LGPL has something to do with libraries. but this would also allow others to include the game library into a proprietary application, providing they don’t make any changes to the code
You can have a closed source version on console and a libre or open version for PC.
true, but this would make it difficult to update the console version because i can’t include contributions from the pc version in the console version. i’d have to maintain two versions instead of just one. or not update the console version, but that’s not a good solution either.
say a contributor fixes a bug, i wouldn’t be able to use the same code in the console version because this code is property of the contributor and is GPL licensed. but the console version would make references to a proprietary console API of which i can’t share any information, thus can’t add the code. so i’d have to find a different way to fix the same bug or leave it as is
Well, I’d say libre software comes with an activist approach on this kind of non-sense. It would be appropriate to make some kind of statement regarding this issue.
You can make contributes sign an CLA to allow the licenses you need for the console release. Some people may not want to but it seems like a reasonable compromise if you want to support consoles.