Is Doom Eternal going to be closed source just like the 2016 release?

Doom 2016 kinda lost it's magic when id never made the engine open source. The idtech 1 engine showed how the community could make amazing things with the source but does that no longer mean anything to them? Sellouts. They might, but there's a low chance. What do any of you think? Anyone know more than me?

The video game industry is retarded compared to the rest of the software world.

Almost every other software industry has made meaningful progress as to produce free software[1]   .

If you're wondering why, take a look at the code of Suckless' DWM (A window manager for GNU/Linux). It's clean, mostly bug free and competently made.

But then take a look at one game that released its source code recently, VVVVVV. It's down right terrible.

This is the main reason why most game developers don't release their source code, they're incompetent. Go ask any developer out there why they don't release their code under a public license.

You will get answers along the lines of "I don't want to give my game away for free", "I don't want people to abuse bugs or discover secrets" and "It's bad for me, it will make the competition stronger", which is straight up ignorance.

You can't run a game without the graphics, sounds, maps, etc. And it is morally acceptable to keep those copyrighted. Try to compile Doom without an IWAD. Haha, good luck.

People will discover your secrets very early no matter what, just go on the web. No matter if the source code is public, if someone wants spoilers, he can get them. And if someone doesn't, they won't look for it.

And Red Hat is worth 34 billion dollars and all the software that they work with is open source, and they were beneficial to the software industry by releasing their technological prowess for free. Free code means that you can take it for free and (depending on the license) must give it away for free. You can get great code, you don't lose anything and it strengthens the industry that you're making a living out of. But no. Game developers think this is nonsense and will start insulting you for thinking otherwise.

Game developers don't release their source code because of ignorance and incompetence. Shameful.

Footnote:

1.

Quote

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

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.

54 minutes ago, apollyon094 said:

Doom 2016 kinda lost it's magic when id never made the engine open source. The idtech 1 engine showed how the community could make amazing things with the source but does that no longer mean anything to them? Sellouts. They might, but there's a low chance. What do any of you think? Anyone know more than me?

With the way Zenimax operates, I wouldn't hold my breath for it. They said that modding would probably be too complex to properly implement in Doom Eternal, which I guess is a fair answer.

When id Software was bought by Zenimax / Bethesda, they announced that idTech 5 and every subsequent version of it would only be available to other Zenimax developers, so unless they've changed this policy I don't think we'll ever see mod support again.

It's an unfortunate fact that many game developers are moving away from the modding community and it's why open source game engines such as Godot are so important.

Idtech 5, 6 and 7 are constructed using middleware such as wwise which are not in Id Software or Bethesda's control. The only way they could release the source of these newer engines is by removing said Middleware, and that's not exactly a straight forward task, assuming it's even possible. 

At this point it's better to let the current id Tech engines be closed source. I doubt anything meaningful could be done with them when the source codes are released. Plus with the Denuvo DRM bullshit, there's no real chance.

IIRC the reason older id games got source releases was basically because John Carmack wanted to release them. So that's one more factor why it's not going to happen.

John Carmack was always the one pushing for the source release with Wolf3D, then Doom, then Quake.   More business type people in the company didn't like or understand it and that was over 20 years ago with Doom.  (Source: Carmack on Joe Rogan podcast)

And Doom 3's got released?   Anyway, without him at id anymore writing the code and pushing for its release, it's likely not to ever happen.   Would be nice if I'm wrong.

Also, note that the source code for both Quake 3 and Doom 3 weren't made available until six or seven years after the games were released, so even if the Doom 2016 code were to become public it wouldn't be until something like 2023 anyway.

Anything related to Idtech 5 you might be able to salvage it from D3BFG's source code 

It kinda sucks because it means the new Doom games could be hard to preserve and get longevity, specially in the multiplayer components, stuff like SnapMap and even things like skins.

Not only does it contradict Doom's legacy, it even contradicts the whole "Doom is Eternal" marketing.

These games were mostly alive because of the fanbase, which is one of the series' strongest aspects at this point.

Yes. It will.

Another issue here is that Doom Eternal uses Havok, which is currently owned be Microsoft. Unless they ever lift the licensing restrictions on it and make the source code public and freely accessible, it's impossible to open source it. Another thing is that the engine uses Wwise, and switching from that may be eventually required, since it's now under Sony's control.

And then there's also that PlayFab thingy that is now also part of Microsoft. Frankly have no idea what it's supposed to do, all I found out that is, it's a game backend service.

They could use a more permissive license which allow the use of closed source libraries without open sourcing them. 

But the issue with that is that the engine will be able to have closed source forks (depending on the license) and get out of Id's control when it comes to commercial usage.

13 minutes ago, MadGuy said:

They could use a more permissive license which allow the use of closed source libraries without open sourcing them. 

No, they couldn't. Middleware such as Havok tends to come under a strict NDA, and in addition cannot usually be compiled without a functioning license. They aren't just closed source, they are license only, the libraries can't even be shared.

29 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

No, they couldn't. Middleware such as Havok tends to come under a strict NDA, and in addition cannot usually be compiled without a functioning license. They aren't just closed source, they are license only, the libraries can't even be shared.

Yep, that sucks

To call id "sellouts" for not open sourcing idtech6 completely ignores the fact that a high-end, modern game engine is not accessible to the average modder. idtech1 is simple enough for your mother to map for, idtech 2/3 is fully 3D yet very rudimentary, but idtech 4 and beyond is just too complex for all but the most experienced users. We're now on the 7th iteration which has systems for handling fluid, materials, destructible layers, physics, etc. It's completely unrealistic to expect to open up an editor and make something comparable to the original game without a huge team of dedicated experts.

I've heard a lot of growing debate over the years about whether or not this intense graphics fetishism (which makes these engines more complex to the point where middleware becomes vital to get big development burdens off the dev team) is actually worth it, but until someone can somehow convince the general game-buying public (ahahaha) that it isn't, it's the way things are. It makes me sad too, but then again, as a solitary programmer, most games since at least the early 2000s, if not earlier, are complicated enough that there's no possible way I could understand how every part of them functions.

That said, I do wish they'd release a map editor or something about modding (and there have been some slight whispers of modding...) Yeah sure you can't pop open the editor and squeeze out a original quality map in a few hours, but I very much imagine a dedicated team could do something interesting, especially considering that these modern toolchains are designed to help those with the skills more easily realize what they want. I'm sure someone's gonna come in and go "look at all that rage modding lol", but I consider that horseshit. Rage wasn't neearly as popular as Doom 4 or Doom Eternal, and Eternal particularly represents a great refinement on that toolchain.

Chances are, it uses proprietary libraries just like 2016, so yes, unless they get removed or replaced (which may, or may not be possible depending on what they're used for), Eternal is never going open-source.

Open-source is not a possibility for the foreseeable future. Basic mod support was at least, they did say it was a long term goal of sorts and have tried to change the engine to allow it, but haven't commented on it further since.

The current gaming industry dosen't want longevity. They want you to buy their latest shit. They do not care about the legacy of their title beyond the profit being made. This has been the case ever since gaming become so much more corporate. Priority changed.

In the 90s you can tell people made game the best they could so they sell more. Nowadays they make them "good enough" so they can meet "expectations".

To be clear, I am not saying Eternal is bad. It is badass. But, due to how modern gaming companies operate, we will most likely never see the source code ever being released. They have zero interest in keeping their classics alive that way if they can just "remaster" it on their own if they feel like it. Again, that's is sadly because the modern industry wants you to buy their new shit. Not stick to the classics.

On 3/27/2020 at 5:34 PM, Spowmtom said:

But then take a look at one game that released its source code recently, VVVVVV. It's down right terrible.

A couple of things:

Firstly, that game was originally made in Game Maker, so that's the code for a port and likely more intent on making sure everything functions the same. The second is that it's a free indie game, they're focused on the design of it, not on making beautiful code that abides by programming conventions. You're welcome to enjoy making sure every bit of code you write is as Pythonic as possible, but if your intent in creating a functional program is the code before the function you're doing something very wrong.

With bigger, newer, games there's multiple factors:

• Stopping the DRM from being circumvented, stopping the multiplayer from being hacked, stopping the achievements from being cheesed.
• Getting permission from legal, especially since the code will involve multiple programmers.
• Cutting out middleware you are unable to redistribute.
• Not wanting to provide technical support if users can't compile it easily.
• The code being so vast that it's useless to modders.
• Being unable to license the engine now that the code is just out there.
• Etc.

It's nice when a dev can do it, but even if you saw the likes of the Frostbite engine opensourced tomorrow, I'm doubtful you'd see much done from it in practice.

Unfortunately I think Bethesda buying ID killed any chance of new source code getting released.. 

26 minutes ago, Doomguy-1993 said:

Unfortunately I think Bethesda buying ID killed any chance of new source code getting released.. 

Bethesda's acquisition demonstrably isn't the problem.

In fact, Doom3BFG had the fastest source release of any project, spanning just mear months after the commercial release. Vanilla Doom3's source release was also done post acquisition (2009), occurring in 2011.

^TBH Carmack was still there. I think he was probably one of the big people behind that.

Also just like most people on here i don't think that Eternals source code will be released.

Carmack was present for rage at least, and while I'm sure he would have tried to get whatever is possible released (I wonder if he's the only reason why the rage modding stuff happened, tbh...), I do suspect he realized the reality of the gaming market and would have pushed for middleware.

It's a kinda sad reality, but find a way to convince the general gaming public that they don't need all these fancy features in their games, or for the middleware developers to give away their valuable software for free... It's not impossible to release source for a modern game engine, UE4 has been open source for a few years now (under very restrictive license terms, though), and even then it's pretty raw.

(side note: I do want to point out I don't particularly like bethesda. Like at all. But I'm not going to let anger get in the way of factual things)

10 hours ago, CyberDreams said:

^TBH Carmack was still there. I think he was probably one of the big people behind that.

 

Also just like most people on here i don't think that Eternals source code will be released.

Nah, he was around when Rage also came out and that game never had its source opened. Besides, neither new id Software or even Bethesda are against open-sourcing, but there's multiple factors that play a role in why opening the source is not as easy as it was in the '90s, and with more complex projects it's impossible that one entity will own all the code. So, as Gradius put it eloquently above:

Quote

With bigger, newer, games there's multiple factors:

• Stopping the DRM from being circumvented, stopping the multiplayer from being hacked, stopping the achievements from being cheesed.
• Getting permission from legal, especially since the code will involve multiple programmers.
• Cutting out middleware you are unable to redistribute.
• Not wanting to provide technical support if users can't compile it easily.
• The code being so vast that it's useless to modders.
• Being unable to license the engine now that the code is just out there.
• Etc.

We're not going to get source released for a modern AAA Doom game. If there ever will new open source engine from Id Software, it will be heavily smaller scale engine for a more indie style game and there just isn't really much market for such thing. Modern cutting edge game engines just need to rely too much on middleware to function.

19 hours ago, banjiepixel said:

We're not going to get source released for a modern AAA Doom game. If there ever will new open source engine from Id Software, it will be heavily smaller scale engine for a more indie style game and there just isn't really much market for such thing. Modern cutting edge game engines just need to rely too much on middleware to function.

Or just release an SDK for modding, like in DOOM 3 before it went open source (if I am not wrong).

I think some engines have switched away from having separable game modules like that, though. D3BFG did so under the explanation that the consoles don't really like dynamic linking like the original Doom 3 release.

8 minutes ago, SaladBadger said:

I think some engines have switched away from having separable game modules like that, though. D3BFG did so under the explanation that the consoles don't really like dynamic linking like the original Doom 3 release.

Still, having both monolithic and modular code in the same time IS possible (my source port is a good example of that). But in the end it boils down to whenever the publisher and the developer want to do here. Also try to maintain it while keeping the modularity can be more difficult than having it all in a monolithic structure.