Distributing lua files

[Coder567]

Again, my question is still this: if your game was closed source, what would stop people from doing the same thing?

True, someone could hack the copy protection, but at least not everyone can do that

[zorg]

I have not said anything about protection of any kind, just the fact that the source is compiled, or in other words, hidden... and i should have used that word instead of closed before as well. And even if there was DRM, which is 100% pointless and dare i say a horrid practice, it takes one group to crack it so that after, everyone else can indeed utilize that.

But yeah, no one will care about your code and assets either; if they do, they could just screenshot stuff or record the sound through any other device... still all of this was already said in the myriad other threads in the meta-thread pgimeno linked.

[pgimeno]

seriously speaking I was thinking how can you ever sell your game if it's open source?

You seem to be confusing open source with having the source included in the program.

"Open source" is much more than including the source. Here's a definition of open source, by the Open Source Initiative consortium: https://opensource.org/osd

Highlights:

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software [...]"

"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. [...]"

As you can see, Open Source is about the license applied to the software. If your software does not include any license, it is NOT open source, and by default NO ONE has any legal rights to copy or distribute it (that's why I sometimes ask about the license of the libraries in some threads. because otherwise I don't have the rights to use it for any programs I intend to distribute).

Since this concept causes quite some confusion among some users like you, I'd recommend to include an EULA and indicate on every Lua file that the program is not free, to avoid confusion. Perhaps even to indicate that unauthorized reproduction counts as piracy.

You can also opt to open sourcing it; that's a commercial decision. It can be commercial and open source. An example is Marvellous Inc., one that I have personally bought and also helped with bug reports and fixes.

[Coder567]

seriously speaking I was thinking how can you ever sell your game if it's open source?

You seem to be confusing open source with having the source included in the program.

What I meant by open source was just that the source code is available. If i used wrong terminology sorry about that

[raidho36]

seriously speaking I was thinking how can you ever sell your game if it's open source?

Firstly, just because it's open source doesn't mean you can use it for free. There has to be a permission for you to do so in the license. So you can give people such permission not unconditionally, but for a fee. Alternatively, you give people source code only after they bought the game. Finally, you can sell the game as limited-time closed-source, and release its source code after a while. I'd suggest a period between 6 and 12 months depending on how much sales you want to milk out of it - if you choose 6 months you lose something like 25% of total earnings, if you choose 1 year then it's more like 15%. Most of your income is generated in the first 3 months anyway. However, just because you released your game's source code - even with a free license - doesn't mean that people will not buy it anymore. People buy licensed software out of convenience, not because they can't find a way to pirate it. Plus some people might really appreciate your open source initiative and buy licensed copies just for that. So the actual losses will likely be less than the above figures. Closing the source code ultimately is the same thing as using DRM, just without going the extra mile. And we all know that piracy doesn't hurt anyone's sales, not in the realm of videogames anyway - the EU made a 300 page research all about it, so there's an actual scientifically established credibility behind words like that.

I'm working on a game that I plan to both release as open-source and sell on Steam, and I'm currently deciding on which way should I approach this. I'm not really worried about users sharing the game for free - pirates would do it anyway. In fact, I want users to share the game, because it'll get more popular that way and I just might make some extra sales; even if I end up at a net loss I'm not focused on making every last penny off of it. Rather, I'm worried that some company would pick up my game and start reselling it with or without modification, cutting into my income, and with a free license they'd have every right to do so. Then again, the internet is attention economy; if someone buys my game from someone else it's because they didn't know I was selling it, so I would've never made that sale by myself anyhow. And if someone was trying to undercut me by selling it cheaper - well, if someone wants to save money they can just get this game for free from someone who already owns it, or just do the old fashioned piracy thingie. People do however try and get cheaper license keys on online black markets, so it's not like this problem doesn't exist. But at least these people would be buying from technically-legitimate sellers and not fraudulent entities so I wouldn't have to deal (as much) with refunds due to credit card theft and whatnot. So this concern of mine is mostly meaningless just like concerns over piracy.

I think I'd release the source code as DLC, with the game itself coming as a compiled binaries and asset package files.

[Coder567]

Am I wrong assuming that games released on steam have automatically copy protection by steam?

[zorg]

You indeed are wrong in assuming that, not all steam games need to have copy-protection, but some do have valve anticheat in them... which is separate from other DRM like denuvo and stuff.

[Coder567]

You indeed are wrong in assuming that, not all steam games need to have copy-protection, but some do have valve anticheat in them... which is separate from other DRM like denuvo and stuff.

Steam games need to have steam running in order to play right. And there's verification to make sure you own the game you are trying to launch. I thought that's something that needs to be hacked in order to be able to play without steam? Though steam can be run in offline mode too, not sure about that

[zorg]

Steam games need to have steam running in order to play right.

That's a question, and no, not all games will force you to execute them through steam.

And there's verification to make sure you own the game you are trying to launch. I thought that's something that needs to be hacked in order to be able to play without steam?

If the game does force you to run it through steam, it will check the currently active steam account whether the game ID is among the stuff you own, i'm guessing.

[raidho36]

Yes Steam DRM can prevent you from launching a game that you do not own.