wormsfan88
3 Jun 2012, 20:47
I am wondering if it would be possible to get the source code to Worms Armageddon released under the GNU GPL.
Reasons for Releasing the Source:
1: Worms Armageddon still maintains an active player base more than a decade after its release.
2: A large part of the success of the game is the ability to modify it. Releasing the source would allow the community to modify the game more extensively than anything else ever could. This could include (depending on the interest of the fans) additions of more weapons and features to the game.
3: It would be a goodwill gesture to the community that has made the game successful financially and popularly.
4: Coders interested could possibly make native ports for the game on GNU/Linux and Mac Operating Systems. Currently, GNU/Linux players have to use a wine wrapper to have the game function at all on their operating systems. After the source of Doom 2 was released, the game is now playable on every platform.
Reasons Why Releasing the Source Shouldn't be a Problem:
1: There are several games that have had their source released to the players after commercial success. (Doom, Doom 2, Doom3, Gish.)
2: If Team 17 were only to release the source code and not the game content (as was done with the aforementioned titles) people would still need to buy the game to play the game and to have all of the missions, graphics, and sounds. This would allow the game to continue to draw in commercial revenue; and perhaps might invigorate more people to purchase the game who didn't before. (Might be a strong perhaps, but perhaps none the less.) This would also allow Team 17 to still keep full copyright of their game content, (such as missions, graphics, and sounds.)
3: Team 17 has already moved on to make and sale other Worms games (2D and 3D.) The only two possible commercial downsides to releasing the game's source that I have thought of are as fallows:
A: Players might do resource replacement and make a stand alone game with their own missions, graphics, and sounds.
Rebuttal to A: Such projects typically don't contain as much content as the already made full games. Examples are FreeDoom and FreeGish. FreeDoom has spent several years trying to replace the resources of the original Doom and are still not complete. FreeGish only has a small hand full of levels. I actually found out about Gish from Free Gish. I enjoyed Free Gish so much, but was so disappointed by the lack of content that I purchased the full Gish game. Effectively, Free Gish acted as advertisement for Gish for me.
B: Other companies might attempt resource replacement and try to release their own versions of the game.
Rebuttal to B: It seems to me like it would be silly to fear this. The game is more than a decade old and Team 17 is already competing for commercial success with their newer 2D and 3D Worms Titles. The idea that an offshoot of a game from ten years ago might pose a problem to the profit potential of a new Worms Game seems silly to me. To me, that would be like ID Software being worried that an offshoot game based on the Doom 2 engine might get in the way of the sales of Doom 3.
4: Games with released source code already exist as competition to Worms Armageddon (Warmux and Hedgewars.) These games aim to do the same basic concept as Worms Armageddon. They, currently, lack the amount of content that Worms Armageddon has. However, in the case of Hedgewars, their player base is decently large and their game receives active updates. They also have the advantage of having anyone interested contribute to the coding process. This, should more people be inclined to show interest, might speed their development process.
5: While Worms Armageddon is currently being updated by two contributors; I would like to imagine that the wealth of talent of the Worms Armageddon community might offer up some programers that might volunteer their efforts to better speed this process along and more actively engage the community in the development of the game.
6: It seems that the idea of releasing the source to limited people was that Team 17 could control the direction of the game's development. But these two people could continue to control the direction of the game's development even if the entire source is released.
Reason A: Deadcode and CyberShadow could still stand as project maintainers and development leads. They could continue to develop the game and have official say over the official patch releases to the game.
Reason B: Most people would rather contribute advances to the core game than make a thousand offshoots. Even if offshoots were to arise, they would mostly be fragmented and ignored as simple test concepts. People would still return to Deadcode, CyberShadow, and the official Team17 site for the official patch.
Reason C: Deadcode and Cybershadow could, as project leads, decide what features should be and should not be included in the official patch that are made by independent developers. If Deadcode and Cybershadow approve of the new features, they could arrange with the independent developer to have them included in a new patch. From my understanding, this is how Warmux got their flamethrower weapon. An independent developer made it, the project leads tried it and liked it, the independent developer gave the project leads permissions to include it in the new versions of the game.
All of the considered, I see many potential positives and only a small handful of highly unlikely negatives to releasing the source code of Warms Armageddon. I think it would give the Warms Armageddon community an opportunity to take a more hands on approach to continuing to develop a game that they have loved and stayed loyal to for more than a decade. Which, from my understanding, was why ID Software released the source code for Doom. (That, and I think I heard somewhere that ID Software realized their game was living so long because people loved making levels for it and thought that allowing people to see the source code might also increase profit for the game. [People might still continue to buy it and tinker with it even though it is older because now they can see and tinker with everything.])
My intention here is not to offend anyone, and I hope I have not done that. Am I the only person interested in this concept, or are there others?
Reasons for Releasing the Source:
1: Worms Armageddon still maintains an active player base more than a decade after its release.
2: A large part of the success of the game is the ability to modify it. Releasing the source would allow the community to modify the game more extensively than anything else ever could. This could include (depending on the interest of the fans) additions of more weapons and features to the game.
3: It would be a goodwill gesture to the community that has made the game successful financially and popularly.
4: Coders interested could possibly make native ports for the game on GNU/Linux and Mac Operating Systems. Currently, GNU/Linux players have to use a wine wrapper to have the game function at all on their operating systems. After the source of Doom 2 was released, the game is now playable on every platform.
Reasons Why Releasing the Source Shouldn't be a Problem:
1: There are several games that have had their source released to the players after commercial success. (Doom, Doom 2, Doom3, Gish.)
2: If Team 17 were only to release the source code and not the game content (as was done with the aforementioned titles) people would still need to buy the game to play the game and to have all of the missions, graphics, and sounds. This would allow the game to continue to draw in commercial revenue; and perhaps might invigorate more people to purchase the game who didn't before. (Might be a strong perhaps, but perhaps none the less.) This would also allow Team 17 to still keep full copyright of their game content, (such as missions, graphics, and sounds.)
3: Team 17 has already moved on to make and sale other Worms games (2D and 3D.) The only two possible commercial downsides to releasing the game's source that I have thought of are as fallows:
A: Players might do resource replacement and make a stand alone game with their own missions, graphics, and sounds.
Rebuttal to A: Such projects typically don't contain as much content as the already made full games. Examples are FreeDoom and FreeGish. FreeDoom has spent several years trying to replace the resources of the original Doom and are still not complete. FreeGish only has a small hand full of levels. I actually found out about Gish from Free Gish. I enjoyed Free Gish so much, but was so disappointed by the lack of content that I purchased the full Gish game. Effectively, Free Gish acted as advertisement for Gish for me.
B: Other companies might attempt resource replacement and try to release their own versions of the game.
Rebuttal to B: It seems to me like it would be silly to fear this. The game is more than a decade old and Team 17 is already competing for commercial success with their newer 2D and 3D Worms Titles. The idea that an offshoot of a game from ten years ago might pose a problem to the profit potential of a new Worms Game seems silly to me. To me, that would be like ID Software being worried that an offshoot game based on the Doom 2 engine might get in the way of the sales of Doom 3.
4: Games with released source code already exist as competition to Worms Armageddon (Warmux and Hedgewars.) These games aim to do the same basic concept as Worms Armageddon. They, currently, lack the amount of content that Worms Armageddon has. However, in the case of Hedgewars, their player base is decently large and their game receives active updates. They also have the advantage of having anyone interested contribute to the coding process. This, should more people be inclined to show interest, might speed their development process.
5: While Worms Armageddon is currently being updated by two contributors; I would like to imagine that the wealth of talent of the Worms Armageddon community might offer up some programers that might volunteer their efforts to better speed this process along and more actively engage the community in the development of the game.
6: It seems that the idea of releasing the source to limited people was that Team 17 could control the direction of the game's development. But these two people could continue to control the direction of the game's development even if the entire source is released.
Reason A: Deadcode and CyberShadow could still stand as project maintainers and development leads. They could continue to develop the game and have official say over the official patch releases to the game.
Reason B: Most people would rather contribute advances to the core game than make a thousand offshoots. Even if offshoots were to arise, they would mostly be fragmented and ignored as simple test concepts. People would still return to Deadcode, CyberShadow, and the official Team17 site for the official patch.
Reason C: Deadcode and Cybershadow could, as project leads, decide what features should be and should not be included in the official patch that are made by independent developers. If Deadcode and Cybershadow approve of the new features, they could arrange with the independent developer to have them included in a new patch. From my understanding, this is how Warmux got their flamethrower weapon. An independent developer made it, the project leads tried it and liked it, the independent developer gave the project leads permissions to include it in the new versions of the game.
All of the considered, I see many potential positives and only a small handful of highly unlikely negatives to releasing the source code of Warms Armageddon. I think it would give the Warms Armageddon community an opportunity to take a more hands on approach to continuing to develop a game that they have loved and stayed loyal to for more than a decade. Which, from my understanding, was why ID Software released the source code for Doom. (That, and I think I heard somewhere that ID Software realized their game was living so long because people loved making levels for it and thought that allowing people to see the source code might also increase profit for the game. [People might still continue to buy it and tinker with it even though it is older because now they can see and tinker with everything.])
My intention here is not to offend anyone, and I hope I have not done that. Am I the only person interested in this concept, or are there others?