Keith O'Connell wrote: > Assuming we are against non-free software and would not contaminate or > machines with closed-source code, what is the panels view on games? > > I was talking to a friend about the Alpha Centari port by Loki, it is > for payment binary only as I understand it. Is this an anathema because > there is no source code? Could it be that it is sensible because a game > is an end in itself, unlike an editor, compiler or browser which are > tools that it is reasonable to want to modify?
Perhaps. I myself prefer games that are free software, because they tend to become much richer over time (look at nethack), and because I am fairly assured that if I want to play this game again 10 years from now, I will be able to, both technically and legally. I'll even probably be able to port it to whatever platform I am using then. On the other hand, I avoid looking too closely at the source code to games because it's too easy to ruin the inherent mystery of some games by doing that. And if all I want it pure entertainment, *now*, I don't care if the game is free software or not, I'll drop in my quarter, and play with no concerns about the underlying code. > If the source code is there then in a multiplier game, how can you be > sure that your opponent has not tilted his client to enhance his game > play? Good design can mitigate this kind of problem. For example, freeciv is a multi-player network game that has freely modifiyable source, and yet it's difficult to cheat at freeciv since every action goes through a central server. Contrast this with quake, where most of the calculation happens on the client side, and so it's much easier to hack. Anyway, not providing the source to a game can only obscure the problem: a smart person will always be able to find a way to subvert a poorly secured game if they really want to, whether they have the source or not. -- see shy jo
