FreeGameDev

I've noticed that just FreeGameDev.net has two Dungeon Keeper clones (AgentKeeper and OpenDungeons), but what do you think about https://code.google.com/p/keeperfx/ which appears to be 1-to-1 clone? Just like OpenTTD the other Diablo project, they have started by disassembling the executable, so I guess their C code is of dubious legality. Or not?

BTW, their homepage says there were a lot more clones
http://keeper.lubiki.pl/html/dk_remakes.php

Most of them died a long time ago, so far only Open Dungeons keeps developing out of the two projects hosted here, Agent keeper has been inactive for nearly two years now.


KeeperFX is more of an ultimate fix and expansion pack, they hacked the original code to fix everything needed, but having into account its a pretty old game and they are not making money or hurting sales since the original game files are needed they should be pretty safe law-wise

Danimal {l Wrote}:KeeperFX is more of an ultimate fix and expansion pack, they hacked the original code to fix everything needed, but having into account its a pretty old game and they are not making money or hurting sales since the original game files are needed they should be pretty safe law-wise

Well, tower defense is a profitable genre, so EA (current owner of former Bullfrog assets) has all the initiatives to close KeeperFX, just because that can potentially increase the sales of their new games.

Then again, how come OpenTTD (a project completely based of disassembly) is not being sued? Because OpenTTD doesn't require the original assets and possibly damages sales of some commercial games.

you are wrong, shutting down keeperFX would go agaisnt EA interest, the reason is that they are boosting sales of an obsolete game, just like in japan doujinshi (its wrotten like that?) are considered good because they boosts sales of the original product.
Also, its seems the age of tower defense games is over, the current trend is idle games and a comeback of arcades and rpg´s

Danimal {l Wrote}:you are wrong, shutting down keeperFX would go agaisnt EA interest, the reason is that they are boosting sales of an obsolete game, just like in japan doujinshi (its wrotten like that?) are considered good because they boosts sales of the original product.
Also, its seems the age of tower defense games is over, the current trend is idle games and a comeback of arcades and rpg´s

Isn't the original of print? Besides, EA has an updated version:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... _row&hl=en

you just showed you have no idea of what you are talking...

Danimal {l Wrote}:you just showed you have no idea of what you are talking...

So the Google play game is not EA's product, which competes with KeeperFX and, for that matter, with OpenDungeons?

I also have no idea, how come OpenRA haven't been taken down yet, because it fixed the original games, which now plays better than the mess EA made out of C&C. Same story as with Brutal Doom.

The new dungeon keeper is a fremium abomination and insult to all lovers of the original game, it will never compete against anything. Also there are plenty of AAA DK remakes this year that follows it spirit like war for the overworld or Dungeons 2. You see big companies are not interested in taking down some ragtag dev team that resurrect an old game for free, they will only when they fear someone is succefully using their license/assests with a good chance to make money

Danimal {l Wrote}:The new dungeon keeper is a fremium abomination and insult to all lovers of the original game, it will never compete against anything.

I guess EA has a huge marketing department, which produces detailed analysis about the behavior of each potential product. Then again, every first contemporary game is freemium, which proves that such model works and makes a lot of money.

Danimal {l Wrote}:Also there are plenty of AAA DK remakes this year that follows it spirit like war for the overworld or Dungeons 2. You see big companies are not interested in taking down some ragtag dev team that resurrect an old game for free, they will only when they fear someone is succefully using their license/assests with a good chance to make money

The problem is that all these remakes clutter the market, which is already oversaturated.

Regarding other AAA remakes, no idea why EA won't attack them, because for example The Tetris Company has managed to take down all clones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tetri ... nforcement

Maybe EA has already made some behind the scenes agreement, where people pay EA to avoid getting sued.

You are indeed a pretty negative person, fremium migth work economically but its a bad practice for consumers and players, its a matter of time before it dies just like EA DLC tactics. Inxile is a good example of a company doing things rigth, not to mention the indie market taking bites at the big companies.

Market will never get saturated, you just get more options to choose from or take them all, we are talking about 1 or 2 launchs a year(even less), as oppossed to the gazillions FPS a year we get. That is real saturation, DK and other oldies cover a pretty defined niche among players, and they are happy each time a new remake comes out.

Also EA cant take down those other projects just because there have some alike mechanics, as long as they dont use any of it properties/licenses. Its like running a tire company and trying to sue another tire company because their tires are also round.

Can you see the reason of being really anal with licenses of OGA? because if you ever make something good that can sell and you use licensed art you get shot down inmediatly or worse, sued.

Danimal {l Wrote}:You are indeed a pretty negative person, fremium migth work economically but its a bad practice for consumers and players, its a matter of time before it dies just like EA DLC tactics. Inxile is a good example of a company doing things rigth, not to mention the indie market taking bites at the big companies.

Look where is EA, and where is Inxile. Although I do agree, that EA suffers from bad reputation and mismanagement, leading them to lose a lot of creative professionals.

Danimal {l Wrote}:Also EA cant take down those other projects just because there have some alike mechanics, as long as they dont use any of it properties/licenses. Its like running a tire company and trying to sue another tire company because their tires are also round.

The Tetris Company somehow gained copyright to rectangular objects. "The right judge for the job" may decide that the arrangement of four wheels is a copyrighted designed, so all competitors will be forced to add fifth wheel to their cars, just to avoid clashing with design. Then again, there are patents.

Danimal {l Wrote}:Can you see the reason of being really anal with licenses of OGA? because if you ever make something good that can sell and you use licensed art you get shot down inmediatly or worse, sued.

The authors themselves granted the license to freely use the art from Wikimedia Commons for any purpose. So there is nothing illegal with using it.

On the other hand, the OpenGameArt's stance is that Wikimedia Commons content, despite being CC BY-SA licensed, is not meant to be used in games. That is because OpenGameArt's politics has little to do with legality of content, but more to do with deflecting bad reputation and avoiding hurting people's feelings. I.e. if author, once releasing his music under Creative Commons, has decided that his music became too popular and he want to make profit, then OGA will remove his music, by request even if not obliged to do so by law.

Besides that, OGA doesn't allow other licenses, like GFDL, MIT and BSD. And it is also not okay, to say take art from Wesnoth and submit it to OGA, without asking the Wesnoth contributors first, because that would look like stealing from the community, while some artists probably don't want their art to be used for something other than Wesnoth. Despite GPL allowing to do so.

Some people believe that a few publicized cases of abusing Creative Commons may heavily damage the reputation of this license and the authors will be avoiding it like disease.

It was the artists' choice to license it like that. So no, it's not 'stealing', it was the intended effect of licensing as CC and it was their decision. To publish it elsewhere is not a disrespect to them and it's perfectly legal.

Edit by MODERATOR: removed necessary personal character judgment.

So you say that avoiding including less than clear art, keeping legality to avoid being sued and being really mindful of artist whises is a bad thing? but stealing art, disobeying artist desires and making available non free license art misleading people into thinking its safe for use is good?
Your priorities are all messed up, i just hope noone has to suffer because of you and your anti-OGA site.

Evropi {l Wrote}:It was the artists' choice to license it like that. So no, it's not 'stealing', it was the intended effect of licensing as CC and it was their decision. To publish it elsewhere is not a disrespect to them and it's perfectly legal.

A lot of people will say you should ask anyway, before using it, because people are prone to changed their minds. There is even some non-official forking etiquette:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4753 ... ct-to-rele

either follow it or get a huge stinking "jackass" label.

Evropi {l Wrote}:In general, as an economics student, I find a lot of your opinions extremely ignorant and basic. You should probably stick to programming.

These are not my opinions. Just reciting what other people say in general. I.e. what is currently considered "the common sense" on the Internet.

Danimal {l Wrote}:So you say that avoiding including less than clear art

Wikimedia Commons art is clearly under Creative Commons license.

Danimal {l Wrote}:keeping legality to avoid being sued and being really mindful of artist whises is a bad thing?

I'm not the one to decide what is good or bad for everyone. People are different. Something that is good person A, may be bad for person B.

Danimal {l Wrote}:but stealing art

If it is legal, then "stealing" is just an opinion. I.e. every second game "steals" World of Warcraft look and feel, but Blizzard can't sue them. Even more, Blizzard themselves borrowed a lot form Warhammer artists. Thee same way you can take Tolkien's The Hobbit, rename and paraphrase everything (i.e. rename "hobbit" to "halfling"), then use it completely legally.

Danimal {l Wrote}:disobeying artist desires

Artist is not a military commander and we ain't soldiers.

Danimal {l Wrote}:making available non free license art misleading people into thinking its safe for use is good?

Again, Wikimedia Commons art is clearly under Creative Commons license, which is free. The "safe for use" is another story.

Danimal {l Wrote}:Your priorities are all messed up, i just hope noone has to suffer because of you and your anti-OGA site.

It is not anti-OGA, just has art OGA doesn't allow.

Dont you have your own "common sense" and opinions? you need to follow the current of the internet?
And also, YES, Artists are fucking military commanders in everything concerning their works, they can decide every fucking aspect of what to do with their art, an if an artist retires their works from public use and you disobey it, they can perfectly sue you for copyrigth infringement; you are not making it far into this open-game world if you alreday are betraying your best allies.

Danimal {l Wrote}:Dont you have your own "common sense" and opinions? you need to follow the current of the internet?

Personal opinions have little power, so they are of no importance, when deciding how society works.

Danimal {l Wrote}:And also, YES, Artists are fucking military commanders in everything concerning their works, they can decide every fucking aspect of what to do with their art

Sorry, but military ranks are legal status. You've to be president to grant it.

Danimal {l Wrote}:if an artist retires their works from public use and you disobey it, they can perfectly sue you for copyrigth infringement

I've bad news for you: anybody can sue anybody for copyright infringement. It is just that the artist has no legal means to remove his work from Creative Commons, which provides no clause that would allow author to do that. So no way CC license can be suddenly revoked. CC has no expiration date as well.

Danimal {l Wrote}:you are not making it far into this open-game world if you alreday are betraying your best allies.

How exactly? They betrayed themselves by releasing stuff under CC without second thought.

Ok... I am locking this now. Both of you made your (valid) points and this exchange as run it's course to the fullest.

@Evropy: please refrain from personal "ad hominem" attacks like that... it really does not add to a civilized discussion. THX