The Leak = Faster Progress?

T

The ToAsT

Guest
Been lurking here for a while, decided to come out of the shadows. Play nice, now...

Anyway, is there a possibility that The Leak will actually benefit us, the gamers, in the long run? Thinking in terms of the patent system, progress is definitely slowed while new advances are protected by patent. Once the patent period expires, everyone uses the new advance and technology leaps forward a bit. So could the same effect not happen here? Instead of the secrets of the Source engine being hidden, and competitors having to reverse engineer it to find the goodies, it's all out in the open and up for grabs. Therefore everyone can now add a bit of HL2 magic to their project, and every project gets that little bit better that litte bit more quickly.

Disclaimer - I think The Leak was a bad thing, I don't condone the theft, and I don't approve of anyone that has downloaded any of the code. All I am doing is looking for a silver lining.
 
No it just means Valve did all the work and nomarks with no talent elsewhere will get all the praise for "writing" games that use 70% copied code from the source engine, there's alas no silver lining on the source code itself being stolen.
 
if the technologie of the source engine is that good, that you really want it and develope it any further, you also could license it from valve instead of stealing their property. my 2 cents ;)
 
Originally posted by Echelon
if the technologie of the source engine is that good, that you really want it and develope it any further, you also could license it from valve instead of stealing their property. my 2 cents ;)
Click to expand...

yeah, bigger companies will, smaller ones likely wont bother.. there's always another danger too. If some programmer comes along claiming to know how to do all this cool stuff.. do they know or did they just borrow it from the stolen code. companies might not even know where the code their using has come from. If they get caught then they can't really prove they didn't know or did. It could get real messy and for once I'm glad I ain't a programmer, us artists are clean for a change! lol
 
no need for a disclaimer, ToAsT. If anyone says anything moronic I'll ban them :)
 
i doubt it will do anythiing positive for valve regarding the release date, but as with all bad events, there is always some good
 
For modding community = Good. A headstart on the modding process

For Valve = Bad. Secret methods and tactics made publicly available.
 
I wrote an article about the good things that may come out of this whole mess. It should be in the next unofficial HL2.net forum magazine. :)

Okay i'll stop advertising now.

If any company does decide to use the Source code in order to assist them in their game it will most likely be used solely for reference, i.e. "How did Valve handle this problem?" If they want to use the actual code then as long as they are a legitimate company (and the majority of companies that release full blown commercial games are legitimate) then they would simply liscence the code from Valve. Either way though it could help other game companies in the long run, but I don't think we will notice a difference.
 
Originally posted by The ToAsT
Instead of the secrets of the Source engine being hidden, and competitors having to reverse engineer it to find the goodies, it's all out in the open and up for grabs.
Click to expand...

reverse engineering is basically the main reason companies have EULAs. it's the reason you don't actually own any of the software on your computer, you're just licensed to use it.

companies have to pay extra to gain the right to reverse-engineer any program to make their own games...and if companies use the stolen source code, valve is losing money.

but yeah...i guess if they use it for reference there could be some problems solved a bit more quickly for some companies...who knows. you'll probably never know wether or not a company looked at the hl2 source or not.
 
Its a bad thing for gaming as a whole, now companies will be able to use the stolen code rather than have to think up thier own methods.

Rather than trying to outdo 'source' companies can now use 'source'.
 
Originally posted by ASnogarD
Its a bad thing for gaming as a whole, now companies will be able to use the stolen code rather than have to think up thier own methods.

Rather than trying to outdo 'source' companies can now use 'source'.
Click to expand...

you didn't answer his question at all...he's not asking your opinion on wether or not it's bad...he wants to know if there's a silver lining to it. go back and read his post again.

also, companies can't just "use source" they would be caught and sued. but they could get ideas from it...which is part of what he's talking about
 
if it means a higher quality of games all around then there is a silver lining. it benefits us, just screws valve. But well thats what you get when u make such massive security errors.
 
i don't think other companies will use the code. maybe some little developer that makes a little game no one has heard about or ever will, but all this big developers have said they're treating the stolen source like poison and would never look at it.
 
Re: Re: The Leak = Faster Progress?

Originally posted by Maskirovka
reverse engineering is basically the main reason companies have EULAs. it's the reason you don't actually own any of the software on your computer, you're just licensed to use it.

companies have to pay extra to gain the right to reverse-engineer any program to make their own games...and if companies use the stolen source code, valve is losing money.
Click to expand...

Not quite. EULAs typically try to prohibit the consumer from reverse engineering, but unless the program is specifically encrypted to prevent it a la the DMCA, reverse engineering is a legally protected practice. Companies don't pay a dime to the original developer for the right to reverse engineer the program; that's the point. They figure out how it works on their own, and as long as they can prove that none of the developers ever saw the source, they're fine.

Also, it's easier than a lot of people think to determine if a given program is using a given source code. One of the most common ways is to check the method traces in a debugger and compare the program with a known compile from the source. The person with the stolen code could get around this by rewriting or renaming methods to conceal it, but if you were going to spend the effort to do that, why not just license the thing legit and get full docs and support from the developer?

You're right that some random developer may try to look at the stolen code for inspiration/curiosity, but a smart developer wouldn't trust stolen code of uncertain pedigree and he definitely wouldn't compromise his own position or his employer's with such a gross and obvious copyright violation. Some twit will anyway, of course.
 
Originally posted by Fenric1138
No it just means Valve did all the work and nomarks with no talent elsewhere will get all the praise for "writing" games that use 70% copied code from the source engine, there's alas no silver lining on the source code itself being stolen.
Click to expand...

Yeah especially when these guys get busted for having stolen source code in their game :dozey:
 
I don't think it will speed up the release process...Valve said they had to go back and redesign or reconfigure the code again so that it would not be the same as the beta when they released../.Thus making the realese slower....I think thats wuts goin down
 
Re: Re: Re: The Leak = Faster Progress?

Originally posted by GorgeousOrifice
Not quite. EULAs typically try to prohibit the consumer from reverse engineering, but unless the program is specifically encrypted to prevent it a la the DMCA, reverse engineering is a legally protected practice. Companies don't pay a dime to the original developer for the right to reverse engineer the program; that's the point. They figure out how it works on their own, and as long as they can prove that none of the developers ever saw the source, they're fine.
Click to expand...

actually EULAs were basically invented to prevent reverse engineering. you can't mess with it if you don't own it.

companies license engines all the time...lots of games have been made with the quake series engines and the unreal engines...
when they license the engine, they're basically buying the code itself...rather than a license to use the game like the average consumer.

read this:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...cz++Mary+Williamson+eula+paper&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

and this:
http://www.avault.com/articles/getarticle.asp?name=eulapt1&page=2
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Leak = Faster Progress?

Originally posted by Maskirovka
actually EULAs were basically invented to prevent reverse engineering. you can't mess with it if you don't own it.
Click to expand...

Sure you can, and you have a legal right to do so. Say some group wanted to reverse engineer Source (don't know why, but run with me on it). They could figure out how it works, basically by making very long and detailed lists of "when we do this, Source does that", and then handing that off to their own developers who would write an engine from scratch to do the same things. If you do it right, you'll have an original program -- that you own outright -- that can do anything Source can and is for all intents and purposes identical to Source.

Some EULAs try to tell you that you're not allowed to reverse engineer the software that they apply to, but this is a very dubious legal procedure in addition to EULAs being unenforceable in general. (Legally speaking, you are not required to accept a contract that you have not signed, but there's a lot of argument over whether a clickthrough constitutes a signing.)


companies license engines all the time...lots of games have been made with the quake series engines and the unreal engines...
when they license the engine, they're basically buying the code itself...rather than a license to use the game like the average consumer.
Click to expand...

I know all this. I think you missed my point, which was that reverse engineering is a separate thing from licensing. If you have the source code, you have no reason to reverse engineer. It's like the formula for Coke. If you have the recipe, you won't spend years messing around in the lab trying to find an exact match for the flavor.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Leak = Faster Progress?

Originally posted by GorgeousOrifice
If you have the source code, you have no reason to reverse engineer.
Click to expand...

exactly...so why would someone waste their time making lists and crap...reverse engineering something without the code. it would be far cheaper and faster to just license the software and get the support of the developers.

that's the reason eulas exist...to prevent reverse engineering...of course they do other things...but that's the main reason for their existence in the first place
 
Well, i think open source is a good method for improving certain applications. Of course, this isn't like open source software since it was stolen; However, maybe something good will come out of it. Maybe a great mod or community-made enhancements for the engine.

Like the thread starter's disclaimer said, this situation is quite crappy, but maybe, just maybe, something good will come out of it.

At least there's hope :)

good topic! I'd enjoy reading what other people think about the good side (if any) of this.

:cheers:
-Tlaloc
 
well the first good thing i can think of is someone porting it to another OS
so all you mac/linux users can stop crying.
i hope that if someone does port it they make it so you still need to buy the gamedisk to get the content so valve gets there money
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Leak = Faster Progress?

Originally posted by Maskirovka
exactly...so why would someone waste their time making lists and crap...reverse engineering something without the code. it would be far cheaper and faster to just license the software and get the support of the developers.
Click to expand...
So would a third party be able to get more info in total from having access to the source code, compared to reverse engineering a compiled program? I guess that reverse engineering will take longer, but given enough time can you still extract as much?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Leak = Faster Progress?

Originally posted by The ToAsT
So would a third party be able to get more info in total from having access to the source code, compared to reverse engineering a compiled program? I guess that reverse engineering will take longer, but given enough time can you still extract as much?
Click to expand...

of course you can't get nearly as much info by trying to reverse engineer a compiled program....trying to do that is a waste of time like i pointed out. if you had that much time and patience you could just get a job and earn the money you needed to license the full engine.

which is why i keep saying eulas exist so that you can't legally mess with the source code...even if you somehow got it after purchasing a normal user license. they exist so that a normal user just has the right to own the CD and play the compiled game...but not actually own the software....the software is still owned by the company so you can't mess with it.
 
The reasons we have patents is to give people a reason to invent new products. If you couldn't make any money off your idea, why would you spend any time and money in the first place researching it? The need for the inventer to profit off thier idea and progress is balanced by fact patents eventually runs out. So if we didn't have patents, progress would actually be slower because there would be less people willing to invent things. What does this all mean, the early "release" of source wasn't a good thing.
 
reverse engineering is basically the main reason companies have EULAs. it's the reason you don't actually own any of the software on your computer, you're just licensed to use it.

companies have to pay extra to gain the right to reverse-engineer any program to make their own games...and if companies use the stolen source code, valve is losing money.
Click to expand...

Theoretically you're allowed to reverse engineer as allowed by the DMCA. In practice it's not really possible if you're just some guy up against software corporations with massive legal teams.



EULAs are also somewhat of a grey area. It would seem no-one has the strength to stand against the likes of microsoft, so EULA's remain largely untested.

Personally I believe EULA's are un-constitutional. A contract is supposed to be a mutual agreement; a license is an extension of a contract... but EULA's are hardly mutual.

If I open and use a software package without agreeing to the EULA, what legal grounds do you have to sue me?

I broke your contract? But I never agreed to it in the first place!

The typical response I get from people about this is that "If you don't agree to the EULA, simply don't install the software".

You see the thing is I've ALREADY installed the software, AND I DID NOT agree to the EULA. You have no legal grounds to pursue me becuase the license is not a mutually agreed contract.

Obviously you probably do currently have grounds to sue me... but that is the current state of the law, which I believe to be wrong.



Also, it's easier than a lot of people think to determine if a given program is using a given source code. One of the most common ways is to check the method traces in a debugger and compare the program with a known compile from the source. The person with the stolen code could get around this by rewriting or renaming methods to conceal it, but if you were going to spend the effort to do that, why not just license the thing legit and get full docs and support from the developer?
Click to expand...

That seems like a lot of effort. As in all things, simple repetitive tasks which take a long time for people to do are the forte of the machine.

Enter the "obfuscator". Go to sourceforge.net or do a google search.


You're right that some random developer may try to look at the stolen code for inspiration/curiosity, but a smart developer wouldn't trust stolen code of uncertain pedigree and he definitely wouldn't compromise his own position or his employer's with such a gross and obvious copyright violation. Some twit will anyway, of course.
Click to expand...


You're trying to downplay the leak a bit forcefully here.

Do you think the "id"* guys would download the source and discuss it in office hours?

No.

Do you think they would download it in the privacy of their own home, on their own private broadband connection and check it out?

Yes.


Possibly.


It's hard to resist checking out new technology. If the "id" guys had too much integrity to do this, SOMEONE out there will. I think it's a good thing - fueling peoples' interest in science and technology...

You could say they were only doing it to pirate bits of the code, but what if they just couldn't resist checking out cutting edge technology? These are the sort of people that innovate and create progress.

Basically I'm saying in a more wordy way that I agree with the first guy, in that this leak could lead to more progress in game technology, which is a GOOD THING.




* "id" in this sense is used metaphorically to respresent "a significant rival games developer"
 
--- Robert W. Gomulkiewicz (a senior corporate attorney at Microsoft) and Mary
L. Williamson (1996)
Click to expand...

I stopped reading there. (Article someone linked to)
 
I honestly think that they have been slacking. With as many people as they do working on this and 5 years. If that beta is an example of where they are at then it will most likley take till next year to complete with or without the leak. There are some serious problems. In Almost every aspect from the dev tools to the beta. THey said they where play testing it so i can't think this is it but hopefully they will get more serious and this will force them to go the extra mile on their days work.
 
Well, let's look on the 'silver lining'. At least if they do look at the HL2 code they're only going to learn something good from it, and in that create a game which might have something better than it would have originally. Which is a plus.
 
Originally posted by serp
I stopped reading there. (Article someone linked to)
Click to expand...

that paper is the reasoning behind why EULAs exist...so what if the reasoning was by someone at microsoft? it's still relevant info...if you want to stay ignorant, fine by me.

and serp, you agree to an EULA when you install the software...y'know when you click that "agree" button?
 
Originally posted by Maskirovka

and serp, you agree to an EULA when you install the software...y'know when you click that "agree" button?
Click to expand...

Ha ha, that's gotta be one of the greatest uses ,of sarcasm, I've seen in a long time.

-Ghost.
 
i wasn't trying to be sarcastic...i was just pointing out that there's an agree button at every EULA screen...
otherwise you wouldn't be agreeing to it and it wouldn't be valid...like he was trying to say.
 
Originally posted by droper
I honestly think that they have been slacking. With as many people as they do working on this and 5 years. If that beta is an example of where they are at then it will most likley take till next year to complete with or without the leak. There are some serious problems. In Almost every aspect from the dev tools to the beta. THey said they where play testing it so i can't think this is it but hopefully they will get more serious and this will force them to go the extra mile on their days work.
Click to expand...
(slightly OT)
But from what I've heard of the beta, it seems to me that it's likely an old E3-demo build. I don't know if/why Valve would bother keeping a build of the game that's that old, but if developers do keep old builds of the game (for reference or whatever) then its likely that "anonymous leaker" just decided to copy the old build and label it as a build from only days before Sept.30th. If he can hack through Valve's servers and transfer three or four gigs of data, I doubt he wouldn't be able to edit the source files so that the build actually displays that it's recent.
 
Originally posted by stigmata
(slightly OT)
But from what I've heard of the beta, it seems to me that it's likely an old E3-demo build. I don't know if/why Valve would bother keeping a build of the game that's that old, but if developers do keep old builds of the game (for reference or whatever) then its likely that "anonymous leaker" just decided to copy the old build and label it as a build from only days before Sept.30th. If he can hack through Valve's servers and transfer three or four gigs of data, I doubt he wouldn't be able to edit the source files so that the build actually displays that it's recent.
Click to expand...

It is...It's just something they keep for their press shows: E3, ECTS, Tokyo... All three of those videos were the same.
 
No what I'm saying is that the beta is probably a PRE-E3 build, not the build that was actually used for E3. The problems that I've heard about in the beta didn't seem to be in the E3 demo.

[EDIT] For example, the swinging girder trap falls apart in the beta right when the level loads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
Behind-The-Scenes Video Highlights Valve VR Prototypes
Replies
0
Views
3K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
TF2 "The Mayann Project" Community Update Begins Development
Replies
0
Views
9K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
B
The cut missions of Half-Life: Decay
Replies
2
Views
21K
Evo
Evo
Back
Top