Talk:Open-source video game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What has the number of games on Steam to do with Open source games?[edit]

"As of September 2015, the Steam gaming service has 1,500 games available on Linux, compared to 2,323 games for Mac and 6,500 Windows games." How is this sentence relevant? Should it be removed? Trilarion (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why no article about open source games?[edit]

Hi Hu12, could you explain why you reverted the article Open source games back to an redirect? thx --MilesTeg 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the free games article, open source doesn't say about open content.. --77.177.26.110 13:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article isn't about open source, which already has its own article on Wikipedia but about open source games specifically, which do include open content. --Bristn 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this isn't about open source in general. Where do you take the information from, that "open source games" must include "open content?!" Open source games aren't equal to free games.--77.177.174.160 12:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assaultcube is not based off of an engine created by iD Software; it is based off the Cube engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.199.115 (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open games do not imply open content[edit]

I've reverted this article to the last good version; something like [1] (which describes the Open Gaming License by Wizards of the Coast) states that the definition of an open game means that one could have proprietary content. The source could probably pass WP:RS and be worked into this article. Tuxide 00:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not neutral[edit]

I've flagged the article due to the biased phrasing contained therein. Specifically, the open source nature of the software was repeatedly disparaged in the article. I humbly request a rewrite in order to rephrase the article to a neutral viewpoint. Neither commercial nor open source software should be said to be inferior or superior to the other in an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Areth (talk • contribs) 05:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i think the article is neutral enought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.19.42.98 (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not neutral at all. Open source games are no Linux-only affairs, nor are they usually superior to commercial games. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say any of that? Areth was talking about a version of the article which had some paragraphs based on an article from 1999. That’s been fixed since then, though a piece of off-topic text about web-based on-line games was still there. I think the article is neutral now — so much it’s almost boring. --AVRS (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the NPOV tag. I see absolutely nothing unbalanced about the article in its current form. Does anyone have a specific concern with it? Wperdue (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Open source video game → Open-source video game — like Open-source software — Neustradamus (✉) 18:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Talk:List of free and open source software packages#Requested move. Jafeluv (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of free and open source software packages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Gamer is not notable[edit]

As per similar discussions on Talk:List of open-source video games, Free Gamer is not notable, stop pretending it is people. It's just a blog just like every other, and the press does not care if it exists or what they think about open gaming. I am removing from here all links and references to Free Gamer, FreeGameDev.net, LibreGameWiki.org, etc. Tuxide (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was hardly conclusive. As is stated, it is not a personal blog. It has a, volunteer-based granted, staff of journalists and functions as a online news source in every right. It is only hosted by a blogging host. It is as much a new sources as LinuxGames or Phoronix, only focusing on free games instead of Linux games/hardware. You can't judge a site by its URL just like you can't judge a book by its cover, and since you have made no case against it or its journalistic practices or reliability other than that it is hosted by Blogspot I am tempted just to revert your edit. But it would be rude to act without discussion. Comrade Graham (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogspot-hosted sites use the verifiability policy for self-published sites (WP:SPS). I can see no reason why Free Gamer would be acceptable for sourcing. Marasmusine (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see what you are getting at. Free Gamer is ran by more than one person and is read and linked to by many, even by Linux news sites. I don't see how the regulation you posted indicates that Free Gamer is a self-published source. Michael Larabel was involved in the creation of Phoronix but that does not make his postings self-published. He is a contributing editor, just like Charles Goodwin and the rest at Free Gamer. Again, just because anyone can post anything on Blogspot does not make Free Gamer ran that way. It is no longer a personal blog. Comrade Graham (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure how I can make myself clearer without blockquoting WP:Verifiability verbatim. Free Gamer is almost exactly the opposite of the kind of sources asked for by policy. Marasmusine (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can post that link all you want, but the closest I can find to something that could be against Free Gamer in that is "Blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs." But this is not a blog really. It is operated like a news source at least as much as your average lower-note Internet news site. It is hardly CBC.ca or CNN.com but it is not just another blog. There are bits that are called blog content on the site, "By commentary and compendium, I mean blog and list plus articles and interviews" - Free Gamer. However no one is suggesting sourcing the blog content or even really the commentary, only the actual article content. No one would even want to cite it anywhere if it wasn't unique, but it is and it is decently reliable in its coverage. It borders some edges, but it fits in them just the same. Besides, this is not what is important for this discussion. Free Gamer is notable to the free software gaming community and thus its mention should be added back to the article. Whether or not it is a reliable source for Wikipedia is another matter. If I can't get consensus about sourcing it that is fine, I do not actually have anything I wish to cite to it, at least nothing I could not find another source for. I just don't see why my work has been needlessly trimmed by removing notable content, eg talking about Free Gamer and FreeGameDev.Net and its place in free software game development history. Comrade Graham (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Free Gamer is not notable and your argument is circular. Just because you or they say it's notable doesn't mean it is. Tuxide (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Graham, I thought we were talking about using Free Gamer as a source, my mistake. let me shift gears (clunk.) If we would like to mention Free Gamer in relation to this topic, it doesn't have to be notable per se, but it does need to be verifiable So to discuss the site in this article, we will need a citation from a reliable, third party source (even if it just says "Free Gamer makes commentries on open source games". Marasmusine (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me clear that up rather cleanly. I can also see how this happened kind of. Anyways, we'll leave that discussion for now unless someone tries to source Free Gamer or if I ever feel that I want to. We can discuss that then. Anyways, that was the rules for notability I had figured when I put that bit into the history I wrote. If you don't mind I will re-add my sections. FreeGameDev is a hub, having coordination forums and serves as a central source for free game development blogs, some for well known projects, and I will see I can find any reliable enough third-party sources to that affect if I can. But for now just re-adding the section seems good enough. After I get some more feedback I intend to do that. Comrade Graham (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without really addressing anything on here directly? My beef is mainly against the external links section, and Marasmusine already said no more than once on the other talk page. These guys have been trying to advertise their websites here for quite a while now, and in some cases such as Libregamewiki.org, ever since they were created. Seriously, who comes onto Wikipedia and advertises a wiki that's been edited 3000 times and has only been around for a month? These sites are not notable and are not worth mentioning anywhere in Wikipedia's article space. Unless anyone can show that the press cares about them, keep these sites off of here. Tuxide (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(reverse indent) Of course, a plain link from an "External links" section follows the guidelines at WP:EL. Marasmusine (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxide, I understand that you are weary of people using Wikipedia as advertisement platform. We all are. But I am not an offical representative of the Libregamewiki or Free Gamer. I have posted several edits to the Libregamewiki but that does not mean I have an invested interest in posting it here. I post it as I find it relevant to the topic at hand. This if free and open source video games. I should know, I do develop free games. At any rate. I assure you that my mind set is for knowledge and not advertisement and that from my experience these sites deserve at least a link. Comrade Graham (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV would also be an issue considering one of the site admins refers to Libregamewiki editors as "extremists". I am not personal attacking you. But over the past two or three years, I've seen these guys astroturf on various gaming websites that have nothing to do with open source and they're annoying. This article was never about how Free Gamer defines open gaming. Tuxide (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was never assuming that you were personally attacking me. Also, just to note. Despite the close links, Free Gamer and Libregamewiki are not under the same management. So don't necessarily blame Free Gamer for anything the Libregamewiki elite do. Personally I have never found any evidence of any bloated advertising before, but it is not surprising due to Kiba's instance that he is running the wiki as a business based on ad revenue (ala Google). That Slashdot link is referring to the Libregamewiki as "extremists" in a one-half tongue-in-cheek manner. Anyone who doesn't wish to sell out free software principles is called an extremist these days and Slashdot is famous for parody and a comedic leaning user culture. But any way, that is POV and not important right now. The article is not about Free Gamer. My detailed history from the early days of Nethack, through the X Windows games and the first source releases, to the present day only mentions this group of sites in a single paragraph as a single example of free game development becoming more organized. I can change some of the wording if you want to make it sound less posative, though thanks to your link you have just given me a decent source! However, I would be fine tweaking it into something that could not ever be considered in the slightest bit an advertisement if you want. I can submit samples here if you like. Please respond. Comrade Graham (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Slashdot is not a reliable source because it's an aggregator of other news articles just like Digg. The URL above in particular is hardly a third-party source. The guy who wrote the post that I linked to is also an administrator on Free Gamer, on Libregamewiki, and on all of the other sites being discussed here, and he also edits this and other articles on this topic. Tuxide (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of Slashdot being an aggregator before, but the conflict of interest bit does make it a primary source and thus no better than a Free Gamer citation itself. At any rate, a brief mention by me in a lengthy history is hardly an advertisement. Agreed? We don't even have to link to them. Here is my new sample, comments are appreciated: "In 2006, Charles Goodwin began Free Gamer, which started as a personal blog about free gaming but has since become a news source of sorts for the topic, even being contributed to by multiple writers. They scroll through databases such as Sourceforge.net and discussion forums to keep track of new game projects and releases, as well as host commentary on free games and free game development. This formed the nucleus and inspiration for other free services, all linked and related to each other. This includes the other "FreeGameDev.Net" sub-sites and services as well as websites like the Libregamewiki and OpenGameArt. Together these sites are an attempt to create a more central hub for free game development." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comrade Graham (talk • contribs)
I wouldn't consider adding anything about Free Gamer without establishing notability first. Look, it's quite simple, nothing goes into Wikipedia unless it's notable, verifiable, and presented in a neutral point of view. If all three of these don't apply then it doesn't go in, and this is concerning the notability of Free Gamer here. Why would we have a discussion topic called "Free Gamer is not notable" if we're going to completely ignore the notability of Free Gamer? It's just a single paragraph and nobody owns the article, so there is no reason to get worked up over it getting removed. Tuxide (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section is not about Free Gamer per say. It is using it as an example as FreeGameDev.Net at large is the best example I have encountered of a trend in development of open game development towards greater organization, similar to the freeware game development community. The article is on open source video games and open source video game development, not Free Gamer. We are not establishing notability for that site here. We are using it as an example. My new rewrite clearly explains that. I can't help but think your vision has been a little clouded by your annoyance at some of the Libregamewiki elite's antics, when that is currently irrelevant here. This is not about Free Gamer, it is only an example. My history mentions Bram Stolk and Sixth Floor Labs, even though none of them have been considered notable enough for their own articles or anything about their own work. They are important as part of a larger picture we are brining together here. As long as they are good examples and relevant to the article than it follows the needs here. I am not asking for an article about Free Gamer, I am asking for the article to be complete and not have a gaping hole in its history. It is not that I am possessive, I just want it to flow. I am perfectly willing to try and find nice sources in addition, those make an article trustworthy and more reliable, but if that is what you want clearly say it. Make clear what you want. Other sections lack citations without your complaint, probably because in those cases you agree that it is fine to work these problems out over time and in an ideal world have a citation for every statement. For now we can't wait for the press to cover every small possibly contentious statement. Notability is there as it is only being using as a passing example, neutral point of view is definitely in my modern sample and I am perfectly fine about verifying facts if that is what you want. What is your issue with it? Comrade Graham (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxide, please remember that Notability is a guideline for article topics, not for specific content within the articles. However, it's true that any material we write on trends, history, and example websites needs to be attributable per verifiability policy. For example, I haven't seen any reputable publishers print material about FreeGameDev.Net, Free Gamer etc (at least through Google Web, News, Books or Scholar). Marasmusine (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for that. As I have said, I am fine with looking for more sources I will try to do that if you wish. It is true, Free Gamer is not a big name outside of free software gaming and I could not in all honesty say that everyone who is involved in free gaming has heard of it. Though if course it is the old problem that people don't talk about new-sources just like they don't talk about game engines. People care about what they cover/run more than they care about those things themselves. Though of course the larger issue is that everything that is clearly notable with reliable coverage already has articles and sections about it, so the debate is where do we go from here... Put FreeGameDev into Google and you will of course get FreeGameDev sites and it being mentioned by other free gamers on other free game forums, not to mention quite a few web popularity counters. So it is relevant enough for a brief mention, but is it verifiable? Well nothing in my sample is terribly contentious, particularly my modern sample so it is not a high-risk factor to not have sourced, but verifiability is important. Though of course I can't source Free Gamer to verify facts about itself without citing Free Gamer, which is not something we have consensus on. It is a tricky thing, though I think in verifying itself citing it is fine, per the self published sources ruling. I can find many sources about people wanting more organized resources and hubs for free game development, and FreeGameDev usually pops up in those discussions somewhere down the line, but I doubt most of those would be considered reliable. That is the trouble with volunteer things like free software.... Any other suggestions towards finding reliable verifying sources? Comrade Graham (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Books :> One of the useful-looking books, "Game developer's open source handbook" unfortunately doesn't have a preview. Some of the other titles have verbose "Further reading" sections that detail sites like ludology.org. Marasmusine (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good suggestion. As good as the library system is in Alberta, I often overlook print sources as they are harder to access. Though I could not find that book on the Edmonton library website so the only way to learn if it has anything interesting to cite or even to add to the article would be to buy it, and I don't have money to do that. Oh well... Anyway, the whole article could use some more citations when it comes to history and the way it has unfolded. Ever since I wrote it I have been working on this, though as is evidenced from the stuff I have found it is easier to find articles on free games rather than free game development and its history. Still, I think, if you don't have any objections, I may post my new FreeGameDev sample after your next reply. It is, as has been established, no more controversial than the rest of the page. Comrade Graham (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the material reflects what has already been published in secondary sources. Did you manage to find a citation? By the way, have you considered writing about open source games at Wikia Gaming? At the moment they only have a short article which muddles the topic with free software in general. I feel your expertise is being restrained by the way WP filters information, but you can be as extensive and in-depth as you like at Wikia. Marasmusine (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might try writing at that Wikia. But for now, I think it is time to close this thing. I'll repost my sample and what anyone else does towards improving it is more than welcome, more citations and sources are especially welcome. The more the merrier. Well, farewell for now then. Comrade Graham (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this rev's addition of a Free Gamer paragraph. I have a problem with the sourcing. The Google Code directory entry is maintained by mclaud2000, so not third-party. The FSDaily link is neither reliable nor third-party. Neither the page hosted at Sourceforge, nor the Princess Interactive blog are a reliable publications. AllZone.info is a Wordpress blog; not reliable. Marasmusine (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources[edit]

First reference is broken[edit]

It's a fact: http://packages.debian.org/stable/games/All --Hienafant (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Open-source video game. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN Discussion of a source cited in this article[edit]

is here FYI. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Open-source_video_game&oldid=1204439156"