S&box is now an open source game engine
sbox.game
sbox.game
I really like all the cultural oddities that Garry's Mod spawned. All of the indie animation. It was a big piece of machinima / virtual filmmaking / YouTube history and absolutely paved the way for VTubing and Unreal Engine in film.
Any idea if Facepunch or Valve retain rights to "Skibidi Toilet"?
https://www.thegamer.com/skibidi-toilet-creator-legal-disput...
Finally there's another serious competitor to UE and Unity.
Non-text file editing is done in a 3d model or image editing app.
There are the rare engines with no editor to speak of -- where things are either done programmatically or other textual definitions -- but they're very very very few and far between.
The engine itself doesn't have a UI, but working with any major engine without using their editor is functionally impossible.
3D assets can be made in your 3d program of choice.
Skeletons and animations are also somewhat standard. Use whatever tool you prefer.
Textures are bound to 3d assets, and use plenty of 3rd party tools.
USD makes scenes interchangeable. Use or write tools to fit your needs.
compute shaders are also somewhat standard. Work them out in python until you're happy with them.
Thats alot of it, if you really hate all game engine UIs. But the UI was good enough for the developer of the engine so mabie it's good enough as is.
All forgotten in obscurity.
When making a game, people are usually not so much interested in the philosophy of their tools, but shipping things with it as soon as possible.
That means working as expected.
Realise that the people you are slinging mud at are actually busting their asses to provide game engines to the public some of them for free and with the source.
BG3 has F5 for quick save and F8 for quick restore. Like the old ways.
As for game engine, who cares how things look in-game? Just make it theme-able and mod-able. Cheaters gonna cheat anyway, no way to hold that back on the client-side.
So the projects you desire almost certainly do exist, but they're languishing in the obscurity they earned with their indifference to convention.
I don't think this is true. The first Source2 game "released" was Dota 2, and currently it's used for CS2 and Deadlock as well.
S&box was initially developed on top of Unreal Engine, but in a backend-agnostic design. It's more like a framework/runtime meant to be portable to any backend engine. Once Source 2 released, S&box was ported to that.
I wouldn't call it an engine because of that. S&box is open source, but you can't run it without a closed-source backend.
Valve isn't keen on releasing Source 2 as widely as Source, and I feel like soon, S&box will be declared the official API interface for the engine, while the backend remains unstable. Kinda like Win32 vs NT.
It was annoying after buying Rust to learn that you can't play on official servers on Linux. The game runs fine on Linux, the devs just don't allow it.
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/survival-crafting/rust-develop...
Apex Legends went through the same issue when they enabled Linux support, cheaters swarmed to Linux en-masse because it was so trivial to evade detection even with free/public cheats, and after a year or so the devs threw in the towel and blocked Linux again.
They're not doing this out of spite, they'd be happy to take your money if there were no downside, but unfortunately it is a trade-off for games which are sensitive to being ruined by cheaters. At least for now.
I don't think cheaters are swarming to Linux, but part of the issue with Apex Legends is that Linux support is done through Proton, through the Windows version of the game, because there no Linux version of Apex Legends. So now you've got a backdoor for everyone on Windows to run the less secure anticheat.
Solvable maybe by having a separate Linux version of the game, but that's also more supported needed.
As someone who would play on Linux then, it doesn't sound like a solution at all. The separate version would just be filled with cheaters then, would almost be like an punishment for Linux users.
That way you don't need a backdoor in the Windows version of the game for the weaker Linux anticheat that runs through Proton. You would just have a native Linux version of the game with native anticheat.
But EAC has a kernel driver and there's no real native way of doing that on Linux that's stable as Linux has no stable kernel API, and measured boot isn't widely adopted so a custom kernel can just lie to the anti-cheat module.
I really hope Valve work on this, whilst it would mean perhaps online play only run on SteamOS in an optional locked down mode, it's better than the status quo.
This is exactly the problem. Users connecting via Linux are more likely to be cheaters, since the anti-cheat is weaker on Linux, so in order to protect the user-base at large (Windows users), they don't allow Linux clients at all. Allow the less protected Linux clients to connect goes against the very change they did.
It was bad enough that we had to put up with nvidia's proprietary nonsense if we wanted hardware acceleration. Things have finally started to improve. They have finally started open sourcing things. Now that things are finally getting better this anticheat nonsense shows up. You gotta be kidding me.
Nobody needs a bunch of game companies feeling entitled to full access to our computers. You'd have to be nuts to let game companies run ring zero code on your system. You want their nonsense absolutely contained and isolated, not deep in your kernel.
Here's a thought: they don't own our computers, we do. We own the CPU. We own the RAM. We own the motherboard. If we want to edit their game's memory while its running, it's our god given right as the owners of the machine the game is running on. Any attempt to stop us from doing so is an affront to our freedom. The mere attempt to do so with "anticheating" kernel malware is offensive. The audacity.
Cheating at video games is an exercise in computer freedom. I realize I'm defending scoundrels here and it doesn't matter in the slightest. Our computing freedom is orders of magnitude more important than video games. I want them to suck it up and accept it. That is the price of freedom. If they want to be on Linux, it should be on our terms.
Don't care about this ideological stuff? Here's the sort of risk you're accepting when you opt into this bullshit:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/fs-labs-flight-simulator-pas...
Corporation thinks its the FBI and starts shipping a browser stealer to users to "catch pirates". Bonus points for exfiltrating the data on an unencrypted channel!
https://old.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/1cibw9r/valorant...
https://www.unknowncheats.me/forum/anti-cheat-bypass/634974-...
Screenshots your screen and exfiltrates it to their servers.
https://www.theregister.com/2016/09/23/capcom_street_fighter...
https://twitter.com/TheWack0lian/status/779397840762245124
https://fuzzysecurity.com/tutorials/28.html
https://github.com/FuzzySecurity/Capcom-Rootkit
A literal privilege escalation as a service "anticheat" driver!
Game companies give negative amounts of shit. If you trust them you're out of your mind.
Sacrificing freedom for security? I don't agree with it but I can at least understand where the impetus comes from. Sacrificing freedom for fun? For video games of all things? That's pretty disgusting and I want people to be better than that.
Accept this, and you also indirectly accept corporations regulating "your" computer's ability to copy, as well as governments regulating "your" computer's ability to encrypt.
> Sacrificing freedom for fun? For video games of all things? That's pretty disgusting and I want people to be better than that.
What is the point of freedom if you have a joyless existence?
> no one is making you install anti-cheat software
You don't see the irony here? You don't see the trillion dollar corporations dangling "joy" in front of us and conditioning access to it on acceptance of their bullshit non-negotiable take it or leave it contracts where "we own your computer now" is a clause?
The powerful choice is to reject the silly binary choice they offer you and take a third option. Refuse their deal and refuse your so called "joyless" existence.
Enjoy your games while also keeping control of your computer. If they try to usurp control of your computer, stop them from doing so. Only malware would try that, treat them accordingly. If you must associate with cheaters and pirates in order to acquire the necessary technology and know-how, then so be it.
It's the same thing with DRM, it's the same thing with ads, it's the same thing with pretty much everything. They give you some bullshit choices, but you can take a third option because you own the machine. That's the power they would take away from you.
But anti-cheat software is not doing this? You are free to do whatever you want on your computer as long as it doesn't interfere with the game process. Most, if not all, anti-cheats will also not do anything when the game isn't open.
Some games (including Rust) give you the choice to play with no anti-cheat, too. You'll only be able to play on servers that allow players to join with no anti-cheat but you are not blocked from the game.
I would be more worried about computing becoming more phone-centric where Apple and Google are in control of what you can and cannot do.
You are not free. "Your" computer is not actually yours. It doesn't do what you want.
> Most, if not all, anti-cheats will also not do anything when the game isn't open.
Stop believing this. For god's sake I just posted an example of a corporation that thought it was perfectly justified in hacking their customers and stealing their browser passwords. There is no line they wouldn't cross.
They could be doing literally anything and you know it. There's no way for you to know unless you reverse engineer the software, and if you try they are only too happy to label you a cheater and permaban your account or whatever it is that they do.
> I would be more worried about computing becoming more phone-centric where Apple and Google are in control of what you can and cannot do.
This is the exact same issue.
Apple, Google, Disney, Netflix, Hollywood, the games industry, the copyright industry, all the governments the world over are all battling for control over our machines.
This anticheating nonsense is just the tutorial boss.
Literally anything you run on your computer (running Windows) can take screenshots of your desktop, pull passwords saved in your browser, etc. without running in kernel mode. Even applications that aren't running as Administrator.
Knowing and accepting these risks is a big reason why we run Linux with free and open source software sourced from trusted software repositories.
We put effort into this because we want to control everything that happens on our machines, so that we are not affected by stupid nonsense like that.
Recall what I said in my original comment:
> You want their nonsense absolutely contained and isolated, not deep in your kernel.
We don't want unknown uncontrollable proprietary idiocy running on our computers, least of all in kernel mode.
Ideally that stuff would not even exist to begin with, but since it does we move on to the next best thing: containing and isolating it to the fullest extent. The ideal setup is a VFIO configuration where the host is a Linux system where we have full control and the virtual machine is fully isolated and controlled.
As such we really don't need idiotic "anticheat" software taking issue with perfectly good technologies like virtual machines and hypervisors. Cheaters are using this stuff? I don't care. Just accept it.
What a strange hill to want to die on.
It doesn't matter what's written in their silly EULAs which nobody reads. I couldn't care less if it ruins the games or costs them billions in profits. You are morally justified in defeating their silly anticheat nonsense in order to enjoy games on your terms without them pwning your computer. You are only morally wrong if you actually cheat.
And it's not at all some "strange hill to die on". This is a fundamental computing freedom issue. It's about who owns the keys to the machine. It's the exact same issue Android users face when they install GrapheneOS only to discover their bank doesn't support it just because it's not owned by Google. In my opinion this should be literally illegal.
More on topic, I agree that you should be allowed to do with your computer what you want. That includes defeating their anti-cheat measures. Your computer, your rules. In return, they can refuse to support you or ban them from their servers. Their stuff, their rules.
But this idea that you are entitled to tell them they have to provide you with a version that does not have their anti-cheat measures, that is pretty far out there. That is where most people will stop following your reasoning.
YMMV.
If I come off as aggressive, it's only because of my exasperation due to people sacrificing freedom for video games of all things. Online games that will be dead after a couple years. What a colossal waste.
Anyway, I'm no politician. I'm actually very close to giving up on these so called "causes", precisely because people refuse to listen. There's no point. Being polite doesn't make them listen. Nobody listened to Stallman. Threaten their convenience, their fun and games, and they're gone.
If they won't listen, then they deserve the consequences. One day all the corporations and authorities will start turning the screws on them. Only then will they start caring about this stuff. Nobody will listen to them either.
> But this idea that you are entitled to tell them they have to provide you with a version that does not have their anti-cheat measures, that is pretty far out there.
No.
https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero. You could have zero fraud by ramping up the requirements before you trust someone enough to transact with them. That will result in very few purchases though. Decreases profits. So what they do is they let it happen and eat the costs. Fraud isn't a crime, it's an expense. Accounted for.
The optimal amount of crime is non-zero. You could virtually eliminate crime by implementing an orwellian dystopia where everybody is surveilled at all times. Nobody actually wants to endure such a subhuman existence though, so we're forced to accept the risk of crime. Tolerating some amount of crime is the price of our basic human dignity.
Same logic generalizes to online games. The optimal amount of cheating is non-zero. They could eliminate it by taking the computer away from us. That's an affront to our dignity as the owners of the machines. So we have to tolerate some cheating in order to keep our dignity.
These considerations are accounted for in society as a whole. It's no different here.
Something has to change to move away from these rootkit antivirus like apps looking for exploits.
This has been the winning move for about a decade now.
That is the main problem here. If you only give players the data they can see (zero trust) - then they will walk around a corner and just see a black screen, because the information is not there yet (server needs to calculate and send back info in time).
My approach would be rather better moderation tools.
Meaning .. community run servers, who will just kick and ban cheaters in time.
One can see that clearly in battlefield for example which has (sort of) both.
The public servers are often not enjoyable, if one does not like headshots across the map. The community run are clean.
The native Linux build never worked that well. Something was always broken because Unity's Linux support is/was spotty. Upgrading Unity versions would break random things.
Anticheat is the issue holding back Proton support, though.
It just seemed like a public diary. And a place to vent about dev,life,w/e. He seems to be unapologetic-ally himself.
Although I was pretty sure there used to be more posts (although maybe I'm conflating his posts there with his contributions to his old forums.)
I would caution Facepunch though that what made their past games a success wasn't perfection. In the case of Gmod I would actually say imperfection was the charm.
>Obviously this isn't the Source 2 code, that's up to Valve to open source if they want.
Does this mean you need Source 2 to develop with S&box?
Maybe I'm wrong, but S&box is essentially a game developed with Source 2, thats purpose is to expose internal APIs and wrap them for users to build their own games with. So you develop your thing in S&box that happens to be made with Source 2, but you don't care about that. Basically Roblox.
The game reminds me of sitting down at a poker table in a casino. It's very unforgiving - you grind, invest a lot of time, and make calculated bets as to whether you can win or lose a raid, but you can instantly lose everything in a failed raid.
I wish someone would make a browser-based version that was fun to play, and I've thought about it for some time, but the struggle is scoping an MVP that is as compelling given the constraints (eg a 2d or top-down version makes it harder to do things like build multi-story buildings and raid them).
All of their games (Dota 2, CS, and the other ones they hardly maintain anymore) are basically just passion projects at this point, lingering on from a bygone age when they were a game development company.
Their most recent title, Half-Life: Alyx, probably only got greenlit because someone internally was able to convince leadership that it would help sell VR headsets.
In any case, my point was not that these games make no money, but simply that Valve doesn't need them. The total number of people buying games on Steam vastly dwarfs the number of people who play Dota 2 and CS2 (even just counting total players - how much more when you narrow down to players who spend money).
The most obvious aspect to that is that Source 2 doesn't support consoles. Valve don't need it, so they didn't implement it.
Valve has a long history of supporting the modding community and outside users of Source, not sure where you're getting your information from but I don't think they've worked with the Source engine before. One of the biggest and most popular mods of all time was built on Source, and took the world by storm, with pretty big support by Valve through the years as well. Eventually they even bought the whole IP.
Even when they were more open with their tech it was on the basis of "you can play with the tools we used to make Half Life and if your idea is sufficiently Half Life shaped then it will probably work", not trying to be a general purpose toolkit a la Unity.
Well they do have Steam Audio but yeah I agree. I think Epic is much better in this space, even though its only source available in practice they do a lot to support engine modifications and also accept external PRs. I think Valve has a lot to gain from open sourcing Source 2 and they should realize how important modding was to their initial success. The issue is now they can just print money with Steam so there is no need to invest in modding support.
They don't need to. S&box uses a fork of Source 2 that is maintained by Facepunch, with Valve's upstream changes merged in as needed.
My point is, if I were Valve id let Garry run wild with my engine--no deal needed. Hes proven himself more than once. Just a thought!
https://sbox.game/dev/doc/systems/game-exporting/ (bottom of page)
> You can export your game, but you shouldn't distribute your exported game just yet.
That doesn't sound good, maybe they realized after the fact that they haven't actually worked things out with Valve?
Log.Error( "Fucked" );
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/is-code-that-contain...
Except all third party components that are included in the source, maintain their own license.
If you follow the "leaks" space a bit, you'll know that they are working on some kind of new game, and that new engine features that end up in deadlock for example are developed because of this project.
I’m interested in how they’re sandboxing C# code. Seems like an engineering problem full of pitfalls. I’ll definitely be peeking at this!
Maybe competing with other engines, but it's hard to know how good enough this will be.
The age of mods is over, we're in the age of engines now, I don't think they will catch up.
Valve is not a game company anymore, they out source everything.
Interesting take when they have (at least) one upcoming game and two released games in development.
Probably has the same resources as Facepunch, but nowhere near the following or players.
What does monetization look like? Can you ship standalone games? Source 2 licensing requirements? Is this closer to Unity or closer to Roblox when it comes to publishing?
So I'm not certain why S&box is Windows only, but my guess is that's just temporary.
that cute snide comment won't somehow ensure that all of your community discussion isn't lost to discord-rot in a few short years.
keep your fate in your own hands..
(unless you just don't care)
Oh. It's a modding sdk.