Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Devil Whiskey to Bring Back RPG Gaming

Posted by Zonk on from the rpgs-for-for-the-crotchety dept.

jSpectre writes "Remember how much you loved The Bard's Tale? Or maybe you're looking for something a little different than the current crop of RPG games? Then check out Devil Whiskey for both Linux and Windows. The developer also promises to release the source after some of the development costs have been recovered! O'Reilly has an article discussing development of the game as well."

25 comments

  1. 50,000? by steesefactor · · Score: 1

    They're only going to release the source after they sell 50,000 copies. As crappy as their website is, good luck.

    1. Re:50,000? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot poland!

    2. Re:50,000? by ImaNumber · · Score: 1

      The game isn't great either. Not to mention old. I bought this game many months ago. I stopped playing because their linux support sucked and I was tired of their fixes changing where stuff was located in the game. It could have been cool, but the game just isn't.

  2. I could've sworn it was October.... by StandSure · · Score: 1

    The game was fully released in July. This is news because....?

  3. This is news, now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    (anon 'cos I forgot my password, damnit)

    I bought and downloaded Devil Whiskey last December the day of the release, and even had a dozen of the first bugs submitted. It was fun for a few weeks and really was good ol' fashioned Bard's Tale style gaming, but c'mon, Slashdot, that was NINE MONTHS AGO that they announced their intention to give away the source.

  4. Dupe? by codexus · · Score: 1

    And this is not the first time there is a slashdot story about it.

    --
    True warriors use the Klingon Google
  5. Ransomware... by dmayle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First we had shareware, then we had freeware, now we have ransomware...

    I'm not sure that I'm so happy with the recent trend in software development. The whole idea of ransomware is a bit, shall we say, reprehensible. I'm happy for all of the projects that have finally made it to open source, but there are many more that were abandoned, and could have become something if people hadn't just gotten tired and gave up.

    We all know (or should know), that the GPL isn't a philosophy, it's a contract. But it comes from an idea. That which says that pooling our work in software development is better for all of us, including myself when I write something to release, or you when I use something of yours.

    There are many companies who are trying to find the "loopholes" in the GPL. It's companies who try to find ways to hamper the use of their code to make it more worthwhile to purchase their product. Some companies to it to greater or lesser degrees. Like the guys who publish the WineX CVS sources, but threaten to shut it down if anyone tries to make it easy to build from there. (Shut down Gentoo project, anyone?)

    But the ransomware idea is step below even them, as they won't even go that far, instead demanding payment before giving back. If you're going to do that, you might as well go closed source, because trying to cash in on our good will is just that, trying to cash in.

    If you really believe what you say, and want to put it out, and want the good will of the open source community, put the code up in escrow, such that if you stop updating frequently, it will go open source as well, then I will gladly help you along with the ransomware thing. (And this is meant directly for the Devil Whiskey developer. If you escrow your code, I'll put up and pay the $25 for your software, even though I have no intention of actually playing.) Until then, it's just extortion...

    And for those who wonder how I can be self righteous, I'm a software developer, and yes, I've released the source to one software project so far, and it was TPOP, a Tivo email client, which I had to drop development of when I sold my Tivo to move to France. I'm constantly starting little projects at home, and the next one that I code to more than just a skeleton phase will get open sourced as well..

    (I'm currently working on a webmail system inspired by both GMail and CSS ZenGarden, I'm really hoping this one gets off the ground).

    1. Re:Ransomware... by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      See, I look at it this way... Suppose that it was Blizzard who said, ok if we sell 1 million copies of World of StarDiablo 9 at $50, we will release the code to the game under the GPL. If that hapened, everyone would go apeshit crazy about how great Blizzard was, etc etc, even though they just did some math that says, "hey if we make $25 million (their cut of the $50m in sales), we will have made a tidy profit, and they we can stop supporting this game, thereby saving us $5m over the next 5 years!" But it's not Blizzard, it's some little independant shop, so instead of being "wow, that's a great show of support for the community", it's "ransomware".

      So, this small game developer is trying to do a couple things, makes some cash (ppl gotta eat!) and also give back to the community. The source for his game could very well turn into the basis for alot of great opensource games, something the community is lacking. If this were, say, an office suite, it'd be stupid, since that's area already pretty well filled with alternatives, but the OSS game scene is, imo, lacking, and I think that any way we can spur some development is a Good Thing (tm).

    2. Re:Ransomware... by Hast · · Score: 1

      It may be a better idea to release the source for free but not the data. (Or perhaps have demo data and then sell data for the complete game.)

      From what I've seen of the game on their WWW and on the ArsTechnica forum I got the impression that this game could use some OSS additions. (No mouse support and strange keyboard layout eg.)

    3. Re:Ransomware... by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you make a game you can sell it that way. My point is that they have produced a game that is (apparantly, I haven't played it) worth paying for, and they are offering to give the source code away after they recoup what they feel is fair compensation for their work. That's better than most games.

    4. Re:Ransomware... by Hast · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course they are free to sell the game which-ever way they want. My point is that that if you want to draw benefits from having an OSS game than it seems that giving away the code and selling the data is an idea that makes it possible to do both.

      Now you have the case where many people may try the demo and conclude that it is lacking in some ways (in the interface) and thus not buy it. If some of those could alter the game and make it more enjoyable/playable then it would seem like a benefit for the producers to use that.

      The biggest development in the last years as far as games are concerned is IMHO modding. Modding has provided a lot of garage groups the possibility to make what they want and at the same time the companies behind the games can sell them for a longer time.

    5. Re:Ransomware... by Vampyre_Dark · · Score: 0

      (And this is meant directly for the Devil Whiskey developer. If you escrow your code, I'll put up and pay the $25 for your software, even though I have no intention of actually playing.) Until then, it's just extortion...

      Bullshit. Why is it that everyone who gives their software for free expects everyone else to give it away for free too? Is no one allowed to make money of their work in the eyes of you open source fanatics? And just how is this a loophole in the GPL? As stated, you have zero intertest in the game itself, you just want to spread your OSS proproganda.What's good for you must be good for everyone huh?

      *I'm not knocking Open Source or the GPL

    6. Re:Ransomware... by digitalgiblet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think the game (and software in general) industry has striking parallels to the drug (legal kind) industry.

      In both cases you have products that are prohibitively expensive to bring to the point of production and sales. Automobiles, for instance, I would imagine are the other way around. The parts and labor to produce automobiles account for the bulk of the manufacturer's cost for an individual vehicle. For drugs and software the vast bulk of the cost is design and development.

      Right or wrong the legal philiosophy in the US is that since we all benefit from new drugs AND developing new drugs is expensive, the company who develops the new drug should have the right to be the exclusive producer of that drug for a specified period of time. In other words, no generics until the developer has recouped the development costs. After that period of time it becomes legal for anyone to make a generic version of the drug (but they do NOT gain the right to use the trademarked name).

      The reasoning is that without this protection the drug companies would not spend the money to develop new drugs, but would concentrate solely on producing existing drugs as inexpensively as possible.

      Please note that I am neither for nor against this model, I am simply describing it.

      The makers of Devil Whiskey are attempting a business model that approximates the US drug indsutry model: the developer has exclusive rights to the code until a condition is met at which time they open the source. At that time anyone can produce a version of the game.

      Their inspiration is clearly iD who has released the source to a number of games (Doom, Quake) after the technology used was sufficiently out of date that it was unlikely anyone could produce something from it that would detract from sales of their current products.

      Whether or not this is the perfect system, I have to give the developers credit for trying to resolve the following logic problem:

      1. It is difficult and expensive to create a computer game that can compete in the current games market
      2. There is benefit to releasing source code
      3. Fewer people are likely to pay for a game for which the source can be downloaded and compiled.
      4. If you open the source, you might find someone else making more money from your work than you are.
      A game that is the equivalent of Doom3 is very unlikely to arrise from the OS community because the number of person-hours required to produce it can only be divided among a finite number of people. The power of OS is that a greater number of people can potentially be recruited to divide those hours, but their are a few very LARGE "chunks" of hours that must essentially be done by a very small number of people. Think John Carmack creating the numerous game engines he has produced. Could those engines have been effectively done by a group? Maybe, but how about a group working part time? If they could produce it, how long would it take?

      Dedicated teams who eat, breathe and don't sleep the game development during the "crunch time" that can last months or even years have trouble getting to market before their "cutting edge technology" becomes "formerly cutting edge technology"...

      Can't say this model will work, but kudos to the developers for trying SOMETHING.

    7. Re:Ransomware... by dulsi · · Score: 1

      I disagree with calling our software ransomware. The game can be enjoyed without the source code. I personally would have prefered not to annouce when we would release the source code but the rest of the group felt it was important to state.

      Although I'd love for the project to do well, I'd prefer you buy the game because you want to play it. I'll mention the escrow idea to the team.

      I will do my best to get the source release should it no longer remain a viable product.

    8. Re:Ransomware... by Pandora's+Vox · · Score: 1

      As soon as I can get the demo working (SDL parachute huh?) I'm buying your game. As a big fan of old-school adventure gaming, I'm very big on the idea of escrowing the code. I wish you guys the best, but who's to say where any of us will be 10 years down the road. I think it will create an enormous level of goodwill in the community and a further incentive for those of us who want to a) play the game and b) someday see the project do well.

      Just my $0.016 worth.

      -Leigh

  6. Suspension of disbelief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From http://www.devilwhiskey.com/pages/classes.html:

    Ranger: The Ranger is the master bowman, guardian of nature and often a partner with an Elementalist. Their knowledge of creature critical weaknesses makes them the most efficient killers of any class, though they take a slower and more careful approach to learning this art. This art is for the good of nature and animals, as Rangers are reputed to be able to speak with the creatures big and small and can even ask them to do their bidding. At higher levels, the Ranger becomes adept at making "something out of nothing", a survival skill passed on to them by one of the best wilderness spies ever; MacGyvar. Though they are called many things in their career, including Beast master, Hunter and Druid, we have come to know them as Rangers.

    Way to go, guys! I hope the in-game storytelling is better than the promotional write-ups and documentation.

    1. Re:Suspension of disbelief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you can do better why not help them out vs. trashing them?

    2. Re:Suspension of disbelief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not trashing them. But then I don't really seek to help them either.

      I'm just pointing out something that breaks the suspension of disbelief. After all, people play Western RPGs because of the escapist factor. When game designers do stuff like mention freakin' "MacGyvar" (MacGyver) in a medieval setting, it spoils a bit of the atmosphere.

      I hate it when game makers do that. Just do a web search for "Fred Askare" or "Paula Abghoul." It's not always so bad (like Biggs (Vicks) & Wedge in FF), but it's normally just a bad idea.

    3. Re:Suspension of disbelief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because helping failure is anti-Darwinian.

  7. Cannot read site... by temojen · · Score: 1

    My browser does not have a "Gamma" adjustment.

  8. philosophy never paid my bills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like somebody who got his GNU Wheaties pissed into. Stop drinking the RMS kool-aid man.

  9. yes, thats nice... but what about... by zonker · · Score: 0

    kingdom of loathing, saviors of rpg gaming!? ;p

    --

    Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away

  10. A little different? by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Remember how much you loved The Bard's Tale?

    I did. I just think it would kind-of suck to play it nowadays.

    Or maybe you're looking for something a little different than the current crop of RPG games? Then check out Devil Whiskey for both Linux and Windows.

    Look at screenshots. Medieval city. Check. Knight. Check. Orc. Check. Elf. Check. Big sword. Check.

    How is that a little different from the current crop of RPGs? I would really like game developers of RPGs to step beyond the world of Fantasy. Please!

    (KotOR was a good start. Now step away from Fantasy AND Science Fiction, please.)

    1. Re:A little different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now step away from Fantasy AND Science Fiction, please.

      So, basically, you're looking for The Sims?

  11. Bringing RPG back? by arhar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think they ever went away, really. Actually there was a period in the mid-90's, I think 1995, when mainstream gaming media was loudly asking 'Is this the death of RPGs as we know it?!'. But then Diablo came out, even though it wasn't really an RPG, it still brought back the interest in the genre. And since Might and Magic 6 came out, every year there's been a quality RPG (best ones always coming from Bioware/Black Isle) and the genre is, in some sense, I think even stronger than the golden years (late '80's - early 90's)