Electronic Arts appears to be doing its best to please longtime fans of the Command & Conquer series with two major announcements they've just made. First of all, mod support has been confirmed for the Command & Conquer Remastered Collection. That isn't all, though, as they also plan to fully release TiberianDawn.dll and RedAlert.dll alongside all of their corresponding source code, for players to have fun with, and for use in creating those previously mentioned mods. According to the press release, the open sourcing of the game's code will allow fans to create new maps, custom units, replace art, or even change certain gameplay elements. To assist in making the most of those assets, a map editor will also be made available with the launch of the Remastered Collection.

Today we are proud to announce that alongside the launch of the Remastered Collection, Electronic Arts will be releasing the TiberianDawn.dll and RedAlert.dll and their corresponding source code under the GPL version 3.0 license. This is a key moment for Electronic Arts, the C&C community, and the gaming industry, as we believe this will be one of the first major RTS franchises to open source their source code under the GPL. It’s worth noting this initiative is the direct result of a collaboration between some of the community council members and our teams at EA. After discussing with the council members, we made the decision to go with the GPL license to ensure compatibility with projects like CnCNet and Open RA. Our goal was to deliver the source code in a way that would be truly beneficial for the community, and we hope this will enable amazing community projects for years to come.

The source code will be released under the GPL 3.0 license, meaning it'll still be compatible with community projects such as CnCNet, a method of playing the games online, and Open RA. However, one promised feature won't be making it into the game for launch: LAN Play. The development team wasn't able to get the feature working in time for the launch of the game due to COVID-19, but is still planned for release in a future patch.

Mod support will be available for both PC players on Steam or Origin, with the former utilizing Steam Workshop, and the latter requiring manual addition of modpacks. Command & Conquer Remastered Collection will launch on June 5th for $19.99.

Source

 

[Xzi]

They have been forced back on to Steam?

Well, "forced" in the sense that they knew they were losing money by not selling on Steam. And yeah, they're in the process of transferring their catalog over now, Jedi Fallen Order was the first new simultaneous release.

 

[The Catboy]

EA making these games open source and under the GPL3?

 

[Pokemon_Tea_Sea_Jee]

Well, "forced" in the sense that they knew they were losing money by not selling on Steam. And yeah, they're in the process of transferring their catalog over now, Jedi Fallen Order was the first new simultaneous release.

They should have stayed out of Steam. Valve needs more real competition than Epic.

Epic is good but it is one. More than one competitor is needed.

Valve's monopoly is not good for us, the players. Even if they seem like cool people.

 

[Xzi]

They should have stayed out of Steam. Valve needs more real competition than Epic.

Epic is good but it is one. More than one competitor is needed.

Valve's monopoly is not good for us, the players. Even if they seem like cool people.

Aside from first-party titles, storefront exclusivity is completely moronic and unnecessary. At least half the reason people were willing to accept digital distribution in the first place was having all your games in one place.

Valve has never had a monopoly, and GOG is a much better alternative to Steam than EGS. Valve is also the only big player in PC gaming which isn't publicly traded, giving them much more stability and autonomy than the competition. OTOH Tencent owns a 40% stake in Epic, which they are free to turn into majority ownership at any time. If/when that happens, you can wave goodbye to any and all security for your personal data on EGS.

Bit of a tangent there, but the point I'm trying to get around to is that true competition means giving customers MORE buying options, not fewer. Third-party exclusivity is anti-competitive, and reeks of desperation.

 

[FAST6191]

Aside from first-party titles, storefront exclusivity is completely moronic and unnecessary. At least half the reason people were willing to accept digital distribution in the first place was having all your games in one place.

Valve has never had a monopoly, and GOG is a much better alternative to Steam than EGS. Valve is also the only big player in PC gaming which isn't publicly traded, giving them much more stability and autonomy than the competition. OTOH Tencent owns a 40% stake in Epic, which they are free to turn into majority ownership at any time. If that happens, you can wave goodbye to any and all personal data security on EGS.

Has any distribution arm not been fractured eventually? In a bid to drive up sales someone is going to try to make some content available solely, or at least a far better bet, through them at some point -- content is king and all that, and better prices are nice but far from the only move.

Why do first party titles get an exception in this? If Epic dump a bunch of money into development and in essence become a publisher do things not count here?

What does it matter if I can instead keep my games in my email and fish it out of there to launch them via the nice OS start button? Why would I want a proprietary service managing it?

Valve might not have a monopoly in the strictest of senses but they have incredibly large amounts of clout within the space. If they diss a game (and they have had some incredibly dubious calls, and even more dubious rules) that game's profits generally tank as a result. They are generally seen to cost a fortune that you in turn almost have to pay despite no great technical reason to do so. They are spearheaded the no reselling games thing and have long maintained it a bad practice. A dev choosing not to go on Steam or not get on Steam is considered a bold and possibly foolhardy move, one attempted only by the strongest of games (usually big first party efforts).
To that end do I imagine the monopolies and mergers commission or a local equivalent coming for them any time soon? Probably not. Is the colloquial definition of the term acceptable here? I fail to see why it would not be. Equally at this point Steam need something big to get rid of their stranglehold.

 

[dAVID_]

I can't believe EA of all companies released one of their games as free software.

 

[FAST6191]

I can't believe EA of all companies released one of their games as free software.

It probably isn't free software.
It is more that the code is available to use. Normally in these scenarios any artwork, levels, music and the like is still under copyright. They have not said as much yet but if they took the time to mention only the DLL files and exe code then it is a safe bet that will be happening here as well.

This is more so people can port it to whatever devices, consoles and operating systems they like, possibly update it in the case of operating systems messing up, make some mods to make the game shinier or work with modern network options.... while a good chunk will probably download the assets in a nice zip file and extract them accordingly there will be others that fish it out of a download offered from either EA themselves or one of the game download services.

 

[dAVID_]

It probably isn't free software.
It is more that the code is available to use. Normally in these scenarios any artwork, levels, music and the like is still under copyright. They have not said as much yet but if they took the time to mention only the DLL files and exe code then it is a safe bet that will be happening here as well.

This is more so people can port it to whatever devices, consoles and operating systems they like, possibly update it in the case of operating systems messing up, make some mods to make the game shinier or work with modern network options.... while a good chunk will probably download the assets in a nice zip file and extract them accordingly there will be others that fish it out of a download offered from either EA themselves or one of the game download services.

So the source code will be released under GPLv3, but not the assets?

 

[FAST6191]

So the source code will be released under GPLv3, but not the assets?

It is the usual way these things go with the big companies*, and with them specifically mentioning the code and dll files as being the targets of this I am going to assume that the assets are not coming along too else they would have mentioned that.

Also, assuming you want to release your art for free, you tend not to release art under GPL as such a thing is geared more towards software. I don't know what they are suggesting as a compatible comparable option these days; we usually see something in the creative commons world - https://creativecommons.org/use-remix/cc-licenses/ but there are other choices (and some things might be incompatible, especially if you pick one of the other popular open source licences that have a different set of freedoms/restrictions for your software https://choosealicense.com/ , https://opensource.org/licenses ). To that end you will have to go looking on that side of things.

*normally it is only the small indie games from more recent times, old indie stuff, games that might have been big but no big company today owns them or cares about them, or decades old DOS era stuff that ever goes completely "code, art and all" GPL or similar. Most of the big companies will throw up an old version of the game in dosbox on Steam, GOG, their website... and allow you to copy-paste files from them. Sometimes they have other reasons too like the musical composers might still be owed something.

See also why in most versions of open source doom or quake or whatever you might have seen would have got you to provide the WADs and whatnot yourself.

 

[Xzi]

Why do first party titles get an exception in this? If Epic dump a bunch of money into development and in essence become a publisher do things not count here?

I mean, if I had my way, there'd be no exclusivity whatsoever, but I'm trying to be somewhat realistic about this. First-party exclusivity has always been a part of the console landscape, so I'm fine with extending that same courtesy to various PC storefronts. Valve dumps a bunch of money into helping indie developers all the time without the requirement that their game(s) be exclusive to Steam, so Epic should have no issue doing the same. Assuming they believe they can actually compete head-to-head, anyway.

What does it matter if I can instead keep my games in my email and fish it out of there to launch them via the nice OS start button? Why would I want a proprietary service managing it?

I don't know if you were much into PC gaming in the late 90s/early 00s, but absolutely nothing was universal across titles. Having a large set of features that you could always count on being there regardless of which game you're playing was revolutionary at the time. Even just the built-in friends list and PM system was extraordinarily convenient at a time when stuff like AIM still had a large user base.

Valve might not have a monopoly in the strictest of senses but they have incredibly large amounts of clout within the space. If they diss a game (and they have had some incredibly dubious calls, and even more dubious rules) that game's profits generally tank as a result.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Maybe at one point Valve's curation was too strict, but for years now I've only ever heard complaints that the opposite is true. EGS certainly has the stricter curation among the two platforms now, and they still somehow let garbage like Rune 2 through.

They are spearheaded the no reselling games thing and have long maintained it a bad practice.

Digital distribution is largely incompatible with resale, otherwise we would've seen somebody attempt it already, at least in the music or movie industry if not in gaming. If you want to talk competition, this is certainly an area in which EGS could've pulled the rug out from under Steam, but chose not to.

A dev choosing not to go on Steam or not get on Steam is considered a bold and possibly foolhardy move, one attempted only by the strongest of games (usually big first party efforts).

A dev choosing not to make their games available to the widest possible audience is always a foolhardy move. Exclusivity money in the short-term will always be dwarfed by profits from building customer loyalty and good will in the long term.

To that end do I imagine the monopolies and mergers commission or a local equivalent coming for them any time soon? Probably not. Is the colloquial definition of the term acceptable here? I fail to see why it would not be.

Even with EA re-joining Steam, I still count at least five other storefronts individually competing with it. And at least two among those have corporations with more money than Valve backing them. If Steam has any monopoly whatsoever, it's only a monopoly on the most useful feature set and/or the most frequent updates to the platform.

Equally at this point Steam need something big to get rid of their stranglehold.

Honestly I don't know what that something could be at this point, what with Steam having a twenty-year head start on adding features and updates. If Epic hadn't wasted over a decade poo-pooing PC gaming and whining about piracy, perhaps EGS wouldn't be so lacking by comparison now. Then again, as I said before, GOG/CD Projekt Red are probably better positioned to compete with Steam/Valve in terms of both quality and quantity, so there's that at least.

 

[FAST6191]

I mean, if I had my way, there'd be no exclusivity whatsoever, but I'm trying to be somewhat realistic about this. First-party exclusivity has always been a part of the console landscape, so I'm fine with extending that same courtesy to various PC storefronts. Valve dumps a bunch of money into helping indie developers all the time without the requirement that their game(s) be exclusive to Steam, so Epic should have no issue doing the same. Assuming they believe they can actually compete head-to-head, anyway.


I don't know if you were much into PC gaming in the late 90s/early 00s, but absolutely nothing was universal across titles. Having a large set of features that you could always count on being there regardless of which game you're playing was revolutionary at the time. Even just the built-in friends list and PM system was extraordinarily convenient at a time when stuff like AIM still had a large user base.


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Maybe at one point Valve's curation was too strict, but for years now I've only ever heard complaints that the opposite is true. EGS certainly has the stricter curation among the two platforms now, and they still somehow let garbage like Rune 2 through.


Digital distribution is largely incompatible with resale, otherwise we would've seen somebody attempt it already, at least in the music or movie industry if not in gaming. If you want to talk competition, this is certainly an area which EGS could've pulled the rug out from under Steam, but chose not to.


A dev choosing not to make their games available to the widest possible audience is always a foolhardy move. Exclusivity money in the short-term will always be dwarfed by profits from building customer loyalty and good will in the long term.


Even with EA re-joining Steam, I still count at least five other storefronts individually competing with it. And at least two among those have corporations with more money than Valve backing them. If Steam has any monopoly whatsoever, it's only a monopoly on the most useful feature set and/or the most frequent updates to the platform.


Honestly I don't know what that something could be at this point, what with Steam having a twenty-year head start on adding features and updates. If Epic hadn't wasted over a decade poo-pooing PC gaming and whining about piracy, perhaps EGS wouldn't be so lacking by comparison now. Then again, as I said before, GOG/CD Projekt Red are probably better positioned to compete with Steam/Valve in terms of both quality and quantity, so there's that at least.

Game resale and downloadable games is not incompatible in the slightest, indeed it is trivial for such a service to allow it (they already support gifting and whatnot, noting a key is used and thus not available for sharing is then an extra step). Purely lawyers and greedy bastards (be they devs, pubs or otherwise) that want all the control that stop it from happening. Epic are just as much bastards for not allowing it/playing into it.

Equally why compete "evenly" when you are trying to grow? Push hard, dump money into advertising and content, and once you have beaten them you can possibly back off and compete in other less expensive ways.

Exclusivity in the console space means I buy another console (or miss out), exclusivity in the PC space means I make a new login somewhere else. It is not the same.

Valve has the high ground and the clout. They don't need to enforce a contract if the thing is effectively unspoken.

On Valve's curation being too loose are you referring to that utter nonsense the ADL put out a little while back? Or just that the new games page has too much shovelware?

I am going to disagree on the "will always be dwarfed" part. With typical profit curves I can well see exclusivity not holding things back if they can break up the Steam cult.

Right now I create infinite storefronts with my storefront generator (email me with the storefront number and I will email back with a game and a bill/offer). Is Steam concerned despite being infinitely outcompeted? I very much doubt it. They are still a monopoly for most intents and purposes. Same applies to there being a bunch of other small fry shops.

I also maintain the only features and updates* really needed for a game shop are the ability to select it, pay my money and press download. Everything else is usually an easily replicated bonus, or an option better replicated elsewhere. Integration of features matters if you are a word processor, shop can happily get by just being a shop.

*though I will note software has time and time again had a lumbering giant felled by an agile upstart.

 

[Xzi]

Equally why compete "evenly" when you are trying to grow?

Because otherwise it's as good as admitting to the customer that you can't compete at all, thus they won't take your platform seriously, and you just end up with millions of accounts that only have free games redeemed on them.

Exclusivity in the console space means I buy another console (or miss out), exclusivity in the PC space means I make a new login somewhere else. It is not the same.

It is different in terms of having to buy the hardware, granted, but it's not any different in terms of losing out on features, convenience, and/or security.

Valve has the high ground and the clout. They don't need to enforce a contract if the thing is effectively unspoken.

Unsubstantiated nonsense. They don't enforce any kind of contracts, unspoken or not. If they really like a developer, they buy them out or bring them in-house, as was the case with Portal and Left4Dead.

On Valve's curation being too loose are you referring to that utter nonsense the ADL put out a little while back? Or just that the new games page has too much shovelware?

Just that people suggest Steam has too much shovelware. Anything short of obvious asset flips is easy enough to get approved for sale on Steam with the policies they implemented a couple years ago.

With typical profit curves I can well see exclusivity not holding things back if they can break up the Steam cult.

As long as EGS continues to employ third-party exclusivity in place of meaningful updates to the platform, that will always hold it back. In general, Steam users have backlogs more than large enough to hold them over until exclusivity deals expire.

Is Steam concerned despite being infinitely outcompeted? I very much doubt it. They are still a monopoly for most intents and purposes. Same applies to there being a bunch of other small fry shops.

Is concern the primary factor in what defines a monopoly? No. And I'd hardly consider Microsoft, CD Projekt Red (now the biggest and wealthiest developer in Europe), and Epic to be "small fries."

I also maintain the only features and updates* really needed for a game shop are the ability to select it, pay my money and press download. Everything else is usually an easily replicated bonus, or an option better replicated elsewhere. Integration of features matters if you are a word processor, shop can happily get by just being a shop.

Yes, you've made it clear previously that you're quite easy to satisfy. I'm just glad most PC gamers are a little more discerning, otherwise we never would've gotten past the point of using AOL to buy and launch games.

 

[loler55]

14 Days .... i need to play it now!!!! cant wait for the greatest game rerelease


i only say:
reinforcement has arrived

 

[FAST6191]

Because otherwise it's as good as admitting to the customer that you can't compete at all, thus they won't take your platform seriously, and you just end up with millions of accounts that only have free games redeemed on them.


It is different in terms of having to buy the hardware, granted, but it's not any different in terms of losing out on features, convenience, and/or security.


Unsubstantiated nonsense. They don't enforce any kind of contracts, unspoken or not. If they really like a developer, they buy them out or bring them in-house, as was the case with Portal and Left4Dead.


Just that people suggest Steam has too much shovelware. Anything short of obvious asset flips is easy enough to get approved for sale on Steam with the policies they implemented a couple years ago.


As long as EGS continues to employ third-party exclusivity in place of meaningful updates to the platform, that will always hold it back. In general, Steam users have backlogs more than large enough to hold them over until exclusivity deals expire.


Is concern the primary factor in what defines a monopoly? No. And I'd hardly consider Microsoft, CD Projekt Red (now the biggest and wealthiest developer in Europe), and Epic to be "small fries."


Yes, you've made it clear previously that you're quite easy to satisfy. I'm just glad most PC gamers are a little more discerning, otherwise we never would've gotten past the point of using AOL to buy and launch games.

If content is king, and so called features a distant second, and if you can't make enough content you buy some more in. Sounds like standard perfectly acceptable competition practice to me.
Taking it in house or buying them out is utterly immaterial in this, indeed if we are doing the huggy-feely thing then having devs only bound on a game by game basis is preferable to seeing them be taken over by a big pub somewhere else.
Equally if they have free accounts the need to sign up to the service hurdle is also overcome -- build it and they will come is not really a thing, build it and get them through the door and that is quite another.

So devs routinely give 30% of their hard earned to a payment provider + download service just because they like Steam's general mission?

Monopoly has many fuzzy edges and legal definitions, as well as colloquial ones when legal gets boringly specific. I still maintain Steam would happily meet the colloquial one in the PC game arena, and any monopoly oversight commissions would have serious words to say about Steam and GOG or someone of similar stature joining forces.

I am actually pretty fucking discerning, however most of the things people associate with Steam are equalled or bettered by third party offerings (usually before, since and after at that) and probably always will be. Chat, reviews, discussion forums, controller adapters, options to backup my saves and transfer them around... all perfectly acceptable options that probably exceed anything Steam has and likely prior to Steam existing (give or take new APIs that got cooked up in the meantime).

 

[bandithedoge]

Source code? You gotta be fucking kidding me...

 

[Xzi]

If content is king, and so called features a distant second, and if you can't make enough content you buy some more in. Sounds like standard perfectly acceptable competition practice to me.
Taking it in house or buying them out is utterly immaterial in this, indeed if we are doing the huggy-feely thing then having devs only bound on a game by game basis is preferable to seeing them be taken over by a big pub somewhere else.

And not being bound at all, while still receiving the assistance they need to get their feet off the ground, is even more preferable. Locking a new indie developer to a single storefront can be a death sentence, regardless of how much financial assistance they receive during development.

So devs routinely give 30% of their hard earned to a payment provider + download service just because they like Steam's general mission?

Rather because that's the industry standard that they're already paying to put their game on consoles, Steam provides a large suite of tools/cloud services to developers which the competition does not, and it has by far the widest marketing reach on PC.

I still maintain Steam would happily meet the colloquial one in the PC game arena, and any monopoly oversight commissions would have serious words to say about Steam and GOG or someone of similar stature joining forces.

If they have to merge with another player in order to be considered a monopoly, then at most they're a duopoly at the moment.

I am actually pretty fucking discerning, however most of the things people associate with Steam are equalled or bettered by third party offerings (usually before, since and after at that) and probably always will be. Chat, reviews, discussion forums, controller adapters, options to backup my saves and transfer them around... all perfectly acceptable options that probably exceed anything Steam has and likely prior to Steam existing (give or take new APIs that got cooked up in the meantime).

Sure, you can open up five different browser tabs along with five different apps, or you can just open up Steam. Call it laziness if you want, or call it a more convenient all-in-one solution, but either way it's more appealing to a wider audience than something obviously half-assed.

 

[loler55]

preloading