I started to work on an engine, which emulates the features and
limitations of older graphics systems, mainly for retro-styled
indie games.

Features:

-Support for parallax scrolling, and multiple sprite and tile
layers
-Support for sprite scaling and rotation
-Max. 65536 colors on screen from a palette
-Variable sprite sizes for easier development, tile layers can
work with any size of tiles as long as all of the tiles are the
same size on one layer
-Collision detection
-Support for modding
-Sprite editor, tile map editor

It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best
to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you
can come up with a better name I might change it. I still haven't
decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
it).

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 19:06:21 +0000, solidstate1991 via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>                                                   I still haven't
> decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
> by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
> it).

One way to do this is to make the engine FOSS then keep the artwork under a less permissive license (e.g., this is what Froggato does).

--Ben

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 19:52:14 UTC, Ben Boeckel via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 19:06:21 +0000, solidstate1991 via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>>                                                   I still haven't
>> decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
>> by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
>> it).
>
> One way to do this is to make the engine FOSS then keep the artwork
> under a less permissive license (e.g., this is what Froggato does).
>
> --Ben

Or you could license it under GPL and have a commercial alternative license. At least then you get some payback from any closed-source commercial use.

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 19:06:24 UTC, solidstate1991 wrote:
> I started to work on an engine, which emulates the features and
> limitations of older graphics systems, mainly for retro-styled
> indie games.
>
> Features:
>
> -Support for parallax scrolling, and multiple sprite and tile
> layers
> -Support for sprite scaling and rotation
> -Max. 65536 colors on screen from a palette
> -Variable sprite sizes for easier development, tile layers can
> work with any size of tiles as long as all of the tiles are the
> same size on one layer
> -Collision detection
> -Support for modding
> -Sprite editor, tile map editor
>
> It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best
> to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you
> can come up with a better name I might change it. I still haven't
> decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
> by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
> it).

Noticed there's a question at Reddit (a bot submits all announce threads to Reddit):

https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/2pm2ba/2d_game_engine_written_in_d_is_in_progress/

On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 01:00:30 UTC, Kiith-Sa wrote:
>> It's not a dethroner for the Unreal Engine 4, but I try my best
>> to get it into work. It's current name is VDP engine, but if you
>> can come up with a better name I might change it. I still haven't
>> decided to make it open or closed source (if it'll be ever used
>> by any game that makes profit, I'd like to get some share from
>> it).
>
> Noticed there's a question at Reddit (a bot submits all announce threads to Reddit):
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/2pm2ba/2d_game_engine_written_in_d_is_in_progress/

Since others are mentioning commercial open-source models and that guy asked about using a more liberal license, let me mention another newer model.  Develop most of the codebase in the open under a permissive license like MIT/BSD/Apache but keep some of the features or patches closed, particularly those that would most interest potential commercial licensees.

This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever, where AOSP is released as OSS then the hardware and smartphone vendors add their proprietary blobs and patches before selling the entire software bundle.  It's probably the best model if you want to be open source, get wide usage, and still have good commercial possibilities.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever
i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has nothing to do with android popularity.

On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever
> i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has
> nothing to do with android popularity.

I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much.  If the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other alternatives at the time.

It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked Android and released their own proprietary versions.  Commercial vendors want to differentiate with their own proprietary features, but AOSP provides a common OSS platform on which they can work together.

This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it has led to a billion smartphones running some version of Android and capable of running most common apps, albeit with some fragmentation too.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:46:33 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 +0000
> > Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> > <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever
> > i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has nothing to do with android popularity.
> 
> I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much.  If the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other alternatives at the time.
> 
> It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked Android and released their own proprietary versions.  Commercial vendors want to differentiate with their own proprietary features, but AOSP provides a common OSS platform on which they can work together.
> 
> This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it has led to a billion smartphones running some version of Android and capable of running most common apps, albeit with some fragmentation too.

what you described here is a matter of licensing (BSDL vs GPL), not having some closed-source patches.

On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 15:05:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:46:33 +0000
> Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 19 December 2014 at 11:35:54 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:22:13 +0000
>> > Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
>> > <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This is the model used by Android, the most successful open source project ever
>> > i can assure you that stupid policy with separating features has
>> > nothing to do with android popularity.
>> 
>> I can assure you that it's _the_ reason it took off so much.  If the Android project had insisted on pure open source, the hardware and smartphone vendors would have laughed at them and used Windows Mobile or LiMo or one of the myriad other alternatives at the time.
>> 
>> It's why Samsung has their own proprietary multi-window implementation for Android and Amazon and Xiaomi forked Android and released their own proprietary versions.  Commercial vendors want to differentiate with their own proprietary features, but AOSP provides a common OSS platform on which they can work together.
>> 
>> This model has been extraordinarily successful for AOSP, as it has led to a billion smartphones running some version of Android and capable of running most common apps, albeit with some fragmentation too.
>
> what you described here is a matter of licensing (BSDL vs GPL), not
> having some closed-source patches.

Which of those OSS licenses are the proprietary features and blobs I listed offered under?  None, and the choice of license is critical because you cannot offer closed-source patches under the viral GPL, ie it is the BSDL/Apache permissive licenses that make this winning mixed model possible.

If your point is that AOSP is released as pure open source, no Android phone is sold running pure AOSP, including Nexus devices because of binary blob drivers.  Without the proprietary add-ons, AOSP would be unusable.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:04:22 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> If your point is that AOSP is released as pure open source, no Android phone is sold running pure AOSP, including Nexus devices because of binary blob drivers.  Without the proprietary add-ons, AOSP would be unusable.
it is still unusable. i don't care what problems samsung or other oem have, as i still got the closed proprietary system. what google really has with their "open-sourceness" is a bunch of people that works as additional coders and testers for free. and alot of hype like "hey, android is open! it's cool! use android!" bullshit.