professional results?

[bartbes]

Impossible, but also, where would the password be stored?

[TechnoCat]

Some people don't like the fact that the file format isn't encrypted, so it is (relatively) easy to get the original source code and/or art from the executable.

I've been meaning to ask, has there been any consideration of using zip passwords somehow to alleviate this? It seems like even a small gesture would help reassure potential Lovers that they can control their source (even if it's not the case at all).

Just luac it for each platform. Just making the code bytecode and hard to read is enough. Even for large professional games as far as I can tell.

Anyways, I think LOVE can be used just dandy for small professional 2D games. Obviously 2D.

[tentus]

Impossible, but also, where would the password be stored?

Seems like the first time the game is run it would ask for the pass, and then store a hash of it in the Love save directory. Like a product key, but simpler. It'd be appallingly easy to break, but it's at least a gesture towards those concerned.

My understanding is that zip encryption is rubbish to start with, but I still see my clients and peers using it all the time. Just because it's not actually safe doesn't stop it from reassuring people.

[thelinx]

But if end-users would have to input the password they'd have the password to the actual archive as well.

[Robin]

Not to mention that if the game can only be played with a password, the password needs to be distributed with the game.

This is all just foolishness. You don't need DRM to make and sell a professional game.

[bartbes]

I am getting paid for a DRM-free game shortly. We had a similar discussion about DRM yesterday in irc, and I am still of the opinion that you don't need DRM. You are deterring buyers, and if people don't want to pay for your game, they won't.

[tentus]

I'm all for no DRM. I publish my games without anything of the sort, usually going so far as to open-sourcing them with a little extra legwork on my part to make them more friendly for people other than me to work with.

But the anti-DRM faction is the minority at the moment. Most of the games industry is convinced that it needs to jealously protect its source. Even a small measure of source protection might encourage more professionals to use the Love framework. Right now the best way to keep people out of your source is to follow TechnoCat's suggestions, and I think we can all agree it's a labor-intensive approach.

I'm not saying this is a needed feature or anything. I can see that the devs are against it. I'm just saying that it's something that might attract more Lovers. We're a small community, is growth really such a bad thing?

[T-Bone]

I can certainly see why being able to hide your source code would be considered a good thing by some people. If nothing else, it gives a more professional feel, I guess. I don't see a good technical solution, though. I guess some sort of automated byte-code generators and launchers would be the best solution here (and it might also improve performance). I think it would help LÖVE to grow, and to be used in more professional games. But is that something we really want? More people using LÖVE is great, but if people don't want to give their source away, they might not want to contribute much in the community either, so we might not gain much by making LÖVE better for them.

[bartbes]

Growth is nice and all, but at what costs? I much prefer focusing on providing a good, stable framework, not on a DRM scheme that will cause an influx of unwanted usage.

[xeol]

an unrelated question: are there any plans to make löve run on mobile platforms like android and iOS?