LÖVE

Would something like, lets say Counterstirke2D be too much for love? im guessing not

Dont worry im not gonna make a cs2d clone in love im just wondering.

RunningGamesStudios wrote:Would something like, let's say CounterStirke2D be too much for LOVE? I'm guessing not.

Don't worry I'm not gonna make a CS2D clone in love, I'm just wondering.

That's not a bad idea actually. But one big flaw or let's say uncharted area, of LOVE is Obfuscation. Which is generally required if you don't want someone to steal your code.

Davidobot wrote:

RunningGamesStudios wrote:Would something like, let's say CounterStirke2D be too much for LOVE? I'm guessing not.

Don't worry I'm not gonna make a CS2D clone in love, I'm just wondering.

That's not a bad idea actually. But one big flaw or let's say uncharted area, of LOVE is Obfuscation. Which is generally required if you don't want someone to steal your code.

It's definitely not required, there are many many examples of commercial desktop games which have viewable code in some form (pretty much every XNA and Unity game, for example), and tons of them don't use explicit obfuscation for the sake of making the code more challenging to understand.

What protects you and your code legally is copyright, not whether people can view your code.
Your code and assets can either have an explicit license, or as long as you are in a country which follows the Berne Convention / TRIPS, then anything you create is automatically fully copyrighted to you in the absence of a license stating otherwise.

That said, there's nothing stopping you from obfuscating your LÖVE code. There are many methods and tools out there for Lua. It's not at all an uncharted area.

One of my main questions was if I could get my game up on steam if made with LOVE, looking at SNAYKE and seeing Steam Greenlight was the highlight of my day. I love you guys.

ejmr wrote:

raidho36 wrote:There's plenty of commercial games made with GameMaker, Scirra Construct, Unity, UDK, you can make commercial game with any library, commercial success does not depends on the engine used. It instead depends on careful game design and proper assets, on the idea, current gaming fashion trends anda very broad spectrum of topics, but the engine used. I dunno why would you ask.

People ask because if there are no commercial games made with an engine or library then they begin to wonder why. "This looks great, but why no commercial games...?" When I first came across LÖVE I was impressed with its design, quality, and potential. But I'll admit it: if there were no commercial games using it then I doubt I would have decided to use it. You are right that commercial success does not depend on the engine used, and I agree with that. But if no one is using an engine for commercial games then it can easily make a developer start to wonder why. Is it a problem with the community? With the engine's license? Et cetera.

A more apt comparison would be with Pygame, which doesn't have many commercial games made for it either. The big difference between löve and the engines you mention is that löve doesn't have a commercial entity backing it so it doesn't need users to make money off their games to pay for the engine development. Instead, löve is driven by a merry band of volunteers who work on löve for löve's sake. The focus is on features and support, without much in the ways of marketing, training, partnerships, the stuff that drives sales.

If someone were to start a company around löve, they might identify some promising projects and ask the devs to maybe polish up the game and publish it on some marketplace, and the löve company would feature that game as a success story in making commercial games with löve. Or they might partner with Desura to sponsor a löve gamejam, with a cash prize and a featured spot on Desura, to raise the profile of löve's polishedness. These are the kinds of things that a commercial entity would need to do to get people to try to make money off their löve games. I'm not saying it's better or worse than the current state of things, but just that you need different expectations when looking at volunteer-backed engines vs commercial-backed engines.

Davidobot wrote:

RunningGamesStudios wrote:Would something like, let's say CounterStirke2D be too much for LOVE? I'm guessing not.

Don't worry I'm not gonna make a CS2D clone in love, I'm just wondering.

That's not a bad idea actually. But one big flaw or let's say uncharted area, of LOVE is Obfuscation. Which is generally required if you don't want someone to steal your code.

Don't worry all the games I make will be open source.

clofresh wrote:I'm not saying it's better or worse than the current state of things, but just that you need different expectations when looking at volunteer-backed engines vs commercial-backed engines.

I think it's fair to hold them to the same level of expectations regardless of whether they are comercially backed or not. As an open-source developer I can't help but view volunteer-backed engines in a different light. But at the end of the day whether they are commercially backed or not feels irrelevant to the features and functionality they provide and to the usefulness they offer to me as a game developer.