Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games

Valve Releases Team Fortress 2 Full Client and Source Code (gamerant.com) 43

Posted by BeauHD from the keys-to-the-kingdom dept.
Valve has made Team Fortress 2's full client and server code public, allowing fans to modify, extend, or rewrite the game as long as their projects remain non-commercial. Game Rant reports: Valve has made Team Fortress 2's server and client code fully public, with the studio encouraging fans to explore the game's files and make it what they want. The game's code is now available thanks to a new update to the Source SDK, which dropped earlier this week. Fans have already been creating TF2 mods for years, but what this essentially means is that fans can make brand-new games. However, there's one catch: any and all TF2 mods must be released for free. "The majority of items in the game now are thanks to the hard work of the TF2 community." Valve wrote. "To respect that, we're asking TF2 mod makers to continue to respect that connection and not to make mods that have the purpose of trying to profit off Workshop contributors' efforts."

"TF2 mods may be published on the Steam Store, and after publication will appear as new games in the Steam game list," Valve continued. The new SDK update also includes new 64-bit binary support and fixes for multiplayer Source games like Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, Counter-Strike: Source, and Day of Defeat: Source. Time will only tell what fans come up with as they dig deep into the inner workings of the game, but given how passionate and talented the Team Fortress 2 community has proven to be, players can expect to see some incredible creations.

Valve Releases Team Fortress 2 Full Client and Source Code More | Reply

Valve Releases Team Fortress 2 Full Client and Source Code

Comments Filter:

  • This is a good thing (Score:3)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2025 @05:32PM (#65180327)

    Even better would be to open source ALL software if it's no longer offered for sale

    • Source code is math and should not be able to get a copyright. A patent at most. In the 80s it changed; it should not have and it can change back.

      Just as you can use math to make patented things or copyright works. The game and it's art can get copyright protection but the underlying source code should not get protection. If you give it some protection, in order to get that patent-like protection, you should have to submit source code... like a patent needs documentation not merely an end product. Then wh

      • Interesting take.

        I'm not entirely sure it's true, though.
        Sure, source code has a lot of analogues with math, but it's also a lot more than math. It's more like a set of instructions.... those can be copyrighted.
        • I've always considered programming to be a branch of logic, not math. Yes, many of the algorithms are based on math, but the implementations are based on logic.
          • I agree with that.

            I suppose one could argue that since lambda calculus is turing complete, that any turing complete language is "math"...
            Or that any system of mathematical logic is math... that basically everything is math, but I think that's simple abuse of the concept.

            It sounds like a reiteration of some completeness theorum.
            You won't hear me argue that the entire universe can't be described by math, so I'm on board with that... but I don't see how it's helpful for copyright.

            I think back here in n
          • I consider programming to be language. All they do is encode information with intent for an interface. Itâ(TM)s the information that is copyrightable. The language should be always open source but what information it encoded has nothing to do with language or activity of encoding.
          • I consider programming to be language. All they do is encode information with intent for an interface. Itâ(TM)s the information that is copyrightable. The language should be always open source but what information it encoded has nothing to do with language.

        • Math IS a language. one that makes humans smarter and more capable simply by using it. It certainly is a lot like symbolic logic (and predates that.) It also lacks the expressiveness of a natural human language.

          Have you seen math proofs? or a Regular Expression?

          The comments are in another language; could be considered a partial translation. that is copyright material.

          • Math IS a language.

            Yes. Just like any language.

            We aren't discussing whether you can copyright C. We're discussing whether or not you can copyright something written in C.

            It also lacks the expressiveness of a natural human language.

            That is not a boolean.

            Have you seen math proofs? or a Regular Expression?

            Yup.

            The comments are in another language; could be considered a partial translation. that is copyright material.

            You don't realize it, but you've already made my point for me.
            By conceding that math is a language, you have formally declared that expressions written in math are indeed copyrightable.

            Your perspective can be reduced to saying that any image or any music is math, and ergo not copyrightable.
            Your take is stupid.

      • should not be able to get a copyright. A patent at most

        A patent is a far greater, more involved, and higher protected legal construct than copyright. Saying "A patent at most" along with your statement that it cannot even enjoy a simple copyright protection is totally backwards.

        If I patent software, then even if you completely implement "clean room" source code from scratch, but the end result duplicates the functionality I have patented, then you are violating that patent.

        If source code is math, then the compiled binary output of that source code is still math

        • Actually, it is a great idea.. but its not where reality is right now. I only disovered recently there are some people that condemn the use of open source. Because there is no one to sue, which seems almost absurd.

          But... there is no real actual business model for open source.. businesses want to make money ... so free software is about as commie as you can get .. WTF? you dare say something uncomplimentary about "free enterprise?"

        • 1) software is math. Ask a CS prof. especially the old ones before CS became Software Engineering.

          2) 1980s a law was passed to legally declare it a not-math exception to existing laws making copyright possible. More greed and corruption behind that choice than wisdom.

          3) most CS innovation happened before the 1980s. arguably the accelerated gains built upon that work was because it was free to use

          4) copyright you are free to destroy your work, methods, processes for almost a CENTURY. Only then can people rev

      • Patent OK, Copyright bad. Thats a strange take.

        How would that work? Ok you can read the sourcecode but you cant learn from it as its patented. Somehow. Also we can charge you silly money rent if you run it or give it to someone.

        Seems like the worst of all worlds.

        Try flipping it around. Even the FSF has no significant problems with Copyright, if its used to protect Free software. Patents on the other hand, thats charging people for ideas, regardless of whether they stole or independently come up with it.

        Most

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vbdasc ( 146051 )

        Even if source code is not copyright-able, this only matters when the public has access to the source code. If the source code is safely hidden in the company vaults, then its copyright, patent protection etc. make no difference.

        The fight for non-copyrightability of source code might have the undesirable effect of encouraging companies to never open their source code. Not to mention that the foundations of the GPL license would be destroyed. I understand that not everyone here likes RMS and GPL, but regardl

        • And is a ridiculously slippery slope.

          If expressions of logic are now math, and not copyrightable, how on Earth can you argue that visual assets aren't also "just math".

  • Holy Crap (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rabbirta ( 10188987 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2025 @05:34PM (#65180333) Homepage
    Every day someone makes a 4 hour video about how Team Fortress is bad now and how it used to be good, or how valve doesn't care about it or the community.
    It's like Valve just said "Oh yeah? Here ya go. If you have a problem why don't you go fix it."
    Personally I love Team Fortress 2 - it's a flawless masterpiece. This is just wonderful for anyone who wants to preserve this work of art, anyone who wants to make a mod or make their own version of it. It's even great news for people who have been discovering neat little bugs and quirks to this day. Now we'll know how it all works.

    • A flawless masterpiece has bugs?

      Ah. Clearly, this is some sort of new modern interpretation of the word 'flawless' of which I was not previously aware.

      • I think you're misinterpreting the term bug. If it has taken this long for them to be identified (and we're not talking about anything serious here) then the term flawless applies just fine.

      • Art is made beautiful by it's misstrokes

    • Valve is officially kicking the game to the curb. And just because they're releasing the full sdk doesn't mean anyone can or will fix the game. People paid good money for those cosmetics they bought, even recently. Valve will continue selling keys and cases. Will they do any actual work on the game? Nah, let "the community" do it.

    • How's TF2 compare to Teamfortress Classic? I've never played TF2 but played a lot of TFC back in the day.
      • DISCLAIMER: I haven't played classic.
        But from what I've seen it's a totally different game, with the exception of it being a team-based class-based shooter.

        Visually it was way ahead of its time, and I'd argue it served as the inspiration for hero shooters like Overwatch, including the cartoonish artstyle. Fleshed out characters with a ton of personality, fun physics, and silly but polished gameplay.

        TF Classic was very gritty by comparison, closer to Counter Strike 1.6 with custom classes than TF2.

  • Man..... I hope someone use that source and make an ultimate version of battlefield bad company ......

  • Though it's been years since I played TF2, I just love that game. I love the straight forward game play, entertaining, a great balance between characters, weapons, and their impact. Superior in so many ways. I love the low-res cartoon-ish graphics and the avoidance of the too-dark-to-see-anything scenes of most FPS. The mood of the imagery also has a very pleasing aesthetic to me. There's little about TF2 that I don't just love.

    What I don't love, in fact hate, is the complete deterioration of the game and t

    • You would not have enjoyed playing Battleship with me. A3? Miss. D5? Miss. C7? Missâ¦..

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arctor ( 411306 )

      Wrong fucking game you idiot.

      You start with this "Though it's been years since I played TF2, I just love that game." and then continue with "and people started building walls everywhere so the maps were useless and unplayable. The teleporting cheats were a massive downer as well."

      That's fortnight you bell-end, not TF2.

      I've been playing TF2 since 2011. It's never been a better time to play! Great new maps getting dropped once or twice a year recently. Sadly, no hoov update yet.

  • Not the full source code... (Score:3)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Wednesday February 19, 2025 @07:32PM (#65180469)

    Unless something has changed, valve has not open sourced the underlying Source engine tech that these games run on (e.g. 3D renderer, audio, stuff like that).

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Close