Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Multi Theft Auto - San Andreas Goes Open Source

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the prometheus dept.

PC Games (Games) 127

dan writes " Multi Theft Auto is a third-party modification for Rockstar's hit title Grand Theft Auto San Andreas — and it has become open-source after over four years of closed source development. As a (somewhat) regular player of MTA since the early days of GTAIII, this hit me by surprise, somewhat." (The news is on the project's front page, from which dan extracts more details, below.)dan continues: "Some of the interesting parts of the post: 'Today we are marking a new milestone in the history of Multi Theft Auto. After over 11000 revisions since 2004, contributions by over 16 world-wide developers, 1554 files and well over 550.000 lines of mostly C/C++ code, we have made the decision to re-launch Multi Theft Auto as an open-source project.

By open sourcing our project, we are encouraging anyone who is willing to participate in this project, to participate. For that reason, we are not 'just' offering our source code: we have also opened our bug tracker and will be offering public access to our nightly build system that will be compiling a build every day (and has been long used for testing purposes). This way, any developer will be able to run the latest revisions, file bugs or submit patches.

This is particularly exciting given that the released source is based upon the MTA Blue core, which in theory can be applied to any single player game. The source will no doubt be useful and provide foundations for future projects and the progression of the mod itself.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can you go head to head? Can you use cheats? (2, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870105)

I'd love to call up a harrier and go head to head with another harrier. Rocket packs would be good too.

Oh, you don't need cheats. (5, Interesting)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870397)

I've heard fantastic, mind-bending things about Multi Theft Auto.

Apparently, enthusiast game devs grafting on a real-time multiplayer component to a single-player game to which they don't have the source results in some, shall we say, interesting sync issues. My favorite story is where one guy suddenly gets replaced with a taxi on another guy's client. He still sees himself as a character, but the other guy sees him as a taxi just "walking" around.

"Get in me!" is of course the appropriate response, and upon their union the two have a strange and jittery ride down the street, until they get to the train station. They get on the train, which the taxi guy sees as a bouncy and jittery train ride, but the other guy sees as a taxi intersecting the train, grinding endlessly against the tunnel.

Finally, something breaks, and they're no longer constrained to the map's clipping, rocketing around the city, perhaps bi- or quad-locating, and it's time to reset the server.

...but they do help. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870529)


Only a client running a Multi Theft Auto version that is released through this website or through our nightly build service generates a serial number. In other words, developer builds that are built manually by anyone will not be able to join servers that have serial verification turned on. For obvious reasons of course, as we would like to minimize the problem of people cheating through source code modifications.

It will only be a matter of time before they do.

Re:...but they do help. (4, Informative)

coresnake (1215632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870741)

Actually the MTA servers are all full of cheaters who use weapons hacks in nonweapon areas etc. anyway so I wouldnt worry about that.

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (3, Funny)

spandex_panda (1168381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870905)

thats awesome. I want to bi- and quad-locate someone

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25874263)

I'd rather locate a bi.

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (2, Insightful)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871705)

MTA was an amazing thing back in the days of GTA III and Vice, and even SA, particularly because of how it was programmed. But now GTA IV has eclipsed all the previous games just on its merits as a single-player game, and Rockstar has implemented a better version of MTA officially into IV.. kind of sad that the MTA devs won't have anything to do on this one.

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873223)

But now GTA IV has eclipsed all the previous games just on its merits as a single-player game

The player control seems absurdly bad to me. It's as if he's on inline skates and listing from side to side. How is it that they cannot make it more manageable?

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (1)

jmccarthy (228531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873389)

I think there's a significant portion of gamers who feel San Andreas is the peak of the series so far. GTA4 certainly doesn't have as many fun activities for myself, anyway.

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (1)

mrdoogee (1179081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873661)

I totally agree. While GTA IV is fun for sure, and for the most part very well polished, I just don't get the "go anywhere, do anything" feeling I got from San Andreas. For somebody who likes the mission structure and getting completion, its probably a lot more fun, however I'm just tired of Roman or Dwayne calling me when I'm just out screwing around. I loved the Sandbox of GTA-SA, and it feels like that was toned down a bit in favor of a more... "linear" type of game.

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871727)

Are you claiming that is a bug? It sounds like a perfectly implemented, lol-producing feature.

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (3, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25872825)

What he doesn't tell you is that the taxi-seeing player had picked up an LSD powerup...

It's missing the serial number generator (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870553)

The problem is that they don't include the serial number generator.

It's not as if the resulting package that was built could be compared to the official build to find it, and its source code.

too bad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870113)

just because it's open doesn't mean it doesn't suck

GTA in all forms just blows major ass.

Re:too bad (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870231)

Sorry, but you're wrong.
See how I've provided evidence for all my points?

Re:too bad (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871825)

As an anonymous coward you don't have karma to lose and thus you get into troll fights all the time.

I discard your evidence-based claims as an argument from authority.

Anonymity (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870149)

I've seen a bunch of "open source" game projects where the developers use pseudonyms to contribute. A few of these projects don't even have any contact information to get in touch with the developers. This basically makes their licensing pointless. Anyone can slap the GPL or a BSD-alike license on a bit of code, but it doesn't mean anything unless someone is willing to stand up and claim copyright on the code.. and that means a real human with a legal name. Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity. If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it. They then can write up a DCMA takedown notice and the actual authors have no way to prove that they are the legitimate copyright owners.

Re:Anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870169)

Why the hell would they care, they're under pseudonyms?

Re:Anonymity (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870201)

Why the hell would who care? If your question is, why would people who worked for years and years on a project be a little sad if they had their project taken down and the only way they could put it back up was to put a legal fight.. I think maybe you're capable of figuring that out for yourself. If you mean, why would a court care that they were using pseudonyms and not their real names? Because that's the thing about pseudonyms, anyone can claim to be the owner of them and the court can't tell who is lying.

 

Re:Anonymity (3, Informative)

dintech (998802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871423)

Let me clarify, he means that someone could use a pseudonym to poison the project with copyrighted source. Obviously, as you say, the person doing this isn't concerned about the project. You're forgetting that it's the others using their real names on something they care about who will suffer because of it. OK, so you could identify who submitted the dodgy code and remove all of their contributions but it might not be sufficient by that point.

Re:Anonymity (5, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870173)

If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it.

And pray that you don't get a serious legal smackdown laid on you if it ever did happen to go to court. There are ways to demonstrate authorship and link pseudonyms to real people when you get down to it; they're not perfect, but are you willing to risk the chance they work?

Re:Anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870549)

If you're suggesting no one is fool enough, Darl McBride isn't real busy right now.

Re:Anonymity (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870787)

They opensourced code that is not even theirs, I have my sources, trust me there is actually code in there that they got from rockstar before the hot cofee fiasco when they even supported them, i doubt they ever did permission to release that.

And they also refuse to credit some of ex-developers.

Basically they could get easily sued into oblivion.
 

Re:Anonymity (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871493)

You should email/contact your sources, the longer they wait to bring this up in court (or make a DMCA take-down request), the harder it will be for them to appear sympathetic in front of a jury.

Re:Anonymity (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871549)

How do you know this court case will have a jury?

Re:Anonymity (2, Informative)

3p1ph4ny (835701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25872389)

Because they'll probably be sued in the US federal court system for an amount over $20. Read the 7th amendment. IANAL, etc.

Re:Anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25872683)

Basically they could get easily sued into oblivion.

Hah, easy. Just grab the portal stone and shut them laywers out.

Re:Anonymity (2, Interesting)

maevius (518697) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870193)

I am sure that after 550.000 lines of code, they have some way of proving that they own the code they were developing for all these years even if that is a log file

Re:Anonymity (0)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870735)

I am sure that after 550.000 lines of code, they have some way of proving that they own the code they were developing for all these years even if that is a log file

Given that after a little experience its possible to work out which of two students submitting the same code for an assignment was the real author, I'd think telling the authorship of a large project would be easy.

One of the simplest ways is asking for a 'guided tour' of the code. Also, picking a random, obviously complex block of code and saying 'what does this do' will catch most bluffers.

Re:Anonymity (2, Informative)

JernejL (1092807) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870805)

It's not even all their code, there is actually code in there that belongs to rockstar which they gave to them before hot cofee thing, i doubt they got permission to opensource that, it looks like a legal suicide for them

Re:Anonymity (2, Interesting)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871181)

which they gave to them

They knew what the project was, they freely gave to them, I don't see the issue.

Re:Anonymity (2, Insightful)

plantman-the-womb-st (776722) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871561)

That is a point certainly, but the question would be was the project they contributed to GPL at the time they contributed, and if not, did they retain the rights to their code, and if so, did they consent to their contributions being licensed in this manner. Muddy, curly and all manner of other words that describe a messy situation, but I'd bet a few lawyers out there wouldn't mind spending a few years arguing over it.

Re:Anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870275)

Sign your releases, then. Public key encryption is easy.

Re:Anonymity (3, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870345)

what's to stop someone from downloading all of the files and revisions, removing the author's names and replacing their own, and putting up their own MTA site claiming that they were the original authors?

i don't see how typing your name in a text file is going to provide any kind of added protection against someone trying to take credit for your work.

whether they use a pseudonym or not, the original MTA authors still have several important things on their side:

  • a public history of publishing the code on the web (i.e. they have users, fans, and site visitors as their witness)
  • they probably have unpublished files like raw artwork, PSD files, e-mails, and other local records of their development
  • they own the domain name, web hosting account, Google Code account, e-mail address, and other accounts used in the project's development.
  • they have the truth on their side.

book authors publish under pseudonyms, or noms de plume, so why can't programmers?

Re:Anonymity (1, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870383)

Yeah, that's not how it works.

See, these guys don't want to be identified. That's why they don't have their names on the stuff. So basically the only way they can stop someone from fucking them over is by identifying themselves..

It's a pretty obvious catch-22.

Re:Anonymity (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870647)

i don't think you understand what a catch-22 [wikipedia.org] is.

it'd only be a catch-22 if, regardless of whether the author uses a pseudonym or not, he gets fucked over.

but as the myriad of authors who publish books under pen names illustrates, regardless of whether you use a pseudonym or not, you won't get fucked over. that would be the opposite of a catch-22.

Re:Anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870687)

The catch-22 is that, if a DMCA take-down notice is issued, either the project is fucked (because no one stepped up to defend it), or the authors are fucked (because they identified themselves).

This is posted anonymously because it is, in fact, redundant.

Re:Anonymity (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870777)

Publishers own the copyright on books written by authors under pseudonyms.

If someone violates the copyright, the publisher sues them.

An anonymous copyright holder is ineffective.

Only Cowards are Anonymous (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870359)

If you look at the Google Code site for the project [googlecode.com] and see some of the committed files in the repo, you'll notice REAL names with REAL email addresses, and thus your point is moot... and I shall forever be a coward.

Re:Only Cowards are Anonymous (1, Flamebait)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871011)

How do you know they're real names?

Re:Anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870523)

And you can use a fake "real name" as a pseudonym. What's stopping you from claiming that as you?

Re:Anonymity (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870563)

Well, maybe it's time I was more open about this then. I wrote the code.

Re:Anonymity (4, Informative)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870593)

If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it.

Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.

If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:

* Claim it was theirs
* Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed
* Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring
* Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place

There's enough laugh-test issues in there to make any such attempt essentially impossible.

Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?

Re:Anonymity (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871023)

Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.

If a license wasn't applied by the copyright holder then the license and any sublicenses are null and void. Stolen goods don't become legitimate if you sell them on eBay, nor can you "launder" code using a license.

If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:

* Claim it was theirs

TRUE.

* Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed

FALSE

* Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring

FALSE

* Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place

FALSE

To take your most obvious error first, copyrights do not have to be defended. I could sue ten or fifty years from now without any need to explain myself. The other two might be arguments in a court of law, but here's the basic sequence of events.

1. Your ISP recieves a DMCA takedown, all it requires is a claim to ownership not any proof or reasonable case. They will take it off the site.
2. You must file a DMCA counter notification for their return.
3. The DMCA troll must file a lawsuit to continue (or not, since it's takedown abuse).
4. During the discovery/trial there's no evidence and you win (hopefully).

But wait, what happens here at step 2? It means you must claim:

"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law." plus give your full contact details for a potential lawsuit.

Would you sign that on behalf of some pseudonymous code that some d00d contributed to your project? Do you know who he is, what code access he's had and whether these allegations are true or not? I sure as hell wouldn't do that, it'd be dangerous as hell because I don't know the facts here. You can try getting the pseudonym to file the counter-notice but he might not be reachable or doesn't want to step forward. Then it's game over, your code is down and it's not coming back up.

Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?

You alledge the cat was never legally let out of the bag, and that everyone's handling it or its kittens are dealing in stolen property.

Re:Anonymity (1)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871087)

The DMCA is kind of a red herring. Presumably, that group themselves is hosting it. If they get hit by a DMCA for their own project, they're probably not going to roll over and play dead - they're probably going to say "uh, this is ours, go away".

Things might be a little more dubious if their site vanished off the face of the planet and it was down to fans to host it. But as long as the creators of the code actually want it kept up, they're quite, quite able to do so, bogus DMCA claims or not.

Re:Anonymity (0)

meson2439 (1230350) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871451)

GPL is a valid license. If the originator of the source already obtain a GPL license, then automatically all subsidiary works is GPL too. You cannot claim any of the code is yours. To apply for GPL license, the originator usually applied for a copyright using real name of course. After that, all subsidiary works become GPL automatically. The holders of GPL works are not all anonymous. FYI some of them have real copyright for that work.

DCMA is moot point for open source projects. Not a lot of projects are in a website that you can pull down anytime, most of them are in sourceforge or in IRC.

The great thing about working open source projects is that most are anonymous, so you can easily set up a new channel in IRC. You cannot sue anonymous person. You need at least have his real name and address. The few not anonymous person has real copyright for their codes, so you can't sue them too.

Re:Anonymity (2, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25872139)

GPL is a valid license. If the originator of the source already obtain a GPL license, then automatically all subsidiary works is GPL too. You cannot claim any of the code is yours. To apply for GPL license, the originator usually applied for a copyright using real name of course. After that, all subsidiary works become GPL automatically. The holders of GPL works are not all anonymous. FYI some of them have real copyright for that work.

Do you work for SCO or the Microsoft FUD department by any chance? GPL code can only be legally combined with other GPL(-compatible) code. If I have the copyright on code A (other, non-GPL license), and you have the copyright on code B (GPL) and some third party combines and creates A+B, then that work isn't GPL. You can't steal my copyright by extending your license to my code. Whoever combined those works broke copyright law and the work A+B has no legal license at all. I can issue a takedown because it violates my license, that you have a real, non-anonymous copyright on your half makes no difference at all.

Re:Anonymity MOD UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870645)

Well said Sir. Something obviously not all people grok.

Re:Anonymity (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870793)

I would have thought that the developers and coders names are in the credits therefore you could say this game is copyright with particular peoples names being cited. It will be interesting to see what type of license they use and if certain people or companies try to plagiarise it.

Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity.

I could not agree more, it is IMHO stupid releasing software that anyone can take and make their own although I am quite sure that many would disagree with you and me. Oh well that is their prerogative.

On a slightly different note. When making a game there are many people involved from concept artists, story developers (well maybe not for some FPS and Sports games), production coordinators, software coders and numerous others such as marketing etc. Most good commercial games are now starting to have budgets similar to Hollywood with quite a few people involved in the overall production of the game. With regard to the software would it be just the coders that put their reall names to their code or everyone involved which could be a legal minefield?

Another issue is if the game uses propriety libraries such as the gaming engine and if you can see the code you will find out what the PC, PS2 and Xbox library calls use, this alone may make releasing the source for a game like this open to litigation or just difficult to understand.

Re:Anonymity (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871563)

it is IMHO stupid releasing software that anyone can take and make their own although I am quite sure that many would disagree with you and me.

Did you just call ALL OPEN SOURCE CONTRIBUTORS stupid? On SLASHDOT? What were you thinking? I'm surprised you haven't been modded -2 to yet.

Re:Anonymity (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871467)

The fakers write up a DMCA takedown notice, the real authors write a counternotice. If the fakers want to win they have to prove in court that they are the authors.

Re:Anonymity (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25872651)

I've seen a bunch of "open source" game projects where the developers use pseudonyms to contribute. A few of these projects don't even have any contact information to get in touch with the developers. This basically makes their licensing pointless. Anyone can slap the GPL or a BSD-alike license on a bit of code, but it doesn't mean anything unless someone is willing to stand up and claim copyright on the code.. and that means a real human with a legal name. Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity. If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it. They then can write up a DCMA takedown notice and the actual authors have no way to prove that they are the legitimate copyright owners.

Or you could just host the site outside of the US or better yet throw a torrent up. Without real legal names attached to your work your unlikely to get shutdown since they can't find you.

Now hiring! (5, Funny)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870199)

Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.

Must be willing to work for free.

Re:Now hiring! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870263)

Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.

Must be willing to work for free.

Looking for motivated philanthropists to work on an exciting underprivileged human life improvement project.

Must be willing to work for free.

Re:Now hiring! (5, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870425)

Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.

Must be willing to work for free.

Looking for motivated philanthropists to work on an exciting underprivileged human life improvement project.

Must be willing to work for free.

Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.

Re:Now hiring! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870637)

Yeah, that's like a hooker fucking you for FREE.... oh wait...

Re:Now hiring! (3, Insightful)

donaldm (919619) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870819)

Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.

Killing as many people as you can in GTA is quite acceptable however we cannot pick up a Hooker and bang her in a car, killing is ok but not the other thing, Think of the children! :-)

Re:Now hiring! (1)

kv9 (697238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871685)

Killing as many people as you can in GTA is quite acceptable however we cannot pick up a Hooker and bang her in a car, killing is ok but not the other thing, Think of the children! :-)

you can pick up hookers in San Andreas and engage in something that makes the car bounce. then they leave and you have less money. sounds like both things are OK, just not depicted in the same way.

Tell me more, more, more (3, Funny)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871873)

you can pick up hookers in San Andreas and engage in something that makes the car bounce.

I can't wait to hear. The suspension's killing me.

Re:Tell me more, more, more (1)

kv9 (697238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873127)

*groan*

Re:Now hiring! (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871881)

Think of the children! :-)

Well, yes, exactly. Think of the children you're saving from existence by killing that hooker!

Re:Now hiring! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25871149)

Strawman alert! Both OP and second poster were referring to open source and games in general.

Re:Now hiring! (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871567)

"If you kill the homeless person under the bridge, you can take their liquor to make molitov cocktails to throw at cop cars!"

Re:Now hiring! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25871169)

Seen what happened to Dolphin - the Gamecube emulator - after it got opensourced?

It now plays GC games nearly perfectly, and even some Wii games, after three months of opensource work - heck, average FPS is five times better.

This is news??? (-1, Flamebait)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870265)

An open source project that requires purchasing (or pirating) a closed source product to use. That is, you have to have a PC version of GTA: San Andreas to use it.

I think I'll pass on this one.

Re:This is news??? (4, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870297)

So I assume you also avoid any open source software that runs on Windows or OS X?

Re:This is news??? (1)

DiLLeMaN (324946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870377)

I think the GP would avoid open source software that ONLY runs on Windows and/or OS X, yes. What's the problem with that?

Re:This is news??? (3, Funny)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870485)

No, the GP is a troll who hates the idea of closed source software. In order to make use of this project, the GP would have to defile himself by coming into contact with such software. According to the Church of Stallman, that is a sin.

Re:This is news??? (1)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870445)

So I assume you also avoid any open source software that runs on Windows or OS X?

'Requires' is not the same as 'runs on'. GIMP, Pidgin, Blender and many other excellent programs run on Windows, but don't require it.

I would certainly think twice about any open source project that requires Windows or OS X, at least if a linux based or cross platform alternative were around.

Re:This is news??? (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871597)

That is just plain silly. This is an enthusiast project, the analogy you are making is bad. Or rather, think of it like this: would you "think twice" about using an OSS Windows GUI enhancement program because it "required Windows"? The question is irrelevant since you wouldn't be using Windows in the first place.

Software projects are created to serve a need, cater to an audience. MultiTheft Auto caters to GTA players, not OSS fans, to criticize them for requiring closed source software is to criticize them for existing at all.

Re:This is news??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25873341)

The Answer is simple dear boy there should be NO Closed Source Software at all item end finito

Summary Lacking (5, Informative)

ovanklot (715633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870401)

FTA:

"Multi Theft Auto (MTA) is an open-source software project that adds a full multi-player network play functionality to several of Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto game titles, in which this network play element is not originally found."

Ah, now I get it.

Re:Summary Lacking (2, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870431)

When I first saw the headline on my iGoogle page I read it that San Andreas itself went OSS. I was very disappointed when I reread the headline and summary.

svn (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870407)

Here's the command to check out the source:

svn checkout http://multitheftauto.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ multitheftauto-read-only

Missing the serial number generation, incomplete (1, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870539)

It's missing the serial number generator, and is thus incomplete.

Re:Missing the serial number generation, incomplet (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25870759)

The serial number generation isn't missing and is actually stored in a dll that hasn't been made open source

Re:Missing the serial number generation, incomplet (1)

corky842 (728932) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871913)

The GTA series doesn't use serial numbers.

Time for some open source (4, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870441)

and hot coffee.

Good. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870465)

Now how far will the code history go, with respect to the closed source editions?

Now it's open source... (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870513)

Only a client running a Multi Theft Auto version that is released through this website or through our nightly build service generates a serial number. In other words, developer builds that are built manually by anyone will not be able to join servers that have serial verification turned on. For obvious reasons of course, as we would like to minimize the problem of people cheating through source code modifications.

...Let the serial-less servers and serial verification bypasses go forth and multiply in number.

It's still missing some code- net/security modules (2, Insightful)

cwcpetech (733201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870589)

All our source code available through this project page is licensed under the GPLv3 license. This excludes any dependencies and our net modules for both the client and server: these are still covered under our proprietary license. These modules have been excluded because of reasons involving security and cheating, but contain only a minimal amount of code.

No reason not to include them in source form.

Re:It's still missing some code- net/security modu (1)

Kijori (897770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871671)

All our source code available through this project page is licensed under the GPLv3 license. This excludes any dependencies and our net modules for both the client and server: these are still covered under our proprietary license. These modules have been excluded because of reasons involving security and cheating, but contain only a minimal amount of code.

No reason not to include them in source form.

These modules are the ones containing the authentication code designed to verify that it's a genuine build distributed by MTA. If you open source them, you make it easier for people to compile their own build where they have superpowers and play on the public servers with it. That's what they want to avoid.

Uhhh... hello? (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871893)

Yeah, keeping the code proprietary works great.

Just ask Blizzard, they haven't banned *one* *single* *player* from Battle.net for cheating...

</unimpressed>

Then have it server-side where it belongs. (1)

cwcpetech (733201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874305)

One more reason to go to a model that only puts the authentication modules in a "black box" and made server-side as much as possible. If their netcode is that bad that they have to put it in a DLL black box, then you've got an oracle in the making.

Will it run on Linux? (2, Interesting)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870765)

I wonder if i can get it working on linux. BB later =)

More than 16 worldwode developers... (4, Insightful)

VendettaMF (629699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25870947)

"More than 16 worldwide developers"

That'd be 17 worldwide developers then?

Re:More than 16 worldwode developers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25871027)

That'd be at least 17 worldwide developers then?

There, ftfy. Unless there was a devel involved....

Re:More than 16 worldwode developers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25871137)

insightful, indeed

Re:More than 16 worldwode developers... (1)

Kijori (897770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871681)

The important thing to note isn't the number, it's that they said "16 worldwide developers" not "16 developers worldwide".

There may only be 17 of them, but each of them is as wide as the world.

And I think we all know of the connection between code quality and waist size.

Re:More than 16 worldwode developers... (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871901)

Our hearts go out to the 17 victims of the recent internet scam.

net: network handling (NOT OPEN) (2, Interesting)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871267)

> net: network handling (this module is covered by a different license and is only available as a binary release)

First rule of business, fork, and add a new network layer, then use google's bug database.

No crossplatform client == no go (0, Flamebait)

FunkyRider (1128099) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871369)

One of the very important features of Open Sourcing your project is you can develop it for multiple platforms. If it runs only on Windows, all I can say is, I'm not going to touch it. sorry

Re:No crossplatform client == no go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25871479)

How do you propose they make a multiplatform mod for a Windows-only game?

Re:No crossplatform client == no go (2)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 5 years ago | (#25871511)

Reverse engineering. I did it with "Frontier: Elite II".

Re:No crossplatform client == no go (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25872083)

And thanks to the copy protecion, they'd be slapped with a DMCA takedown. Even still (if you want to go full idealist), the resources aren't freely usable, so you'd have to replace them. At that point, you're better off just cloning GTA instead of trying to reverse engineer it, and you probably don't want to use these hacks as part of it

Re:No crossplatform client == no go (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25872553)

That's only because the US is a backwards country.

Re:No crossplatform client == no go (1)

Binestar (28861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25872167)

One of the very important features of Open Sourcing your project is you can develop it for multiple platforms. If it runs only on Windows, all I can say is, I'm not going to touch it. sorry

Port it then. I'd love to see you startup MTA in linux. Will be a very hard thing to do, since Grand Theft Auto is a windows only game, but I'm sure with enough work on Wine and rewriting MTA you'll be able to handle it.

Did they fix the hit detection? (1)

British (51765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25872331)

I used to play GTA:Race(which was a separate project from MTA) which was basically these wacky races in the SA world, where vehicles change at checkpoints, etc. When I wasn't doing that, I was playing MTA. Sadly, 99% of the MTA servers out there were "free roam" servers, with no game structure whatsoever. The remaining 1% were these "RPG" servers, where you play around in this RPG environment. Sadly, an RPG-izing of San Andreas takes all the fun out of the game. No cars until you get your license, etc. You might as well have your character fill out tax return forms.

I used to be on "party server" which had 200 people in one of 20 gangs. Sadly, it was more free-roam than actual structured gameplay. Theere were too many gangs spread out too far apart for any gang battles to take place. But the biggest killer was the horrifically bad hit detection. You can hit someone point blank and their health won't go down. They shoot you, you get hit every time. That, and the MTA web site maintainers can't seem to put together a page to save their lives.

Naturally, GTA4's multiplayer blew MTA away.

Urban Terror (1)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 5 years ago | (#25872811)

MTA is just a OS extension to play your actual closed-source version GTA in Multiplayer.

If you want to cover open-source games cover this one:
Urban Terror [urbanterror.net]

UT is an open-source Counter Strike "clone" that runs on OS X, Linux and Windows. It's awesome. These guys did a great job.

In their own words: "Urban Terror(TM) is a free multiplayer first person shooter, that (thanks to ioquake3) does not require Quake III Arena. It is available for Windows, Linux and Macintosh.

Urban Terror can be described as a Hollywood tactical shooter; somewhat realism based, but the motto is "fun over realism". This results in a very unique, enjoyable and addictive game."

If you know more games like this one, please reply to this post. I'd like to know which other free, multi-OS games are out there.

Re:Urban Terror (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873647)

I don't have any other games to add, but I just wanted to say thanks for the info on this, I'm always on the look out for good quality Linux games, Tux Racer only goes so far ya? I'll download Urban Terror tonight! :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?