Is Half-Life 2 out now?

feylya

Jesus, like I said, if Havok, Miles and the other providers decide to sue Valve for letting their SDK's for the various products onto the internet, I imagine that after 5 years of development, Valve aren't going to have a lot of money left to play around with. Half-Life 2 will obvisously make a lot of money IF they release before the possible law suits arrive. Hopefully though, the companies will just see this as a kick in the sack for Valve and not bring any legal action against them.

MrPinK

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
As for licensing the engine, it will be blatantly obvious if someone rips of some of the code in their release and this will result in legal action..

Unless they have access to the other company's source code, which is extremely unlikely unless another company is stupid enough to do their deving on windows based machines connected to the internet, and can show what lines where copied, then Valve won't be able to sue anyone. It's not hard to change the code a little anyway, to prevent legal action if you release your source code.

RicardoSmith

Its not the specific code thats the issue but the ideas contained within it. This was the most advanced game engine to date.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by feylya
Jesus, like I said, if Havok, Miles and the other providers decide to sue Valve for letting their SDK's for the various products onto the internet, I imagine that after 5 years of development, Valve aren't going to have a lot of money left to play around with. Half-Life 2 will obvisously make a lot of money IF they release before the possible law suits arrive. Hopefully though, the companies will just see this as a kick in the sack for Valve and not bring any legal action against them.

Fair point, that is assuming they have grounds to sue them. As far as I am concerned, Valve will not be sued by Havok et all bacause of what has happened. Valve had taken resonable steps to ensure its network was safe and could/would only be sued if they a) didnt have any security in place or b) if their own code remained safe and the SDKs were the only thing that went public. Havok will not sue Valve in my opinion. Where did you get the idea that they would do anyway?

Unless they have access to the other company's source code, which is extremely unlikely unless another company is stupid enough to do their deving on windows based machines connected to the internet, and can show what lines where copied, then Valve won't be able to sue anyone. It's not hard to change the code a little anyway, to prevent legal action if you release your source code.

Its not the specific code thats the issue but the ideas contained within it. This was the most advanced game engine to date.

If this was the case, a development studio would loose alot of cred if it became apparent they done this somehow and there would be some sort of reaction from the community as a whole. If someone uses 1 or 2 of Valve's ideas, they willl get away with it and this would be harmless. If there start to rip off large portions of the code, it will be glaringly obvious.

feylya

Havok obvisously licences it's engine to games companies for quite a large sum of money. The engine is released in SDK format along with the dll's that make everything work. These DLL's and the SDK are included in the source code. So, through Valve's security leak, Havok's life work is on the internet for all to see and to copy. Exact same with Miles sound system. Hopefully there are no grounds for legel action but if Havok are vendictive, they may try to sue them for something like inadequate security measures to protect their code or some such.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by feylya
Havok obvisously licences it's engine to games companies for quite a large sum of money. The engine is released in SDK format along with the dll's that make everything work. These DLL's and the SDK are included in the source code. So, through Valve's security leak, Havok's life work is on the internet for all to see and to copy. Exact same with Miles sound system. Hopefully there are no grounds for legel action but if Havok are vendictive, they may try to sue them for something like inadequate security measures to protect their code or some such.

The thing is, Valve did not make these publicly available. They were stolen from Valve... There is no way that Valve can be responsible for this, unless they did not have any security in place. If they had adequate security in place, sufficient with regards to the risk, then they cant be touched.

feylya

But if they had sufficent security, the source wouldn't have gotten out. It's probably a weak case but the American courts aren't the most sane in the world.

_CreeD_

Jesus, you're confusing whether they should be sued with whether they can be. It wasn't deliberate, it's a terrible blow to valve in any case, so in an ideal world they shouldn't be sued. But they are responsible for maintainting security and the confidentiality of their partner's software, there doesn't need to be intention of malice for them to be held accountable for it's release. The fact is the wisest choice for their partner companies is to sue, it will return some probably loss of future revenues and reinforce the need for future partners to protect their intellectual property, there doesn't have to be any human-understanding involved, it's just business. Now there is also the point that in doing so they will alienate potential partners too, but I'd imagine that's not a huge factor, developers will always choose the tools they fine the most efficient and cost effective and of course be sure that this would never happen to them...right?....
I think Valve won't go out of business, but it is a possibility. Talented they may be but they've (and their publisher) obviously already invested a huge amount in so many years of development (paying the rates people of such talent would need). While this leak may not affect box-sales it will almost definitely affect potential sales of the Engine itself (which is extremely lucrative for a cutting edge engine).
Dodgy developers can easily base new code on the leaked source, how is anyone going to tell that the basic method for environment interaction in game B really came from Half Life 2 when it's buried in a couple of million lines of their own code. I mean take the way HL2 handled different environment substances, like the wood splintering, the idea of adding such interaction is not unique it's the code that handles it, but all we will see when we play game B is the implementation of that idea - not having Neo like matrixvision I don't think anyone is going to suddenly stop and say 'Look that's the code from Half Life2', it'd be 'that's Like half life 2' at most.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by feylya
But if they had sufficent security, the source wouldn't have gotten out. It's probably a weak case but the American courts aren't the most sane in the world.

They had adequate security with regards to what is at risk.

Shinji

Its not the specific code thats the issue but the ideas contained within it. This was the most advanced game engine to date.

This is not true. A number of other game engines out there - including the most recent builds of the Doom 3, Halo, Unreal and Lithtech engines, as well as numerous console engines such as Konami's internal middleware - are more advanced technically than the Half-Life 2 engine.

The engine used in Half-Life 2 is a fairly ugly hack, in fact - it's basically GLQuake (yes, still!) with a complex materials and lighting system bolted on to it. However that system is still not hugely advanced compared to other graphics solutions out there.

The unique nature of the HL2 engine comes from the (third party) Havok physics code and the extraordinary talent of Valve's artists, not from any particular trickery in the code. Besides; no graphics engine is ever founded on particularly clever original ideas. All the ideas being implemented in graphics now are at least twenty years old and based on very, very old mathematical equations or speculative Siggraph-style papers from decades ago.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by _CreeD_
Jesus, you're confusing whether they should be sued with whether they can be. It wasn't deliberate, it's a terrible blow to valve in any case, so in an ideal world they shouldn't be sued. But they are responsible for maintainting security and the confidentiality of their partner's software, there doesn't need to be intention of malice for them to be held accountable for it's release. The fact is the wisest choice for their partner companies is to sue, it will return some of their expected revenues and reinforce the need for future partners to protect their intellectual property, their doesn't have to be any human-understanding involved, it's just business. Now there is also the point that in doing so they will alienate potential partners too, but I'd imagine that's not a huge factor, developers will always choose the tools they fine the most efficient and cost effective and of course be sure that this would never happen to them...right?....
I think Valve won't go out of business, but it is a possibility. Talented they may be but they've (and their publisher) obviously already invested a huge amount in so many years of development (presumably paying the rates people of such talent would need). While this leak may not affect box-sales it will almost definitely affect potential sales of the Engine itself (which is extremely lucrative for a cutting edge engine).
Developers can easily base new code on the leaked source, how is anyone going to tell that the basic method for environment interaction in game B really came from Half Life 2 when it's buried in a couple of million lines of code. I mean take the way HL2 handled different environment substances, like the wood splintering, the idea of adding such interaction is not unique it's the code that handles it, but all we will see when we play game B is the implementation of that idea - not having Neo like matrixvision I don't think anyone is going to suddenly stop and say 'Look that's the code from Half Life2', it'd be that's Like half life 2 at most.

Some good points I suppose, didnt think of it that way.

With regards to whether they will/can be sued, can they actually be sued for such a thing. If they have provided adequate security to prevent the SDK entering the public domain, what else can they do. If they were sued, would this alone not be enough of a defence.

feylya

Originally posted by Shinji
This is not true. A number of other game engines out there - including the most recent builds of the Doom 3, Halo, Unreal and Lithtech engines, as well as numerous console engines such as Konami's internal middleware - are more advanced technically than the Half-Life 2 engine.

The engine used in Half-Life 2 is a fairly ugly hack, in fact - it's basically GLQuake (yes, still!) with a complex materials and lighting system bolted on to it. However that system is still not hugely advanced compared to other graphics solutions out there.

The unique nature of the HL2 engine comes from the (third party) Havok physics code and the extraordinary talent of Valve's artists, not from any particular trickery in the code. Besides; no graphics engine is ever founded on particularly clever original ideas. All the ideas being implemented in graphics now are at least twenty years old and based on very, very old mathematical equations or speculative Siggraph-style papers from decades ago.

But the thing about Half-Life2, besides the fact that it is NOT OpenGL, is that it's now the Microsoft DirectX 9 reference engine. Every single game thats released that claims to be DirectX 9 will be compared to it now. It was possibly a huge money maker for VALVe, selling on the engine, but now people can look at the code, see how certain things were done (like shaders) and jsut write their own versions of it.

That said, the Quake1 engine was leaked before release but no one remembers that.

_CreeD_

You're missing the point. For one we don't really know what security they had. From the sounds of it it could have been better. BUT that's not important. You can be sure that as part of their agreements with their partners they are held responsible for maintaining the security of the code, how they do it is irrelevant, from the day they signed up they are 100% responsible if the partners' code is ever released whether they gave it away or had it stolen.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by _CreeD_
You're missing the point. For one we don't really know what security they had. From the sounds of it it could have been better. BUT that's not important. You can be sure that as part of their agreements with their partners they are held responsible for maintaining the security of the code, how they do it is irrelevant, from the day they signed up they are 100% responsible if the partners' code is ever released whether they gave it away or had it stolen.

I would have thought that they are required to do as much as realistically required to ensure that the code is kept safe in proportion to the actual value of the code/SDK. Surely once they have done so, if the code is stolen then they are pretty much exempt from any possible legal proceedings. To a certain extent anyway... Maybe I am looking at it from the wrong angle?

monument

jesus_thats_gre, it is somewhat unlikely that Havok and others will sue sued Valve, however Valve was at fault in not keeping in the code secure.

In Havoks case the “actual value of the code” is very high – if Havoc’s code is used it is pretty much like piracy, but Havoc’s product isn’t mass market so it is potentially more damaging then copying a game for a friend.

MrPinK

Its not the specific code thats the issue but the ideas contained within it. This was the most advanced game engine to date

If it were just the ideas then anyone could just buy the finished game (eventually) and then steal their ideas. It's how they implemented the ideas that's important, ie the actually code.

If this was the case, a development studio would loose alot of cred if it became apparent they done this somehow and there would be some sort of reaction from the community as a whole. If someone uses 1 or 2 of Valve's ideas, they willl get away with it and this would be harmless. If there start to rip off large portions of the code, it will be glaringly obvious.

It wouldn't be as obvious as you might think. It's not as if someones going to just change the maps and skins and claim to have made the game from scratch, but they could lift the collision detection system, or use a tweaked version of the AI and it wouldn't be glaringly obvious. Even if it was, if you accuse another company of stealing from you without any proof what so ever and they'll sue you for defamation / slander / libel

Surely once they have done so, if the code is stolen then they are pretty much exempt from any possible legal proceedings. To a certain extent anyway... Maybe I am looking at it from the wrong angle?

It's no different from a bank. They can't say to you, "We did all we could to prevent it, but some guys stole all your money. Sorry, have a nice life." Banks are completely resposible for your money while it's in their possession, that's why they have so much insurance. Similarly, Valve are responsible for Havok's code while it is in their possession, it's them that will have to compensate Havok. Valve of course, can sue the guy whole stole the code to recoupe their losses, but it will most likely turn out to be some 16 year old who's a little short on cash. Their insurance may cover the costs if they were not negligent in their security tho.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by MrPinK
It's no different from a bank. They can't say to you, "We did all we could to prevent it, but some guys stole all your money. Sorry, have a nice life." Banks are completely resposible for your money while it's in their possession, that's why they have so much insurance. Similarly, Valve are responsible for Havok's code while it is in their possession, it's them that will have to compensate Havok. Valve of course, can sue the guy whole stole the code to recoupe their losses, but it will most likely turn out to be some 16 year old who's a little short on cash. Their insurance may cover the costs if they were not negligent in their security tho.

So insurance can cover any liability, assuming Valve were not lazy with security.

Retr0gamer

Ah sweet irony. The day I get my spanking new radeon 9800 pro is the day that the source code was leaked. If it happened to some one else I'd be laughing at them.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by MrPinK
If it were just the ideas then anyone could just buy the finished game (eventually) and then steal their ideas. It's how they implemented the ideas that's important, ie the actually code.

I meant the design of the code, not ideas in the game. Obviously.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
I meant the design of the code, not ideas in the game. Obviously.

Do you mean the above?

Or do you mean?

Its not the specific code thats the issue but the ideas contained within it. This was the most advanced game engine to date

Falgorn

Everything said above was both clever and interesting, however some of it is wrong..

If valve bought the right to use Havoc's software in their game, they would have a quasi-leasehold agreement with Havoc. ie: they have possession but not ownership of the software, and they can use the software but not sell it (except as part of their games code).

In this relationship, a contract will outline every facet of the agreement, including security & right of access amongst other things, but also a guarantee by valve for theft insurance. Its very very unlikely that Havoc handed over the software with no strings attached, and far more liklely that Havoc envisaged the posibility of internet theft no matter how remote, and ensured that valvue had insurance to cover, or have their own cover for such an eventuality.

I have no doubt that with two companies of this size, A fairly ironclad agreement was reached as to each's responsibility to the other. As soon as whatever changes to the source engine are complete, the game will be out. I studied Law in college, and whilst I cant be positive, id say that those of us eagre to see Half Life this November, dont need to worry (legally) about Valve. Unless of course im completely wrong. In which case were pretty screwed

Falgorn

CivilServant

Originally posted by Shinji
This is not true. A number of other game engines out there - including the most recent builds of the Doom 3, Halo, Unreal and Lithtech engines, as well as numerous console engines such as Konami's internal middleware - are more advanced technically than the Half-Life 2 engine.

The engine used in Half-Life 2 is a fairly ugly hack, in fact - it's basically GLQuake (yes, still!) with a complex materials and lighting system bolted on to it. However that system is still not hugely advanced compared to other graphics solutions out there.

The unique nature of the HL2 engine comes from the (third party) Havok physics code and the extraordinary talent of Valve's artists, not from any particular trickery in the code. Besides; no graphics engine is ever founded on particularly clever original ideas. All the ideas being implemented in graphics now are at least twenty years old and based on very, very old mathematical equations or speculative Siggraph-style papers from decades ago.

I'd have to disagree there. HL2 is the most technically advanced engine right now. Others are in development, yes, but not at the stage half is (or was) now.

Saying it's fundamentally based on GLQuake isn't totally wrong either, the latest processors are based on old x86 architecture and technology has improved on those old models to give us amazing power these days. Also I don't see any recreating an alternative to the wheel. If it works then expand on it and bring us something more powerful.

All the ideas are being implemented in graphics now because now we actually have the processing power to do this in realtime without sacrificing quality. I mean who is going to change equations that truely work, no one because that's the way it is and always will be. Plus no one (atm) is going to change the way computers work in binary. It's all based on simple AND, OR NOT gates and 1's and 0's it's simple, but it works. Just that it's a little more complex these days.

To say that HL2 is a hack of GLQuake is extremely unfair and bordering on insult to the programmers, technicians and designers of HL2. Why is it that Doom3 are cowering in their corner waiting for 04 to release, and these other games we won't see till next year. Cos HL2 is for now the most technically advanced, superior games engine on the brink of release.

Praetorian

I'll give very good odds for September 30th 2004

Shred

I'll give very good odds for September 30th 2004

Please God, let you be wrong:(

Dustaz

Originally posted by MrPinK
Valve of course, can sue the guy whole stole the code to recoupe their losses, but it will most likely turn out to be some 16 year old who's a little short on cash. Their insurance may cover the costs if they were not negligent in their security tho.

Can they sue Microsoft because outlook is clearly crap?

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by Dustaz
Can they sue Microsoft because outlook is clearly crap?

I was thinking that too, seemingly Microsoft have it their terms or license that they are not liable to any problems caused.. Mind you, say on www.zdnet.co.uk that someone is trying to sue them.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Do you mean the above?

Or do you mean?

Nothing I said was contradictory. Its how the code is used, its design and the ideas within it that are important. The code itself isn't apart from the fact that it in this case it what is used to describe those ideas/design. Puesdo code would do the same thing if it existed. For valve the problem is those ideas/designs are now out there. Trying to prove that someone has used their ideas and designs will be impossible. Since by the time someone uses it they will likely have further evolved the designs. and I'm still taking about the design/ideas in the code, and not the game or the code itself.

jesus_thats_gre

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Nothing I said was contradictory. Its how the code is used, its design and the ideas within it that are important. The code itself isn't apart from the fact that it in this case it what is used to describe those ideas/design. Puesdo code would do the same thing if it existed. For valve the problem is those ideas/designs are now out there. Trying to prove that someone has used their ideas and designs will be impossible. Since by the time someone uses it they will likely have further evolved the designs. and I'm still taking about the design/ideas in the code, and not the game or the code itself.

That makes far more sense. Sound!

Scruff

Well the lads at TheInquirer are pretty cinical about the whole thing.

Valve tubes unblocked in Half Life leakage

Editorial Excuse us for being uncharacteristically cynical


By our pompous op-ed writer: Tuesday 07 October 2003, 07:36

EXCUSE US for being uncharacteristically cynical, but now we've read most of the coverage of Half Life Two since last Thursday.
At least three things have occurred to us.

If Valve's security really is so weak that it somehow lost the code to a hacker through a purported problem with Microsoft Internet Exploder or Outlook, we need fear no aliens or gremlins invading the world from Alpha Centauri or Sirius or Rigel or wherever. If games designers don't know how to protect their own work, who does?

As you know, we don't believe in coincidences here at the INQUIRER, so if there was leakage just when ATI was releasing its financial results and shouting at Bosnians in Munich and US graphics reporters in Alcatraz, then it's pretty serendipitous for Valve.

Thirdly. Even the august Wall Street Journal splashed the story on its pages yesterday, but failed to contact Mr Valve for comment. Could you buy publicity like this?

Curiously, we spoke to several ATI people during the whole of last Friday and all of them claimed they hadn't even heard that $6 million Half Life code had leaked.

Like we said, excuse us for being uncharacteristically cynical, but doesn't the whole thing have the sniff of a fantastic David Blaine-like stunt? µ

They could have a point.

Rew

Originally posted by Scruff
Well the lads at TheRegister are pretty cinical about the whole thing.

LOL



When are the lads at the Reg not cinical!!!!

That post should get a comedy award




EDIT:

That link is to The Inquirer not the Register!!