S&box is now an open source game engine

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Relationship to Source 2 & Valve

  • S&box is open source but depends on Valve’s proprietary Source 2; you get S&box code, but not the underlying engine.
  • Some see this as “shaky ground” given Valve’s limited public support for Source 2 (no general SDK, no console support, almost no third‑party licensing).
  • Others argue that S&box effectively is the de facto Source 2 SDK, maintained as a fork by Facepunch, with Valve changes merged in.
  • Debate over Valve’s trajectory: earlier era of strong SDK/mod support vs. current focus on Steam and a few big games; some push back, citing continued mod support (e.g., TF2 SDK) and long-lived Source 1 mod scenes.

Licensing, Commercial Use & Platform Support

  • Repo license is MIT plus a requirement to retain copyright notices; but Source 2’s closed license still governs distribution.
  • Existing deal requires publishing through Steam; details (pricing parity, exclusivity, launch timing) are unclear, and docs now warn not to distribute exported games yet.
  • Currently Windows-only, despite Source 2 and .NET being theoretically cross‑platform; users hope this is temporary.

Positioning vs Engines & Roblox

  • Many view S&box as closer to Roblox: a host game exposing APIs for user‑made game modes, with a playtime-based revenue fund.
  • Standalone exports would move it closer to Unity/Godot territory; this depends on further agreements with Valve.
  • Some welcome another serious alternative to Unity/Unreal; others argue there are already many engines and S&box may struggle to stand out.

Technology & Tools

  • S&box is described as a heavily modified Source 2 build, adding a scene-based system, its own Unity-like editor, and a C#/.NET framework.
  • It can also use Source 2’s Hammer editor, which some praise as one of the few robust level‑design tools remaining.
  • There’s curiosity about how they turned a map-based engine into a scene-based one and how C# sandboxing is implemented.

Facepunch, Community & Culture

  • Facepunch is portrayed as a highly successful, developer-driven studio with a history in moddable sandboxes (Garry’s Mod, Rust).
  • Some lament stricter moderation/monetization decisions compared to the “old” mod‑friendly era.
  • Repo profanity is widely noted and mostly treated as humorous, even linked to a claim that “swearier code” can be higher quality.
  • There’s criticism of relying on Discord for docs/community, especially given Facepunch’s own past forum shutdown.

Linux & Anti‑Cheat (Tangential Debate)

  • Facepunch’s weak/nonexistent Linux support (e.g., Rust official servers) is criticized.
  • One side argues kernel-level anti‑cheat on Linux is too weak, attracting cheaters and justifying blocking Linux clients.
  • A lengthy opposing view frames kernel anti‑cheat as an unacceptable attack on user control and computing freedom, arguing cheating is a lesser evil than invasive system software.
  • Others counter that online games are communal experiences and that effective anti‑cheat is necessary, even if it limits some platforms.