Saving, selling and sharing your Blender Games!

this is sweet thanks i was messing around with inno setup compiler but got a error when i ran the final installer so nsis i hope will work out.

ok i tried nsis but it doesn seem to work.

It works for me!
Try changing any new code :slight_smile: I’ll end up doing an NSIS tutorial no doubt :wink:

what do yo mean try changing any new code?

I was assuming it was your own code.

no i just opened the folder with the runtime and all the other stuff with it

Wow, fantastic information agoose77. Desura (link) is a really great site. It looks professional, has a large array of games, and allows members to upload and change content. Desura might even be better than Steam. :eyebrowlift:

PS: the BGE is not included in the list of engines on Desura’s site (link). Someone needs to add it asap.

Contrary to popular belief, “proprietary developers” benefit from each other and contribute to open source. One great example is the Bullet Physics Library. There have been several major improvements to the Bullet Physics Library which have come from companies and proprietary developers. In addition, open source non-copyleft licenses, like MIT and BSD, allow for reuse in closed source solutions (and some of these solutions contribute back to the original library - such as in the case of Bullet PL).

However, I do agree that if the application/game is closed source, developer(s) will generally spend more time in development. (On the other hand, if an open source application is written from scratch and optimized properly, it could be bound by the same time constraints as closed source solutions).

The major issue about Open vs Closed source isn’t about distribution.

Unfortunately, large amounts of time and money go into research and design (even more than implementation). You can’t expect companies and individuals to contribute all their findings (through source or otherwise) when research and new technology is so expensive. In addition, “forcing” open source and copyleft on developers will only drive them away.

At the end of the day, people need to decide for themselves if Open/Closed source is the right choice.

Thanks C106!
I’m going to keep adding to this :slight_smile:
Also, i noticed BGE is missing, though it needn’t be. i’ll look into it!

@C-106 Delta:
Valid points. I did make my opposition fairly black/white to make a point.
Based on the BGE license (GPL) and the original post, I did aim at the those two.

The GPL is just a logic step since it is used by the BGE, but as you clearly state, your content or game doesn’t need to be.
But seen the choice for the BGE is made and set into stone as GPL, the combination of sources in different license styles do oppose a lot of problems in the legal area and future developments. Making your own game MIT /BSD for instance will not suit the GPL basics where your game will be build on (this thread/forum is all BGE targeted, right? -else the title wasn’t “Blender games”?), BGE is GPL.

So if you want to use the BGE engine as your basic engine, it will be hard to adopt a MIT/BSD license for the rest of your contributions and stay in the clear (outside the grey areas).

And when you find some loopholes / options to do so, the GPL might change and close the gap your work has been founded on, rendering it (as good as) useless (without your BGE foundation).

But for sure, when the license wasn’t GPL for the BGE, then maybe proprietary developers were more likely to contribute (MIT/BSD types of licenses).

But to be honest, I see it way more black and white:
When a proprietary developer contributes to Open Source, it is just someone who does both. Proprietary (in GPL license terms) and Open Source do not mix. That is where the GPL is constructed for.

Proprietary says kind of nothing else then keeping the sources for yourself, by sharing to Open Source, the term proprietary no longer fits.

So for short:
Distributing a BGE based game can be done as mentioned at this moment in the first post:
By either making it Open Source as one part,
or as any other type of license you wish, by dividing the game into to two (or more) parts, keeping just the BGE parts under the GPL.
The other type of license can be anything.

(correct me where I judge too easy or made unclear or clear errors in judgment) :slight_smile:

What if I set up a web site dedicated to my game (e.g. and sell my game from there ?
(and of course include the source code in the download package )

Why would that be a bad idea ? (since it is never mentioned)

unless your web host cares, which i doubt, then this a good way to go i think.

Currently Steam makes 95% of all sales of PC games(for indies), the second one is GoG with ~ 2%-5% of sales.
Desura is just a place to show off your work, they have “buy” button, that links to your Steam page.(I have ~10$ of sales from Desura for all my games).
The third platform is with 1%-2% of all sales.
Basically, if you want to sell your games, do not spend your time adding games on Desura/, they all together makes ~ 5%-6% of your sales, the rest 95% are from Steam.

Therefore, in order to sell a game, it cannot be GPL. Why? GPL requires that you make your source free by request. It is usually seen as a good thing, for it allows for development and refining of useful software, and a reference for others in that field. However, giving away the source to your game allows users to create mods of your game, custom clients and server hacks - potentially a free copy. Because steam requires DRM, releasing the source is out of the question, and so (therefore) is GPL licensing, which is inherent to BlenderPlayer (see below for more)

Totally false statement!
Steam is not forcing DRM, you can freely sell your games without DRM on Steam, as I do for years. GPL requires to provide the scripts(Python code), only if any external libraries are used in it(like PyGame). But the .blend is all yours. As long as you keep your code out of the .blend, you are not obliged to provide your .blend file to anyone.
So don’t worry, GPL works perfectly fine for selling blender games. This is the official blender foundation statement about your GPL concerns:

In short:
"Games created in Blender (.blend files) are program output and therefore not covered by the GPL. You can consider them your property, and license or sell them freely."

haidme there was the problem of linking your scripts to the bge module, this would infect with GPL your code no matter what I think I have read somewhere. Its mostly legal stuff so I’m not really sure.

haidme there was the problem of linking your scripts to the bge module

Sorry, but there is no problem linking the scripts to the blend file. If you are unsure and lack information about that, please ask in the proper section and I will explain in depth.

I really don’t understand, why you don’t believe the OFFICIAL Blender Foundation statements about their OWN software and try to make drama out of nothing. :stuck_out_tongue:

If anyone is still unsure(even if it is stated officially) :no: Please search the BA forums about the GPL and BGE before asking, there are literally dozens of threads explaining why you CAN sell your games anywhere you want. And if you still have doubts :spin: make a new thread and I will explain it once again…and again and again…

@ C-106 Delta

PS: the BGE is not included in the list of engines on Desura’s site (link). Someone needs to add it asap

In 2007 it was. I personally requested adding BGE back then and they added it a few months later.(probably I was not the only one acknowledging BGE as an engine back in the days. But since 2012 they removed it from their list. :slight_smile:
“Desura” was called “Indiedb”(it still exist as a separate entity) in 2007 but they went bankrupt around 2013, someone bought them and renamed the platform to Desura… The platform is fading since then.

Same here, somewhere in blender license i thought i read this: If you use the BGE module in your scripts those scripts are GPL and source needs to be handed out to everyone that asks for it.

i thought this was how it worked too?

thats why all my scripts are external .py files so can easily know where the source code is.

any visual .blend data is yours to license.

this is just an odd question but couldn’t you just in the game sripts import ‘your script’ as script…and just run code this way? or would it still be required to bundle it…if it is required at all…

TBH: I don’t see a lot of gamers even going down this path of downloading the source etc…I’m 99% sure that no one would even care unless you are making bullshit claims that you wrote the engine etc…

I also thought you did not have to include the source, but a link to the source.

this is just an odd question but couldn’t you just in the game sripts import ‘your script’ as script…and just run code this way? or would it still be required to bundle it…if it is required at all…

Was thinking about it as well, but if you think outside the box, no you can’t. Why? you import your script into the gpl script, your script(s) is/becomes part of that script and it Requires the bge module to run thus it becomes gpl. But that is how i think about it, i could be wrong.

so as a summery, any method mentioned in this thread is available right?
ian i just need to decide which and put up in mind what will happen if i chose one?

Messages from the past week did not came over from old forum, so here is my message again.

Can I license .blend files myself?
Yes. The output of Blender, in the form of .blend files, is considered program output, and the sole copyright of the user. The .blend file format only stores data definitions.
In case you embed the .blend file with Python scripts, and the scripts provide bindings to other libraries or facilities, the next topic applies.

What about Add-ons or my Python scripts?
If you share or publish Python scripts – if they use the Blender API calls – have to be made available compliant to the GNU GPL as well.


What are those API’s?

Game Engine Modules
Game Types (bge.types)
Game Logic (bge.logic)
Rasterizer (bge.render)
Video Texture (bge.texture)
Game Keys (
Physics Constraints (bge.constraints)
Application Data (