SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
12-29-06, 11:07 AM | #1 |
Bosun
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 66
Downloads: 15
Uploads: 0
|
Playable Subs DEVS-Petition
The Dangerous Waters developers have made editing of the .dll's illegal, thus adding new platforms, is too illegal. As hard as ANY game company can try, ppl will always find ways to hack, eidt, and creat new stuff. All the game companies can do, is make it harder.
I myself have created new subs and not touched the .dll's, it's easy, the only good the dev's are doing when saying you can't add playables, is shortening the lifespan of the game, as the prospect of having to keep with the same thing for as long as you play it, does get boring. And they're just shushing up the fact we do this in THIS forum. It's not stopping the making of new subs, its going to dramaticly decrease the lifespan of the game, and it makes it all less injoyable. Im sure there are many examples of this, for istance, battlefield 1942, a game that i was playing about a year ago, would've been dead LOOONGG ago was it not for the DC mod that came out. As said before, the only thing thats happening, is its being shushed on THIS forum, and they're only quote: 'shooting yourself in the foot' when you stop this. |
12-30-06, 02:41 AM | #2 |
Watch
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
Now that I have my username straightened out, I'll repeat my words. As I was quoted above, they are shooting themselves in the foot. All you have to do is look at the Mod Database awards. http://moddb.com/ These mods, free to the public in an age of ever increasing prices, breathe life into new and older games alike. To have denied permission to mod the game IN A RESPECTFUL FASHION THAT ACTUALLY PROMOTES SALES is one of the most ridiculous acts in the history of gaming. Even 3dfx wouldn't have made a mistake like that.
|
12-30-06, 05:02 AM | #3 |
Soundman
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Compartment № 5 /Silos/
Posts: 149
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
When dynamics of comes to an end, the marasm begins...For more gamers DW already almost dead - this is no new potential interest in currently
__________________
-+= I the ocean hunter, and I am dangerous =+- *** Kalashnikov - the best *** |
12-31-06, 09:39 PM | #4 |
Helmsman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 104
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
The message you come with is valid for normal game companies. Sonalysts isn't.
Their main customer is the us navy. SCS charge them a lot more for what may be a enhanced version; yet if they can find a mod doing the very same thing, free, will they pay SCS for it? They are doing this in order to NOT shoot themselves in feet, legs or hips. Then again, even without the legal restrictions, there's one heck of a lot we can't do, without a huge effort. Aegis interfaces, for example, will be outside our reach unless we can create them pretty much from scratch. Unless we learn how the communication between DW and the interfaces work, we can't do that. (I and Ludger looked into that a bit once, though I don't remember if that was DW or SC.)
__________________
http://www.xfire.com/clans/dwobjective/ for those who like playing objectives-based missions. (As opposed to deathmatches) |
12-31-06, 11:19 PM | #5 | |
Watch
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
The fact that you must have the original for the mod to run only makes the idea of purchasing the actual product MORE attractive and likely. The fact that there are free add-ons that require the base product increases sales for the base product. If a mod runs without owning the original product in an illegal fashion then the military, at least in the US, won't touch it. Sorry, but your conclusions are in error. Free mods that enhance an original product that would have to be purchased in order to run said free mods increases sales of the original. Period. By not allowing free mods they decrease the attraction of their base product and REDUCE government sales rather than increase them. If the government bought the product and said - we don't want this looking any better or more functionally realistic than it is so that foreign agents can't use it as a training tool then that is certainly possible. But highly highly unlikely that such an agreement was put down in writing. Personally I am looking for another company to build a sub sim that realizes the sales value in modding. |
|
01-01-07, 04:44 AM | #6 | |
Navy Seal
|
Quote:
|
|
01-01-07, 04:48 AM | #7 | |
Navy Seal
|
Quote:
This argument has been going around ad nauseum since DW got released. I personally don't think this is going to help. Do a search and you will find plenty of threads to that effect (about mods with new playables). Also I have never known anyone who has bought a sim or game just to get the mod. |
|
01-01-07, 05:42 AM | #8 |
Sea Lord
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,898
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
If Scs are not going to deliver what we all hope for then perhaps the Silent Hunter producers could be lobbied to deliver what we want.
|
01-01-07, 05:49 AM | #9 | ||
Grey Wolf
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 956
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0
|
As Xabba already pointed out, this subject has been discussed extensively - and has found the way into the FAQ and even an interview (or two) with Jamie. Nevertheless here is Jamies most recent statement on the subject
Quote:
|
||
01-01-07, 08:09 AM | #10 |
Sea Lord
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,898
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Living on maybe's and possibly tomorrow will never please the majority.The NCP was launched I believe to fund further development for the games market.Perhaps I am being impatient but I cannot see it happening.I think it is time to ditch SCS and try and get a more commercial game maker involved.
|
01-01-07, 08:45 AM | #11 | |
Soundman
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Compartment № 5 /Silos/
Posts: 149
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
[quote=Andy]
Quote:
Believe - for them such game as DW not a sample for imitation. It is simply ridiculous....
__________________
-+= I the ocean hunter, and I am dangerous =+- *** Kalashnikov - the best *** |
|
01-01-07, 02:56 PM | #12 |
Navy Seal
|
Can you guys give it a rest?
Have you guys not read or understand what Jamie has said? Do you not think Jamie would like to release extra playable units to joe public. Do you think SCS haven't made versions of DW with extra playables for government customers. SCS is shackled in part by the work it does for teh DoD, ever wondered why Sonalysts is called just that? Frankly I think SCU and SCX might be partly to blame here in an indirect and unitended manner. We made a system where you had new uniquely playable units. People expected a similar thing to be done with DW, however as JAMIE HAS EXPLAINED SCS business model was based on X amount of units selling so that they could then release and OPFOR pack, which probably already exists for government customers. They over estimated how many units they would sell and thus an expansion at the moment isn't viable. I seem to get the impression that people think SCS should release an expansion pack for DW regardless almost as if it won't cost them money to do it, as if SCS commercial releases should be subsidised by the military stuff. Thing is the two are separate, the government customers have already pid for there stuff up front, full cost for the work needed to put in new units and features associated with them. Costs that would be incurred again possibly for a commercial release since certain elements of public release and government release are different and code would need to be rewritten and paid for. SCS is a small part of Sonalysts business, SCS staff can and are pulled off from DW to work on other more lucrative and more to the point more important work. Maybe SCS should license the product to a full time developer like UbiSoft, but who knows where that would lead. I can't see UbiSoft doing such a thing, their accountants probably don't liek the figures. Also Ubis reputation isn't that great when it comes to this, they couldn't even get their backsides into gear for Harpoon 4 which would have been a huge seller. I think you should give SCS a break and be grateful that we do have this sim and that SCS allow us to mod what I would consider to be the most important part and that is the database and doctrine files like LWAMI has done. When it comes down to it what real difference is there sub hunting in a P-3 compared to a IL-38 or Atlantique. You can make scenarios and use imagination. |
01-01-07, 09:43 PM | #13 | ||
Watch
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
To reiterate, the only reason not to allow mods is to prevent a product from being usuable as a training device for foreign entities. Other reasons may make sense but when you do the math, being able to nickle and dime the government for every mod you produce is not only cost ineffective but it is also ethically questionable when it is an implemented strategy. I have read all the threads on the past. I certainly am not a noob to this board. But simply dismissing the argument about modifications on a sim sends the wrong message to potential devs and publishers out there besides Sonalysts that visit this board for ideas. Someday someone will pull their head out of their 4th point of contact and produce a nuke sim that is a little more public friendly. Sonalysts on the other hand need to decide which section of the buyers they intend to service and if they intend both then find a better method to do so. There is a way to serve both communities (military and civilian) and Bohemia Interactive have written the book on that procedure. Sonalysts could learn a thing or two (or three) from them. Having been responsible for getting the BIA product here to our Center, I understand the workings and machinations of the Civilian/Military industrial software complex and know a good methodology when I see one. BIA not only manages to do dual duty, but they do it quite well. Last edited by Andy; 01-01-07 at 09:54 PM. |
||
01-03-07, 06:24 PM | #14 |
Helmsman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 104
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
>Kage you aren't Thomasew are you under a new username?
Look again. The sig pic. >The command is very restrictive about using open source and free material. >The Navy would not find free mods off the internet for their use unappealing. I'm sure there's a way to interpret these that don't make them mutually exclusive. Would you help me?
__________________
http://www.xfire.com/clans/dwobjective/ for those who like playing objectives-based missions. (As opposed to deathmatches) |
01-04-07, 05:35 AM | #15 | ||
Watch
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Command is restrictive about using open source material. But it appeals to them once the status of 'free' mods can be verified in writing. |
||
|
|