Ideas for MODs?

(ydnar) #21

Mod is short for modification, it’s not an acronym.

Kudos to Valve for perpetuating this misnomer. :confused:

y

(jah) #22

ET and SD only have to gain if they release the SDK in my believe…

:moo:

(Blackadder_NZ) #23

Lets start up a Beer Account for SD! We all chip in with a few bucks/pounds each, with enough people we could buy them a couple of kegs and after they’ve gotten over their hangover they work on releasing the source code!!!

(pwillard) #24

Am I the only one that hopes that SD retains ALL rights and control over the ET source code? Giving it up to the public is NOT a good thing… at least at this stage in its life.

We need to work with what we have and exhaust all reasonable possibilities before we toss it away to try an create something new. We barely have new maps and a queue is forming to make changes to the code…

In my experience with other games, there are those like SHRUB and BANI that do superb work but they are severly outnumbered by the “look at me” kiddies who superficially change a few lines of code and then feel its OK to call the whole fricking thing their own work!

SD: PLEASE DON’T Cave into the GIMME SOURCE requests.

(narked) #25

We had a REVOLUTION because of people like you. Who gives a fu*k how it is spelled you knew how it was implied. Why does the english language have over 500,000 words, because when we imply something we like the ability to say it ten different ways.

Maybe they meant, MODS = Modification Of Distributable Software

As for the license it is an option for id to stop mods, and other manipulations of their “intellectual property” from being distributed. For RTCW, a master query on pathfinder will show that over half the the servers are running some sort of mod; Shrub, OSP, Bani. Id is not going to tell these servers not to run these mods, that would not make good business sense. As the saying goes, “Dont bite the hand that feeds you”.[/quote]

Obviously I for one “give a fu*k”. There’s plenty of other people whore care too. And with all that stuff being in the license, it’s illegal no matter what. Whether or not ID choose to take any action is a different matter, but it doesn’t stop it breaking the license.

And I think you’ll find that the game source was made available for RTCW, so it’s a completely different matter. That has a seperate license that deals with modifications to the game code. If the ET game source is released, the same will happen for ET. But until then, it’s illegal to modify the libraries, and I personally would stay clear of the issue.

ID have both threatened and used legal action against individuals in the past, and they’ll do it again.

And hell yeah, SD, keep that source locked away somewhere. It’s a damn good game as it is. It’s a free game, and you’re giving us more than you have to with the editing tools. Game source would allow people to pretty much make their own games using a damn good commercial engine and the whole thing would be available completely free, which I’d guess is one of the reasons it’s not expected to be released.

If I ever meet any of you SD guys, drinks are on me.

(Ark42) #26

This is probably right on. The mod source will probably never be released publicly and this is the reason. What is really unfortunate is that the few serious modders still have no way to create good mods other then shrub. They should open the doors a little bit more, allowing a few more people access to the source under the same NDA as shrub.

(SCDS_reyalP) #27

Well, if history is anything to go by, the quake3 engine will eventually be GPLed (some time after doom3 is out). At that point, it would make good sense to release the ET game source :stuck_out_tongue:

That said, it would be nice if id/activision/splash would have a standard license + NDA for people who want the ET code rather than just giving it to the people who have connections.

In my experience with other games, there are those like SHRUB and BANI that do superb work but they are severly outnumbered by the “look at me” kiddies who superficially change a few lines of code and then feel its OK to call the whole fricking thing their own work!

I didn’t see this happen at all with RTCW.

(narked) #28

The more people that have it on NDA, the harder it becomes to find out who’s responsible for a leak.

(Ark42) #29

True, but letting 3 people instead of 1 person have it isnt that big of a risk.

(MattAttack) #30

I can only say that I am also a diablo 2 modder and that as far as I know: source code is not released and modding is illegal. It is possible to mod diablo only because a hacker invented a way to decrypt the special files blizzard uses for its games. And yet modding is tolerated and people inside the staff occasionally release a few tricks to help us. The only way is to ask them when will it be at least just frowned upon yet no more illegal. Darn making a good map is hard… Even harder than editing the map in diablo…

(Pamper) #31

The licenses which come with software aren’t legally binding. Those that you sign applying for an online game service are. But I don’t want to argue about this. (Just notice that many game players, and even some mod developers, are under 18, and aren’t allowed to agree to any licenses)

ID have both threatened and used legal action against individuals in the past, and they’ll do it again.

Do you have any example of this? A case of quashing an unapproved mod I mean (and NOT something based on redistributing copies of files from id software, which is a copyright violation regardless of the license. Especially, using their textures in a map and selling it is illegal for other reasons than their license)

In the days before Quake, there was a very popular Doom mod called dehacked. id never took any steps against it. They gave it no permission, but they didn’t have to- they have no legal ability to stop a mod like that.

You can find examples of id using legal action to protect the creation of mods. Search for the history of quakelives.com (a project that id squished, because it prevented mods).

(narked) #32

Did I say specifically they have taken against against people reverse engineering? No. However if I did, point it out so I can stand corrected.

The license may not be legally binding in the way that a signed contract is, but it can still be used to sue someone if they breach it. And there’s a hell of a lot of things under 18 year olds can’t legally do, but it sure doesn’t stop 'em, does it?

(Grimmy_EFG) #33

Yeah thats a good idea. It would be a shame not to have WolfTV for enemy territory.