A Potentially Controversial Thought

[Shaggy]

I'm curious as to how mad do you think Origin\EA would get if someone actually hacked the Vision engine source code. Just to be clear I Am Not Trying To Promote Anyone To Illegal Actions! I am simply looking for opinion (and if this angers any of the moderators please forgive me and delete this post.)
But out of experience we see EA make record sales and then they decide to downsize all of their operations. So maybe if they made enough money they would give the source away for free
Okay, maybe not. But how much do you suppose it would cost to buy the source from them? I know that's happened before with other games.
I don't want to incite anyone to crime I'm just cravin a good discussion her.

 

[LeHah]

This is one dumb topic.

 

[Delance]

It's not unusual for game companies to release source codes. I think the source code for NOLF was released for free just 2 years after the release. But it's not EA policy.

Some other companies put old games to download for free. Also, not EA policy.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Lets be clear: adding the verb 'hacked' before something isn't in any way a solution to all the worlds problems. If it were possible to assign the task of 'hacking' to some group and suddenly have the source code for a game, then we sould have a lot more source code. This is not (nor can it ever be) an issue of whether or not getting the source is *moral*... it is an issue of whether or not it is possible. It simply is *not*. If it were possible, someone would be doing it.

Nor is EA going to give away source code, if it even still exists. It is not part of their business model. "But, other companies do! They're so nice to us! They care about the little guy!", you say. Hardly. The reason you can download the source code to various DooM and Quake games is because ID makes the vast majority of their money by *selling* this code to other developers. Sierra, for instance, paid ID X-million dollars to license the Quake 2 engine. To *continue* to make money in this manner, ID needs to create a demand for new engines to license. By giving away their Quake 2 engine, they force Sierra to buy the more advanced Quake 3 engine to make Half Life 2 (or whatever). This is *how* they make money. It's *not* how EA makes money. They make games and sell them, period. They don't license technologies (or, at least, their business is not based around licensing technologies). The companies that *do* give away source codes aren't trying to champion free speech (or whatever the word of the day is) -- they're trying to screw other companies.

Now, after all that, we come to the fan community. We have, for various reasons, built up this 'source code' as something absolutely amazing -- it's the girl we always lusted after in high school or somesuch. Here's the reality, though: The people who are serious about doing amazing fan projects are already doing amazing fan projects. The ones who sit around bitching about source code never will. There is an inordinate number of people on the internet who, to hear them talk, are the greatest game designers in the universe... if *only* they had the source code to Prophecy! The game would have been so much better if NeoZed68 had been asked to balance instead of a team of paid professional designers and testers. Are there fans who could do a similarly great job of making a Wing Commander game? Sure, but they're a tiny, tiny percentage. The vast majority of people who clamor for this 'holy grail' spend every morning on IRC ranting about how Prophecy would be great if only you could cloak and fire T-Bombs at everyone. Much like the aforementioned girl, they wouldn't know what to do with the source if they had it. It's just not how it works.

If there are so many people out there who want this source code, why aren't they doing simiarly amazing things tot he plethoria of 3D engines and such that are freely available? Hell, I'm sure pirated versions of B-Render are a dime a dozen... and that was used in an honest to goodness Wing Commander game. Why aren't we seeing Privateer 2 the way the world wants it (ie, with T-Bombs and no British people)?

Would I like to see the source code released, legally or not? Sure, that'd be great. I'm sure HCl would come up with some neat updates for the game -- letting people play in whatever futuristic operating system the next decade brings and so forth. But it's not the end-all to all the worlds complaints about Wing Commander.

 

[Delance]

Nicely put. Your take on the "source code" relevance seems to cover the entire issue.

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
The companies that *do* give away source codes aren't trying to champion free speech (or whatever the word of the day is) -- they're trying to screw other companies.

Hey, neither here nor there. It may not be the most selfless act of altruism, but you make it look like an evil and wicked maneuver driven by a heartless desire for profit. In fact, if they did such a thing with the sole intention of hurting other companies, they would get sued - there are laws against that kind of unethical practice. This kind of business is more regulated then most people would think. Certain actions that normally are within a company right, like lowering prices, can be considered illegal in certain circumstances. But regardless of the legal aspect, let’s remember this since this is a market with a lot of competition. It if was as evil as you made it sound, they would lose their business. Big companies don’t like to be screwed.

On a similar example, not about source code, but an entire game: when Rockstar releases the original GTA for free, it’s great marketing fow very low cost – bandwidth only. They can even profit the game in the future, since they can make it freely available and still control the distribution. Yes, they are doing a nice thing. Yes, they will benefit from it. What’s wrong with that? The specific point that a company will benefit from a certain action doesn’t immediately turn it into an evil maneuver devoid of good will.

Companies are designed to make money, but not everything they do is evil, or has a secret agenda of screwing other companies.

Why aren't we seeing Privateer 2 the way the world wants it (ie, with T-Bombs and no British people)?

Exotic European art direction is what made Priv2 unique. The game portion was not particularly good in the context of space combat sims, not to mention WC.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Hey, neither here nor there. It may not be the most selfless act of altruism, but you make it look like an evil and wicked maneuver driven by a heartless desire for profit.

I'm not saying it's *wrong* -- it's just that you can't point to any corporation and claim that they have your best interests at hand. They all do things for a profit.

Exotic European art direction is what made Priv2 unique. The game portion was not particularly good in the context of space combat sims, not to mention WC.

Privateer 2's engine was absolutely fantastic, though -- you could run a game that looks like Prophecy on a 486/33... and do it well. If the fan community claims they can fix Wing Commander games, start with one that's readily accessible and (supposedly) in need of fixing.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
I'm not saying it's *wrong* -- it's just that you can't point to any corporation and claim that they have your best interests at hand. They all do things for a profit.

But what does one thing has to do with the other? There’s no irrevocable correlation. Unlike what Hollywood movie portrays, it’s perfectly possible for a corporation to do a thing for profit and have the public best interest at heart. In fact, they are supposed to coincide, so everybody wins. Medical corporation develop new medicines, profit millions, billions even, and that’s a good thing. If they didn’t profit anything, there would be no investment and no medicine. Of course it’s not always like that, but that’s the concept of a democratic system with free enterprise, as far from perfect as it may be. Paraphrasing Churchill, it’s the worst system with the exception of all others.

Releasing source codes and old games for free may benefit the corporations that do so either directly or indirectly, but it also means that someone there actually cares about that stuff. It helps a company when there's a big community built around their game/source code. Old games are frequently released to promote the sequels (eg: Betrayl at Krondor, Caesar, GTA). There are plenty of reasons for them doing it in which they benefit, even if not by direct profit, and so does the community.

EA simply don't do this kind of stuff, for whatever reason. They feel it doesn't fit their business model, and they don't want to open the door. It doesn't make them bad (or, some say, that's not what make them bad), but don't make them good either. It’s just their right.

Privateer 2's engine was absolutely fantastic, though -- you could run a game that looks like Prophecy on a 486/33... and do it well. If the fan community claims they can fix Wing Commander games, start with one that's readily accessible and (supposedly) in need of fixing.

Yes, the game engine was good. I didn't like some of the rules applied to the game system, but that has not much to do with it. The render system was great for software.

But is it a pirate source code, or a legally usable one? The former wouldn't do much good for a long-range fan project.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

But what does one thing has to do with the other? There’s no irrevocable correlation.

As with the rest of my comments, I was addressing the issues before anyone brought them up -- the inevitable rant about how EA should release source code always leads to people claiming that EA is an evil company because they're only interested in profit when there are all these noble, individual loving companies who release their source code.

But is it a pirate source code, or a legally usable one? The former wouldn't do much good for a long-range fan project.

If it's not publically available (and it may well be), then it can be licenced very cheaply.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
people claiming that EA is an evil company because they're only interested in profit when there are all these noble, individual loving companies who release their source code.

Yeah, this is a particularly unconvincing reason to rant about EA. Not releasing the source code isn’t a display of disregard for the consumer. There are other reasons, of course, but this isn't a good one.

If it's not publically available (and it may well be), then it can be licenced very cheaply.

Interesting, you might be onto something here. The way things are going with space combat sims, fan projects might be the source of this kind of games for a while.

 

[Preacher]

Originally posted by Delance
...Yes, the game engine was good. I didn't like some of the rules applied to the game system, but that has not much to do with it. The render system was great for software...

That reminds me: When did Priv2 come out anyway, relative to the other (main) WC games?... Did it use the Vision engine, and if not, what was the engine used (I agree it was a pretty fantastic engine, and I think it would even hold up today pretty well...)

 

[Shaggy]

This topic kind of turned around and bit me in the ass.
I was really just trying to get people's opinion on how much value EA places on the Vision engine, considering it's age. I admit I may have been a little clumsy in my presentation of the topic, but it is what it is.
I also think I may have been a little mislead in some the past questions I've posed about the engine, and the answers I got pertaining to the source code. I thought that with an open source someone could integrate stuff like:

Cloaking fighters

True atmospheric missions ( with tanks and AA that aren't simply turrets on a huge mesh, not to mention destroyable buildings)

and maybe even a multiplayer system.

There are bunch of things I'd like to see that, the way I understood it, would require tweaking the source code for it to work properly.
I have always felt that something like Flight Commander, while an excellent achievement for a fan made scratch engine, does seem a little rough around the edges. I have trouble running it at varying times and for varying reasons. If it had the type of resources Vision had during development the problems could be ironed out relatively quickly. That is why I think that it would work better to tweak the Vision source because the engine has already gone through some rigourous testing already. But then again I'm a writer not a programmer
I have had some grand ideas for new WC stuff but as I think more about them, most would probably require a big game company to pull of. This, I guess, is why I abandoned the idea of creating Echo War as an SO mod.
So I guess I'll stick to what I know.

 

[Haesslich]

Originally posted by Preacher
That reminds me: When did Priv2 come out anyway, relative to the other (main) WC games?... Did it use the Vision engine, and if not, what was the engine used (I agree it was a pretty fantastic engine, and I think it would even hold up today pretty well...)

As LOAF said, it was the B-Render engine... and it came out in like 1996 or so...

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I also think I may have been a little mislead in some the past questions I've posed about the engine, and the answers I got pertaining to the source code. I thought that with an open source someone could integrate stuff like: Cloaking fighters, True atmospheric missions ( with tanks and AA that aren't simply turrets on a huge mesh, not to mention destroyable buildings) and maybe even a multiplayer system.

This is theoretically true. However, consider: all three of the things you've just listed are concepts the people who *built* the source decided were impractical to implement. Now you want to give X-million lines of code to a bunch of non-professional programers and expect them to do better? And even if that were possible, why would EA be interested?

Get together your group of amazing superprogrammers. Write a propsal. "We intend to produce a multiplayer game using blah blah blah, and this is specifically how we want to do it." Put on nice suits and go to California. They're not going to give away their trade secrets, but maybe they'll play you a nice income to develop this supposedly amazing Prophecy-improvement.

There are bunch of things I'd like to see that, the way I understood it, would require tweaking the source code for it to work properly.
I have always felt that something like Flight Commander, while an excellent achievement for a fan made scratch engine, does seem a little rough around the edges. I have trouble running it at varying times and for varying reasons. If it had the type of resources Vision had during development the problems could be ironed out relatively quickly. That is why I think that it would work better to tweak the Vision source because the engine has already gone through some rigourous testing already.

Fine -- so use one of the existing, freeware licenses. Prove to everyone that you (the royal you) can modify a given property to make it amazing. *Then* maybe EA would be interested in your talents. "I made an amazingly popular freeware game! Want me to work on Wing Commander?" is a lot better opening than "I get off school at 3! Can my friends and I have a FREE GAME?"

That reminds me: When did Priv2 come out anyway, relative to the other (main) WC games?... Did it use the Vision engine, and if not, what was the engine used (I agree it was a pretty fantastic engine, and I think it would even hold up today pretty well...)

It came out in late 1996 and used the licensed "B-Render" engine.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
why would EA be interested?

They aren't. While I tend to agree with you that they don't really have much reason to, some game companies find it interesting to have a big online community doing stuff with their source codes, for whatever reason. So it's not some crazy stunt.

Put on nice suits and go to California.[/B]

Well, that's sound advice!

 

[pygmypiranha]

I honestly don't think that EA even considers it a big deal anymore. I think their attention is elsewhere...they would probably consider giving it away as long as you agree not to make a profit.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Originally posted by pygmypiranha
I honestly don't think that EA even considers it a big deal anymore. I think their attention is elsewhere...they would probably consider giving it away as long as you agree not to make a profit.

No -- EA won't give away anything that could make them a profit. Imagine if they'd given away the source to Prophecy -- they wouldn't have been able to license it to a company wanting to do WCP:GBA. Unless a company can make money off of 'source code', they're not going to give it away.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
No -- EA won't give away anything that could make them a profit. Imagine if they'd given away the source to Prophecy -- they wouldn't have been able to license it to a company wanting to do WCP:GBA.

Well, to "give away" the source of prophecy would mean transfer the full rights. It's a totally different thing from releasing a version that fans could work to enhance the game for non-commercial purposes. In this case, they would still own the engine and could still license it to make the GBA Prophecy. Since the "free" engine source code could not be used for a commercial product like the WCP:GBA, it would not be relevant, at all.

It's particularly the case with WCP:GB because the most important aspects of IP are the trademark and copyright assets, including names, logo, history, art, movies, images, music, and that sort of thing.

There are other reasons for EA to not release the source code.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Delance

It's particularly the case with WCP:GB because the most important aspects of IP are the trademark and copyright assets, including names, logo, history, art, movies, images, music, and that sort of thing.

Yeah, you'd think they'd go and release that sort of stuff to someone making a properly licensed port, wouldn't you?

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by TC
Yeah, you'd think they'd go and release that sort of stuff to someone making a properly licensed port, wouldn't you?

Licensing the copyrighted material for a game port has nothing to do with the release of the source code for fans to work on. Sierra released the NOLF source code so fans could make missions. Sierra can still license NOLF for a GBA port. It's simply not relevant.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Delance
Licensing the copyrighted material for a game port has nothing to do with the release of the source code for fans to work on. Sierra released the NOLF source code so fans could make missions. Sierra can still license NOLF for a GBA port. It's simply not relevant.

I didn't say anything about releasing things to the public. Notice the use of the preposition 'to'?

If you're confused when reading, you can do the following:

Read throught the sentence once, then say to yourself:

"To whom would one think they would release this material?"

Now you read the sentence again!

"Ah! One would think they'd release this material to someone making a properly licensed port"

Hurrah, we have successfully comprehended the sentence