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.

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.

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 :cry:

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.)

This is incorrect. Usage of mods off the internet does not work in this fashion. We just purchased a major sim. I was the one that introduced it to my command. The command is very restrictive about using open source and free material.

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.

Kage you aren't Thomasew are you under a new username?

What Kage just posted here is almost verbatim what Jamie at SCS has told us and you can't get any higher than that.

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.

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.

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

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.

[quote=Andy]Not amuse the people. Any country which has such products of modeling professional simulators for naval fleet has of the advanced developers, which do products directly only under the needs.
Believe - for them such game as DW not a sample for imitation. It is simply ridiculous....:lol:

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.

I am not doubting what Jamie told everyone, but as someone that deals with civilian contractors, I can say he likely isn't at liberty to divulge all the details of the agreement either. As I stated, what he said makes zero sense. And I say this as someone that has sat one the selection board for multimillion dollar contracts for the Department of the Army. The Navy would not find free mods off the internet for their use unappealing. I have worked with the Navy on occasion albeit not the sub fleet but rather buds from Team 3, and free enhancements for a government purchased product do not detract from the reason to buy a product. What Jamie and his guys want to do is sell the mods to the government. In the end, it actually reduces the number of licenses you decide to buy. Why contractors do not realize this surprises me.

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.

>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?

This means the Command will not use something that is open source if there is a possibility that it violates any law. They also won't use it if there is the possibility it could be perceived as a violation of a law. They will contact the parent company of a free product and insure that it is in fact free to use. If they get a response in writing then they love it. They are very restrictive about their usage meaning they will not flagrantly or haphazardly start using software without being very precise concerning the status of that software. In 2001 this mistake was made and it wound up costing a million in royalties. A current example is the Command having to pay for Teamspeak. Teamspeak is free off the web for non-profit use. Rather than cause difficulty by just using it, the Command talked with Teamspeak and arrived at a solution. It's crazy since the military is non-profit, but that was the case.

Once they are sure of the status of a mod or such then they are very happy to be able to use it. Case and point is VBS. This program is used for training and there are a ton of mods available for free. The highers are glad they are not getting pinged for a few thousand for every free mod. Many of these are available for free from the VBS website. They are officially endorsed and free for download. We wound up in totla with quitre a few mods that had they been built from scratch, would have cost together up to $100,000. There was just a very meticulous process first to verify their status.

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.

Andy I see what you are saying.

Why don't you write to Jamie privately he might have something to say.

Thank you Xabba, Oneshot, and Co. for your posts above, I appreciate you explaining the situation - thank you again for your help, as always!


Andy,

You can compare DW (or any of our games) to Operation Flashpoint/Bohemia Interactive (or any game/developer which you think applies) and at the end of the day it all makes little difference.

OFP is one of the most modular and mod-friendly games ever to be released, and (my impression from what I have read in Developer PostMortems and the like indicated that) they architected the game from the ground up to be that way. They spent a considerable amount of time in development (4 years, I read? Correct me if I'm wrong) making sure that the game framework was what they wanted it to be. Albeit their initial development was with a smaller team than ours which affords them some flexibility in that regard. But even with that much time for a dev cycle OFP still shipped with its fair share of bugs (many of which were fixed in the last 5-6 years, of course).

My point is that DW has been released. Had we chosen to release 2 new platforms instead of 4 (while still including the SC nuke subs, of course) then maybe we could have invested some funds into the development of the architecture and the creation of community mod tools and editors. Or maybe if we had cut our team in half and lengthened the dev cycle by a year or so then we could have applied some resources on a "part time" basis to work on those sorts of tasks (and tools).... who knows? (but again, I believe the contractual obligations with our DoD/Foreign customers would prohibit some of that - because I know what those agreements ACTUALLY are, as opposed to your speculation in the posts above).

This is all hypothetical, of course, because (as I said) DW is done. For us to invest additional funds to create these new tools (even if it were done in 2005 when the game was initially released) would not be cost-effective.

And to be honest, Andy, you have no idea how many projects are built on the NavalSimEngine here in our company. Tens of millions of dollars of gov't funding for trainers, simulations, and visualization and analysis tools have been won by our company by using our game group's technology (NavalSimEngine, predominately) in the proposal/bidding and eventual implementation (heck, I don't even know all the projects which probably use it). So, I'm sure there are a few things which BIA could learn from Sonalysts in that respect too - don't you think?

Again, I would have loved to make a whole suite of tools which could be used to create all sorts of fun things for DW, but as it turned out the fact that we were finanically prudent and responsible in our development costs for DW will likely allow us to "fight another day" in this volatile PC Gaming/Simulation market when other developers would not have been able to sustain themselves.

To me, that's what's most important. ;)

Marcus Huse Jacobson then? :hmm: :know:

I have read Jamie's response a few times now and every time i read it i feel that he is saying good-bye.The sales of DW were poor and I am not sure how the NCP has faired but i would think that they were not great.SCS know what pays the bills and it is not us!Government contracts keep Jamie and his colleagues employed.The last thing SCS need is a free game that is better than their software-they will all be out of a job.
We will have to accept DW as it is now warts and all.One day they will move on and perhaps the restrictions on development will be lifted but I feel it will be a long wait.
Jamie I await your correction if my prognosis is wrong but I would be glad for you to blow it to pieces with a controllable t-boat.

I do not know the intricacies of Jamie's Company that's a fact. And I never made pretenses to such. I stated what is common in DoD. On a similar note contractors never see the inside workings of the military acquisition process no matter how much time they spend on base or hobnobbing with the decision makers. They have no idea of what the focus and desires are when a unit is putting forward a request. They know what is in the proposal. For various reasons what the contractor sees as a request isn't always what the military wants. I write from the military side of the house where I have been for 19 years. Most of the time as an operator, but now as an instructor charged with digital training for our candidates. There will be a National Geographic special sometime in March, it depends on the editing, and I discuss some of the training.

I never referenced OFP. You are off the mark. I am referring to VBS1. A product that was improved to no end because of the company's interaction with the civilian community. An action which in turn greatly benefitted the military community. It was not only beneficial but extremely cost effective. It also allowed VBS2 to develop into a product that, unlike other sims, now in beta has no equal.

I look at what Jamie wrote and I am mystified. I appreciate his response but again I am left shaking my head. Was there nothing to be released that would have assisted modders? I never pointed to the fact that his company should spend the money to develop tools. There are enough talented people in the community that simply releasing source material would likely be enough. The reason for not releasing anything is exactly what Jamie stated then somewhat retracted. Military customer implications.

I don't know if BIA could learn anything. I don't mean to sound pompous but look at their track record. The Australians, the New Zealanders, the Marine Corps, the Special Warfare Center here at Bragg, The Canadians, the British MOD. And now the big green Army is looking very closely at VBS2. A product which is simply amazing. Look at the editor:

http://www.vbs2.com/media/movies/rea...ditor_high.wmv

More here:

http://www.vbs2.com/site/downloads.html

Their customer interaction has been like no other company with which I have ever dealt. In coordination with their parent company they neatly divided up the civilian and military sides of the house. Their tool inclusion was a stroke of genius.

I am guessing that what is being implied is that only tools could have helped the mod community. No other code or anything else would have been of assistance at all. Several people have commented to me that their impression was that such modding even without assistance seems to be verboten.

Well, there is always Sub Command. SCXIIc and the wonderful work by that Team have shown that a modable product will outlive one that can't be modded every time. That's good for the gamer and it's smart marketing all around. So much for this topic.