Patches & Mods

theluckyone17 · 07-18-07, 09:33 PM

So I had a thought (everybody stand back). There's a thread regarding radar & units that I ran across... one that asks which unit is used by the radar screen, 'cause it says meters on the screen. The answer was that the game uses whatever units selected, but the graphic still shows meters. A response was: it still shows meters, 'til a modder gets to it

.

That perked a thought in my head, which grew, lead to other thoughts, and ended up this great, grand idea stuck in my head. We all want a "perfect" SH4, right? We may have differing ideas on what comprises perfect, but a great deal of this is nitpicking. Ubi wants a "perfect" SH4, too... The happier we are with SH4, the more we tell others, the more that word gets around, etc., all resulting in more sold copies of SH4.

Now modders have plenty of "drive" and free time (well, maybe not so much, but it's mostly devoted to SH4 from what I can tell). The gaming community acts as testers... this forum should provide plenty of evidence of that. We've got plenty of "drive" and free time, too.

Ubi, on the other hand, has to pay for that drive and time. And whether they're short on cash or not, they obviously have to meet some sort of balance between cash spent and "perfection".

So why don't we (us devoted fans of SH4 + Ubi) collaborate on a higher level? Obviously, Ubi can't/won't give us access to the code, but why can't Ubi say "we'd like this graphic modified, or that added to the campaign layers" to a pool of modders?

Perhaps, by showing Ubi our continuing will to stand by SH4 and continue to improve it as much as we can on our end, they'd be willing to allow a dev (or a few) to continue tweaking it. Or set up a secure process by which certain qualified members are able to modify the source code directly.

We'd have to find some sort of compromise with all the copyright mumbo jumbo, obviously, and work out the organization.

Maybe I'm just feeling particularly rosy tonight, but it's a good thought nonetheless, right?

chopped50ford · 07-19-07, 02:25 AM

I keep reading about UBI being short on cash...where is that mentioned...and its pretty crappy to produce something that is so bug ridden...and just walk away?

Crazy.

John Channing · 07-19-07, 07:10 AM

It's not question of Ubisoft being short on cash (which they most definitely aren't) but rather keeping the product (SH4) profitable. If too much time and money is spent then he costs will exceed the budget that was allocated for this project and, unless SH4 sells a lot more copies than it was projected to, Ubisoft will lose money on it.

They are a business, after all.

JCC

Sailor Steve · 07-19-07, 10:28 AM

And given the current statements about the 1.3 patch, I think "just walk away" is a bit off target.

07-18-07, 09:33 PM	#1
theluckyone17 Captain Join Date: May 2006 Location: Niskayuna, NY Posts: 482 Downloads: 103 Uploads: 0	Patches & Mods So I had a thought (everybody stand back). There's a thread regarding radar & units that I ran across... one that asks which unit is used by the radar screen, 'cause it says meters on the screen. The answer was that the game uses whatever units selected, but the graphic still shows meters. A response was: it still shows meters, 'til a modder gets to it . That perked a thought in my head, which grew, lead to other thoughts, and ended up this great, grand idea stuck in my head. We all want a "perfect" SH4, right? We may have differing ideas on what comprises perfect, but a great deal of this is nitpicking. Ubi wants a "perfect" SH4, too... The happier we are with SH4, the more we tell others, the more that word gets around, etc., all resulting in more sold copies of SH4. Now modders have plenty of "drive" and free time (well, maybe not so much, but it's mostly devoted to SH4 from what I can tell). The gaming community acts as testers... this forum should provide plenty of evidence of that. We've got plenty of "drive" and free time, too. Ubi, on the other hand, has to pay for that drive and time. And whether they're short on cash or not, they obviously have to meet some sort of balance between cash spent and "perfection". So why don't we (us devoted fans of SH4 + Ubi) collaborate on a higher level? Obviously, Ubi can't/won't give us access to the code, but why can't Ubi say "we'd like this graphic modified, or that added to the campaign layers" to a pool of modders? Perhaps, by showing Ubi our continuing will to stand by SH4 and continue to improve it as much as we can on our end, they'd be willing to allow a dev (or a few) to continue tweaking it. Or set up a secure process by which certain qualified members are able to modify the source code directly. We'd have to find some sort of compromise with all the copyright mumbo jumbo, obviously, and work out the organization. Maybe I'm just feeling particularly rosy tonight, but it's a good thought nonetheless, right?

07-19-07, 02:25 AM	#2
chopped50ford Weps Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bentonville, AR Posts: 367 Downloads: 22 Uploads: 0	I keep reading about UBI being short on cash...where is that mentioned...and its pretty crappy to produce something that is so bug ridden...and just walk away? Crazy. __________________ TM2(SS) USS Asheville - Plankowner, Shellback, "Order of the Ditch" http://ths-i.com/

07-19-07, 10:28 AM	#4
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	And given the current statements about the 1.3 patch, I think "just walk away" is a bit off target. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

07-19-07, 07:10 AM	#3
John Channing Sea Lord Join Date: Sep 1998 Posts: 1,846 Downloads: 163 Uploads: 5	It's not question of Ubisoft being short on cash (which they most definitely aren't) but rather keeping the product (SH4) profitable. If too much time and money is spent then he costs will exceed the budget that was allocated for this project and, unless SH4 sells a lot more copies than it was projected to, Ubisoft will lose money on it. They are a business, after all. JCC