wonderfield on 27/1/2012 at 05:42
Square doesn't need it. They have the full source. What DDFix does in a hack-ish sort if way can be done by Square directly within the executable.
Thelvyn on 27/1/2012 at 06:32
Quote Posted by wonderfield
Square doesn't need it. They have the full source. What DDFix does in a hack-ish sort if way can be done by Square directly within the executable.
Exactly. Which is what they should do if they intend to repackage it. And will do most likely rather than pay to license it. Unless the bean counters feel it would be cheaper to license it, I doubt it though.
Remember to them its all about the money they are not emotionally invested like we are.
wonderfield on 27/1/2012 at 16:25
That certainly sends the wrong message doesn't it? Remember that the ultimate goal here is not to have a version of Thief that Square patches up a bit for GoG: the goal is to get Square to make a gesture to the community by releasing the source code. Our attitude should be one of cooperation and giving such that Square might, as a company comprised of humans, believe it or not, feel compelled to reciprocate.
They still need a financial incentive to release the source, which is not a difficult thing to demonstrate given the kind of success Freespace/Freespace 2 have had in this respect (the game's availability on GoG will help here), but we can't push them into a position where they would end up resenting the same community that would invariably end up benefiting the most from the source code.
New Horizon on 27/1/2012 at 17:07
Quote Posted by wonderfield
They still need a financial incentive to release the source, which is not a difficult thing to demonstrate given the kind of success Freespace/Freespace 2 have had in this respect (the game's availability on GoG will help here), but we can't push them into a position where they would end up resenting the same community that would invariably end up benefiting the most from the source code.
It was a member of this very community who did all of the footwork to find the source code, and when he had the former LGS developer hand it directly to them, they didn't even say so much as thanks! They just cut off communication.
If they want the community to buy anything from them, they should create some relationships with the community.
SlyFoxx on 27/1/2012 at 17:16
This last page has fuck all to do with the previous argument. You bitches have let me down!
:eww:
Thelvyn on 27/1/2012 at 18:42
Quote Posted by wonderfield
That certainly sends the wrong message doesn't it? Remember that the ultimate goal here is not to have a version of Thief that Square patches up a bit for GoG: the goal is to get Square to make a gesture to the community by releasing the source code. Our attitude should be one of cooperation and giving such that Square might, as a company comprised of humans, believe it or not, feel compelled to reciprocate.
They still need a financial incentive to release the source, which is not a difficult thing to demonstrate given the kind of success Freespace/Freespace 2 have had in this respect (the game's availability on GoG will help here), but we can't push them into a position where they would end up resenting the same community that would invariably end up benefiting the most from the source code.
So your argument is if we want them to release it to us so we should make it easier for them to have GOG sell it to get them to release it to us for free ? That really doesn't make any sense to me.
Quote Posted by New Horizon
It was a member of this very community who did all of the footwork to find the source code, and when he had the former LGS developer hand it directly to them, they didn't even say so much as thanks! They just cut off communication.
If they want the community to buy anything from them, they should create some relationships with the community.
I agree completely but they do not seem to give a rats ass about the community. If they did they would have reached out to us by now. Their silence speaks volumes.
Unless I am missing something ?
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
This last page has fuck all to do with the previous argument. You bitches have let me down!
:eww:
We have gotten completely off topic havent we ? Sorry ... :erg:
wonderfield on 27/1/2012 at 19:35
Quote Posted by Thelvyn
So your argument is if we want them to release [the source code] to us so we should make it easier for them to have GOG sell [the game?] to get them to release [the source code? the game?] to us for free ?
Given the way the question was written, I can't reliably answer it. I'll try, though, I guess.
My argument is that, if we want Square to release the source code to the community, we should not make any attempt to do anything that would breed any resentment toward said community. If Square should come to jermi (or whoever) and express an interest in using DDFix for the assumed upcoming Thief/Gold/II release on GoG, there shouldn't be a barrier put in place that would lead to any resentment toward the community as a whole. Saying "pay up, fuckers" — which is what you seem to be suggesting — would be such a barrier.
Whether or not there's been any kind of community engagement from Square Enix to this point is none of my concern and, perhaps more importantly, rather beside the point. Whether it's telling of the overall mindset at Square Enix is, too, beside the point.
Thelvyn on 27/1/2012 at 23:42
Quote Posted by Thelvyn
So your argument is if we want them to release it to us so we should make it easier for them to have GOG sell it to get them to release it to us for free ? That really doesn't make any sense to me.
Oh yes an extra "so" in there. That makes the entire question unreadable ? So sorry its called distraction's and haste.
So your argument is if we want them to release it to us we should make it easier for them to have GOG sell it to get them to release it to us for free ? That really doesn't make any sense to me.
Seems to make perfect sense to me, I read books with worse grammar then that all the time. It's called reading comprehension.
Quote Posted by wonderfield
Given the way the question was written, I can't reliably answer it. I'll try, though, I guess.
My argument is that, if we want Square to release the source code to the community, we should not make any attempt to do anything that would breed any resentment toward said community. If Square should come to jermi (or whoever) and express an interest in using DDFix for the assumed upcoming Thief/Gold/II release on GoG, there shouldn't be a barrier put in place that would lead to any resentment toward the community as a whole. Saying "pay up, fuckers" — which is what you seem to be suggesting — would be such a barrier.
Whether or not there's been any kind of community engagement from Square Enix to this point is none of my concern and, perhaps more importantly, rather beside the point. Whether it's telling of the overall mindset at Square Enix is, too, beside the point.
Talk about turning the other cheek, well to Eidos and Square Enix at least.
They are either going to release the code to the community OR they are going to give it to GOG to make more money. The odds of them doing both are astronomical.
Do you perchance work for one of them ?
That would explain your attitude perfectly and since you seem to be a developer maybe you are just protecting your bosses ?
Or maybe your just naive. Is anyone that naive ?
Al_B on 28/1/2012 at 00:22
Quote Posted by Thelvyn
They are either going to release the code to the community OR they are going to give it to GOG to make more money.
OR they do nothing. It won't cost them lawyer fees and would be the easiest option.
New Horizon on 28/1/2012 at 00:51
Quote Posted by wonderfield
My argument is that, if we want Square to release the source code to the community, we should not make any attempt to do anything that would breed any resentment toward said community. If Square should come to jermi (or whoever) and express an interest in using DDFix for the assumed upcoming Thief/Gold/II release on GoG, there shouldn't be a barrier put in place that would lead to any resentment toward the community as a whole. Saying "pay up, fuckers" — which is what you seem to be suggesting — would be such a barrier.
You seem to be missing the point. We didn't create any barriers in the first place. A dedicated community member, who wouldn't take "the source code is lost" for an answer, found the source code for Eidos. They didn't ask the former LGS employee to secretly give it to the community, they faithfully asked the LGS employee to give the code to Eidos...with the understanding that they would keep him in the loop. Well, that didn't happen. Rene left and his replacements were frustratingly unhelpful. As a community we've kept this game series alive with hundreds of fan missions.
They've created the barrier, not us. We've done everything in our power to keep the paths of communication open. It's their turn.
