The wishlist thread

[Chief]

@Chief
Sorry to say mate but all of the reason you gave for lack of edit-ability are pretty much lame (except the license issue one), look at the sales of PES , have they gone down due to some shitty patches made by the users??? I understand that you guys wouldn't want the game to be editable as C07 and I completely agree with you.

The reasons I have outlined are all real-life examples I've known to occur. It's a hugely complex issue, involving hundreds of different parties and different areas: lawyers, licensing professionals... I'm not trying to give you "lame" excuses - these are the actual reasons that we simply can't encourage modding in any form whilst balancing the interests of all those parties.

 

[barmyarmy]

Well let's get the AI and pacing right pre-release so there's no need to mod it

 

[Chief]

Chief, how about this?
The copyright owners don't want their licenses to be misused, hence denies modifying capabilities. But the modding community wants to modify it to their liking.
Now, wouldn't it be logical to sign an agreement where the modding community is allowed to modify while following certain guidelines where only 'abuse' of the copyright will not be tolerated. And thereby can modify to promote their material?
Plus, the modds primarily look to attain realism than fiction, hence wouldn't it be viable?

Each and every licensed item in the game needs to go through an approval loop with the copyright holder. Bearing in mind that this is (off the top of my head) comfortably over 200 different parties, the logistics of actually organizing all of that is boggling.
For any agreement like the one you're talking about, every piece of content would (I think) have to be moderated and approved before allowing it to go public.
I agree with what you're saying, but the logistics of it are just unfeasible I'm afraid.

----------

Well let's get the AI and pacing right pre-release so there's no need to mod it

Obviously THAT will be our goal!

 

[Gurjot95]

Umm..I can understand all the licence issue and modding instructions but how come games like PES and EA Sports never had a issue with modding when the are using same file structure for years? They are highly editable and probably they do it deliberately to increase longevity. PES comes with many in-game editors to solve the license issue. I think for a sports a game, it's is required to be easily editable especially when it has unlicensed teams. Ashes Cricket 2009 is the only sports game that comes to my mind in terms of lack of modification. While other sports game developer encourage otherwise.

I haven't read the whole article but it pretty much sums up what I am saying. Can't even find a 'legal' word in whole article.
Mod (video gaming) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you want to be safe but clarification on this will be good.

 

[Chief]

Umm..I can understand all the licence issue and modding instructions but how come games like PES and EA Sports never had a issue with modding when the are using same file structure for years? They are highly editable and probably they do it deliberately to increase longevity. PES comes with many in-game editors to solve the license issue. I think for a sports a game, it's is required to be easily editable especially when it has unlicensed teams. Ashes Cricket 2009 is the only sports game that comes to my mind in terms of lack of modification. While other sports game developer encourage otherwise.

I haven't read the whole article but it pretty much sums up what I am saying. Can't even find a 'legal' word in whole article.
Mod (video gaming) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you want to be safe but clarification on this will be good.

We're at split purposes here I think: there's "editing" (which to my mind is where tools are provided to alter stats/appearances/names etc) We have always have editor options in game for unlicensed teams.

Then there's "modding" (where modifications to game assets etc happen outside of the game)... This is what I'm saying can be trickier.

PS: I'm not convinced that the strongest arguments are made citing Wikipedia as your source... whilst ALSO admitting that you didn't even read the whole thing.

 

[Gurjot95]

Then there's "modding" (where modifications to game assets etc happen outside of the game)... This is what I'm saying can be trickier.

PS: I'm not convinced that the strongest arguments are made citing Wikipedia as your source... whilst ALSO admitting that you didn't even read the whole thing.
?

Yeah that's what I said, I read 2 paragraphs and did a quick search of word legal . I only linked because it states some game developers also provides software to modify.

In early 2012, the DayZ modification for ARMA 2 was released and caused a massive increase in sales for the three-year-old game, putting it in the top spot for online game sales for a number of weeks and selling over 300,000 units for the game.[7]

It affects sale, eh?

But yeah, what about EA Sports and PES file structure?

 

[MattW]

Here is the relevent section from the Ashes Cricket 2009 EULA -

YOU SHALL NOT:
* Copy the Program.
* Sell, rent, lease, license, distribute or otherwise transfer or make available to any other person the Program, in whole or in part, or use the Program or any part thereof in any commercial context, including but not limited to using in a service bureau, ?cyber cafe?, computer gaming center or any other commercial location in which multiple users may access the Program. Codemasters may offer a separate Site License Agreement to permit you to make the Program available for commercial use; see the contact information below.
* Reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of the Program, in whole or in part.
* Remove, disable or circumvent any proprietary notices or labels contained on or within the Program.

The third point is the one relevant to game modifications - though it is a matter of interpretation as to whether changing the graphics of a game or something is considered a modification to the program, or whether that just covers the functional code.

The second thing that would make a difference is whether you are modifying the game through it's own functionality. In theory with some of the other games that scan the program files directory as part of startup (which is a valid testing functionality for the developers), you are not modifying the game code, rather the game is executing external code.

So by that basis, the way that Ashes Cricket was edited on PC would probably fall on the wrong side of a strict interpretation of the EULA, while something like Cricket 07, where you added files that the game just happens to open, wouldn't be.

Of course you can further interpret that you would need to do that modification without deriving anything or reverse engineering anything from the game - which is very unlikely.

That said, most cases have found broader rights to reverse engineer, however the enforceability of an EULA in overriding that right has had mixed results. Regardless though, it's a grey area that most patching operates in.

All that said, you wouldn't have the right to use the logos, trademarks, etc, that form the basis of most patches - however for personal, non-commercial usage, you could probably argue fair use.

For publishers, they could expose themselves to liability - if a company considers that they have material loss because their IP can be put in without the publisher having paid a license for it they could probably sue.

But for that it's balanced off in a cost benefit sense to the PR that might result in - it's not that companies encourage it, they may not see the benefit of people modding games and putting their logos in it, but they may see a negative if they tried to stop it.

So basically, it's a matter of a few legal grey areas combined with no real significant losses from it in most cases. Piracy is far more of an issue - so buy your games and support the developers, otherwise you'll have no game to edit even if you could.

 

[Chief]

Yeah that's what I said, I read 2 paragraphs and did a quick search of word legal . I only linked because it states some game developers also provides software to modify.

It affects sale, eh?

But yeah, what about EA Sports and PES file structure?

DayZ to my mind was a "derivative work". It was basically an entirely new game developed using an existing codebase. It was also AMAZING. It was also one man, who later began working officially with the developer, so impressive was his work. And it was IP completely owned between the two, so an arrangement would have been straightforwards.
I never said it affected sales: I think it vastly improves longevity and interest.

I'm not sure what you mean by FIFA and PES's "file structure"?

----------

The third point is the one relevant to game modifications - though it is a matter of interpretation as to whether changing the graphics of a game or something is considered a modification to the program, or whether that just covers the functional code.
The second thing that would make a difference is whether you are modifying the game through it's own functionality. In theory with some of the other games that scan the program files directory as part of startup (which is a valid testing functionality for the developers), you are not modifying the game code, rather the game is executing external code.
So by that basis, the way that Ashes Cricket was edited on PC would probably fall on the wrong side of a strict interpretation of the EULA, while something like Cricket 07, where you added files that the game just happens to open, wouldn't be.
Of course you can further interpret that you would need to do that modification without deriving anything or reverse engineering anything from the game - which is very unlikely.
That said, most cases have found broader rights to reverse engineer, however the enforceability of an EULA in overriding that right has had mixed results. Regardless though, it's a grey area that most patching operates in.
All that said, you wouldn't have the right to use the logos, trademarks, etc, that form the basis of most patches - however for personal, non-commercial usage, you could probably argue fair use.
For publishers, they could expose themselves to liability - if a company considers that they have material loss because their IP can be put in without the publisher having paid a license for it they could probably sue.
But for that it's balanced off in a cost benefit sense to the PR that might result in - it's not that companies encourage it, they may not see the benefit of people modding games and putting their logos in it, but they may see a negative if they tried to stop it.
So basically, it's a matter of a few legal grey areas combined with no real significant losses from it in most cases. Piracy is far more of an issue - so buy your games and support the developers, otherwise you'll have no game to edit even if you could.

Absolutely. +10 for this post.

Legal matters are ALWAYS down to interpretation, otherwise lawyers wouldn't be so rich. You can't ever completely stop things happening, but you can protect yourself against loss as best you can. Which is the founding principles of contracts.

Oh, and yeah: Piracy is theft reference is a bonus 2pts.

 

[SibiNaayagam]

Chief, its of my opinion that by adding logos and advertising boards in-game, the publicity of the said logos and products are increased. Its also of my opinion that by adding such real life products to the game, the authenticity of the game is increased so as its sales figures(maybe).
Now, why would any of you have to pay for licensing/advertising when you both are actually doing each other a favour?

 

[MattW]

Now, why would any of you have to pay for licensing/advertising when you both are actually doing each other a favour?

It's not as simple as that. For one a company might not consider that being in a game is a favour - if your company's adboards are in a game, there's a fear that the association with that game could be a negative one.

Once something is in a game, it's almost never changeable - so a company in 2013 might want to promote a particular part of their brand or a certain slogan - but might change direction in 2014, but still have this game being sold with their old likeness.

Also, many companies might want exclusivity - one game might indeed do a for kind deal, licensing a bat in turn for an adboard - but on an exclusive basis - so another company releasing a cricket game won't be able to turn around and say 'we're doing you a favour'. Other companies might consider that the strength of their brand warrants being paid to use it, or even a company might decide to pay to have their brand in the game, as long as a competing brand isn't in it.

And then there's the interplay with stadium licensing - the MCG for example is sponsored as an organisation by the Bank of Melbourne, but cricket matches played at the ground are often sponsored by the Commonwealth Bank. In an actual match the series sponsorship might override the stadium one - but if you're wanting to licence the stadium, it might be on a condition that certain brands that support the stadium itself would be on the adboards instead of the ones that actually are on there.

Note that in most of the games the adboards shown in the stadiums are almost never the ones actually at the grounds, even if they are real brands.

Even 'simple' stuff is complex.

 

[Chief]

It's not as simple as that. For one a company might not consider that being in a game is a favour - if your company's adboards are in a game, there's a fear that the association with that game could be a negative one.

Once something is in a game, it's almost never changeable - so a company in 2013 might want to promote a particular part of their brand or a certain slogan - but might change direction in 2014, but still have this game being sold with their old likeness.

Also, many companies might want exclusivity - one game might indeed do a for kind deal, licensing a bat in turn for an adboard - but on an exclusive basis - so another company releasing a cricket game won't be able to turn around and say 'we're doing you a favour'. Other companies might consider that the strength of their brand warrants being paid to use it, or even a company might decide to pay to have their brand in the game, as long as a competing brand isn't in it.

And then there's the interplay with stadium licensing - the MCG for example is sponsored as an organisation by the Bank of Melbourne, but cricket matches played at the ground are often sponsored by the Commonwealth Bank. In an actual match the series sponsorship might override the stadium one - but if you're wanting to licence the stadium, it might be on a condition that certain brands that support the stadium itself would be on the adboards instead of the ones that actually are on there.

Note that in most of the games the adboards shown in the stadiums are almost never the ones actually at the grounds, even if they are real brands.

Even 'simple' stuff is complex.

What he said.

Also, regardless of cost they'd still want approval. Including context of use:
For example, a car manufacturer might be OK with featuring in a racing game, but not if, say, its attributes were lower than a competitor.
If a major soft drinks brand sponsored a football team, and you can mod it to say a rival brand, they almost certainly wouldn't like that.
If a car was licensed to be in a big open-world game, and videos started appearing on youtube showing their car mowing down pedestrians/nuns/squirrels, they might not like that...

 

[SibiNaayagam]

It's not as simple as that. For one a company might not consider that being in a game is a favour - if your company's adboards are in a game, there's a fear that the association with that game could be a negative one.

Once something is in a game, it's almost never changeable - so a company in 2013 might want to promote a particular part of their brand or a certain slogan - but might change direction in 2014, but still have this game being sold with their old likeness.

Also, many companies might want exclusivity - one game might indeed do a for kind deal, licensing a bat in turn for an adboard - but on an exclusive basis - so another company releasing a cricket game won't be able to turn around and say 'we're doing you a favour'. Other companies might consider that the strength of their brand warrants being paid to use it, or even a company might decide to pay to have their brand in the game, as long as a competing brand isn't in it.

And then there's the interplay with stadium licensing - the MCG for example is sponsored as an organisation by the Bank of Melbourne, but cricket matches played at the ground are often sponsored by the Commonwealth Bank. In an actual match the series sponsorship might override the stadium one - but if you're wanting to licence the stadium, it might be on a condition that certain brands that support the stadium itself would be on the adboards instead of the ones that actually are on there.

Note that in most of the games the adboards shown in the stadiums are almost never the ones actually at the grounds, even if they are real brands.

Even 'simple' stuff is complex.

Thats annoyingly complex. Well atleast im sure we can do with some colourful well thought out fictional brands to be on the side boards. Im more concerned about the logos on the kits and the players themselves.

Because you pointed out this "there's a fear that the association with that game could be a negative one."...I remember this piece in the announcement article about Ashes13...

John Perera, Commercial Director ECB added: ?The ECB is committed to bringing new fans into the sport, and the Ashes Cricket 2013 game will do just that in conjunction with the real thing - the Investec Ashes Series 2013. Most of the current England side are keen gamers, and will no doubt be spending a lot of time playing it whilst preparing for the real thing come the Summer.?

So if im interpreting it rightly, the ECB is getting paid through licenses for its tie up with the AshesCricket2013 which it also happens to believe is a 'positive' choice?

----------

What he said.

Also, regardless of cost they'd still want approval. Including context of use:
For example, a car manufacturer might be OK with featuring in a racing game, but not if, say, its attributes were lower than a competitor.
If a major soft drinks brand sponsored a football team, and you can mod it to say a rival brand, they almost certainly wouldn't like that.
If a car was licensed to be in a big open-world game, and videos started appearing on youtube showing their car mowing down pedestrians/nuns/squirrels, they might not like that...

Yeah! I can relate to the last one as a more moral one.
But again as i said, the terms of modding must be restricted, which we happened to dismiss as a euphorian dream.

 

[MattW]

So if im interpreting it rightly, the ECB is getting paid through licenses for its tie up with the AshesCricket2013 which it also happens to believe is a 'positive' choice?

I'm sure there's an element of things other than the highest bidder that would go into their decision making, but money counts as a positive.

 

[SibiNaayagam]

I'm sure there's an element of things other than the highest bidder that would go into their decision making, but money counts as a positive.

On a slightly different note; Past games have been criticized for not putting their valuable licenses to full use. And that made me think, when you are offered licenses for player likenesses, aren't their playing style not included? What other than their looks do you gain from the licensing? Wouldn't the ECB/Australian Board agree to a motion capture session if it really wants to promote its team?

 

[AnshtheDj]

Playing Styles

One thing just came to my mind when i was going through some post which talked about motion-capture technique which are implemented for player animation.

I'd like to know how the playing styles are being implemented for batters and bowlers.
i.e. how diff a right-hander's shot looks from a left-handers shot or how diff a left-arm bowler's action is from that of right-arm bowler's action.
In previous games, be it EA series or Codemasters, we've seen both look like mirror images i.e. left/right arm bowlers have same action, similarly
left/right batters play same shot in identical way. This robs us of a critical gameplay component, IMO.

Just to illustrate what i'm tying to suggest with a few examples,

1. How diff "a dab shot to third-man" looks when played by say Kallis as compared to Gambhir
2. How diff "an aerial square-cut over third-man" looks when played by Jayasuriya as compared to Sehwag
3. How diff "a cover drive" looks when played by Dravid, Amla as compared to those played by Lara, Ganguly
4. How diff is the action of left-arm fast bowler like Mitchell Starc, Dirk Nannes from right-arm fast bowler like Dale Steyn or Shane Bond.
5. How diff is a classic right-arm off-spinner's action from classic left-arm spinner's action


The point I'm trying to make is that the style of play differs with change of batting/bowling hand.
While there are a few things which are common to batters/bowlers of the same hand, there are also a no. of subtleties
which make style of play different in between right/left hand batters/bowlers.

Not sure if implementing such a thing is programmatically critical or not,
but if done, can add a new dimension to the new-age cricket game the makers have so far promised us.