[Freeciv] Re: game standards

[Tomasz Wegrzanowski <maniek@xxxxxxxx>]

eOn Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 04:57:48PM -0700, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > It's fairly easy to invent new games; I've invented a couple myself.
> > It's hard to find enough players.
> 
> Aha!  So, you'd rather rip off a popular standard to get more players
> than do the hard work of creating your own standard?

Ah, so people at linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx would rather
rip off popular standards (do you know HOW MANY have they just ripped ?)
to get more users than do the hard work of creating your own standard ?

I wonder how linux-kernel developers would invite you ???
Be so nice and try it, please.

> This is ok when
> the game standard is in the public domain, like Chess.  It is not ok
> when some team of overworked game developers sweated blood over
> something to make it good, hoping they'd be reneumerated by their
> royalty checks so they'd have the funds to do it again on some other
> title, and then someone comes along with a blatant clone to alleviate
> them of unit sales.  Now, if you just made a game that "started from Civ
> but went somewhere else better," I'd have no objections.  It would be a
> different game, a different standard.

Game started from Civ, but went fare else.
Obvious Examples :
- AI system is COMPLETELY diferent (no handicaps)
- freeciv is server/client, paycivs were one-piece
- freeciv is multiplayer, paycivs were single-player
- freeciv is GPL, paycivs had braindead licences
- freeciv is XP, paycivs were platform-specific
- freeciv is SOFTware, paycivs were not (theru's no source, there's no software)
- paycivs were buggy, freeciv is bugless providing enough time
- freeciv supports FogOfWar, paycivs didn't
- freeciv support Ocean<->Land transformations, paycivs didn't
- payciv's bloat is removed (throneroom/palace, trade system)

and no 1:
- playing freeciv is a challenge, I always won deity/emperor on paycivs
  with my eyes closed and with thumb in my ass.

> > ... but this is totally mistaken.  Freeciv was created because
> >
> > 1) Civ *did not exist* on the platforms most of us work with
> 
> The world doesn't owe you cross-platform compatibility, nor open source.

World owes me right of porting software to my favourite platform and
right to write every opensource I want.

ONE PERSON (Brandon doesn't count) WHO DISAGREE ???

> For instance, in my personal case I'll probably conjure up a
> Civ-influenced game someday, with Windows as the primary platform, I'll
> probably do a Linux port afterwards, and people who insist I was
> supposed to provide a Mac version can go fuck themselves.  My
> development dollars, my personal financial risk, my perogative.  Oh, and
> I keep forgetting that consoles even exist.  I'd relent on ports if I
> got rich for my efforts and had money to burn on porting costs.  Like,
> if my gaming franchise became as popular as Quake.

Are you VisalBasic programmer or what ???
Porting is usually less than 5% time of game developement.

<table>
<table_head>
What does need porting          What does NOT need porting
</table_head>
<table_body>
                                IDEA of your game                               
                                Core Game Engine
Some network code               Most network code
                                File Management
                                Savegames management
                                Rules Data
                                AI
                                Graphics, Icons, Tiles
GUI Widgets                     Raw (Framebuffer) Graphics
                                Audio Effects, Midi
                                Movies
                                Help, Documentation
                                Paperware Instructions
README files about Instalation  README files about game itself
</table_body>
</table>

As you see, GUI Widgets is the only major thing that needs porting,
but if you've chosen right libraries, you don't have to do any work porting,
only recompile (with free compilers).

<;-)>
  But you are right at one point, Mac users can go ...
</;-)>

> > 2) it has a couple of features that *screamed* to be implemented
> >    in Civ, but never were, or only later (e.g. playing over the
> Internet)
> 
> So, play or write a different game that has multiplayer.  The world
> doesn't owe you multiplayer.

No, they owe.
At least they owe me right to write any multiplayer game I want
and right to fix existing game to support multiplayer.

> > 3) Freeciv does not cut into Hasbro's profits *at all* and certainly
> >    wasn't written with that objective in mind
> 
> How do you figure?  How many people play Freeciv as opposed to buying
> Civ II: TOT in the store or something?  And before you say "all the
> Linxers," keep in mind that not all Linuxers stick exclusively to Linux,
> nor is Freeciv playable only on X Windows.  I've got a ported copy on my
> Win98 box right now.  And since you guys went open source, you can't
> stop Win clones from existing.

Nobody here WANT to stop Win clones from existing.