Elite - Status report
David Braben
Just to let you know, I've not forgotten I'd said I'd try and get Elite's
status resolved. I'm basically waiting on email replies from Ian Bell,
Christian Pinder and the other rights holder.
To explain the situation:
I'd like to see Elite available as shareware. All this would take is a
shareware screen at the start (much like FFE etc), and the correct (C)
messages - which may well be (C) myself and the other rights holder - to be
confirmed by Ian. This includes (eg) Elite-TNK (where Mr Pinder may also
have (C)).
I will only give such shareware rights where the other rights holder(s) also
give them - so that such a version would be above board, and so could also
be included on the Frontier site. Personally I find it a bit ludicrous that
the Frontier site is the only Elite-related site that cannot have the
original game on it.
For such shareware versions, there would be a simple approval process for
each version, and then as long as the other rights holder(s) also agrees, it
would be a legitimate version, that could be freely distributed. The same
applies for the various Elite images, running under emulation.
David Braben
Krayy
news:FRNT424...@frontier.co.uk:
<< snip>>
>
> I'd like to see Elite available as shareware. All this would take is a
> shareware screen at the start (much like FFE etc), and the correct (C)
> messages - which may well be (C) myself and the other rights holder -
> to be confirmed by Ian. This includes (eg) Elite-TNK (where Mr Pinder
> may also have (C)).
>
> I will only give such shareware rights where the other rights
> holder(s) also give them - so that such a version would be above
> board, and so could also be included on the Frontier site. Personally
> I find it a bit ludicrous that the Frontier site is the only
> Elite-related site that cannot have the original game on it.
>
> For such shareware versions, there would be a simple approval process
> for each version, and then as long as the other rights holder(s) also
> agrees, it would be a legitimate version, that could be freely
> distributed. The same applies for the various Elite images, running
> under emulation.
>
David,
Thanks for the update, we really appreciate it (well, I do anyway). The
question that I have is regarding incorporating the intellectual property
into a multiplayer free-to-play medium, specifically a MUD that uses the
Elite universe, ships, planet names etc within it.
Ian Bell has already replied to say that he has no problem with non-
commercial uses of intellectual property.
Michael Banck
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:42:07 -0000, David Braben wrote:
> I'd like to see Elite available as shareware. All this would take is a
> shareware screen at the start (much like FFE etc), and the correct (C)
> messages - which may well be (C) myself and the other rights holder - to be
> confirmed by Ian. This includes (eg) Elite-TNK (where Mr Pinder may also
> have (C)).
Great.
> each version, and then as long as the other rights holder(s) also agrees, it
> would be a legitimate version, that could be freely distributed. The same
> applies for the various Elite images, running under emulation.
Would it be possible to modify the version in a minor way, so as it
adheres to the packaging/policy guidelines of the system it runs on? For
example on Linux, configuration files should be in /etc, data in
/usr/share/ and binaries in /usr/bin (or /usr/games, rather). As long as
the gameplay/artwork is not affected, would such changes be alright?
Please take a second to think about this.
Thanks,
Michael
Colin Wilson
> each version, and then as long as the other rights holder(s) also agrees, it
> would be a legitimate version, that could be freely distributed. The same
> applies for the various Elite images, running under emulation.
Would you be able to declare your interests over the original code being
released as freeware - as long as the other copyright holders agree - and
with the proviso that any code based on your source was also freeware,
and retained your copyright message ?
(i`m thinking shareware may be a messier platform to base the release of
the code on, and the relicensing requirements would be hard to implement,
with getting all parties to agree to subsequent remakes / alterations)
You would, of course, would still retain copyright over the original, and
the GOD-LIKE adoration of the many fans who still play !
(just don`t make another newtonian physics based engine - IMO it
destroyed the gameplay in the sequels !)
Colin Wilson
> I believe that David has already expressed his feelings over freeware
> and that he would not consider it so the feelings of the other rights
> holders have no bearing on a potential freeware release.
Ahh I missed that then...
> > (i`m thinking shareware may be a messier platform to base the release of
> > the code on, and the relicensing requirements would be hard to implement,
> > with getting all parties to agree to subsequent remakes / alterations)
> I do not see it being that much more complex than freeware since the
> same agreement from all parties would still apply since the materials
> are still copyright. The only additional complication is defining each
> person's share of the shareware fee which will likely be set out during
> the "approval process" mentioned.
I was thinking in terms of cost for the approval process, and the cost of
processing a 3-way split payment for a "nominal" shareware fee...
All of a sudden, I can see the cost rising to above that of a normal
commercial title to make it worth their while bothering at all.
Christian Pinder
>Just to let you know, I've not forgotten I'd said I'd try and get Elite's
>status resolved. I'm basically waiting on email replies from Ian Bell,
>Christian Pinder and the other rights holder.
What am I supposed to be replying to? The email discussion we were
having didn't seem to be going anywhere. You have still not
satisfactorily answered a number of important questions.
i.e. You stated previously that you bought the copyright to BBC Elite
(on which E-TNK is based). Can you please confirm whether or not what
you bought actually included the copyright on the code and data of BBC
Elite.
Also, you said you wanted to do a controlled release of the Elite
source code yet you have not managed to do a controlled release of the
FFE source. If you are unwilling/unable to do a release of code to
which you own the full copyright (despite numerous promises), how I am
supposed to believe that you will do a release of code to which you
only have joint copyright? In over two years you've made no progress
on releasing the FFE code, are you trying to convince us that your
handling of Elite will be any better?
After you had told me that you did not want to see Freeware versions
of Elite and wanted some kind of approval process, your company starts
sending out the following message:
"If your game is not for commercial gain (you are not receiving any
money/benefits for it), and you have Ian Bell's permission, then David
Braben does not object."
E-TNK is not for commercial gain, so can I take it that you no longer
have any objection to it? If you do still object then why are you
telling me one thing and your employees telling others something
different?
When Ian and I approached you (via Richard Hanson) to do a shareware
version of Elite for the Palm you wouldn't even discuss it. Now you
are trying to convince people that you are all for shareware releases
of Elite but you're waiting on me and Ian...hmmmm...whatever.
--
Regards,
Christian.
http://www.darkkind.com
Corncrake
>Just to let you know, I've not forgotten I'd said I'd try and get Elite's
>status resolved.
Whoosh,,,, sounds of pigs flying at great altitude.
> I'm basically waiting on email replies from Ian Bell,Christian Pinder
I was about to post a link to an item on CJP's forum that illustrates
the nonsense of the above statement, but I see that CJP has made
a post here that summarises his view.
> and the other rights holder.
Ah ! The mystery "deux ex machina" again ! Well well, again,,,
Ok, stuff and nonsense, lets get a grip on reality :-
Let us all not forget that neither Ian or Christian, nor the mystery
guest, objected to E-TNK (and variants).Iit was solely, only and
entirely/exclusively the work of one person that caused the panic
attack that caused the removal of our fav. toy.
Now we are supposed to feel grateful to him for 'trying' to resolve
the mater ? "I think not" ( as one R.Descartes might have said a
moment before he vanished )
David :- Just say "sorry" to Christian,
let this 20y old feud drop, it does you no good,
lets get on with our real lives ?
really,,, really pathetic,,,
Lucian Wischik
>[snip vitriol]
Thinks: if I wanted E:TNK to see the light of day, I'd go about it
differently...
--
Lucian
Will Davis
"Christian Pinder" <chri...@newkind-remove-this.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iocl5vk4dt0mle6e9...@4ax.com...
<snippity snip>
dbraben_junk eh? that's a nice email address - meaning that anything that
anybody sends to it HE WON'T READ! Nice to know he appreciates the
correspondence.
Dylan Smith
>> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:42:07 -0000, "David Braben"
>> <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snippity snip>
>
>dbraben_junk eh? that's a nice email address - meaning that anything that
>anybody sends to it HE WON'T READ! Nice to know he appreciates the
>correspondence.
Don't read anything into that. It's just to obfuscate his email address
to frustrate spammers. Harvesting email addresses from Usenet is the
biggest source of spam by at least two orders of magnitude (my email
address listed on this message is in fact a spam trap I clear out
every so often).
It would be better if David changed his email spam-frustration address
to dbr...@junkfrontier.co.uk because then the spammer's email wouldn't
have to be bounced by his MX (saving bandwidth).
Any person with a modicum of intelligence knows what the _junk bit's for
and knows to remove it before replying to one of his posts.
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Matt Dibb
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@vexed2.alioth.net> wrote in message
news:slrnb5nbtq...@vexed2.alioth.net...
> Any person with a modicum of intelligence knows what the _junk bit's for
> and knows to remove it before replying to one of his posts.
Likewise spammers do too and have automated means to remove obvious attempts
to hide their email address. This is why I use the same system as David
Braben - if they remove the 'junk' part they just get a broken address and
not a valid address :-)
Martin Christensen
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Dibb <ju...@mdibb.net> writes:
Matt> Likewise spammers do too and have automated means to remove
Matt> obvious attempts to hide their email address. This is why I use
Matt> the same system as David Braben - if they remove the 'junk' part
Matt> they just get a broken address and not a valid address :-)
This is often lost on humans, which is why it's often a good idea to
state that the address is indeed valid. Better yet, good spam filtres
should eliminate the need for address obfuscation altogether... says
the guy who still does it because he hasn't gotten around to tinkering
with SpamAssassin yet.
Martin
- --
Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/
GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Mailcrypt+GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org>
iEYEARECAAYFAj5b3l8ACgkQYu1fMmOQldVuIgCg5hwMVr7c7TPOcy9SFsK8Np3b
ciwAoMfL8PzZXeqCu2aaPZsl1+NOABew
=snnB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Banck
> says the guy who still does it because he hasn't gotten around to
> tinkering with SpamAssassin yet.
Waiting for the elisp-version, eh? ;)
Michael
--
<StevenK> find /dev -type c 2> /dev/null | xargs ls -l 2> /dev/null |
awk -F' ' '{print $5,$10;}' | awk '/^14,/ || /^116,/ {printf
"%s\n", $2;}'|sort|uniq|tr '\n' ' '
<StevenK> "Hi. I'd like to book a padded cell. Thanks."
Corncrake
>>[snip vitriol]
Did you think so ? well well, I thought "pathetic" was quite mild,
compared to what I was actually thinking !
Sadly you also sniped the rest of my stuff that I thought was more
factual,, to counter the humbug that was being spouted.
(Hint : see CJP's post)
>Thinks: if I wanted E:TNK to see the light of day, I'd go about it
>differently...
Is that what you thought I was wanting to achieve?
Where did I say that ?
Not me Nelly, I've got it already !
I just think it sad that DB continues to play in his school yard and
keep casting his marbles out of his pram.
Not satisfied with continuing his ancient war with Ian he now manages
to upset CJP as well, yer gotta larf really ?
Mufossa
> i.e. You stated previously that you bought the copyright to BBC Elite
> (on which E-TNK is based). Can you please confirm whether or not what
> you bought actually included the copyright on the code and data of BBC
> Elite.
Just scratching my head on this one... maybe I should stay out of this, but
I'm just curious...
If someone bought the copyright to a game, wouldn't that also include the
code and data? I mean... what else is any program made up of?
In my world, it would be like me saying to someone... "You have the
copyright to your symphony, but do you have copyright to each of the phrases
you put into that symphony?" To which, the answer would be, "Well... at the
very least, in the context they're in in my symphony... yes."
Just wondering what the difference is, that's all... If there is one...
- Mufossa
Dylan Smith
>should eliminate the need for address obfuscation altogether... says
>the guy who still does it because he hasn't gotten around to tinkering
>with SpamAssassin yet.
SpamAssassin's good, but on my usenet replies accounts, the volume of
spam is so extreme that even 10% of spam getting through is a dozen
spams a day. I *could* lower the filtering thresholds, but that'd
then start getting false positives (I run spamassassin sitewide, so it's
set for a reasonable level which will result in a few false negatives).
Also, I use SpamAssassin merely to tag the mail. The end user can decide
what they want to actually do with anything SA calls spam.
Lucian Wischik
>SpamAssassin's good, but on my usenet replies accounts, the volume of
>spam is so extreme that even 10% of spam getting through is a dozen
>spams a day.
10% is a lot higher than what I get. Are you using Spamassassin2.5
with bayesian filtering and RBL lookups? Those two things together
have made a big difference.
--
Lucian
Crayfish
(Corncrake) wrote:
>I just think it sad that DB continues to play in his school yard and
>keep casting his marbles out of his pram.
>Not satisfied with continuing his ancient war with Ian he now manages
>to upset CJP as well, yer gotta larf really ?
Theres obviously examples of both the Bell and Braben camps making
mistakes handling the Elite copyright issue. Just goes to show how
much people are walking on eggshells with it.
Certainly Ian appears to be blocking any progress on the issue just as
much as David is by not making it clear if he still retains his
original share of copyright. I'm just a bit confused as to what the
big secret is about that?
--
Crayfish
David Braben
"Christian Pinder" <chri...@newkind-remove-this.co.uk> wrote in message
news:iocl5vk4dt0mle6e9...@4ax.com...
> <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Just to let you know, I've not forgotten I'd said I'd try and get Elite's
> >status resolved. I'm basically waiting on email replies from Ian Bell,
> >Christian Pinder and the other rights holder.
>
> What am I supposed to be replying to? The email discussion we were
> having didn't seem to be going anywhere. You have still not
> satisfactorily answered a number of important questions.
I'm afraid that comes across as rather pompous. You haven't replied to my
last mail - if you felt the answers to your questions 'weren't satisfactory'
then why not say so? You clearly are in contact with Ian - you could easily
break this ludicrous log jam, if you so chose.
> i.e. You stated previously that you bought the copyright to BBC Elite
> (on which E-TNK is based). Can you please confirm whether or not what
> you bought actually included the copyright on the code and data of BBC
> Elite.
Yes. All rights, including copyright, as I've said.
> Also, you said you wanted to do a controlled release of the Elite
> source code yet you have not managed to do a controlled release of the
> FFE source. If you are unwilling/unable to do a release of code to
> which you own the full copyright (despite numerous promises), how I am
> supposed to believe that you will do a release of code to which you
> only have joint copyright? In over two years you've made no progress
> on releasing the FFE code, are you trying to convince us that your
> handling of Elite will be any better?
A controlled release is just that - ie release to specific individuals. It
is not putting it up on a website.
> After you had told me that you did not want to see Freeware versions
> of Elite and wanted some kind of approval process, your company starts
> sending out the following message:
>
> "If your game is not for commercial gain (you are not receiving any
> money/benefits for it), and you have Ian Bell's permission, then David
> Braben does not object."
Something similar has been up on our website for quite a few years, but it
does say it is not legal - essentially I've been saying I'll turn a blind
eye, as long as it's not unreasonable use, and have been doing so.
> E-TNK is not for commercial gain, so can I take it that you no longer
> have any objection to it? If you do still object then why are you
> telling me one thing and your employees telling others something
> different?
I didn't object to E-TNK for a very long time, as you know.
In my book E-TNK overstepped the mark, as you are aware. You will also be
aware that I have not been chasing up others on this. You boast that you are
working with Ian and are aware of the rights situation. Let's sort it out
then?
> When Ian and I approached you (via Richard Hanson) to do a shareware
> version of Elite for the Palm you wouldn't even discuss it. Now you
> are trying to convince people that you are all for shareware releases
> of Elite but you're waiting on me and Ian...hmmmm...whatever.
Ian and yourself never approached me. Richard Hanson of Superior Software
did approach me with a proposal for a full commercial game on the Palm, but
no mention was made of yourself or Ian Bell.
I'm afraid this pantomime dialogue is not very productive. Your comments are
tantamount to calling me a liar, and yet you ask something in return. If you
really would rather that E-TNK is not out there, and it is conveneint to
blame me for it, then this is not reasonable, as that is how it looks to me.
If you do want to get it sorted, then reply to my email.
David Braben
Will Davis
news:FRNT428...@frontier.co.uk...
Does the phrase "that's put the cat amongst the pigeons" ring any bells?!
Looks like it's all starting to get a bit messy doesn't it?
killermike
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:21:35 +0100, Martin Christensen
> <knightsofspam...@gvdnet.dk> wrote:
>
>>should eliminate the need for address obfuscation altogether... says
>>the guy who still does it because he hasn't gotten around to tinkering
>>with SpamAssassin yet.
>
>
> SpamAssassin's good, but on my usenet replies accounts, the volume of
> spam is so extreme that even 10% of spam getting through is a dozen
I started using Mozilla as my email client as soon as junk mail handling
was checked into the nightly builds. It is quite good but not perfect.
The first time I tried it, I was able to import an archive of email from
Eudora which contained quite a lot of correspondence. I was able to use
this backlog of email to train Moz Mail and it seemed to work amazingly
well. In about a month, it only marked one email incorrectly and in all
fairness it did /look/ like spam (it was a one line email with an Ebay URL).
Lately, it doesn't seem to be working quite as well. With it's current
level of performance, I still have to check my inbox manually. It /is/
useful for quickly checking the inbox for any real mail but I have to
satisfy myself by manually checking afterward. It's accuracy is not
nearly good enough for me to switch on the automatic moving of spam to
trashcan. This time, when I reinstalled 2000, I started from scratch,
without importing any old emails. I think that part of the problem is
that I receive so many spam emails and so comparatively few real
examples of email correspondence with which to train Mozilla Mail's junk
filtering. I don't use email for correspondence as much as I used to due
to fact that I use ICQ and IRC so much.
> spams a day. I *could* lower the filtering thresholds, but that'd
Like most people and yourself I suspect, my main priority with such a
system is /not/ to miss any real emails.
> then start getting false positives (I run spamassassin sitewide, so it's
> set for a reasonable level which will result in a few false negatives).
>
> Also, I use SpamAssassin merely to tag the mail. The end user can decide
> what they want to actually do with anything SA calls spam.
>
--
**please remove the word 'not' from my email address to reply
killermike
> All,
>
> Just to let you know, I've not forgotten I'd said I'd try and get Elite's
> status resolved. I'm basically waiting on email replies from Ian Bell,
> Christian Pinder and the other rights holder.
>
> To explain the situation:
I'm entering the thread a bit late but this seems like potentialy good
news. As a fan, I was disapointed that the other proposals for the Elite
Club never came to pass. However, in my opinion (as a Elite fan, nearly
from the begining) what you have outlined here sounds very reasonable
and generous and I wish you the best of luck with it. What I would like
to see is this idea proving really succesfull and setting an example to
other developers and future Frontier Dev projects.
Daniel Durrant
> I'm afraid this pantomime dialogue is not very productive. Your
> comments are tantamount to calling me a liar, and yet you ask
> something in return. If you really would rather that E-TNK is not out
> there, and it is conveneint to blame me for it, then this is not
> reasonable, as that is how it looks to me. If you do want to get it
> sorted, then reply to my email.
Just got to say that I agree with you David and do think that this sort
of discussion should *NOT* be held publicly on a newsgroup. It seems to
me that whoever appears right/wrong co-operating or not, things can only
worsen as a result of this kind of thing - I admit that were I in your
shoes having read Christian's email, I'd be half tempted so think 'sod
it' - put I'm not in your shoes so please don't!!!
I for one, from a position of being very critical of you, appreciate the
fact that you have been posting and making some moves toward a resolution
to this issue, which I guess at the end of the day *WE the newsgroup* do
have to acknowledge you are under no obligation to do - and infact quite
the opposite.
It is only a suggestion, but it does seem that with ALL parties concerned
here, there is a lot of needless ego-posturing - why don't you, CJP, Ian
and whomever else may be involved, simply arrange to 'meet' via something
as simple as MSN Messenger/private IRC etc and thrash out all of this
stuff without the distraction of an 'audience'?
--
Daniel Durrant (aka Quarx Jefferson)
"For a moment, nothing happened.
Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen."
* For personal emails, remove X prefix to address! Darn spammers...
killermike
Yeah. I can't understand the attitude that some of the new arrivals to
this NG seem to have in regard to these issues. There is no need to be
rude to Braben when he takes the time to post. I wish more of the old
regulars would post their opinions on this issue to the news group. I
find it hard to support the idea that some of these posts from new
arrivals are anything other than trolls or simply from people who like
fanning the flames of a disagreement. I also can't understand why so
many people reply to these obvious trolls and play along. This is not
necessarily a reference to the post which you are replying to. That post
is perhaps seriously intended, although the opinions expressed within it
are somewhat different from my own.
> --
> Lucian
Lucian Wischik
>many people reply to these obvious trolls and play along. This is not
>necessarily a reference to the post which you are replying to.
Yeah, there were two similar posts, one by CJP and one by Corncrake,
both similar in a way, and I should have followed-up to CJP's rather
than to Corncrake's.
--
Lucian
Colin Wilson
> > have any objection to it? If you do still object then why are you
> > telling me one thing and your employees telling others something
> > different?
> I didn't object to E-TNK for a very long time, as you know.
> In my book E-TNK overstepped the mark, as you are aware
May I ask what changed such that you now feel it has overstepped the
mark ?
Martin Christensen
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Banck <mba...@gmx.net> writes:
>> says the guy who still does it because he hasn't gotten around to
>> tinkering with SpamAssassin yet.
Michael> Waiting for the elisp-version, eh? ;)
Heheh... one point for you. It works fine (I'm told) when called as an
external program.
Martin
- --
Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/
GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Mailcrypt+GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org>
iEYEARECAAYFAj5cy+wACgkQYu1fMmOQldX5GgCfWLoeCSSoLh02q3RGuQPCDV5N
euIAoKpJoR0kObB7QtdP4ypjqhK30+/7
=Jfnx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Corncrake
>original share of copyright. I'm just a bit confused as to what the
>big secret is about that?
I've not commented on all the interminable discussions and backroom
lawyering that have been going on over the months and I also dont see
a need for a big secret, but that is up to them ( the copyright
holders)
I just think it sad that DB should choose _now_ to object to ETNK
rather than long ago (like when it first appeared) so it seemed to me
to be a spitefull action and not have anything to do directly with
the law ( if it had been, then the time to act was long past ! )
It seems to me that he percieved a new slurr and decided to climb out
of his pram and involve us all. I think he could have presented his
case much better without upsetting everyone else who were enjoying
playing with and embelishing ETNK.
And if, as it seems from his latest post,
( quote DB:)
You will also be aware that I have not been chasing up others
on this.
(end quote )
it was not his intention to deprive others of their fun then he could
do worse than to email them (or do it here) and suggest to them
that they are welcome to continue.
whatever,,, it all gets a bit boring,,,
I think I'll go back to sleep,,,
Corncrake
> some of the new arrivals to
>this NG seem to have in regard to these issues.
>This is not
>necessarily a reference to the post which you are replying to. That post
>is perhaps seriously intended, although the opinions expressed within it
>are somewhat different from my own.
Yes, just perhaps it was, if you are talking about my post ! LOL!
Also, we wouldnt have a lot left to discuss if we all held the same
opinions :-!)
I'm not too sure who the various comments about -newcomers, trolls and
serious posts- are directed at ( I think I lost that plot and am not
greatly bothered) but since they are being made in this branch of the
topic,,
just for the record :-
I made my first post in Aug'99 and had been reading for some time
previously. I played my first Elite on cassette tape on a BeebB so am
reasonably well versed in the history of "TheFeud" !
Anyway, I've had my say, fwiw, and I doubt if there is much point in
me adding anything further to the cauldron.
I'll just sit back and larff.
Andy H
"Daniel Durrant" <XDaniel...@Blueyonder.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:Xns932EB317234DFDa...@194.117.133.134...
--snip--
> It is only a suggestion, but it does seem that with ALL parties concerned
> here, there is a lot of needless ego-posturing - why don't you, CJP, Ian
> and whomever else may be involved, simply arrange to 'meet' via something
> as simple as MSN Messenger/private IRC etc and thrash out all of this
> stuff without the distraction of an 'audience'?
That is by far the best suggestion put forward since all this began. Stop
the ng and email tennis, it is not getting either of you very far and simply
meet up on messenger or something for a three / four way chat and get down
to a resolution that all of you want.
I'd hope you all can work this out so we can enjoy some geniune Elite-style
gaming while we are waiting for the official stuff, when or if it is ever
released.
It would be great to hear from you on this ng once it is sorted.
:)
Andy H
news:MPG.18c721d88...@news.cis.dfn.de...
If it was a re-engineered FFE or FE2, then maybe that is a little too close
to the mark but I'd look at E-TNK as a compliment. You have a big fan base
(both you and Ian), it would be a shame to try to remove it.
Hope you three can put all this behind you and look to what you can do
together in the future...what's the worst that would happen?
2001
wrote:
>Hope you three can put all this behind you and look to what you can do
>together in the future...what's the worst that would happen?
Now THAT is most definitely the most sensible thing that has been said
so far in this whole debacle.
Phil
Dylan Smith
<btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>May I ask what changed such that you now feel it has overstepped the
>mark ?
It was the handheld (Pocket PC?) port of TNK with the EULA attached.
The EULA was an incredibly stupid (and illegal) act by the person
who ported that particular version of E:TNK. It really took the biscuit.
But why couldn't David just insist that port was taken down, and, say,
continue to ignore 'desktop' ports? If the desktop ports (Windows,
Solaris, Linux, IRIX etc.) have been 'ok' for 3 years, why are they
all of a sudden overstepping the mark?
Unfortunately, neither side is looking good (David looks like a killjoy,
and imho *IS* a killjoy - David, why couldn't you have just insisted
'no handheld ports please?') and on both sides it looks like a long-running
grudge is just resurfacing, with Christian Pinder a declared enemy
of David Braben because he dares to associate with Ian Bell (who also
isn't exactly looking saint-like in all of this.) I know the reality might be
different, but this is how it *looks*. To add to that, David Braben has the
odd notion that 'extreme optimist ware' (aka shareware) is the only way
to maintain his copyright. which is clearly bravo-sierra of the kind
that a prize Gloucestershire bull makes.
Just like the Elite Club source release (and indeed, the Elite Club
in general) has failed to materialise, I think the chances of an
'official' TNK release (open/closed source, extreme-optimist-ware
or freely redistributable) is simply NOT going to happen. After all
Andrew Gillett used the key phrase 'but no promises', which is basically
his way of saying 'no' although I wish he'd just come out and say it.
Classic Elite is dead.
Long live Elite.
John Jordan
<ph...@morris0.fsnet.co.uk> writes
Nah, it's facile and faintly insulting. One should be thankful that
they're not simply throwing lawsuits at each other. You can't expect
people to act without taking past incidents into account.
--
John Jordan
Christian Pinder
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>You haven't replied to my last mail -
Your last email was to ask me if I am in contact with Ian. I had
already made you aware that I was. Anyway, I have now replied.
>You clearly are in contact with Ian -
So your last email and my subsequent reply are both rather redundant.
>you could easily break this ludicrous log jam, if you so chose.
How? I'm not objecting to E-TNK being made available.
>> i.e. You stated previously that you bought the copyright to BBC Elite
>> (on which E-TNK is based). Can you please confirm whether or not what
>> you bought actually included the copyright on the code and data of BBC
>> Elite.
>
>Yes. All rights, including copyright, as I've said.
Thankyou for confirming that.
>> In over two years you've made no progress on releasing the FFE code,
>> are you trying to convince us that your handling of Elite will be any
>> better?
>
>A controlled release is just that - ie release to specific individuals. It
>is not putting it up on a website.
Have you made a controlled release of the FFE code - ie released it to
any specific individuals outside of Frontier Dev.? If you have then
that is good news.
>> After you had told me that you did not want to see Freeware versions
>> of Elite and wanted some kind of approval process, your company starts
>> sending out the following message:
>>
>> "If your game is not for commercial gain (you are not receiving any
>> money/benefits for it), and you have Ian Bell's permission, then David
>> Braben does not object."
>
>Something similar has been up on our website for quite a few years, but it
>does say it is not legal -
Okay, but the email sent out from your company did not make it clear
that using Elite materials is illegal. It could be interpreted (and
AFAIK was) as you giving permission.
>essentially I've been saying I'll turn a blind eye, as long as it's not
>unreasonable use, and have been doing so.
That method has worked for a number of years but obviously isn't
working now. The problem, IMHO, is defining what "unreasonable use"
is. Without a clear definintion it all becomes a bit hit and miss.
E-TNK on the PC is OK, E-TNK on the PocketPC isn't...etc...
>> E-TNK is not for commercial gain, so can I take it that you no longer
>> have any objection to it? If you do still object then why are you
>> telling me one thing and your employees telling others something
>> different?
>
>I didn't object to E-TNK for a very long time, as you know.
Does that mean that you do still have an objection to E-TNK? Can you
please tell me exactly what the objection is. If you have no objection
to someone else developing an Elite game but do object to E-TNK then
there must be a specific reason.
>In my book E-TNK overstepped the mark, as you are aware.
Do you mean that I overstepped the mark by creating a version of Elite
that runs under Windows (which is all I've done) or that someone else
overstepped the mark by using my code (without my permission) to
create a PocketPC version of Elite?
>You will also be aware that I have not been chasing up others on this.
Why not? You've repeatedly told me it's not personal so why am I the
only person you are chasing up on this?
If you want to have control over your copyright then you have to
enforce compliance with everyone. You can't expect some people to
operate under licence while turning a blind eye to others.
>You boast that you are working with Ian and are aware of the rights
>situation.
Why is that a boast? You are well aware that both of those statements
are facts.
>Let's sort it out then?
In order to "sort it out" there needs to be a defined goal. If you
can tell me what your exact objection to E-TNK is then I might have a
chance of rectifying it.
If you wish to have an all encompassing solution to people using Elite
materials then what you are effectively talking about is a licensing
scheme. Developers would need to apply for a licence to use
particular Elite elements (e.g. ship models, universe, artwork etc) on
a particular platform. The copyright holders would need to enforce
that licence by not turning a blind eye to infringements.
>Ian and yourself never approached me. Richard Hanson of Superior Software
>did approach me with a proposal for a full commercial game on the Palm, but
>no mention was made of yourself or Ian Bell.
As you are probably aware, Palm OS Elite is a port of E-TNK. I
believe that the person who did the port asked you for permission to
do a freeware release but you didn't give permission. That message
was passed back to me and Ian. We discussed it and thought that as
you had previously expressed a preference for shareware releases
instead of freeware ones that you might agree to a shareware release
of Palm Elite instead. I suggested to Ian that he talk to Richard
Hanson who has experience in doing pay-for-download Palm games. I
believe that Richard sent you an email but didn't get a reply so he
spoke instead with David Walsh. Richard may not have been aware that
I was involved and maybe the message didn't get passed on that he was
acting on Ian's behalf. Anyway, the message that came back to us was
that you weren't interested. I guess we'll have to chalk that one up
to a failure in communication. If you are interested then maybe you
could have another chat with Richard Hanson?
>I'm afraid this pantomime dialogue is not very productive.
"OH YES IT IS!" :-)
>If you really would rather that E-TNK is not out there, and it is conveneint
>to blame me for it, then this is not reasonable, as that is how it looks to
>me.
So you think you've done exactly what I wanted you to do, while at the
same time making yourself look bad? If that's what you believe then
why did you do it????
>If you do want to get it sorted, then reply to my email.
Done.
--
Regards,
Christian.
http://www.darkkind.com
Christian Pinder
<XDaniel...@Blueyonder.Co.UK> wrote:
>Just got to say that I agree with you David and do think that this sort
>of discussion should *NOT* be held publicly on a newsgroup.
Why shouldn't this sort of discussion be held publicly in this
newsgroup? The outcome of this discussion will affect the people in
this newsgroup. E-TNK not being available doesn't really affect me, I
have a copy of it already. It does affect people in this NG who would
like to play E-TNK but cannot and those who are developing variants of
E-TNK. Those people should be allowed to have a say and should be
made aware of what's going on.
John Jordan
Pinder <chri...@newkind-remove-this.co.uk> writes
Besides which it's excellent entertainment :-)
--
John Jordan
John Jordan
<dy...@vexed2.alioth.net> writes
>
>But why couldn't David just insist that port was taken down, and, say,
>continue to ignore 'desktop' ports? If the desktop ports (Windows,
>Solaris, Linux, IRIX etc.) have been 'ok' for 3 years, why are they
>all of a sudden overstepping the mark?
The problem is that TNK is very easy to port to handhelds. Killing off
TNK is an easy way to stop the flood of ports, although somewhat heavy-
handed. I suspect that if Braben had simply killed a couple of the
ports, people would have stopped creating them.
>To add to that, David Braben has the
>odd notion that 'extreme optimist ware' (aka shareware) is the only way
>to maintain his copyright.
Full commercial > shareware > free binary > GPL.
Although in all of these cases copyright is technically retained, there
are other factors such as creative control and potential damages in the
case of an infringement. In the case of TNK, a GPL release would reduce
any profit from handheld Elite ports as they would be freely and legally
available.
> which is clearly bravo-sierra of the kind
>that a prize Gloucestershire bull makes.
Bravo-sierra == bullshit == you are lying. Not a sensible phrase unless
you simply want to annoy people, and you're wrong anyway :-)
>Just like the Elite Club source release (and indeed, the Elite Club
>in general) has failed to materialise,
Don't knock the shareware release. It's a lot better than nothing.
> I think the chances of an
>'official' TNK release (open/closed source, extreme-optimist-ware
>or freely redistributable) is simply NOT going to happen. After all
>Andrew Gillett used the key phrase 'but no promises', which is basically
>his way of saying 'no' although I wish he'd just come out and say it.
Andrew Gillett has no control of the situation, and unless he can read
Bell's mind, I doubt he can predict it. An official TNK release won't
happen until Braben knows who the (alleged) other copyright holder is,
and Bell isn't likely to tell him without some concessions. I don't
think he's going to concede to threats.
--
John Jordan
EdzUp
> that using Elite materials is illegal. It could be interpreted (and
> AFAIK was) as you giving permission.
I was also under this impression and would like clarification on the matter
from David Braben himself, if I complete Elite Multiplayer (which is moving
on quite well) will I be able to release the EXE and models or will that get
plugged too? All I want is a 'Yes you can release the game without fear of
prosecution from me' or a 'No you cant'.
> Do you mean that I overstepped the mark by creating a version of Elite
> that runs under Windows (which is all I've done) or that someone else
> overstepped the mark by using my code (without my permission) to
> create a PocketPC version of Elite?
IMHO it was the port that overstepped the mark, if I created something that
someone else had put a EULA on I would be miffed too. I think the grudge is
the portability of E-TNK to other platforms rather than the game itself.
-EdzUp
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03
Dylan Smith
>> which is clearly bravo-sierra of the kind
>>that a prize Gloucestershire bull makes.
>
>Bravo-sierra == bullshit == you are lying. Not a sensible phrase unless
>you simply want to annoy people, and you're wrong anyway :-)
No, bullshit != lying. BS is often used in the context (and in this
context - i.e. free licences not preserving copyright) means
saying something that isn't accurate or misses the mark by a long way.
It *can* mean lying, but in this context, it is quite clear that it
does not.
Lying is saying something to *deliberately* decieve. I don't think
David Braben would say 'It must be shareware to preserve copyright'
to decieve, but he might say it because he's mistaken. If he
says it because he's merely in error, that doesn't make it not BS.
Maybe I spent too long in Texas and the definition of BS changed
whilst I was away, but that was one of the most common contexts
it was used in there.
>Don't knock the shareware release. It's a lot better than nothing.
But since the three parties appear to be engaged in open (flame) warfare,
a shareware release looks very unlikely.
Andy H
news:kD8ZO1GB...@jaj22.demon.co.uk...
Yea, its entertainment, but its only going to end one way - and that will
not be entertaining. Get it sorted out and let us know.
Andy H
I hope not, it's not like he's killed your granny or anything. What you're
saying it is personal to you and you hold that grudge? If CP, IB and DB
feel like this and can not get over it, then we've not much to look forward
to in relation to Elite. Who wants just another Elite-a-like as there are
plenty of those already. DF looks promising however, I look forward to
seeing that mature.
Andy H
news:slrnb5ripf...@vexed2.alioth.net...
-- bullshit trimmed -- ;)
> >Don't knock the shareware release. It's a lot better than nothing.
>
> But since the three parties appear to be engaged in open (flame) warfare,
> a shareware release looks very unlikely.
>
Exactly! Who ever side you are on, or what ever your feelings are, the way
its going at the moment is down hill. These guys need to get over it (grow
up a little maybe) and talk to each other, rather than post here just to try
to get more support for poor old DB/CP/IB -cross off whoever depending on
your allegiance!
David Braben
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:52:42 -0000, "David Braben"
> <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >You haven't replied to my last mail -
>
> Your last email was to ask me if I am in contact with Ian. I had
> already made you aware that I was. Anyway, I have now replied.
You know that is not the whole truth.
I am not conducting petty arguments in public. If you answer the question in
my email about the (C) messages, then we can proceed. If not, then we can't.
Simple.
David Braben
David Braben
Glad to be of service. ;-)
David Braben
Daniel Durrant
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:36:19 GMT, Daniel Durrant
> <XDaniel...@Blueyonder.Co.UK> wrote:
>
>>Just got to say that I agree with you David and do think that this sort
>>of discussion should *NOT* be held publicly on a newsgroup.
>
> Why shouldn't this sort of discussion be held publicly in this
> newsgroup?
Because of the nature of the discussion Christian. Can you not see that
stupid comments the likes of
"...but you're waiting on me and Ian...hmmmm...whatever."
are a) of NO benefit to anyone on this news group
b) totally unconstructive
c) rather childish and
d) not really going to improve any kind of relationship that you (and
the newsgroup if you believe you represent us all - *which you do
not*)
Comments like that quoted above can only be seen as you trying to 'look'
good, and they achieve neither this nor anything else.
> The outcome of this discussion will affect the people in
> this newsgroup.
SO in the above example and your general attitude in your retorts, how is
this discussion going to end positively for the newsgroup? Are you
expecting DB to suddenly declare that he is everything you say and donate
the copyright to you to quell his guilt? Think about where you're going
with this.
Do you think that in a business meeting where the client says to the host
"Hmm, we think you're really poor in your work, never deliver on time, and
don't trust you at all..." that there will be a positive outcome? I think
not.
> E-TNK not being available doesn't really affect me, I
> have a copy of it already.
So all this negativity IS ego-posturing then isn't it?
> It does affect people in this NG who would
> like to play E-TNK but cannot and those who are developing variants of
> E-TNK. Those people should be allowed to have a say and should be
> made aware of what's going on.
Yes I agree. Of course we all want to know what is going on. Were they
not conducted like tests of mental-might, the discussions with David would
be very useful and positive here. But apart from those who consider them
entertainment (*oh how funny* it would be if ALL Elite/FE/FFE shareware and
ports were pulled?) you're not moving things along.
I know I'm ranting but this is a matter which could be SO beneficial to
everyone here if conducted reasonably.
Daniel Durrant
>> Besides which it's excellent entertainment :-)
>
> Glad to be of service. ;-)
>
> David Braben
Thank goodness you've got a sense of humour!
Daniel Durrant
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:52:42 -0000, "David Braben"
> <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>You haven't replied to my last mail -
>
> Your last email was to ask me if I am in contact with Ian. I had
> already made you aware that I was. Anyway, I have now replied.
Oh, so you were really positive in your actions THERE then weren't you,
ignoring an email from DB because you felt you'd already made him aware
[shakes head]
>>You clearly are in contact with Ian -
>
> So your last email and my subsequent reply are both rather redundant.
Another example of 'positive' attitude.
The middle bit of your email is much more sensible and the kind of stuff
that is productive (with some very good questions asked), and then you let
it go again near the end.
This, along with my other posts are of course MY opinion and view, but
whilst I don't purport to represent everyone here, I don't think I'm alone
in any of my thoughts.
Lucian Wischik
>This, along with my other posts are of course MY opinion and view, but
>whilst I don't purport to represent everyone here, I don't think I'm alone
>in any of my thoughts.
I agree with you.
--
Lucian
Andy H
news:tvur5vsrqcq2ssurg...@4ax.com...
First off, I'd point out that although I am not happy with the general way
DB has handled the matter from his side of the field (eg: failure of the
elite club after such a promising start, the nature of the conflicts with IB
website etc) I do understand some parts of his position. With that in mind,
I find the recent posts from CP a little too unconstructive (to put it
politely) so a conflict is escalated that maybe could have been handled
better. Again, I think I understand how CP feels.
So yes, I agree with you too.
The best way forwards is to find something, what ever something may be, that
will benefit people like all the guys here who want to see more of Elite now
and in the future. Getting together face to face, or by a chat program
would probably be a good start as it is very impersonal to bounce emails
back and forth, and IMHO nothing more that watching Jackass (the movie)
replayed over the news group. OK it is entertaining to see each side spar
against the other, but we all know where that will lead.
Personally, I'd like to see Elite TNK available for all to play on home
computers, hand helds etc with whatever means are necessary to make
DB/CP/IB/Other happy. If that is some sort of shareware, no problem. What
I'd hate to see is all versions of Elite being pulled from the community in
every shape and form (incl. emulators) because there is not a consensus
amongst the copyright owners. It only takes one person to disagree for
Elite to be pulled and that is wehre we are today.
You may think that its OK to make an Elite-a-like, with all new universes,
ships and technology ... but there is a magic in the world of Elite. Most
of us grew up playing it and there are good ideas and solid foundations
there. You may make an excellent Elite-a-like game, but don't you agree
that it would be sad if the magic of Elite is not there?
You are at a point now where this issue can go either way. I'd say to DB,
CP, IB and whoever else is directly involved, it is up to you all what that
outcome is. No point blaming each other IMHO.
Jeremy Rayner
> Why shouldn't this sort of discussion be held publicly in this
> newsgroup? The outcome of this discussion will affect the people in
> this newsgroup. E-TNK not being available doesn't really affect me, I
> have a copy of it already. It does affect people in this NG who would
> like to play E-TNK but cannot and those who are developing variants of
> E-TNK. Those people should be allowed to have a say and should be
> made aware of what's going on.
Hear, hear,
I've worked for over a year on porting TNK to 100% Pure Java
at http://javanicus.org (just for fun, completely non-profit!)
The irony is that I was getting the installers ready
for joe punter to have the best experience with
the java version of Elite, when I noticed Mr Braben's
original posting.
Of course I complied straight away with Christian's
requests for variants to be removed from the net,
I have removed all source and binaries from my site.
However, when this all does get decided, I would have thought
that my Java version was rather desirable, as it has been
successfully tested in Win 98/2000, Suse Linux, Mac OSX,
all from the same codebase. (as is the promise of Java)
I've always acknowledged the hard work and dedication of
Mr. Braben, Mr. Bell and Mr.Pinder, _never_ claimed it was
freeware, just doing my bit to preserve the 'Elite' experience
for future generations.
Anyways, Christian, if you ever get a 'conditional' release of
TNK, then let me know under what wording all copyright holders
accepted the release of your fine work, and maybe I can release
mine again.
Aaron Baugher
> I know I'm ranting but this is a matter which could be SO beneficial
> to everyone here if conducted reasonably.
I don't see how. I'm fairly new to the 'scene' here, having
subscribed to the newsgroup just a few weeks before the controversy,
but it seemed pretty obvious to me right from the start that the end
result was predetermined. I assumed the entire conversation was just
for looks. At no time did I ever think
Come on, shareware? Most shareware products don't make much money.
We're talking about a reproduction of a 20-year old game (well done,
but still), the original version of which can be downloaded from 100
different places and played on a dozen different emulators. And it's
supposed to bring in enough money to split three ways and be worth
the trouble? Not a chance.
It all seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Christian wrote E:TNK
knowing that it violated a copyright, and he was very up-front about
that. David has every right to assert his copyright, and he did so,
and Christian immediately pulled the game. People were disappointed,
but not surprised, and everything was cool. Then for some reason it
became necessary to start trying to shift blame where none existed in
the first place, presumably to mollify users who would be likely to
buy future Elite versions.
I can't blame Christian for getting miffed (if he is) by the
suggestion that he's somehow keeping E:TNK from being available, when
he was giving it away for free until stopped.
--
Aaron
abau...@esc.pike.il.us
Andy H
news:86vfz5o...@cail.esc.pike.il.us...
> Daniel Durrant <XDaniel...@Blueyonder.Co.UK> writes:
>
> > I know I'm ranting but this is a matter which could be SO beneficial
> > to everyone here if conducted reasonably.
>
> I don't see how. I'm fairly new to the 'scene' here, having
> subscribed to the newsgroup just a few weeks before the controversy,
> but it seemed pretty obvious to me right from the start that the end
> result was predetermined. I assumed the entire conversation was just
> for looks.
From the outside looking in it seems more of a communication problem than
anything else at this point in time.
If the outcome is predetermined, the only way to find out is to talk to DB.
If DB has reasonable conditions that needs to be met, and those conditions
are met then what excuse would DB have to further deny permission? Or if
such conditions become unreasonable, to the extent it is obvious they exist
only to prevent E:TNK from seeing the light of day again then I think CP and
everyone here has the right to be 'miffed' :)
For what ever reason, both sides are saying the other side stopped talking
so E:TNK is still not available on the web in any form and throwing insults
at each other isn't getting them talking in the right way! ;)
Lucian Wischik
>It all seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Christian wrote E:TNK
>knowing that it violated a copyright, and he was very up-front about
>that. David has every right to assert his copyright, and he did so,
It's not like that. David wrote a commercial game for a handheld. He
visited web review sites to see what they saying about his new
commercial game. Instead, he found a recently-written version of his
OWN software (with an illegal licence) competing against him. And
since E:TNK was the source (&source-code) of this competitor, it made
perfect sense to pull the plug.
If E:TNK had been a binary distribution, I bet this wouldn't have come
up. If E:TNK had additionally had a shareware license, then it for
sure wouldn't have come up and no one would have the cheek to put up
their own licenses for their own versions!
I think that a binary shareware distribution would satisfy DB fine.
And I doubt Christian would object.
--
Lucian
Ian McCall
news:86vfz5o...@cail.esc.pike.il.us...
> Come on, shareware? Most shareware products don't make much money.
> We're talking about a reproduction of a 20-year old game (well done,
> but still),
A 20 year-old game that we're still interested enough in to be part of this
newsgroup.
Just a guess here but I don't think the issue is money, or at least not
money derived from shareware fees. I think the shareware tag is to ensure
the game is regarded as proprietary and copyright.
Cheers,
Ian
Will Davis
in
> my email about the (C) messages, then we can proceed. If not, then we
can't.
> Simple.
>
> David Braben
I agree. This is not how any other copyright dispute would be settled, and
if it continues like this then nothing is going to be settled to the benefit
of anybody. Get that? - NObody will benefit, not DB, CP, IB (who sensibly is
keeping quiet), or the mysterious "Other" who owns the other half of the
Elite copyright. Or any of the rest of us.
The only way is to hold private discussions, maybe just DB and CP, but
probably also IB and Other (if he/she/they/etc. can be found) even though it
may just degenerate into a flaming match - but at least it would be private
flaming match.
I can't believe that anybody, no matter what gets said on this newsgroup, is
against this all being sorted out, and Elite being available for all. That
includes DB (he did make two semi-sequels didn't he?), IB (who obviously
still cares about the game, due to the fan site, and collaboration on
Darkness Falls), CJ (who is a FAN like the rest of us), and Other (who even
if they aren't a fan - I can't believe they're not - is still not getting
anything else at the moment).
Please sort it out guys. Let by gones be by gones, and start afresh.
soapbox free
Angus Manwaring
Sure, but it may be that it damages the chances of a satisfactory
conclusion. None of my business Christian, but I'm sure a couple of gents
like you and DB, both of whom I believe to be reasonable and decent, can
sort things out - off stage - in an acceptable (to all parties) manner.
Just my 2 hoopy casinos. :)
All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Aaron Baugher
> Just a guess here but I don't think the issue is money, or at least
> not money derived from shareware fees. I think the shareware tag is
> to ensure the game is regarded as proprietary and copyright.
If so, that makes no sense. All software is copyright, unless you
specifically release it into the public domain. Putting a price tag
on it doesn't increase the validity of the copyright one bit. There
are plenty of license schemes out there that do a fine job of
retaining copyright while allowing free distribution and code re-use.
What insisting on a shareware release *does* do is ensure that nothing
will ever happen unless all the parties involved work together on it.
Look, I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here. If David, Ian,
Christian, and whoever else is involved can form some sort of ad-hoc
company to sell E:TNK and make a few bucks off it, that's great. I
just don't think that's possible, for various reasons, and I don't
think it's the point anyway.
--
Aaron
abau...@esc.pike.il.us
Lucian Wischik
>"Ian McCall" <i...@eruvia.org> writes:
>> Just a guess here but I don't think the issue is money, or at least
>> not money derived from shareware fees. I think the shareware tag is
>> to ensure the game is regarded as proprietary and copyright.
>If so, that makes no sense. All software is copyright, unless you
but is it *regarded* as copyright? Apparently not very strongly, if
people feel able to stick their own licence conditions on it!
--
Lucian
Stuart Wilson
"Angus Manwaring" <angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1481.188T2742T10466481angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk...
> Just my 2 hoopy casinos. :)
I'm almost tempted to compare the discussion (I use the term loosely)
between David Braben and Christian Pinder to that between the Frogstar Scout
Class D and Marvin. As to which person plays the part of which robot will
become all too apparent later on I think.
Angus Paxton
"Daniel Durrant" <XDaniel...@Blueyonder.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:Xns932F72EB125CFDa...@194.117.133.134...
> Christian Pinder <chri...@newkind-remove-this.co.uk> wrote in
> news:getq5vgqm2pksjuh2...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:36:19 GMT, Daniel Durrant
> > <XDaniel...@Blueyonder.Co.UK> wrote:
> >
> >>Just got to say that I agree with you David and do think that this sort
> >>of discussion should *NOT* be held publicly on a newsgroup.
> >
> > Why shouldn't this sort of discussion be held publicly in this
> > newsgroup?
>
> Because of the nature of the discussion Christian. Can you not see that
> stupid comments the likes of
>
Yeah, they're _both_ acting like a couple of kids who "dont want anyone else
to play footy because it's their ball and they're not playing if that other
kid is playing and if he's playing I'm going home and _I'm taking my ball
with me_".
Most people got this out of their system with their first fight at twelve
years old which was all wrestling and tears and no punches. They'll never be
martial artists ;-)
Ngus.
Christian Pinder
<guinness...@lineone.net> wrote:
>They'll never be martial artists ;-)
Just for the record, I hold black belt rank in 3 different styles of
Karate. ;-)
--
Regards,
Christian.
http://www.darkkind.com
Christian Pinder
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>I am not conducting petty arguments in public.
If you do not wish to have a public discussion at this time then fair
enough. I would appreciate it though if you could respond (via email
if you prefer) to the questions raised in my previous post as they
have a direct bearing on the status of E-TNK.
>If you answer the question in my email about the (C) messages,
>then we can proceed. If not, then we can't. Simple.
The current situation was going on long before E-TNK existed so I'm
not sure 'simple' is a word that can be applied. I will answer your
email to the best of my ability but I am not a laywer and do not own
any of the Elite rights so my input is purely personal oppinion. As
we are entering into legal territory I will need to check the facts
carefully in order to give an informed oppinion. Apologies in advance
if I do not reply to your email immediately, it may take me a few days
to formulate a reply and my free time is rather limited at the moment.
mrduval
> David Braben wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Just to let you know, I've not forgotten I'd said I'd try and get Elite's
> > status resolved. I'm basically waiting on email replies from Ian Bell,
> > Christian Pinder and the other rights holder.
> >
> > To explain the situation:
>
> I'm entering the thread a bit late but this seems like potentialy good
> news. As a fan, I was disapointed that the other proposals for the Elite
> Club never came to pass. However, in my opinion (as a Elite fan, nearly
> from the begining) what you have outlined here sounds very reasonable
> and generous and I wish you the best of luck with it. What I would like
> to see is this idea proving really succesfull and setting an example to
> other developers and future Frontier Dev projects.
Poor david I bet he wished he never made elite
I never played TNK but I have it in a zip file.
is the AI in the game as good as Elite Platinum ?
John Jordan
Pinder <chri...@newkind-remove-this.co.uk> writes
>
>Just for the record, I hold black belt rank in 3 different styles of
>Karate. ;-)
Once upon a time, while googling for evidence for my Pinder-is-Bell
theory, I ran across your name in the list of attendees for a martial
arts seminar. I almost thought I was on to something :-)
--
John Jordan
Dunny
> killermike <kille...@notunmusic.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<b3il2t$clo$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Poor david I bet he wished he never made elite
> I never played TNK but I have it in a zip file.
> is the AI in the game as good as Elite Platinum ?
It's identical (AFAIK) to the BBC version of Elite. I don't know if it's the
tape or disc version - I suspect Tape. Unless significant AI changes were made
to Elite Platinum, I would assume them to be similar.
D.
Marcus Buchanan
> conclusion. None of my business Christian, but I'm sure a couple of gents
> like you and DB, both of whom I believe to be reasonable and decent, can
> sort things out - off stage - in an acceptable (to all parties) manner.
>
> Just my 2 hoopy casinos. :)
>
rowing is deafening.*
Later,
Marcus.
* i.e. There are an awful lot of oars being stuck in at the moment.
Christian Pinder
<jo...@jaj22.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Once upon a time, while googling for evidence for my Pinder-is-Bell
>theory, I ran across your name in the list of attendees for a martial
>arts seminar. I almost thought I was on to something :-)
My name does indeed appear a couple of times on the Internet in the
context of martial arts. If you look really hard you'll even find
some pictures of me with my Karate instructor. Ian does practice
martial arts but not Karate (AFAIK). He holds black belt rank in
Aikido.
Your Pinder-is-Bell theory is doesn't hold much water. Sorry :-)
David Braben
That's a reasonable summary. In order to get the shareware position sorted,
we need to get permission from all the (C) holders. Then it could also go up
on the Frontier site too, and I think there's every chance of this
happening.
David Braben
Martin Christensen
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Christian" == Christian Pinder <chri...@newkind-remove-this.co.uk> writes:
Christian> My name does indeed appear a couple of times on the
Christian> Internet in the context of martial arts. If you look
Christian> really hard you'll even find some pictures of me with my
Christian> Karate instructor.
Actually it was on the first page in my search results. Oi, that
Christian is toit... like a toiger. :-)
Martin
- --
Homepage: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/
GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Mailcrypt+GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org>
iEYEARECAAYFAj5fSU0ACgkQYu1fMmOQldXZZgCgyoX7ywbmCMR1EMyoeMnYLSsA
sl4AmgKG5FvvC2IQwyrZzrUr4isqKSAo
=fcII
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dunny
>> I think that a binary shareware distribution would satisfy DB fine.
>> And I doubt Christian would object.
> That's a reasonable summary. In order to get the shareware position
> sorted, we need to get permission from all the (C) holders. Then it
> could also go up on the Frontier site too, and I think there's every
> chance of this happening.
By 'eck, 'oo woulda thought I'd be asking Mr Braben a question, eh? The feeling
is akin to finding that Matthew Smith posts on Comp.sys.sinclair.
Anyway, rambling aside, what will the status be of homegrown clones based on the
Elite source? I myself am having great fun porting Christian's source to Delphi
and there's so much scope for improvement it's just mad.
Obviously, I may *never* be able to release this, given the current situation -
so where would I stand given a binary only release? Or would I myself only be
able to release binaries having bought a license?
Thanks,
Dunny.
David Braben
news:b3o0m1$1nhke1$1...@ID-106816.news.dfncis.de...
You would send off a version for approval, and assuming it's OK, you could
then release it as shareware, or whatever was agreed. I do want to steer
clear of handhelds and mobiles, as I don't want Frontier's commercial games
competing with it. (This assumes we can get the (C) situation sorted).
David
EdzUp
matter
> from David Braben himself, if I complete Elite Multiplayer (which is
moving
> on quite well) will I be able to release the EXE and models or will that
get
> plugged too? All I want is a 'Yes you can release the game without fear of
> prosecution from me' or a 'No you cant'.
>
>
> IMHO it was the port that overstepped the mark, if I created something
that
> someone else had put a EULA on I would be miffed too. I think the grudge
is
> the portability of E-TNK to other platforms rather than the game itself.
Dave could we have clarification on the points above, I know you are busy
but I would like to know where I stand before going ahead and making
something I will never be able to release.
-EdzUp
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03
Andy H
news:FRNT433...@frontier.co.uk...
> You would send off a version for approval, and assuming it's OK, you could
> then release it as shareware, or whatever was agreed. I do want to steer
> clear of handhelds and mobiles, as I don't want Frontier's commercial
games
> competing with it. (This assumes we can get the (C) situation sorted).
Sounds good. Hopefully what ever is outstanding will get sorted soon :)
Dylan Smith
<dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>You would send off a version for approval, and assuming it's OK, you could
>then release it as shareware, or whatever was agreed.
I have a question about this.
If the situation is all resolved (which, as far as I can see is still
a big *if*) and despite the fact I think closed-source shareware isn't
the right direction, I would still submith the Solaris port I did.
It's not something that took a lot of work - it was mainly running
'make' and fixing a crash defect (the discussion is somewhere in Google
groups I expect, another person did a port to Solaris, so I assume
he did the same thing).
How are you going to be approving any version submitted for shareware?
I suspect you don't have any Sun SPARC hardware since it's not exactly
your line of business. Would you take the maintainer's word for it
that it ran? (in the case of the SPARC version, it runs fine, and
is basically identical to the Windows or Linux version once running
well, because it basically is the same code!)
Same comment goes for the Mips IRIX port on sgi hardware.
One of the great things about TNK was its portability - it would be
very sad to lose this in an eventual shareware distribution system.
(Incidentally, a screenshot of TNK running on SPARC hardware is
here: http://alioth.net/tmp/newkind.png - the original FN news article
is here: http://frontiernews.alioth.net/article.php?sid=32 - the port
was done just over a year ago)
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Tim Nicholson
Pathetic, childish crap - Grow up, both of you please. Once the source was
published for free download on your websites, you both lost any chance of
ever winning a copyright case - ask any lawyer, so why not just let it go?
You both want the same thing really, I have visited your websites, you both
blame each other when it comes to not giving permission for new ports! You
just don't want the other one to have the last word - Like I said, pathetic,
childish crap! Forget the whole thing and get lives!
Elite was once a great game, no doubt about that, but time does move on and
a few K of 6502 assembly code is not worth twopence these days - Let it be
used freely, and who knows what may be born from the ashes.
Regards
Tim Nicholson
Elite Pilot nearly TWENTY years ago!
"David Braben" <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FRNT424...@frontier.co.uk...
> All,
>
> Just to let you know, I've not forgotten I'd said I'd try and get Elite's
> status resolved. I'm basically waiting on email replies from Ian Bell,
> Christian Pinder and the other rights holder.
>
> To explain the situation:
>
> I'd like to see Elite available as shareware. All this would take is a
> shareware screen at the start (much like FFE etc), and the correct (C)
> messages - which may well be (C) myself and the other rights holder - to
be
> confirmed by Ian. This includes (eg) Elite-TNK (where Mr Pinder may also
> have (C)).
>
> I will only give such shareware rights where the other rights holder(s)
also
> give them - so that such a version would be above board, and so could also
> be included on the Frontier site. Personally I find it a bit ludicrous
that
> the Frontier site is the only Elite-related site that cannot have the
> original game on it.
>
> For such shareware versions, there would be a simple approval process for
> each version, and then as long as the other rights holder(s) also agrees,
it
> would be a legitimate version, that could be freely distributed. The same
> applies for the various Elite images, running under emulation.
>
>
> David Braben
>
>
>
>
andrei tanase
public access. create source trees for elite, fe2 and ffe. add an open
source licence banner at the beginning of each file (BSD'ish would be
fine). branch TNK and all its ports, jjffe and its mods. add a
statement to the licence which goes "if you want to release something
based on source code from this CVS server you must retain all (C) and
cvs headers and contribute it back to the tree" or something to that
effect. you will have control over which code can be tinkered with as
you can freeze portions of the tree and "illegal" releases will be
easy to spot since they won't be mirrored in the tree. credit will be
given automatically as CVS keeps track of who did what to which file
when. oh? FD doesn't have the resources to manage such a thing? hard
to believe but i think community members (Pinder? Dylan? Frantic?) can
do it. you can get them to sign paperwork so you can sue their
unworthy asses if they start doing stupid things (like that tnk palm
os contest) or HIRE them. or HIRE them anyway, i'm pretty sure they
will be happy to maintaint that CVS for you for free or a modicum
retribution. copyright problems for elite? well, you and bell started
all this so its only fair that you sort it out. it can be sorted out
if you have a go at it with this in mind.
you don't realise it braben, but all this collection of freaks that
make up the elite community CAN affect your business. you can keep
them busy and happy by giving them the elites' source code and
allowing them to mod it and ready to do the same when the modular? E4
finally comes out (what? you don't give a shit about E4? sorry man,
but that's about the only thing that will make you and your shi*tty
company known. not W&G, not darxide nor the other POSs that FD has
been tinkering with lately) OR you can keep showing baseball bats up
their rectums and then cope with a market segment that has no clue
about elite, FD, bell and braben and bad, bad, BAD PR. so if you
weren't able to please 100 hardcore elite freaks, you think you'll be
able to convince 1M john does to buy an unknown and weird game from an
unknown company? what if another company will see the light before you
and "adopt" us and grab the "open-ended-MMORPG-trading-space-RPG" pie?
fan bases and market segments are developed not taken for granted. but
what am i talking about, i'm sure your people at fd marketing know
what they are doing. by the way, did you EVER consider the PR
potential of a story along the lines of "pioneer game developers
reunite after 20 years of grudges and set out to blow us away with
E4"? of courste that would mean that you'd have to come to terms with
bell, sort out the legal mess both of you created and stop worring
about who gets the most credit.
finally, i think id software and THEIR community is proof that IT CAN
BE DONE. q1, q2 and q3 sources are available to developers, there's a
ton of add-ons floating around (half of fileplanet), and THEIR
community is thriving. all it took was some clever programming and
open-mindedness. there's no reason why FD and its products (but i'm
thinking E4 here) should go along the same path. no reason except you
and bell's and others' thick skulls. you do whay my mother used to say
i was doing when i was 14: driving nails in my noggin with a hammer to
wreck the barber's hair-cutting machine.
matt
<cjspam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> As a matter of interest, is there any foreseeable way that the original
>Elite will ever appear on a handheld?
Only when the copyright holders start acting like mature adults
(instead of immature children), swallow their respective prides and
come to an agreement.
I feel that the only reason that Frontier Dev didn't release the
original Elite for handhelds (instead of the cack game they put out
instead) is because of Ian (or whoever) holding the joint copyright.
David won't talk politely to Ian and vice versa. So they lose out, we
lose out and so does the general public, all because of these childish
brats who can't put their petty differences to one side.
Pathetic.
matt
Angus Paxton
"matt" <mat...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3e60f62b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> David won't talk politely to Ian and vice versa. So they lose out, we
> lose out and so does the general public, all because of these childish
> brats who can't put their petty differences to one side.
>
What the hell was that row about anyway?
It must have been one hell of a row to still make both parties feel the way
they do almost 20 years later...
Ngus
Christopher
<guinness...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>"matt" <mat...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:3e60f62b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>> David won't talk politely to Ian and vice versa. So they lose out, we
>> lose out and so does the general public, all because of these childish
>> brats who can't put their petty differences to one side.
>>
>
>What the hell was that row about anyway?
David hit Ian on the head with his rattle when Ian wasn't looking. :-)
>It must have been one hell of a row to still make both parties feel the way
>they do almost 20 years later...
Most childish arguments are like that.
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++
D'ou venons-nous?
Qui sommes-nous?
Ou allons-nous?
Gauguin
John Jordan
<guinness...@lineone.net> writes
>
>"matt" <mat...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:3e60f62b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>> David won't talk politely to Ian and vice versa. So they lose out, we
>> lose out and so does the general public, all because of these childish
>> brats who can't put their petty differences to one side.
>
>What the hell was that row about anyway?
Bell's side of the story:
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/faq.htm#A13
Braben's side of the story:
http://www.frontier.co.uk/elite/faq.html (see questions 6 & 8)
--
John Jordan
Corncrake
>It must have been one hell of a row to still make both parties feel the way
>they do almost 20 years later...
Not necessarily a "hell of a row" in adult terms, it is well known
that children have a poor sense of time and of its passing.
They are more concerned with their marbles and rattles and of being
"king of the castle"
Corncrake
>David hit Ian on the head with his rattle when Ian wasn't looking. :-)
lol !
Nice one Christopher
Corncrake
>TO DAVID BRABEN AND IAN BELL
>Pathetic, childish crap -
Well said Tim,,,
snip a well written summary,,
>Elite was once a great game,
and then sadly diminished in it's standing by the childishness of the
principles :(
I used to think that they were great men and heroes of the code !
EdzUp
Could you email me about Elite Multiplayer as I still do not have a cast
iron guarantee that it will not be shutdown when completed.
Christopher
Maybe id or Electronic Arts (EA) could stage a takeover of Frontier
Developments that sack David and the rest of those lazy sods in FD
management for not giving the go ahead for Elite 4. At least then we
could eventually get E4 in our local Game Zone shop.
Eric Dery
says...
> Maybe id or Electronic Arts (EA) could stage a takeover of Frontier
> Developments that sack David and the rest of those lazy sods in FD
> management for not giving the go ahead for Elite 4. At least then we
> could eventually get E4 in our local Game Zone shop.
>
Oh yeah, but what kind of crappy game it would probably be, another
mindless space shooter...
I prefer to wait after FD. It will take a **few** more years to
complete, but at least we got more chances that it will be what we
really want, and not just a shooter with the Elite/Frontier licence!
Just my two cents.
- Éric
Christopher
wrote:
>In article <3e61ddec...@news.dsl.pipex.com>, coro...@hotmail.com
>says...
>
>> Maybe id or Electronic Arts (EA) could stage a takeover of Frontier
>> Developments that sack David and the rest of those lazy sods in FD
>> management for not giving the go ahead for Elite 4. At least then we
>> could eventually get E4 in our local Game Zone shop.
>>
>
>Oh yeah, but what kind of crappy game it would probably be, another
>mindless space shooter...
Sooner a 'mindless space shooter' then an urban myth made out of
vapourware.
>I prefer to wait after FD. It will take a **few** more years to
>complete, but at least we got more chances that it will be what we
>really want, and not just a shooter with the Elite/Frontier licence!
'a **few** more years' Eric, we have been waiting for years and years,
getting close to a decade or more now for FD to get its finger out of
its arse, and deliver, with no indication they will deliver for a
**few** more years yet. Id rather have something then just the
nothing which is all David Braben and his band of muppets have
produced.
Christopher
All I got for 'Braben's side of the story' was a "File not found: The
requested URL was not found on this server. " jpg picture message.
Sounds about right.
Niko Mikkanen
> All I got for 'Braben's side of the story' was a "File not found: The
> requested URL was not found on this server. " jpg picture message.
http://www.frontier.co.uk/games/elite/faq.html
> Sounds about right.
>
>
> Christopher
Remember, if someone gives a wrong URL in a(ny) newsgroup, it's all
Braben's fault!
GNiko
--
"Imagine standing at a street corner and spitting on people to get their
attention, then trying to sell them something. Spamming is a better
marketing method than that only in that you get punched less often."
-- Esa E. Peuha
John Jordan
<ed...@edzup.co.uk> writes
>Hi,
> Could you email me about Elite Multiplayer as I still do not have a cast
>iron guarantee that it will not be shutdown when completed.
You're not going to get a "cast iron guarantee". Simply avoid violating
any copyrights or trademarks and you're safe. I suspect that you're
pretty safe even if you use the name "Elite Multiplayer" and a few of
the Elite ships, but you'd never get a guarantee on those conditions.
--
John Jordan
Havok
hijacked the computer of coro...@hotmail.com (Christopher) and
wrote:
original poster missed out the "games" dir.
http://www.frontier.co.uk/games/elite/faq.html
--
Havok - Admiral of Defence
The Galactic Network of Explorers and Traders.
http://www.galnet.org
Commander Steve
>
> 'a **few** more years' Eric, we have been waiting for years and years,
> getting close to a decade or more now for FD to get its finger out of
> its arse, and deliver, with no indication they will deliver for a
> **few** more years yet. Id rather have something then just the
> nothing which is all David Braben and his band of muppets have
> produced.
>
>
> Christopher
There were a **few** years between Elite and Frontier. The years between
First Encounters and Elite 4 have been mainly due to lawsuits etc.
I still back DB and FD as the only people who *can* make Elite 4 - and I
don't just mean in a legal sense. Muppets? I don't think so.
As you've demonstrated before, you clearly have no idea what Elite is about.
Why not leave things for people who do? And I thought you were leaving this
newsgroup anyway?
Steve
--
www.frontierastro.co.uk
FrontierAstro - dedicated to Frontier and Astronomy
Eric Dery
> >> Maybe id or Electronic Arts (EA) could stage a takeover of Frontier
> >> Developments that sack David and the rest of those lazy sods in FD
> >> management for not giving the go ahead for Elite 4. At least then we
> >> could eventually get E4 in our local Game Zone shop.
> >>
> >
> >Oh yeah, but what kind of crappy game it would probably be, another
> >mindless space shooter...
>
> Sooner a 'mindless space shooter' then an urban myth made out of
> vapourware.
>
I for myself not sure about that. I do prefer to wait for a good game
rather than play with really crappy games, but on the other end you're
also right, we have to do with what we have (or don't) and wait for
something better... and it's definitively the case with Elite/Frontier
kind of games, sadly.
> >I prefer to wait after FD. It will take a **few** more years to
> >complete, but at least we got more chances that it will be what we
> >really want, and not just a shooter with the Elite/Frontier licence!
>
> 'a **few** more years' Eric, we have been waiting for years and years,
> getting close to a decade or more now for FD to get its finger out of
> its arse, and deliver, with no indication they will deliver for a
> **few** more years yet. Id rather have something then just the
> nothing which is all David Braben and his band of muppets have
> produced.
>
I know I know, I was a little sarcastic when I said "a few years". I've
played Elite on my C64 15 years ago, FE2 on my Amiga 1200 some years
ago, FFE on my PC a few years back and lurking here in this newsgroup
for a little more than 6 years now (didn't post much tho).
I've heard about X Beyond the Frontier, 2 or 3 years before it was
released. I was very excited, because at first, it was looking very much
like Elite/Frontier, but in the end it was something different, but
something very good while we waited for a Frontier sequel and as you
said, "rather have something than nothing"!
But X-BTF too was some years ago. Then one day came the announcement of
Elite IV, and since then, well not much, only a bit of vapourware, hype
and deception, as we all know.
So fans decided to take the matter in their own hands, and it was going
great for the past few years, but with the recent development with the
copyright issue, things had to halt under all this get sorted out, but
at least FD are doing something now, which is good, and I hope they will
keep the momentum, but I'm not holding my breath anymore.
The severe lack of news (in direct result of the lack of development),
the poor interaction of the game creators with it's fans never had
helped the situation that we are in now.
That's why I'm often amazed by the Elite Communauty itself. Never before
I've seen people care so much for a game, even if nothing as been
"officialy" done for such an extended period of time, since the last
Frontier game.
In any case, it's the Elite Communauty that make the dream still alive
today, and I think it will be the case for many years to come, with or
without Elite IV, if it's ever been done.
- Éric
Lucian Wischik
>original poster missed out the "games" dir.
>http://www.frontier.co.uk/games/elite/faq.html
He didn't "miss" it out; DB asked him to remove it.
--
Lucian
Christopher
<ju...@frontierastro.co.uk> wrote:
>Christopher wrote:
>>
>> 'a **few** more years' Eric, we have been waiting for years and years,
>> getting close to a decade or more now for FD to get its finger out of
>> its arse, and deliver, with no indication they will deliver for a
>> **few** more years yet. Id rather have something then just the
>> nothing which is all David Braben and his band of muppets have
>> produced.
>>
>>
>> Christopher
>
>There were a **few** years between Elite and Frontier. The years between
>First Encounters and Elite 4 have been mainly due to lawsuits etc.
Brought on by childish spats.
>I still back DB and FD as the only people who *can* make Elite 4 - and I
>don't just mean in a legal sense. Muppets? I don't think so.
I'll belive you when I see it for sale in my local Game Zone.
>As you've demonstrated before, you clearly have no idea what Elite is about.
I was playing Elite when you were probably still learning how to spell
it.
>Why not leave things for people who do?
You mean like David-Im never going to finish Elite 4-Draben?
>And I thought you were leaving this
>newsgroup anyway?
Im back for a short stay. Did you miss me? ;-) You sound as though
you did. :->
Dale
Hi,
I'm a newbie to the group but I just saw this thread and saw red so I just
had to add my 2 cents.
(Off topic here but you'll see why in a minute).
Freelancer's predecessor was Starlancer, a great game but sadly storyline
based and it was over before you'd really got into it. Freelancer offered an
open ended story so that, like Elite, you could go on playing it forever (or
until MS bring out a new OS that won't run it).
Digital Anvil started writing Freelancer and since the original sponsor
bailed out after development costs went too high, MS stepped in. Not only
did they sponsor the game but they bought out Digital Anvil, sacked the
leading designer and several programmers, took half the team off FL and put
them on something else and generally toyed with the entire concept before
giving it back to the programmers.
I waited over 4 years for Freelancer and thought it was wondeous that I
actually got to play the demo two days ago. What a pile of c**p it was. Not
worth waiting a week for.
The so-called Neural Net flight system was no more than mouse controlled
flight with no joystick support, Interaction was a series of scripts that
are repeated over and over and you're asked if your new here every time you
speak to someone. Jeez, I have not even reached level 2 and I have 40 kills,
a ship that rocks and over 20K credits to my name which is enough to buy a
top ranked ship and all the hardware to go with it *without* part exchanging
my existing ship. It really sucks that I've only played it for 4 hours and
yet I feel that I've already completed the game. Unless I got mobbed by 20
or more pirates at once, they are just dead meat as far as I'm concerned so
it's become boring.
Do you really want that to happen to Elite 4?
DB had a concept and as a programmer myself, I know how long it takes to
convert a concept into a design. After that, you have the problems
associated with putting that design into code without overloading the
processor and making it so slow that it's unplayable. After that, it's a
case of connecting all the parts together so they work with each other then
the fun part is debugging to find out why they don't. Programming is a very
complex art and takes time.
A simple analogy is to think of designing a table. You can't just put 4 legs
on a plank and expect it not to collapse, you have to support each leg to
make the legs rigid and decide on how supports are going to be placed
without getting in the way of the seats.
So what are you really asking for? Do you want Elite 4 to be a plank with 4
legs which will last all of 5 minutes before you get bored with it? Or do
you want something that will last like FFE so you can play it again and
again without becoming bored with it?
So my 2 cents became more like 20 cents but it's an issue that I feel
strongly about.
Thanks for listening,
Dale.
"Eric Dery" <eric...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.18cc4aa85...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
> I for myself not sure about that. I do prefer to wait for a good game
> rather than play with really crappy games, but on the other end you're
> also right, we have to do with what we have (or don't) and wait for
> something better... and it's definitively the case with Elite/Frontier
> kind of games, sadly.
>