rec.autos.simulators

I understand that "license restrictions" and Papyrus policy with regard to
not advertising *** and tobacco related products.  But, does the
language of those "licenses" say that Papyrus must go to "extraordinary
steps" to prevent any "third party" form being able to alter the graphics?
I doubt it very seriously.....that would be an onerous term of a legal
contract.

This sim racing community has demonstrated many times, over a substantial
number of years now....the ability to breathe fresh life into stale sims,
and to make more interesting some of the "flat" graphics produced by sim
developers restricted by "image and likeness" product licensing
restrictions.  It stimulates product sales, not retards them!

So, why do you guys think Papyrus does this?

Tom

I think its because they don't want a version*** around too long. A
perfect example in N4 and NR2002. How many people bought NR2002 for the new
tracks that wouldn't have if they had add-ons for N4. GPL is another example
of this, only there is no real replacemenr title. Papy isn't making much, if
any, money of the $8 copies that all the new fans of GPL are buying today.
If there was a GPL2 you would have to question how much this support of the
original would hurt the new one.

MadDAWG

-John

So in short.... To stop Tom Pabst from making money off of their software.

Are you truly this stupid Tom or do you just act that way while on the net?

Haven't got NR2002, but isn't there an inbuilt paintshop?

I completely understand what 3rd parties do bring to the simulation
table, but if you were to look closely at the licence agreement that
you either open or agree to when you install your software, it
actually prohibits what most of those 3rd parties are attempting to
do. Perhaps this is a licencing agreement between Papy and Nascar to
prohibit the ability for 3rd parties to modify the software in any
way bar the inbuilt tools provided.

I actually purchased F12001 because of the mods coming out for it only
to find out that F12001 stood on its own two feet and I only race the F1
cars in it anyway. ISI appear to be very forthcoming with information
to make mods, etc. However, I'd hate to see this sort of co-operation
spell the end of ISI's licence. I do recall some waves made regarding
a Heat CART mod not so long ago?

Cheers,
Rod.

Wow Tom! I didn't know you were starting your own sideline. Do you guys need
any VC? I just got a big account closed and was a step closer to retiring at
age 40, but if you are going to start a sim-code-altering-and-marketing
business, I'd invest...hehe.

I would have (and did) buy NR2002 because of the updated physics AND the new
tracks (and the ability to race licensed cars online without having to
'paint' them) and, well you get the point.

The add-on tracks for N4 (aside from Zen and the RC with invisible walls, I
forget the name) were remakes of mainly Las Vegas.

There are certain aspects of the sim that can't be 'faked' like the physics
IMO. Had 2002 simply added tracks, then yes, your statement is spot on, I
probably would not have bought it due to that alone.

I think they have done this encrypted thing due to legal issues. They
probably did not want any lawsuits over someone's kid racing in a league
where the graphics at a track had been altered to included a billboard for
Maxim or Playboy and to keep the companies whose products or tracks they did
have to get licenses for, happy. I dunno, our society has become way to
litigious so that would be my guess.

"Rod Prince" . I do recall some waves made regarding
  You are probably thinking of the IRL Heat mod, which is kinda like the
CART mod except without the much more powerful cars, turbos, Brazillian
drivers, etc etc..  :)   That got a Cease & Desist order because some
un-named company has signed a contract with the IRL to produce an IRL
sim....go figure...
  Back to Tom's question.  I will bet a-lot of cash that  the
SIERRA/HAVAS/VIVENDI lawyers are as much to blame as any design decision or
licensing agreement.   To limit product liability, you encrypt everything.
Pooh...and I'll say it again...Pooh.
dave henrie

OH, someone PLEASE do tell!!  :-)

--
ed_

"Cliff Roman" said:

I actually had no idea at all they did this....   Do they??

If so.. please do tell...

--
ed_

(Picking up N2002 in about 10hrs time.)

--
ed_

"Wayne Bradley" mutted:
net?

To keep the code drum-tight and to allow Papyrus to control where and how
their software is used.  To make sure users honour the EULA (the terms of
which they are free to define).  To have a sound business plan whereby Papy
can actually sell a new product each year or two, rather than perhaps
getting a nominal licensing fee from users who have altered the code or who
are using it for their own purposes or profit.  If the community editors
stretch the life of N2002 with new graphics, then instead of making a 20%
profit on a $50 version of N2004, Papyrus / Sierra could perhaps make a 10%
license fee on the cost of the user-created upgrade, which sells for...
um... gee, it's free.   Not good for the bottom line.  If Papyrus remodels
the new track layouts at, say, Sears Point, then perhaps they create a
convincing argument for users of all types (perhaps even professional racers
or track management) to buy the new software at $50 a pop.  If someone else
can hack their code, then there is nothing in it for Papyrus.  If the party
which hacks the code goes on to use the code for their profit, then
hopefully they pay something back to Papyrus, as otherwise they are
violating the EULA.

I've certainly benefited from the updates to GPL and GP3, but after spending
the last few years getting up to my elbows of the financial planning for my
own research group, I really start to get a feel for how important the
business side is.  Papy has to sell games to keep people at their desks and
to keep paying the paycheques.  Software packages with an unlimited life
don't help much with the bottom line.

Stephen

Don Burnette