rec.autos.simulators

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- May the Downforce be with you...
-- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

unfortunately not.  i only heard of the tournament the week in which
it was to be held.  a saturday, if i recall.  and my ghost laps
weren't really anywhere near world class.

i had just managed to get really good laps on about 4 out of the
original (16?) tracks.

there was a nice buzz in the game service, which i haven't really seen
since.  then again, i don't play online much these days.  i'm newly
wed so no time for long sessions online.  

er no wait, i've been married 4 and half years now, i think i'm
entitled to ignore the wife a bit more now.  i've earned it :)

regards all,
ian

I am certain that this letter from Ubisoft is the result of FIA pressures.

I have not heard of anyone else recieving this letter, and I think I know
why.

If you look closely at FormulaSim, you will notice their full domain name
"formulasim.gameloft.com". GameLoft is a subsiduary of Guillemot (as is
UbiSoft), GameLoft will be backing back into UbiSoft becoming a direct
subsiduary. Therefore, by virtue of them hosting the website, they (Ubi) are
breaching the contract, which is clear: UbiSoft cannot accomodate, or create
anything for the game outside of the original 1999 season license.
Furthermore, they cannot themselves provide online play for the game
(through a anline portal).

The message and the circumstances surrounding this issue seem very clear to
me. FormulaSim was hosted on UbiSoft server, offered downloads that broke
the contractual obligations of UbiSoft. Therefore, UbiSoft had no choice bu
to force them to stop (their asses are on the line).

If you also look closer, you will notice that the FormulaSim guys have
stated "we will be moving to another server". I suspect that after they do
that, there is little UbiSoft will do. As long as they abide by the
contract, and ensure that they are not directly associated with the 3rd
party add-ons, there is little legal ramification on Ubi.

I also enjoyed the way Ubi kept pumping out incredible new tracks week after
week for a long time. I don't know how they managed to do it. The graphics
looked great even in software mode. The Voodoo1 had just been released about
the same time as the game.

David G Fisher

with the companies if they were producing the same add-ons.
   The real sticking point I think,  is the Season 2001 carsets.   UbiSoft
paid BIG money
I'll bet to get 2001 rights from Uncle Bernie.  Even if only a few hundred
RAS users
DON'T buy any 2001 update from Ubi because better or free web versions are
out
there, then Ubi's investment gets tanked.   And it doesn't matter if the web
versions are
better looking etc...Ubi paid the money they can(and it sounds like they
will) enforce
the licensing agreement.
  From the sound of their statements they are using the ol Sledgehamer when
a diamond
striker was needed.  They chose to go after ALL addons rather than sift
through all the
various sites and utilities and patches and addons and and....you get the
picture.
dave henrie

David Fisher, the dodo who believes that if a driver rams a car ahead of
him, the car in front is at fault. David Fisher who doesnt have  clue.

As if anyone would give your ridiculous opinions any credence anyway.
ROFL!!!!!!

David G Fisher

        My god!  Can a post be any more corporate ass-licking than this
***ing toad?  Profits, profits, profits.  Corporations are god.  You are
unbelievable.

                                        -Tim

|2.  Most sim racing "game" EULA's prohibit "hacking" of their code and
|files.  User created "patches and upgrades" and so forth, no matter how good
|they are, no matter how much they improve the realism, enjoyment and
|value....of a racing simulation for all the users....is still "hacking" the
|code and files....or modifying them in some way.  Even, if you only "add"
|your files to that of the "developers game files".....its still results in
|an "end product" not created by the developer....that's prohibited.....and
|should be prohibited!

If I paint my tea jar, it's a product not created by the "developer".
I can read a book and rewrite it, add my own ending, or even write a
sequel.  Software companies want the protection of copyright law but
do not want to also extend the rights to individuals they have with
any other kind of intellectual property.

Of course, intellectual property is an oxymoron, but that's a whole
other discussion.

|"marketplace" determine if the "hack" is valuable or not....just like every
|other product in a free marketplace, people won't buy it if its not a good
|and desired patch.  Of course, then you get into "licensing"

This is totally false.  Gran Prix Legends, for example, is a failure
by your criteria.  The majority of the market doesn't like it.  I
would hate to think the majority or the market will always dictate
what happens.  I think we have plenty of evidence just how bad the
market's decisions can be.

You should be able to create something and other people should be able
to use it regardless of how popular it is.

You don't really think we have a "free" market do you?  Our market is
heavily controlled.  The market, unfortunately, won't even try a
product based on good or bad, but only one sell or not sell.  That's
not a good thing.  People cannot truly decide what they want if the
choices they are given are limited.

Eliminating the modifications to things like racing simulations is one
example of that.  The "market" will not demand the modifications we
see because the "legal" providers will never produce them.  If I have
to get a license and all kinds of other red-tape, I'll likely just
forget the whole thing.

I'm not saying your suggestion is stupid, but it would require a lot
of people who do this just for fun to become businessmen, and maybe
that's not what they want.

|3.  The "product license" game that all sim racing developers have to
|play.......is one of the stupidest business activities I have ever
|encountered in my entire life.  As I've read many times here on r.a.s., its
|tantamount to NBC paying NABISCO (for example), to advertise NABISCO's
|products during NBC key programming....because NABISCO's products will
|increase TV viewers for NBC TV shows!  Huh?  Whose fault is this anyway?

Good point.  Same thing for the morons in the world that think they
own the score of a basketball game.  People have some bizarre ideas.
I've always kept a watchful eye on anyone who says they are a lawyer
or in marketing.  

        Yup.  This is what the corps, as outlined by Tom Pabst above,
want to happen.  Actually, they'd rather charge you per month, week, or
even shorter time periods.  That is why copywrite law is going places it
never has, or should, go.  IP laws are becoming completely one-sided for
large corps, ***ing over consumers and any smaller players.

        The end result will be us paying "licensing" fees for everything,
including, eventually, any and all games/music/software.  Even that we
"purchased" way back when.  Think.  You'll want to fire-up Nascar 4 in
2010 for some nostalgiac action and have to pay the exact same ***ing
fee you'd need to pay to play any other game.  Why?  Well, to make sure
you aren't playing with some pirated game of some sort, best to make sure
and charge you no matter what.  All for your own good, of course.

                                -Tim

Ben

   See?  Obviously you understand....and yes you are correct.
:)
btw...isn't Villeneuve a French name...and isn't ubisoft a french company???
is smell synergy!
dave henrie

Jan.
=---

| Neither you, Gregor, or anyone else has the story straight yet IMO. But
I'll
| let you all *** and moan for awhile longer. It's fun.
|
| David G Fisher

what is pod?