[NAUC]Chief on 28/2/2005 at 16:45
it probably wouldnt crash with more static meshes- problem is with t3ed u need a 3d model prog to make static meshes and ive never been able to get my head round 3ds,maya,lightwave etc to even attempt it. :D So I think you'd probably get the entire map into one or two (or maybe 3) sections (the fps would have to be taken into account).
Oh btw- tried with the t2 demo its a no go- to cut down the file size they did the old brush removal trick (they get the map to the state they want-build-save then delete the brushes and save again- the info of the map is still there but the brushes mis2t3d needs are gone so you get a square builder brush).
Ulukai on 28/2/2005 at 19:13
Quote Posted by plebeian
Copy away , you really think Eidos are going to sue an individual FM author over something like this. Please. It's not like they're making much money form the original games now anyway, they sell for a few quid now, and I'm sure Eidos' cut of that is less than £1.
That is not the point. AFAIK, and this is in laymans' (that's me) terms, a company wishing to protect it's copyright interests must pursue any known infringement or risk losing them, unless they've specifically given permission.
So if you start waving it in their face, you may get a cease and desist letter sooner than you think.
One particularly good example is Epic, with Unreal - who have stated that you may use content from any of their Unreal games in later editors. (Which is jolly nice of them, neh?) I haven't seen Eidos make any such statement.
[NAUC]Chief on 28/2/2005 at 19:22
wow- i didnt know that ! you mean we can have titans in night-blade :laff:
sadly i bet later editors doesnt include editors whose original core was UEd (t3ed for example) ;)
New Horizon on 28/2/2005 at 19:41
Quote Posted by Ulukai
That is not the point. AFAIK, and this is in laymans' (that's me) terms, a company wishing to protect it's copyright interests must pursue any known infringement or risk losing them, unless they've specifically given permission.
So if you start waving it in their face, you may get a cease and desist letter sooner than you think.
One particularly good example is Epic, with Unreal - who have stated that you may use content from any of their Unreal games in later editors. (Which is jolly nice of them, neh?) I haven't seen Eidos make any such statement.
I don't see how Eidos would lose money building old Thief levels in T3ED though. They own the games, if anything it will inspire more people to buy T3 and they're going to be able to charge a bit more for that now anyway.
T3 is still around $30 canadian where it's still available, while T1 and 2 are around $5.
Ulukai on 28/2/2005 at 19:44
It's not about losing money. Please re-read my above post.
Tch on 28/2/2005 at 21:21
Quote Posted by Ulukai
That is not the point. AFAIK, and this is in laymans' (that's me) terms, a company wishing to protect it's copyright interests must pursue any known infringement or risk losing them, unless they've specifically given permission.
That's trademark, not copyright. For trademarks, you must fight to protect them. Not so with copyright.
Ulukai on 28/2/2005 at 21:28
Hmm, so using T1/T2 missions in T3 is just plain copyright infringement then? Still doesn't sound too good.
New Horizon on 28/2/2005 at 21:42
Quote Posted by Ulukai
It's not about losing money. Please re-read my above post.
Sorry, when I read "copyright interests" I equated part of that with losing money...which is most likely a huge factor.
Tch on 28/2/2005 at 22:02
Quote Posted by Ulukai
Hmm, so using T1/T2 missions in T3 is just plain copyright infringement then? Still doesn't sound too good.
It may be. Or it may simply be a derivitive work. I would hope that people wouldn't just import the old geometry, texture it, and say "There it is!" How about slimming down some of the chunky and blocky graphics, adding some trim here and there, and generally translating it to the newer graphical level? That alone may be the minimum percentage of difference required to release something from copyright.
On the other hand, Eidos owns all three games at the moment, don't they? Why would they even care if someone made a Thief level out of another Thief level, if they own it all and they gave us permission to edit Thief with the editor?
It would be a different story if someone were to manage to get the maps out of one of the Harry Potter games which used the Unreal Engine, and made a Thief level out of those. They do have some castles and Thiefy-looking corridors and such. I'm sure Warner Brothers and several other entities would probably have something to say about that.
deadman on 28/2/2005 at 22:44
Quote Posted by Tch
On the other hand, Eidos owns all three games at the moment, don't they? Why would they even care if someone made a Thief level out of another Thief level, if they own it all and they gave us permission to edit Thief with the editor?
Nah. Look at the argument over converting Thief 1 to Thief 2 missions. The argument is that, potentially, someone who
doesn't own a legal copy of Thief 1 can download the converted mission and play it scot free in Thief 2. If we are agreed that Eidos primarily is concerned about money, we can be damn sure they could get angry about converting Thief 1/2 missions... Eidos would want all those newcomers who only own the latest installment to first purchase both originals before they'd like them playing the conversions.
When it comes down to it, I think it's similar to the rom and emulator scene. The most you can do is put a disclaimer up to the effect that "you agree that you own the original game and won't download any rom you don't own the original game to." They are saved from legal problems (at least hopefully) by making that disclaimer clear. I have suggested a similar approach to converted T1 to T2 missions, which has been rejected, and I'd probably suggest a similar disclaimer approach if any mission hosts are worried about getting in trouble.
So it is an issue of money, if you follow.
deadman.
