1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

WolfRider...the above post is exactly what people are trying to communicate to you. The reason you are getting into an argument is because you insist on focusing upon the Freetrack software's backup use of the NP API. If NP had not created an unnecessary proprietary interface and given developers 'incentives' to use it and created exclusivity agreements with publishers, this situation would not exist. How would you like it if there was no way to use a joystick except by using a Logitech joystick or using an open-source solution that relied upon hacking Logitech's interface? That is the situation that exists for users in the headtracking market at the moment. There's no room for interpretation there, that is a fact.
Their position is exactly the same legally as Intel's anti-competitive behaviour in laptop markets a few years ago in Asia, requiring suppliers to supply exclusively Intel-equipped laptops or forfeit their right to sell Intel products.

that's a nice try Grunch, but I believe you may have misinterpreted what you quoted.
Logitech? I wouldn't use Logitech if you paid me... though they (JS makers) all use USB drivers licensed from a single source - yes? and each joystick manufacturer has the common courtesy to not tap into another maker's programming software - yes?


Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

they (JS makers) all use USB drivers licensed from a single source - yes? and each joystick manufacturer has the common courtesy to not tap into another maker's programming software - yes?

Not from the beginning, no.

Joysticks first ran on a nine pin Atari interface, I'm not sure whether that was released or hacked but it was used on pretty much all 8 bit and a lot of 16 bit computers. It was also used for Atari ST and Amiga mice, with different APIs, so you needed a switch on a third party mouse if the maker wanted users to be able to use it on both the ST and Amiga (I'm not really sure why Atari and Commodore allowed 3rd party mice, perhaps because the originals were shit enough to stop people buying the computers if they couldn't upgrade to something better). Then came sound card based PC joysticks, which were exclusively analogue and used a load more pins. I suspect the API for that belonged to IBM, or maybe Creative, but it was used for most joysticks at that time. USB is an open standard I'm pretty sure, created by the makers of all the devices which were intended to be connected to it, it's certainly not Microsoft's exclusive property.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

that's a nice try Grunch, but I believe you may have misinterpreted what you quoted.
Logitech? I wouldn't use Logitech if you paid me... though they (JS makers) all use USB drivers licensed from a single source - yes? and each joystick manufacturer has the common courtesy to not tap into another maker's programming software - yes?

I don't think I've misinterpreted it at all. Andy said that the central problem with NP's behaviour was in creating a closed interface instead of using the standard Windows joystick interface for the axes for head position. How a device assigns the current position on these axes is still up to the device. This should be the area in which firms compete, not by denying each other the chance to compete.
By saying "I wouldn't use Logitech if you paid me" you've just confirmed exactly what I'm saying. If Logitech had a closed interface which the majority of publishers supported exclusively you would have to use a Logitech joystick, a hacked interface or no joystick at all. That was my point. Would you be satisfied with that situation? I highly doubt it. Given your reaction to my use of Logitech - which was a random choice, I could have said Saitek or CH or Thrustmaster, pick whatever you want - the only reason that you're satisfied with NaturalPoint's practises is because NaturalPoint's product is very good. I'm not arguing against that. Please try to separate your loyalty to or appreciation of a product from its creators' business practises. Intel make good processors, but no one would argue that their business practises have always been good for the consumer.
Why should head-tracking interfaces be treated so differently from joystick interfaces? USB is an open standard. TrackIR uses a USB connection. There's no reason that it couldn't communicate the head position as a position on a joystick-style axis using the Windows joystick interface (also an open standard), but NP decided not to do that when they convinced firms to support their product because it would allow them to sustain a monopoly position once their standard was in place.
That's got nothing to do with programming software or keyboard/mouse emulation. The analogue to those in TrackIR's case is its interpretation of the head position from the reflective surfaces and the programming of the curves on the axes. NaturalPoint are preventing other firms from even interfacing with the game by dealing with publishers and developers, never mind minor tweaking like programming software.
CH manage to use an open standard (USB, HID-joystick) and still provide significantly more programming functionality than any other programming software other than perhaps Foxy for the Cougar HOTAS. They're not recoiling in fear and resorting to anti-competitive practises because there is free joystick-programming software available. Their insurance is to make sure that their programming software is only usable by CH devices. THIS is behaviour that is entirely reasonable because it doesn't affect competitors' ability to enter the market. It also shows quite adequately the confidence gap between NaturalPoint and CH Products. If NaturalPoint wanted to deal with this competition they would have to improve their software to offer all of the functionality that Freetrack provides, and price more competitively. What they're doing instead reminds me of Microsoft's petty attempts to sabotage OpenXML, which they participated in under the guise of interoperability with Linux and MacOS and then proceeded to treat with as much contempt as they could muster.
If we had had this discussion on the Ubisoft forums I would have been banned after an initial warning for mentioning Freetrack several times...never mind speaking about my views on NaturalPoint's practises. Do you think that is a reasonable business practise, buying away people's right to discuss their competitors on a forum for a game publisher? It really sounds rather desperate to me.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Riddle me this; why should any developer/ publisher support an outfit which hacks a company's software and (on their public forums) openly supports hacks and intimidation of other companies?

Intimidation? Where's the intimidation? I find the above practises by NaturalPoint to evoke the term 'intimidation' far more readily than Freetrack's behaviour as a group. If a company creates a monopoly which is against the consumer's interest then consumers will try to find a way around it. That's all that Freetrack has proven. Freetrack have complied with NP's requests...they removed support for the use of TrackIR devices with the Freetrack software, for example. If you ask me they've been very reasonable about it. They could quite reasonably have become involved in filing an anti-trust suit instead. Perhaps this is why NaturalPoint have decided to refrain from shutting down Freetrack altogether, despite their use of the NaturalPoint API.
Unfortunately, the European Commission seems to be the only legal body that dares to become involved in cases like this, particularly where computer hardware and software are concerned.

[Wolf_Rider]

err no, you've missed the second part completely grunch....

so... where is this monopoly, you mention exactly and is the 'riddle me this', too hard?

and yes, they removed the strings as requested but went to a workaround to drag the stings out of the NP software

[AndyJWest]

A simple question, Wolf_Rider: Would you be in favour of PC games supporting generic 6DOF devices by allowing the existing MS Joystick API to be used as an alternative?

Another one: Would you object if 1C:Maddox/TD incorperated 6DOF into the existing DeviceLink interface?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, I'd like to see your reasoning.

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

err no, you've missed the second part completely grunch....

so... where is this monopoly, you mention exactly and is the 'riddle me this', too hard?

and yes, they removed the strings as requested but went to a workaround to drag the stings out of the NP software

The monopoly was created by using a proprietary interface and making deals with publishers and developers to support the NP API exclusively for head-tracking.
The only exception to this so far has been Arma II.
Regardless of Freetrack's behaviour, NaturalPoint's practises do not support a competitive environment. That's why it's important that developers and publishers support setting head position as a joystick axis position. That's got nothing to do with Freetrack at all, maybe you should try seeing the big picture. I don't care if developers support Freetrack, I've got no stake in it myself, I've never tried it. In fact I have a TrackIR 3 with the Vector Expansion. It's NaturalPoint's recent behaviour that I object to.
Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem.
So, what is it that I've failed to address in your little riddle? Maybe you should explain it better instead of making the above response, since I see you've resorted to baiting instead of addressing my points, which is quite a predictable troll tactic. Unless you start actually arguing my points you'll get no more responses from me. I don't object to a discussion if you can actually make a decent argument without resorting to questioning my intelligence and failing to explain where you think I'm wrong other than "you've missed the second part" and "nice try, but you've misinterpreted what you're quoted", both blatantly incorrect.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

A simple question, Wolf_Rider: Would you be in favour of PC games supporting generic 6DOF devices by allowing the existing MS Joystick API to be used as an alternative?

Another one: Would you object if 1C:Maddox/TD incorperated 6DOF into the existing DeviceLink interface?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, I'd like to see your reasoning.

read some of my earlier comments, and you may see your questions are redundant

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

The monopoly was created by using a proprietary interface and making deals with publishers and developers to support the NP API exclusively for head-tracking.
The only exception to this so far has been Arma II.
Regardless of Freetrack's behaviour, NaturalPoint's practises do not support a competitive environment. That's why it's important that developers and publishers support setting head position as a joystick axis position. That's got nothing to do with Freetrack at all, maybe you should try seeing the big picture. I don't care if developers support Freetrack, I've got no stake in it myself, I've never tried it. In fact I have a TrackIR 3 with the Vector Expansion. It's NaturalPoint's recent behaviour that I object to.
Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem.
So, what is it that I've failed to address in your little riddle? Maybe you should explain it better instead of making the above response, since I see you've resorted to baiting instead of addressing my points, which is quite a predictable troll tactic. Unless you start actually arguing my points you'll get no more responses from me. I don't object to a discussion if you can actually make a decent argument without resorting to questioning my intelligence and failing to explain where you think I'm wrong other than "you've missed the second part" and "nice try, but you've misinterpreted what you're quoted", both blatantly incorrect.

propriety software isn't illegal grunch... look at Apple, or Dell, or Compaq Do you have some proof of the allegations you make, regarding payments, etc?

as for the rest of your post (and I don't particular give a toss if it is a format which you understand or not), it reeks of 1, trollish beviour yourself and 2. gives full support for hacking. You say "Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem., yet others say the means to do so has been around for way longer than NP, ... so who's right there?
Is there some reason FT can't send a "kit" over to game developer's for evaluation?

NP went and approached many developers to include their product, why can't freetrack do that, instead of just hacking their way in?
BIS went through a great deal of turmoil until they told the FT footsoldiers to cease and desist in their behaviour and for FT to actually make the approach. At this point, FT was considered and a poll held, which was favourable to FT for inclusion in a patch (I've mentioned patch before, yeah?)

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

propriety software isn't illegal grunch... look at Apple, or Dell, or Compaq Do you have some proof of the allegations you make, regarding payments, etc?

Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?
I'm aware that proprietary software isn't illegal, but this isn't just about software in general, this is about software interfaces with a whole class of input device. Abusing a leading position to make games exclusively compatible with their products is, however, illegal.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

as for the rest of your post (and I don't particular give a toss if it is a format which you understand or not), it reeks of 1, trollish beviour yourself and 2. gives full support for hacking. You say "Either way I don't see how acceptable head-tracking could have been achieved by anyone apart from NaturalPoint without hacking NaturalPoint's interface and without a substantial amount of money to pay publishers and developers to support their product. Either way, just demonstrating that the product would work in a modern game would require hacking the NP interface. That just goes to show that there is a problem., yet others say the means to do so has been around for way longer than NP, ... so who's right there?
Is there some reason FT can't send a "kit" over to game developer's for evaluation?

Care to explain where I've been trollish? I've explained my position in detail and I have not attacked you personally unless you count observing the fact that your responses are quite often devoid of detail and responses to people's actual points.
Freetrack can't send a kit in because they're a free, open-source solution worked on by people in their spare time. You're right, though, a commercial competitor could do that if they could get big publishers to abandon exclusivity deals.
The question is whether publishers should decide on which products are compatible by how much the respective product developers are willing to pay them for an exclusive? I don't believe so.
The reason that open standards exist is to prevent situations like that. My argument is simply that there is no reason that head-tracking should not use an open standard and that it would only benefit US if it did. That's not support for hacking, that's support for competition. I don't think that should be hard to understand.
Cam2Pan WAS around before TrackIR, they are right, but Cam2Pan relies upon mouse emulation, which is not a good solution.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

NP went and approached many developers to include their product, why can't freetrack do that, instead of just hacking their way in?
BIS went through a great deal of turmoil until they told the FT footsoldiers to cease and desist in their behaviour and for FT to actually make the approach. At this point, FT was considered and a poll held, which was favourable to FT for inclusion in a patch (I've mentioned patch before, yeah?)

See above. Like I say, this is the only occasion on which this has worked.

See, it's much easier to have a discussion when both people are actually participating.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Go to the Ubisoft forum, see for yourself. Start a topic about Freetrack and see what happens. If there's not a payment of some description in effect there, what's happening? Care to provide a theory?

I'm aware that proprietary software isn't illegal,

err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

okay... so you agree propriety software isn't illegal - good....I have asked: why should any developer/ publisher deal with any outfit which promotes hacking?

Why can't NP have propriety software for their own product?

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Freetrack can't send a kit in because they're a free, open-source solution worked on by people in their spare time. You're right, though, a commercial competitor could do that if they could get big publishers to abandon exclusivity deals.

The reason that open standards exist is to prevent situations like that. My argument is simply that there is no reason that head-tracking should not use an open standard and that it would only benefit US if it did. That's not support for hacking, that's support for competition. I don't think that should be hard to understand.
Cam2Pan WAS around before TrackIR, they are right, but Cam2Pan relies upon mouse emulation, which is not a good solution.

See above. Like I say, this is the only occasion on which this has worked.

you speak of 'detail', yet contradict yourself in the above

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

Yes, it is an allegation. What's your alternative explanation?