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

[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?)