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

[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.