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

[julian265]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

PPJoy and TIR2joy does this, doesn't it?

It's a workaround, for sure, but there are still no generic head tracking inputs, when it's obvious that there should be. Some games also limit what you can input to head pose without TIR - eg limited to 2DoF when you emulate mouse movement.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

why would NP have both PPJoy and TIR2joy listed on their site, for download, if this was truly the case?

Out of interest, can you post a link? Head trackers don't pop up in the "game controllers" control panel, and games do not communicate with them like almost all other gaming hardware. So it is truly not the case. Also, without seeing the context in which the links you mentioned are posted, I'm guessing that it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3 (which cannot communicate in encrypted form like TIR 4+ does)

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

The true point of the matter is exactly that of NP dealing with hackers... and please don't go twisting things around[/COLOR]

Actually, the point at any one time is the question or statement that you choose to respond to.

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

[I]err, no..... proof was asked of grunch's allegations that NP were locking out other software/ hardware developers, in order to run a monopoly... please don't alter the issue there.

See:

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?

And your response:

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

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

But if you want proof of the locking out, see my link from early (post 15) in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The entire thread is at : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...080#post589080

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

regarding what other forums run by developers/ publishers do in relation to content on their forums, or in their product; 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?[/COLOR]

They should not support a "hacking outfit". IMO they should allow discussion. What intimidation?

[julian265]

BTW I interpret the allowing of unmoderated discussion of this topic, on this forum, as a good sign.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

now you're just being deliberately silly and predictable, andyjwest...

linking directly would, in my opinion, put me in breach of the stated guidelines for this forum... or is that what you are hoping for?

I'm not being 'deliberately silly', I'm asking you to provide proof. You claimed that you had posted a link to such proof. You didn't. You provided a link to a search engine.

And no, I'm not 'hoping' to get you to breach forum guidelines. Since I don't have a clue as to what it is you are alleging, there is no way I could know whether such a breach was a possibility. Once again you seem incapable of providing straight answers to simple questions, but instead have to add another layer of complexity and confusion.

Now, I'll ask again, where is the proof of 'intimidation'. If you can't provide a link, at least provide a search string that doesn't come up with random irrelevance. If you are struggling with this, PM me, and I'll show you the easiest way to do it. Come to that, why not just PM me the link...

[julian265]

Or maybe an indication of the name of the link to be clicked from your search?

[Wolf_Rider]

It's a workaround, for sure, but there are still no generic head tracking inputs, when it's obvious that there should be. Some games also limit what you can input to head pose without TIR - eg limited to 2DoF when you emulate mouse movement.

as mentioned before, all that is between the developer and the various headtracking people... and so it seems that FT need not violate NP copyright at all then



Out of interest, can you post a link? Head trackers don't pop up in the "game controllers" control panel, and games do not communicate with them like almost all other gaming hardware. So it is truly not the case. Also, without seeing the context in which the links you mentioned are posted, I'm guessing that it's a workaround for early TIR owners who would otherwise have been screwed by NP's move to the encrypted interface, by making games ignore TIR 1, 2 and 3 (which cannot communicate in encrypted form like TIR 4+ does)

I'm sorry but you'll need to do your own homework there...




Actually, the point at any one time is the question or statement that you choose to respond to.

Things would OT rather quickly in that regard... better to just stick to the topic at hand


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
[I]err, no..... proof was asked of grunch's allegations that NP were locking out other software/ hardware developers, in order to run a monopoly... please don't alter the issue there.

See:

Quote:
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?

And your response:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
err nooo, that's still an allegation. Where is your proof?

But if you want proof of the locking out, see my link from early (post 15) in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...0&postcount=40

The entire thread is at : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.ph...080#post589080

you should have mentioned the post above that one, which mentions an NDA.... also in your linked post, take note of the last sentence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
regarding what other forums run by developers/ publishers do in relation to content on their forums, or in their product; 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?[/COLOR]

They should not support a "hacking outfit". IMO they should allow discussion.


why should they do that?... its the product which quite often gets hacked


What intimidation?

we could go around in circles for page after page on that one.....

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

another layer of complexity and confusion.

Now, I'll ask again, where is the proof of 'intimidation'. If you can't provide a link, at least provide a search string that doesn't come up with random irrelevance. If you are struggling with this, PM me, and I'll show you the easiest way to do it. Come to that, why not just PM me the link...

err, grunch had no trouble andyjwest and rest assured, the confusion is of your own making.

You've got your link, so have a read

Originally Posted by julian265

BTW I interpret the allowing of unmoderated discussion of this topic, on this forum, as a good sign.

yes, that is good

[AndyJWest]

You've got your link, so have a read

Read what?

Grunch, if you are still bothering to follow this nonsense, can I ask whether you know what the heck Wolf_Rider is referring to?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Read what?

Grunch, if you are still bothering to follow this nonsense, can I ask whether you know what the heck Wolf_Rider is referring to?

How about you start playing the ball, instead of the player??... there's a good boy

[AndyJWest]

Ok, I'll take a wild guess, since Wolf_Rider isn't being very helpful, and assume that I'm supposed to be looking at the forum the search finds that actually refers to FreeTrack. Now what am I supposed to do? Read every posting to look for evidence of 'intimidation'? Why the heck should I? He made the accusation, so it is up to him to provide the evidence. He need not provide a link to the site if he provides a reasonable length quote from the relevant postings - I can search for them myself (though quoting from them shouldn't breach forum rules anyway).

I've had this sort of internet 'debate' before. First, the 'evidence' is supposedly so obvious that a link isn't needed, but I ask for it anyway. And surprise surprise, it isn't obvious at all, but is to be found somewhere or other, and if I can't find it, it is clearly my fault. The punchline in such 'debates' usually turns out to be that there is no 'evidence', just the unverifiable interpretation of some minor bit of text posted by no-one of consequence.

The only real mystery in the is why Wolf_Rider is so concerned with NPs 'property rights', given his assurances that he has no involvement with them.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

How about you start playing the ball, instead of the player??... there's a good boy

Is this supposed to mean something?