The anti-epilepsy filter and Luthier/UBI statements

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by Space Communist

If Ubi has agreed that this is sufficient to avoid litigation ....[/B]

You can never avoid it. It's overly paranoia to think this way.

There are no prerequisites one needs to meet before instituting legal action. It can be anything. Everyone has a right to have their grievance heard in court.

Anything can be heard in a court by a judge.

However, instituting a purchase agreement that states one must use binding arbitration and at their own expense at whatever venue of MG's choosing as a condition of the purchase and use of their software may help a lot.

[adonys]

There you go, Cliffs of Dover Technical FAQ from Luthier:

8. Q: I cannot see propellers on any planes!

A: Rotating propellers were causing the game to fail epilepsy tests, and so drastic changes were made to the propellers in addition to the Anti-Epilepsy filter. If we can be perfectly frank, there is a chance that this will never change back.

[Wolf_Rider]

its all a bit academic really, considering that games released up 'til this one... haven't had (need) a filter/ don't carry a warning/ have the spinning prop/ were released by UBI and would technically still draw the litigation crowd (if that is what UBI is really worried about).

< shakes fist @ tv Pokemon animators >

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by adonys

There you go, Cliffs of Dover Technical FAQ from Luthier:

As a developer myself, this really makes no sense to me from a technical perspective. Whenever changes are made to code (especially drastic ones), the current code is always backed up. A professional developer would never obliterate code without having a means of reinstating it, especially if that code took an age to develop in the first place.

The propellor visuals routine should be quite self-contained and I can't see why it can't be plugged straight back in. I think the real reason for leaving it out permanently is a promise made to Ubi (the prop is in front of your eyes almost constantly and if anything is going to trigger an attack it's that).

Just my 2c

[adonys]

Not if they removed the used resources, for example. Or if the code they had to comment was spread in multiple places across the program. Or if they actually had to modify it a lot, not just comment it.

Lots of IF's, but the result is the same, they've disabled the filter, but only to gain some FPS, as actually lots of effects were already removed/modified and it seems they'll remain like that

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by adonys

Not if they removed the used resources, for example. Or if the code they had to comment was spread in multiple places across the program. Or if they actually had to modify it a lot, not just comment it.

Lots of IF's, but the result is the same, they've disabled the filter, but only to gain some FPS, as actually lots of effects were already removed/modified and it seems they'll remain like that

They just wouldn't do that adonys. If you'd spent possibly weeks coding up beautiful realistic prop effects, there's no way you'd cut the code and not keep a backup of all your hard work. Software houses typically keep backups going back months from every stage of development. Anything can be rolled back at any stage.

Also, an effect like the prop motion would certainly be located in a common routine. It's possible that it's called from many places but there's no way you'd have duplicate code all over the place. Just wouldn't happen....unless you don't know how to code that is....and there's no suggestion of that in the case of 1C.

[Timeerror]

Hi,

I am a lawyer and - this has to be said - Ubi Soft should change their lawyers. The anti-epilepsy filter could not avoid lititgation. Everybody in the world could sue Ubisoft - or any other company - and could argue that a game makes him sick, ill etc. (with or without this stupid anti-epilepsy filter).


If UbiSoft would have asked me as a lawyer, whether it they should add this anti-epilepsy filter, as a lawyer I would say: Yes, because in court proceedings you could argue, that you have done everything to avoid everything.


But UbiSoft is a company, that sells products and they should not act like a
scaredy cat. They should act as business men. Writing a warning on the box or in the intro is also sufficent and you would also have enogh arguments in court hearings.

In my opinon, the decions of Ubi Soft concerning Silent Hunter were bad (stopping support etc), but now the decisons are even worst.

Avoiding litigation is ok, but you could not manipulate a whoule game, because a lawyer says "We would recommend implementing such a filter" is nonsene. This is case, a managing director has to say: "o.k noticed, but in my opinion a warning on the box etc is fine, thank you for your legal opinion".