Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest
Actually, I think that this is the key to the entire issue. Unless somebody can explain why there is a specific reason why a device which detects the position of somebody's head is fundamentally different from any other input device, there is no reason to accept that a particular manufacturer has a monopoly on such devices. Where there are specific breaches of copyright on software, that is an issue for the parties concerned, rather than third parties like games manufacturers. All they need do is to provide a generic interface, or comply with an existing one. In the case of IL-2, i see no particular reason why the existing joystick API wouldn't have been adequate, given the support for multiple devices. There is also the DeviceLink interface, which is more than adequate for stock 2DoF, and would need only limited expansion to support 6DoF. Producing software to interface with this isn't likely to be a major challenge.
|
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.