Community VtmB patch controversy quelled and patch reboot

[Wesp5]

What I really want to know is whether Wesp and Acrimonious (+ webhosting offers from DU etc) can get together to act sane, sensible and cut Tessara's childish games off at the fucking knees!

Well, I asked Acrimonious today once again if he would consider separating himself from Tessera to continue with my patch. He may still want to start from scratch though out of a kind of personal honor to do it all on his own now.

 

[galsiah]

Fuck you, I'll do what I want, as it was never yours to begin with.

A publisher can write an EULA that looks like this without it being true:
We claim ownership over:
The materials on the DVD, altered materials, new materials replacing ours, materials packaged with materials intended to replace our materials, materials authored by persons thinking about our materials, materials placed in the same directory as our materials, materials hosted near any of the previously mentioned materials, materials authored by persons who have had communication with persons who altered our materials, the pets of such persons where said pets ever ate their work, derivatives of our materials including but not limited to: works in the same language, of the same colour, or any work created after our materials....

In particular, if someone creates their own script file, they have all the rights afforded to them by holding the copyright over the original work - the same as Disney have over a Mickey-Mouse model inserted into a game. Unless the file was created using a tool granting very restricted rights over files created using it, the author owns the copyright to that file - whatever some deluded EULA might tell you. Even if some tool is used, you'd be on shaky ground - the file produced might be controlled by the tool creator, but the text within it can still be owned by another party (for example, if I type the text of a novel into a game script, that does not give you or the publisher the right to copy that text).

If you're talking about small changes to existing Troika files, you have a point. If you're talking about new files created entirely by modders, you don't have a leg to stand on (particularly clearly for art assets). Any copying of large sections of text produced by a modder could also be dodgy - e.g. the novel example above would clearly not be legal. It's not clear exactly where the line would be drawn.

In short, you're talking complete bollocks, and the fact that an EULA might back you up is entirely irrelevant. Most EULAs would never stand up in court in their entirety - they just claim as many absurd rights as they can without looking utterly insane, and see what they can get away with later.

 

[lefthandblack]

@lefthandback - it's called respect for others, of course you don't *have* to respect other people's work, but if you don't then you're a dick.

Exactly. Which is why they should have given proper credit and avoided this whole mess.
From what I know Wesp5 gave his blessing but asked for his readme to be included.
They should have done that, but calling it theft as lamat did is bullshit.

In instances where I have wanted to do something without re-inventing the wheel, I
have always asked for a blessing from the original author. In the cases where I got
one, the original author got whatever he wanted included in the readme.

In the cases where I didn't, they were told to go fuck themselves and I did what I
wanted anyway.

This is precisely why in anything I release I let people know in the readme that I don't
care what they do with it, if for no other reason than to avoid having to respond to
two dozen e-mails asking permission which is not required anyway.

 

[Wesp5]

Nobody stole anything. As the code in question never belonged to anybody but Troika.

It's not that easy. I added a lot of code and text and even some graphics on my own, regardless of all the time it took to fix the bugs in the first place. And I only wanted to get proper credit by including my readme and using a less offending name. That really should be common courtesy in the gaming community when building on other peoples work!

 

[lefthandblack]

If you're talking about small changes to existing Troika files, you have a point.

That's what I was talking about.
If somebody created a model or art asset that was not in the original game, I would not
use it without permission.
Most of the time, when somebody else bases a mod off of another mod, all they are
doing is using the original mod as a template and just changing the references to point
to the new mod's assets.

For instance, say I created a new model.
I am alot better at modeling than I am at writing scripts. In this instance I might take someone elses mod and change it to point to my model.

The code in this case would have never been possible if not for the games developers
writing it in the first place, so the author of the base mod may own his model, but he
doesn't own the code that gets it into the game.

 

[Fez]

Is that meant to be a free-form poem?

 

[almondblight]

Just for the record...

I usually dick around with people who don't catch my obvious sarcasm, but I will refrain here because you seem to be 100% in the right. "Hey, anyone want some of my pizza?" "What...the...fuck...FUCKING PEPPERONI MAN? You're offering me FUCKING PEPPERONI PIZZA?! I fucking like sausage you motherfucker, buy me a sausage pizza or FUCK YOU!"

 

[almondblight]

He may still want to start from scratch though out of a kind of personal honor to do it all on his own now.

Maybe he's a nice guy, but his judgement sounds like shit. Maybe you can get someone else to help you with dividing the project into two patches? With all the people bitching about it, maybe someone's willing to actually do something productive.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Just to put the facts right one final time (hopefully): I didn't choose to call my patch a patch. That name was choosen by Dan Upright who started it and I continued to use it because it was already known under that name. We both thought that the "unofficial" in front would be hint enough that this was no work of Troika.

Yes, but you have decided to maintain the name regardless. Dan came up with the name and you still use it - regardless of intent or content, that is the nomenclature of choice. If you choose not to change the name you basically are permissive of its use. "Unofficial patch" may not be your idea but nonetheless you perpetuate the name. It very much is your choice to have it retain the name.

On the other hand the name "true" was not chosen by the developer of the bug-fixes-only patch, he always referred to it as "bug-fixes-only" and even propose the simpler name "Basic VTMB Patch" as can be read here:

http://www.forumplanet.com/planetvampir ... 1#23065207

The "true" name was chosen by Tessera just to imply that my patches are wrong and this is not fair after using my work as a base in the first place.

As I said before, the name of the patch was given as is: it's refered to as a "true patch" in the same vein as yours is called an "unofficial patch". Once again, whatever may be the intent or the content, the same that applies to you applies to him: if Acrimonious is permissive of the patch's name, then he is - by inaction - allowing his patch to be called and distributed under that name. And once again, that should be taken up to the authors of the patch. Does he want his patch to be advertised and distributed under another name? Then let him tell us that. As the author behind the patch, he is fully responsible for how it's advertised. I posted news about his work as I would yours - by the naming convention you created or chose to maintain. Blaming the messenger for the inadequacies of the message is the real slight.

This is not true. I recognize some of my changes may have gone too far for some people's taste

A moral quicksand doesn't erase the fact that the contributions of the Vampire community aren't entirely centered on fixing issues in the same way a patch does. You've already said several times that this is how your unofficial patch is built, with many changes made due to fan input. How many of those are simple bug fixes versus "I want this because otherwise I'll throw a hissy fit"?

then the other one is a mod as well

Maybe his work is a mod or maybe it will turn out to be. I never said otherwise and I can be quoted as saying that Acrimonious' work tries to stick to only fixing bugs; at least when compared to what's out there available to the community. Maybe the other is a mod as much as yours is. That's not my problem. I'm here to point out what's available to the community. We've had past news items about your patches - before I joined the site's staff - where the same conclusion was made by other members: it's nice to have bugfixes (indeed, I said the exact same thing about the currently available Bloodlines patches - that would be yours, by the way - in my first news post about Acrimonious' patch) but up until now what had been available wasn't exclusively focused on providing bug fixes: many changes were dubious and were unfortunately mixed with needed ones (ie, the fixes). The changes weren't always met with a positive light because of this and there's no point in trying to argue "What would Troika do?" either because these changes are made under no such consideration whatsoever.

 

[Wesp5]

Yes, but you have decided to maintain the name regardless. Dan came up with the name and you still use it - regardless of intent or content, that is the nomenclature of choice.

Yes, but as I argued here already using the TOEE example "patch" is correct from my point of view and probably was from Dan's side too as he included unused content, e.g. the SWAT rifle, in his first one already. So people could have complained much earlier than when I got involved and it seems nobody actually cared about this issue before Tessera turned up.

The changes weren't always met with a positive light because of this and there's no point in trying to argue "What would Troika do?" either because these changes are made under no such consideration whatsoever.

This is not true. I admire Bloodlines especially because of the consistent world Troika created so with all of my changes I always try to maintain or improve this consistency and I believe that is what Troika would have done too. Again I ask for any dubious changes to be brought up and discussed. There is always the possibly to fix them...

 

[Wesp5]

I think that Seduction feat 3 is quite low, but on the other hand it's at the beginning of the game, and given that the Seduction skill isn't used for anything else, and the Appearance ability is also not used for anything else, a non-seducer is probably going to have only Appearance 1, which is still two points away from Jeanette's demands. So it's a toss-up as far as I'm concerned.

So do you think this would be a nice compromise solution only allowing players to see and use that option who build their character for high Seduction in the first place?

And while I could see how Jeanette would be slutty enough to sleep with the PC on their first 'date', perhaps you could also see how during the struggle-scene Therese would probably not listen to someone whom Jeanette just slept with? And she gets to know everything about what Jeanette has done, doesn't she?

Now that would be a valid argument to remove the whole thing but I don't think Therese would care that much. After all she says the following the next time you meet her: "I should've expected that you'd succumb to Jeanette's influence like all the others. But how dare you!" With the latter she means the museum so the former fits very well to anything you did before .

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Yes, but as I argued here already using the TOEE example "patch" is correct from my point of view and probably was from Dan's side too as he included unused content, e.g. the SWAT rifle, in his first one already.

A patch doesn't change because some people want it to conform to their perception. Besides, restoring unused content doesn't quite fall in line with fixing bugs: it's a restoration, much like David Gaider's Throne of Bhall files restored some unused dialogues and interactions between certain NPCs. Different goals, different approaches. A game can work just fine with removed content. The absence of the SWAT rifle had no negative impact on gameplay; on the other hand CTDs very much caused a poor experience, while typos and duplicated dialogue lines very much screwed presentation and some instances of decision.

So people could have complained much earlier than when I got involved and it seems nobody actually cared about this issue before Tessera turned up.

I know I complained back in the day and I seem to recall it wasn't universally well received. Of course, we can't accurately gauge how many people were lenient of arbitrary gameplay changes by virtue of you including bug fixes which, let's face it, is a tad convenient. From experience, communities craving for bugfixes will often not care that unecessary changes are included in 'patches' - particularly when competition or other choices are non-existant.

This is not true. I admire Bloodlines especially because of the consistent world Troika created so with all of my changes I always try to maintain or improve this consistency and I believe that is what Troika would have done too. Again I ask for any dubious changes to be brought up and discussed. There is always the possibly to fix them...

Oh, I think quite a few have been brought up over the course of this thread, but the issue isn't with specific changes. Though I'm sure I could spend some time pointing them out I believe the problem starts with the mindset behind them - arbitrarily changing something but believing Troika would very much do the same as you, which doesn't have much of a basis. Belief is having faith, not certainty.

 

[galsiah]

I am alot better at modeling than I am at writing scripts. In this instance I might take someone elses mod and change it to point to my model.

And releasing what results from that without permission would be a breach of copyright - if the script in question is entirely/substantially the work of another modder. The modder can't claim ownership of the resulting files which incorporate his scripts - if they're created using some game tool (so couldn't e.g. sell those files under those circumstances). The modder absolutely can claim ownership of the content of those scripts (i.e. the text), making the resulting files derivative works - and giving you no more right to alter and re-release them than you have to do the same with a Mickey-Mouse model.

Whether the scripts in question could be useful without the game is irrelevant (and in any case they could - they could be used by any application with a similar scripting language). You don't have the right to alter and re-release them without permission.

Of course no-one is likely to sue you - but you don't get to take the moral high ground. Copying, altering and re-distributing original work - whether a script/model or anything else - is a breach of copyright unless you have permission. That the derivatives of such original work happen to be in a form to be used in a game is irrelevant.

You only get to "copy" someone else's stuff when you can argue that it's trivial/obvious enough that you could easily have produced it independently. That probably applies to most patch fixes - since there's often a clear correct fix. It's still good manners to obtain permission if you're directly re-using a load of fixes though.

 

[Tessera]

If Acrimonious is the programmer then what does Tessera do? PR and drama?

I don't have any patience with people who look all over the place for excuses to start infantile flame wars. If their lives are that boring, then I have nothing but a mixture of amusement and pity towards them. On the proverbial internet food chain, I'm so far above them and their kind that most of what they say just bounces off of my very thick hide... just as a mosquito would. They just talk a lot. I actually DO SOMETHING and I have been for years. The next time anyone gets into it with one of these clowns, just try this: say to them "Those are interesting criticisms. Let's see your website and what you've actually done with it. Show us your contributions to the gaming community." They usually shut up immediately, or else trip over their tongues making alternate excuses for their own behavior. The stupider ones will simply go right back to attacking and pretend that they didn't even hear you. It never fails... because none of them have ever done a single thing at all -- except bitch. They'll whine about "drama," by posting five straight pages of -- you guessed it -- DRAMA. That's why I generally just walk away from them these days. I have bigger fish to fry.

For the record, Acrimonious does the Python scripting for our patches. I am the person that he consults before making any questionable changes. I'm also the creative consultant, the play tester, the continuity tester, the writer (when there needs to be repairs to the dialogues), the one who fought to get our patches made in the first place and of course, I pay out of my own pocket to promote and host our patches on my own, non-profit website.

Both of us have important jobs, obviously.

 

[galsiah]

If Acrimonious is the programmer then what does Tessera do? PR and drama?

Comedy too apparently.

 

[mister lamat]

A moral quicksand...

Belief is having faith, not certainty...

hey pookie, it's an open source file, not stem cell research. lay off the hysterics and hyperbole. why do you feel the need to 'tillman' what seems like a nice guy's hard work?

Do you actually have anything to contribute? For the record, the "True Patch" does have a readme file in which Wesp is credited, Wesp agreed to let them use his work and everyone knows Wesp did the work. So what's the problem, exactly? If the issue is that the readme isn't the one Wesp agreed to, you should note that when I offered to host it, I offered to include the correct readme that Wesp wanted.

this coming from a guy who's turned 'omfg you moved the katana' into several posts of vitriol? not only that, but you're actively pissing on open source ware, calling it 'a turd' or whatever when you've never tried it? on top of that, you even go further to host the file of people who used his work and then went around cutting him down every chance they get because they're doing something 'true to leon's vision'? get the fuck over yourself and start acting your age.

if you wanna piss all over pay for content, go nuts. railing against the 'injustices' of a piece of freeware you haven't had the courtesy to even try? honestly, you deserve to get dumfucked for that.

 

[Amasius]

On the proverbial internet food chain, I'm so far above them and their kind that most of what they say just bounces off of my very thick hide... just as a mosquito would. They just talk a lot. I actually DO SOMETHING and I have been for years.

Yes, you solve the greatest mysterys of the universe! Thank you, my life has now a meaning again!

 

[mister lamat]

man has often sought the answer to the eternal question... does diva carey pack a penis? my life in enriched from having read that.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

why do you feel the need to 'tillman' what seems like a nice guy's hard work?

Why do you feel the need to be a shining example of how tax money spent on education isn't working?

 

[almondblight]

I don't have any patience with people who look all over the place for excuses to start infantile flame wars. If their lives are that boring...

Then maybe they'll get into elf porn?

Then maybe they'll fight to be the "one true god" of a goddamn videogame?

Then maybe they'll get into elf porn?

 

[mister lamat]

poor form. you should be able to do far better if you really feel the need to go down that route. as to why you'd want to... *shrug*

he's offered to listen and adapt his work in response to valid concerns and ideas regarding the content. you're pissing and moaning about nomenclature and leon's holy vision... it's weak backpedaling and i'm expecting a higher level of sophistication next time around. while i'm not terribly excited about the prospect, vd mentioned he wanted to turn this into an 'indie hub' of sorts. choosing to deride and slag freeware based on it's name is a really fucking poor way to start on that path.

irregardless, malapropisms are good fun, especially when topical!

 

[lefthandblack]

And releasing what results from that without permission would be a breach of copyright - if the script in question is entirely/substantially the work of another modder. The modder can't claim ownership of the resulting files which incorporate his scripts - if they're created using some game tool (so couldn't e.g. sell those files under those circumstances). The modder absolutely can claim ownership of the content of those scripts (i.e. the text), making the resulting files derivative works - and giving you no moreright to alter and re-release them than you have to do the same with a Mickey-Mouse model.

Whether the scripts in question could be useful without the game is irrelevant (and in any case they could - they could be used by any application with a similar scripting language). You don't have the right to alter and re-release them without permission.

Of course no-one is likely to sue you - but you don't get to take the moral high ground. Copying, altering and re-distributing original work - whether a script/model or anything else - is a breach of copyright unless you have permission. That the derivatives of such original work happen to be in a form to be used in a game is irrelevant.

You only get to "copy" someone else's stuff when you can argue that it's trivial/obvious enough that you could easily have produced it independently. That probably applies to most patch fixes - since there's often a clear correct fix. It's still good manners to obtain permission if you're directly re-using a load of fixes though.

You can't compare modding a game to actual programming where you are starting from
scratch, they are apples and oranges.
In the model example I gave, there is only one way to get the model into the game.
The reason for this is that it was hard coded by the developers that wrote the game.
Unless you are talking about somebody that decompiled/hex edited the exe
and then you open up a whole new can of worms.
From other posts of yours that I've read, I assume that you know quite a bit about
actual programming but that's not what I'm talking about.

There are only so many ways to say "the sky is blue", just as you cannot copyright
the phrase "the sky is blue" you cannot copyright a script using a simplified system
which is hard coded into the games exe/dev tools in which there may only be one or
two ways to say "the sky is blue". If you were able to copyright something like that
then the only person who could legally use it would be the first person that figured it
out, in this case the first person that figured it out was the programmer(s) that
wrote the game in the first place, but since they give permission already to use
the system that they created, it's all good.

I am in complete agreement that they should have honored what they told Wesp5
they would do. I'm just pointing out that it's not theft.

// blood pack

WeaponData
{
	"printname"			"Werewolf Blood"
	"description"			"Blood allegedly taken from of a werewolf."
	"item_worth"			"0"

	
	"playermodel"			"models/items/bloodpack/ground/bloodpack.mdl"
	"infomodel"			"models/items/bloodpack/info/info_bloodpack.mdl"
	"anim_prefix"			" "

	"camera_class"		"noswitch"
	"is_wieldable"		"0"
	"weight"				"3"
	"item_flags"			"0"
	"item_type"		"powerup"
                }

The above is a portion of an actual script from bloodlines, I pulled it out of the zip for
Wesp5's mod/patch.

If I were to create a new model for " Werewolf Blood", and paste the path to the model
into this script, no one could accuse me of stealing from Wesp5 even though I pulled the
script out of his zip. The reason for this is that Wesp5 did not create the flags like
"is_wieldable" etc. Troika did.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

he's offered to listen and adapt his work in response to valid concerns and ideas regarding the content.

The issue isn't against his decision to develop something based on fan input, it's at what point does the fan input outweight the concerns of solving basic technical issues, along with just what constitutes an issue that needs addressing rather than a fan desire that needs appeasing.

you're pissing and moaning about nomenclature and leon's holy vision...

Ever heard of context? Wesp brought up the issue of nomenclature in what he felt were clear misconceptions surrounding the works involved:

Just to put the facts right one final time (hopefully): I didn't choose to call my patch a patch. That name was choosen by Dan Upright who started it and I continued to use it because it was already known under that name. We both thought that the "unofficial" in front would be hint enough that this was no work of Troika. On the other hand the name "true" was not chosen by the developer of the bug-fixes-only patch, he always referred to it as "bug-fixes-only" and even propose the simpler name "Basic VTMB Patch" as can be read here

To which I'm pointing out that we make news items based on how each author uses to describe their works. The claim about there being some slight is pathetically and conveniently ignoring that "true patch" is not a decision to slight Wesp's work, it's how the patch is published.

it's weak backpedaling

Backpedalling on what? My position is still the same. There was no slight, each work was advertised by the name their authors chose to use or maintain. Can you grasp the concept that making a news post about something referenced to as "true patch" by its creator is not siding with the author?

and i'm expecting a higher level of sophistication next time around.

Someone who can't muster basic reading comprehension has no business talking about sophistication.

choosing to deride and slag freeware based on it's name is a really fucking poor way to start on that path.

Pointing out that a patch doesn't only fix bugs in a game when this is a fact is called being objective. Yeah, crazy talk.

 

[Zomg]

Hey, Wesp, can you jigger your patch so that the idle animation for the sniper rifle where you fiddle with the scope dial doesn't repeat constantly? It's like the main character has OCD in the current version.

 

[mister lamat]

my reading comprehension is fine, it's when you start delving into the minutia and pedantry that i utterly lose any meaning of what you're trying to say. you've been harping on the same point for pages and pages across two threads about something so utterly inane it's comical. if you want to address issues and specific concepts as to why changes were made, go for it. asking what point the scales tip between a 'patch' and a 'mod'... dude, go watch some fucking paint dry. it's far more interesting.

have a look at dhurin's post on rpgwatch. learn something. there's a concept and principle behind open source that you've seriously failed to understand or even tried to grasp. honestly i expected better.