Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Doom Editing Digest Vol. 01 Nr. 069
From: owner-doom-editing-digest
To: doom-editing-digest@nvg.unit.no
Subject: doom-editing-digest V1 #69
Reply-To: doom-editing
Errors-To: owner-doom-editing-digest
Precedence: bulk
doom-editing-digest Thursday, 1 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 069
Modifying the exe and modification in general
Illegal stuff
RE: Illegal stuff
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
RE: Illegal stuff
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Illegal stuff
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Illegal stuff
Re: Illegal stuff
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Lewis <gregl@umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 23:26:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Recently there has been a bit of talk about the legality of DeHackEd
and it's editing of the Doom.exe file. I've heard a few opinions on
r.c.g.d.e (or whatever it is), such as those who say that the LICENSE.DOC
is invalid, since both parties don't agree to it before the sale, and
those who say that changing the patch file format should solve the
problem, etc. I figured I'd ask the list's opinion on this matter...
what should be allowed, what is allowed (that one's probably pretty
obvious), and so on.
I *did* ask Jay Wilbur about this specific question, and explained what
DHE is, what it modifies, and why it makes sense to allow it, and he sent
me the following lengthy reply. I tried a second time, and just got a
quote of the LICENSE.DOC and the last line repeated again. So.... any
opinions on this?
- ------ Jay Wilbur's reply begin ------
Please read the file LICENSE.DOC that is shipped with every copy of DOOM
(both SW and Registered.)
We allow a lot of things...modification of our EXE is not one of them.
- ------ Jay Wilbur's reply end ------
Greg Lewis
Author, DeHackEd
------------------------------
From: Olivier Montanuy <montanuy@LANNION.cnet.fr>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 12:03:20 +0100
Subject: Illegal stuff
Hello DOOMers
Jay Wilbur is willing to make all DOOM.EXE patches illegal
(what a bore). He sais he has very good reasons, that he
apparently can't tell publicly.
I posted a long article about Alien and Starwar patches, from
info I got from the Licensing agent of Lucas and the Fox.
see in res.games.doom.playing or something.
Essentially it says: keep working, but don't distribute until
the legal aspects are clarified. No big trouble to expect if we
keep tame, else I don't know.
I hate to have to say this. I hate the idea that those great patches
you all prepare for DOOM might be delayed... we can't help.
Or can we? anyone knows of a good lawyers to clarify those points?
Olivier Montanuy,
Author of DeuTex, currently addapting Alien-TC for DOOM2
------------------------------
From: Zenkevich Yury <yury@datlin.datlin.ee>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 14:35:50 +-300
Subject: RE: Illegal stuff
>Jay Wilbur is willing to make all DOOM.EXE patches illegal
>(what a bore). He sais he has very good reasons, that he
>apparently can't tell publicly.
Blah, blah, blah !!!! What the reasons it can be ?! maybe some secure information
in da .exe file ?
>Or can we? anyone knows of a good lawyers to clarify those points?
Damn... not me :(
DrYury
------------------------------
From: Brad Spencer <spencer@ug.cs.dal.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 10:28:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
On Wed, 30 Nov 1994, Greg Lewis wrote:
> I *did* ask Jay Wilbur about this specific question, and explained what
> DHE is, what it modifies, and why it makes sense to allow it, and he sent
> me the following lengthy reply. I tried a second time, and just got a
> quote of the LICENSE.DOC and the last line repeated again. So.... any
> opinions on this?
>
> ------ Jay Wilbur's reply begin ------
>
> Please read the file LICENSE.DOC that is shipped with every copy of DOOM
> (both SW and Registered.)
>
> We allow a lot of things...modification of our EXE is not one of them.
>
> ------ Jay Wilbur's reply end ------
>
I'd say that that is just his legal responsibility to say that to you..
I don't think he actually cares, but he hsa to keep up the sam standard
for you as he does for people who are really doing things they don't
want. Besides, you aren't distriuting the EXE itself, just a program
that modifies it. Whether the person uses it or not, and what for is up to
them, not you.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Spencer - Bilbo - spencer@ug.cs.dal.ca - Dalhousie University
"Everybody is Kung-Fu Fragging . . ."
------------------------------
From: Robert Forsman <thoth@cis.ufl.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 10:22:24 EST
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Greg Lewis <gregl@umich.edu> ,in message <Pine.SOL.3.90a.941129232106.342H-1000
00@robotron.rs.itd.umich.edu>, wrote:
> We allow a lot of things...modification of our EXE is not one of them.
So Dhacked goes underground. Just announce that you're abandoning the
project. Sit back and watch the pirates/crackers take over. As long as
there is demand, there is supply. The only question is "who is supplying,
and who has control over the suppliers?".
Are there any licensing agreements dealing with analyzing the .EXE? You
could still publish the offset tables I bet.
- --
decriminalize marajuana, then tax the fuck out of it :)
------------------------------
From: rprock@damage.com (Ray Prock)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 10:37:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
>
> I'd say that that is just his legal responsibility to say that to you..
> I don't think he actually cares, but he hsa to keep up the sam standard
> for you as he does for people who are really doing things they don't
> want. Besides, you aren't distriuting the EXE itself, just a program
> that modifies it. Whether the person uses it or not, and what for is up to
> them, not you.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Brad Spencer - Bilbo - spencer@ug.cs.dal.ca - Dalhousie University
> "Everybody is Kung-Fu Fragging . . ."
>
Umm...
We have to take a few things for granted.
1) ID has changed(for the worse)
2) People sue others over stupid shit all the time.
3) If he wrote the message, he apparently cares.
Point 1: ID is no longer the hacker company I fell in love with. I'm not
sure at which point they became holier-than-thou. And it does scare
me. Doom looked like this game that a bunch of hacks threw together
during a bull session. It was raw, it was uncharacteristic of anything
anyone has tried.
And ID was this anarchistic crew who pulled it off.
Now, I'm not putting ID down. They should be applauded for what
they've accomplished. Part of the American Dream that I personally
thought was a myth. Becoming a success isn't the problem.
It's your attitude afterwards.
Point 2: woman spills coffee on her. sues, wins. gets money. 'nuff said.
Point 3: ID has a right to want to keep all the third party companies from
making money off of their product. And I understand. And agree.
Just I wonder if anyone had to pay Mickeysoft for apps that run on
MS-DOS...
I mean, all programs are just non destructive attachments/patches
to the OS, right? :)
Not a flame, just playing devil's advocate. Coming soon to SNES and Sega.
------------------------------
From: tedv@geom.umn.edu
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 10:08:51 CST
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
> > We allow a lot of things...modification of our EXE is not one of them.
>
> So Dhacked goes underground. Just announce that you're abandoning the
> project. Sit back and watch the pirates/crackers take over. As long as
> there is demand, there is supply. The only question is "who is supplying,
> and who has control over the suppliers?".
>
> Are there any licensing agreements dealing with analyzing the .EXE? You
> could still publish the offset tables I bet.
Mmmm... Not a bad idea, but I don't think it needs to get that chaotic. Why
not just sign an agreement that says that dehacked edits only certain parts
of the exe, such as frametables, damage, etc, etc. Also sign that you will
NOT touch the graphics engine or even try to reverse engineer it. I think
that's what iD is worried about. It's the real jewel hidden inside the
exe. They don't care that much about the rest.
Unfortunately, they might have to care about the rest for legal reasons...
But lets hope not.
- -Ted
- --
Ted Vessenes | "The only force stronger than fate is dramatic irony."
tedv@geom.umn.edu | "[William] Shatner couldn't direct his way out of the
tedv@cs.umn.edu | bathroom with both hands and a map!"
tjvessen@midway.uchicago.edu -Ryan Ingram (1st), -Kibo's .sig (2nd)
------------------------------
From: Stanley Stasiak <stan@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 00:53:54 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
>
> Greg Lewis <gregl@umich.edu> ,in message <Pine.SOL.3.90a.941129232106.342H-1000
> 00@robotron.rs.itd.umich.edu>, wrote:
>
> > We allow a lot of things...modification of our EXE is not one of them.
>
> So Dhacked goes underground. Just announce that you're abandoning the
> project. Sit back and watch the pirates/crackers take over. As long as
> there is demand, there is supply. The only question is "who is supplying,
> and who has control over the suppliers?".
>
> Are there any licensing agreements dealing with analyzing the .EXE? You
> could still publish the offset tables I bet.
Funny you mention that... what was that about the guys from LucasArts
that spend some time reverse engineering the doom engine to aid their
efforst in Dark Forces... hmmm
Did Id give a **** ?
..or wos it just a rumour..
>
> --
> decriminalize marajuana, then tax the fuck out of it :)
heh... its being done in OZ... dunno bout the taxes yet...
>
Stan.
==============================================================================
.-_!\ | Stanley Stasiak
/ \ | (stan@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au)
I am here! --->> P_.-._/ <<---- Australia| Perth, Western Australia
==============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Greg Lewis <gregl@umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 12:25:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
> Mmmm... Not a bad idea, but I don't think it needs to get that chaotic. Why
> not just sign an agreement that says that dehacked edits only certain parts
> of the exe, such as frametables, damage, etc, etc. Also sign that you will
> NOT touch the graphics engine or even try to reverse engineer it. I think
> that's what iD is worried about. It's the real jewel hidden inside the
> exe. They don't care that much about the rest.
I sent a reply to Jay saying basically just that, that dehacked only
edits the data parts (on things, and frametables, etc), and will NOT
touch the actual executable code under any circumstances, and never
will. All he replied with was a quote of the LICENSE.DOC and a sentence
saying "no we don't allow exe modification". I'm willing to abide by
such an agreement as that, because it seems logical and confines add-ons
to data editing only. But apparently Jay has different ideas...
Greg Lewis
Author, DeHackEd
------------------------------
From: jeffery galinovsky - EUCD <jgalinov@pcocd2.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 10:19:34 PST
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Hey all,
These past couple of messages are kind of concerning me.
You are saying id has changed for the worst...why are they
doing this... I have two points about this;
1.) If I were id, I would say the samething. I would not
want the WRONG people playing with my exe's. id has
been nothing but supportive to our efforts to make the
game better and more popular. They even released code
to us! They have supported us and continue to do so!
They want us to keep doing what WE are doing, but they
don't want to let illegal modifications to discolor
what we have so far. (Not to say thet DeHackEd does that)
2.) id did NOT say to discontinue work and or distribution of
DeHackEd did they? NO! If they were upset at the program,
they would have said so. They are just protecting themselves.
The statement they made is just an insurance policy to keep
"REAL" illegal exe modification away! I think it is a harsh
statement to say id has changed for the worse...they are just
protecting their intelectual property!
Does this make sense to everybody...just my $0.02! I don't think
anybody should be discouraged about this. I think id approves
of ALL that WE are doing and is only being slightly cautious.
Jeff Galinovsky
------------------------------
From: dubois@hydrogen.geoworks.com (Paul DuBois)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 10:27:39 PST
Subject: RE: Illegal stuff
>>>>> Zenkevich Yury writes:
>> Jay Wilbur is willing to make all DOOM.EXE patches illegal
>> (what a bore). He sais he has very good reasons, that he
>> apparently can't tell publicly.
> Blah, blah, blah !!!! What the reasons it can be ?! maybe some secure
> information in da .exe file ?
I'd say that hacking the .exe would count as creating a derivative work.
You need permission from the copyright owner to do this and I'll bet that the
license doesn't assign you this right.
------------------------------
From: Ray Prock <rprock@damage.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 14:18:05 -30000
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Nope. Not saying that they did anything wrong. Actually just the
opposite. They're doing the right thing. I mean, since every other
company on the planet would do it, how could it possibly be wrong?
My point is that in *my* opinion it has.
Mine alone. Mine, mine, mine.
I don't have to buy ID products. I don't have to agree with anything
they do. I'm not insepidly stupid and refuse to buy their products,
refuse to hack it, or mail bomb their site. They put out a great
product. And they do have the right to protect it, I know that.
But, there's something to be said about the hacker culture. Like what
would've happened if Linux was a licensed product...
That's what ID strayed from. To me, that is bad. For them, it is good.
___________________________________________________________________
[God] plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be |
compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to |
being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a |
pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a |
Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time. |
- --Good Omens(Gaimen,Pratchett) |
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
digital:rprock@damage.com
On Wed, 30 Nov 1994, jeffery galinovsky - EUCD wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> These past couple of messages are kind of concerning me.
> You are saying id has changed for the worst...why are they
> doing this... I have two points about this;
>
> 1.) If I were id, I would say the samething. I would not
> want the WRONG people playing with my exe's. id has
> been nothing but supportive to our efforts to make the
> game better and more popular. They even released code
> to us! They have supported us and continue to do so!
> They want us to keep doing what WE are doing, but they
> don't want to let illegal modifications to discolor
> what we have so far. (Not to say thet DeHackEd does that)
>
> 2.) id did NOT say to discontinue work and or distribution of
> DeHackEd did they? NO! If they were upset at the program,
> they would have said so. They are just protecting themselves.
> The statement they made is just an insurance policy to keep
> "REAL" illegal exe modification away! I think it is a harsh
> statement to say id has changed for the worse...they are just
> protecting their intelectual property!
>
> Does this make sense to everybody...just my $0.02! I don't think
> anybody should be discouraged about this. I think id approves
> of ALL that WE are doing and is only being slightly cautious.
>
> Jeff Galinovsky
>
------------------------------
From: Ray Prock <rprock@damage.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 16:25:22 -30000
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Okay, I know I'm asking for grief, but since my copy is at home and
I'm here at work... can someone send me a copy of the License.doc
for the registered version? Unless of course, this is against some
copyright or software agreement.... :)
Curiousity overwhelms...
--ray
___________________________________________________________________
[God] plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be |
compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to |
being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a |
pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a |
Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time. |
- --Good Omens(Gaimen,Pratchett) |
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
digital:rprock@damage.com
------------------------------
From: "C. Sheldon" <sheldonc@acy.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 16:30:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Illegal stuff
It seems to me that to make the "Hack" patches and similar
utilities illegal, would really almost defeat the purpose of "Doom" for
many people. For many people like me, "Doom" isn't just a game, its a
Hobby; Creating, Editing, and Collecting, Pwads and patches is a "Hobby"
for many of us. These Patches and Utilities are things we might not have
ever seen. They aren't commercial, many are freeware, and a few are
shareware. The "Majority" of people who create and use these are LOYAL
iD fans...I for one have Purchased Doom, and Doom][....and you bet your
ass if iD came out with a Doom add-on, i'd buy that too! And so would
most of you...We're Hobbyists, we're not hackers. Would Lionel Train's
ever deem it illegal for a Hobbyist to "Modify" their train engines?
Never.
Later Days,
DrWu
One of the many #doom Ops
------------------------------
From: Ray Prock <rprock@damage.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 16:48:37 -30000
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Greg,
I really hate how they're(Jay) is treating you. You're not
some lowly geek trying to squeek some bucks out of this. I can
respect what you've done and are trying to do. My problem with
this is that he's giving you a major brush off.
And when they get their act together legally, won't Quake
just be so much fun! I mean a game that is completely and utterly
illegal to hack! That *has* to be a first.
I was going to comment that this list was supposed to be about
editing. But, if there is nothing left to edit, there won't be much to
talk about, eh?
------------------------------
From: Shriker <GILLS@qucdn.queensu.ca>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 16:24:37 EST
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Here's a thought....
We've all seen the "new" games that have been made using the Wolfenstein 3D
engine (Operation Body Count, etc). ID didn't start giving licences for that
engine until DOOM came out. As DOOM starts getting a "little" long in the
teeth, they start licencing IT'S engine out (Heretic and that other one), and
will probably licence it out to other companies when QUAKE comes out. Keep in
mind that HERETIC is being distributed by ID, so they have some control over
it's development (not sure about the other title, but probably the same).
Enter DOOM 3rd party WADs like Aliens-TC, QUEST12, and assorted dehacked
patches for grenades, flamethrowers, etc, etc... By editing the DOOM.EXE file
*we* can produce PWADs that are considerably different from DOOM and make them
available for FREE ! There are some pretty damn smart DOOMers out there that
are coming close to offering ALMOST as much as HERETIC. It does offer things
that would be near impossible to hack, like water currents and wind, but it
wouldn't be too difficult to replace all the weapons with new ones and it
could be possible to make a WAD where the players could "fly". Actually I
remember hearing that someone had done this- made the players invulnerable and
they used the rocket launcher to move themselves about :)
When we hack the .exe for Heretic, there will be even more opportunity to have
incredibly imaginitive 3rd party effects.
Maybe ID is worried that our collective imagination and efforts will undercut
the future of their (no doubt lucrative) DOOM engine sales....?
I'm definitely "straddling the fence" on this issue (ouch), if this IS the
case. They've been pretty cool with everything in the past, and I'd hate for
us to start thumbing our noses at them now. Of course, after seeing the
Hiroshima-like flame fest that accompanied Apogee's statement that Wolf3D
couldn't be edited, I'm fearful of how THIS'LL turn out if push comes to
shove. On the other hand I'm also immensely enjoying all the new stuff coming
out, and it can only add to DOOM's continued popularity and sales. Plus all
of this good will on ID's part will strengthen the already fierce loyalty that
all of us feel for ID and DOOM. When QUAKE comes out it'll be successful
irregardless, but a established ID-lovin' gang of joyous chainsaw wieldin'
maniacs can ONLY make things even better... :)
It's a thought anyways.....
- -Shriker
p.s. I could be a little off on some of the facts I stated at the begining,
but they're correct as far as I know... <G>
>>>>>> DOOM: The only place where I *like* to get "blue balls" <<<<<<
------------------------------
From: djr@infinet.com (Dan J. Rockwell)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 19:05:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
>
> Here's a thought....
[ munch ]
> Enter DOOM 3rd party WADs like Aliens-TC, QUEST12, and assorted dehacked
> patches for grenades, flamethrowers, etc, etc... By editing the DOOM.EXE file
> *we* can produce PWADs that are considerably different from DOOM and make them
> available for FREE ! There are some pretty damn smart DOOMers out there that
> are coming close to offering ALMOST as much as HERETIC. It does offer things
> that would be near impossible to hack, like water currents and wind, but it
> wouldn't be too difficult to replace all the weapons with new ones and it
> could be possible to make a WAD where the players could "fly". Actually I
> remember hearing that someone had done this- made the players invulnerable and
> they used the rocket launcher to move themselves about :)
>
> When we hack the .exe for Heretic, there will be even more opportunity to have
> incredibly imaginitive 3rd party effects.
>
> Maybe ID is worried that our collective imagination and efforts will undercut
> the future of their (no doubt lucrative) DOOM engine sales....?
Hmmm good point, and it may be a driving force in their decision over the
.EXE modification. But I must say, DOOM would not be as popular as it
without our collective particapation.
I see the whole sales concept behind doom like a drug addiction. Pure and
simple they release one level on the net to bait you, get you hooked and you
like a drug addict buy anything with "doom" on it. It sells, it worked!
Did this .EXE debate occur when just DOOM was out and NOT the new commerical
version of it DOOM2. Was DOOM just a testing period to gain momentium,
popularity, addiction, and now move over here comes DOOM2, and dont you dare
touch it? Mayeb while DOOM was just out the eased off on pressing the
issues they seem to be pushing now, like limiting our creative efforts.
It's a shame really, our creative efforts only help boost Doom sales in my
opinion. Customers see doom as a huge expanable game system, the first real
fun playable, create your own game system. You have all these CD's to
choose from for all kinds of levels, the net, compuserve etc. Heck, ID has
got it made. We advertise for them, we insure that no user will ever
complain about "Ok I've beaten it, what next.."
> I'm definitely "straddling the fence" on this issue (ouch), if this IS the
> case. They've been pretty cool with everything in the past, and I'd hate for
> us to start thumbing our noses at them now. Of course, after seeing the
> Hiroshima-like flame fest that accompanied Apogee's statement that Wolf3D
> couldn't be edited, I'm fearful of how THIS'LL turn out if push comes to
> shove. On the other hand I'm also immensely enjoying all the new stuff coming
> out, and it can only add to DOOM's continued popularity and sales. Plus all
> of this good will on ID's part will strengthen the already fierce loyalty that
> all of us feel for ID and DOOM. When QUAKE comes out it'll be successful
> irregardless, but a established ID-lovin' gang of joyous chainsaw wieldin'
> maniacs can ONLY make things even better... :)
But will ID take the same steps and leave doors open with Quake as they did
with DOOM. If DOOM2 had no expansion capabilities for addons etc, we'd all
be playing DOOM now because DOOM2 would be closed to us creatively. And
although we may be a selected few in the masses of doom players. We have a
voice, and we are heard, the amount of doom wads/utilities out there prove
that. Can they even think of not implementing the same kind of stragety in
Quake? Oh it's be foolish. They'd be just another action game, buy it,
beat it, get rid of it.
> It's a thought anyways.....
>
> -Shriker
Yep it's a big thought! I'm sure Jay is just giving everyone the standard:
"read this, it's our policy" type reply, because he doesn't want to be
plastered all over the net with some quote he may or maynot have full
athority to speak on. If anything I'd say he's turning a blind eye at our
actions. Sure he may not approve, but he isn't going to find you and kill
you, (well you maybe challenged to a death match). I don't think they care
all that much right now anyways. Remember they''ve been working/playing
with doom now for a couple of years, THEY are sick of it. They are probably
stretched for time to think of anything else than quake. Thats where they
see the next leap will occur, thats the focus now. Doom, did it, done it,
played it, ok now what.
Bottom line: Keep the hacks to yourself. If they hunt you down, request a
deathmatch with Jay before they take you to prison.
------------------------------
From: ah289@freenet.carleton.ca (Jonathan Mavor)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 23:45:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
>
>>
>> Here's a thought....
>
>[ munch ]
>
>> Enter DOOM 3rd party WADs like Aliens-TC, QUEST12, and assorted dehacked
>> patches for grenades, flamethrowers, etc, etc... By editing the DOOM.EXE file
>> *we* can produce PWADs that are considerably different from DOOM and make them
>> available for FREE ! There are some pretty damn smart DOOMers out there that
>> are coming close to offering ALMOST as much as HERETIC. It does offer things
>> that would be near impossible to hack, like water currents and wind, but it
>> wouldn't be too difficult to replace all the weapons with new ones and it
>> could be possible to make a WAD where the players could "fly". Actually I
>> remember hearing that someone had done this- made the players invulnerable and
>> they used the rocket launcher to move themselves about :)
>>
>> When we hack the .exe for Heretic, there will be even more opportunity to have
>> incredibly imaginitive 3rd party effects.
>>
>> Maybe ID is worried that our collective imagination and efforts will undercut
>> the future of their (no doubt lucrative) DOOM engine sales....?
>
>Hmmm good point, and it may be a driving force in their decision over the
>.EXE modification. But I must say, DOOM would not be as popular as it
>without our collective particapation.
>
That is definately true. One of the main reasons that doom
is so succesful is the fact that people can easily modify it.
>I see the whole sales concept behind doom like a drug addiction. Pure and
>simple they release one level on the net to bait you, get you hooked and you
>like a drug addict buy anything with "doom" on it. It sells, it worked!
>Did this .EXE debate occur when just DOOM was out and NOT the new commerical
>version of it DOOM2. Was DOOM just a testing period to gain momentium,
>popularity, addiction, and now move over here comes DOOM2, and dont you dare
>touch it? Mayeb while DOOM was just out the eased off on pressing the
>issues they seem to be pushing now, like limiting our creative efforts.
>It's a shame really, our creative efforts only help boost Doom sales in my
>opinion. Customers see doom as a huge expanable game system, the first real
>fun playable, create your own game system. You have all these CD's to
>choose from for all kinds of levels, the net, compuserve etc. Heck, ID has
>got it made. We advertise for them, we insure that no user will ever
>complain about "Ok I've beaten it, what next.."
>
>> I'm definitely "straddling the fence" on this issue (ouch), if this IS the
>> case. They've been pretty cool with everything in the past, and I'd hate for
>> us to start thumbing our noses at them now. Of course, after seeing the
>> Hiroshima-like flame fest that accompanied Apogee's statement that Wolf3D
>> couldn't be edited, I'm fearful of how THIS'LL turn out if push comes to
>> shove. On the other hand I'm also immensely enjoying all the new stuff coming
>> out, and it can only add to DOOM's continued popularity and sales. Plus all
>> of this good will on ID's part will strengthen the already fierce loyalty that
>> all of us feel for ID and DOOM. When QUAKE comes out it'll be successful
>> irregardless, but a established ID-lovin' gang of joyous chainsaw wieldin'
>> maniacs can ONLY make things even better... :)
>
>But will ID take the same steps and leave doors open with Quake as they did
>with DOOM. If DOOM2 had no expansion capabilities for addons etc, we'd all
>be playing DOOM now because DOOM2 would be closed to us creatively. And
>although we may be a selected few in the masses of doom players. We have a
>voice, and we are heard, the amount of doom wads/utilities out there prove
>that. Can they even think of not implementing the same kind of stragety in
>Quake? Oh it's be foolish. They'd be just another action game, buy it,
>beat it, get rid of it.
>
>> It's a thought anyways.....
>>
>> -Shriker
>
John Romero has stated that Quake will be a completely
open concept game. Watch for a lot of games coming in the next
year with this kind of theme. I'm a developer currently working
on a title for 1st quarter release and we already have a bunch
of support for external files etc. We will more than likely
be releasing an editory with it too. Id started it and
they will continue with Quake.
>Yep it's a big thought! I'm sure Jay is just giving everyone the standard:
>"read this, it's our policy" type reply, because he doesn't want to be
>plastered all over the net with some quote he may or maynot have full
>athority to speak on. If anything I'd say he's turning a blind eye at our
>actions. Sure he may not approve, but he isn't going to find you and kill
>you, (well you maybe challenged to a death match). I don't think they care
>all that much right now anyways. Remember they''ve been working/playing
>with doom now for a couple of years, THEY are sick of it. They are probably
>stretched for time to think of anything else than quake. Thats where they
>see the next leap will occur, thats the focus now. Doom, did it, done it,
>played it, ok now what.
>
>Bottom line: Keep the hacks to yourself. If they hunt you down, request a
> deathmatch with Jay before they take you to prison.
>
>
>
Personally I really truly think that he is saying
it so that his ass will be covered in the event of Aliens
or another add on coming under litigation. If Id says that
they do not condone .exe hacking then their asses are covered
a lot better.
L8r,
Jon
- --
==== Jonathan Mavor [DP] ==== X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
= ah289@Freenet.Carleton.Ca = X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
------------------------------
From: rrward@netcom.com (Richard Ward)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:14:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Illegal stuff
> It seems to me that to make the "Hack" patches and similar
> utilities illegal, would really almost defeat the purpose of "Doom" for
> many people. For many people like me, "Doom" isn't just a game, its a
> Hobby; Creating, Editing, and Collecting, Pwads and patches is a "Hobby"
> for many of us. These Patches and Utilities are things we might not have
> ever seen. They aren't commercial, many are freeware, and a few are
> shareware. The "Majority" of people who create and use these are LOYAL
> iD fans...I for one have Purchased Doom, and Doom][....and you bet your
> ass if iD came out with a Doom add-on, i'd buy that too! And so would
> most of you...We're Hobbyists, we're not hackers. Would Lionel Train's
> ever deem it illegal for a Hobbyist to "Modify" their train engines?
> Never.
True, but for every modified "train engine" that you create (and maybe seel or
give away, etc...) you have to _buy_ a new one. I think Aliens_TC is what
kicked it over the fence. They saw what _one_ person (whith a lot of time and
talent) could do with their engine. They may have decided to put their foot
down before any "less than honorable" folks out there took DOOM.EXE and
patched it so much that it behaved like a new game (like Heretic), slapped in
some new grahics and sound and sold the whole mess as a new game.
Yes, for "us" DOOM is a hoby but for ID it is their bread and butter and I
think we need to remeber that and respect it. They have put very few
restrictions on us as far as modifications go and I am willing to live within
the rules. They could have acted like Apogee and flat out forbade _any_
modifications of any kind.
Richard
------------------------------
From: Salporin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 01:37:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Illegal stuff
> Essentially it says: keep working, but don't distribute until
> the legal aspects are clarified. No big trouble to expect if we
> keep tame, else I don't know.
I'll do that (with Star Wars DOOM), but for how long? And what happens with
patches that were released before this "no hacking the exe" thing came up?
And what DID bring this about anyway? I don't even understand it. I can
see why they wouldn't let you DISTRIBUTE a modified exe or wad, but changing
your own personal copy? I know Romero reads this list periodically; if so,
can you offer some help here, John?
------------------------------
From: Salporin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 01:39:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
> what was that about the guys from LucasArts
> that spend some time reverse engineering the doom engine to aid their
> efforst in Dark Forces... hmmm
> Did Id give a **** ?
> ..or wos it just a rumour..
Personally I always took it as a rumor... Nothing gave me any reason to
believe otherwise. Anyone know any facts on this?
------------------------------
End of doom-editing-digest V1 #69
*********************************
