Oh!
LOL, it would look exactly like R5 (With features to be determined) with Mesial's collection of hires textures and every chat pack ever made!! /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />
Sweet!
Allegiance II
Any work which is GPL'd like that has to clearly have the license mentioned in the source files. If there's GPL code that isn't marked, it's pretty hard to prove that the code wasn't developed independently. Otherwise it's pretty easy to tell if you've got FLOSS code in your project.
"I make it a point not to chat with AP off... space is vast, but it's never vast enough for my scout."
factoid wrote:QUOTE (factoid @ Oct 25 2007, 03:02 PM) Any work which is GPL'd like that has to clearly have the license mentioned in the source files. If there's GPL code that isn't marked, it's pretty hard to prove that the code wasn't developed independently. Otherwise it's pretty easy to tell if you've got FLOSS code in your project.
Quite right Factoid.
Still killing time... /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />
Suppose I am a clown and I just jack that code in there anyway because I really want to impress Dog with my ossum coding powers and get recognition for my mad elite skillz... Sure, I'm a thief, and I broke the license model, etc etc etc. But, the problem is that the next entity (MS) to consume that code has a big bankroll that other people would love to get a chunk of. There are code auditing packages that can test for open source infringement (I don't know if they work with compiled code, I think not), so it's not beyond the realm of reason to see someone suponea a large cash heavy company for code comparison, or what if I'm a huge raging clown and report it after I've done the damage? Ick.
My point here is there's a lot of different ways that wild code opens up internal projects to risks that some big companies would rather not take.
Hummm... ok, you can stop supposing about the clown thing now... stop it!
Damn it.
-
hockey1015
- Posts: 938
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:00 am
- Location: Tampa, FL
Whew... I was starting to wonder about you /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />Gstar wrote:QUOTE (Gstar @ Oct 25 2007, 03:43 PM) base turrets was a joke.
TB
[18:48] <Imago> dont take me seriouslyspideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Nov 28 2008, 02:50 PM) All the retards are contained in one squad mostly (System X)
-
terrenblade
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Flying Invisable Warship
- Contact:
Danger, Big images and text.
NOOOO!!!!!
alleg 2, it will be Pay to Play, it will be Dumbed Down and easy, It will be a Freekish Noobfest, and Allegiance 1 will be taken away from us, IT WILL.
so remember, just say NO to allegiance 2 by MS. we can make our own, better.
*we apologise for the big Images and text, however the poster feels strongly about the subject.
NOOOO!!!!!
alleg 2, it will be Pay to Play, it will be Dumbed Down and easy, It will be a Freekish Noobfest, and Allegiance 1 will be taken away from us, IT WILL.
so remember, just say NO to allegiance 2 by MS. we can make our own, better.
*we apologise for the big Images and text, however the poster feels strongly about the subject.
Mad? Oh yes, quite mad.
Vader shot the nans first.
Vader shot the nans first.
Although i don't share ^'s exact sentiment i to fear that they'll tune down the tactcis.
Why?
Well, microsoft wants money. To make money they need something that a lot of people will buy. To make a game that a lot of people will buy, you'll need to maske a game a lot of people are capable of playing and a game that is capable of interesting a lot of people.
We all know that in principle, allegiance is playable by everyone who has 2 hands and a head. However, we also know that only a small part of those that join us actualy stick with us. The others find it to complicated to pick up for the most part. Now imagine a company wanting to make money. imagine that they'd develop a game that only a part of those who tried it would play. Imagine the prime way of marketing games. that would be people telling eachother about it. And then imagine the amount of negative publicity the game would get. It's just not gonna work as it is now. the only way to make it work is to make it accesible to almost everyone. and that means tuning down the tactics. All our hard work out of the window. No more TP2, because that's to dificult. No more miners and cons, because they die to often....
Why?
Well, microsoft wants money. To make money they need something that a lot of people will buy. To make a game that a lot of people will buy, you'll need to maske a game a lot of people are capable of playing and a game that is capable of interesting a lot of people.
We all know that in principle, allegiance is playable by everyone who has 2 hands and a head. However, we also know that only a small part of those that join us actualy stick with us. The others find it to complicated to pick up for the most part. Now imagine a company wanting to make money. imagine that they'd develop a game that only a part of those who tried it would play. Imagine the prime way of marketing games. that would be people telling eachother about it. And then imagine the amount of negative publicity the game would get. It's just not gonna work as it is now. the only way to make it work is to make it accesible to almost everyone. and that means tuning down the tactics. All our hard work out of the window. No more TP2, because that's to dificult. No more miners and cons, because they die to often....
