Our ReVolt Pub

Hi,

Let me first get a long pending announcement out of the way: our email address has changed to rv12(at)revoltzone.net. If anyone had recently tried to contact us through our old contact@rvzt.net address, please send again to the new one.

I must admit that jigebren and I had decided to more or less stop the 1.2 development for now. That's not to say the project is entirely abandoned though: things were happening behind the scenes in fact, and we have been making plans together with Urne.

I'm quickly going to leave some inputs on the kind of problems we are facing and our (hopefully exciting) plans for the future.

• I'm convinced that it's not a good use of our time and energy to continue to maintain and improve the current codebase with its outdated components.
• The collision issues had become a major roadblock as online players would probably not adopt new 1.2 releases unless they are fixed. At the same time, the physics and collision code are 100% clean, so the problem appears to be coming from some unstable multiplayer code, as well as the use of the outdated DirectPlay component. They cannot be fixed easily in the current codebase (or fixed at all). As you remember, jigebren has been trying actively to workaround or fix these issues and ultimately gave up.
• It's also not easy in the current codebase to add any new multiplayer features either. I had already taken great pains to add the features we have today (especially late join / spectating).
• Needless to mention, the port-forward troubles in playing online because of DirectPlay.
• The poor performance in Win8 which I'm using and the lack of a native Linux release (which jig and I along with Urne look forward to).

Keeping these points in mind, we've decided that we'd rather freeze the current v1.2 project (maybe release some "extended support" releases infrequently), and start a new project code-named RV, which is an attempt at porting re-volt to utilize modern, open technologies (OpenGL, SDL and ENet).
It would give us much better control over the code to bring new features quickly and efficiently - especially in multiplayer, eliminate the online issues (including the need to open ports!), bring full compatibility with Win8 and native Linux release. At the same time, by starting to replace the outdated components, we would significantly reduce our dependency on code protected by WeGo's IP.

Meanwhile I heard about the folks working on the Xbox code in RVL. Though we can't share the 1.2 code at this time, I'll continue to keep an eye on it and hopefully provide some guidance if they get stuck.

Update (01 May 2015): RVGL project page is now up!

Its great to hear that you finally decided to work on making the game more portable and getting rid of old dependencies (especially DirectPlay). I for one fully support this decision even though it will certainly take some time until the next update arrives.

Though I have three questions regarding this:

1) Did you consider using a library that does the rendering part for you (like Ogre 3D)? If yes why did you decide to stick with plain OpenGL (and which version are you aiming for)?

2) Did you consider also getting rid of the Miles Sound System library and use an open source solution instead (if yes, which library are you considering)? I guess for a Linux release this would be required anyway but it doesn't hurt to ask

3) How are you going to deal the status updates during the process of porting? No updates at all until the process is finished (which I guess would mean a long silence again) or some news now and then about what has been done so far and whats next to do (even though you'll probably won't have any screenshots or even videos about it but at least users will know the project is still ongoing)?

Great to hear about this!

Why not upgrading from directdraw to direct3d and dx9?

also, why registry dplay registration is no longer happening with 1.2 alphas? ( this is needed for apps such as rvhouse)

would you revert to acclaim's physics? ai is great! (update ai contained in gazzasaicar?) (i have seen phat slug driving perfect backwards in toyworld1)

why ai intentionally crash/drift randomly in turns?

i agree with updating, but at least leave us the game spirit!!

there's still more bugs/exploits to fix. for example: removal of ingame dev combo.

make no pause active by default in multiplayer? it avoids position glitches due to the game suspension, and it prevents the "never sync" behavior when a race starts (waiting for: <paused player> (indefinitely))

what about porting all Xbox code to make more console releases of the game with pc content?

I'm willing to continue you guys development (although i need to learn programming)

I'm going to post soon an ultimate troubleshooting guide about the game EDIT: Done!

Regards
Juest Zungo

Will the legal "battle" ever take place?

I will ask only 1 thing before you freeze the 1.2 project completely. Make a final version of 1.2 before starting the new project.

Features like the new track selection for multiplayer races and the track search feature that is in the unofficial Alpha 14.0306 patch should be integrated for the final version. The lag managment from Alpha 14.0306 optimized by jigebren is also a major improvement in comparison to the 13.0820. I think it should be also integrated if others agree.

People in the online community both in RVHouse and GameRanger keep using the 0820 patch as the latest patch mainly because it doesn't have the horrendous new time trial feature. But the hard-drive music support from 14.0208 and the track selector from 14.0306 are great features. It would be awesome to have them both together in a unique final patch.

I will take for granted that you will not add new features to the 1.2 in the current state as it is now in DirectPlay. So I won't my lose time asking you for new features or difficult things. But Please there are certain fixes that you can do to end this in better terms for everybody like removing the horrendous new Time Trial feature which only gave us headaches and it's the main reason why we don't want to use the latest patch. I can live with the lag and the different physics from version 13.0820 but since I'm an user who regularly uses time trial I for sure can't cope with the time trial system from the 14.0208.

Wish you best luck with your new project.

I also support Phantom's plea.

Citywalker @ Aug 27 2014, 04:15 PM wrote: I also support Phantom's plea.

Seconded.

nero @ Aug 27 2014, 01:32 PM wrote:

Citywalker @ Aug 27 2014, 04:15 PM wrote: I also support Phantom's plea.

Seconded.

And mine?

Thanks for the update Huki. It looks like some very interesting things coming for Re-volt.

I also agree with what Phantom has asked for concerning the 14.0306 patch.

Make a final version of 1.2 before starting the new project.

Do it.

And please include all good stuff (Track selection,lag managment,etc...)

0306 was a big improvement with the new lag management, but a final mix sounds awesome!

So another support from RVH.

Well I find the track search input from the 14.0306 version is a great idea and handy, especially when you happen to have over 800 tracks installed. I haven't noticed any major lag issues from all the version listed from http://rv12.revoltzone.net except maybe once or twice that we had a big lag issue online which was repaired with a new revolt.exe build manually transfered to us. Big thanks to our friend ADX for the source code. Let me know for the xbox version of the game and if it will run on the 360 or the new Xbox one. . The game is old and I think its you've put your best input. If I could suggest you something it would be to update the track editor and to go even further with it and possibly making lego extreme tracks or even extreme tracks out of it. Anyways, good work Huki for all those builds cheers

First : Its very good to hear that you plan to continue the project with fresh initiative and future formula , I really look forward to see that happening as soon as possible. More than that I think (as Kenny asked) its necessary to maintain any form of update news during the whole process.

Second :I found Phantoms idea very sensible , especially in case of possible long period of time until code-named RV is ready.

PS: Many thanks for what you've already done for Revolt , I hope you'll find energy to go forward.

Best wishes

Kenny @ Aug 26 2014, 10:38 PM wrote:Though I have three questions regarding this:

1) Did you consider using a library that does the rendering part for you (like Ogre 3D)? If yes why did you decide to stick with plain OpenGL (and which version are you aiming for)?

As you know re-volt uses a software T&L pipeline, pretty much all the computations are done by ourselves, so our GL usage will be quite minimal to start with (we just send triangles, flip the buffers, manipulate some states). So legacy (pre 2.1) GL functionality should be more than enough (but of course, we're just going to initialize the latest GL version exposed by the card - in backwards compatibility mode, so legacy functionality does not necessarily mean legacy version unlike DirectX). Eventually porting the rendering engine to a shader based model would be an interesting task to undertake, but we'll set that aside for now (and when we do that supporting GL 3 and higher should be enough, older cards can just use the software engine).

2) Did you consider also getting rid of the Miles Sound System library and use an open source solution instead (if yes, which library are you considering)? I guess for a Linux release this would be required anyway but it doesn't hurt to ask

SDL's audio component is already quite good, and we'll also use SDL_mixer for the sfx (samples and mixing) and music. Unfortunately CD audio support was removed from SDL2, but that's not really a priority.

3) How are you going to deal the status updates during the process of porting? No updates at all until the process is finished (which I guess would mean a long silence again) or some news now and then about what has been done so far and whats next to do (even though you'll probably won't have any screenshots or even videos about it but at least users will know the project is still ongoing)?

I plan to have a basic framework up and running quickly and then start adding features, so hopefully we'll have frequent test builds.

Phantom @ Aug 27 2014, 11:21 AM wrote:Features like the new track selection for multiplayer races and the track search feature that is in the unofficial Alpha 14.0306 patch should be integrated for the final version. The lag managment from Alpha 14.0306 optimized by jigebren is also a major improvement in comparison to the 13.0820. I think it should be also integrated if others agree.

This is not in my hands unfortunately (I mean quite literally, I don't have jigebren's work in my hands ). But once he's back we will release a 1.2 update with the features he added. As for the lag management work, it can't be released unless he has the willingness to finish it (his current changes are only half-working hacks meant for testing), and AFAIK he has definitely stopped working on it, but we'll see...

People in the online community both in RVHouse and GameRanger keep using the 0820 patch as the latest patch mainly because it doesn't have the horrendous new time trial feature. But the hard-drive music support from 14.0208 and the track selector from 14.0306 are great features. It would be awesome to have them both together in a unique final patch.

Ok about reverting the time trial changes - but not without a discussion! More on that in the 1.2 thread...

The planned stuff sounds great, I'm really looking forward to it now

Hi, firstly I want to thank to all the revolt creators for taking time in making this game better. I and many other players had a shitload of fun because of late join feature and many other. I hope to see another patch with fixed current problems, you are the best rv-creators! Thanks in advance ^^:D

Huki would you be so kind to get a donate button ?

Hi,
one idea:
port re-volt 1.2 to c++ or c#.Net (preferably the latter), including good design to allow swapping out of different parts (eg graphics, physics engine etc).

Thanks though to Huki and jigebren for all their work on re-volt 1.2. The online gaming was terrible online before 1.2 .

the_law @ Dec 6 2014, 03:13 PM wrote: Hi,
one idea:
port re-volt 1.2 to c++ or c#.Net (preferably the latter), including good design to allow swapping out of different parts (eg graphics, physics engine etc).

Thanks though to Huki and jigebren for all their work on re-volt 1.2. The was terrible online before 1.2 .

revolt is C++ already, its compiled with VS6.
Why using C#? the final result is similiar

an updated directx with direct3d should be used (6.1 is too old) and vs 10

most of us prefers the original spirit FYI

Abc @ Dec 7 2014, 06:32 AM wrote:

the_law @ Dec 6 2014, 03:13 PM wrote: Hi,
one idea:
port re-volt 1.2 to c++ or c#.Net (preferably the latter), including good design to allow swapping out of different parts (eg graphics, physics engine etc).

Thanks though to Huki and jigebren for all&nbsp; their work on re-volt 1.2. The was terrible online before 1.2 .

revolt is C++ already, its compiled with VS6.
Why using C#? the final result is similiar

an updated directx with direct3d should be used (6.1 is too old) and vs 10

most of us prefers the original spirit FYI

It's in C, not C++, as far as I know. It's easier to maintain and swap parts out with object-orientated.

C#.NET is totally different and a newer generation. Much easier to work with.

If it were easy to switch between openGL and DirectX then it would run on linux easily. This would all be easier with an object-orientated port of the current code. A lot of it could just be copied and pasted.

the_law @ Dec 7 2014, 12:29 PM wrote:

Abc @ Dec 7 2014, 06:32 AM wrote:

the_law @ Dec 6 2014, 03:13 PM wrote: Hi,
one idea:
port re-volt 1.2 to c++ or c#.Net (preferably the latter), including good design to allow swapping out of different parts (eg graphics, physics engine etc).

Thanks though to Huki and jigebren for all  their work on re-volt 1.2. The was terrible online before 1.2 .

revolt is C++ already, its compiled with VS6.
Why using C#? the final result is similiar

an updated directx with direct3d should be used (6.1 is too old) and vs 10

most of us prefers the original spirit FYI

It's in C, not C++, as far as I know. It's easier to maintain and swap parts out with object-orientated.

C#.NET is totally different and a newer generation. Much easier to work with.

If it were easy to switch between openGL and DirectX then it would run on linux easily. This would all be easier with an object-orientated port of the current code. A lot of it could just be copied and pasted.

ok, good luck trying to convince huki or the other guy who have progressed with xbox src to give you their tree

Yeah, it is better to develop the open gl of Revolt, cause open gl is faster than d3d , and yeah thanks for the online gaming it is really better!

revolting @ Dec 9 2014, 04:09 AM wrote: Yeah, it is better to develop the open gl of Revolt, cause open gl is faster than d3d , and yeah thanks for the online gaming it is really better!

Lmao, you dont care about the game spirit?

being Open doesn't mean it will be the *same* game

Kenny @ Aug 29 2014, 06:31 PM wrote:The planned stuff sounds great, I'm really looking forward to it now

Some news for people following this topic:

Re-Volt is already running natively on OpenGL.




PS: Sorry Abc...

Ahem...

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This looks almost perfect, although there appears to be some minor texture mapping inaccuracies. But who cares, this is progress! I can't wait to see what's up next, fantastic job Huki!

BTW, which OpenGL version are you targeting?

Thanks for showing some progress, the more we get to see the better

By the way, at what stage do you plan on releasing something / sharing something with other people to try it out?
Once the code has fully moved away from DirectX (including DirectPlay) or once there is something playable for people to test (perhaps a alpha/beta phase solely for reporting bugs)?

I think multiplayer is a rather big part of the game where potential bugs could occur so perhaps it would be better to separate video/input/sound related code updates from network updates to make any eventual bug tracking easier?

Huki @ Jan 18 2015, 06:49 AM wrote:Re-Volt is already running natively on OpenGL.

Progress! Daaaaaaaaamn.
I'm 'slightly' more motivated with the game again.

I suppose using OpenGL the game will run smoother than with old DirectX. Plus for larger tracks.
Doesn't look anyhow different on screenshot, that's good.

Please post updates more frequently or I'll lose interest in game again.
Continue doing your great work, I'll keep watching.

Which build are you planning to port to OpenGL? 13.0820?

Nice to see things moving along. Looking forward to not having to run wine for this

Glad to see the response. Re-Volt running in OpenGL can mean a lot of exciting things: larger than 2048x2048 resolutions, working full-screen in Windows 8 (I remember Skitch was complaining about the lack of it), and more importantly an eventual native Linux release.

pawer126 @ Jan 18 2015, 11:51 AM wrote:This looks almost perfect, although there appears to be some minor texture mapping inaccuracies.

If you mean the border seams visible in the Garden floor when looking from a distance: this is actually not GL's fault (it already exists in DX build too - especially with Anisotropic filtering turned on). It should actually be fixed by directly updating the track textures, but there is actually something better we can do - once development reaches some maturity.

pawer126 wrote:BTW, which OpenGL version are you targeting?

The great thing about GL is we can mix features that were first introduced in 1994 with latest features introduced in 2014 - in most cases there's no need to target one specific version. If you're wondering about the minimum requirements: the game should run even on GL1.1, but with certain features (fog, pure-black) not working. The entire feature set is guaranteed to work on a GL 1.4+ device (but older ones will work too if extensions are available). We don't use programmable shaders at this point - however a modern gpu will automatically construct shaders out of our code anyway.

Phantom wrote:Which build are you planning to port to OpenGL?

There is no straightforward answer as we started from scratch: several components like frontend menu and network are simply non-existent. The code was derived from latest cutting edge alpha (14.0831).

Kenny wrote:By the way, at what stage do you plan on releasing something / sharing something with other people to try it out?
Once the code has fully moved away from DirectX (including DirectPlay) or once there is something playable for people to test (perhaps a alpha/beta phase solely for reporting bugs)?

As soon as there is something playable to test (which is now). I'm curious about the kind of GL hardware people have. The build will log these info and I'm eager for it to be widely tested. But first I would have to hard-code some sort of disclaimer saying it's not for sale.

There is actually no more DirectX / DirectPlay or WinAPI code. As mentioned above, we started from scratch and whatever is present now is cross-platform code only (that does not mean it can be already built for Linux though, we might still have to account for things like endianness).

Huki @ Jan 19 2015, 07:30 PM wrote: As mentioned above, we started from scratch and whatever is present now is cross-platform code only (that does not mean it can be already built for Linux though, we might still have to account for things like endianness).

Wait, by "from scratch" you really mean from ground up and using the existing code as a template for some things?
I always thought you were "just" going to port the existing code and move away from the platform dependent code but if its really a complete overhaul then I guess thats even better

If thats really the case, wouldn't that also mean that its safe to finally open source it? Or I guess the overall question is, are you planning to release the source to the public at some point (and if yes when)?

I would be interested in contributing to the source code, be it finding bugs, improving existing code or write new stuff

Anway, I'm very happy to finally see new Re-Volt development happen and I'm looking forward to test the new build

Kenny @ Jan 20 2015, 12:20 AM wrote:Wait, by "from scratch" you really mean from ground up and using the existing code as a template for some things?

Yes, ground up - using the existing code as a template for most things. You can expect that re-volt specific stuff (ai, collision, data loading) are the same except for superfluous changes (i.e., changes to the comment and coding styles for uniformity).

If yes, wouldn't that also mean that its safe to finally open source it? Or I guess the overall question is, are you planning to release the source to the public at some point (and if yes when)?
I would be interested in contributing to the source code, be it finding bugs, improving existing code or write new stuff

I can't say when open-sourcing will happen - it's really not safe to open-source any code that builds into a re-volt executable as WeGo would stop at nothing to monetize the result. But even keeping the code private, I'd be happy to include you in the dev team at one point.

Huki @ Jan 19 2015, 08:06 PM wrote: I can't say when open-sourcing will happen - it's really not safe to open-source any code that builds into a re-volt executable as WeGo would stop at nothing to monetize the result. But even keeping the code private, I'd be happy to include you in the dev team at one point.

Well of course I'm no lawyer but I would assume that open source wouldn't be a problem as long as not entire sections are copy&pasted from the original (which shouldn't be the case here if the original code only served as a template) and the game's assets are not distributed with it?

But yeah you're right, its better not to risk any possible legal trouble where WGI could possibly benefit (even more than they already have) from this project.

Also thanks for the offer to add me to the team, feel free to message me anytime when you are ready for new people to join

Or perhaps post an announcement in the forum or on the official page in case other people are interested as well (btw, the latter hasn't been updated in quite some time regarding this and a few other things)

when ready, id like to help Beta test singleplayer.

im really good at finding bugs

Huki @ Jan 19 2015, 04:06 PM wrote: it's really not safe to open-source any code that builds into a re-volt executable as WeGo would stop at nothing to monetize the result.

Would you allow them to monetize it someday with the agreement of receiving the proper credits as developers? Or is it your desire to keep RV out of the market?

Phantom @ Jan 19 2015, 10:15 PM wrote: Would you allow them to monetize it someday with the agreement of receiving the proper credits as developers?

I think WGI made it pretty clear that they are not interested and/or are unable to do such a thing as evidenced by their total lack of communication in the GoG debacle.

But even if it came to the unlikely case of a mutual agreement, it would be bound for something bad to happen at a later point in time, either due to lack of communication or because of unhealthy business practices (well, at least unhealthy for the fan/consumer).

huki wrote:If you mean the border seams visible in the Garden floor when looking from a distance: this is actually not GL's fault (it already exists in DX build too - especially with Anisotropic filtering turned on). It should actually be fixed by directly updating the track textures, but there is actually something better we can do - once development reaches some maturity.

I was actually looking at the back end of RC Bandit here:


Maybe it's supposed to look like that and I'm just an idiot, idk

huki wrote:The great thing about GL is we can mix features that were first introduced in 1994 with latest features introduced in 2014 - in most cases there's no need to target one specific version. If you're wondering about the minimum requirements: the game should run even on GL1.1, but with certain features (fog, pure-black) not working. The entire feature set is guaranteed to work on a GL 1.4+ device (but older ones will work too if extensions are available). We don't use programmable shaders at this point - however a modern gpu will automatically construct shaders out of our code anyway.

Ah, I wasn't aware that OGL was that flexible. All the more reason to use it If it makes any difference to you, I still use a Riva TNT2 M64 (OGL 1.2), Mobility Radeon 7500 and Intel Extreme Graphics (OGL 1.3), and a GMA 900 (OGL 1.4) for Re-Volt. I hate throwing away old tech so I keep this old junk around for LAN parties and such.

the cracks in the ground textures were always there, but they got worse starting in RV-121225.

the broken lasers (lasers! lasers everywhere!) in the Museum tracks also started in RV-121225. (the lasers have all been hidden if using Milkfix patch)

i dont see anything wrong with RC Bandit's wing there.


just thought i should post those bugs now!

pawer126 @ Jan 20 2015, 07:03 AM wrote: If it makes any difference to you, I still use a Riva TNT2 M64 (OGL 1.2), Mobility Radeon 7500 and Intel Extreme Graphics (OGL 1.3), and a GMA 900 (OGL 1.4) for Re-Volt. I hate throwing away old tech so I keep this old junk around for LAN parties and such.

I'm not making any promises, but let's hope it works on those.. Btw, does the latest alpha work on them?

ThugsRook wrote:the cracks in the ground textures were always there, but they got worse starting in RV-121225.

the broken lasers (lasers! lasers everywhere!) in the Museum tracks also started in RV-121225. (the lasers have all been hidden if using Milkfix patch)

Screenshots would be helpful (especially the lasers bug sounds very weird )

the ground cracks arent easily screenshot since the car kinda has to be moving to really see them. it gets worse if using a hires ground texture. Ghost Town tracks are the worst effected.


screenshots for the lasers from the Project: Milkfix thread.




the planets are doing the same thing...



none of those errors appear before v121225.
maybe some sort of high priority objects overriding visiboxes?

Huki @ Jan 20 2015, 02:57 PM wrote:Btw, does the latest alpha work on them?

Yep, I don't experience any rendering issues on any of these GPU's, unless you count low framerate when the resolution is too high

ThugsRook @ Jan 21 2015, 03:11 AM wrote:the ground cracks arent easily screenshot since the car kinda has to be moving to really see them. it gets worse if using a hires ground texture. Ghost Town tracks are the worst effected.

I tried to compare v1.2Beta and latest Alpha, I get the same kind of border glitch in both (tested with same settings: Anisotropic 16x, Mipmaps set to Linear), but I don't notice any difference between the 2 versions.

ThugsRook wrote:screenshots for the lasers from the Project: Milkfix thread.
the planets are doing the same thing...

none of those errors appear before v121225.
maybe some sort of high priority objects overriding visiboxes?

Thanks for the screenshots. I fixed the laser bug: it was introduced when we tried to fix crash in a custom track that was caused by some unsafe code in the laser collision detection. Anyway, now it's properly fixed.

The "planet visible under floor" is a different issue and a bit tricky too, but you guessed quite correctly: we were overriding the hard-coded visibox settings for the planet objects (to support custom objects: otherwise the custom models that replace planets, such as the ones in Jailhouse Rock, were randomly getting rejected). But thanks for the report, we'll see what can be done.

Btw, your milkfix project is very interesting...

Well, OpenGL is a good enhancement, but it's still the same engine or not (physics, ai, etc) ?
Will it have increased requirements?

upscaled/new size textures? i dont like these "enhancements" on RVL, i prefer original textures, at least i would prefer them more high quality / less blurry but havent found such thing yet . any changes about gameplay so far and engine limits?
as long gameplay doesnt change..... that will render the game useless. and i would like to see native support of DC cars and track (which is fairly the ONLY original addition) and maybe some built-in customs and/or original dev ideas..... (fiddlers, options for AI setting (easy/normal/hard maybe), More themes, more cups, online championships, dedicated servers, referees (time validation), RVR dedi for RV to validate, direct rvr upload (gamedata/replay upload along with referee system to ensure no hacks like BL with repositions)

Now im a bit more excited lol!

About the visibox thing: you can see all dynamic "particles" and 2D stuff under the floor (perfect example is muse1 start) like an XRay, and maybe increase visibility options, fps are abysmal on some computers/tracks.

ps: huki: will you put us as private testers? (i would like to be one )

Wording aside, that's a few interesting questions..

I'm guessing the aim of this isn't a complete overhaul/modernization, but a code rewrite with a focus on keeping the current feel and (ideally) reverse-compatibility? It's already using the same textures and models by the look of it, but one can't be too sure

E: word filters. replaced "a s s e t" with "textures and models"

Kenny wrote:I think WGI made it pretty clear that they are not interested...

Both sides have been equally unclear that they're not interested..

Kenny wrote:If it came to the unlikely case of a mutual agreement, it would be bound for something bad to happen at a later point in time..

What bad could happen apart from us getting more players to know that this game exists?
It may not be WeGo, but something about marketing this should to be done at some point or all these beautiful features you're trying to create will only benefit a few souls lurking here in the depths of these forums and fanpages, souls that will be fewer and fewer unless something to advertise it is done. If something we've learnt from the GOG experience is that the market has a great power to attract new fans and keep old games active. WeGo is obviusly not the best choice but at least it's something. Having a beautiful game with beautiful features hidden here in a few fanpages won't make it go far either.

On the other hand, if your idea is making this an "out-of-market" game with very few players because you don't like big communities (like a few people here think...) or because you don't like companies, an answer to this could make things a lot more clear about the future of RV.

Phan wrote:Would you allow them (or any other company) to monetize it someday with the agreement of receiving the proper credits as developers? Or is it your desire to keep RV out of the market?

^ i do have to agree with Phantoms line of thinking.

the community needs a fresh influx of players. i cant help feel that we both won, and lost, with the GOG situation.

the community itself is not dead, actually its very busy, theres just not a lot of us.

Phantom @ Jan 22 2015, 03:33 AM wrote: Both sides have been equally unclear that they're not interested.. 

If you can remember, there have been attempts from the devs to propose an agreement regarding a collaboration but WGI either ignored or refused it.
So I wouldn't blame the devs for being fed up with WGI and not attempting to approach them again, especially after the whole GoG thing.

Phantom @ Jan 22 2015, 03:33 AM wrote: What bad could happen apart from us getting more players to know that this game exists?

Do you honestly believe that WGI would just idly watch things happen and let the devs do whatever they want? WGI is a company after all and as such it is in their nature to try to maximize their profit (and as we know, even more so than other companies).
Perhaps at first they even let things go their merry way but sooner or later they would realize that there is more money to be made if they "assist" the development a little.

And on the other hand, do you think the devs would be willing to let their work be "dictated" or influenced by WGI?

So in my opinion this would either end with the project being completely dead or WGI taking over and implementing their "great features" from the mobile platform and I don't know about you but I'd consider both as "bad".
Sure, maybe that would be a worst case scenario but I tend to be more pessimistic than optimistic

But anyway, thats just my train of thought and of course the question wasn't directed towards me so I'll just let this discussion rest for now.


edit1: I never knew that ORP had a world filter but in case of assist this doesn't really work too well
Also something seems to be wrong with the quoting since the font gets automatically resized as you can see in this post.

edit2: Seems to be fixed now, thanks.

Well, I think Kenny summed it up very nicely.

PS 1: Yes there's a "bad word" filter. I have never touched this stuff but it's rather funny to look at. Do you want me to post the content of this list for a laugh? (hem, I'm technically joking...). Anyway the case you mentioned should be fixed.
PS 2: Maybe an issue with the CSS (I hope otherwise there's nothing we can do). EDIT: should be fixed now...

i also completely agree with Kenny too!


i was thinking more along the lines of licensing out 1.2B for GOG and Steam only. that would serve our purpose, serve WGIs purpose, and give new players a reason to join the community and update to 1.2A. (or OpenRV)

but its not my place to say, and i dont know everything that went down with the GOG incident. im just thinking of the community at this point.

That still doesn't answer my question so I'll make it more clear now for Huki and Jigebren.

Would you allow them (or any other company) to monetize it someday with the agreement of receiving the proper credits as developers? Or is it your desire to keep RV out of the market?

...if your idea is making this an "out-of-market" game with very few players because you don't like big communities (like a few people here think...) or because you don't like companies, an answer to this could make things a lot more clear about the future of RV.

It seems like you don't want to to talk about this, which makes me thing option 2 is the answer.