The Future of Exult, and the past of Ultima

EbeneezerSquid · Post by **EbeneezerSquid** » Sun Jun 16, 2002 5:30 pm

I just recently downloaded Exult, and have had good results with it so far, but I gotten to thinking about a few things. . .

First off, Has anyone thought to talk to Richard Garriot about Exult? After all, Ultima is HIS baby! He may no longer own the copyright for it, but, from my understanding, He left Origin because of disagreements with EA of what they wanted to do with UO/U9. I think he might be rather supportinve of the Project.

Secondly, exactly how far does everyone want to go with Exult? Will we be content to implement everything that was in U7BG/SI, or do we want to go further? Exult Studio seems to be a step pushing us further, which I think is a good thing.

We already have added features to BG that there were in SI, what about taking it futher than that? Why don't we add some of the features from (you knew this was coming) UO? What I would really like to see would be the Character sprites changing their clothes to match with the paperdolls. That was something that I always disliked when I first played BG and SI. everything else about the world could be acted upon and changed but the actual PCs themselves.

I can envision Exult becoming a truly great free-form game, with thousands of downloadable worlds to play in, p2p games to play with your friends, and maybe a shard or to up and running. I plan on helping out, as soon as I get my Honorable Discharge from the Navy and start learning C++ in college. But I thought that this would be a good thing to post so that I'm not just making plans by myself over here in a corner.

Keep up the good work - what you've done so far is great!

Post by **Darke** » Sun Jun 16, 2002 5:41 pm

(LB) IIRC we've contacted him and had a 'good work' response back, BICBW.

(exult_studio) Jeff's been planning on trying to turn exult into a 'make a
game' engine almost since exult was 'started', IIRC. *grin*

(character sprites, changing clothes) For that we need artists and programs
that will allow us to create and modify such art easily. There's a thread
talking about such programs somewhere else on the forum.

(p2p/shard) AFAIK, exult won't become 'multiplayer' unless someone not
currently coding exult atm does it. The many arguments against multiplayer,
and trying to find out what exactly people define as 'multiplayer' are
floating around in other threads as well. *grin*

EbeneezerSquid · Post by **EbeneezerSquid** » Sun Jun 16, 2002 5:50 pm

Could any of the 3rd party UO programs be adapted for the Char sprites changing clothes problems? I haven't checked on the programs, but there must be something that they are using to change the UO human into Drow, elves, and Dwarves seen on soom of the free shards.

MagicMop · Post by **MagicMop** » Sun Jun 16, 2002 8:25 pm

*cough* lawsuit *cough*

Kuroshi · Post by **Kuroshi** » Sun Jun 16, 2002 9:02 pm

I thought he was talking about using UO editing programs to change the art rather than using UO art. I dunno, never really got into UO, so I don't know much about editing it. =)

EbeneezerSquid · Post by **EbeneezerSquid** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 1:08 am

Yeah, I was talking about using the editing programs, not the art. Since a good amount of the UO editing programs are GNU or Shareware, it shouldn't be TOO hard to get the source and adapt it, if they run on similar engines, which they (simply by output) seem to. (well, UO looks more like U7 than it does U8 or U9 anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the UO engine is an updated/adapted U7 engine which is why EA/Origin says they "lost" the source.

Post by **Dominus** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 3:08 am

If you look closer at UO you will find that it actually looks more like U8. Compare the paperdoll, containers, status screen and such. Even though the paperdoll in U8 is very different to UO it is also more similar than the u7 one....
And the containers are almost exactly the same. And then imagine UO in the resolution of 320x200...

And IIRC, the first demo that Origin made for EA to prove it was doable was a dumbed down version of U8 (could have been u6 also - I read some discussion on this earlier this year, I think).

XxVenomxX · Post by **XxVenomxX** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 4:28 am

Yeah, actually a lot of the art from UO was lifted from U8. Even things like bottles and skull mugs.

British Fiend · Post by **British Fiend** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 6:13 am

What would everyone do if they found out Lord British was a pompous corporate jerk-off? *puts on asbestos armor* no seriously, I don't know him that well- and I'm sure lots of other people don't either, but what if he sued us(I consider my self part of the Exult team simply because I offer my help in anyway I can be used) or uhh...did something really mean, like creating a usecode virus lol.

SB-X · Post by **SB-X** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 6:31 am

That wouldn't make him bad. He might really feel that his copyrights are being violated (if he even owns them, I thought EA owned it all), and not understand the nature of this project.

A usecode virus... now THAT I would like to see!

Destruct · Post by **Destruct** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 8:26 am

I think the fears of exult being pursued for copyright violation are overestimated. IANAL, but I think EA would be on pretty shaky legal ground if they tried to get Exult shutdown. Although exult can read the ultima 7 data files, which are copyrighted, none of the original copyrighted data is actually distributed with it (AFAIK?). Making a program to interract with or take the place of another program is not illegal surely, otherwise you'd expect projects like Miranda ICQ or the Samba tools to have been shutdown.

I guess EA could claim that under the DMCA, Exult could be used for circumventing the anti-piracy features in U7 and is thus illegal, but I think that'd be difficult, especially since origin used to distribute the answers to the anti-piracy questions on the old www.owo/archive site anyway.

Sslaxx · Post by **Sslaxx** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 8:29 am

Methinks that if EA is ever interested in getting this project shut down, the DMCA will be the way they'll try it.

Post by **drcode** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 8:43 am

Don't confuse LB with EA. LB may have kept some rights to the 'Ultima' trademark, but EA owns the game assets. As Darke said, LB sent us an "Attaboy" once, but we've never heard anything from EA.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:45 am

Destruct...

It doesn't matter how shaky EA's ground is if they decided to shut down projects like Exult, they could. I doubt the Exult team could raise enough money to hire a lawyer to combat the FLOOD of paperwork that corporations wreak upon their enemies.

I doubt they would do it. Because they would have to spend money to do it and nothing would be gained for EA.

Skutarth · Post by **Skutarth** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 2:29 pm

I have an good idea! Let's not bother EA just in case they WOULD shut down Exult if they figured out it existed.

Let's just all be quiet and work out plans in a corner, like EeneezerSquid is doing!

Post by **Darke** » Mon Jun 17, 2002 2:33 pm

To late. *grin* We've already pestered them a number of times.
They definately know we exist, but they seem to just ignore us for their
own reasons, whatever they may be. *grin*

British Fiend · Post by **British Fiend** » Tue Jun 18, 2002 8:27 am

They've probably ignored Exult due to the fact that it doesn't turn a profit; is involved with a game that makes hardly any revenue for them anymore; is internet driven only, does not have a central headquarters and is not involved with any one well known in the industry.
Face it, EA is about the industry, EA is a big corporator, they have programming teams, but EA itself sucks...
SB-X, the thing that'd make him a bad person is, if he is an @!#$(which I have read from interviews, that he is not at all) and if he did sue Exult. Obviously he's fine with Exult, I'd be suprised he spoke with the Exult designers at all if he was a jerk.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Tue Jun 18, 2002 8:27 am

Darke...

In order to shut down Exult, EA would have to divert some of its resources (lawyers) to do so. My guess is EA has either not noticed anything you've sent them or they don't care as U7 isn't being actively maintained or otherwise distributed.

If they did notice, then they saw that the original U7 was not included in the Exult download and the original game is required to use Exult. So, it doesn't hurt them in any way as sales of their product, if anything, would increase due to Exult's existance.

Post by **drcode** » Tue Jun 18, 2002 9:05 am

British Fiend and Tim: I think you've both got it right. If you look at 'origin.ea.com', you'll see that UO is their only concern. We're like an ant to them:-)

Oblivious · Post by **Oblivious** » Fri Jun 21, 2002 2:26 am

What would everyone do if they found out Lord British was a pompous corporate jerk-off? *puts on asbestos armor* no seriously, I don't know him that well- and I'm sure lots of other people don't either, but what if he sued us(I consider my self part of the Exult team simply because I offer my help in anyway I can be used) or uhh...did something really mean, like creating a usecode virus lol.

Don't give me that mental image.... I just saw some 23-minute long interview (I switched it off after 2 minutes) with RG... THE MAN TALKS TOO DAMN MUCH!!!! LOL, I can just picture how pissed off the judge would be in the courtroom, trying to get RG to stop yammering on about the subject.

Post by **drcode** » Fri Jun 21, 2002 7:55 am

Sure he's a corporate type. That's why he heads companies while the rest of us play around writing and drawing free stuff:-)

But he did send us a 'way-to-go' email about a year ago, and he's expressed support for other projects that keep old games alive. So I definitely see him as a friend of projects like ours.

Ignitus Dragon · Post by **Ignitus Dragon** » Fri Jun 21, 2002 3:40 pm

Does anyone know if he plays any games himself?

Nuclear Loser · Post by **Nuclear Loser** » Sat Jun 22, 2002 9:55 pm

As for the DMCA part.... Why would EA be against a project that helps them sell the remaining copies of the ultima collection? The Exult team has noted several times that they do not want anyone to pirate copies of U7 and actually encourage people to buy the old compilation cd's. People have listened to this plea as well... look at previous threads, many people even talk about going out and getting U8 and other Ultima's because they had so much fun with Exult

peace.
Nuclear >>

Sir Weird · Post by **Sir Weird** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 11:10 am

Well what exactly would you consider a pirate copy? A one you download for free or one you buy off ebay? To me they are both pirated, ea is not making money off either one and since ea does not sell ultima 7 anymore where are you suppose to get it? So it all leads to one thing ea could careless about ultima 7 if they cared at all about anything but uo they would still sell these products but as you see they don't.. Uo is there billion dollar nest egg so I doubt exult will ever after to worry unless they release some kicka$$ program that starts making a ton of money

Then ea will sue exult, then they will go bankrupt and we will all live happily ever after with are free shareware version of exult

Kuroshi · Post by **Kuroshi** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 11:22 am

Yep, it is illegal to sell anything you own, because you've used it and the people that originally made it won't be making money off of it when you sell it. Whatever, dude. Apparently you think (I don't think you really do, but if you do, here's something for you to chew on) that downloading it and buying it off of Ebay is the same thing. In the other thread, you were wanting to download it. Since you were willing to download it, but no one was willing to send, you can get it off of Ebay through a friend's account. You don't even have to buy Ultima 7 off of Ebay, you could just get the Ultima Collection.

If you respond 'I'm banned from Ebay', I'll just mention that I said 'a friend's account'. You can also try software stores (have you been to one recently? did you look for the Ultima Collection? if you're in the US it should be really easy to find). Look in the $10 area, or the bargain bin.

Sir Weird · Post by **Sir Weird** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 11:26 am

Considering I was talking about the above post... Myabe if you read the above post about them being worried about ea sueing exult whitch will never happen due to ea doesn't even care about u7.. How you can tell this is they stoped selling it on there website... So before you go and flame me read the above post

Sir Weird · Post by **Sir Weird** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 11:31 am

And also selling ultima 7 off ebay is illegal if ea wanted to make it illegal.. Take eq for instance its illegal to sell ur account and only reason for this was because verant is losing money some instance with u7 if ea started to lose money they could make this illegal

Kuroshi · Post by **Kuroshi** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 11:44 am

Sorry that sounded like a flame to you, but to me I'm just talking.

I am aware that you were commenting on the above posts, and yes I have read them. I also read your thread about getting U7 on the web.

"what exactly would you consider a pirate copy?"
you: "To me they are both pirated"
me: "Downloading it off of the internet."

"where are you suppose to get it?"
Answered in my post above. Also in the other thread, but not by me.

"they would still sell these products"
Even if they are not selling them directly, they can still be had. Just because they aren't selling something doesn't mean you don't care about their ownership of it. Selling the UC was a sign that they cared about (making money off of) their older games.

And you are right, EA doesn't seem to care about Exult, and it's not really worth worrying about.

Kuroshi · Post by **Kuroshi** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 11:47 am

Just because Ebay doesn't let you do it doesn't mean it's illegal.

Post by **wjp** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 12:54 pm

> And also selling ultima 7 off ebay is illegal if ea wanted to make it illegal.. Take eq for
> instance its illegal to sell ur account and only reason for this was because verant is
> losing money some instance with u7 if ea started to lose money they could make this
> illegal

Sorry, but this is nonsense. If you buy a product you have the right to re-sell it. The thing is that an everquest account isn't a product that you bought.

Post by **Darke** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 2:04 pm

The right to resell really depends a lot on your local copyright laws. In .au
according to the way I'm reading it from here: http://www.copyright.org.au If
there's an explicit "you're not allowed to resell it or transfer this license"
clause in the license, then you're not allowed to resell it.

Or rather, technically, you're allowed to resell it, but the purchaser is not
allowed to run it because copying the program into memory to run it is
considered creating a 'derivative work', so you're _forced_ to comply with the
license.

Anyway, IANAL, and if you're sufficiently paranoid, you'll contact one in your
local jurisdiction. *grin*

Darke
(Who wishes copyright law would get a little simpler one of these days...)

Kuroshi · Post by **Kuroshi** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 2:09 pm

Laws make lawyers, lawyers make laws. Keeps them in business, to keep it complicated. Like the tax people. As for the resell license clause, is it required to be stated on the box/crate/package of whatever it is you're buying, or do you only find out after you open it?

Sir Weird · Post by **Sir Weird** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 2:24 pm

>Sorry, but this is nonsense. If you buy a product you have the right to re-sell it. The thing is that an everquest account isn't a product that you bought

Actually this isn't all true.. The newspaper is a product but you cannot order the newspaper then re sell it to your neighborhood for a cheaper price.

SB-X · Post by **SB-X** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 2:40 pm

You people should discuss this on the Ultima or games newsgroups instead of this forum.

Post by **Dominus** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 2:43 pm

Why wouldn't you be allowed to sell your newspaper?

And about the license: it all depends on your country's laws. In Germany many software licenses are void as people can't read the license before buying the product. To the effect that such software is only protected by the common copyright law (or whatever law applies) but not by the stuff in the license...

Kuroshi · Post by **Kuroshi** » Sun Jun 23, 2002 2:47 pm

Heh, all this talk of licenses makes me think of Dilbert. Did you know that I am now Bill Gates' towel boy?

Ignitus Dragon · Post by **Ignitus Dragon** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 7:03 am

So if I have a copy of Ultima 7 running in memory and a copy of it on CD(original) then I'm breaking copyright laws?

Post by **Colourless** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 7:55 am

No, doesn't quite work like that.

Ignitus Dragon · Post by **Ignitus Dragon** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 8:19 am

However, if I load the program on someone elses computer...?
Perhaps if I let someone play the game on my computer even- then thats illegal?

XxVenomxX · Post by **XxVenomxX** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:27 am

In some cases. I know with some games, they don't want you installing it on multiple computers and playing it at the same time. Such is the case with UO:Lord Blackthornes Revenge, and even more recently, Neverwinter Nights (love this game

. They feel if you're going to put it on two different machines and simultaneously play them, you should pay for 2 copies.

Not saying I agree, just saying that's how it is with some games. And naturally, certain Operating Systems like Windows. Microsoft gets mega pissed if they find out you let someone borrow your install discs.

Kuroshi · Post by **Kuroshi** » Mon Jun 24, 2002 11:40 am

I believe that having a copy on your hard drive (the install) and a copy on a disc are completely different. Generally most games require that you have both to run a game, so in those cases I would consider them to be one entity. Usually full installs aren't even really 'full' in the way that you wouldn't be able to make a new install from that one, so it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't count as your 1 allowed backup for fair-use purposes. I think disc-imaging and running from that would count, but I doubt there have been any court cases on this.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 12:24 pm

Copyright forbids you from...

1) Making copies and distributing them (selling, giving, whatever).

2) Cracking into software ala "No CD hacks". Basically, this facilitates #1.

You are allowed to sell something that you have bought and used. In most cases this isn't a problem since once you sell it, you no longer have access to it (like a book). Software (and this includes music CDs and such) is a different story as many programs you can install and pass along the CD to a friend and he can install it as well, and so on and so on. If I were to sell my copy of The Ultima Collection, I would be required under copyright law to remove it from my computer system as well as destroy, erase, or give along with the original any backups of the software I may have made while I owned it. I am allowed to sell it, nothing prohibits me from doing so (except clauses like someone mentioned like "You may not resel this.") as long as I remove the program from my computer and eliminate backups. If I were to sell my copy of Pink Floyd's "The Wall", I would be required to erase, destroy, or give them along with the original any copies of the CD I made for my car or whatever.

Ignitus Dragon · Post by **Ignitus Dragon** » Tue Jun 25, 2002 2:08 pm

According to most music copyrights, you are allowed a 40 second copy of the song, else you've broken the law.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:11 am

You can DISTRIBUTE 40 second copies of songs (like some music stores have those "sample booths"). You can make as many copies as you like, just so long as you are the only person who uses them.

Armchair_Avatar · Post by **Armchair_Avatar** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:18 am

Do those 40 seconds have to be from the beginning of the song?
Do they have to be contiguous?

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:22 am

Here is the US copyright law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

DISTRIBUTION seems to be the only thing that is illegal. If someone else finds something different, post it here for me.

I don't know the specifics of the "40 second rule", I would assume it needs to be continuous. CDNOW gives you previews of songs that are approximately 30-40 seconds long. I do know that those are not always the beginning 40 seconds of the song.

Ignitus Dragon · Post by **Ignitus Dragon** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 7:20 am

40 seconds is the limit, from any place in the song.
I think you can have as many skips or changes as you want.
But come to think of it, if you could change it around a bit within 40 seconds you could have a entirely different sounding song...which would be against the copyright law.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Wed Jun 26, 2002 7:26 am

You can have whatever parts of the song you want. As long as you do not compromise the original work.