Any news on the possibility of DLL being released?

[criZp]

I don’t want to go too far off topic but frankly at this point I’m not likely to purchase a Civ 7 if they don’t release the DLL for 6.

Me neither, but Firaxis have expanded their audience to console and iPad players now. The loss of some dedicated PC players will have no impact on their wallet.

 

[c4c6]

If devs would actually decide to tweak some gameplay aspects, getting under consideration proposed changes (like world congress for instance), or perhaps at least try to work on communication with community about those, adding possibility to mod AI (and not introduce bigger problems with it after every update past year), It really would be a much better product.

In the beginning they said "No decision yet", so it was - probably is - decidable ... it is just not decided (yet -- maybe never will).

Now they have "no plans" to release (or no plans to decide?).

At least there is the decision to Not see / not talk about AI / DLL in general ... but plenty of recent communication about other things: Andrew Johnson [FXS], the Postings tab ...

It hurts to see the priorities.

 

[Gedemon]

Me neither, but Firaxis have expanded their audience to console and iPad players now. The loss of some dedicated PC players will have no impact on their wallet.

Which left the occasional articles about the limited modding capabilities of civ6, but when those are not supported, but on the contrary dismissed by parts of the modding community... We're back to my first post in this thread, if we want something, we have to demand it, "we would like to have it but don't really need it" will get us nothing.

 

[ViterboKnight]

This question still puzzles me....

Civ4 got that high since modders were able to implement in worldwide-scale what a single team (although highly skilled as the Firaxis's) couldn't. Then, that result was incorporated into an official patch, becoming part of the actual game. This created high quality for the game (just remember the AI logic for cultural victories!!!).

Now the market concept is different, it's about DLC and extra content to purchase. But anyway, I don't see the reason to avoid the release of the DLL. Developers create mods, that's ok. Developers implement new (or better) core game logic, that's ok. Some mods can be incorporated in an official patch, game gets better and better, and more people pay for it. It should be very sensible, so...... so WHY??

 

[pokiehl]

I don’t want to go too far off topic but frankly at this point I’m not likely to purchase a Civ 7 if they don’t release the DLL for 6. Modders clearly seem more dedicated to the game than its actual developers.

The AI has been in an untenable state for the entire duration of Civ 6. They are so bad that I probably wouldn’t have purchased a single expansion if I hadn’t found a weekly Civ 6 MP group. There is no fun, excitement, or challenge to facing the AI.

Again, I get that this topic gets some of you emotional, but ascribing carelessness or some otherwise negative MO to the developers doesn't help your case at all. It's just puerile to say "oh the devs don't care!" It comes across as a childish "all-or-nothing" way of viewing the situation. There is nuance you and I are not privy to.

The devs visit this forum. Remember the human before you get all worked up and start calling them careless (or lazy or incompetent or whatever else people say here frequently).

Regarding the DLL specifically, no one here has any idea what goes on behind closed doors at Firaxis. For all you know, Anton or something has been raising the issue constantly to 2K but gets shot down. How is that the developers fault? Try to be rational about this.

 

[Guynemer]

so WHY??

The cynic in me says they are trying to figure out the best way to monetize it so they can get increase revenue, and until the finalize their plans, they don't want to open the floodgates to better, free mods.

EDIT: And the "they" in this instance is probably 2K, not Firaxis

 

[pokiehl]

The cynic in me says they are trying to figure out the best way to monetize it so they can get increase revenue, and until the finalize their plans, they don't want to open the floodgates to better, free mods.

Even the most ardent supporter of the DLL here, Gedemon, agrees that this is extremely silly reasoning. Come on. So much of the commercial success of Civ 6 has been due to platforms without modding available (Switch, PS4, iOS, etc.) so it doesn't even make sense. People who use mods are a small minority among the total Civ 6 userbase.

 

[Guynemer]

Even the most ardent supporter of the DLL here, Gedemon, agrees that this is extremely silly reasoning. Come on. So much of the commercial success of Civ 6 has been due to platforms without modding available (Switch, PS4, iOS, etc.) so it doesn't even make sense.

The one thing about suits is that it doesn't have to make logical sense if they want to squeeze more pennies out of whatever consumers can be squeezed.

I don't think this is a likely explanation, mind you. This is my cynical side.

The only problem is my non-cynical side has no idea whatsoever why 2K wouldn't release the DLL other than some sort of money concern.

 

[pokiehl]

The only problem is my non-cynical side has no idea whatsoever why 2K wouldn't release the DLL other than some sort of money concern.

This is my point exactly. No one opining here works at Firaxis or 2K so no one knows. However, there are a number of more reasonable explanations than "the developers suck" or "the developers are greedy."

The source code is intellectual property not necessarily belonging to the developers themselves. Firaxis may have licensed different aspects of the code from other software companies, complicating the already convoluted legal web surrounding any decision to release it. Therefore, in all likelihood it would require significant man hours to come through and remove whatever they aren't allowed to distribute/re-release/modify. Hell, releasing it could also potentially expose them to legal liability to other companies if they potentially didn't get the proper authorization to use something - especially in the current videogame market which is much more of a moneymaker than it ever has been. The source code is also probably rife with internal comments that need to be scraped through. It's also a matter of actually getting something to work properly. There isn't a "release DLL" button that they click and magically get a finished product. Again, this costs them money to do.

So all that to what end? Remember that this is a BUSINESS - today more than ever! Releasing the DLL needs to be profitable or otherwise give them some ROI. At the end of the day, the publisher 2K gets absolutely nothing out of doing all that, even assuming they can properly navigate the legal waters. Placating some angry fans is probably not enough of an impetus to 2K's legal counsel to outweigh the above concerns, sorry guys.

Please do not mistake the above as the only possible reasoning. I am simply a modder of the game and a fan. There is doubtlessly tons and tons of nuance I've overlooked or am simply not aware of.

My point is "the developers are bad/greedy/hate us/don't want us to make better mods than their game!" is a tiring, silly, and childish perspective.

 

[Gedemon]

I'm still in the "Firaxis cares about modding" team (I would have stopped asking if it wasn't the case) and I agree with pokiehl on the point above, it may not be about "just" getting the authorization from 2K before pushing the release button.

As a possible issue for example, Python (the script langage for civ4) is open source, Lua (script langage for civ5) is also open source, but Lua for civ6 is Havok Script, faster, but not open source, there may be parts of the gameplay DLL source for civ6 (in that example the part that communicate between core and script) that is not owned by Firaxis.

 

[sukritact]

Again, I get that this topic gets some of you emotional, but ascribing carelessness or some otherwise negative MO to the developers doesn't help your case at all. It's just puerile to say "oh the devs don't care!" It just comes across as a childish "all-or-nothing" way of viewing the situation. There is nuance you and I are not privy to.

Exactly; there are dozens of complications. AI is actually something that comes up a lot because it always ends up being a weird balancing act between "Hur dur why is the AI so idiotic?", and "FFS why is my computer melting/lagging so much"? There are always practical, legal, ethical, technical, ludological, etc concerns that get in the way of just doing whatever you want. This is something people often fail to understand. We modders can do so much partly because we don't have to care about translating to a dozen languages and going through legal. We don't have to care that the thing we're implementing is technically unbalanced AF. We don't have to care that this particular tool we're using crashes in specific circumstances or would be unplayable on lower-end devices. To say that the AI behaves weirdly and hasn't been fixed and therefore the devs don't care about the game is ridiculous.

The source code is intellectual property not necessarily belonging to the developers themselves. Firaxis may have licensed different aspects of the code from other software companies, complicating the already convoluted legal web surrounding any decision to release it.

This is a great example of one of those things modders generally don't have to care about but Devs do. Modders reuse code snippets and art assets from other modders all the time for instance, sometimes without having asked for permission (and occasionally this causes a great deal of ill-will and drama), but the worst that happens generally is a general online denouncement, no monetary or legal repercussions.

But professionals and companies can't do that. If you licensed code for use, you can't go ahead and share all of it just because you want to. We know Firaxis is using WWise to deal with audio for Civ VI for instance, but they almost certainly can't share WWise with us. It's possible they're using something for gameplay that they similarly can't share.

 

[TreVor_ish]

@pokiehl is right saying we are in minority (ppl who like to mod their game/using mods for game). And there is a lot of nuances we don't know about. So even if we would all scream that would never help. About intellectual property - as I said in this thread before, the way CIV VI engine is design is another matter. If stripping certain parts (because for whatever reason many things are glued together) would take too much time or be impossible to be in any use for anyone anyway (I really hope this is not the case, because it's just bad coding), then why bother. Whatever we choose to believe is the reason, it's just a speculation, but the AI alone was atrocious ever since my first game (getting worse with modes). So, yeah shame we can't get at least that (AI's dll). Perhaps Firaxis will end NFP in major adjustments for modding.

 

[sukritact]

(I really hope this is not the case, because it's just bad coding)

That doesn't really make sense. That's like saying "Your code is bad because it's relying too much on Unity/Unreal Engine 4". Code you license can be auxillary, but it can also be core to how your game works. That's what game engines ARE. Just because you can't quickly convert your game from Unreal to Unity and vice versa doesn't mean it's bad code.

 

[TreVor_ish]

That doesn't really make sense. That's like saying "Your code is bad because it's relying too much on Unity/Unreal Engine 4". Code you license can be auxillary, but it can also be core to how your game works. That's what game engines ARE. Just because you can't quickly convert your game from Unreal to Unity and vice versa doesn't mean it's bad code.

Agree. If CIV VI engine was never planned to have anything released as source (full or partial), then my point is meaningless.
EDIT:
If Civ VI engine has too many dependencies behind a license that means it will never be released. So saying that at this point we do not plan releasing dll is not lying, but is deceptive (knowing You can't share from legal point, ever).

 

[mad hadder]

As a side note, am I the only one who nerds out and fanboys whenever I see posts by @Gedemon, @pokiehl, and @sukritact? It’s like I have so many of your mods installed that you’re my holy trinity of Civ modders. Anyway, carry on...

 

[sukritact]

At least there is the decision to Not see / not talk about AI / DLL in general ... but plenty of recent communication about other things: Andrew Johnson [FXS], the Postings tab ...

It hurts to see the priorities.

Not this sorta thing again. This sort of attitude is why Paradox had to have a nice bright reminder in dev diaries that devs aren't interchangable and just because no one is saying anything doesn't mean nothing is happening. Andrew Johnson is a writer and an academic, not an AI programmer. Just because he's talking about his work doesn't mean the programmers and artists and whatnot are sitting there twiddling their thumbs.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

but plenty of recent communication about other things: Andrew Johnson [FXS], the Postings tab ...

It hurts to see the priorities.

I'm the resident writer/ historian/ researcher. I have no knowledge about anything about DLL issues, or even what a DLL is. I have a PhD in anthropology, but a flat out D in high school calculus (and never took a programming course). I just plain don't do this stuff and am not involved in these issues, nor is it my place to communicate anything re: this to this forum even if I was the right person for it. You can tag me re: historical questions, but please don't tag me re: this.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I'm the resident writer/ historian/ researcher. I have no knowledge about anything about DLL issues, or even what a DLL is. I have a PhD in anthropology, but a flat out D in high school calculus (and never took a programming course). I just plain don't do this stuff and am not involved in these issues, nor is it my place to communicate anything re: this to this forum even if I was the right person for it. You can tag me re: historical questions, but please don't tag me re: this.

Well, there's certainly evidence to back this claim up. I just hope others here know that it isn't your job to leak us information. Keep up the good work.

 

[Kwami]

I'm still in the "Firaxis cares about modding" team (I would have stopped asking if it wasn't the case) and I agree with pokiehl on the point above, it may not be about "just" getting the authorization from 2K before pushing the release button.

As a possible issue for example, Python (the script langage for civ4) is open source, Lua (script langage for civ5) is also open source, but Lua for civ6 is Havok Script, faster, but not open source, there may be parts of the gameplay DLL source for civ6 (in that example the part that communicate between core and script) that is not owned by Firaxis.

Yeah, I get that. But if third party IP is preventing Firaxis from releasing the DLL, then couldn't they just tell us that's the case instead of just leaving us to wonder?

 

[InsidiousMage]

Yeah, I get that. But if third party IP is preventing Firaxis from releasing the DLL, then couldn't they just tell us that's the case instead of just leaving us to wonder?

Using a third party IP means contracts and contracts can have weird stipulations.

EDIT: Here's some examples of stipulations from review embargoes that go weird places.