Conquest for mac

[AlanH]

Originally posted by kf97mopa
Oh, it would be legal all right. It would be reverse-engineering, which is OK in the eyes of the law.

Sure, you could try to build a compatible protocol stack by sniffing the packets and working out what's going on for each game event and display update, but the work to do that would be formidable. You can't disassemble M$'s code and work out how they do it from that, as it's expressly forbidden in your end-user agreements with M$ and any other major software publisher.

 

[nini1972]

Anyway also a game-platform which ensures Mac-to-Mac play would be appreciated from the community.
Something tells me that all of us will buy CIV IV in 2005 for 50-60$ ... furthermore if pushed in effort with a minor expense in late 2004, like a C3C or at least a patch with most of new improvements...

Let's try to count: 2.000 buyers of a patch at 25$ [a good price for upper-class-like-we-are-Mac-users] = 50.000 $ in a few months worldwide...

In my opinion, the problem is if 50.000$ is a worthy gain for the development of a Mac-patch

 

[crazney]

Originally posted by AlanH
Sure, you could try to build a compatible protocol stack by sniffing the packets and working out what's going on for each game event and display update, but the work to do that would be formidable. You can't disassemble M$'s code and work out how they do it from that, as it's expressly forbidden in your end-user agreements with M$ and any other major software publisher.

In fact, it is a relitavly easy protocol to reverse engineer.

TransGaming (http://www.transgaming.com/) reverse engineered and implemented a fair bit of DirectPlay 8 for civ3 (for linux) over a year ago. I was infact the developer that did all the work, took me about a month to get it 50% implemented.. Maybe need another month to finish off what civ3 uses. It really isn't that hard.

David

 

[stridder44]

holy crap. play by email!???? root canal is an understatement!!

 

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by crazney
TransGaming (http://www.transgaming.com/) reverse engineered and implemented a fair bit of DirectPlay 8 for civ3 (for linux) over a year ago. I was infact the developer that did all the work, took me about a month to get it 50% implemented.. Maybe need another month to finish off what civ3 uses. It really isn't that hard.

I assume it's in the winex tree on CVS?

 

[crazney]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver


I assume it's in the winex tree on CVS?

Yes, though the license prohibts anyone from doing anything much with it but using it for your personal use.

David

 

[AlanH]

I'm impressed. Let's speculate:

If there were some kind of API that would give read/write access to the Civ3 data memory space, and if your Winex work were completed and ported to OS X, then someone might be able to create a freebie open source DirectPlay plug-in to allow the game to communicate?

Suddenly the individual steps don't sound quite so daunting. Or have I missed something? Of course, the big stumbling block would probably be to persuade MacSoft to commission a Civ3 update to add an API.

 

[crazney]

Originally posted by AlanH
I'm impressed. Let's speculate:

If there were some kind of API that would give read/write access to the Civ3 data memory space, and if your Winex work were completed and ported to OS X, then someone might be able to create a freebie open source DirectPlay plug-in to allow the game to communicate?

Well, that isn't really needed.. Civ3 just talks to the DirectPlay API - Nothing would have to be changed in Civ3 for it to talk to a 'fake' DirectPlay API - just a recompilation. Mind you whoever did the port (MacSoft?) would have to add this and then maybe do some byteswapping at there end.

As for the open source DirectPlay - well no, WineX isn't free enough for that.. If MacSoft wanted to use our DirectPlay (which would have to be completed first) they could contact our business guys and purchase a license for it.

Suddenly the individual steps don't sound quite so daunting. Or have I missed something? Of course, the big stumbling block would probably be to persuade MacSoft to commission a Civ3 update to add an API.

Nope, its not that hard really.. The big thing is completeing the implementation - porting to OS X isn't hard at all since TransGaming already does mac ports, so most of our stuff is mac safe (ok, DirectPlay would need a few endian swapping stuff, but that'd be easy).

Cheers

David

 

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by crazney
As for the open source DirectPlay - well no, WineX isn't free enough for that.. If MacSoft wanted to use our DirectPlay (which would have to be completed first) they could contact our business guys and purchase a license for it.

All that's really needed is documentation on the protocol itself, which wouldn't require using the Winex source, just examining it. It's also worth noting that as of a few months back, MS is actively licensing out the DirectPlay protocol to developers, and it looks farily reasonable in price, for the volume of units that a Mac title would do.

That's getting way ahead of ourselves though - no Mac port has yet been announced for PtW or Conquests, so discussion about this is fairly useless until that happens.

 

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by AlanH
Of course, the big stumbling block would probably be to persuade MacSoft to commission a Civ3 update to add an API.

It's important to note that there is no networking code in Civ3 itself, it was introduced in PtW and Conquests. So what you're really asking for is the expansion packs, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Edit: I forgot to add a very relevant point. PtW and Conquests use GameSpy on the PC, and the server browser is built into the app. A Mac version exists, but licensing it on the Mac is very, very expensive - I would guess moreso than the development cost of the expansion pack itself.

 

[crazney]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver


All that's really needed is documentation on the protocol itself, which wouldn't require using the Winex source, just examining it. It's also worth noting that as of a few months back, MS is actively licensing out the DirectPlay protocol to developers, and it looks farily reasonable in price, for the volume of units that a Mac title would do.

That's getting way ahead of ourselves though - no Mac port has yet been announced for PtW or Conquests, so discussion about this is fairly useless until that happens.

Well yeah, I was just throwing the idea into the mix. (And correcting the original posters assumption that it would be "that hard").

Of course, analysing the WineX source for documentation purposes would probably violate the licence, you could reverse engineer it like you can with windows, but why not just use windows then? .

Cheers,

David

 

[Blublublub]

I'd venture to guess that 99% of us could live without multiplayer - it's the game enhancements, new units, etc. that we all want.

 

[ainwood]

Well, the Game Of The Month does provide a collection of new units and civilizations, to compliment the Play The World ones.

 

[CiverDan]

Since Civ4 is apparently is development, this topic is basically moot. Since they appear to be rewriting the code, a mac user (I am not one) could hope they change their minds on their use of networking protocol. But all bets for me at least are going toward them making sure their product is MS compatible (seeming that so much other stuff related to MP is buggy). That means using the same, or similar MS protocals.

 

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by CiverDan
Since Civ4 is apparently is development, this topic is basically moot. Since they appear to be rewriting the code, a mac user (I am not one) could hope they change their minds on their use of networking protocol. But all bets for me at least are going toward them making sure their product is MS compatible (seeming that so much other stuff related to MP is buggy). That means using the same, or similar MS protocals.

If it's a concern to you, the best course of action is to e-mail them now before they're locked in.

 

[Thinman]

MacSoft has no interets in any more Civ games for the mac. I wrote to them complaining about CivIII's defects, and they said:

"We bring PC games to the Mac without changing the elements of the game that
define the PC version. We didn't develop the PC version. We have no plans to
bring future versions of the Civilization series to the Mac platform.

Thanks,
-- Greg Grimes MacSoft Technical Support "


That about says it all.

 

[AlanH]

My word! What a surprise! You could have knocked me down with a feather!

 

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by AlanH
My word! What a surprise! You could have knocked me down with a feather!

Didn't even need an emoticon for this one.

I feel our only chance for a mac version of Conquests is for MacSoft to sell the rights to another mac publisher, maybe Virtual Programming Ltd. MacSoft, with their latest announcements, are moving down the road forged by Aspyr (FPS games w/ a smattering of RTS). VPLtd. is probably small enough where Conquests sales would be a plus, as to where MacSoft fears losing money.

We were all jazzed when Tamte purchased MacSoft from Atari, but its not helped our specific interests.

 

[Trabpukcip]

I say we all email now for a mac civ and forget conquest... honnestly we don't have much chances for c3c anyway... and email also macsoft to beg them to sell the licence if they don't want to do it anymore...

 

[Sid]

If Thinman's post is fair dinkum -- and I have no reason to doubt it -- it certainly confirms our speculation over the past few months. Lack of customer service is a form of communication after all.

My preferred Civ3/4 publisher is Aspyr, home of SMAC/X and Brad Oliver -- can't see it, unless Peter Tamte really does have our gaming community at heart. Otherwise, I agree with djb.

Does anyone know Peter Tamte's email address? Note: Tamte/Destineer and MacSoft will be having their hands full with the new modern warfare shooter games they recently announced (First To Fight, etc.).