ID24 - a new feature set standard

LexiMax · August 13

5 minutes ago, Ravendesk said:

Yeah, you are right, I shouldn't do this and it doesn't help the conversation. Let's move on from that remark.

I don't want to leave this unsaid, especially after the more confrontational tack I took over the past few posts:

Thank you. Genuinely.

GibFrag · August 13

Why... are we doing this? Why? Isn't the community big enough... for all of us? What is wrong with you people? We could work together. Why be enemies? Because we're different? Is that why? Think of the things that we could do. Think how *strong* we would be! Not ID24... and ID24... together. There is nothing that we could not accomplish. Think about it! *Think* about it! Why destroy... when you can create? We can have it all or we can smash it all! Why can't we... work out our differences? Why can't we... work things out? Doom people... why can't we all just... get along?

Cacodemon345 · August 13

2 hours ago, Ravendesk said:

Hardcoded table of things in "ID24 Mapping Additions" document. The reasons they are hardcoded is because there is no other way for mappers to include these things in their wads, as these things are a part of a commercial product ("note that illegal redistribution of this file is covered by normal copyright laws"). So you have to rely on iwad resolution rules and hardcode the whole bunch of stuff. If id24res was released under an open license (e.g. MIT), there would be no need for that, it would simply use existing DEHEXTRA (or DSDHACKED) space, and everyone would be able to reuse them in their maps the exact same way people reuse custom monsters now. Existing tools (decohack) also make it extremely easy to do so.

Can't you specify a separate DoomEdNum for community-made map objects?

Trov · August 13

23 minutes ago, esselfortium said:

This isn't about mod compatibility, this is about source port compatibility. If mods can freely use the entire available space, source ports are then unable to use any for their own standard features without risking random mods breaking for no apparent reason. This is something that port devs have cooperated to navigate around for the entirety of the community's history.

Does the id24 reserved range of stuff already encapsulate the source port specific objects such as odamex flags?

Second, id24 introduces DEHACKED patch hashing to make dehacked patches only applicable to certain 'existing' DEHACKED constructions.

Does that base hash change when source ports have their own objects such as CTF flags even if they were inside the community reserved range? Would that mean that every port would have to add the Odamex CTF flag frames in order to remain hash compatible?

esselfortium · August 13

11 minutes ago, Trov said:

Does the id24 reserved range of stuff already encapsulate the source port specific objects such as odamex flags?

No, the id24 reserved ranges for future community and id use are both in unused space that no port has used so far.

11 minutes ago, Trov said:

Second, id24 introduces DEHACKED patch hashing to make dehacked patches only applicable to certain 'existing' DEHACKED constructions.

Does that base hash change when source ports have their own objects such as CTF flags even if they were inside the community reserved range? Would that mean that every port would have to add the Odamex CTF flag frames in order to remain hash compatible?

This one's a bit over my head, I'm not a port dev or in any way affiliated with id24, so someone else should probably answer this.

Altazimuth · August 13

43 minutes ago, esselfortium said:

Would that mean that every port would have to add the Odamex CTF flag frames in order to remain hash compatible?

This is one of the existing DSDhacked wrinkles. Ports already had to know the deh version number and, based on that, resolve to a different hash key (if they used hashing already). This is not a new issue, nor is it an unsolved one.

Eternity for instance specifies certain base indices from which DSDhacked definitions start.

In short, no.

Edited August 13 by Altazimuth

Trov · August 13

8 minutes ago, esselfortium said:

No, the id24 reserved ranges for future community and id use are both in unused space that no port has used so far.

Well then it seems to me then that id24 also has the problem you point out about DSDHACKED that it would be up to the modder to take care not to walk over source port unique objects like the CTF flags unless id24 changes to reserve those as well.

esselfortium · August 13

3 minutes ago, Trov said:

Well then it seems to me then that id24 also has the problem you point out about DSDHACKED that it would be up to the modder to take care not to walk over source port unique objects like the CTF flags unless id24 changes to reserve those as well.

I believe this is why ID24 reserves a very large range for future use by community standards, to be divided up at the community's discretion. This is in addition to the smaller range reserved for future id Software use.

Trov · August 13

Is the expectation of id24 that source ports would move their feature objects like ctf flags into that reserved range and coordinate with each other not to step on each others usages?

Without that it doesn't seem that id24 provides any more defense against mods randomly breaking for no apparent reason in certain source ports than DSDHACKED does because those source port objects are still 'unprotected'. But with that it would break mods that already expected the old frame indexes for them.

Very tricky.

Midway64 · August 13

Jesus christ.

Ravendesk · August 13

3 minutes ago, esselfortium said:

I believe this is why ID24 reserves a very large range for future use by community standards, to be divided up at the community's discretion. This is in addition to the smaller range reserved for future id Software use.

My understanding is that for that purpose source port range is allocated.

0x80000000-0x8FFFFFFF

Usage of which source ports don't need to coordinate with each other.

What exactly is the purpose of community range is unclear to me.

Redneckerz · August 13

Well then, now that the next post by Goober came in, perhaps we can all share a drink and start talking about Doom again.

Honestly. I know that i am a little rascal around these places, but the last 48 hours told me a whole lot and yet not much at all.

We are literally doomposting about a spec. Nothing more. Guess what, i saw the Borderlands movie just an hour ago and it had the same kind of energy as this thread had: Things could be so much better if we just kept things at a good faith pace.

Even better answers will come. Give these folks some time to recuperate instead of assuming the worst. This is why i said this kind of discussion is so dull - And yet here we are.

Gez · August 13

7 minutes ago, Trov said:

Well then it seems to me then that id24 also has the problem you point out about DSDHACKED that it would be up to the modder to take care not to walk over source port unique objects like the CTF flags unless id24 changes to reserve those as well.

The point is that there are now three separate spaces:

Modder space. This is all positive IDs that aren't already used. They can go hog wild in this.
Port developer space. This is the bulk of negative ID space.
Official id software space. This is the remaining of negative ID space.

Can modders trample on negative space, assuming DEHACKED tools get updated to allow this in the first place? Yes. Likewise, can modders import the Macarena MP3 in a wad, rename its lump UMAPINFO, and screw up with most source ports out there? Also yes.

Do modders who aren't trolls need to venture into negative space? No. They've already got billions of indices available in positive space; and if they really, honestly, genuinely need that much, then they should probably not use the Doom engine at all.

The idea is that if a port developer needs to have new things and states for whatever reason, they don't need to put it in positive space where it risks colliding with some mod out there that might have used the same indices and then they get a weird incompatibility out of nowhere. Ideally they should do this in a community friendly manner, such as posting a thread announcing "hey guys I'm adding a flubalapolord thing in index -1337, is anyone using that slot for something? I can change it if needed. Also if any of you are interested in adding my flubalapolord to your ports, you can do it" for example. Doesn't need to be more involved than that.

Dynamo · August 13

This is going to be long, so buckle up and don't expect a TL;DR.

All right, I was just going to stay aside from all this initially, but I feel like we've come at an impasse and there's been enough proliferation of false information where I have no choice but to get directly involved in a race I otherwise have no horse in. I don't work for Bethesda, I don't work for id Software, anyone who knows me more than superficially can easily testify that I usually do nothing but play maps and write about them, and sometimes make them myself. If, despite all this, you insist that I and the rest of the moderation team have become corrupted by Bethesda or somehow have ulterior motives, by all means go ahead and keep telling yourself that, it will not make it any more true.

I am going to go over some of the posts that were made by a few people, mostly those talking about the future of the community and its standards. There has been an absolute flurry of reports for posts on virtually every single page on this thread, so I'll also chime in to address some of those aspects (there is not a way to directly reply to a report using the report system on this forum software, as far as I can tell). I won't go over the technical details as that has already been covered, and will presumably be covered, in posts by Xaser, Ravendesk, dpJudas and others, but here goes.

On 8/12/2024 at 2:43 PM, dsda-dev said:

As this is a spec put forth by a gpl launderer and organized by people with financial incentives, it's impossible for it to be a community effort or even to have an unbiased discussion about it.

It is unfortunate that even after the thread had a rather rough opening, you have chosen to further poison the well with some of the worst demeaning I've seen on this site recently. This detestable attack on a community member's personal integrity is made all the more rich by your subsequent claim that this was never about "Xaser or his colleagues", when from the very start of your involvement in this conversation you made it abundantly clear that it was. Your claims on your ulterior, overarching motives (more on that later) do not stand up to scrutiny just from this starting interaction alone.

On 8/12/2024 at 2:43 PM, dsda-dev said:

Half the people chiming in are earning a paycheck. Future discussion or iteration is hopelessly muddied now, as the financial ramifications of all the details of any spec will weigh into the minds of the people trying to drive the topic.

As shown by this post, it became rather clear you didn't know what you were talking about. Which is fine, I didn't know any of the details myself either, but it is rather telling that you were quick to jump to conclusions on this one. And it's strange to be hearing that discussion is "hopelessly muddied" now. Why is it muddied? There has been discussion on this thread, on Discord, not all of it as negative as yours. Pretty sure dpJudas brought up a bunch of very good points on why implementing ID24 is not going to be likely, and he didn't do it whilst resorting to personal attacks like you did. So, muddied how? As a matter of fact let me go ahead and advance the hypothesis that discussion has been muddied because you gave unwarranted personal attacks to other people for no reason. And on that note:

On 8/12/2024 at 2:43 PM, dsda-dev said:

I think it's a terrible precedent and the presentation of it like it's what's best for everyone and as if it had community input is complete sophistry. This appears to simply be an effort by a company poised to profit off of control of the standards to take that control and serve themselves.

Aside for such precedents being widespread in the community, no matter how much you seem to think that this one has to be entirely different, I find it incredible how you claim this is apparently not something that was created by the community. Are Xaser and GooberMan not community members? Was the result of their work not taking into consideration how standards have evolved over time, what features would be nice to have and how more successfully to allow other ports to integrate it? Sure, there may have been some mistakes along the way (last I checked other standards weren't born perfect either) but the way you word it you're essentially othering other community members because they may or may not have been tainted by Bethesda, with zero evidence to back that up as proven by GooberMan's post a bit later.

If you want to claim people have a financial incentive behind trying to force other ports to adopt this standard, you better cough up with proof because it's a serious accusation. Saying "this is how corporations work" or "this is where the game industry is headed towards" is not proof, it's just appealing to emotion and truisms. By using the same "it makes logical sense that this is what happened and how it's going to be" approach let me state the following points that would then be every bit as valid:

id Software would have no financial incentive to force this standard onto everyone else, because first of all ports can choose not to implement it. The fact they chose to implement it this way shows us that they don't see Doom modding a something that is way too niche for mainstream interest in the video game industry. Now, besides that, I don't think I need to explain that they have serious and legal ways they could use to strongarm their way into our modding scene if they really wanted to, and it makes no sense at all from a financial perspective to handle it the way they did if they really were out to take us over. See? The scenario I'm describing here is quite literally every bit (if not more so) likely than the one you have described. Only that I didn't even have to talk about the End Times of the videogame industry or whatever other nonsense was attached to this astroturfing campaign about fighting capitalism on the Doomworld forums.

Now, does that mean the concern about id Software/Bethesda/Microsoft potentially interferring in the future is not valid? Absolutely not, you may be surprised that it is a concern I share after all, and I will touch on this point a bit further below. But on the note of interferring, why do I have this hunch... you are not extremely sincere when you present your struggle as one of the Common Man versus the evil corporate overlords, are you? Here you are, by far the leading voice when it came to the adoption of MBF21 which has become one of the more successful, established mapping standards (and thank you for that, btw), and this standard being dropped out of the blue is akin to the rug being pulled from under you. Which to be honest is understandable, if I were The Protagonist Of Reality I also maybe wouldn't want to have that taken away from me, or whatever. However, that's no excuse for going around insulting people. Because maybe I could give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that your concerns are genuinely only about the GPL or about community participation. Too bad you opened up with direct insults on other community members, and there'd be no reason to do so except to push them out of the way to make you the only authoritative voice in the room. Why behave in such a manner otherwise, considering nobody is being forced to implement anything? You could even have approached people privately, considering it has now been confirmed that they were trying to keep you and you specifically in the loop as much as possible, but if you did that then you'd have an audience of one, and apparently, that's not what you were going for.

6 hours ago, dsda-dev said:

The dsdhacked launch was a provocation specifically to draw people's intervention after a discussion somewhere on here.

I mean, that's just precious, thanks for admitting this is your way of dealing with other community members I guess? I don't think this was quite the own you thought it was. Ultimately, you are such a good source port developer, and clearly also a talented community leader. I've actually said this to you in the past, but I think you are entitled to run your source port and even your community the way you want. But don't claim to speak for everyone when you only speak for your own interest group at best, and most importantly don't try to act you're above other source port developers just because of your current position. Keep the Doom love going and keep the astroturfing to yourself.

Now, I was going to do a bit of a longer explanation on recent posts by Ravendesk, but in the very latest posts he did he admitted his mistake on a point he said so I've cut down some of this, and to be fair this post was long enough as it is, but anyways there's still a few things I want to touch on:

2 hours ago, Ravendesk said:

I don't think DSDHACKED history is important to id24 discussion, that's why I'm not replying to it.

How does the fact that it created problems for other source port devs changes anything about the points I'm making?

What exactly did I deliberately misinterpret?

I interpret it like this: gooberman understands the idea of no limits to the community, but thinks it's a flawed idea and therefore added these limits (reserved a range in negative space for id's use) to the spec. Why else did he introduce "id" and "community" ranges, if he likes how the things are? He would have left them as is then. And I believe that reserving a range for commercial use (as well as writing significant chunk of the spec to allow that) goes against the principles doom modding scene is built on and against everything I love about it. As I have elaborated here: https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2833497

Does this make it more clear? Or do you disagree with this interpretation?

Yes I completely disagree with your interpretation because it is the most uncharitable, catastrophizing and emotional one you could possibly have gone for. He never said nor implied it was flawed, just that it was something that made it more difficult for him to work around. Hey, I've had difficulties with Doom map editors before, does that mean that I wish Doom wasn't built the way it was? In what way is that a logical conclusion? At least to me, it isn't.

2 hours ago, Ravendesk said:

why do you decide to cherry-pick this point now?

No offense but I have to say it is absolutely incredible that you are criticizing essel for doing the very same thing you did five minutes before.

And yes, I acknowledge and appreciate that you DID read the spec and DID provide legitimate criticism to it - that is why I brought back your post from the original split when you asked me to, because I thought it was worth addressing. Unfortunately:

12 hours ago, Ravendesk said:

And then 90% of the concerns were removed by dw mods, this is surely not the way requests for comments work, when all the comments are getting removed and labeled as based on misinformation.

Here you are once again saying something that is entirely false considering no post was removed: while they were hidden at first (temporarily and not by me by the way, we didn't even know what was going on and were trying to get our bearings on the situation) I deliberately made sure they would all be accessible and readable except for the five-sentence posts that said "this sucks go fuck yourself". Once again you are misinterpreting things and spreading a false narrative about what is actually going on and being said in this thread, and then you - and kraflab, as he too said this - have the nerve to complain that your voices are being silenced? Absolutely hilarious. Plenty of people have been utterly inflammatory on this thread and have received no warning for it since the original split, how in the world is that then us silencing voices or removing posts? To me it sounds like you are actually concerned of being called out for posting misinformation, because that is precisely what you are doing here, and what you did later with the GooberMan post.

3 hours ago, Ravendesk said:

We don't need more iwads, more commercial assets and more closed-source.

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration: you may not feel like there's a need for that stuff, but literally tons of other people, the vast majority of them not affiliated with id Software, don't feel this way at all. You'd be surprised to hear I also don't think we need more iwads and more commercial assets. I'm afraid that's just an opinion you and I share and not something we as the community largely share!

12 hours ago, Ravendesk said:

Not at all, community is playing along with it: https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/147005-nightdives-doom-curated-community-list-of-classic-doom-mods/

The sentiment of this thread is that we can't change anything, let's add ridiculous "official" text to the wad name and like each other's uploads!! This is the opposite of rejecting uploader stuff, this is accepting it fully and playing by the nonsensical rules it set.

I guess this is a good example of how much influence id still holds over community even when they mess up things massively. And this is the kind of influence I believe we must absolutely exclude from any spec discussion.

This one I won't comment much on because you literally had people who were not even involved in the thread come to you saying how they were absolutely not trying to "normalize" anything and your accusation that the community is doing so is ridiculous. I know this has been debunked by others but it was worth pointing out nonetheless, because it once again shows an unfortunate trend on this thread of speaking on behalf of "the community", even in a case where community members went ahead and explained that this wasn't their intention at all and they were being misinterpreted...

Finally.....

18 hours ago, Eevee said:

License ALL of the Doom II and ID24 assets under Creative Commons. Strip out the levels, smash doom2.wad and id24res.wad together, call it doom24.wad, and put it on a webpage for download, somewhere on a domain owned by someone in the chain of subsidiaries.

The current state of affairs is that remixing those assets is dubious-at-best, and the explicit note of "don't share id24res.wad" leaves a real sour taste in my mouth, because the subtext is Bethesda would like to reserve the right to sue you. They're happy to let us gamble on violating their copyright, as long as the end result might be something they can slap in the next release.

So if they have any interest in showing they care, beyond making a thing they can sell for ten dollars, they can free us from the legal gray area we've been stuck in for thirty years. It's easy, it's quick, and it costs them nothing.

This post was made some pages back, but I feel like I should respond to it nonetheless because I wholeheartedly agree with it. People may notice how I have a Marathon profile picture right now: by coincidence, that one is the only classic FPS franchise that not only went open source but also freeware. Aleph One is on the Steam store and being distributed alongside all of the assets without anyone complaining about it. And I am sure there could be ways to still get a commercial port out even if the actual graphics and sounds were free (didn't Shadow Warrior do something like that?). I personally would MUCH prefer if the Doom community was in the same state as the Marathon community in terms of things being free and open source. And I'll go one step further, if that meant having to sacrifice commercial ports and console releases I for one (and this is purely my personal opinion) would be absolutely fine with that. I will also repeat a statement Ravendesk made regarding making id24res free too, I also think that would be a very good goodwill step, even if I realize it's not exactly as easy as wishing it to happen. I have made my wish that this were the case both publicly and privately on certain occasions, but despite what some people may think I actually have zero contacts with Bethesda or whatever, so I am just here voicing my own opinion like every other regular user.

Trov · August 13

19 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

Aleph One is on the Steam store and being distributed alongside all of the assets without anyone complaining about it

This isn't really a comparable situation since Aleph One is pretty much the only Marathon port out there, and it is on Steam because Bungie specifically reached out to them to do so.

Do you think there wouldn't be a shitfit if id software chose a particular port instead of making their own? It's already controversial because some feel they basically did this with Rum & Raisin Doom.

Marathon also isn't available under creative commons. I believe the Aleph One developers specifically have a unique license from Bungie to distribute the Marathon assets with Aleph One. Beyond that it's similar to the id understanding of "It's OK to use the content as long as it's used in a Marathon mod and is not just providing it wholesale"

It might be cool for id to do that but I dont think anybody on the development side of the Nightdive port has the ability to make that decision.

Edited August 13 by Trov

dsda-dev · August 13

3 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

I don't think this was quite the own you thought it was.

I think you've read a lot of emotion in my posts and perhaps that's why you've interpreted them so negatively, but maybe if you try to read them from a neutral voice you'll see them differently. It doesn't matter who is involved or what the intentions are - if money is involved then it changes the flavor of everything. This isn't a personal attack because it's not a question of anyone's character or intent. Just look at the uploader. Releasing that the way it was released isn't something I think any of these people would do, but somehow collectively they did. It's the type of consequence that happens when money is involved. Once again the only reply to my concerns is a personal attack. I feel like that starts to speak for itself.

Ravendesk · August 13

4 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

Here you are once again saying something that is entirely false considering no post was removed: while they were hidden at first (temporarily and not by me by the way, we didn't even know what was going on and were trying to get our bearings on the situation) I deliberately made sure they would all be accessible and readable except for the five-sentence posts that said "this sucks go fuck yourself". Once again you are misinterpreting things and spreading a false narrative about what is actually going on and being said in this thread

I meant "removed from the thread". That's my bad, should have worded it better. I never spread any misinformation in this thread. I appreciate that you returned my questions back to the thread, but I was quite upset they were labeled as "based on misinformation" initially. However, I can see why they could be perceived as such in a fast-going thread with a lot of spam.

Regarding the last post in reply to goober - I already admitted I was in the wrong there, shouldn't have let emotions slip in.

Regarding my point about wad uploader - I have elaborated on my position and have clarified to doomkid that I understand his position too (same could be said to skillsaw, but I didn't want to repeat the same post twice), I just believe this approach is doing more harm than good long term. I don't try to speak for everyone, my intention was to express what consequences I see from approaching things like that.

7 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration: you may not feel like there's a need for that stuff, but literally tons of other people, the vast majority of them not affiliated with id Software, don't feel this way at all. You'd be surprised to hear I also don't think we need more iwads and more commercial assets. I'm afraid that's just an opinion you and I share and not something we as the community largely share!

I agree here. I think this is the fundamental difference in a worldview that leads to significant miscommunication and difficulty to find a common ground. I believe that more commercial releases and assets will do harm to the community, and people behind the spec and those who support them believe they they will do good to community.

I guess without agreeing here it's impossible to reach any common ground in the discussion, especially if we get emotional.

19 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

This post was made some pages back, but I feel like I should respond to it nonetheless because I wholeheartedly agree with it. People may notice how I have a Marathon profile picture right now: by coincidence, that one is the only classic FPS franchise that not only went open source but also freeware. Aleph One is on the Steam store and being distributed alongside all of the assets without anyone complaining about it. And I am sure there could be ways to still get a commercial port out even if the actual graphics and sounds were free (didn't Shadow Warrior do something like that?). I personally would MUCH prefer if the Doom community was in the same state as the Marathon community in terms of things being free and open source.

Thanks, and I'm glad that we share the understanding of what's the best possible direction for doom.

Let's approach this discussion in good faith going forward.

Dynamo · August 13

11 minutes ago, dsda-dev said:

It doesn't matter who is involved or what the intentions are

You made it matter, it's what your arguments revolved around, you've not produced a SINGLE piece of evidence for why what you said about the video game industry was ever pertinent at all, and id24 didn't end up having any financial backing for it despite you continuing to suggest that's the case. And also you doubled down on the insult later, by the way.

Now please excuse me as I try to figure out just exactly in what other way I'm supposed to interpret your blatant astroturfing.

14 minutes ago, Trov said:

This isn't really a comparable situation since Aleph One is pretty much the only Marathon port out there, and it is on Steam because Bungie specifically reached out to them to do so.

First of all, it's not the only port in existence, what? Merely the most popular one. Nothing's stopping anyone from making others - and believe it or not, plenty of people have asked for either an AO fork or successor containing stuff like an in-game menu. As for your second point, I am not sure where you got that idea but from my understanding that is completely wrong and it was in fact the other way around.

Altazimuth · August 13

5 minutes ago, dsda-dev said:

Releasing that the way it was released isn't something I think any of these people would do, but somehow collectively they did.

No. It isn't something they did. The people responsible for ID24 are not the same people who are responsible for coming up with the uploader.

LexiMax · August 13

10 minutes ago, dsda-dev said:

I think you've read a lot of emotion in my posts and perhaps that's why you've interpreted them so negatively, but maybe if you try to read them from a neutral voice you'll see them differently

There is more to communicating in a neutral voice than using a pseudonym and hoping other people read the intent of your words correctly. There were many, many less confrontational ways to express your concerns and displeasure, some of which have prior art elsewhere in the thread.

Except...I think you understand that, because at the very bottom of your post, you say this:

10 minutes ago, dsda-dev said:

Once again the only reply to my concerns is a personal attack. I feel like that starts to speak for itself.

I'm sorry, but I must point out that you are not giving other people the same benefit of the doubt that you ask for yourself.

General Roasterock · August 13

34 minutes ago, Quasar said:

Having an id range in the standard is a promise to the community that id will NOT use anything OUTSIDE that range, meaning that community ports are suddenly assured that official content, if any new content as such is ever created ... , will not conflict with ports' usual work.

Any other interpretation is either willful ignorance or willful malevolence.

So just to recap how id Software has handled promises in the past five years:

Doom Eternal was promised to not have purchasable microtransactions, then added them not two years after launch.
Doom Eternal shipped without Denuvo Anti-Cheat and then had it applied in a patch months after launch without warning, only removing it after extensive pushback from the community, leaving Anti-Tamper for another several years.
Doom Eternal had core features included in its marketing campaign with promises of development that were either cancelled years later or were outright misrepresented in their functionality.
id Software maintains that Mick Gordon's Testimony regarding his mistreatment is false, supported by their parent company Bethesda.

So knowing this, and knowing the state of the extremely rushed together mod uploader that has received near unanimous pushback, I think it's entirely reasonable to not trust that asking for this space is where the sidewalk ends for id Software's continued monetization plans, no matter how many good buddies, who could easily be stepped over by a corporate mandate, are saying that the intentions are right. This is beyond us.

Trov · August 13

22 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

First of all, it's not the only port in existence, what? Merely the most popular one.

By a massive massive margin. Can you even name another? Any that are actively in development? It's not like Doom's situation where there are several competing ones with different modding features that all have sizable userbases.

Quote

and believe it or not, plenty of people have asked for either an AO fork or successor containing stuff like an in-game menu.

But nobody has yet, and when they do, it won't be on Steam.

Quote

As for your second point, I am not sure where you got that idea but from my understanding that is completely wrong and it was in fact the other way around.

If you mean about Bungie reaching out to the A1 devs, the developers are active in the Marathon discord and have discussed it. I'm sure you can look back and find them discussing it there. Typically it is around people asking why it is called "Classic Marathon" and not "Marathon Classic" with the response that it is what Bungie stipulated.

And even then, there's plenty of people being pessimistic about Bungie's steam release being just a bid to generate interest in the new Marathon extraction shooter they are making even when it is as free as you describe.

Edit: We've moved the marathon/a1 discussion elsewhere

Edited August 13 by Trov

dsda-dev · August 13

4 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

why what you said about the video game industry was ever pertinent at all

I mentioned the video game industry because it's going through a large period of layoffs, downsizing, and readjusting. This was about how the current situation isn't guaranteed to continue forever (i.e., if you hypothetically moved authority to a company full of community members, it might not continue that way, and you can't always take it back).

8 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

id24 didn't end up having any financial backing for it despite you continuing to suggest that's the case

Are you suggesting that the outcomes of this discussion or the community adoption of id24 have no financial ramifications for anyone?

I think perhaps you interpreted everything as having to do with goober, but almost nothing I said is about him. I don't think I said he was paid anywhere. If I did then I retract the statement. Does rereading my comments with this in mind help to make sense of it?

14 minutes ago, Altazimuth said:

No. It isn't something they did. The people responsible for ID24 are not the same people who are responsible for coming up with the uploader.

Again, I'm not talking about the people directly responsible for id24 when I talk about the future and what this means for the community. Are you saying that none of the nightdive employees were involved with the uploader, you all objected to it being released, etc? That would imply that the community members involved in these topics aren't actually able to influence the outcomes, so it won't really lessen my concerns.

18 minutes ago, LexiMax said:

I'm sorry, but I must point out that you are not giving other people the same benefit of the doubt that you ask for yourself.

Are you suggesting the super mod accusing me of "blatant astroturfing" is calmly assessing the situation and speaking rationally?

22 minutes ago, LexiMax said:

There were many, many less confrontational ways to express your concerns and displeasure

I don't disagree but I don't think they would have been as true to my concerns. Seeing people either ignoring or dancing around the issue with less confrontational ways contributed to the way I worded things.

Maybe the problem is people are assigning judgment to my statements and thinking I'm saying xaser = bad, but that's not the point of my comments and I don't think that. If the community wants to involve this level of influence from a company, then they will. If people feel the risk is not significant, it's the direction things will go. There are a lot of idealists in this thread and such optimism can be a strength. The community can decide anything and there isn't really an inherent "right" or "wrong" for these types of things as no one owns the community but itself. It doesn't seem like this discussion will go anywhere at this point, so I'll drop out. I'll point out that at least 4 other source port maintainers liked my original post, so maybe it's worth addressing those concerns for them if not for me.

GarrettChan · August 13

39 minutes ago, General Roasterock said:

So just to recap how id Software has handled promises in the past five years:

Doom Eternal was promised to not have purchasable microtransactions, then added them not two years after launch.

Doom Eternal shipped without Denuvo Anti-Cheat and then had it applied in a patch months after launch without warning, only removing it after extensive pushback from the community, leaving Anti-Tamper for another several years.

Doom Eternal had core features included in its marketing campaign with promises of development that were either cancelled years later or were outright misrepresented in their functionality.

id Software maintains that Mick Gordon's Testimony regarding his mistreatment is false, supported by their parent company Bethesda.

So knowing this, and knowing the state of the extremely rushed together mod uploader that has received near unanimous pushback, I think it's entirely reasonable to not trust that asking for this space is where the sidewalk ends for id Software's continued monetization plans, no matter how many good buddies, who could easily be stepped over by a corporate mandate, are saying that the intentions are right. This is beyond us.

The funny thing about these is that, we're not allowed to cast any type of doubt about future issue since it hasn't happened yet. Then any people being pessimistic are blamed to be selling fear out of nothing, while there are way too many examples out there.

When these actually happened, then what? Somebody stands up and apologizes and takes on the responsibility? Never. Now you're telling me not to talk about things in the future that worry others? Are you going to take on the responsibility though?

Then my post was removed due to native English speaker issues. Yes, it's actually the case that it's hard for non native speaker to participate into the discussion since the other side is not going to listen anyway, and like to pick on maybe minor, maybe major issues from the wording, which makes the discussion even harder, or better, just remove my post.

LexiMax · August 13

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, because you are taking your ball and going home. However:

13 minutes ago, dsda-dev said:

I'll point out that at least 4 other source port maintainers liked my original post, so maybe it's worth addressing those concerns for them if not for me.

There are many possible reasons for an endorsement on a Doomworld post, and people rarely go back and revoke them in light of new information.

That said, there have been numerous source port authors (including myself) posting in support of this, and several have couched their concerns in far less anti-social ways. Expecting some sort of "silent majority" who reacted to your initial post to continue the conversation on your behalf is kind of a shitty position to put someone in, and I'm not sure they appreciate you drawing attention to that tacit support, especially if you think that you're being unfairly targeted.

Horus · August 13

I think if other source port maintainers have an issue with this then they should probably communicate that and have a (hopefully civil) discussion about it. For all I know maybe this is in already in process in private.

msx2plus · August 13

29 minutes ago, dsda-dev said:

I'll point out that at least 4 other source port maintainers liked my original post, so maybe it's worth addressing those concerns for them if not for me.

i want to preface this by saying that it is coming from a place of great respect: one should not put others in the line of fire for themself. people can agree partially, understand one's reaction, empathize/sympathize with the situation this puts one in, etc, but it's not a good look to point to a forum statistic like it's a full endorsement. please do take care dude.

Underqualified_Gunman · August 13

if i've read this right there are people concerned that id/bethesda/zenimax/microsoft are trying to monetize unused memory that is reserved for future id releases so that they can new linedefs, monsters etc, while doing so in a way that doesn't break existing dehacked and is a new range of memory with specific ranges reserved for future id stuff and a range for future community stuff?

also it's very funny that the thread literally states it's a draft yet people are responding with "WHY DID THEY NOT TALK TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THIS STANDARD RAGGHGHGH!"
it's hyperbolic but it gets across the tone most of those posters have.

i'm personally quite excited for the new standard and am interested in seeing what comes from it. as far as i can tell the only thing that the id24 res file might want to consider updating is including the doom 1 textures not present in doom 2. this wish also extends to the final doom textures in plutonia and TNT. I could only see it being beneficial that all of the texture rosters are available in 1 resource file of doom2 + id1res.

Ravendesk · August 13

6 minutes ago, Underqualified_Gunman said:

also it's very funny that the thread literally states it's a draft

Can you be so kind to point in the OP where it says "draft" or "request for comments".

If you cannot do that, can you be so kind to not act snarky after making a factually wrong statement, as this poisons already heated conversation.

LuciferSam86 · August 13

at least here says it's a draft : https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2832218

EDIT: yeah wrong link, F3 got me on the wrong message. This is only part where it's written "draft".

Edited August 13 by LuciferSam86

Sign In

ID24 - a new feature set standard

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in