Rayman Pirate-Community

Hi everyone !

As some of you may know, I'm a part of thoses on the forum who want to send a letter to Ubisoft to see if they can release the source code of Rayman under free licence.
They answer have a lot of chance to be negative, because Ubisoft is making lot of money with Rayman as of today (or should I say, "rabbids" ?). However, money doesn't seem to be the only valid reason.

I'm a huge fan of two video games respectively called Constructor and Street Wars (the sequel of Constructor) made by an british company called System 3. As the game were very old, I sent them the following mail :

Hello !

I think I already sent you a mail, but as I got no anwser I'm sending you another one. I'm writing you to have information about the game you've made called Constructor and it sequel Street Wars. As the game is becoming very old, hard to find and not supported anymore, will there be a chance to see one day the source code of theses games released on the internet ? Of course, as both games are still on sale at gog.com I'm not asking about releasing the content of the game but only the source of the engine. This would be very interesting to port the game on other platforms, fixing bugs, adding new functionnalities and so on. Even if your answer will be negative, please let me know the causes of your disagreement.

Thank you very much in advance for your ansewer and interest.

Here's the answer I got :

Hi there. Thanks for your email.

As with most games publishers we will not release source code. No matter how old the game is, it can never be open for people to do with it as they wish.
In years gone by this has lead to people designing unsuitable versions, which then get into the hands of children and ultimately come back to bite the publisher on the arse.

As long as people can’t be trusted with source code, it will never be made available. For every person who only wants to have some fun and be creative, there is somebody who wants to destroy.

Sorry about that,
Chandra

I'm both disappointed and surprised by the arguments I got. I think there's a misunderstanding.
As we have to consider the same answer from Ubisoft, I would want to have your thoughts about it.

LunaVorax wrote:

In years gone by this has lead to people designing unsuitable versions, which then get into the hands of children and ultimately come back to bite the publisher on the arse.

I wonder when this has ever happened.

Me too, I sent another mail with more explanation but the answer stay the same. Apparently, the CEO (or something similar) of System 3 was changed to Chandra Nair (the guy who sent me the answer) about a year ago. As we can read on the net, Chandra left school at 15 to became a "videogame shop assistant" and then a member of the "Official Nintendo Magazine". Also, he makes outstanding melodies ![/irony]

I think it's easy to understand that he doesn't have any knowledge in computers.

Anyway, this is one of the dangers of the so-called "video game industry", when only businessmens (or pseudo-businessmens) rules the place. It's the same for Ubisoft unfortunately, so we will have to be very clear and persuasive about Rayman's source code.

In years gone by this has lead to people designing unsuitable versions, which then get into the hands of children and ultimately come back to bite the publisher on the arse.

Do you think they might be talking about nude mods and shit like that? Regardless, the notion that the source code should be withheld because some people might do inappropriate things with it is ridiculous. We might as well ban all knives, in case somebody stabs someone.

spiraldoor wrote:

In years gone by this has lead to people designing unsuitable versions, which then get into the hands of children and ultimately come back to bite the publisher on the arse.

Do you think they might be talking about nude mods and shit like that? Regardless, the notion that the source code should be withheld because some people might do inappropriate things with it is ridiculous. We might as well ban all knives, in case somebody stabs someone.

People do those things with CLOSED source games! I'm not aware of any games where the source was made open, and THEN a mod was made that made the publisher look bad. All the "controversies" I can think of (like Hot Coffee and nude patches) were all to closed source programs. It shows this guy has no real idea what goes on in the industry. It's unfortunate, but incompetent employees often rise to positions of power in companies. "Shit floats to the top" as the saying goes.

okay, Constructor is a game of building things no? So ... Why would someone make a nude mod?

I doubt that Ubisoft will give us that answer,Ubi its not THAT stupid,and,who is so stupid to make a nude Rayman mod?

How could those mods be the fault of the company? The company didn't made those mods. I think the people who install these mods and then complain haven't read disclaimers. And mods are mostly ''own risk''.

Superlol wrote: So ... Why would someone make a nude mod?

There are always people who like to do such things (and strangely enough some play them).

Mmmmm nude Rayman model

j/k

Ew!!

I'm both disappointed and surprised by the arguments I got. I think there's a misunderstanding.
As we have to consider the same answer from Ubisoft, I would want to have your thoughts about it.

We could always try it Even if we get a no, it would be a shame if the codebase for the engines of Rayman 1, 2 and 3 got lost in time.
And here's a little pep talk: it's much easier to get the source code for a video game open sourced then it is for a normal application. All the code is most likely to be written by the same studio, so there most likely won't be any licensing constraints.

Joshua822 wrote:

I'm both disappointed and surprised by the arguments I got. I think there's a misunderstanding.
As we have to consider the same answer from Ubisoft, I would want to have your thoughts about it.

We could always try it Even if we get a no, it would be a shame if the codebase for the engines of Rayman 1, 2 and 3 got lost in time.
And here's a little pep talk: it's much easier to get the source code for a video game open sourced then it is for a normal application. All the code is most likely to be written by the same studio, so there most likely won't be any licensing constraints.

Even when there IS a license constraint, it's usually easy to work around. For example, id didn't do the music code for Doom, so when they released the source, they just left out the music code.

Personally, I think Ubi has grown to be flat-out against community construction these days. Especially with how, when asked about a more advanced map editor or SDK tools for FC2, they deleted the topics or made a bullshit excuse about the legalities of it.

Thus people move on to CryEngine or continue to use Source SDK, Quake, and whatever else is free or cheap.

And I'm not even talking about releasing the source code for Far Cry 2, by the way (they still credit Crytek for it if you open up the map editor). I'm talking just basic tools or fixes that they "BAWWWW" over because they claim that it'll bite them in the ass later or allow people to violate their terms of use somehow.

Games' terms of use should include a clause which states that the developers and publishers are in no way responsible for any third-party modifications applied to the game, or something similar.

They actually do. It's just that no one seems to give a shit. This is why the whole deal with the "Hot Coffee Mod" and its aftermath still infuriates me to this day. It's in the terms of use, that they have no responsibility over 3rd party mods or unlocks, and yet, courts chose to ignore that.

Hot Coffee was funny because a bunch of idiots forced the ERSB to change the rating from 17+ to 18+. WOOOO - big difference...