Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday March 15 2018, @03:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the embracing-the-community dept.

TechDirt reports

For game developers and publishers, there are lots of ways to react to the modding community that so often creates new and interesting aspects to their games. Some companies look to shut these modding communities down completely, some threaten them over supposed copyright violations, and some developers choose to embrace the modding community and let mods extend the life of their games to ridiculous lengths.

But few studios have gone as far to embrace modders as developer 1C, makers of IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover. The flight-sim game, released way back in 2011, burst onto the gaming market with decidedly luke-warm reviews. Most of the critiques and public commentary surrounding the game could be best summarized as: "meh". But a modding community sprung up around the game, calling itself Team Fusion, and developed a litany of mods for IL-2. Rather than looking at these mods as some sort of threat, 1C instead worked with Team Fusion and developed an official re-release of the game incorporating their work.

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover BLITZ Edition is the result. Officially sanctioned and released under the banner of original developers 1C, it combines the original game with all the work that the fans at Team Fusion Simulations--now given access to the game's source code--were able to cook up.

This work includes new planes, new graphics options, new damage and weapon [modeling] updated visual effects.

You can buy BLITZ if you're coming into the game fresh, but if you already owned Cliffs of Dover, BLITZ was added to your Steam library for free late last year.

1C has also gone out of its way to highlight that BLITZ is in part the work of the Team Fusion modders and even announced the new release with comments on how much work the mods do to clean up the serious flaws in the original game. Other studios ought to be paying attention, because this is how it's done.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday March 15 2018, @06:35AM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 15 2018, @06:35AM (#652805) Journal

    Compare that to the bozos who send a C&D or sue for an imaginary property infringement.

    While better than those bozos, they are... (what's the term, "earning" imply some effort from their side)... recording an income and the community remain only with the pleasure derived from the hobby.

    The contributors don't even have the right to distribute their work to a larger audience, everyone goes through the "owner".

    As you threw a comparison tome, let me return you the ball: compare with open-source/creative-commons.

    The fair approach would have been: charge those willing to pay for your game environ and let the hobbyists independently distribute the assets they created and do it in such a way the hobbyists' extensions can be loaded by you game environ without a hitch.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 15 2018, @07:05AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 15 2018, @07:05AM (#652811)

    Yup.
    ...but they knew it was closed/proprietary/capitalist from the start.

    I'm reminded of the tune [google.com]
    "Oh shut up, silly woman", said the reptile with a grin.
    "You knew damn[ed] well I was a snake before you took me in."

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]