Cyan's Updated Forum Policies

[teedyo]

Except ubisoft does not.

the GoG.com version of Uru:CC does not mention Ubisoft as a publisher, and I shall assume its video's inclusion in the files is just due to not changing the files in the install.

It's still the version that was published by UBI. Unless they've sold off the right to do so, they still have sole control over that publication. I sent an e-mail to GoG asking who their agreement is with. We'll see if they choose to reply.

[kaelisebonrai]

Their site specifically states Cyan Worlds, and @cyanworlds on twitter, Cyan's official twitter account also mentions it.

No need to email them, but, whatever. It is the same version as published by ubisoft, however, again, it DOES NOT mention ubisoft. So, it would be foolish, at best, to assume they have sole rights to uru:cc. =)

[diafero]

I also doubt Ubisoft is part of the issue here. Cyan obviously has the necessary rights for the content and the engine, or they could not use it in their own game. And if they really had to stop CC hacking discussion, a link to the GoW or Alcugs site would be way off, because that's all these sites are about. Just because there is a link in between... does that mean we can link them to any site containing any information, by simply using a redirection site? Of course not. So either linking to GoW is taboo, or the rules are quite unclear, or they are useless.

modify Alcugs servers to be compatible with the MOUL client

And strip CC support out of Alcugs, so that is is solely about MOULa hacking.

I think at least a big part of the reason why they don't want CC hacking discussion is that the CC hacking got totally out of their control years ago. As long as we don't have to modify the engine, we can do whatever we want, we even have a server which is fully under our control. MOULa on the other hand does not (yet) have an open-source server implementation, and there are only very few people knowing how to get and change the MOULa Python code. No public documentation is available for these internals. At least we have a public implementation of a MOULa prp reader and a MOULa-compatible network layer, but it's still much more under Cyan's control.

[Egon]

I think at least a big part of the reason why they don't want CC hacking discussion is that the CC hacking got totally out of their control years ago.

If they truly become open-source, then they also will lose control other MOUL "hacking", so I don't see that point valid.

[diafero]

But they plan to keep the content under control, and the last we heard about the server architecture was one Shard centrally administrated by Cyan, with fans running their ages' game server on their own machines. And Cyan running the main dataserver. So it would not be legally possible to create a completely independent MOULa Shard with Cyan's content.
Maybe it turns out that fans will just make their own dataserver. But it might also end up similar to UU, with Cyan controlling some central services and our servers depending on theirs. Sure it would be possible to patch that out and make your own dataserver, but that would be content piracy.

[Egon]

Either server code will be open-source, either I will be not open-source.

You cannot have both.

[diafero]

But with the server-code open-source, you can not host a Shard. You need the data files for it. And Cyan can easily make sure that anyone really wanting an independent Shard, which includes an independent data server, has to stay "under the radar" just like Alcugs Shards do now.

[BAD]

It seems to me that Cyan wants to stop all Uru hacking besides the latest iteration Myst Online Uru Live Again. This of course seems like a logical step. You would want your modding community to abandon the old software in order to keep control and focus on the latest and the greatest.

However that plan can only be implemented when you have a legitimate system with which your modding community can utilize to create their content or convert their old content to the new system. I believe Cyan misunderstood the point when we said we wanted them to define and legitimatize our relationship. It seems that Cyan's intentions are to keep the old ways of hacking Uru a thing of the forgotten past, rather than give our community legitimacy and finally end the constant abuse tossed at us by the Cyan Uru fanatical defenders of mediocrity.

Maybe Cyan will roll out the server code so we can begin testing soon. That would make most of our points moot. It would not fix the many years of Cyan flipping between ignoring and using us, but I guess it would be better than nothing.

[Aloys]

They want to actively stop custom content/hacking work on CC; they merely want to keep it out of their forums. If they wanted to they would certainly royaly annoy and sadden a number of people and they know it.
At the end of the day what goes on at their forums it's not really important: for the most part we are free to do what we want and we should be happy and contend with this.
They are many other companies who would have handled the situation with a much more heavy hand...
Those latest forums rules (and RAWA's clarification) are problably the best they can do currently. And I, for one, am fine with this.

Sidenote: yes, they are not making any friends with this situation and they know it, but it's just a no-win situation for them (and us). Let's just shrug it away and spend more time doing productive things..

[teedyo]

I also doubt Ubisoft is part of the issue here. Cyan obviously has the necessary rights for the content and the engine, or they could not use it in their own game.

Correct. What they don't have is the rights to URU:CC/ABM/TPoTS and as such cannot endorse, promote or condone hacking on that package/publication/production/instantiation. To do so would imply authority that they just don't have. RIghts to the content is not the same as rights to the production. As such they can only promote 'hacking' on MOUL for which they have full rights to since they got them back from GameTap. Failure to understand this is not a failure on Cyan's part.

But they plan to keep the content under control, and the last we heard about the server architecture was one Shard centrally administrated by Cyan, with fans running their ages' game server on their own machines. And Cyan running the main dataserver. So it would not be legally possible to create a completely independent MOULa Shard with Cyan's content.

Yes, Cyan has stated that they want to maintain a primary dataserver. I think it's understandable. I rather expect them to require that shard owners sign a license agreement to gain permission to access their content. It gives them a small measure of control over their IP. I also expect that those who don't wish to comply with the guidelines for fan material will work around this 'issue'. The only difference is that some will get a 'nod' from Cyan and the 'rogues' won't. I doubt that Cyan will bring a hammer to the party.

As far as pointing certain discussions over here; I think that is pretty clear. It seems a bit enigmatic, but I also think it gives Cyan (almost)plausible deniability if someone were to take notice.