Stardock

Didn't they buy the MoM Source Code?

Didn't Stardock buy MoM source code? Why not study it and figure out what you can do with it. Master of Magic was an amazing game, why not study the code and find some of the interesting features in it and bring them up-to-date?

 

Just curious.

29,217 views 22 replies
Reply #1 Top

They didnt buy the code. Its useless today. They will learn more from playing the game. :)

Reply #2 Top

Stardock tried to do a deal to let them make an official MoM2, but the corp twits that own the brand insisted on too much control over the project.

As far as studying MoM, that was always going on and apparently has gained emphasis for the FE project. Check Derek's recent dev journal on FE magic. He links to a draft PDF with a significantly stronger collection of spells than WoM has, along with spells that can only be gained via quests and other interesting additions.

Reply #3 Top

Quoting joasoze, reply 1
They didnt buy the code. Its useless today. They will learn more from playing the game.

 

No code is ever useless, that is the beauty of programming. You can update code and make something better with it. Look at the Unreal engine, they began with a simple engine and look where it is now. Its not like they started over every time.

 

I had just read an article that said they had bought the code and were seriously considering the MoM 2 game. (The article was from 07')

 

I hope issues like https://forums.elementalgame.com/410630 are addressed in FE.

Reply #4 Top

They tried to buy the rights to the game. The code would be old and not useful today. I am a programmer myself although that doesnt make me an expert in all code :)

I would be extremely surprised if the could use the code for much. MOM was a great game, but rather simplistic in many ways by todays standards. There were no advanced AI to copy or super economic formulas in this game.

If they would remake the game (like Sid Meiers Pirates) to be almost an excact copy, they would still rewrite all the code. They would have better modability, flexibility, performance and so on.

Reply #5 Top

Quoting Emperor_Nero, reply 3

I had just read an article that said they had bought the code and were seriously considering the MoM 2 game. (The article was from 07')

 

Nope. They tried to buy the rights from Atari, but it fell through because of onerous conditions imposed by Atari (who is doing exactly squat-all with the franchise).

Reply #6 Top

Quoting Emperor_Nero, reply 3


No code is ever useless, that is the beauty of programming. You can update code and make something better with it. Look at the Unreal engine, they began with a simple engine and look where it is now. Its not like they started over every time.

Speaking as a professional software developer... yeah that code is pretty much useless. It's an old DOS game. There's no reason to look at the code. If they wanted to glean value out of MoM, they'd need information on how the systems work and are balanced. You don't need a line of code for that.

Reply #7 Top

Quoting tanafres, reply 5
Nope. They tried to buy the rights from Atari, but it fell through because of onerous conditions imposed by Atari (who is doing exactly squat-all with the franchise).


"Atari" really doesn't exist any more, except as the product of a chain of buyouts by corporate twits who view gamers as a sort of semi-sentient cattle who need to be milked for every possible drop of discretionary spending.

Reply #8 Top

Quoting Emperor_Nero, reply 3


No code is ever useless, that is the beauty of programming. You can update code and make something better with it. Look at the Unreal engine, they began with a simple engine and look where it is now. Its not like they started over every time.

 

It might be more accurate to say that the code would not translate into anything useful by today's gaming standards.  Or to put it another way, overhauling the code to make it into a game that is marketable today would be more work than creating something new and hence "useless". 

I am a programmer and deal with a lot of legacy code in my job.  The older the code and the more complex, the more likely it is simply more efficient to recode it.

In any event, since Stardock didn't purchase the code, the point is moot.  Way to go Atari.  :rolleyes:

 

Reply #9 Top

Quoting GW, reply 7

Quoting tanafres, reply 5Nope. They tried to buy the rights from Atari, but it fell through because of onerous conditions imposed by Atari (who is doing exactly squat-all with the franchise).

"Atari" really doesn't exist any more, except as the product of a chain of buyouts by corporate twits who view gamers as a sort of semi-sentient cattle who need to be milked for every possible drop of discretionary spending.

 

I never claimed that they were the Atari of old, just the name of the entity that Stardock attempted to negotiate with.  That said, you're right that their reputation is less than stellar :-)

Reply #10 Top

Honestly just rip it off. There are so many potential buyers for a good MoM style game the law suit will pay for itself. Basic Girls Gone Wild Strategy.

Just look at what Starcraft did to Space Marines...   :ninja:

Reply #11 Top

no... a game would have to sell REALLY, REALLY well to pay for a lawsuit like that. No game is worth that trouble.

 

I am pretty sure the source code would be useless, but thats not the point. Code is relatively easy to make, the hard part is getting good code, good design, and good artwork to come together gracefully. 

 

And MoM is fun to play still, so making the same game but with updated graphics wouldn't be very compelling. A true successor to MoM needs to have improvements, innovations, and evolutions.  

 

 

Reply #12 Top

Atari sucks. Maybe they'll make MoM2 as a FPS ala X-COM Abomination by 2K  Games.

 

The last good game ATARI put out was M.U.L.E.  :grin:

Reply #13 Top

no... lawsuits are fun and can be considered good press. The point of ripping it off would be to remake it with stardock's new engine and give it some very good multiplayer options. I think the reason they don't is that old human desire to make something new and call it your own. MoM fans generally don't understand this concept (or so it seems after reading these forums for 2 years).

Reply #14 Top

From a lover of MoM and just from a logical view point, if something worked and a lot of people liked it - why not make a sequel. I mean, I understand that they didn't get the rights to so they can't legally.

Reply #15 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 13
... MoM fans generally don't understand this concept (or so it seems after reading these forums for 2 years).


Maybe you weren't reading carefully enough. The devs are MoM fans. Originally, Stardock wanted to buy the rights to make MoM2. Atari suits demanded too much control of some part(s) of the proto-project (marketing?). Stardock decided to change gears and make their own game, with 'spiritual successor to MoM' being a major early theme of the project. 

Reply #16 Top

Yes but being here this long, I have heard the devs say that the game will be many things. One of them was MoM. One of them was RTS tactical battles and TBS strategic map. One of them was Avatar based magic combat. This project has gone in many directions since its inception, regardless of what rights were attempted to be purchased. I, for example, am a MoM fan. I too liked that game, but if I had my own development company I would want to fix the aspects I didn't like to the point where it would be unrecognizable. The devs have their vision of what game they want to make. It doesn't seem that MoM is a very big influence at this point. Just look at the spells. 

Reply #17 Top

Quoting Emperor_Nero, reply 14
From a lover of MoM and just from a logical view point, if something worked and a lot of people liked it - why not make a sequel.

Because in failed to sell well (or so Frogboy says)?

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Gwenio1, reply 17

Quoting Emperor_Nero, reply 14From a lover of MoM and just from a logical view point, if something worked and a lot of people liked it - why not make a sequel.

Because in failed to sell well (or so Frogboy says)?

So did planescape: torment, u2's first album and the paintings of van gogh.

Having now played it, more than anything i miss the atmosphere of MoM. You took it seriously because it took itself seriously. Stardock usually have the tongue a little too far in the cheek for me.

Reply #19 Top

Quoting GW, reply 7

Quoting tanafres, reply 5Nope. They tried to buy the rights from Atari, but it fell through because of onerous conditions imposed by Atari (who is doing exactly squat-all with the franchise).
"Atari" really doesn't exist any more, except as the product of a chain of buyouts by corporate twits who view gamers as a sort of semi-sentient cattle who need to be milked for every possible drop of discretionary spending.

 

See MOO3...

Reply #20 Top

Quoting kapeman, reply 19
See MOO3...

Heh. I lurked on their pre-release forums for years. I played the game for weeks, and most of that was banging my head against the wall in denial.

Reply #21 Top

Quoting GW, reply 20

Quoting kapeman, reply 19See MOO3...

Heh. I lurked on their pre-release forums for years. I played the game for weeks, and most of that was banging my head against the wall in denial.

 

Me too.   So sad!    Although those forums are where I learned about Stardock and GalCiv, so I guess something good came of it.

Reply #22 Top

I was a MOO3 junkie as well, until the game was released. Biggest disappointment ever. I really tried to like it.... On par with the new Star Wars movies. There is no excuse fore those....

 

+1 Loading…