If Monte Cristo doesn't survive...
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 10:03
So, this came up in a discussion at Simtropolis and it's a possibility I've been mulling over: If Monte Cristo doesn't survive Cities XL's lackluster performance (I have no idea what their financial situation is but they seem to have invested a lot in CXL and it obviously didn't do so well) what does everyone think about the possibility of doing a Blender and purchasing the CXL source code from their creditors? It could probably be done, after all the code is basically worthless to whatever VC firm is funding them, and they'd probably be happy to see some return on it. It would essentially be the same process as we're doing now, with a much lower monetary goal and without the need to go through the whole process of setting up a dev team. In fact, it wouldn't even really conflict with what we're already doing, we could just relabel CXL as Metropolis 1.0 and continue collecting funding as we have been, just for Version 2 instead of starting cold.
The downsides are that we might spend a bunch of money on the CXL code and find that most of it is hopelessly messed up, or limited in fundamental ways that would require a total rewrite anyways; The famously persistent memory leak, for example, makes me wonder just how much of what there is now is salvageable. Also, if it's poorly documented, it might take nearly as much time to sort out the code and get a feel for what they were doing as it would to just write our own.
Of course, this is all academic at this point, but if MC does end up folding would we want to jump in and propose this?
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 07:48
#1
I have heard that CXL uses third-party proprietary software, namely SpeedTree. So even if it were possible to acquire the rights to the CXL source code in the event that MC went under, certain elements of the program would be off-limits.
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 18:29
#2
That's true, I hadn't thought of that... I wonder how much of the code is licensed from a third party.
It might still be worth looking into though, as long as most of the core game could be used.
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 08:22
#3
The problem with using CitiesXL as a source is that it has limitations and is meant for higher end systems. The game is most likely as optimized as possible so it will be years (well I guess it will take years to raise the money anyway) for the average consumer to be able to run the game.
It also lacks real zoning like what has been suggested. We could potentially make new zones of 20x20, 20x40, 40x20, 40x60, 60x40, 60x80, 80x60, and 80x80 and maybe even make tools that use combinations of sizes at that density but CityMania would have us beat with zoning. Of course, CityMania might want to work on our project once we are published (did you not say that this was going the Firefox approach with paid developers working on open-source code). It is also possible that we will not be able to change the individual statistics of the "zoned" buildings (currently, a large mansion has the same statistics as a luxury high-rise).
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 09:34
#4
I played on the beta and found the game to be generally fun and well made. I loved making those large cities and designing the road systems. A few users even created parks with the tools they had (only 1 official park model was made).
-
The problem was trading with other cities and Omnicorp was a hastle and the buildings and civic options were a little limited. Though, I thought the economic system was cool. I always thought the music was bland and dry.
-
I did not buy the game because of the rediculous monthly suscription thing they had going. Probably one of the largest posts on the beta forum was a simple question, What makes Cities XL worth 9.99$ a month? Most people who posted on the topic said pretty much nothing. The overwhelming majority of users said no.
-
I hope Monte Cristo pulls through. They worked very hard on the game and its sad to see only 100,000 copies were sold which in the video game market is a pretty bad faliure. Perhaps they put too much emphasis on graphics? Also, from all the ideas pooled from the users, I think Monte Cristo used like four of the ideas.
-
For all the work they put into the game, they didnt get what they deserved. But, then again, they really ignored some warning signs made by fans and users. Its like FEAR 2. They tried very hard but only got probably half the credit they were hoping for.
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 15:50
#5
Yeah, the more I think about it, in the long run it will be far better to have a game built with openness in mind from the beginning than to try to unravel the CXL source; especially with the potential licensing issues I think it would ultimately be more trouble than it's worth.
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 14:02
#6
I never used the subsription. I was planning on doing so June-August to get a discount on GEMs but both options disappeared.