1.040a?

Don't you hate it when you don't know where to go? Or the game keeps crashing? Post your questions here!
Post Reply
tronrose
Registered users
Registered users
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:38 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Blue
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Disc Arena

1.040a?

Post by tronrose »

Is this the installer for 1.040a?

http://www.gamefront.com/files/1318426/ ... yer_Update

I did an file by file analysis as far as the rez content is concerned and there are subtle differences between this patch and the rest of the 1.040 updates out there.
User avatar
TronFAQ
[LDSO] Member
[LDSO] Member
Posts: 3021
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:50 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Cyan
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Deathmatch
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 1.040a?

Post by TronFAQ »

Yep, that looks like it to me. Quick recap for those who don't know:

When Disney announced the v1.040 patch for Tron 2.0, they screwed up. Two slightly different versions ended up being released. They weren't compatible with each other online in multiplayer. There were also all the newly introduced bugs on top of that, in both versions.

As you could expect, this created lots of confusion and complaints. Fans and Disney themselves ended up calling the two versions v1.040a and v1.040b. Only "a" could connect to "a", and "b" to "b". Disney was forced to set up two different sets of severs running both versions of the patch because of this. (This was back when they were still running servers.)

The final v1.042 patch was basically a more carefully prepared bugfix of v1.040, to eliminate the embarrassing mess they'd created for themselves.
tronrose
Registered users
Registered users
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:38 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Blue
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Disc Arena

Re: 1.040a?

Post by tronrose »

You also mention in your F.A.Q. that there was a dev patch version 1.041; was that ever leaked to the public?
User avatar
TronFAQ
[LDSO] Member
[LDSO] Member
Posts: 3021
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:50 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Cyan
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Deathmatch
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 1.040a?

Post by TronFAQ »

Nope. It was scrapped internally at Monolith and/or Disney and never saw the light of day. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with the copy protection. It was still causing too many problems with various CD-ROM drives not recognizing the CD in the drive.

I'm guessing they had to wait on an update from SecuROM, before they went ahead and created v1.042. Which was probably identical to v1.041 except for the version of the protection used. I don't think the new protection really solved the problem, though. Still hearing of quite a few people's games hanging at launch to this day. (Spinning icon, nothing happening, black screen, etc.) That's just another reason why I recommend the Unofficial Patch, the protection has been stripped out.

Why the interest in these old versions, by the way? They're obsolete and don't contain anything that isn't in v1.042.
tronrose
Registered users
Registered users
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:38 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Blue
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Disc Arena

Re: 1.040a?

Post by tronrose »

I'm analyzing all the game content updates throughout all the versions of this game to pinpoint what files have been added and in what version, and the files that have been updated from previous versions. I came across this what looked to be like another instance of 1.040 but the binary comparison still came out different than the rest. I then noticed the content in the rez files were different in a few areas.

As far as 1.041, I was thinking maybe the update had some developer tools along with it. For instance, the extra binary that NOLF had with their tools where you could view different rendering modes in the game such as wireframe mode. It would be nice to see if your compiled map added any other triangles than what you've originally created.
User avatar
TronFAQ
[LDSO] Member
[LDSO] Member
Posts: 3021
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:50 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Cyan
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Deathmatch
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 1.040a?

Post by TronFAQ »

Yes, it's a shame that we never got the dev version of the Tron 2.0 executable. Would have been very useful in helping to develop maps and mods.

I don't know for certain the reasoning behind that decision. But I do know that one of the few Monolith games from that period which also did not come with a dev executable, was Aliens vs. Predator 2. Both games were based on another company's licensed IP. Coincidence? While every game that was Monolith's own creation, came with a more generous supply of tools, the dev executable, and source code.

Though AvP2 fans got lucky, because Sierra accidentally released the full source code to the game. Whoops!
tronrose
Registered users
Registered users
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:38 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Blue
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Disc Arena

Re: 1.040a?

Post by tronrose »

Perhaps if we asked them to release the source code, they would since the technology is practically useless nowadays. I don't really see Disney doing anything else with this particular engine.

Probably the reason they won't is because it will cost money to write up the public license documentation.
User avatar
xistence
[LDSO] Site Admin
[LDSO] Site Admin
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:56 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1.040a?

Post by xistence »

Here are some experiences i made, when i was working for a game company:
A game consists out of two parts: the technology and the content. If licenses are sold, you have a very strict contract. Very often the game engine has to be extended or changed, to provide some effects or elements so the content is working on this game engine. But in the end this is much cheaper then to create a whole new engine.
This means: the content and the technology are very hard 'combined', and a company (providing the content, like Diznay) has some rights to decide about the technology because of the license. So anything related to such a license has to be handled very carefully. Companies don't react logical sometimes, because they fear what could happen to their content (or how it could be changed and presented by a community), so they fear about their reputation/image if this is abstracted. Or they fear to loose potential money sources if they might plan to release sequels or whatever. It is their content, so they want to control it.
As developer, you have not much room in such a case, to decide what's happening to your engine (or what you can do in this special case), because of the license. As said, i've been already through this, and this sux.

tronfaq wrote:I don't know for certain the reasoning behind that decision.
Diznay is well known to be very picky about anything related to their own licenses and materials. And we know that their marketing sux, so a certain reason can't be seen, as there is no real logic behind it at all. As such a big company, they can make mistake without even really care about it, and so they can also ignore what pps want. And community work was never a real strength of Diznay.

tronrose wrote:Probably the reason they won't is because it will cost money to write up the public license documentation.
I don't think so, there are many predefined and standard licenses someone could use. And most times companies already have their licenses set up, otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell a game engine or new product.
ldso:// - Living Dead System Operators
[2.0PD] - 2.0 Program Developers
blog
Image
tronrose
Registered users
Registered users
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:38 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Blue
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Disc Arena

Re: 1.040a?

Post by tronrose »

So, if Disney were to be reasonable, the TRON 2.0 community, or a few members under a company or organization, would have to be buy a license through Disney to get the source code, and in turn would have to make noticeable changes to the engine in order for this company to be able to release the content, regardless if they wanted to charge for the game or not?

So, instead of having TRON 2.0 CTF, it would be more like TDM CTF. I guess you could say it might be easier just to use the NOLF2 license, but I don't know where the line is drawn there either...
User avatar
xistence
[LDSO] Site Admin
[LDSO] Site Admin
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:56 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1.040a?

Post by xistence »

tronrose wrote:So, if Disney were to be reasonable, the TRON 2.0 community, or a few members under a company or organization, would have to be buy a license through Disney to get the source code, and in turn would have to make noticeable changes to the engine in order for this company to be able to release the content, regardless if they wanted to charge for the game or not?
That wouldn't be so easy. A license is used to defined pure rights about a product or content (how you are allowed to used or to deal with it), but is not defining a specific deal between two sides. This is what a contract does, plus defining everything about money.
The situation here: Diznay bought a license of the technology from Monolith, they are not allowed to sell this technology itself, but the product based on that. They are also not allowed to share the knowledge of this technology, but to modify it, as they have access to the source code (or tell Monolith how to change it).
On the other side Monolith and Diznay have a contract. Monolith is allowed to work with the content, but not to sell any of it or to share it. And they are not allowed to give access to the modified game-engine at their own will.

So if you want to have the source code: asking Monolith wouldn't be enough as the code changed, and the contract forbids this. Asking Diznay wouldn't be enough as they just bought the license and are not allowed to share the technology at their own will.
tronrose wrote:So, instead of having TRON 2.0 CTF, it would be more like TDM CTF. I guess you could say it might be easier just to use the NOLF2 license, but I don't know where the line is drawn there either...
The difference here: the community already got their source code and developement tools, so they don't have to ask. As it is released, you are allowed to work with. A license, shared with such tools, already tells you what you are allowed to do with it or not.
But the technology version of the game version differs, so e.g. there is no glow option and might be so not suitable to be used as Tron-engine (otherwise someone might have done this already through the years).
ldso:// - Living Dead System Operators
[2.0PD] - 2.0 Program Developers
blog
Image
tronrose
Registered users
Registered users
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:38 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Blue
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Disc Arena

Re: 1.040a?

Post by tronrose »

Based on the contractual conflict, the only way that this community would be able to create significant content based on the tech created for this game would then be to add a new contract to the contract between Dis and Lith? Getting permission from Dis to get a contract with Lith for them to produce the necessary tools to allow more access in creating new content for this game?
User avatar
TronFAQ
[LDSO] Member
[LDSO] Member
Posts: 3021
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:50 am
Do you own a copy of Tron 2.0?: Yes
What is your favorite Tron character color?: Cyan
What type of multiplayer do you like to play?: Deathmatch
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: 1.040a?

Post by TronFAQ »

When I talked on the phone to somebody at Disney Interactive (then Buena Vista Games): I was told that because of the fans' requests for additional editing resources, they were going to contact Monolith and see what could be worked out.

Just as X said, Disney needed to make an agreement with Monolith before they could do anything with their code. Naturally, the reverse also applied. Can't do a thing commercially with Tron, without Disney's involvement.

Of course, we all know where that promise to work with the fan community went . . . absolutely nowhere. Completely did a U-turn a few months later and told us - politely - to get lost.

They never really cared, and only pretended to for a short time. Would have been better for everybody if they'd just been plain from the start. Instead of stringing us along for months and providing false hope.

As for now: as far as Disney is concerned, Tron 2.0 is dead and buried. They have no interest in it whatsoever. And Tron Evolution has just joined it in the graveyard. They'll move on to the next Tron game when another sequel comes out, and pretend the previous games never existed.
User avatar
win3k
[LDSO] Member
[LDSO] Member
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:26 am
Location: UK

Re: 1.040a?

Post by win3k »

Afternoon chaps

This discussion tends to come around on an annual basis, and the answer/conclusion is always the same. There is pretty much zero - nix, nada, nothing, noway - chance of any new support being made available for modding Tron 2.0. We have the map authoring tools, and the handful of utilities that I and others here have developed, and that's all we'll ever have. The only realistic route by which we could get hold of anything more would be if one of the original dev team members was to "accidentally" leak something from his/her personal backup - but I haven't seen any posts or comments from one of those guys in years.

In any case, looking on the bright side, it's fair to say that we are a long, long way from having exhausted the modding possibilities of the existing tools, so maybe focus on that, and let's see what happens.

win3k
ldso://win3k - Living Dead System Operators
[2.0PD] - 2.0 Program Developers
Post Reply