Obligatory Legacy of Rust/ Nightdive Doom Port thread

[Gez]

That is all well and good and all, but it doesn't take into consideration how hostile both he and the Doomworld community have been to people who have concerns or don't want to do the things outlined in the spec. The banning of kraflab, especially, has had a chilling effect on the discussion in question - anyone with an ounce of self-preservation is thinking twice now before speaking up. And if they do, it's so incredibly easy to dismiss them and their concerns, no matter how legitimate their concerns may be.

To be frank, some of the expressed concerns were of the "we live in a society" kind, and that was nothing that GooberMan could address short of just cancelling his work altogether, which is not exactly a reasonable ask. Case in point, kraflab's opener:

As this is a spec put forth by a gpl launderer and organized by people with financial incentives, it's impossible for it to be a community effort or even to have an unbiased discussion about it. Half the people chiming in are earning a paycheck. Future discussion or iteration is hopelessly muddied now, as the financial ramifications of all the details of any spec will weigh into the minds of the people trying to drive the topic. I think it's a terrible precedent and the presentation of it like it's what's best for everyone and as if it had community input is complete sophistry. This appears to simply be an effort by a company poised to profit off of control of the standards to take that control and serve themselves. It's capitalism and the cashing in of decades of community clout. I'm sure everyone had the best intentions and there's nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but if this is the future then I'll probably find another hobby.

I do agree that Doomworld's heavy-handed moderation is a problem; at the same time the thread was really not doing anything productive. It probably would have been better to lock the thread for a couple weeks to let die down all the passionate outcry against an old game receiving another free update and how that's going to kill modding somehow. Keeping the thread open but banning people was not the good approach. I believe kraflab had already been banned before, for another reason, but was allowed back as dsda-dev to talk about dsda development. Probably why he got banned again quickly. Kinsie also got a time-out, and he wasn't speaking out against ID24 and/or the people behind it.

I'm sorry but with the way things stand currently, ID24 is dead on arrival. If things significantly change for the better, if somehow GooberMan suddenly became more receptive to people's concerns, listened carefully, and made more careful consideration such as consulting other devs for new ideas before just throwing them on the spec sheet - this would be a non-issue. There would be no problem here. But that's not what we have. No cooperation means no cooperation back - you can't force other devs to do what you want. And the inevitable calling us out for refusing to play ball (I haven't seen it yet, but rest assured if it hasn't happened yet it's definitely coming) definitely won't help them get what they want either.

Ultimately, I expect ID24 features to be added, if at all, on a piecemeal basis to support popular mapsets developed for it, if any such actually happen. I don't think there'll be any effort to fully implement ID24 specs just to implement ID24 specs. Especially in GZDoom when nearly all of those features already exist, just implemented differently.

No need to get raunchy, but if you want any actual conversation, perhaps Goober should join in? Or perhaps you can respond at the DW thread about it?

Rachael has been banned from Doomworld a long while ago, so even if she wanted to join the discussion over there, she couldn't.

[Rachael]

That is all well and good and all, but it doesn't take into consideration how hostile both he and the Doomworld community have been to people who have concerns or don't want to do the things outlined in the spec. The banning of kraflab, especially, has had a chilling effect on the discussion in question - anyone with an ounce of self-preservation is thinking twice now before speaking up. And if they do, it's so incredibly easy to dismiss them and their concerns, no matter how legitimate their concerns may be.

To be frank, some of the expressed concerns were of the "we live in a society" kind, and that was nothing that GooberMan could address short of just cancelling his work altogether, which is not exactly a reasonable ask. Case in point, kraflab's opener:

As this is a spec put forth by a gpl launderer and organized by people with financial incentives, it's impossible for it to be a community effort or even to have an unbiased discussion about it. Half the people chiming in are earning a paycheck. Future discussion or iteration is hopelessly muddied now, as the financial ramifications of all the details of any spec will weigh into the minds of the people trying to drive the topic. I think it's a terrible precedent and the presentation of it like it's what's best for everyone and as if it had community input is complete sophistry. This appears to simply be an effort by a company poised to profit off of control of the standards to take that control and serve themselves. It's capitalism and the cashing in of decades of community clout. I'm sure everyone had the best intentions and there's nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but if this is the future then I'll probably find another hobby.

I do agree that Doomworld's heavy-handed moderation is a problem; at the same time the thread was really not doing anything productive. It probably would have been better to lock the thread for a couple weeks to let die down all the passionate outcry against an old game receiving another free update and how that's going to kill modding somehow. Keeping the thread open but banning people was not the good approach. I believe kraflab had already been banned before, for another reason, but was allowed back as dsda-dev to talk about dsda development. Probably why he got banned again quickly. Kinsie also got a time-out, and he wasn't speaking out against ID24 and/or the people behind it.

I actually don't really see much wrong with kraflab's opener. I don't fully agree with him but he raises some good points - and herein lies the trouble with Doomworld's moderation - they have a lot of trouble with understanding nuance, much less why it's even important. And kraflab's concerns aren't unjustified - I don't think it's what Bethesda is doing here, but that doesn't change the fact that game companies as a whole have had massive problems with this kind of thing. Right now Microsoft is cashing in hard on nostalgia, it's not just Bethesda but Activision too. And pretty much every time a corporation has touched something it's become shitty as a result. Would this time be an exception? It's hard to say. I'd like to think so. But history has always shown what inevitably happens.

But hey - I am sure we'll have lots of fans clamoring at the bit when Doom gets re-released 7 times like Skyrim did. Perhaps Kraflab's worst crime here was he wasn't dimplomatic enough with the way he worded it - but the sentiment is real, and it's hard to ignore.

[Redneckerz]

I do agree that Doomworld's heavy-handed moderation is a problem; at the same time the thread was really not doing anything productive. It probably would have been better to lock the thread for a couple weeks to let die down all the passionate outcry against an old game receiving another free update and how that's going to kill modding somehow. Keeping the thread open but banning people was not the good approach. I believe kraflab had already been banned before, for another reason, but was allowed back as dsda-dev to talk about dsda development. Probably why he got banned again quickly. Kinsie also got a time-out, and he wasn't speaking out against ID24 and/or the people behind it.

FWIW, regarding the bolded, this was actually considered. It was (and is) a difficult topic to discuss, and the options kept changing as the topic evolved. Initially, it was decided to have Xaser do the talking - But when that didn't work out (As there were users that despite having the wind against them kept careposting with dubious intents) it just became ever the more difficult. Locking said thread could also be percieved as an attempt to silence any criticism, for instance.

Just trying to clarify it here. In the end, it came down to that most options wouldn't see any victors - Whatever the move, the moderation wouldn't have done the right one. In fact, i believe that a lot of the negativity is partially because of Kraf's banning. Kinsie got a knockdown aswell and took that one in stride.

Rachael has been banned from Doomworld a long while ago, so even if she wanted to join the discussion over there, she couldn't.

Just come back as Hon-DEV, after all, Kraf got his piece of the cake, so why not Rachael?

I actually don't really see much wrong with kraflab's opener.

I don't think its contributive at all to start any conversation with an accusation. The gpl-launderer bit came out of nowhere and was confusing as heck. I get what Kraf was going at and i know Kraf was a voice to consider. But turns out, Goober did inform him prior to anyone else - Which makes the opener even more confusing. *

*That is, if you are to believe Goober's post about it. Nobody besides them two actually knows what transpired or what was actually said prior to the thread. But for the sake of fair game, if i were to come to at you with a random accusation about anything, wouldn't that already set the mood? Because that definitely did.

And kraflab's concerns aren't unjustified - I don't think it's what Bethesda is doing here, but that doesn't change the fact that game companies as a whole have had massive problems with this kind of thing. Right now Microsoft is cashing in hard on nostalgia, it's not just Bethesda but Activision too. And pretty much every time a corporation has touched something it's become shitty as a result. Would this time be an exception? It's hard to say. I'd like to think so. But history has always shown what inevitably happens.

If that were the case, why was the spec released in a unfinished state?

What particularly wasn't enjoyed by most was the distrust that was put forward. Why are we doubting people like Xaser here?

[Rachael]

What particularly wasn't enjoyed by most was the distrust that was put forward. Why are we doubting people like Xaser here?

Why is everything magically forgiven just because it's Xaser? This, right here, is the very issue. It's the issue with Gooberman, it's the issue with me, it's the issue with anyone - personality matters more than actions or words - and that flies in the Doom community far more than it ever should. This is what leads to some people getting a pass for their shitty actions or attitude no matter how bad they get, and others having a bag of bricks fall on top of them for breathing slightly funny. This isn't fair to anyone, and it's what has led to so many problems in this community.

I don't care if it's Xaser, Satan, Jesus, the devil himself, or God Ordained who presented the spec. I care about how it's presented, what options are available to deliberate it, and how willing the author of it is willing to work with others in the community who have more complex projects. The name behind it doesn't mean jack shit to me - and it shouldn't to you, either. This is the core of trying to look at things objectively, and it's a skill you should try to master in a conversation like this.

[Redneckerz]

Why is everything magically forgiven just because it's Xaser?

Why is it okay to be openly distrustful against people who have done nothing to earn that distrust?

You may not know this but the whole ordeal was draining on everyone. I have no interest in doing a round 2.

I care about how it's presented,

It is unfinished. It was released early so people could discuss it, with the benefit that it would show that it wasn't there to screw over the community.

But ignoring the latter part since you want to look at this in a objective manner, it is unfinished. So i suppose all this concern should hold before the 1.0 spec is out.

This is the core of trying to look at things objectively, and it's a skill you should try to master in a conversation like this.

This reads eerily in the same tone of the author you are criticizing here. So tell me, if i have to assume your tone is objectively and neutral, how do you think the bolded, in wording, comes across?

Isn't that the very same thing you are arguing against?

Either way, you know where to be if you want your feedback to be assessed. Unless putting it out here with the big chance it will get ignored is enough for you.

[Gez]

I actually don't really see much wrong with kraflab's opener. I don't fully agree with him but he raises some good points - and herein lies the trouble with Doomworld's moderation - they have a lot of trouble with understanding nuance, much less why it's even important. And kraflab's concerns aren't unjustified - I don't think it's what Bethesda is doing here, but that doesn't change the fact that game companies as a whole have had massive problems with this kind of thing. Right now Microsoft is cashing in hard on nostalgia, it's not just Bethesda but Activision too. And pretty much every time a corporation has touched something it's become shitty as a result. Would this time be an exception? It's hard to say. I'd like to think so. But history has always shown what inevitably happens.

Perhaps Kraflab's worst crime here was he wasn't dimplomatic enough with the way he worded it - but the sentiment is real, and it's hard to ignore.

What are the good points? To the best of my ability, kraflab's points are:

1. GooberMan is a GPL launderer
2. the people behind it are getting paid, so they will be biased
3. it's a bad precedent
4. it's dishonest to present it a something that benefits the community
5. it's a company trying to take control of the Doom modding standards

a. is an ad hominem; b. is true but let's be honest, would also be true without a financial incentive, whenever there were suggestions about adopting a community standard, it's hard to claim people didn't have their bias for their suggestions; c. and d. can be argued but I don't see how the actual alternative would be better; e. doesn't really make sense in practice.

When the Unity ports got DeHackEd support, thanks to licensing fraggle's code, a common wishlist item was support for Boom wads. Then licensing GooberMan's code made not just Boom wads, but also MBF and MBF21 support possible, even if flawed. And Night Dive, where a large part of the team is made of people from the Doom community, got to not just play with that, but get to add a few more extra features as well. And they decided to share the specs for these extra features so that it'd be easier for people to adopt them as well. Compare to, say, the Duke 3D remaster with its extra features that had to be reverse-engineered for support in Raze.

Ultimately, we have a situation where a company full of Doom nerds were asked to work on an official update to Doom, with permission to make official new content and features. Then a part of the community lashed out at them for that, and started ascribing nefarious motives. I saw nothing saying that the whole ID24 thing was an initiative from the corporate higher-ups, be they at id, Bethesda, or Microsoft.

And to be honest, I don't see a profit motive on the part of the Night Dive team here, as they would have been paid just as much even if they hadn't added in new content. Nor on GooberMan since he claims not to have asked for monetary compensation for his code. They could have easily done just a new NRFTL-like episode using only existing Doom II resources and features; and otherwise have made an update that was just the Unity port codebase with Kex instead of Unity. Simpler, faster, less work to do -- just the feeling of having missed an opportunity to do more.

But hey - I am sure we'll have lots of fans clamoring at the bit when Doom gets re-released 7 times like Skyrim did.

Doom has been re-released more times than Skyrim ever did long before Skyrim was released the first time. For comparison, Skyrim releases in cyan. I'm counting simultaneous releases on many platforms as just one release; but non-simultaneous ports as separate. I'm also only counting the original Doom, not Doom II and Final Doom in there, though they're often included. (Otherwise, I could have added a few more instances where Doom II got an official port commercially released, but not Doom 1, such as for the Tapwave Zodiac.) I'm even counting as separate the Skyrim Collector's Edition, despite it being simultaneous with the normal original release, just to make it more sporting.
1993: Doom
1994: Jaguar Doom; Sega 32X Doom
1995: The Ultimate Doom; SNES Doom; PSX Doom; Macintosh Ultimate Doom
1996: 3DO Doom; id Anthology
1997: Sega Saturn Doom
1998: Acorn Doom
1999: WebTV Plus Doom
2001: Ultimate Doom Trilogy Collector's Edition; GBA Doom
2002: Pocket PC Doom aka Doom PDA
2003: Ultimate Doom Trilogy Collector's Edition Doom 3 Promo Edition
2005: Xbox Doom 3 Collector's Edition (includes playable Ultimate Doom, as well as the infamous "Sewers" and "Betray" levels)
2006: XBLA Doom
2007: Steam re-release
2011: Skyrim; Skyrim Collector's Edition
2012: XBLA Doom re-release (had been delisted in 2010); Doom 3: BFG Edition (includes playable Ultimate Doom)
2013: Skyrim Legendary Edition; Elder Scrolls Anthology
2015: GOG re-release
2016: Skyrim Special Edition
2017: Nintendo Switch Skyrim; PlayStation VR Skyrim
2018: PC VR Skyrim
2019: Unity port re-release
2020: Doom Eternal (includes playable Ultimate Doom); Bethesda.net re-release
2021: Game Pass re-release; Skyrim Anniversary Edition
2022: Unity port re-release on GOG; EGS re-release
2024: Doom + Doom II re-release
2025: planned SNES Doom re-release
I'm not even sure this is an exhaustive list. I know I haven't counted the localized versions.

Since the original release of Doom, take any four-year-span, and you'll find an official re-release of Doom in it. People in the Doom house absolutely shouldn't throw stones at the Skyrim for getting re-releases.

[Graf Zahl]

Say what you want but the attitude of the spec's instigators was not really conductive towards reaching a mutual consensus.
The whole thing was dumped onto the back of the developers, effectively saying "here's a new spec, now see that you get it implemented!"
There was no discussion about individual features' merits or compatibility and from the moment this started I had the feeling that a genuine discussion was not wanted.

Sorry, that won't work!

[Rachael]

Why is it okay to be openly distrustful against people who have done nothing to earn that distrust?

You may not know this but the whole ordeal was draining on everyone. I have no interest in doing a round 2.

People have been burned by corporations before. Microsoft's/Bethesda's sudden interest in Doom is an ill omen for anyone who's ever seen this kind of thing happen before. Enshittification by corporations doesn't happen by accident - it's by design.

Again - personality doesn't matter. I don't blame Xaser for taking a job for this, working on his passion - it's the opportunity of a lifetime. It's a shame he essentially had to make a deal with the devil to do it (Bethesda/Microsoft) - but that's what you have to do to survive in this world sometimes.

As for the distrust - that happens. People are fearful of Bethesda's involvement in this and what it may represent. We are hoping it ultimately means nothing, and that they will leave us alone after this. Xaser just happens to be a victim of circumstance in this case.

It is unfinished. It was released early so people could discuss it, with the benefit that it would show that it wasn't there to screw over the community.

But ignoring the latter part since you want to look at this in a objective manner, it is unfinished. So i suppose all this concern should hold before the 1.0 spec is out.

Boy you have lost the thread. You are contradicting yourself here - "don't criticize it" "you know where to go to criticize it" - which one is it?

This reads eerily in the same tone of the author you are criticizing here. So tell me, if i have to assume your tone is objectively and neutral, how do you think the bolded, in wording, comes across?

Isn't that the very same thing you are arguing against?

No. I am saying you should be able to dissociate names from actions, and be able to look at both with both separation and in context of each other. That not everything is evil just because Boogeyman000001 proposed it or automatically great just because Yourhero0002 said it instead.

Either way, you know where to be if you want your feedback to be assessed. Unless putting it out here with the big chance it will get ignored is enough for you.

You clearly aren't paying attention to this thread, unless you put Gez on ignore or something.

[dpJudas]

I think the elephant in the room here really is that source ports aren't companies trying to agree on an industry standard to the benefit of all.

They are hobby projects where the developers are working on them for their own fun and enjoyment. What this ultimately means that extremely few developers will want to stop up and implement someone elses idea they felt had no saying in themselves and quite frankly that's what I see as the real issue with id24. This is the key difference to mbf21 where a number of source port authors could see the logic in them all adding it.

[Graf Zahl]

The main issue here is that larger parts od ID24 are not trivial to add - even stuff with marginal use.
Other things are so poorly designed that the invested work is essentially wasted.

[Redneckerz]

Boy you have lost the thread. You are contradicting yourself here - "don't criticize it" "you know where to go to criticize it" - which one is it?

I am just saying that if you want to leave feedback, you know where to go.

And yes i know what Gez said. There are more places one can go.

You clearly aren't paying attention to this thread, unless you put Gez on ignore or something.

Sparing the personal retort, i know what Gez said and yet i am still suggesting that you know where to go.

Either way, enjoy the discussion!

[Rachael]

Ultimately, we have a situation where a company full of Doom nerds were asked to work on an official update to Doom, with permission to make official new content and features. Then a part of the community lashed out at them for that, and started ascribing nefarious motives. I saw nothing saying that the whole ID24 thing was an initiative from the corporate higher-ups, be they at id, Bethesda, or Microsoft.

Yeah - I get that - but I know between you and I, I know I am not the only one who's seen what happens with corporations getting involved in old games like this for the sake of "nostalgia". Whether justified or not, people's fears about Bethesda are real and you are telling them to just dismiss it "because this time it is different." True as that may or may not be, they've heard that line a thousand times before, too, and they're being told effectively to shove it because they're hurting people's feelings. I get that - I don't want people's feelings to be hurt - but we're forgetting who the real monster in all of this is. Microsoft is not a benevolent company. Bethesda is not a benevolent company. People have a sense of loss over seeing their friends being elevated by corporations such as those two, and they are reacting accordingly. Is it right? No. Is it understandable? You bet your sweets it is. As I said in replying to Redneckerz - I think ultimately, Xaser is a victim of circumstance in this case, and I don't blame him for following his passions here. But when you stare into the abyss - sometimes it very much does stare you right back. And this is one of those times.

Since the original release of Doom, take any four-year-span, and you'll find an official re-release of Doom in it. People in the Doom house absolutely shouldn't throw stones at the Skyrim for getting re-releases.

Fair point.

[Rachael]

Say what you want but the attitude of the spec's instigators was not really conductive towards reaching a mutual consensus.
The whole thing was dumped onto the back of the developers, effectively saying "here's a new spec, now see that you get it implemented!"
There was no discussion about individual features' merits or compatibility and from the moment this started I had the feeling that a genuine discussion was not wanted.

Sorry, that won't work!

I think the elephant in the room here really is that source ports aren't companies trying to agree on an industry standard to the benefit of all.

They are hobby projects where the developers are working on them for their own fun and enjoyment. What this ultimately means that extremely few developers will want to stop up and implement someone elses idea they felt had no saying in themselves and quite frankly that's what I see as the real issue with id24. This is the key difference to mbf21 where a number of source port authors could see the logic in them all adding it.

And here lies the crux of the issue - and it's the main beef I've had also. We either have to play ball or we're the stinkers. But we don't get to say no.

And it was also done from an incredibly biased perspective - the post that I made where I pointed out my issue with Gooberman, that started this whole ... "kerfuffle" - was exactly him criticizing Cacodemon345 for "not being AAA dev material".

Normally I'd take that as a compliment but in the context to which he said that to him it was very much uncalled for, and he unwittingly made an admission about himself in the process. This is the bias that we are dealing with here - either we do it or "we're not good enough" - well - I'd prefer to "not be good enough". At least that way, I can sleep when I want to, and do things other than slave away for someone else's dream for no pay.

[Phredreeke]

I really don't get why Kex Doom or ID24 should be off limits when people are still mad about GZDoom dropping the confusingly named sector light modes last year...

Say what you want but the attitude of the spec's instigators was not really conductive towards reaching a mutual consensus.
The whole thing was dumped onto the back of the developers, effectively saying "here's a new spec, now see that you get it implemented!"
There was no discussion about individual features' merits or compatibility and from the moment this started I had the feeling that a genuine discussion was not wanted.

Sorry, that won't work!

I have a suspicion the spec was made to cater to a certain type of source port popular on DW (specifically, ports using software rendering with no scripting language)

[Rachael]

I have a suspicion the spec was made to cater to a certain type of source port popular on DW (specifically, ports using software rendering with no scripting language)

This would go against every purported goal of soliciting feedback on the spec. This seems a bit too crazy for me to believe. I don't think there was something with an intentional goal to undermine here.

I'm not saying that's impossible - but it just seems so incredibly unlikely and counter-productive and I honestly would give the benefit of doubt here until proven otherwise.