do a search on UBI...

[Daybreak]

Getting sponsorship from UBI wouldn't be all that bad. I mean look at it this way. We are big fans of the Splinter Cell mulitplayer, so much so we want to make it better our selves. Any company would want this. The problems, is that some find UBI's decision to unsupport the game riddiculous and have attacked UBI. But If we were to get the blessing from UBI and maybe even some help, why wouldn't we agree?

As I recall, this project began because of a couple reasons. 1) was the fear that CT was going to be shut down. 2) We felt that the multiplayer was too unique and fun to let go. It wasn't to win a competition, be recognized, or make money. It was all about to play a game that we loved and the fear that we were no longer going to be able to do so. The results of which might be that we are recognized and make some money, but our intentions are true to gaming. We are not out to screw anyone, we just want to play.

A game made by the players, for the players.

[goodkebab]

The odds are totally against us to get UBI to partner with us.  But IF it was a possibility, PS would have to make compromises depending on what is negotiated.

[MulleDK19]

At Ubi forum!

TFS_Jackie:
"Ubisoft is concerned about Project Stealth due to the questionable nature of its attempt to clone the multiplayer aspect of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. Until Ubisoft has addressed these concerns about the project to our satisfaction, we cannot allow discussion about it to take place on the official Ubisoft forums."

Source: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3651075192/m/8611015295?r=8611015295#8611015295

[Daybreak]

I agree with you Goodkebabe, but on our own we should be fine. Our problems stems from using the words clone and copy. Project stealth will be trying to emulate the same feel and game play as splinter cell while trying to add it's own flavor.

This is what healthy competition is. As you said, well have to see what they say untill we can figure out what we can, or can't do. In the mean time, I think we should keep going and keep thinking about the new ways to improve the game.

[Spekkio]

The odds are totally against us to get UBI to partner with us.  But IF it was a possibility, PS would have to make compromises depending on what is negotiated.

While I know that your heart is in the right place by trying to get funded, I ultimately don't think this is a good idea. You don't want to have Ubisoft telling you how to make the game, particularly once you want to take it further after the original build.

[frvge]

I prefer staying independent in this case.

[Spekkio]

Yea it's like any sponsorship, really. Once you accept someone's money, they can tell you what to do. I think artistic freedom trumps money in this case.

[element54]

Funding from ubisoft would only be acceptable if it was a donation to our cause with no restrictions. Otherwise we would be restrained to doing things the way they want them done and on the time schedule they want them done.

I would be happy with just a good blessing from Ubisoft.

[Gui Brazil]

I would be happy with just a good blessing from Ubisoft.

Yea, f they just stay out of our way and don't make things complicated, it is already enough.

[Daybreak]

Basically, it'll come down to it can play like their multiplayer, and it may have similarities but it can't be exactly the same. Which is what we are trying to accomplish.
Maybe we can get feed back from the UT3 mod community as it's already growing. Rather than posting on UBI forums.

[goodkebab]

Sponsorship usually means paying for the costs to produce the game.  Thats $500,000 +,  they handle distribution,  and marketing. 

The price is it has to meet their standards,  which are going to be very high.  Game concept and design is negotiable, they have the right to request or deny features,  and there are monthly deadlines which they can deny paying if we do not meet the contract.

These forums would have to be closed down,  all development would be top secret,  and UBI would own the rights to our work.


A mod team cannot do that,  but if there is money involved,  we can hire independant contractors.

Again,  all of this is negotiable.

but I do consider it highly unlikely that this will happen.

[Spekkio]

The price is it has to meet their standards,  which are going to be very high.  Game concept and design is negotiable, they have the right to request or deny features,  and there are monthly deadlines which they can deny paying if we do not meet the contract.

Which means we'll get the same buggy, pos QA game we have now. And it'll cost us money to buy it. No thanks.

[goodkebab]

would still have to buy UT to play our game, and we will have our own bugs to worry about.

[Spekkio]

Yes, but the difference is that you won't need authorization from ubisoft to release a patch. Plus UT3 will probably be a good game. I'll be honest with you: if I have to pay Ubi for this project, I will not buy it.

[element54]

Yes, but the difference is that you won't need authorization from ubisoft to release a patch. Plus UT3 will probably be a good game. I'll be honest with you: if I have to pay Ubi for this project, I will not buy it.

I'm not to interested in the idea of giving money to Ubisoft either.