Slightly Off Topic: CITIES XL & Custom Content

[zero7]

Also like Phillippe has said, modding was an alternative to an active game developer, with Monte Cristo around there will be no need for modding.

To a degree, but it's down to the type of mod and the degree of flexibility in the game's user tweakable features.  Had SC4 been supported by the kind of active developer that Philippe is telling us that Monte Cristo will be then we would have had much better transport networks (e.g. working canals), weather, surface water etc.  that fit with the game's basic premise.  But would a developer have committed resources to something as niche as SimMars?

[Jonathan]

I guess a game developer wouldn't have committed resources to making something like SimMars, but then SimMars should really be its own game.

Phillippe (Is that the correct spelling?), That is alright for people who want unlimited cash(and it did get annoying having to use cheats to put the money level back up), but what about removing the need for water pipes and power poles?


Jonathan

[dedgren]

Hi again, Phillippe:

you are part of the people we call "gardeners" because what most of you like is the end result and filling of the cities and not actually playing the game

Even though that was part of a reply back to Shaun (diggis), I'll take gentle exception to it, at least speaking for myself, and perhaps for a few others as well.

There are many creators of custom content who are perhaps best characterized as pure modelers- those for whom the game is simply a context within which they do their thing.  My hat is always off to anyone who can be that focused.

As for being a gardener, though... there are many creators of fine custom content who not only play the game, but are masters at it.  You, I am certain, recall jeronij's Sculpting Columbia River and later Simtropia.  Adam (Ennedi) has done fantastic work with BSC's modal region Shosaloza.  Cedric (BadSim), Alex (Tarkus), even Shaun, who had a fine mayor's diary here called Watersford; these folks aren't simply creating the digital equivalent of a static model train layout.  Their cities and regions are perfectly functional within the concept of the "game" of SC4.  This site has taken a great deal of pride in having a staff that actually (and openly) plays the game we spend so much time talking about here.

As for myself, well- I started a session of SC4 coming up on about three years ago now that is still running, and remains much closer to its start than its end.  Simply because I've elected to pursue that session in a larger context- maps and backstory, etc., doesn't leave my vision of what it is to "play" SC4 any less of an experience than what EA intended.  I've always considered SC4 the ultimate open-ended gaming experience, and precisely because the box is so easy to get outside of.

A little insight- my own small sorties into the world of custom content- the road and rail stuff, ploppables, seasonals, all that, haven't been made because I enjoy creating content for the sake of creating it.  I'm doing what I do because nobody else did- and I want it in the game I play.  I feel confident in saying that, when I finally get to play CXL, I won't feel any different.  I'll run up against something that the game won't do and I'll be thinking, "hey, what if I...?"  If Monte Cristo cuts that possibility off at the knees, my guess is that I'll find myself in the company of many who find themselves frustrated by that position.


David

[dasilva]

The idea is not necessarly to cut off these possibilities at the knees. What I'd ideally like to see happening is that Custom Content makers and Monte Cristo work hand in hand to bring them to players. The "Hey, What if I..." concept is something we internally already do a lot of times especially after reading some suggestions raised by the community on our website.

But instead of leaving it solely to Custom Content makers, wouldn't it be great (at least, that's what I feel) to work together on such things happening? The benefits could be enormous and things could come up in a better shape and faster pace as the dev team could be involved...

The idea is NOT really to say: "custom content making is impossible"
Rather: "Let's add custom content the best way we can so that players get new experiences and visuals, custom content makers find their fun level by creating new stuff for the game and Monte Cristo improves CITIES XL's features and content catalog"

[Glenni]

it does sound good for the start, Dasilva, it does, but you have to understand, that we don't entirely trust that it will stay like this for a longer.What guarantee DO we have that you WILL keep with us, and not just abandon us within a year like EA did?

All might be jolly and good for the first year,but what about after that? What will happen then? how do we know that your devs will still work WITH us after a while?

[nerdly_dood]

One thing is that I never knew of a forum for people to make comments and post opinions about the development of SimCity Societies, resulting in the biggest flop I've ever seen. CitiesXL, however, does have such a forum, where development news is posted for people to comment on and where people can make requests and post other opinions. That is at least a little bit of evidence that Monte Cristo may not perform an EA-style abandonment on us.

Another is that although I'm not sure how long it was between the announcement of SimCity Societies and its release, but I'm sure that the time between the announcement of Cities Unlimited (now CitiesXL) and now has already been much longer than that.

[dedgren]

I want to say to everyone how much the extraordinarily professional tone of this thread is appreciated.  Phillippe, you are a true hero of the community for coming over to SC4D and engaging in a discussion that is both rigorous and challenging, not to mention uncomfortably inside of the comfort zone of many (including me) folks here.  Not everyone knows, and I think our MC friend is too self-effacing to let on, but Phillippe has been a part of the SC4 world for longer than many of us, and as such is and remains most certainly our friend.

I think everyone, truth be told, is inclined to give CXL a fair look, and maybe if some of our more bold suggestions aren't implemented at the time of the game's release, they will, for having been made in a respectful and thoughful manner, continued to be considered as the merits of MC's marketing strategy are judged by the marketplace.

I, for one, couldn't be more proud of everyone who has participated in this so far, and that we at SC4D have had the honor of hosting the discussion.


David

[XiahouDun]

I must say, reading this topic has been extremely enlightening. Both sides have kept a remarkably mature tone while discussing passionate issues.

I understand MC's desire to have the final products of user made content go through them, however the artist in me could never do something like that. Not so much fear of others profitting off of my work, but because I like seeing my work from beginning to end. Recently while talking to Pat, he mentioned he could lot my house BATs. As kind an offer as this is, I passed. I have an artistic vision on how the lots should look in game (based on the fact they are modeled after real life houses and lots). No ammount of explaining on my end could get the lot to look exactly how I want it to because I'm not the one doing the work. Only when I do all the work do I feel like I have achieved something.

On the subject of potentially having to pay for the downloads. In reality, even if the content was released on user run sites like the SC4 community, MC ultimately would still be profiting off of our work (even if they weren't selling the content). Sure it is indirectly, but they would still profit. Just look at SimCity 4. It remained a top 10 selling PC game for years, and now with it being in the SimCity box as the core game/expansion (in my opinion), it is likely popping up again. Last year, SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition was the #8 selling PC game (counting expansions). It sold 294,000 units, dispite no offical content released since 2004. So it is fairly truthful statement to say that EA is profiting off of the communities freework. A perfect example of this would be the amazing work the NAM team has done. They took a game that was released about 80% done, and have done such amazing work with it that the NAM feels more like an offical update than a usermade thing (except it hasn't been abandoned like offical updates ).

Source: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6185090.html?tag=result;title;0

[dasilva]

Hi David,

You know, I already said this before, but I see these kind of discussions as a real life couple: some times you argue but as long as you care about each other, you make sure you don't cross the border line. 

This relationship we are trying to build is quite unique in the industry and it's the result of a set of happenings in the city builder genre which started with the great SimCity Classic (I don't know if Will Wright will ever read this message but I thank him and all the Maxis team at the time who brought this genre to light  ) and continued thanks to a dedicated community of talents that brought so much more fun to a game that hosted so many plugins and custom content in my machines over the last 4 years.

Now, some of you raise the long term issue of seeing Monte Cristo not supporting CITIES XL custom content over time. I do understand that and I would react the exact same way if I didn't join Monte Cristo last year to work on CITIES XL...
But...
The solely reason why I can tell you that you shouldn't care about it is that CITIES XL will have this online mode that would require us to run a continuous service to support players playing all over the world at the same time.
This means that as long as we do offer the Planet Mode, we will HAVE TO support players by providing them with the best service quality online we can. Part of this service will be to have 24/7 uptime on our servers (except for maintenance of course ), technical and in game support if necessary but as any MMO game, we'll have to provide players with new content, events and the like for them to find replayability which is the core of a city builder game.
Therefore, as long as the Planet Offer is online, we will be in a position to support Content distribution including Custom made.

We'll release a game that is meant from the start to be upgraded/patched/extended over time to bring new challenges and fun to players (Solo and Online).

Make a small comparison to MMORPGs, if some of them are still around it's because they have a good fan base and Game Studios kept patching the game with new content for their subscribers since day 1.
They have been adding features, balancing the game play and adding new content all the way...

The difference with MMORPGs, except the fact it will be a City builder game , is the fact that we don't want to have players buying a box on retail and see their game end 1 month later unless they start paying a 15€ subscription fee...

With CITIES XL, we want players to have the choice to play the game for the price they'll pay for the retail box which will be a fully city builder game; As well as being able to subscribe for a smaller fee to the whole online additional gameplay features.

To get back to Custom Content, I'll state it again. If we succeed, you and MC, to find solutions to get Custom Content delivered in CITIES XL, we want players to have it for free either playing Solo mode or Planet Offer.

We still need to talk about all this but I'm quite positive we can find good ways to team up and see custom content being part of the whole CITIES XL ideology

[RippleJet]

Now, some of you raise the long term issue of seeing Monte Cristo not supporting CITIES XL custom content over time. I do understand that and I would react the exact same way if I didn't join Monte Cristo last year to work on CITIES XL...
But...

...but if... and if there were no if... but what if...

• CXL would become a huge success (let's hope for it)...
• EA would realise how successful CXL became (let's not hope for it)...
• EA would offer to buy MC (let's hope MC would buy EA instead)...

Maxis also promised to support their official exchange... But...
Maybe I'm painting the devil on the wall here... But there are always Ifs...

[Ennedi]

I had no luck and wasn't be able to take a part in our discussion. I came home and looged in too late and the discussion was finished exactly when I was going to say anything 
But it has a good side too, I had more time to think about the problem.

1. I'm sure you analysed the potential market for your product, but I'm not sure about your conclusions. I have spme observations about SC4 players' preferences, maybe they will be useful for you.

1.1. I don't know how big part of CS4 players become members of various fansites, but I think it's a main or at least significant part of them. I guess fansites members will be an important group for you too (if there will be any sense to create fansites  ).

1.2. Observing active members of various SC4 fansites we can divide their preferences into a few groups:

  1.2.1. Some people take SC4 as a "game" ie. they use it to create as big city as possible, or to achieve as big income as possible. Some of them don't like to use custom content, they say that it can damage the game. It can be easily understood knowing how many stupid cheating stuff and poorly modded buildings were published earlier, especially on the official EA site.
These players are rather a minority. After achieving some experience they usually become to use custom content.

  1.2.2. People fascinated in the game mechanics; they go deeper into more specific game aspects, such as solving transport problems, improving regional development or researching various demand issues.
These people research mods and use them extensively.

  1.2.3. People who like to play in a "sandbox mode". Philippe, you described them quite accurately 

(...) We didn't overlooked it: you are part of the people we call "gardeners" because what most of you like is the end result and filling of the cities and not actually playing the game. You currently use SC4 as a playground where you place your stuff (buildings, canals, transport networks,etc..) so that it looks like a real city the same as when I was a kid I used to create some wood based landscapes and place my trains, stations, rails and the like  (...)

But I must add that these players have many fantastic achievements in various fields - recreation of real areas, realistic city layout and landscapes, custom airports and seaports, researching the scale issues and - last but not least - making beautiful pictures. This is an important players group and it would be very bad to neglect them. Their creations can play an incredible role in popularizing the game.

  1.2.4. I think the main group of players is located somewhere between groups 1/2 and 3. They want to create fully functional cities, but the visual aspect is very important to them. This is my way of playing too 

2. Looking at players preferences described above I think that custom game objects (buildings, parks and plazas, industrial and transit-related stuff, various fillers and of course all these small details called props) are absolutely necessary for groups 3 and 4.

Everything related to terrain - water, flora, the environment, an ability to choose the terrain look and to terraform the terrain - is very important too. However, not many people develop this area extensively (quite many map makers, very few terrain mods and custom flora developers). Most of players would like too choose one one of several, ready-to-use options.
(I am the one of these few working with custom landscapes, I would be very glad to be able to work with them in the new game too... )

Modding by itself is the main point of interest for a relatively small group of people. There are three main reasons of using mods:

a) Improving neglected, poorly developed by manufacturer or badly balanced game aspects; in fact it's a waste of time, but we must do it. If the game developer would make a good work, this type of modding would be unnecessary.

b) Assigning parameters to custom game objects; in SC4 it's a necessary part of creating them. MC doesn't want to give this ability to custom content creators. On the other hand, modding is usually not a goal for the BAT/LOT maker. It's only a way to achieve a goal ie. to create an unique, good looking object, incresing the game realism and it's diversity, and properly functioning in the game.
A lot of best/most useful custom content is completely neutral from the simulation point of view.
Conclusion: maybe there is a way to satisfy players and meet MC requirements in the same time? I have an idea, look at point 3 

c) Increasing game possibilities: this was greatly described by David (dedgren)

Hi again, Phillippe:
(...)
A little insight- my own small sorties into the world of custom content- the road and rail stuff, ploppables, seasonals, all that, haven't been made because I enjoy creating content for the sake of creating it.  I'm doing what I do because nobody else did- and I want it in the game I play.  I feel confident in saying that, when I finally get to play CXL, I won't feel any different.  I'll run up against something that the game won't do and I'll be thinking, "hey, what if I...?"  If Monte Cristo cuts that possibility off at the knees, my guess is that I'll find myself in the company of many who find themselves frustrated by that position.


David

There are not many people thinking this way, but they are the main force keeping the game still alive and showing directions of it's future development.
They can be the most demanding - and creative in the same time - testers for your new game. But I think it is crucial to find effective and satisfying ways of cooperation between MC and these people.

To summarize this point:
- Let's try to find a way to enable custom game objects;
- Please tell us much more about game options and customization possibilities of terrain, terraforming and related stuff;
- A big part of modding work can be probably avoided (points a  and b); let's try to agree what can we do with the remaining part (point c).

3. Here is my idea:

3.1. MC prepares empty lots for all types of game objects - RCI buildings, utilities, parks and plazas, landmarks (if you provide them) and completely neutral lots - for various growth levels, wealth types and lot sizes.
3.2. Every lot of the certain type and size has exactly the same parameters, so MC makes all necessary modding work earlier and don't need to wait for requests.
3.3. Empty lots are available for  players as the "Lot library".
3.4. The custom content creator creates a model (or uses the ready one) chooses an apropriate lot from the library and fill it by textures, props and the main building (or only textures and props if it is - for example - an industrial filler or a plaza set part).

How many lots should be prepared?
I tried to calculate it. To have practically unlimited possibilities we would need approx. 4500 lots if it would be important which building side touches the transit network, and about 3000 if it would be unimportant. (Btw I think buildings should have a road access independently from their direction, and if they were be placed up to 1 grid tile away from the nearest network  )
It looks huge, but in fact MC must create even more lots and prepare them as empty places to fill by custom content would be a schematic and quick operation.
(If somebody would be interested in this idea, I'm ready to discuss it, show my calculations and talk about other aspects).

It means that if we have an ingame 3x3 tiles building from the 4th growth level, medium wealth and medium height, and the custom building from the same group, they would have exactly the same lot as a base and they could be replaced one to another without any influence on the simulation. Only the visual aspect would be changed. The custom content creator wouldn't manipulate with game parameters at all.
I suppose that lots made this way wouldn't need to be checked by the developer, and even more - they could be used in the online mode without any risk of cheating or other negative effects 

A side idea: It would be fantastic to have a "replace building" option. If I don't like a building which growed on my 2x2 zone, I can click on it, choose "replace building" and see a list of alternatives according to specific conditions in this place and time. Then I click one of them and replace existing buildings by another one (for example to keep the style consistency along the street  ). It is possible in SC4 too, but it is necessary to use a "BuildingPlop" cheat and it's up to me if I know which building can I build instead of an existing one without any negative effects. And of course I can't find a building with exactly the same parameters  )

This post is too long yet. Please tell me if it's a step in the right direction.

At the end I would like to ask you Philippe what do you mean telling this:

18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Guys, you have to quit the SC4 mind
18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> really

I suppose you wanted to say something important, but I don't understand it

Adam

[JoeST]

Adam: THAT IS FANTASTIC... wow, that last bit is just ace/great/amazing

I just wish it had come last year while UrbsUrbis was running that would have been discussed and been ace...

Joe

[jplumbley]

@Adam

Section 3

Phillipe says:

18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> Guys, you have to quit the SC4 mind
18:03 < PhilippeCitiesXL> really

CitiesXL is going to be 100% different from SC4.  The two most important factors that dicate this are that there is no grid and the game is in 3D.

No Grid

Right now, in transit modding.... We have access to things called RUL files and they are pretty much the heart and sole of any transit addition to the game we have available in the community.  RUL files are basically "IF then Statements" where IF the transit network is setup in "(this situation based on the grid)" THEN replace it with "(this set of textures or models)".  But, in Cities XL there is no grid... therefore Transit Modding the way we know it will not exist.  Transit Modding will now become much more dynamic instead of the static system we have come to understand.  Due to this new dynamic system everything will probably have to be editted at the EXE level for transit additions.

Lotting....

Once again, there will be no grid.  2x2, 2x3, 4x4, 6x5, etc size lots will probably not exist.  Because there will be curved roads and roads on any angle imaginable, once again the lots will have to be dynamically implemented.

Now, I dont know exactly how this will be worked with but my assumption is that there will not really be a "lot" per se... Basically, I would assume that the building will have something similar to a desc file.  Within this file there will be information containing but not limited to: (SC4 Terms but may differ in CitiesXL)

1.  Building Size
2.  Building Occupants (sounds like multiple occupants will be possible)
3.  Stage (some sort of indication on when the building will be allowed to grow)
4.  Amenities Consumed (power, water, etc)
5.  Pollution Generated (air, water, garbage, etc)

Now this is where we may find differences: (again, just assumptions)

6.  Minimum Setbacks
          - Factor based on how close the building can be to the lot next door.
          - There would be 4 of these for a setback from each property line (N,S,E,W).
          - If the building were High Density CO, then you might want it to be close to the neighboring towers, but if it was
          a R$$$ building you would want it to be further away from neighboring towers to get some landscaping.
7.  Landscaping Type
          - This would determine the type of Landscaing that would occur around the building.
          - Because the lots are not equal in shape or size and they are not necessarily in a grid fashion there can be no
          static "props" as we are used to with lotting because there is no reference point that is guarenteed to exist unless
          we included those static props as part of the building model.  Therefore there is probably some sort of algorithim or
          process which needs to be implemented to allow for landscaping to occur around a building in the given lot it grows
          on.
          - Again if CO, you would probably want concrete walkways with newspaper stands etc.  Whereas a single family
          home will have a tree, a few bushes, a deck and maybe a pool.

My assumptions probably will never be verified, but what is fact is the way Cities XL will deal with lots or any custom content cannot be equated to anything we have in SC4 simply because Cities XL by necessity has to be more dynamically open to different situations, where as SC4 doesnt deal with any of those situations.

From the assumptions above, this basically means the only modding that will be required for a lot will essentially be the occupant types, minimum setbacks of the building and the landscape type around it.  And all it will be is a single desc file that we see in SC4 with the properties of the building.  Hence it will probably take 10 minutes for the Cities XL team to mod a building, whereas in SC4 people spend countless hours on lotting when there will be no static lots like that in Cities XL, drastically reducing the time required to create a building for the game.

[Ennedi]

@Jason (jplumbley)

Thank you very much for this explanation! But even if there would be no grid as a basic principle to place game objects, the terrain will probably have any coordinate system, and every game object will have a certain position assigned.

Even if there will be no grid, it will be wise to limit possible sizes (ie. occupied areas) of buildings and other objects and if we will do it, my idea will be still valid (although we will not talk about "number of tiles" but simply about the size). I suppose it's also true concerning objects created by MC. It would be very uncomfortable to build a row of buildings if their sizes would be unlimited.
Even in real life many buildings are designed in a modular way. 3 or 6 m is a very popular module in industrial buildings.

It's good to talk with logically thinking people  and I'm very glad of this discussion. Talking about another game can put more light on our current game too 

I'm very curious of Philippe's replies in above themes 

Adam

[dasilva]

Hi guys,

This is moving quite well forward

@Ennedi:
I think your analysis on players preferences is good because we got to the same conclusions 

On 2, it's important that you understand the following:
a. We will continue developing new and improving existing features after the game release as well as balancing the game because whatever the time we will put on testing it, we'll never have as good feedback than when players will get their copy and play the game in real conditions. We're sure players will try to make things that we didn't thought of using all the features we'll provide.
And the main reason why we'll do so is because we have this online component that requires us to put a good effort on making sure that the game is fun and can be played for a long time and the Solo mode will benefit from this effort too.
b. That's not we don't want to let custom content makers change simulation variables and core engine features but instead we think it would be benefitial for all of us if we could team up to change or add things you would have liked to get in the game (that is direcltly link to point a. ). This way we preserve the online mode from cheating and hacks while making moves forward the right directions with the help of custom content makers. We developed the game in a really modular system and we can have a deep look in a specific point and make changes to it so that it improves the whole experience.

As for your ideas, I'll talk about them internally but I don't think they'll make it (but I may be wrong as I don't have a view on details).

For the sake of the conversation, I'll explain you what is our Assets pipeline:
1. We decide to create an asset
2. Level Design team makes a description of the asset:
2.a Photo references for the style and type
2.b Name and quick description
2.c Impacts (Positive & Negative) on the different properties and layers of the simulation and economics
2.d Tags used for the Mass Placement Tool
3. Artists create the graphic asset:
3.a Model buildings with 3dsmax - 4 models, one for each Level of Detail
3.b Create the X textures for the models including ambient, diffuse, lightmap, normal, illumination map, etc...
3.c If some furnitures are required, they model and create the textures for them
4. Level Design team retrieves the graphic assets and create the LOT
4.a Level designer uses the Building Editor to load the building assets and furnitures and places them
4.b Level designer uses an internal tool (can't remember the name) to create the file that describes the Lot for the game (properties, layers, tags...)
4.c Level designer uses the Scene Editor to create Animations we call scenes and attach them to the Lot if required to bring some life to the Lot (i.e.: seeing cars getting out of the garage, children playing in the garden, etc.)
4.d Level designer submit the whole files to our Build System that compiles the whole thing into a set of binary files optimized for the game which makes sure that everything is done correctly by checking a set of rules
5. Lot is added to the Distribution System so that they are automatically distributed to all developers and internal testers machines for the QA phase

Then, when all that is done and if the game is released, we make it public so that players can retrieve the newly created lot and have it appear on their cities (either Solo or Online mode).

On our side, and that's what I tried to explain during the chat, the easiest first move we can make to custom content is by having 3d artists who want to provide new buildings to Cities XL taking the same role as our artists.
Then you could come up to us with the initial description document we use internally and our level design team would simply apply your recommendations in our internal tools if they are not conflicting with simulation rules or directions.

That'd be our first idea but we would need to know if anyone would do that before putting more resources and energy on it?... 

[Zaphod]

What will the terms of the upload process be?

Can I make, say, a McDonalds? Or are rules on the use of trademarks? Also, would you consider a gritty urban building with an XXX theatre "innappriopriate"? I suppose even if the answer is no to either it isn't the end of the world, but whatever...

Will you consider making a export tool for free software like Blender instead?

Finally, what kind of quality is demanded? Obviously common sense says no untextured hot pink teapots on a stick, but if someone makes an honest first time effort that is only good but not great, will it likely be accepted? Sure you probably can't answer this now but I dunno, seems like an issue if you guys expect a large community to make stuff. 

[dasilva]

That's a good set of questions Zaphod 

Ok, I'll try to answer them:

What will the terms of the upload process be?

The terms of the upload process still need to be defined but the most important three rules that would have to be applied:
1. Custom content makers would give the right to Monte Cristo to distribute the content for free so that players won't have to pay to get it.
2. Custom content makers would give the right to all players to download and use content on their cities.
3. Monte Cristo would garantee custom content makers their content to be associated with their name.

Can I make, say, a McDonalds? Or are rules on the use of trademarks? Also, would you consider a gritty urban building with an XXX theatre "innappriopriate"? I suppose even if the answer is no to either it isn't the end of the world, but whatever...

It is totally forbidden by law to make use of trademarks without the agreement of its owner. As a consequence, in order to have such as a McDonalds restaurant, you would have to get their agreement. It is not an issue if this content is not much seen but you may expose yourself to some legal issues otherwise.
As for mature content, there are two answers for that. First, we may simply consider it innapropriate and breaking rules we would have set on the game custom content submission: after all, CITIES XL, as SimCity, should be 3+ rated game.
The other answer would be to manage a parental control system in custom content distribution: We would allow older than 18 players to download what they want and forbid some content considered as mature to the younger audience.

Will you consider making a export tool for free software like Blender instead?

As I already said previously, we are internally using 3dsmax for our buildings. However, our exporter exports the whole building mesh and materials to a middleware XML file format that we then compile to a binary file format so that the game can use it.
We have no plans right now to develop an exporter for other 3d software but, if we do release this XML file format, the community could develop it and maintain it on their own. And if we have some time, we may even develop it ourselves for some other 3D packages.

Finally, what kind of quality is demanded? Obviously common sense says no untextured hot pink teapots on a stick, but if someone makes an honest first time effort that is only good but not great, will it likely be accepted? Sure you probably can't answer this now but I dunno, seems like an issue if you guys expect a large community to make stuff. 

There is 2 factors to Quality:
1. Respect the rules defined by our graphic pipeline (scale, number of polygons per LOD, texture sizes, all materials created such as normal map, light map, ambien occlusion map,etc...).
2. Graphic quality: we won't consider unfinish assets because therefore you would use the intellectual property of the submitted content so that our 3D artists polish it. That's not something we want to enter because we think it won't be fair.

I hope it gives you some enlightment

[callagrafx]

It is totally forbidden by law to make use of trademarks without the agreement of its owner.

That very much depends on the usage...and a very, very, very grey area.  I can take a photo of a MacDonalds and sell it through a photo library under license without having to pay MacDonald's a single penny.  I created the photograph so I own the copyright irrespective of content....unless the content contained a person as a focus in which case I would need to secure a model release.

[zero7]

Lee brings up a good point - artistic depictions are generally considered 'fair use'. 

You cannot depict a McDonalds without using their trademarked symbols; therefore, as use of those symbols is the only distinguishing factor in making a McDonalds identifiable as such, it is considered acceptable.  (This does depend, of course, on the degree to which corporate pressure has overcome common sense in particular countries)

More pertinent from the point of view of custom content is that a city builder without real brands is not acceptably realistic.  Just look at the number of well known brands that are depicted on models on both STEX and LEX - not to mention their popularity.

[dasilva]

Zero7,

I agree with you on the fact that it brings a lot of realism but even if it serves the trademark, you are still using their trademark on a "creation" and not a picture which is slightly different and they can consider that you are violating either copyright or making use of their trademark in a way they don't like and therefore condamn.

I'm just saying that it's just that you are not allowed to use a trademark without getting their agreement otherwise you would expose yourself to a potential legal issue.