Talk:EQEmu

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (7 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Redirect

this page seems to simply be a link to itself.... delete? Halyks 07:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Well, I just found this page yesterday from MMORPG so I would say it IS linked to. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 18:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see the problem. Someone redirected EQEmu to EternalQuest. I have restored this page. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 18:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Morality and Legality

The End User License Agreement of EverQuest has constiguents regarding the modification of the game client (including, but not limited to the configuration files therein). However, this article provides links to a website (or websites) which offer information and files to do just that. This would seem, to me anyway, to fall under providing users with wares and information which is prohibited both by copyright law and the afforementioned agreement.

Is there any form of rationale to provide this information? It could be seen as the same people teaching users to modify their software, seeking to build their communities, by utilizing the castles in the sky method of advertisement. Also, providing said information can be morally wrong, as the use of Sony's modified software (ie: the client) even when written from scratch after reverse engineering is very much similar to stealing it -- especially because they're loading the same content of the retail servers into memory anyway.

If someone could provide some (appropriate) rationale to provide this information, it would be appreciated. -Emhilradim 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information about client modification do not break EULA. Modification do break EULA. This is user choice of using (or not) this information. Wad2 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only "client modification" required to play EQEmu is of the eqhost.txt file, which is a text file consisting of 2 lines to tell the client which Login Server to point to. It is not uncommon for SOE support to direct their players to edit much more complex config files such as the eqclient.ini file. The fact that they provide clear information and fully support the editing of custom User Interfaces clearly shows that there no rules or laws against the editing of configuration files. Configuration files are there so they can be configured, otherwise, they would be hard coded into the source of the eqgame.exe before being compiled. Even if there were issues with editing the extremely simple eqhost.txt file, it could easily be circumvented by having users edit their Windows host file to redirect traffic without having to touch anything on the client. EQEmu is perfectly legal and if it was not, it would have easily been shut down by SOE years ago.

As for the Morality of EQEmu, that is a discussion that would require many words. The short of it is that SOE could use EQEmu for their advantage just as much as EQEmu uses SOE's client. The fact that EQEmu has had "Bots" for long before EQLive came out with "Mercenaries" shows that there is a high chance that SOE is actually taking advantage of EQEmu as they should be and learning from the good ideas that come from the project. Perhaps SOE could one day decide to allow player-run servers of their own and make a profit from it. The potential would be unlimited. Trevious (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]