I have been editing Cricket 2007's gameplay since quite a bit of time and I have realized that apart from the awful animations the game has real depth in it the way it was made..The thing was that it wasn't really tweaked perfectly...Cricket 2007's AI paces it's innings in just one way which causes it to play like idiots sometimes not considering the match situation. So there needs to be more Else If used in the gameplay...The bowling speed should be realtime like in Cricket 07...Animations are probably the most important thing in a sports game so that needs to be real good too...And Cricket 07 is still alive for a reason the reason being it's very patchable...We could access the files easily and edit them but as of I know there are no separate AI files in Ashes Cricket 2009..So there should be a separate roster file and separate gameplay files not like Ashes 2009 where editing only the database file can bring a few minor changes in the gameplay..I hope this message would be passed on somehow to the developers...
There's lots of bits in here to deal with, but it all falls around one particular area... Firstly, let me say that what I'm about to say is my personal understanding of the legalities, and not necessarily accurate, but worth bringing up for discussion.
Modding is an area fraught with potential dangers. Console aside (I won't comment on that as it's a different kettle of fish, and I don't have nearly enough info to know about it) it all depends on what is contained within the EULA (End-User License Agreement) that you probably agree to on many games when you install them (it's the bit you scroll quickly through and click "ACCEPT" without reading, if you're anything like me!)
The license agreement forms a contract between you and the copyright owners of the game. They vary, but most of them will include specific agreements that you will not COPY or DISTRIBUTE the game (obviously), but usually that you will also not MODIFY or CREATE WORKS from the software.
I say it varies from game to game: some games encourage it (indeed, some games DEPEND upon it for longevity) and others actively combat it. But if your EULA states that you agree not to do those things, then you shouldn't technically be doing them.
There are many reasons why publishers have to do this, including making sure that they are not legally culpable if YOU do something breaching that agreement.
An example (and this is totally made up for illustration purposes only): You change the textures on a licensed bat of a licensed player in the game. You then upload a video of it to YouTube (NB: Was there a clause in the EULA about reproducing the copyrighted work, or one that about "public performance"? If so, that's ALSO a breach of the agreement.) For whatever it reason it goes viral, and before the publisher can have the copyrighted footage removed, the bat manufacturer see their star player playing with the wrong bat, clearly breaching their agreement with the publisher. The publisher can only protect itself by pointing out that it is not THEIR breach of contract, but instead that of the end user.
My understanding of this is that the publisher needs to cover itself so that anything that an end user does (because potentially they COULD do ALL SORTS of things) that alters their game is in no way their fault.
This of course only applies to products which potentially have tertiary interests: something like Skyrim, for example, which I believe is completely 100% copyright owned by the publisher/developer, can offer extensive modification options and sometimes they even PROVIDE tools with which to modify the game. But if there are more copyrights involved, then the publisher cannot encourage you to change it. Hence why the licensed players in previous cricket games cannot have names or attributes edited, but generic players can.
Now how many times in history has this been actually ENFORCED? I would suspect not many. But technically, my reading of it is that if you have accepted a EULA which prohibited changing the game, then the responsibility for any changes made would be on you should the publisher, or any interested party, raise it as a concern.
I'm sure there will be more questions on this, so I'll stop rambling.
But before you respond, I would encourage you to read a random EULA from a game you have seen modded in the past and decide whether you think, from a legal point of view, it was allowed or not...
that will fly all over the place.
