Talk:OpenTTD

Legal status

It should be noted that the legality of OpenTTD is questionable, since its code is written based on a disassembly of the original Transport Tycoon Deluxe executable. --Jiifurusu 19:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

then I presume that the legality of samba, for example, is questionable also. Is that so? I would be interested in your source stating that the game has been ported using a disassembly of the TTD binaries. Tue Nov 8 11:27:25 CET 2005

Ask the original coder, Ludvig Strigeus - it was. --Kiand 10:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

He appears to be quite active on Wikipedia as Ludde23. -- Darklock (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That person isn't him. Chirea Mircea (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortly before the first version of OpenTTD was made public, two people were also working on a rewrite of TT, named TTSD (Transport Tycoon Superdeluxe) and later on TTU (Transport Ultimate, but the second T was left in the abbreviation as a reference to TTD), supposedly without any disassembling of the original executable. However, when OpenTTD was released, it appears the two developers lost their motivation and decided to work on a different - undisclosed (as far as I am aware) - project. The source code was never released (it was meant to be released under the GPL when it was finished) because they said they might decide to finish it later on. However, nothing more of them has been heard ever since (which was somewhere in late April 2004: Related TT-Forums thread) I just thought it was worth mentioning. I was in fact contemplating on writing something about it in the actual article, but I am not quite sure if it's related enough. And it certainly wouldn't be worth it's own wikipedia article. - GoneWacko 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was the category changed from "Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels" to "Computer game mods"? OpenTTD definately is not a mod, it's a remake of the original and even though it requires the original data files, a seperate game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.116.201 (talk) 16:57, 22 January, 2005 (UTC)

Because the other category was deleted via WP:CfD. Kiand 18:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If this game doesn't fit that category, and it doesn't, as it is not a mod in any shape or form, should we remove it from that category? Born Acorn 16:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It was an automated move because the category before was deleted. It can be argued that it is a mod, since it modifies the gameplay only, while depending on the graphics of the "actual game", although it usually is the other way around.

You can not call it a remake or a separate game as long as it does not have its own graphics, those are mutually exclusive. The best example I could think of was FreeCraft, which started as a reverse-engineered game engine but then added their own graphics and levels. Only then was Blizzard entitled to send a cease & desist letter because it evolved to a separate game and thus a competitor to WarCraft II, while infringing on the trademark. Maybe the OpenTTD project should change the name too when they have the new graphics completed. Now FreeCraft has been started anew as Stratagus with many changes to the gameplay for their own game Battle of Survival and it is called a free game engine. OpenTTD is currently the same, just a game engine. Please do not buy that "clone" shit that the project has been spouting. -- Darklock (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is simply if theres disassembled code in the finished product or not. If disassembly has been used simply to gain knowledge on how OpenTTD works and then a reimplementation of it was made, theres no problem and at least the U.S. courts have maintained the legality of this process- see: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html and the relevant parts of the rulings on this issue on http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise25.html

though many projects go for the clean room design and never do anything to the reverse-engineered program but simply implement specifications and those are written often even by a different group of people, and those simply observe that programs behaviour and touch it it in any way, just in case...

However, if its simply a translation of the disassembly, and not an implementation of specifications (i.e. engineering) obtained from studying the disassembly (!!) and this was stated to be the case here by some OpenTTD developers!!!, that is if the offered source code contains such , this is a derivative work, just like a translated book is. While it is fair use to use disassembly and such intermediary source code, both legal sources are unanimous on that, in the process of the reverse engineering, if a single line of code of such origin is still in OpenTTD, its a blatant violation of copyright, and illegal at least in 162 countries of the world (that is at least in all countries that signed the Berne Convention, which includes all members of the WTO). the ruling on Sega v. Accolade case says Our conclusion does not, of course, insulate Accolade from a claim of copyright infringement with respect to its finished products. Sega has reserved the right to raise such a claim, and it may do so on remand. - and the verdict on ATARI v. NINTENDO http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1015.htm is against ATARI though it upholds disassembly as intermediary step in the reverse engineering process as fair use, due to suspicion that some of their code was just the disassembled Nintendo code: "The district court assumed that reverse engineering (intermediate copying) was copyright infringement. Atari Games v. Nintendo of Am., Nos. 88-4805, 89-0027, 89-0824, slip op. at 11-13 [18 USPQ2d 1935] (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 1991). This court disagrees. Atari did not violate Nintendo’s copyright by deprocessing computer chips in Atari’s rightful possession. Atari could lawfully de process Nintendo’s 10NES chips to learn their unprotected ideas and processes. This fair use did not give Atari more than the right to understand the 10NES program and to distinguish the protected from the unprotected elements of the 10NES program. Any copying beyond that necessary to understand the 10NES program was infringement."

Also, the Debian-legal mailing list, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/threads.html , in 3 separate threads, under the assumption that OpenTTD was developed from specifications on the internal workings of that game, and that it has been fleshed out from that obtained from that disassembly, also had a lot of debate over another case, http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9656426.html Micro Star v. FormGen and the very fact that it simply was a Transport Tycoon, exactly like Microprose's, made to be Microproses Transport Tycoon wtc. This in itself is derivative work, and is by this virtue alone infringing, essentially on this entire planet. After getting the idea about its origin, a poster that defended OpenTTD to that point says Now, if they really are using large (or indeed medium-size) swatches of decompiled code, that is *certainly* copyright infringement and "ripping off". If this is true they should probably be warned by anyone who cares about the project (which is not me), and certainly Debian shouldn't distribute it.... I know nothing about the code, and if it features decompiled code from a copyrighted source, clearly it is infringing, of course.

here's the description of the action that was upheld as fair use, from Seattle University School of Law http://www.law.seattleu.edu/fachome/chonm/Cases/sega.html: 4/ Accolade used a two- step process to render its video games compatible with the Genesis console. First, it "reverse engineered" Sega's video game programs in order to discover the requirements for compatibility with the Genesis console. As part of the reverse engineering process, Accolade transformed the machine- readable object code contained in commercially available copies of Sega's game cartridges into human- readable source code using a process called "disassembly" or "decompilation".[1] Accolade purchased a Genesis console and three Sega game cartridges, wired a decompiler into the console circuitry, and generated printouts of the resulting source code. Accolade engineers studied and annotated the printouts in order to identify areas of commonality among the three game programs. They then loaded the disassembled code back into a computer, and experimented to discover the interface specifications for the Genesis console by modifying the programs and studying the results. At the end of the reverse engineering process, Accolade created a development manual that incorporated the information it had discovered about the requirements for a Genesis- compatible game. According to the Accolade employees who created the manual, the manual contained only functional descriptions of the interface requirements and did not include any of Sega's code.

5/ In the second stage, Accolade created its own games for the Genesis. According to Accolade, at this stage it did not copy Sega's programs, but relied only on the information concerning interface specifications for the Genesis that was contained in its development manual. Accolade maintains that with the exception of the interface specifications, none of the code in its own games is derived in any way from its examination of Sega's code. In 1990, Accolade released "Ishido", a game which it had originally developed and released for use with the Macintosh and IBM personal computer systems, for use with the Genesis console.

If this is the nature of its comming to be, then the 'legal status' section needs to be significantly more specific than 'some juristictions' because this is invariant in practically the entire world. In any case, that section is completely unsourced. Only an accusation that this happened to ReactOS resulted in maintainers doing a complete audit of the entire codebase to check it out. And btw, since the opposite was erroneously claimed on the forums of OpenTTD, US law actually has more freedom for reverse engineering, not less, than European law, so being based in Europe is of no help here. The concept of fair use itself is specific to US law (though similar provisions for review or education purpose short qoutes of course exist).

--Aryah 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the above relates to the article about OpenTTD. bruce89 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the Legal status section is misleading because of the above, in that 'under some jurisdictions' includes essentially the entire world. --Aryah 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to correct and source the section in question. --Aryah 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I had to remove entire "legal section", as paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are obvious original research by Aryah (no original research is allowed in Wikipedia!), paragraph 5 (the original one) was entirely unsourced, and paragraph 4 is out of place after removal of the other paragraphs.

What this article needs, is short (1-2 sentences) mention of possible illegality, and 1-2 external links on the subject. Note, that those links should not be to any online discussion forums or blogs (as they are untrusted sources per Wikipedia guidelines).

Futurix 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I considered I must avoid original research, so have sourced all conclusions I made - there's no way that's original research. I have tried to source to very general explanations of what reverse engineering really means - is this explanation what's seen as original research? well, cut the introductory explanation,not the sourced conclusions then! I presented only conclusions that were also made on debian-legal (granted second paragraph referred to the forum discussion on OpenTTD forums about the supposed 'reverse engineering' and why it wasn't really that, but where else could I find specific discussion of it in the case of OpenTTD? I also gave the legal explanation of this issue so if not using that forum, then simply the statement that that law means OpenTTD is illegal would be unsourced, and how could someone dispute that seeing the law in question - and this is referred to on a more brutal way on debian-list too), and debian-legal being a list or not, it is clearly a very influential voice about day-to-day legal practices on the free software world. Google for debian-legal excluding debian.org domain gives 64 100 hits [1]!!! They are used in other articles on wikipedia, like GNU_Free_Documentation_License, Debian Free Software Guidelines , Common_Development_and_Distribution_License , IBM Public License and are mentioned on a few more articles. In fact, I cant think of a more influential voice on free software legal .Try removing refferences to debian-legal on those likely more widely edited articles before purging the reference from this article. So I absolutely dispute the exclusion of that source. The only (other) forum link was simply to a discussion where OpenTTD developers voiced for themselves how OpenTTD came to existence - how is this in question? They clearly wont advertise about this issue, and this is pretty much the only place one could hope to hear on it 'from the horses mouth'. I also don't understand why the fact OpenTTD was excluded from Debian and their legal experts explicitly saying OpenTTD is an obvious copyright infringement can go unmentioned. This also clearly demonstrates that nothing was extrapolated in that section outside of what was concluded by legal experts at debian, so I see no reason this be considered original research. In fact for any discussion of legality to be made before an actual case against them is filed and trialled will not be any less 'original research' than this, and it would be ridiculous to demand publications in newspapers on the issue for an obscure project like OpenTTD unless this happens; this is too high a bar to fulfil for any discussion of the issue, and all it could point to is perhaps questionable notability of this project to be even included in the Wikipedia.

The original, far far worse legal paragraph with no sources at all and filled with weasel words persisted for a very long time, so I insist this paragraph be included, possibly reworked. Lacking constructive suggestions how this should be worded, Ill revert to my original section, and will include debian-legal sourced paragraph immediately. --Aryah 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand no original research thing. As you stated, you've made some conclusions in here - and that's the original research! The legal links you've provided say nothing specifically about OpenTTD - the connection between content of legal documents and origins of OpenTTD is done by you and therefore is the original research and not permitted here.

There is also secondary issue of blogs/forums/mailing lists not being trusted sources by Wikipedia guidelines - so at least three of your links could not be used.

Futurix 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, it is original research, if forum sources are not used (if used, those discussion did make those conclusions and linked those legal pages, so it would not be - therefore those are not two problems with that paragraph, but a single problem with it - because use of those sources would make it not original research) - editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. and later This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. So definitely, to make any conclusion however obvious from the general legal information regarding this product specifically, Id have to find a reputable published information specifically about OpenTTD's legality in those respects. How the hell I am to do this? theres no article about this game at all referenced anywhere here, let alone about its legal aspects. --Aryah 08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find anything on the topic - then you are not supposed to include it in Wikipedia. Futurix 13:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, currently the only source used in this article is OpenTTD wiki?? hows that different from using a forum or a blog? Thats also self-published information, and wikis are mentioned in the same paragraph as blogs, forums in the guideline [WP:RS]. And there's on reference to any publicity on this game - so how does it justify any notability? Also its not true that such sources are never to be used. .--Aryah 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OpenTTD wiki is part of official website, and presents product information. It is more trusted in that regard (actually, current article has only one reference to it).

As for notability - it is clearly notable, and frankly your accusations start look like a personal vendetta of a kind. Futurix 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about it till a few days ago. So I both dont see how its 'clearly notable' nor how I could have any motivation for a personal vendetta. My point was that if criteria for inclusion of any information about it should satisfy such criteria, then first all article should satisfy such criteria, and nor did it do so historically, nor does most of it do so now - the fact that OpenTTD wiki is the only cited source of this article and like you say is used on one place simply demonstrate its lack of sources. My point with notability is that only if this game is notable then I would have any chances of even finding information of its legality outside of a discussion of their forum and debian-legal. My problem with its notability is simply lack of good sources, and all aspects of this article demonstrate that lack. --Aryah 08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as being part of the official website, you are referring to this policy?: Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is: relevant to the self-publisher's notability; not contentious not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject; The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

So this doesn't solve the notability problem, and also, this seems inapplicable on the forum discussion and posts of people who are OpenTTD developers there - which I used to explain the origin of the game. --Aryah 09:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability policy says - topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. - so could you please provide multiple non-trivial published works , with sources independent of OpenTTD itself, that references OpenTTD? Does this exist? If it did, then Id have some chances of finding some mention of its legal status there. Note, I really dont wish to remove this article, quite the contrary. I simply wish to find some sources for it and the legal controversy. --Aryah 08:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you started the discussion, the onus is on you to prove what you want to prove. SourceForge statistics alone is a proof enough (see below). Futurix 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, regarding notability, the 'top ten most active projects on sourceforge' claim shows to be simply not true - it has activity percent of 97,26%,[2] while even the top 1,000thnd project is over 99,438%. (topmost it 100%). The top list doesn't go further down.[3] It is currently the top 251th project by num of downloads [4], but thats hardly especially impressive. --Aryah 09:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is usually in top 10 at the time of the new releases (and the last release was several months ago). Futurix 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

you mean, weekly top 10 the week a new release is out? thats again hardly impressive. Unconfirmed too. If you wish to include it, source it. try archive.org. The actual onus of proof in wikipedia is on the one whe wishes to add something to it.--Aryah 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC) I dont see sourceforge statistics as a wiki criteria on notability, nor proof that theres any impressive sourceforge statistics. The onus with notability is simply on the article - lacking it its a candidate for AfD, whoever is to find such references to satisfy formal criteria....--Aryah 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you a little too trigger-happy? SourceForge download stats: [5]. Futurix 01:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A little more on notability criteria:

Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

• This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews 2 except for the following:

o Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. 1

o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report version releases without comment, price listings in product catalogues, or listings on software download sites.

If some software doesn't meet or isn't known to meet the above criteria, the following criteria can be used to estimate if the software is notable:

1. The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor.

2. The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer. Note that some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution. Statistics such as the Debian Popularity Contest help to estimate the usage of particular packages in a particular distribution.

This would seem to exclude sourceforge stat as a measure anyway, and would require actual review, in multiple sources...--Aryah 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found this.

Also it appears that OpenTTD is included with Gentoo, and Mandriva and Conectiva. Futurix 01:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And can you please use indentation for replying? Otherwise it is difficult to read your messages. Futurix 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just checked, the previous 'legal status' section existed since November 2004, for more than 2 years. It was there, completely unsourced. Yet when specific sources were added, forum giving the conclusions or not, still source rather than no source, it was removed in one day?? --Aryah 21:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have removed previous one, if I saw it. You pointed my attention to it. Futurix 01:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible Chris Sawyer owns the rights to Transport Tycoon and only the name belongs to Atari, as he's hinted this on some letters that were scanned onto the TT-Forums. Atari have refused to even acknowledge Transport Tycoon. Born Acorn 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that would solve the notability issue, narrowly (the independence of the maintainers could be disputed, and both the article and the newspaper should be examined, I just dont find that likely checkable/disputable)- indeed the inclusions could be mentioned in the article too, counterbalancing the explicit exclusion. I dont see how the sourceforge link you give translated into making this among top projects by activity though, I dont see that in the plot. Its a good trend but not really a sourcing of the claim in question. Well, worst-case scenario for my argument; notability can at least be argued for, but its low profile enough to make finding sourcing of legal contraversy difficult at best.... well, if it has a rising curve of popularity as it would seem, hope it breaks into some more 'rounded' coverage with time... --Aryah 01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The real reasons Openttd is still around 1) Chris Sawyer owns Transport Tycoon Deluxe code not a corporation and he has not asserted his copyrights against openttd project 2) Openttd has not tried to sell its product(hence no profits to claim) and does not use any of the trademarks that would diminish the value of Chris Sawyers properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voss749 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Icon instead of screenshot

I notice that the screenshot has been replaced with OpenTTD's icon. Other games have a screenshot in that place, so I think this should be reconsidered. bruce89 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most other game articles use a boxshot, and in the case of Transport Tycoon, the game's logo. Since OpenTTD has no boxshot, the logo that would be displayed on one if it existed is the next best thing. Screenshots can always be interlaced with the article. Born Acorn 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

game time

As someone disputed that the game takes 25h in realtime for 100year of gametime, I just ran 0.5.3 for about an hour and I got 4 game years while that. So the current gametime/realtime ratio mentioned in the article seems to me to be correct. -- JanCK (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this assumes that you never enabled the "fast" speed. Andareed (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Release date

When was the game first released to the public? --Mika1h (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Off the record, 6^th March, 2004. That wiki page includes a link to the forum post that first introduced OpenTTD to the world at large. Unfortunately, there's nothing there that can be cited as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Brian Ronald, posting from 88.212.182.52 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Platforms

is it really necessary to list all these platforms here? 124.168.132.10 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

why not? It is all information that the people might like to know lordmwa (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read that there is a Windows Mobile port of Transport Tycoon Deluxe which is compatible with OpenTTD. I haven't had the oppertunity to test it, but i could try and install it on my HD2 running stock Windows Mobile 6.5. Eventhough it may not be official, i think it could add some value to the article. 88.159.82.132 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Apologies for the early return, but the remainder of my prod removal comment was that it might fail at AfD, but I'll be damned if it goes without a fight.Booklegger (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's very noble, but could you add citations to allow the article to meet notability so it does not get deleted? --tgheretford (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It was 0500, I looked, but without much success. Trying again in the light of day.69.134.195.223 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources?

Can anyone find some reliable third party sources to meet the concerns of the prod added by an editor, before it is dragged to articles for deletion? I'm struggling to find anything myself, and at the moment, I can see why the concerns of this article not meeting notablility are valid, particularly as when I contribute, I tend to always make sure there is at least one citation for everything I add. --tgheretford (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe CVE or any of the institutes it links to in the advisitories can be seen as reliable sources. One can also find similar pages referencing OpenTTD like: us-cert.gov. Google's Scholar search can also be used to find reliable sources. Full Circle Magazine is an independent magazine, though I'm not sure whether it's "notable". OpenTTD being in large distributions like Debian/Ubuntu might also make it notable. OpenTTD has also been on one of the DVDs of Linux Format, according to the website "UK's best-selling Linux magazine". I hope any of these are useable to prove notability. 130.89.55.67 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Two good sources unearthed during the AfD: Marasmusine (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ubintu Full Circle Magazine, Issue 9: Jan 25 2008, pages 20-21 (http://fullcirclemagazine.org/download-manager.php?id=55)
• TUX Magazine, June 2006, pages 44-46 (mirror: http://www.aurovillenetwork.in/download_center/books/tux_magazine/tux014.pdf)

OpenTTD is on XFire if that's any merit. XFire Weaselboy246 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Side notes about original TTD graphics and music

Version by Fish utilized extension-masked MIDIs, so if a user specifies a folder of DOS TTD, music will not be present in the resulting OpenTTD installation. Two DOS versions of TTD exist, one is identified as "German" and has a broken sprite in "toy" landscape

OpenTTD uses NSIS with "package downloader" system, which suffers from antivirus timeout bug (for example, with Kaspersky Anti-Virus) - the antivirus checking time takes longer than the NSIS download timeout.

Yura87 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Varieties of English

Apologies for the revert, User:Lord Aro. Personally I'm not fussed whether the article uses 'favorite' or 'favourite', etc. I'm far from familiar with the game but I now note that the original inspiration was designed by the Scot Chris Sawyer. Once broad consensus is obvious (what do other editors think?) then it would probably be worth placing an appropriate template on this page for future reference. --trevj (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• I guess we should stick with UK English since the developer was from UK and the game (TTD) itself used to be in UK English with British countryside terrain. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

regarding multiplayer

it isnt a new thing in openttd. it was in the original as well but openttd might have improved it. the article shouldnt suggest that multiplayer is a new element but rather that it is improved.84.208.60.156 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on OpenTTD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151106154403/http://vcs.openttd.org/svn/changeset/8038 to http://vcs.openttd.org/svn/changeset/8038

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Changelog in article?

Is it really neccecary to have a section that is starting to look like a changelog in the article? i propose to shorten it to only include the important bits, if at all. Solbu (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on OpenTTD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224065433/http://www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/103/Free_Software_Projects.pdf to http://www.linux-magazine.com/w3/issue/103/Free_Software_Projects.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of listing of versions numbers.

I agree with user Solbu. The various versions listing should be removed and should be summarized which only includes important bits. I'll edit it in a week, if anyone has any question please ask it here. Or better edit it. --Curiousengi (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)