PaperMarioFan2022 wrote:

Hamland2 wrote:

(Yes)

Unrelated. Please stay on topic, thanks.

Mozboz wrote:

(#1843)
If they went

Hey, we're adding controller support!

And then all the controller makers say “no, we don't want that”

crawfishcode wrote:

(#1849)
I don't think we should do a PR, for a couple of reasons:

RobotChickens wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

(#1843)
If they went

Hey, we're adding controller support!

And then all the controller makers say “no, we don't want that”

I don't think controller manufacturers would have any problem (or even control) over whether or not this extension is made. If anything, they would want it to be made so people use their products more…

crawfishcode wrote:

(#1849)
I don't think we should do a PR, for a couple of reasons:

I see what you mean. We definitely shouldn't start coding until we can confirm that the ST has done absolutely nothing toward this suggestion. That way we don't waste any effort or time. However, if they have worked on it, don't you think it would be in Scratch Labs by now?

RobotChickens wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

(#1843)
If they went

Hey, we're adding controller support!

And then all the controller makers say “no, we don't want that”

I don't think controller manufacturers would have any problem (or even control) over whether or not this extension is made. If anything, they would want it to be made so people use their products more…

crawfishcode wrote:

(#1868)

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

I don't think we should do a PR, for a couple of reasons:

I see what you mean. We definitely shouldn't start coding until we can confirm that the ST has done absolutely nothing toward this suggestion. That way we don't waste any effort or time. However, if they have worked on it, don't you think it would be in Scratch Labs by now?

What's that?

Mozboz wrote:

(#1869)

RobotChickens wrote:

I don't think controller manufacturers would have any problem (or even control) over whether or not this extension is made. If anything, they would want it to be made so people use their products more…

Well, they might not be able to afford it or they fail stuff like negotiating. Things can go wrong, and might. Murphy's Law.

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

(#1868)

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

I don't think we should do a PR, for a couple of reasons:

I see what you mean. We definitely shouldn't start coding until we can confirm that the ST has done absolutely nothing toward this suggestion. That way we don't waste any effort or time. However, if they have worked on it, don't you think it would be in Scratch Labs by now?

What's that?

https://lab-scratch-mit-edu.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/ Its where the ST puts experimental blocks before they are added!

Mozboz wrote:

(#1869)

RobotChickens wrote:

I don't think controller manufacturers would have any problem (or even control) over whether or not this extension is made. If anything, they would want it to be made so people use their products more…

Well, they might not be able to afford it or they fail stuff like negotiating. Things can go wrong, and might. Murphy's Law.

Scratch wouldn't even be contacting any controller companies! If they did, what for?
It would just be code similar to this website
No “Negotiations” are needed. Turbowarp didn't need to contact Xbox, PlayStation, or anyone like that to add their button mapping!

Mozboz wrote:

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

(#1868)

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

I don't think we should do a PR, for a couple of reasons:

I see what you mean. We definitely shouldn't start coding until we can confirm that the ST has done absolutely nothing toward this suggestion. That way we don't waste any effort or time. However, if they have worked on it, don't you think it would be in Scratch Labs by now?

What's that?

https://lab-scratch-mit-edu.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/ Its where the ST puts experimental blocks before they are added!

Mozboz wrote:

(#1869)

RobotChickens wrote:

I don't think controller manufacturers would have any problem (or even control) over whether or not this extension is made. If anything, they would want it to be made so people use their products more…

Well, they might not be able to afford it or they fail stuff like negotiating. Things can go wrong, and might. Murphy's Law.

Scratch wouldn't even be contacting any controller companies! If they did, what for?
It would just be code similar to this website
No “Negotiations” are needed. Turbowarp didn't need to contact Xbox, PlayStation, or anyone like that to add their button mapping!

Are you sure? Because if someone added controller functionality to something, and you made the controller they support without permission, that might not be legal. And if MIT failed to get a controller working, they'd have to contact the company for help, and then they might say no to helping, there is a lot of corporate stuff here. Are you a businessperson?

Scratchuel21439new wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

(#1868)

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

I don't think we should do a PR, for a couple of reasons:

I see what you mean. We definitely shouldn't start coding until we can confirm that the ST has done absolutely nothing toward this suggestion. That way we don't waste any effort or time. However, if they have worked on it, don't you think it would be in Scratch Labs by now?

What's that?

https://lab-scratch-mit-edu.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/ Its where the ST puts experimental blocks before they are added!

Mozboz wrote:

(#1869)

RobotChickens wrote:

I don't think controller manufacturers would have any problem (or even control) over whether or not this extension is made. If anything, they would want it to be made so people use their products more…

Well, they might not be able to afford it or they fail stuff like negotiating. Things can go wrong, and might. Murphy's Law.

Scratch wouldn't even be contacting any controller companies! If they did, what for?
It would just be code similar to this website
No “Negotiations” are needed. Turbowarp didn't need to contact Xbox, PlayStation, or anyone like that to add their button mapping!

Are you sure? Because if someone added controller functionality to something, and you made the controller they support without permission, that might not be legal. And if MIT failed to get a controller working, they'd have to contact the company for help, and then they might say no to helping, there is a lot of corporate stuff here. Are you a businessperson?

The only controllers with those potential problems would be Wiimotes for example. They are a headache to connect to a PC (I don't have a Wii but I borrowed a Wiimote to test it out), trust me. So, would it be worth it to make sure the non-working controllers work by contacting the companies? The unsupported must be a headache to connect, so I wouldn't care for those.

Scratchuel21439new wrote:

-snip-
The only controllers with those potential problems would be Wiimotes for example. They are a headache to connect to a PC (I don't have a Wii but I borrowed a Wiimote to test it out), trust me. So, would it be worth it to make sure the non-working controllers work by contacting the companies? The unsupported must be a headache to connect, so I wouldn't care for those.

qwertycodechamp90411 wrote:

Scratchuel21439new wrote:

-snip-
The only controllers with those potential problems would be Wiimotes for example. They are a headache to connect to a PC (I don't have a Wii but I borrowed a Wiimote to test it out), trust me. So, would it be worth it to make sure the non-working controllers work by contacting the companies? The unsupported must be a headache to connect, so I wouldn't care for those.

I have a wii at home, and the wiimote seems to connect fine to my computer through Bluetooth.

Mozboz wrote:

(#1873)
Are you sure? Because if someone added controller functionality to something, and you made the controller they support without permission, that might not be legal. And if MIT failed to get a controller working, they'd have to contact the company for help, and then they might say no to helping, there is a lot of corporate stuff here. Are you a businessperson?

Mozboz wrote:

Scratchuel21439new wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

(#1868)

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

I don't think we should do a PR, for a couple of reasons:

I see what you mean. We definitely shouldn't start coding until we can confirm that the ST has done absolutely nothing toward this suggestion. That way we don't waste any effort or time. However, if they have worked on it, don't you think it would be in Scratch Labs by now?

What's that?

https://lab-scratch-mit-edu.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/ Its where the ST puts experimental blocks before they are added!

Mozboz wrote:

(#1869)

RobotChickens wrote:

I don't think controller manufacturers would have any problem (or even control) over whether or not this extension is made. If anything, they would want it to be made so people use their products more…

Well, they might not be able to afford it or they fail stuff like negotiating. Things can go wrong, and might. Murphy's Law.

Scratch wouldn't even be contacting any controller companies! If they did, what for?
It would just be code similar to this website
No “Negotiations” are needed. Turbowarp didn't need to contact Xbox, PlayStation, or anyone like that to add their button mapping!

Are you sure? Because if someone added controller functionality to something, and you made the controller they support without permission, that might not be legal. And if MIT failed to get a controller working, they'd have to contact the company for help, and then they might say no to helping, there is a lot of corporate stuff here. Are you a businessperson?

The only controllers with those potential problems would be Wiimotes for example. They are a headache to connect to a PC (I don't have a Wii but I borrowed a Wiimote to test it out), trust me. So, would it be worth it to make sure the non-working controllers work by contacting the companies? The unsupported must be a headache to connect, so I wouldn't care for those.

I guess! Also, a point I forgot to make earlier, what if they can't get something on the developing side working? Then what? Sure, Turbowarp did it, but MIT might struggle with something.

Scratchuel21439new wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

Scratchuel21439new wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

(#1868)

RobotChickens wrote:

crawfishcode wrote:

I don't think we should do a PR, for a couple of reasons:

I see what you mean. We definitely shouldn't start coding until we can confirm that the ST has done absolutely nothing toward this suggestion. That way we don't waste any effort or time. However, if they have worked on it, don't you think it would be in Scratch Labs by now?

What's that?

https://lab-scratch-mit-edu.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/ Its where the ST puts experimental blocks before they are added!

Mozboz wrote:

(#1869)

RobotChickens wrote:

I don't think controller manufacturers would have any problem (or even control) over whether or not this extension is made. If anything, they would want it to be made so people use their products more…

Well, they might not be able to afford it or they fail stuff like negotiating. Things can go wrong, and might. Murphy's Law.

Scratch wouldn't even be contacting any controller companies! If they did, what for?
It would just be code similar to this website
No “Negotiations” are needed. Turbowarp didn't need to contact Xbox, PlayStation, or anyone like that to add their button mapping!

Are you sure? Because if someone added controller functionality to something, and you made the controller they support without permission, that might not be legal. And if MIT failed to get a controller working, they'd have to contact the company for help, and then they might say no to helping, there is a lot of corporate stuff here. Are you a businessperson?

The only controllers with those potential problems would be Wiimotes for example. They are a headache to connect to a PC (I don't have a Wii but I borrowed a Wiimote to test it out), trust me. So, would it be worth it to make sure the non-working controllers work by contacting the companies? The unsupported must be a headache to connect, so I wouldn't care for those.

I guess! Also, a point I forgot to make earlier, what if they can't get something on the developing side working? Then what? Sure, Turbowarp did it, but MIT might struggle with something.

Why would they struggle with something though? After all, just as you say, TurboWarp did it! And the brand-new custom gamepad extension brings 100% native support to gamepads on TurboWarp!

Mozboz wrote:

-biggest snip ever actually no it isn't-

Minecraft_Master3964 wrote:

Mozboz wrote:

-biggest snip ever actually no it isn't-

Can you please snip the posts? Thank you

Mozboz wrote:

(#1879)

Scratchuel21439new wrote:

-snip-

Why would they struggle with something though? After all, just as you say, TurboWarp did it! And the brand-new custom gamepad extension brings 100% native support to gamepads on TurboWarp!

There might be something internal on MIT's end, e.g. funding, or the like. Sure, funding is unlikely, but still.. there could be a problem. You don't know how MIT works on the inside. Something could go wrong. As I said; Murphy's Law.

mumu245 wrote:

So, how would we handle potential controller-only projects?

Mozboz wrote:

(#1884)

mumu245 wrote:

So, how would we handle potential controller-only projects?

That probably wouldn't be allowed. All projects would probably have to have keyboard or mobile control. And even so, “Remix” exists.