I wonder if any improvements have been made?
The only changes I've read about over the months seem to be that the titles are more compatible with modern systems, but there have been people all along who report they had no problems installing and playing regardless of which version of Windows they were using, so I can't be sure.
no idea... buying it right now... will see if it directly run on my widescreen AMD 6950 icore2500 with se7en 64bits... guess it's a good test of "incompatible bits" to test...
Yes please give a report.Originally Posted by elwing
One can only hope that it's capable of better than the traditional 800x600
If it can be downloaded to the hard drive, and the files compared to those off an original disk, as well as viewing the files' dates in Details view, any modified files will be obvious, too.
it play fine on my computer, but it's still limited to 800x600... since there's a "thief2.exe" and a "thief2_no_ddfix.exe" I suspect they used ddfix...
no crash caused by the multicore and no weird texture so far...
the files are in "normal" format... and I can run it directly by executing the game executable, guess steam won't get in the way for FMs... will need to try... that remind me I should order the latest komag DVD...
edit: you can't select other resulution in the game but by editing cam.cfg and ddfix.ini you have access to more resolution, but that seems limited to 4:3 resolution without chaning something else...
I have only received thief2 ATM... will not test thief1 right now, but I assume it will be similar...
Last edited by elwing; 22nd May 2012 at 16:40.
Just so everyone knows, each Thief title is on sale for 5 bucks at the moment, and if you buy the whole trilogy it's $13.50.
After Thursdsay, price reverts back to the normal, which is doubled what is listed above.
I would just wait for GOG's 50% off - 14E on GOG vs 13.50E on steam (for those of us in Europe, anyway), guess who's the winner (hint: no drm).
What's the licensing like for ddfix, I wonder? Did they get cleared for using the patch commercially?
Not like I really, really care.
Finally after all these years - no 2 in the charts
http://store.steampowered.com/
EDIT muncadunc - thought it was u over in the steam forums! Yeah wondered that myself. They should at least give credit!. However GOG did the same thing too.
And! they are still using an old version of DDFIX. Good news is after 2 file changes from downloading the new fix from here - it works beautifully! 1080p thief - in windows 7 ! <3
I'm glad they've released it on Steam. I re-bought the GOG versions of the games because I like to support GOG. Man-crush on GOG aside, Steam has a much broader reach, and the more people that are exposed to this game the better. I hope some of the new Thief players come here and join the community! Welcome!
I have to say that was the easiest purchase I've ever made on Steam. I logged in this morning, saw Thief Gold and Thief 2, said 'Hell yea!' and bought them, didn't even think twice about it. They run great on Windows 7 x64 too... time to play through the best series ever again... it has been a while...
System Shock 1 and 2 can't be too far behind.
You don't have to license modifications of your own work. Credit would be classy, though.
I think thief1 and 2 are DRM free on steam as I'm able to directly execute the .exe without complains about steamsomthing.dll not found... I'm not sure through...
but I suspect theses bundles are exactly the same you have on Gog and have been pakaged by eidos...
Heck no, and if they're using ddfix in their release I'm going to be very angry pretty shortly... Not that I can do anything whatsoever about it. Little guy against major corporation never comes to much, aside from the occasional case of a media storm.
Edit: OK, they didn't build their own installer using ddfix. It's just a ripoff of the GOG version. That's not so bad; they probably didn't even know ddfix was there.
GOG on the other hand did ask, and the reason it's an old copy is because that's the last version that was completely my work, so they didn't have to worry about other people. (I already have an NDA on file with them, so I was less hassle.)
Last edited by Timeslip; 23rd May 2012 at 08:54.
I guess they won't like you when you are angry.. too bad you can't turn into an indestructible green rage monster like that other guy I saw in a movie recently.
as long as you have to run the steam client on the background, I consider it DRM.
I'll try without the client, but last time I tried running directly a game executable I remember having an error about a steam.dll not found, and that's not the case there...
edit: i'll also post a MD5 of the executable like that you'll be able to find out if it's a modified version or just the old executable using ddfix...
Hah, no such luck, unfortunately, amusing as that would be.
They did it to me before with sfall and their fallout 2 release, and solved their problem simply by ignoring me until I gave up and went away. It's not even as if I was complaining about them including it, I just wanted them to readd the credits file that they'd ripped out...
Hi Timeslip.Hah, no such luck, unfortunately, amusing as that would be.
They did it to me before with sfall and their fallout 2 release, and solved their problem simply by ignoring me until I gave up and went away. It's not even as if I was complaining about them including it, I just wanted them to readd the credits file that they'd ripped out...
Yeah they have their own exe (and include non_ddfix exes) but yes it uses 1.3.11 of ddfix ini and ddl. Even includes your readme that comes along with!
Would be nice if they gave the credit at least.
I had a premonition that this would happen. When I was in charge of updating DDFix - with permission from Timeslip, of course - I placed big "COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED" messages in the ini file. I see that whoever picked up updating DDFix after me didn't carry this on. It's kind of a moot point, though, since the version of DDFix in the Steam download is an older version and appears to have only been worked on by Timeslip.
I never publicly released the source code to my own modifications to DDFix but that was "only" to fix fog anyway and the current DDFix seems to do the job with fog anyway (though with far fewer lines of code than me but, meh, it seems to work so who cares).
Another moot point, but it's kind of a pity they didn't use any of my versions of DDFix with the prohibition messages as we maybe could have stirred up a little media fuss and maybe got Timeslip paid.I work in the games industry as a graphics/software engineer, have worked on multi-million selling AAA X360/PS3/PC/DX11 games and won a BAFTA last year.
Once again, a big thanks to Timeslip for making DDFix in the first place.
Last edited by SiO2; 23rd May 2012 at 10:44. Reason: added 'publicly' for clarification
Yes, you never did, and that annoyed me far more than anything steam has ever done... Thanks to that, Jermi had to waste time to recreate the fog fix from scratch, when he could have been working on the issues he actually wanted to fix from the start.
tbh, I have no reason to complain at either steam nor square, especially if the readme file is there and intact this time. Many of the rights holders seem to have deals with GOG that GOG creates packages that work on modern windows, gets xxx amount of exclusivity, then the same packages go to other download sites. (Heck, I've even seen gamersgate use the original GOG installers, complete with the original GOG artwork and adverts...) The steam version is just a straightforward ripoff of the GOG version, and neither steam nor square probably know or care what is in there. If GOG is happy with that arrangement, then so be it.
And disclaimers work both ways. The reverse engineering and patching required to create something like ddfix is almost always against the EULA of whatever's being patched. You win court cases by having more expensive lawyers than the opposition, not by having disclaimers in capital letters at the top of a text file or even having any actual law on your side. (Yes, I have my cynical hat on today. I like my cynical hat; tis a nice shade of blue.)
once back home I'll check if your readme is there...
tis fine. ripnard already mentioned that it was.
Damn, that sounded bitter! Anyway, could have sworn that I'd sent a copy of the source to yourself, but that was five years ago IIRC. I don't recall any message from yourself complaining or asking for the source, which I would gladly have given to you at the time. I posted full details of what the issue was and how to fix it. It should have taken five minutes to recreate.Yes, you never did, and that annoyed me far more than anything steam has ever done... Thanks to that, Jermi had to waste time to recreate the fog fix from scratch, when he could have been working on the issues he actually wanted to fix from the start.
tbh, I have no reason to complain at either steam nor square, especially if the readme file is there and intact this time. Many of the rights holders seem to have deals with GOG that GOG creates packages that work on modern windows, gets xxx amount of exclusivity, then the same packages go to other download sites. (Heck, I've even seen gamersgate use the original GOG installers, complete with the original GOG artwork and adverts...) The steam version is just a straightforward ripoff of the GOG version, and neither steam nor square probably know or care what is in there. If GOG is happy with that arrangement, then so be it.
And disclaimers work both ways. The reverse engineering and patching required to create something like ddfix is almost always against the EULA of whatever's being patched. You win court cases by having more expensive lawyers than the opposition, not by having disclaimers in capital letters at the top of a text file or even having any actual law on your side. (Yes, I have my cynical hat on today. I like my cynical hat; tis a nice shade of blue.
I guess you've taken my partly lighthearted post too seriously. And I am all too aware that caps in a text file is not a legal guarantee. One has to wonder why they chose a version prior to mine, with the disclaimers, though - maybe pertinent; maybe pure coincidence.
Since it sounds like you need neither help nor sympathy I shall desist from posting further on the topic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
