Rekrul on 24/12/2008 at 22:42

---

I love it; You got screwed by legally paying for a downloaded copy and had to resort to (technically) piracy to make use of what you paid for.

I'd be willing to bet that FMs wouldn't work properly with the downloaded copy either.

Rekrul on 25/12/2008 at 05:08

---

Because I haven't been here in a while and I skimmed through the first few pages of the forum looking for interesting posts to read. I wanted to add a comment to some of them. Besides, it's not like I'm resurrecting posts that are over a year old. (ok, one thread was started a long time ago, but someone else revived it first).

Would you prefer I started a new thread instaed? :)

Rekrul on 25/12/2008 at 07:08

---

I haven't posted anything here since August of last year, and today, after reading the first few pages of the forum, I replied to a total of 8 posts that were between 1-2 months (Edit: should have been 1-3 months) old. It's not like I'm spamming the board, replying to dozens of posts that have been dead for half a year or more.

I did look at the dates and stopped reading messages when they started to be from back in August. I did this not because I wasn't interested in what older messages might have to say, but because I knew that I might want to reply to them and that this would piss off the people who only want replies to recent threads. Frankly I think it's kind of sad that people here are discouraged from replying to old posts. I can understand if a post is a year or two old, but this thread was only dormant for slightly over two months (Edit: should have said three months).

Also, I'd like to point out that if nobody had replied and chided me for replying to a thread that's a couple months old, it probably would have been cycled off the front page in a day or two and that would have been the end of it. I had no intentions of replying further, since I'd said what was on my mind. Of course, now I have more to respond to, so this thread is getting bumped again.



Actually DRM WAS mentioned as being the probably reason that the fix didn't work. This thread perfectly illustrates the problem with DRM, especially when companies refuse to support older games, and continue to sell games that are broken on newer systems.

He paid for a copy of game that was basically defective. Had he not had a friend who would let him illegally copy his original Thief Gold disc to fix his broken installation, he would have been SOL.

While I don't consider what he did wrong in any way, it was still illegal under current copyright laws. Legally, if he wanted access to and the use of a store-bought copy of Thief Gold, he was legally required to buy one. Of course, doing so would have been silly and a waste in light of the fact that he'd already paid for a copy of the game, but that's the problem with current copyright laws.

In other words, he had to break the law to get his legally purchased game to work. I don't know about you, but seems like an important enough topic to deserve commenting on so maybe more people will see it and not get ripped off like he did.

Nameless Voice on 26/12/2008 at 04:42

---

DDraw.dll is a part of DirectX and is on every modern Windows system.
What the patcher can't find is the reference to DDRaw.dll inside the supplied Thief2.exe.
The file itself isn't missing.

Also, Thief Gold doesn't have any copy protection, so DDFix should work fine with any proper version of Thief.exe.

Rekrul on 27/12/2008 at 08:48

---

Unless you happen to be running Thief on a Windows 98 system, in which case, DDFix won't work at all. :(

I was going to use it just to avoid the annoying resolution switching when you read books or go to the menu, but then I read that it needs 2K/NT/XP...