New Horizon on 4/2/2012 at 12:31
Quote Posted by Al_B
I personally don't care whether GOG or Eidos did the fixes required to get the game running and its quite likely that most people who buy Thief from GOG don't care either. There is circumstantial (but credible) evidence that Square / Eidos actually have the source code at all. I'd
love them to release it if they have it and if it had been included in the GOG release that would have been welcomed. However, we're not entitled to it and although price analogies are crass I probably paid more for my pizza last night than the amount they're charging for this game.
I'm not sure why wires are being crossed over in so many ways here. :)
Nobody is asking Eidos to 'include' the source code with this release. We're saying that since Eidos has had the source code in their possession for two years now (and they do have it...it was given to them directly by a former LGS developer and we know this for a fact since Rene was the one who helped us get it to Eidos), there is no reason why they shouldn't have gotten the executable recompiled with a new version of Microsoft Visual Studio and included a few updates to make the game playable on modern systems without the need for community hacks. The $10 would have been well deserved in that case, but Eidos did nothing and are asking the same price for a download that the 3 games combined can be purchased for on physical media. It makes no sense....and is simply a lazy money grab.
Even if Eidos did
lose the code package given to them by the former LGS dev, there was also the source code package leaked by the guy who had the dreamcast development kit. So whether they got the code from one 'source' or another, is a moot point. It's out there, and with the resources at their disposal...it would be a trivial amount of money for Eidos to hire one coder to tidy the source code up and get it compiling again with modern tools.
Al_B on 4/2/2012 at 12:58
I don't think wires are crossed - and I'd love Eidos to release the source code as well. I can understand why they haven't, and the dreamcast code that was leaked was hardly production ready.
From what I've seen I have had my respect for GOG increased as they've done more than was strictly required to get the game running on systems that didn't exist when the game was first released. They've also strongly hinted that they've done work on Thief 2 which would suggest that's coming out soon. Given the volume of community support (here mostly) for those two games I'd rather that Eidos concentrated their resources on Thief 4.
Bakerman on 4/2/2012 at 23:15
Quote Posted by New Horizon
The point being made is that...
Sorry - for some reason, I didn't realise that the discussion didn't end on page 2 when I made that reply :p. Sorry about the random interjection!
d'Spair on 5/2/2012 at 11:46
Jesus, it's the best game of all time finally available to anyone in a (relatively) workable state for some dirt-priced 10 bucks, and people are bitching about the price.
Someone please remove the humanity from this planet.
New Horizon on 5/2/2012 at 13:09
Quote Posted by d'Spair
Jesus, it's the best game of all time finally available to anyone in a (relatively) workable state for some dirt-priced 10 bucks, and people
are bitching about the price.
There has been bitching about the price point Square Enix / Eidos have set, not solely because of the price, but because the source code was found
for them by the community and then
given directly to them two years ago. Square Enix / Eidos have the resources needed to compile a new executable with whatever fixes are required to get the game running
without any hacks. Yet, in the two years the source code has been in their possession, they've apparently done nothing with it and have tossed the original package at GOG to sort out with community hacks and hex editing.
Sorry. Two years and not even a few basic fixes in a recompiled executable? That's just lazy and inexcusable for a company with the resources of Square Enix / Eidos....and
that is why the $10 price point is under scrutiny. If they had done some actual work, then the $10 price would make complete and total sense.
Goldmoon Dawn on 5/2/2012 at 15:12
Poor New Horizon! :cheeky:
Its like people keep coming in here, read the latest post in the thread, and blast out their opinion without even reading up a little bit. Also, the more I read NH's latest revision of his same point, the more ANGRY I get at Eidos/SE... it really is absurd, and on top of everything else, they never said "thanks" or even acknowledged the amazing fanbase that brought them the damn code! I am almost positive at this point that they are finally going to completely abandon the original fans of this series and once and for all simply cater to a new demographic.
wonderfield on 5/2/2012 at 19:13
Quote Posted by d'Spair
Jesus, it's the best game of all time finally available to anyone in a (relatively) workable state for some dirt-priced 10 bucks, and people
are bitching about the price.
SEGA recently re-released Sonic CD for the PC (and other platforms) with full widescreen support and Steam achievements that runs beautifully on Windows 7. For $4.99.
Granted, Thief is a much more substantial game, but it also comes in at twice the price with none of the fixes beyond what GOG could achieve with simple hex editing. No widescreen support. No Steam achievements.
Quote Posted by d'Spair
Someone please remove the humanity from this planet.
Would that not include yourself?
voodoo47 on 5/2/2012 at 20:30
yes. please.
jtr7 on 5/2/2012 at 23:11
Jason Walker, who had worked on the trilogy for Eidos back in the day, has posted this:
(
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1723642#post1723642)
Quote:
Hey guys, curious about people saying the GoG version isnt playing the videos. We worked to get them working as complete as could including the videos..
What he's credited for:
TDP: Quality Assurance--Eidos Interactive UK
TMA: Compatibility Testing--Eidos Interactive UK
TDS: Head of Mastering--Eidos Interactive UK; Compatibility--Eidos Interactive UK
Renault on 6/2/2012 at 05:42
The timing of his posting is somewhat odd - wasn't a fix for this issue already implemented?
