It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
DiabloDisappointed. (85 posts)(85 posts)
(85 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 09, 2019
Please stop to whine for nothing. It is not gog's fault if some peoples can't understand simple words as high resolution. High resolution never meant 16/9. Screen format is different from resolution. And as peoples are not clever enough to understand their native language , they modify text to be sure that nobody can misunderstand diablo's description.

If you can't read or understand what you read, you can return to school.
Post edited March 09, 2019 by Lord_Casque_Noir
Posted March 11, 2019
avatar
Lord_Casque_Noir: Please stop to whine for nothing. It is not gog's fault if some peoples can't understand simple words as high resolution. High resolution never meant 16/9. Screen format is different from resolution. And as peoples are not clever enough to understand their native language , they modify text to be sure that nobody can misunderstand diablo's description.

If you can't read or understand what you read, you can return to school.
I don't think there is any reason to be rude. The original description on the store page was misleading (I appreciate that it was entirely accidental), so much so that one or two games journalists had talked up the prospect of playing at high resolutions.

I have an old CD around and probably wouldn't of paid as much as I did had I known the limits of this version.
Posted March 11, 2019
avatar
Lord_Casque_Noir: Please stop to whine for nothing. It is not gog's fault if some peoples can't understand simple words as high resolution. High resolution never meant 16/9. Screen format is different from resolution. And as peoples are not clever enough to understand their native language , they modify text to be sure that nobody can misunderstand diablo's description.

If you can't read or understand what you read, you can return to school.
avatar
shakespearechimp: I don't think there is any reason to be rude. The original description on the store page was misleading (I appreciate that it was entirely accidental), so much so that one or two games journalists had talked up the prospect of playing at high resolutions.

I have an old CD around and probably wouldn't of paid as much as I did had I known the limits of this version.
There is a lot of reasons to be rude aout understanding of language. Nowadays, peoples make less and less efforts to understand what they are reading and they blame other peoples for not explaining what they mean or like in the case, we consider, for lying. But who is responsible for the problem the reader who refuse to learn meaning of words, or the writer for only using words that everybody must know the meaning?

If someone refuses to respect highway code and kill someone while he drove. You will say nothing? Or you will say him that it is nothing? It is exactly the same principle. You refuse to make efforts so don't expect peoples will be kind with you.
Posted March 12, 2019
avatar
shakespearechimp: I don't think there is any reason to be rude. The original description on the store page was misleading (I appreciate that it was entirely accidental), so much so that one or two games journalists had talked up the prospect of playing at high resolutions.

I have an old CD around and probably wouldn't of paid as much as I did had I known the limits of this version.
avatar
Lord_Casque_Noir: There is a lot of reasons to be rude aout understanding of language. Nowadays, peoples make less and less efforts to understand what they are reading and they blame other peoples for not explaining what they mean or like in the case, we consider, for lying. But who is responsible for the problem the reader who refuse to learn meaning of words, or the writer for only using words that everybody must know the meaning?

If someone refuses to respect highway code and kill someone while he drove. You will say nothing? Or you will say him that it is nothing? It is exactly the same principle. You refuse to make efforts so don't expect peoples will be kind with you.
In what can only describe as a rant about people being too stupid to understand language, you say that I'm accusing GOG of lying? If you would care to reread my post you would notice that I said that GOG's poor choice of language was accidental.

If you would care to look up "High Resolution" you would probably find something similiar to: "adjective: high-resolution (of a display or a photographic or video image) showing a large amount of detail."

The original store page was misleading (accidentally!) and GOG have rightly corrected this. However I think many of the posters in this thread are upset that some of the features they paid for don't exist.
Posted March 12, 2019
You accused gog of lying because, you can't understand what simple words mean. Try to be honest. And gog only modify the store page to be sure that no more mistakes occur. But it will be perhaps not enough. Again, it is not the fault of gog, if peoples can't understand what they read.

A dictionary is the first thing that everybody must have at home and it is not a way to stabilise a table or another piece of furniture.
Post edited March 12, 2019 by Lord_Casque_Noir
Posted March 12, 2019
For the record: in both of my posts I stated quite clearly that I feel the misleading store page was ACCIDENTAL.

It appears that you either have no interest in reading what I post or you simple want to troll. If you can't maintain a civil discussion then you have my sincere pity, but I won't continue this further.
Posted March 12, 2019
avatar
shakespearechimp: For the record: in both of my posts I stated quite clearly that I feel the misleading store page was ACCIDENTAL.

It appears that you either have no interest in reading what I post or you simple want to troll. If you can't maintain a civil discussion then you have my sincere pity, but I won't continue this further.
Indeed, I didn't see that you used the term accidental in your second answer. And I suposed that you thought like peoples who said that gog only told lies. I remainded on what I said after your first answer.

But defending those who are not able to understand simple words is not a good idea. They made a mistake and they refuse to admit it, so they merit remonstrances.
Post edited March 12, 2019 by Lord_Casque_Noir
Posted March 12, 2019
avatar
Lord_Casque_Noir: You accused gog of lying because, you can't understand what simple words mean. Try to be honest. And gog only modify the store page to be sure that no more mistakes occur. But it will be perhaps not enough. Again, it is not the fault of gog, if peoples can't understand what they read.

A dictionary is the first thing that everybody must have at home and it is not a way to stabilise a table or another piece of furniture.
I've read the initial description GOG gave, and it wasn't clear at all what people were buying.
They seem to have changed it, but they could still be a lot clearer about what you're getting *exactly*, what kind of changes were made to the game. To owners of the original CD (like myself) this GOG version adds nothing and GOG's words were very misleading. And I think the current description could still use a lot of work.

There's a free mod out there that basically does the same thing; I'm using it right now.
Now I have to make clear that I can't compare the two versions, since I didn't buy GOG's version, but from what I read people can just as well avoid buying this and get that mod if they already own the game.

If GOG and Blizzard really collaborated and worked on providing some wide-screen support, or even some quality of life changes, then yeah, in my opinion that'd make things different.

Anyway, all that aside, please, get off your high horse, and at least accept the fact that people are in their right to be disappointed, and have their own opinions. Telling people that they should learn to read, 'clever' insults, and nonsense like that is just utterly rude and doesn't help with anything at all. It just makes you look like a jerk.
Posted March 12, 2019
avatar
Lord_Casque_Noir: You accused gog of lying because, you can't understand what simple words mean. Try to be honest. And gog only modify the store page to be sure that no more mistakes occur. But it will be perhaps not enough. Again, it is not the fault of gog, if peoples can't understand what they read.

A dictionary is the first thing that everybody must have at home and it is not a way to stabilise a table or another piece of furniture.
avatar
Gotcha: I've read the initial description GOG gave, and it wasn't clear at all what people were buying.
They seem to have changed it, but they could still be a lot clearer about what you're getting *exactly*, what kind of changes were made to the game. To owners of the original CD (like myself) this GOG version adds nothing and GOG's words were very misleading. And I think the current description could still use a lot of work.

There's a free mod out there that basically does the same thing; I'm using it right now.
Now I have to make clear that I can't compare the two versions, since I didn't buy GOG's version, but from what I read people can just as well avoid buying this and get that mod if they already own the game.

If GOG and Blizzard really collaborated and worked on providing some wide-screen support, or even some quality of life changes, then yeah, in my opinion that'd make things different.

Anyway, all that aside, please, get off your high horse, and at least accept the fact that people are in their right to be disappointed, and have their own opinions. Telling people that they should learn to read, 'clever' insults, and nonsense like that is just utterly rude and doesn't help with anything at all. It just makes you look like a jerk.
They changed the shop description only to avoid mistakes. Peoples only take their dreams for reality. They confuse what mods give and what gog always give when they released a game. Gog never promises to release diablo with mods, they only promise a game which works on a modern PC. And gog never modify games.
Posted March 12, 2019
avatar
Gotcha: ...
I don't think most people should necessarily buy a game on GOG if they're already happy with their original copy, generally I just view GOG's releases as a way for people to get legal copies of games DRM-free and working on modern machines (obviously not always straight out of the box, but GOG does try).
Posted March 12, 2019
avatar
Gotcha: ...
avatar
tfishell: I don't think most people should necessarily buy a game on GOG if they're already happy with their original copy, generally I just view GOG's releases as a way for people to get legal copies of games DRM-free and working on modern machines (obviously not always straight out of the box, but GOG does try).
I don't think they should do that either, unless GOG's version adds something to the original.
And to me, after reading GOG's original description, it certainly gave the impression that GOG/Blizzard had changed the game so to allow full-screen high resolutions without stretching the screen.

Knowing that there are mods out there that also do this (but unfortunately also add a lot of unwanted crap to the game), it didn't seem impossible to me that GOG/Blizzard devs went into the code to make some genuine improvements. After all, they collaborated with each other, and we all know Blizzard could use some good attention right now. But I get the feeling this collaboration was nothing more than GOG copying Strange Bytes' patch, asking Blizzard to sell Diablo and Blizzard saying: Sure.
I also wonder what these bug fixes would be, since apparently duping is still there, and other than that the original game doesn't really have any problems. I played through it several times these past weeks.
Some guy around here promised a changelog, but the one that's pinned in this forum says nothing at all.

Anyway, I just hope GOG will not mislead their customers in the future and be crystal clear about what the improvements of a certain game are, if any, and that people are allowed to be disappointed, because GOG did handle this rather poorly, in my ever so humble opinion.
Posted March 12, 2019
avatar
tfishell: I don't think most people should necessarily buy a game on GOG if they're already happy with their original copy, generally I just view GOG's releases as a way for people to get legal copies of games DRM-free and working on modern machines (obviously not always straight out of the box, but GOG does try).
avatar
Gotcha: I don't think they should do that either, unless GOG's version adds something to the original.
And to me, after reading GOG's original description, it certainly gave the impression that GOG/Blizzard had changed the game so to allow full-screen high resolutions without stretching the screen.

Knowing that there are mods out there that also do this (but unfortunately also add a lot of unwanted crap to the game), it didn't seem impossible to me that GOG/Blizzard devs went into the code to make some genuine improvements. After all, they collaborated with each other, and we all know Blizzard could use some good attention right now. But I get the feeling this collaboration was nothing more than GOG copying Strange Bytes' patch, asking Blizzard to sell Diablo and Blizzard saying: Sure.
I also wonder what these bug fixes would be, since apparently duping is still there, and other than that the original game doesn't really have any problems. I played through it several times these past weeks.
Some guy around here promised a changelog, but the one that's pinned in this forum says nothing at all.

Anyway, I just hope GOG will not mislead their customers in the future and be crystal clear about what the improvements of a certain game are, if any, and that people are allowed to be disappointed, because GOG did handle this rather poorly, in my ever so humble opinion.
Source code and object code are two things really different. And we can't know if source code of Diablo always exist or if gog has it. So asking gog for great change in Diablo is not very kind for them. Gog only package old games in new containers to permit them to run on modern computers. It is why they asked for example, an image of french CD for star wars rebellion. They have only to extract files to see what they must do to make a new package for modern computers. They don't rewrite the code of game.
Posted March 13, 2019
The original store text promised high resolution support. The updated game has that. The store text said absolutely nothing about remastered graphics or high resolution textures or anything of the sort. It merely said support for high resolutions.

And this game has support for high resolutions. It does not force your monitor into the game's original 640 x 480. It stays at 1920 x 1080 or similar resolutions. Granted, it does this by upscaling as required, resulting in a high resolution image that isn't of higher quality than the original resolution, but at least it maintains aspect ratio on modern monitors.

I can understand why people would be disappointed if they were expecting a full remaster and only got 1996 graphics, but that whole "GOG are misleading" and "GOG are lying" and "GOG are not delivering" talk is over the top, IMO.

And while ten bucks or thereabouts might feel a bit expensive for a 1996 game, do remember what game we're talking about. This isn't some half-baked "retro game", this is arguably one of the best games ever made, and possibly even the best game Blizzard ever made. Ten bucks is a lot for "20+ year old game", but it really isn't that bad for a genre-defining action-RPG with in-dungeon atmosphere that stands up to any competition to this day and a purity of gameplay that is extremely difficult to find in modern alternatives.
Posted March 13, 2019
Can we stop using a wikipedia article that has no legitimate sources to justify piracy, pretty please?

Abandonware, as a term, was created purely to justify piracy. There is no legal definition for abandonware, there is no law that references it and all the attempts to legitimize the term ex post facto doesn't change that searching for the term will give you a plethora of piracy sites.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abandonware

Computer software that is no longer distributed or supported by the developer or copyright holder.

‘those who illegally distribute abandonware on the Web see themselves as archivists who are helping save old computer programs for posterity’
‘Everything has to be absolutely above-board, so emulators and even abandonware are out of the question, alas.’
‘There are also open-source projects that have become "abandonware" due to loss of interest by the parties that started them, and no one yet picking up the torch.’
‘Living in the shadows of quasi-legality, abandonware, programs once commercially sold now absent from store shelves, are popular on the Net.’
‘Abandonware justifies itself by preserving gaming history in a 'living' way.’
‘A few examples are Abandonware, MP3 downloads, warez and their kind.’
‘"There's basically no such thing as 'abandonware' and it's illegal to offer those games for download," he says.’
‘Filling the ranks of Abandonware are classic games that everyone played, so companies made a mint off them, but weren't released for copyright-free distribution.’
‘Some developers willingly release their older software titles into the public domain making them legally Abandonware but a large number of titles labelled as such are not technically free for public access.’
‘In the case of Abandonware, if it can be proven that a company knew their products were being illegally distributed but did nothing about it then the copyright over that particular licence can be lost.’
‘There are many warez sites which want to hide behind the cover of abandonware.’
‘The creators of software have control over their creations by means of copyright and trademarks; users of warez and abandonware sidestep that control for their own ends.’
‘Many popular abandonware sites have subsequently been abandoned.’
So many piracy examples... and this is supposed to be a legitimate term for unsupported software? Out of all the examples, it seems there is only ONE that isn't using Abandonware in a form that talks about piracy




https://www.gog.com/forum/anvil_of_dawn/abandonware

"Don't post links to illegal software downloads, please. Abandonware is still not legal" Huh, even Blues agree that Abandonware is piracy.
Post edited March 13, 2019 by Merranvo
Posted March 13, 2019
avatar
Merranvo: Can we stop using a wikipedia article that has no legitimate sources to justify piracy, pretty please?

Abandonware, as a term, was created purely to justify piracy. There is no legal definition for abandonware, there is no law that references it and all the attempts to legitimize the term ex post facto doesn't change that searching for the term will give you a plethora of piracy sites.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abandonware

Computer software that is no longer distributed or supported by the developer or copyright holder.

‘those who illegally distribute abandonware on the Web see themselves as archivists who are helping save old computer programs for posterity’
‘Everything has to be absolutely above-board, so emulators and even abandonware are out of the question, alas.’
‘There are also open-source projects that have become "abandonware" due to loss of interest by the parties that started them, and no one yet picking up the torch.’
‘Living in the shadows of quasi-legality, abandonware, programs once commercially sold now absent from store shelves, are popular on the Net.’
‘Abandonware justifies itself by preserving gaming history in a 'living' way.’
‘A few examples are Abandonware, MP3 downloads, warez and their kind.’
‘"There's basically no such thing as 'abandonware' and it's illegal to offer those games for download," he says.’
‘Filling the ranks of Abandonware are classic games that everyone played, so companies made a mint off them, but weren't released for copyright-free distribution.’
‘Some developers willingly release their older software titles into the public domain making them legally Abandonware but a large number of titles labelled as such are not technically free for public access.’
‘In the case of Abandonware, if it can be proven that a company knew their products were being illegally distributed but did nothing about it then the copyright over that particular licence can be lost.’
‘There are many warez sites which want to hide behind the cover of abandonware.’
‘The creators of software have control over their creations by means of copyright and trademarks; users of warez and abandonware sidestep that control for their own ends.’
‘Many popular abandonware sites have subsequently been abandoned.’
avatar
Merranvo: So many piracy examples... and this is supposed to be a legitimate term for unsupported software? Out of all the examples, it seems there is only ONE that isn't using Abandonware in a form that talks about piracy

https://www.gog.com/forum/anvil_of_dawn/abandonware

"Don't post links to illegal software downloads, please. Abandonware is still not legal" Huh, even Blues agree that Abandonware is piracy.
Good post, nothing to add. Yes abandonware is like streaming funds by publicity on gloomy websites. It is illegal and it is not because we can find some reasons to defend these habits that they will become legal. It is sad, but it is how it works.
Post edited March 13, 2019 by Lord_Casque_Noir
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
DiabloDisappointed. (85 posts)(85 posts)
(85 posts)