RE: [GD-General] A portable preferences library

[Andrew G. <ag...@cl...>]

Perhaps there are other reasons for that requirement (although I can't think
of them) but if that was the only one it smacks of a lack of planning. No
disrespect intended to anyone from Blizzard who's reading this ;)

Most developers won't even have that leeway anyway. The same as how back in
1999 not many developers other than id could get away with telling their
publisher they intended to release a game which required hardware T&L
support :)


_____________________________________
andrew grant | programmer | climax brighton
ag...@cl... - www.climax.co.uk





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Crosbie Fitch [mailto:cr...@cy...] 
> Sent: 04 December 2003 21:27
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: RE: [GD-General] A portable preferences library
> 
> 
> > From: Andrew Grant
> > Also your scheme falls down the minute somebody without 
> write access 
> > to the games folder attempts to play it. Something that's pretty
> > common these days
> > where Dad has to install the games little Johnny wants to
> > play on the family
> > PC. I'd be surprised if your approach makes it through QA of
> > any publisher worth their salt.
> 
> You could compare it with Blizzard's requirement for Warcraft 
> III players to be administrators (on W2K, etc.).
> 
>