RE: [email] RE: [GD-General] A portable preferences library

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

I was actually refering to having to patch multiple versions of a game, and
the fact many patch installers check the registry for the game location and
current version before doing anything.

I completely agree about the DLL and copy protection things though.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Thompson [mailto:da...@ar...] 
> Sent: 04 December 2003 22:18
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: Re: [email] RE: [GD-General] A portable preferences library
> 
> 
> However, the analogy completely breaks down with patches, 
> because little johnny doesn't have write access in the 
> example. Since we are talking about preferences, anyway, for 
> this arguement I'll just say patching is done by admins. 
> Actually the copy on write method, while taking an obscene 
> amount of space, is the most transparent out of everything 
> I've seen, and even handles patching (yay). Of course it 
> would have to be OS level, then you get into arguements about 
> where it goes, etc.
> 
> Regarding the discussion about dlls and stuff in the windows 
> directory, I can't really convince myself its all MS's fault. 
> No one is forcing people to use the windows directory for 
> dlls, and if people would just use HKCU/Software/Company/Game 
> for keys, it wouldn't really be that bad. Its the <insert the 
> worst name you can call someone for your language here, and 
> make it plural> who write random stuff as a "copy protection" 
> who make life miserable.
> 
> Speaking of copy protection, I actually had to use the CD 
> crack in order to play Max Payne 2 - because the protection 
> meant to prevent such things kept the game from working! 
> Isn't that FUNNY!? *twitch*
> 
> -Dan
>