Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BunnyBob77]

Thanks for the information.  I think I'm leaning towards Soulstorm, but even if I don't like it it's only 5 dollars.

[Mini]

Note that if you want to play as any of the armies from the other expansions/base game in multiplayer (and I believe singleplayer skirmishes, but I don't think it's needed for the campaign) you will need to buy that particular expansion.

[Sirus]

Second: Daily sale. Analogue: A Hate Story, 50% off. Worth it? I've tried the demo, it was alright. Not sure how much longer the game goes on, but the story so far intrigues me.

Totally worth a couple quid.

Just over a day too late

[RedKing]

Thanks for the information.  I think I'm leaning towards Soulstorm, but even if I don't like it it's only 5 dollars.

Soulstorm wasn't bad, but in some ways it felt like a step backward from Dark Crusade. Much longer load times, for one thing.

[Orangebottle]

As far as I know from watching a friend play it:
Dawn of war is the first game. Winter Assault is an expansion that gives access to more multiplayer armies. Dark Crusade is also an expansion, with a different campaing mode, and yet more armies actually playable. Soulstorm adds 2 more armies, but apparenly theres some odd happenings in the story that did not go over well with some people. Dawn of War 2 didn't work on his computer so I can't really say much about it besides it has a boatload of dlc.

Yes. I played them all.

Dawn of War is #1. Winter Assault is the expansion to that game. Dark Crusade is actually a stand-alone game, and I'm pretty sure that Soulstrom was like that too. However, there were limits on multiplayer depending on which games you had, hence why they called it an expansion. IIRC.

[Mech#4]

Yes, the limitation was you could only play the teams that you had the games for in singleplayer (and I'm pretty sure multiplayer as well).

"Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine": I got it when it went drastically down in price about 2 months ago. It's a fun game, the combat it nice and viceral as well as a neat feeling of heft while you smash through Orks. The voice acting was nice but lacking in ham (especially for the Orks).
I have had some fun with multiplayer and if it had dedicated servers I would certainly play it more often. As it stands though, most of the time I can't find a match and when I do I've had it hang and drop as it migrates hosts. That being said, fighting along side three other people against hordes of Orks is a great deal of fun and I wish they made a Space Hulk mode (Something like collecting artifacts in a maze while fighting off hordes of Tyranids.)

[Sergius]

Funky thing was, you only needed the latest game, a couple of 0-kb game exes, a couple of registry keys and you could play with all factions.

[forsaken1111]

Funky thing was, you only needed the latest game, a couple of 0-kb game exes, a couple of registry keys and you could play with all factions.

That would count as circumventing copyright systems and is no different from piracy. Probably you shouldn't talk about it here.

[Shadowlord]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#12-2

1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

This section was added to US copyright law in 1998.

I wonder how "controls access to a work" would be interpreted in this case, where you have access to the work, but not to components of it which are disabled unless you buy additional stuff - unless, of course, each side in the game is interpreted as a separate work.

Adding "a couple of 0-kb game exes, [and] a couple of registry keys" is trivial and doesn't involve downloading or copying any copyrighted content at all - the only provision it could violate, I assume (unless there are more gotchas that don't involve copyright at all, like that one), would be that one. Since IANAL there may be more. (Also, the DMCA has provisions for allowing circumventing protection schemes yourself but not distributing it, in order to get a thing to work when it is not working, e.g. as with running stuff where the DRM is keeping it from running because the online protection server no longer exists, etc).

(I'm mostly just curious. I've never played any of the Dawn of War games, never bought or pirated them. I didn't like the have-to-pay-for-each-side model, it was an RTS, and I'm not a big WH40K fan, and I don't really pirate games or movies or anything.)

[forsaken1111]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#12-2

1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

This section was added to US copyright law in 1998.

I wonder how "controls access to a work" would be interpreted in this case, where you have access to the work, but not to components of it which are disabled unless you buy additional stuff - unless, of course, each side in the game is interpreted as a separate work.

Adding "a couple of 0-kb game exes, [and] a couple of registry keys" is trivial and doesn't involve downloading or copying any copyrighted content at all - the only provision it could violate, I assume (unless there are more gotchas that don't involve copyright at all, like that one), would be that one. Since IANAL there may be more. (Also, the DMCA has provisions for allowing circumventing protection schemes yourself but not distributing it, in order to get a thing to work when it is not working, e.g. as with running stuff where the DRM is keeping it from running because the online protection server no longer exists, etc).

It would really be no different from accessing a DLC you have not paid for by changing something in a file. You're accessing content which you have not paid to access.

[BigD145]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#12-2

1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

This section was added to US copyright law in 1998.

I wonder how "controls access to a work" would be interpreted in this case, where you have access to the work, but not to components of it which are disabled unless you buy additional stuff - unless, of course, each side in the game is interpreted as a separate work.

Adding "a couple of 0-kb game exes, [and] a couple of registry keys" is trivial and doesn't involve downloading or copying any copyrighted content at all - the only provision it could violate, I assume (unless there are more gotchas that don't involve copyright at all, like that one), would be that one. Since IANAL there may be more. (Also, the DMCA has provisions for allowing circumventing protection schemes yourself but not distributing it, in order to get a thing to work when it is not working, e.g. as with running stuff where the DRM is keeping it from running because the online protection server no longer exists, etc).

It would really be no different from accessing a DLC you have not paid for by changing something in a file. You're accessing content which you have not paid to access.

The bits and bytes are already in the purchased game. But, you are largely correct in that you, the buyer, do not own what you purchase. Have fun with that.

[Sergius]

Funky thing was, you only needed the latest game, a couple of 0-kb game exes, a couple of registry keys and you could play with all factions.

That would count as circumventing copyright systems and is no different from piracy. Probably you shouldn't talk about it here.

Actually, that's what the pro-copyright lobbyists would like you to think, so that you wouldn't even dare discuss it.

It would really be no different from accessing a DLC you have not paid for by changing something in a file. You're accessing content which you have not paid to access.

It would be like charging someone for a sale, but not actually giving them the product, but merely permission to use it. Which is no different from piracy. So yeah, the big game companies are engaged in piracy: taking away something you bought, and replacing it with a license.

[Aklyon]

You didn't even need to have all the games. They had a patcher to give you access to the armies with just license keys. On the Relic forums, not removed immediately or whatever. You only needed your own actual keys to play legit multiplayer.

[IronyOwl]

Adding "a couple of 0-kb game exes, [and] a couple of registry keys" is trivial and doesn't involve downloading or copying any copyrighted content at all

"Trivial" and "illegal" really have nothing to do with each other.

Actually, that's what the pro-copyright lobbyists would like you to think, so that you wouldn't even dare discuss it.

It's against forum rules, not federal law or whatever. Presumably because of federal law or whatever, but that's still a slightly different can of worms.

I'm pretty sure he also meant "discuss" as in "discuss how to do it," not "discuss the merits, legality, and mechanics of it." The former really isn't unreasonable if you assume it's illegal or potentially illegal in the first place.

It would be like charging someone for a sale, but not actually giving them the product, but merely permission to use it. Which is no different from piracy. So yeah, the big game companies are engaged in piracy: taking away something you bought, and replacing it with a license.

Please don't conflate how you think things should be with how they are. Arguing that renting things out should be illegal is one thing; claiming that renting things out constitutes selling them to you in their entirety and then stealing them back is completely different.

[Sirus]

Pretty sure we have two dozen other piracy debate threads on this forum. Can't y'all go to one of those or start another?