OnionPowder
Member
The game was finished through mods.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=485537937
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PC Gamer: Microsoft's UWP will support some mods, but not all
- Thread starter koutoru
- Start date
The game was finished through mods.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=485537937
It was broken and unfinished?
The content restoration mod made it a lot less broken and less unfinished.
they restored all the lost content and transformed it into a complete game. Basically, modders did, for free, what obsidian would have done given another year for dev time.
http://www.moddb.com/mods/the-sith-lords-restored-content-mod-tslrcm
...Scatter...
Banned
I know you get heated about this Krej. I really don't know much about the PC gaming scene and am not trying to be dismissive. I'm just trying to understand.
Maintenance
Member
Legit laughed.
Remember how the ending of KOTOR 2 was an absolute shitstain in an awesome game? It was because they ran out of time.
There was also a lot of other missing content.
You should play it someday, it's actually a big difference.
Night Angel
Member
The first one shows up.
Any Bethesda game. Torchlight. Diablo 2. Divinity: Original Sin. Darkest Dungeon.
Every goddamn game I want to play on PC.
I knew that Durante guy was not to be trusted! I noticed a slew of break-in attempts to my Steam account the second I tried running GeDoSaTo, so it must be his dirty, malicious mod at work.
Wake up, shepple, UWP will save us all.
GHG
Member
Count the downloads:
http://www.nexusmods.com/games/?
And for racing games:
http://www.nogripracing.com/files.php
InsaneTiger
Member
I see. Sorry I don't understand all the symbol on here at times. Plus sarcasm is hard to read. All good man.
...Scatter...
Banned
Got it. I think one of you should start a thread with an OP that lays out all of the benefits of open modding over the years. Make a strong case for it so those of us on the console side of things understand and can have your backs on this stuff. A great point of reference for the argument if you will.
I did some very very light modification on some games, changing some values here and there and some graphics (nothing demanding) for personal enjoyment, on some strategy and RPG's. I could try doing something better if i wanted to but the notion that MS could potentially block me out of this because of their policies is disgusting.
Also, how can you ask this kind of question, people always were able to tweek files on PC gaming, they do not have to be "developers" or "MS partners" to do so.
Of course MS isn't intending 3rd parties to only deploy their games on the Win10 store. MS best hope is that since Bone/BoneV_N games will be UWPs in the future, devs/pubs might as well drop it on the Win10 store. This is the main reason they are allowing Live cross play with 3rd parties. Had nothing to do with Sony, they just didn't want devs to have to worry about a split userbase on PC. They also displayed a way to easily deploy a Win32 game on the store, with th thinking that devs might go, well why not.
As far as mods go, of course MS isn't going to officially sanction injection and certainly wouldn't allow those on the marketplace.
Someone was fiddling with the exe for KI in the OT, not sure what he was able to do though.
Even within the realm of console games, Modding has a rich history. Have you played the christian whitehead port of Sonic CD or freedom planet? Both are born through Sonic Hacking: http://info.sonicretro.org/Category:Hacks
...Scatter...
Banned
New to it man. My PC gaming experience includes things like DOOM (original), Commander Keen, Might and Magic fucking 2, and Starcraft, Warcraft, Diablo. That's about it.
Can modders alter a game to break the fairness of playing online? Like I remember people hacked the map in Starcraft, etc.?
Why "of course"? Injection isn't some sort of shady development practice. It's been business as usual for decades. There are legitimate applications built off of the concept of Injection DLLs. It's been a part of computer science for the last 20 years. "of course"? Microsoft themselves offers MSDN pages on how to inject DLLs: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa909244.aspx
Aim bots are a popular thing to try. A nice battle between detecting them and making them harder to detect, lol.
...Scatter...
Banned
I played the standard Sonic CD - good game for the time. I didn't play any mods though.
GHG
Member
Are you serious?
...Scatter...
Banned
Sure, mostly for development purposes. Not for altering someone else's sold product, lol.
Wrong? There are thousands of commercial programs that do just that.
...Scatter...
Banned
I'm going to research this topic further. I totally understand a hesitation in eliminating the openness of the platform for the PC gamer. I also understand from a platform holder/developer perspective the illicit dangers of a modding scene potentially destroying competitive balance online/cracking encryption etc.
I think there should be a walled garden for online play but free range on single player.
I think there should be a walled garden for online play but free range on single player.
Night Angel
Member
Many games have this already, without the use of UWP. Server side data solves this. UWP isn't for us, it's for MS.
how oh how did PC gaming ever have an online scene when modding was rampant, thank goodness microsoft is here to fix PC online gaming.
Players can hack even on consoles. A walled garden is no guarantee against malicious intent. There is really, truly, is no justifiable reason for MS to restrict software the way it insists on doing via UWP as far as the user experience is concerned. "UWP benefits nobody but Microsoft" isn't merely a mantra from the disenfranchised. It's incontrovertible truth.
Edify me. Seems like a bold strategy to sell something based on someone else's code which could change with an update and break the injection. But either way, I would be surprised if MS suggests to use function interception as a proper architectural solution to a given problem.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
The self-awareness not to jump into a thread with a snarky response just because you don't like seeing some people in it 'bad-mouthing' MS, would be a start.
Holy shit, what a climb down. It was worth it for that perfect avatar quote though.
OnionPowder
Member
I don't remember the last time I had somebody cheating in an online game since I play modern games with good sever side verifications. This is exactly the type of FUD Microsoft wants spread and it seems to work sadly.
Also walled gardens on the 360 didn't help Call of Duty hackers so I don't know why it'd be different with PC.
I'm not sure how someone can read this:
and believe that the eventual deprecation of win32 is anything other than an inevitability.
And on the topic of Spencer, I'm not sure how many people on GAF follow the Secretariat of the Faith blog, but among the faithful, it's something of an open secret that Spencer's name has been put forward as an eventual candidate for beatification.
After this latest misadventure, however, I have half a mind to write the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and urge them to take a closer look at the first of Spencer's putative miracles, as I cannot reconcile these comments with the good works of a man on the path to canonization.
and believe that the eventual deprecation of win32 is anything other than an inevitability.
And on the topic of Spencer, I'm not sure how many people on GAF follow the Secretariat of the Faith blog, but among the faithful, it's something of an open secret that Spencer's name has been put forward as an eventual candidate for beatification.
After this latest misadventure, however, I have half a mind to write the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and urge them to take a closer look at the first of Spencer's putative miracles, as I cannot reconcile these comments with the good works of a man on the path to canonization.
Who gives a shit if microsoft approves of injection DLLs or not? Since when are they gate keepers to development practices?
You're demonstrating the exact reason this is all bullshit. Microsoft is by proxy deciding the validity of companies like TriDef and VorpX. Fuck that.
Yeah, Phil Spencer just wants to keep us safe from mods while we play LoL, DOTA2, CS:GO, TF2, Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim, XCOM1/2, KOTOR2, VtM:B, Minecraft..
Well, to be fair, you responded to a post where I said of course MS would not suggest or condone using injection.
Yep, especially this mod:
https://share.oculus.com/app/minecrift
Which was dumb to begin with, because they do so right here:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa909244.aspx
Duckhuntdog
Member
So did Tim Sweeny reply yet? I can't imagine he's overly happy with this.
For development purposes on WM6.5 and embedded devices.
His concern was mainly a distribution one.
Since we have a competition, i am older than you, from days before DOOM existed.
I remember myself trying to fix a corrupted game file with a DOS hex editor, i doubt i will have the same free to do options with MS's awful plans.
Also i will not give up my sense of PC gaming freedom because there is a bad 0,001% chance an online game's map will be hacked. There are many online games (WoW) that are greatly enhanced by mods and good online games are usually police themselves adequately, so the hacks are rare.
(And what about single player games like Skyrim? Why MS denies the option for SP games to be modded, altered or anything their user/owner wants?
Why is that a bid deal to you, what i am doing with my PC games?)
Edit: I got the answer. Thanks!
You do not have a case here, it is like you defend MS for the sake of defending MS only.
Yeah I know you already think that, which is dumb
because shit like VorpX, Tridef 3D, FRAPS, etc has existed for years
is your argument seriously going to be based around you going around saying Injection DLLs are only for development? Do you think you're going to sway anybody this way?
My point is MS is not going to say, yeah, we will support dll injection in our store and applications downloaded from our store. It doesn't make sense for them to say that. If someone figures out how to do it or something similar, they won't care, they just wont endorse it.
On the face of it, it makes sense for MS to say that because supporting external hooks is not a bad thing and would quell some degree of concern.
Below the surface, though, allowing such behaviour flies in the face of MS being able to dictate the terms of the software the WinStore distributes.
Microsoft themselves have provided ways to do this for years in the Windows API. You are treating a well worn, well understood, and well developed development model as though it's some sort of rogue unspoken of method.
Injecting into program space is the entire point of DLLs in the first place. DLLs themselves are a microsoft invention.