I am writing here because I have a question concerning AppDB reports and the usage of NoCD-Patches for games.
The background to this is that a game called GT Legends relies on a fragile copy protection driver called "StarForce", which hasn't worked properly on everything later than Windows XP (wine doesn't support it either, but the game is in an unplayable state right now anyways, apart from the copy protection issue).
Due to this, most of the people that only have the CD version rely on a NoCD-Patch to remove that protection driver.
Now the question is, if I update an app's page in the DB ([1]), is it ok if I list something like the following (assuming the game works properly at some point, excluding the copy protection):
What works: - Installation - Starting the game (except if the copy protection is active) - ... - ...
On another topic, the game can be obtained on two ways, a Steam version and a version that is available on CD/DVD. Now the CD version is at game version v1.0.0.0 by default and there is a official patch to v1.1.0.0, which is the same version number that the Steam version uses.
However, apart from the missing copy protection driver in the Steam version, it isn't really known if and what changed between v1.1.0.0 CD and v1.1.0.0 Steam. Would it still be fine to merge "Steam" and "v1.1.0.0" in the AppDB (which is why I chose the wording "if the copy protection is active"), which are currently listed seperately? This would obviously only work if it is OK to mention that the copy protection mustn't be enabled for the game to start (i.e. what I suggested in the first part of the E-Mail), else v1.1.0.0 would have to be listed seperately as "Garbage".
Thanks for taking the time reading through this and thanks in advance for your input on this.
Tim
[1] https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=3906
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 16:17:19 +0200 Tim Schumacher timschumi@gmx.de wrote:
I am writing here because I have a question concerning AppDB reports and the usage of NoCD-Patches for games.
The issue of whether test reports based on NoCD patches should even be accepted in the AppDB has never been discussed, at least not in the time I've been here. I'm inclined to fall into the "shouldn't" camp, but as a practical matter, the AppDB was already full of such reports when I became an admin 10+ years ago, so purging them now would not be easy.
Now the question is, if I update an app's page in the DB ([1]), is it ok if I list something like the following (assuming the game works properly at some point, excluding the copy protection):
What works: - Installation - Starting the game (except if the copy protection is active) - ... - ...
Not sure what you mean by "update an app's page." If you mean the app or version description, test report data shouldn't go in there at all. And no, you should never mention NoCD cracks in the app or version descriptions, nor should you ever accept NoCD "versions" as separate version entries. As for accepting test reports that used NoCD cracks, unless and until we reach a consensus that such reports should be prohibited, I'd say that is at your discretion as a maintainer. If you do decide to accept such reports, do not accept any with links to cracks or explicit instructions on how to obtain and/or use them.
However, apart from the missing copy protection driver in the Steam version, it isn't really known if and what changed between v1.1.0.0 CD and v1.1.0.0 Steam. Would it still be fine to merge "Steam" and "v1.1.0.0" in the AppDB (which is why I chose the wording "if the copy protection is active"), which are currently listed seperately?
No, don't merge them. We list Steam (and GOG) versions separately from CD/DVD versions precisely because there are differences, copy protection being one of them.
On 18.06.19 19:35, Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 16:17:19 +0200 Tim Schumacher timschumi@gmx.de wrote:
I am writing here because I have a question concerning AppDB reports and the usage of NoCD-Patches for games.
The issue of whether test reports based on NoCD patches should even be accepted in the AppDB has never been discussed, at least not in the time I've been here. I'm inclined to fall into the "shouldn't" camp, but as a practical matter, the AppDB was already full of such reports when I became an admin 10+ years ago, so purging them now would not be easy.
The main point is that even on Windows (well, at least on Vista or newer) you'd need a NoCD patch to run the game, else I wouldn't have asked this question in the first place.
Now the question is, if I update an app's page in the DB ([1]), is it ok if I list something like the following (assuming the game works properly at some point, excluding the copy protection):
What works: - Installation - Starting the game (except if the copy protection is active) - ... - ...Not sure what you mean by "update an app's page." If you mean the app or version description, test report data shouldn't go in there at all.
I meant the test report for a specific version, not the description. Sorry for being unclear, I'm just not quite up-to-date on the terminology yet.
And no, you should never mention NoCD cracks in the app or version descriptions, nor should you ever accept NoCD "versions" as separate version entries. As for accepting test reports that used NoCD cracks, unless and until we reach a consensus that such reports should be prohibited, I'd say that is at your discretion as a maintainer. If you do decide to accept such reports, do not accept any with links to cracks or explicit instructions on how to obtain and/or use them.
I wasn't planning to do any of those things. I was just planning to say something like "Game doesn't start if it has the StarForce copy protection", which would imply that the Steam version works (and any other version if they manage to remove the protection _somehow_).
I was never going to mention any cracks or going to link to them (or allow any test data that does).
However, apart from the missing copy protection driver in the Steam version, it isn't really known if and what changed between v1.1.0.0 CD and v1.1.0.0 Steam. Would it still be fine to merge "Steam" and "v1.1.0.0" in the AppDB (which is why I chose the wording "if the copy protection is active"), which are currently listed seperately?
No, don't merge them. We list Steam (and GOG) versions separately from CD/DVD versions precisely because there are differences, copy protection being one of them.
Alright then. I was just confused because they seem to be exactly the same version (except for the copy protection of course), down to the version number. Based on the responses I have been getting, I'm going to keep the versions and ratings as-is, renaming the "1.x.0.0" versions to "1.x.0.0 CD/DVD" to avoid future confusion.
Tim
-
Rosanne DiMesio -
Tim Schumacher