To All who have only dial up or no Internet service at all:


The site to find the patches for NWN2:
http://nwn2forums.bioware.com/forums...6648&forum=109

Mox 13 gave this advice

"When you download the patch it will be in a zip file. Do not unzip
it. Just place the file in your NWN2 directory then use the in-game
update button.

You do not have to be connected to the Internet. Be patient with it,
you will probably get a message asking to connect to the Internet.
Don't do anything, the patch will start in a few moments. Be aware
that you must have 7 gigs of free space on your hard drive for the
patch to work."

My son downloaded the 102 patch for me and brought it for
Thanksgiving. I tried it and it installed and now is working well.

The companies involved in this game seem to have forgotten those who
do not have Internet service or only have dial up. An 86 gig download
with no resume feature is ridiculous and leaves those with dial up
unable to upgrade the game (when one has a dl abort due to disconnects
the upgrade program erases the work done so far and will not resume)
Since there was no official place to download the patches, those
without fast service were totally out of luck since they could not get
another to download for them or go to where they could accomplish
this.

This is not only rather stupid but also shows a rather unpleasant
disregard for the needs of customers who do not fit into easy
categories. I was very disappointed and very frustrated at this.
There is simply no excuse!

There, I vented. Enjoy the patches. The game is not bad.

Diz


Thanks for the help from my previous posting on this.

Mox 13 posted the data needed to find the links and explained how to
install.

Thanks also to TNT 220 for posting the links to the patches on the
bioware forum.

Thanks to both.

<Dizfriz@ bfe.com> wrote in message
news:g5tjm2pis0goejoghe7odlssu43dih972t@4ax.com...
>
> To All who have only dial up or no Internet service at all:
>
>
> The site to find the patches for NWN2:
> http://nwn2forums.bioware.com/forums...6648&forum=109

Snip

> Thanks for the help from my previous posting on this.
>
> Mox 13 posted the data needed to find the links and explained how to
> install.
>
> Thanks also to TNT 220 for posting the links to the patches on the
> bioware forum.
>
> Thanks to both.

Now I will vent. Where I live the only broadband available is through
satellite internet. The problems I have with a satellite connection are,
expense, FAP, and lag time. So I do not have it.

A few years ago my favorite game was Half-Life. When Half-Life 2 was
released, Valve, the company that made it, decided that you had to be online
any time you started or re-loaded a game, even if you are playing a single
player game. Also all updates had to be done online through the game. Due to
the requirement of being online while playing, my family almost mutinied
over me tying up our dial up service. I played through H-L 2 one time and
then uninstalled it and put it away.

This is why I have never played any of the original NWN Premium Modules.
They have the same online requirement. I dearly hope that Atari/Bioware will
come to their senses and do not leave many of out in the cold.

Mox

"Mox 13" <mabensfake@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5%Gah.3820$ql2.548@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

> A few years ago my favorite game was Half-Life. When Half-Life 2 was
> released, Valve, the company that made it, decided that you had to be
> online any time you started or re-loaded a game, even if you are playing a
> single player game.

You only have to be online _once_ in order to start up the game initially
after installation. You can then set it to work offline. In fact, if it
doesn't detect an internet connection, it will prompt you to do this.

Regards,

--
-pm

http://oceanclub.blogspot.com

"Oh, it's all right. I'm sure that we can handle this situation
maturely, just like the responsible adults that we are. Isn't
that right, Mr... Poopy Pants?"

"Paul Moloney" <paul_moloney@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ekhlpu$a98$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> "Mox 13" <mabensfake@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:5%Gah.3820$ql2.548@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
>
> > A few years ago my favorite game was Half-Life. When Half-Life 2 was
> > released, Valve, the company that made it, decided that you had to be
> > online any time you started or re-loaded a game, even if you are playing
a
> > single player game.
>
> You only have to be online _once_ in order to start up the game initially
> after installation. You can then set it to work offline. In fact, if it
> doesn't detect an internet connection, it will prompt you to do this.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> -pm
>
> http://oceanclub.blogspot.com
>
But that's really a problem when the computer one installs the game on
doesn't have internet access at all. Oh sure, I have dial-up, in my living
room, where my laptop is, but I just don't fancy dragging my tower and
monitor into the living room just to download huge update files that will
require all night complete. I am really getting P.O.'d with Atari at this
point. They locked me out of their random dungeon download with NWN1, and
now they demand that I connect in order to update their game? Don't think
so. It is not one technological world. Get a clue, Atari. Not everybody has
access to AFFORDABLE DSL or wireless, or indeed any at all, regardless of
price.

SkyDancer

"SkyDancer" <jrinehar@eou.edu> wrote in message news:ekk747
> It is not one technological world. Get a clue, Atari. Not everybody has
> access to AFFORDABLE DSL or wireless, or indeed any at all, regardless of
> price.

Unfortunately, companies just don't care anymore. If you don't have
broadband, they don't want your money. And what's worse, even console gaming
is moving towards that as well.

"Jeremy Reaban" <jer@connectria.com> wrote in message
news:12mrv9mijej7u86@news.supernews.com...
>
> "SkyDancer" <jrinehar@eou.edu> wrote in message news:ekk747
>> It is not one technological world. Get a clue, Atari. Not everybody has
>> access to AFFORDABLE DSL or wireless, or indeed any at all, regardless of
>> price.
>
> Unfortunately, companies just don't care anymore. If you don't have
> broadband, they don't want your money. And what's worse, even console
> gaming is moving towards that as well.

Today my newspaper reported that 36% of American internet users are dial up
users. To me eliminating well over 25% of the market does not make a lot of
sense. But that's just me.

Mox

Mox 13 wrote:
> "Jeremy Reaban" <jer@connectria.com> wrote in message
>>
>> "SkyDancer" <jrinehar@eou.edu> wrote in message news:ekk747
>>> It is not one technological world. Get a clue, Atari. Not everybody
>>> has access to AFFORDABLE DSL or wireless, or indeed any at all,
>>> regardless of price.
>>
>> Unfortunately, companies just don't care anymore. If you don't have
>> broadband, they don't want your money. And what's worse, even console
>> gaming is moving towards that as well.
>
> Today my newspaper reported that 36% of American internet users are
> dial up users. To me eliminating well over 25% of the market does not
> make a lot of sense. But that's just me.
>

Well, America isn't the entire market <g> Broadband has spread very
quickly in the UK, for example. Japan as well I expect.
Gamers are more likely to have it, if they can get it. (Sadly, there are
still some places which either aren't wired up, or don't have an
affordable provider.)

--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk

"EvilBill" <quake2lives@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4t6nqlF12q167U1@mid.individual.net...
> Mox 13 wrote:
>> "Jeremy Reaban" <jer@connectria.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> "SkyDancer" <jrinehar@eou.edu> wrote in message news:ekk747
>>>> It is not one technological world. Get a clue, Atari. Not everybody
>>>> has access to AFFORDABLE DSL or wireless, or indeed any at all,
>>>> regardless of price.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, companies just don't care anymore. If you don't have
>>> broadband, they don't want your money. And what's worse, even console
>>> gaming is moving towards that as well.
>>
>> Today my newspaper reported that 36% of American internet users are
>> dial up users. To me eliminating well over 25% of the market does not
>> make a lot of sense. But that's just me.
>>
>
> Well, America isn't the entire market <g> Broadband has spread very
> quickly in the UK, for example. Japan as well I expect.
> Gamers are more likely to have it, if they can get it. (Sadly, there are
> still some places which either aren't wired up, or don't have an
> affordable provider.)

Correction noted <S> I should have said the American market. However that is
probably also not correct because we are so egocentric that when the
newspaper says Americans they almost always mean U.S. Citizens. So the
article went on to say that 4 out of 5 Americans (U.S. Citizens) have
internet access. Let's take a look at that.

U.S. population = 300,000,000 +
4 out of 5 = 240,000,000
Of which 36% = 86,000,000

That still seems like a pretty big possible market to ignore.

Mox

Mox 13 wrote:
> "EvilBill" <quake2lives@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4t6nqlF12q167U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mox 13 wrote:
>>> "Jeremy Reaban" <jer@connectria.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> "SkyDancer" <jrinehar@eou.edu> wrote in message news:ekk747
>>>>> It is not one technological world. Get a clue, Atari. Not
>>>>> everybody has access to AFFORDABLE DSL or wireless, or indeed any
>>>>> at all, regardless of price.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, companies just don't care anymore. If you don't have
>>>> broadband, they don't want your money. And what's worse, even
>>>> console gaming is moving towards that as well.
>>>
>>> Today my newspaper reported that 36% of American internet users are
>>> dial up users. To me eliminating well over 25% of the market does
>>> not make a lot of sense. But that's just me.
>>>
>>
>> Well, America isn't the entire market <g> Broadband has spread very
>> quickly in the UK, for example. Japan as well I expect.
>> Gamers are more likely to have it, if they can get it. (Sadly, there
>> are still some places which either aren't wired up, or don't have an
>> affordable provider.)
>
> Correction noted <S> I should have said the American market. However
> that is probably also not correct because we are so egocentric that
> when the newspaper says Americans they almost always mean U.S.
> Citizens. So the article went on to say that 4 out of 5 Americans
> (U.S. Citizens) have internet access. Let's take a look at that.
>
> U.S. population = 300,000,000 +
> 4 out of 5 = 240,000,000
> Of which 36% = 86,000,000
>
> That still seems like a pretty big possible market to ignore.
>

However, it dwindles significantly when you factor in that for many
people, access may be shared: a family home or a student lodging is only
going to have one connection after all, and if there's only one gamer in
the house (or none), then whoever pays the bill (unless the one paying
the bill IS the gamer <g>) probably won't find it worth the extra
expense of going to broadband.

At least, in the US. Here in the UK where dial-up was historically
pay-by-the-minute and often led to £300+ per month phone bills,
broadband (especially now the prices are something like half of what
they were 3-4 years ago) was the *cheaper* option. Hence the massive
take-up. <g>

--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk

"EvilBill" <quake2lives@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4t71fuF12m5vfU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> At least, in the US. Here in the UK where dial-up was historically
> pay-by-the-minute and often led to £300+ per month phone bills,
> broadband (especially now the prices are something like half of what
> they were 3-4 years ago) was the *cheaper* option. Hence the massive
> take-up. <g>
>
Yes, that's right - I pay less now for my broadband connection than I was
paying three years ago for my dial up.
I can't imagine working with dial up now.
Best wishes
maxon

Who's That Girl wrote:
> "EvilBill" <quake2lives@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> At least, in the US. Here in the UK where dial-up was historically
>> pay-by-the-minute and often led to £300+ per month phone bills,
>> broadband (especially now the prices are something like half of what
>> they were 3-4 years ago) was the *cheaper* option. Hence the massive
>> take-up. <g>
>>
> Yes, that's right - I pay less now for my broadband connection than I
> was paying three years ago for my dial up.
> I can't imagine working with dial up now.

Likewise! Scary that there are *still* a few parts of England without
broadband. LOL

--
--
* I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me
to expect the worst.

Yahoo: evilbill_agqx
Web: http://www.evilbill.org.uk

> At least, in the US. Here in the UK where dial-up was historically
> pay-by-the-minute and often led to £300+ per month phone bills, broadband
> (especially now the prices are something like half of what they were 3-4
> years ago) was the *cheaper* option. Hence the massive take-up. <g>

Cost for dial up and dsl is about the same in the U.S. if you consider the
cost of an extra phone line for the pc.

dsl $40.00 to $45.00 per month.

dial up service $20.00 to $22.00 per month.
Plain vanilla phone line $17.00 to $20.00 per month.

I would definetly get it if I could. <s>

Mox