Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie is a creation that closely follows the storyline of the movie yet, as video games have the innate ability to do, will push the emotional tension of the film to even greater depths. The Signature Edition is only available for the PC and features enhanced content and high resolution visuals.

• King Kong Game Remastered

If you're okay with things being done to your computer without your permission simply because you don't notice them, then it isn't really worth discussing any further, is it?Meanwhile, back in the original thread topic, I think this sets a bad precedent for releases. We're already getting jacked now with 'regular editions' that don't come with manuals and documentation anymore, the last thing I want is another schism to scam the consumers even more. Hopefully, it fails so utterly as to never be considered again. StarForce is not as bad as it used to be. In older versions, there were some major compatability issues with certain makes of CD/DVD drives. Typically older ones.What SF does is install it's own CD driver at the windows device driver level (and most people dislike the fact that there is barely any mention of this in the docs that accompany a game) and the new driver reads the data from the disk in a certain way that is harder to emulate through disk images.The latest versions of SF seem pretty stable and have had minimal issues, so a lot of the 'OMG!

SF IS GOING TO DESTROY MY COMPUTER!!!' Talk is out of place.I used to hate SF, but they fixed most of the bugs now and it's not really any better or worse than the others (from an end-user perspective) but it is very effective against piracy. The only thing I really dislike about SF right now is that it adds about 10-15 seconds to loading times as it deep scans the disk - View image here: - And as ChrisG said - if you deny yourself a great game like SC:CT on the basis that it uses a crappy protection system, you're not a gamer, you're a beatnik.The reason demo's have to have SF is because releasing an unprotected demo of an SF game makes it very easy for the full version to be hacked.Back on topic.

If Ubi had released the high-end version at the same time as the regular version, it would have been a good move. As it is, it's little more than an afterthought. If it had been a ground-breaking amazing game, then I could see a market for a high-end version, but I've yet to hear anything good about king kong. The latest versions of SF seem pretty stable and have had minimal issues, so a lot of the 'OMG! SF IS GOING TO DESTROY MY COMPUTER!!!' Talk is out of place.I installed Silent Hunter 3 a little bit ago. Not only did the game completely suck, but World of Warcraft mysteriously stopped working.

I still can't figure out how it happened, but WoW refused to run until SH3 was gone and Starforce had been manually exorcised from my system. I don't know what it's doing exactly, but it must be some invasive shit.

Originally posted by ChrisG:It doesn't break any hardware or software on my rig.And this therefore proves it won't break any hardware or software on someone else's computer?Please. You're high-horse morality policing here, and it's retarded. If a gamer chooses not to buy Starforce-protected software because they feel it will damage their GAMING rig, they have every right to do so. If you want to play SF-protected games, you also have every right to do so.You don't really have the justification to sit here and preach about it though! Quoth the raven.if you refuse to buy music from sony because of invasive software, then youre not a music fansee how retarded that statement is from -that- particular angle?Some of us wont buy ea games on principle, some us wont touch creative hardware on principle, some of us wont believe word Dr Tom says on principle, some of us will buy abit over asus on principle, some of us will buy logitech some will buy microsoft mice on principle.To blandly dismiss principles like that, is both naive and incredible shallow. Its also sadly the attitude that allows politicians to slowly erode at personal rights and freedoms in the name of 'safety' when you know they mean 'sickening profit'.Back on topic, this is an interesting turn around, not necessarily a good one, but there are OTHER games that have hi def texture packs for those that have the hardware to push them. Mostly, those packs are free.

Ah such is progress is consumerland. Originally posted by Dave88:What SF does is install it's own CD driver at the windows device driver level (and most people dislike the fact that there is barely any mention of this in the docs that accompany a game) and the new driver reads the data from the disk in a certain way that is harder to emulate through disk images. Now, I'm a pretty casual gamer these days. I don't even play PC games as I'm a Linux guy, so take my opinion how you will. But it seems beyond stupid to me that a Windows game would ship with a device driver for reading a CD-ROM. Windows 95 could do that, and it's outdated garbage. At the rate things are going, reading a CD will be slowed down by the surprisingly large number of drivers and services enforcing someone else's rules.I would also like to add my voice to those who point out that being a gamer and standing for something are not mutually exclusive.

If you refuse to buy music from sony because of invasive software, then youre not a music fanNot really in the same ballpark, though, is it? Sony's latest move is nothing more or less than idiocy, but I reckon I could still loan a friend my copy of Chaos Theory and neither of us would have any problems.If you own a game legitimately, and don't have any plans to rip off or hack it, what do you really care if it's copy-protected?If you're going to pull out the 'backup media' option, I'll have to nix that on my own terms too. In a couple of decades of gaming, I've never lost or damaged a disk - ever, and I can guarantee you I'm no obsessive-compulsive neat freak either - I just take care of stuff. So again, that I install a piece of software which does nothing to anything that I will ever notice (although it'd be easy to e.g. Prevent it from dialing out etc.), why should I give a shit that it's copy-protected?To remain on-topic, though, Kong will bomb on the PC and perhaps sell reasonably well on consoles, which makes a high-end version pretty pointless.

Someone who can afford high-end PC hardware is unlikely to be aged under 25, and from the demo, it's likely to be a shit game anyway from a basic gameplay point of view. This isn't a high-brow atmospheric title - it's a 'for the adolescent kiddies' film tie-in, and little more. Nobody actually said being a gamer and having a distrust of starforce were mutually exclusive. What was said was that denying yourself a great game over a minor thing like starforce is cutting off your nose to spite your face.Yes it used to be a mighty pain in the ass, but it's come a long way now and is no more a nuisance than securom or safedisc. Hardly anyone complains about those particular copy protection schemes, despite the fact that they too have had serious issues with certain CD makes not liking them. If this was any other forum than ars, I would say you were all a bunch of software pirates, because the only real gripe people have left for SF is the fact that it's a bitch to crack. And yes, I too like a NoCD, but would be willing to put up with CD swapping if it gives the PC games industry a chance to thrive again.

And yet again, ChrisG says 'Well, I'VE never lost or damaged a disc' as if this somehow demonstrates that, as the paragon of gaming excellence, everyone else should be able to live up to the same standards.The issue is what you have the rights to do, not whether or not you need to. A fundamental distinction you're clearly missing while tooting your own horn about how you never lose discs and Starforce has never caused you problems!For someone who seems to have such problems with bragging, you're a pretty big braggart.

They put copy protection in the demos as well because one time-honored method the hax0rs used to use was hack the demo executable to run the full game files, thus sidestepping whatever protection was on the full version entirely.SCCT has indeed not been cracked yet beyond fucking around with crazy shit to make it think there's a phantom SCCT DVD in the drive when there isn't. To give you an idea of how complicated that is, here's an actual tutorial on how to make SCCT work without the game disc. Originally posted by Dave88:Nobody actually said being a gamer and having a distrust of starforce were mutually exclusive.

What was said was that denying yourself a great game over a minor thing like starforce is cutting off your nose to spite your face.Yes it used to be a mighty pain in the ass, but it's come a long way now and is no more a nuisance than securom or safedisc. Hardly anyone complains about those particular copy protection schemes, despite the fact that they too have had serious issues with certain CD makes not liking them. If this was any other forum than ars, I would say you were all a bunch of software pirates, because the only real gripe people have left for SF is the fact that it's a bitch to crack.

And yes, I too like a NoCD, but would be willing to put up with CD swapping if it gives the PC games industry a chance to thrive again.Or perhaps the pc gaming industry isn't thriving precisely because people are tired of this shit? I won't buy games with invasive copy protection like StarForce, and that hurts the industry, at least the tiniest bit.I'd like to see games with no protection, because I am tired of paying for a worse copy than the pirates get (for SP only games, anyhow). It all gets cracked eventually, and even the best systems only last weeks at most. Originally posted by The Faceless Rebel:Apparently SafeDisc 4 is also just as impossible to crack.

Between StarForce 3.x and SafeDisc 4, I think those of us who actually like buying games and then using no-CD cracks to play the game with our discs nestled safely in the cases away from harm are basically fucked. I.HATE. having to have the discs handy to play the games. Isn't the whole reason I've installed 4GB of game data onto my hard drive because I don't need the goddamn disc?!?!? - View image here: -View image here: -Indeed.

I've definitely warmed to the Steam approach, in that Valve did provide a no-CD update themselves for HL2. However Steam's only really good for keeping the pre- and just-post release stuff under control, whereas as SF and SD appear to keep games uncopyable for much longer. Edit: I believe SafeDisk 4 isn't particularly hard to beat (F.E.A.R. Has that, right?).

However you do need a full disk image on your hard drive (making the game take up twice as much space) and something to hide your emulation software.I'm talking about cracking, and SD4 has not been cracked yet just like SF3.x. Yes, you can easily defeat SD4 with an anti-blacklisting program that hides your emulation software. That's not a crack. It's a workaround.Why does it matter, if it works? The only real drawback is the extra disk space it uses, but any patches/updates for the game should work just fine without you having to wait for a new crack. Originally posted by ChrisG:QUOTEiIf you're going to pull out the 'backup media' option, I'll have to nix that on my own terms too. In a couple of decades of gaming, I've never lost or damaged a disk - ever, and I can guarantee you I'm no obsessive-compulsive neat freak either - I just take care of stuff.

So again, that I install a piece of software which does nothing to anything that I will ever notice (although it'd be easy to e.g. Prevent it from dialing out etc.), why should I give a shit that it's copy-protected?You've never lost or damaged a disk in a couple decades of gaming? I have had stuff just plain wear out. I've moved multiple times, still have boxes of stuff. Why not just download and save time if you've already purchased asks my friend? He seems logical.

Yet when he tells me that copy protection will indeed do things to your computer, depending on your computer technical knowledge, you may not know. This is not cool. If you bought a game, and it installed software that allowed someone to get to your bank account online, would that be a bad thing? How about read your email, write your parents to tell them you are gay, send a virus to all your friends?

Originally posted by Dave88:Nobody actually said being a gamer and having a distrust of starforce were mutually exclusive. What was said was that denying yourself a great game over a minor thing like starforce is cutting off your nose to spite your face.Yes it used to be a mighty pain in the ass, but it's come a long way now and is no more a nuisance than securom or safedisc. Hardly anyone complains about those particular copy protection schemes, despite the fact that they too have had serious issues with certain CD makes not liking them.

If this was any other forum than ars, I would say you were all a bunch of software pirates, because the only real gripe people have left for SF is the fact that it's a bitch to crack. And yes, I too like a NoCD, but would be willing to put up with CD swapping if it gives the PC games industry a chance to thrive again.Or perhaps the pc gaming industry isn't thriving precisely because people are tired of this shit? I won't buy games with invasive copy protection like StarForce, and that hurts the industry, at least the tiniest bit.I'd like to see games with no protection, because I am tired of paying for a worse copy than the pirates get (for SP only games, anyhow). It all gets cracked eventually, and even the best systems only last weeks at most.Exactly - Why would someone not buy more console games, and this makes me sad sometimes, because they can just put the game in and play.

No worry about it screwing up a $200 system, imagine the outrage and how many people would sue if it did? Why should anyone deal with that crap with a $400 - $2,000 system and some people act like it's no big deal? Content providers are just getting greedier, and they have the tools to exploit it more and more. If they could, they'd make you pay to read, see, hear, and even think. Its bloody information, not a Maclearen, why should I pay so much for it? When you go to the store to buy something, you can pick it up, inspect it, try it out a bit, compare the price with competitors offerings, and return it if it is lacking.

For 'intellectual property', you get a sneek preview that only shows the positive aspects of the product, there is no competitive pricing, and there are no returns; furthurmore, that individual product cost virtually nothing to produce. I'll support the content creaters when they make a good product, but I am not about to endure any discomfort for the poor ones. I haven't been to a movie theater in ages, primary because I bloody hate all of the hassle just to see and hear what I paid for (which isn't a bloody fanta commercial!). No more 'Nvidia, the way its meant to be played', no more 'EA Games, challenge everything', and no more bloody advertising in the products that I have already bought!Back OT, those screenshots are very low res. It looks similar to Farcry, from what I could see.

Overall, it looks very mediocre. Originally posted by Dave88:Starforce. Is very effective against piracy.No. Try this simple experiment - just check its availability on P2P network. It stops casual copying you say?

King Kong Game Remastered

I suspect borrowing media and copying is becoming less convenient than downloading, as bandwidth increases.I suggest you follow your owm advice, because although SC: Chaos Theory is available via P2P, getting it to work involves all that messing around that The Faceless Rebel mentioned. It's still a long way from the traditional 'download, apply crack' warez method. What say you Brits about aggressive copy protections?

Fine if you're no hacker, or does it piss you off too?But if I'm no hacker, it's absolutely not an issue for me. I don't think I can adequately express exactly how little 'not being able to copy it' means to me.

If necessary, I could get replacement media from Ubisoft, but since I tend to take great care with my stuff, that's really neither here nor there either. Accidental damage is always a possiblity, but as I said, it hasn't happened to me yet.The copy-protection scheme implemented by Starforce is an entirely different thing from Sony's DRM implementation, or Valve's Steam for that matter.

Securing my tinfoil hat tightly on my head, I would surmise that (i) Sony are about to get their fingers burned badly by their approach, and that (ii) Valve know exactly how bad it could get if they went wild with their banning powers. Aside from banning 20K+ people of whom they are certain were using a cracked executable almost a year ago, Valva have really kept very quiet about it - probably because they know the kind of publicity it would garner them. Sony, for reasons best known to themselves, apparently don't care. Dave, do you work for the company that makes starforce or something?No, I'm something far worse than a marketing monkey - I'm a born again convert! I had serious headaches a while back with Soldiers-Heroes of WW2.

The version of SF on that game did screwy things with my CD drive. It didn't stop me playing any other games, but it did stop me playing Soldiers (go figure) which annoyed me. Fortunately for me, a NoCD crack turned up not long after I bought the game (I think it was because the demo didn't include starforce). So back then I hated SF.Then along came SC:CT - and SC games are one of my all time favourite series. I did a little digging and discovered that SF had undergone some major revisions and was pretty stable now. So I gave it a shot and everything worked perfectly.

I daresay SF is still not 100% perfect, but neither are the majority of copy-preventers, it's just that mud sticks, and in the early days SF was bathing in the stuff.As for the whole industry dying because of protection schemes, that's just as much projecture as ChrisG saying that because he hasn't lost a disk, disk backups are not a big issue. Just because a very small minority dislike protection enough to let it influence their purchasing does not mean it's going to have any consideration in the publisher's meetings.Speaking of which - it's the publisher that decides what protection goes into a title. It's also the publisher that decides what games they want to accept and for what platforms. Although there is little evidence to backup the claims that piracy is a serious financial burden on PC gaming, it's the publishers that say this and will continue to use it as an excuse to reject PC games or to not pay for the advertising some PC games deserve. If however SF becomes widely accepted and the pirates don't find a way to crack it, then the PC devs have some return ammo to use. They can go to a publisher and tell them to stop talking piracy bullshit and just use SF.

In the long run, that will help the industry, not harm it. Across the pond there's alot of video surviellance on street corners because 'hey I'm no criminal so who cares'. Obviously Americans feel differently about this sort of thing. What say you Brits about aggressive copy protections? Fine if you're no hacker, or does it piss you off too?As long as the copy protection doesn't do any harm other than making it hard to backup/crack a game then I have no problem with it. Most copy protections are completely unnoticable. I do dislike the approach of SF where it installs a driver without your knowledge, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

It's a major headache on PCs that everyone is always trying to sneak something on to your machine for some reason or another. Seriously, if the biggest worry you have in life is whether or not your favourite game uses an invasive protection scheme, then you are blessed. For me, SF poses nothing more than a minor inconvenience.As for CCTV cameras, why are they a bad thing? They have massively improved police response times to public incidents of crime and many times they have a good video image of the criminals that get away - greatly increasing the chances of catching them later. They're not invasive at all - 99% of the time you don't even realise they are there.

They are just part of the street furniture. And at no point does a CCTV camera contravene my rights. I do not have the right to total privacy in a public area. What if someone took a photo of a street - are they being invasive to your privacy? Why are you doing private matters on a public street?

RG MECHANICS REPACK – TORRENT – FREE DOWNLOAD – CRACKEDPeter Jackson’s King Kong is an action-adventure video game Description:Peter Jackson’s King Kong is a Shooting game and Published by Ubisoft released on 17 November, 2005 and designed for Microsoft Windows. Embark on an epic adventure created in collaboration with Academy Award winning director Peter Jackson and based on Universal Pictures’ film.

Survive as Jack in world crawling with predators and live legend as Kong. Use weapons, traps, and your team wisely to survive in first person as Jack.