Quoting: CaldathrasRemasters are okay but I, for one, am happy developers are taking the time to keep the original games running under modern conditions.

Well part of the benefit of a remaster is two fold.

1. They usually migrate to a newer engine and as such give the game a much greater chance of surviving against bit-rot something Linux is quite prone to (natively). Meaning the only path left is to emulate inferior versions on ancient consoles.

2. They place the game back into the public's consciousness & purchase history. Meaning it's less ethical to pull the game of of online stores if you and tens of thousands of other people bought the 'NEW' game only a few years previous.

This game was released November 13, 2012 ! at some point a minor patch ain't gonna be enough.

Remasters no matter how cynical, do potentially give you another 10-15 years of relative software compatibility imho.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

i wonder if these older Lego games will receive the remaster treatment. Putting them on a newer engine will makes them last longer too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: coryoon'Solved' feels like it needs very heavy quotation marks around it, but I digress. If the UK govt. really is going to stick with this, they need to actually roll out some kind of national ID system

Although widely used in various European countries, the UK has been historically icky about implementing national Identity card. Typically for civil liberties reasons.

a physical 'card' is becoming outmoded, & we could expect a mandatory proprietary Andriod / IOS Identification 'App' with all the associated tracking. Yes it will be easier to update your facial / bio metric identity using an app and also verify yourself in a variety of interesting and useful ways. there comes with it a list of potentially harmful possibilities of course.

Still, i expect were only a year or two away from this. Five at best.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So i have to wonder what kind of backend monitoring will eventually be in place for private chats now that is linked to your physical identity. Given the nature of who has forced these changes ? I can imagine a scenario where vast datasets are being swept through and personal profiles are being built on peoples current and previously stored history ? Although i expect this has been happening to console users for years. Probably Paranoid , but something feels different about all this stuff this time round :unsure:

can we go back to the early 2000's late 1990's please.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Linux_RocksWhat happens when you've got poor credit and no active credit cards? Like if you lose a job due to no fault of your own, can't pay your bills anymore, and that tanks your credit?

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps !

/S

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineI have several, otherwise very intelligent friends who paid the £25 for Space Marine 2 and claim to have no regrets

Define intelligence, because often this excludes common sense.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Pyrateyes, digital is never going to be as good as physical, but with GoG I think we're almost there,

yes we just put our games on a USB thumbstick :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: Lofty

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Lofty

I'm not even what you may call a "privacy nut".

Although this is a common turn of phrase. It's time we removed the association of conspiracy theorist with a human right to privacy.

I agree.

Quoting: LoftyIn the early day's people were far more trusting of technology and saw it as largely altruistic and a benefit to society (which with opensource it still can be) but invariably the usual shadowy forces do their thing and here we are.

[bolding by me]

... but this does sound... conspirational.

Maybe they aren't out in public stood on a box selling you data viewable on a large screen but im perfectly happy to identify groups tucked away in some monolithic corporate box connected to a vast data center sharing deeply personal information about you or your loved ones to the highest bidder as shadowy forces.

To me that is the usual shadowy forces. i couldn't think of a better phrase as my "tin foil" hat is blocking the connection to my neural-link Ai brain feed.

if you cant think of a better turn of phrase then let me know.

Shadowy implies lack of transparency, which has really improved over the years.
The term forces dehumanizes them.
The "shadowy forces" call themselves "data brokers".
I would call them "privacy salesmen/salespeople(reliant on who I'm talking to)".

That having said. I'm not opposed to the term "privacy nut".
I've no issue with being the crazy one and it does get the point across.

[quote=LoudTechie]

Quoting: Lofty

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Lofty

I'm not even what you may call a "privacy nut".

Although this is a common turn of phrase. It's time we removed the association of conspiracy theorist with a human right to privacy.

I agree.

Quoting: LoftyIn the early day's people were far more trusting of technology and saw it as largely altruistic and a benefit to society (which with opensource it still can be) but invariably the usual shadowy forces do their thing and here we are.

[bolding by me]

... but this does sound... conspirational.

Maybe they aren't out in public stood on a box selling you data viewable on a large screen but im perfectly happy to identify groups tucked away in some monolithic corporate box connected to a vast data center sharing deeply personal information about you or your loved ones to the highest bidder as shadowy forces.

To me that is the usual shadowy forces. i couldn't think of a better phrase as my "tin foil" hat is blocking the connection to my neural-link Ai brain feed.

if you cant think of a better turn of phrase then let me know.

Shadowy implies lack of transparency, which has really improved over the years.

Has it ? I mean i know there are laws around data protection such as GDPR. At least from a European perspective i could mostly agree. But Microsoft is an American company.

The term forces dehumanizes them.

Forces implies a large gathering of people committed to the same objective. Are we 'dehumanizing' an invading army by calling them a 'force' ?

The "shadowy forces" call themselves "data brokers".
I would call them "privacy salesmen/salespeople(reliant on who I'm talking to)".

'privacy salesmen' should not even be a thing,i would call them immoral shysters. It should not be a job to sell people's private information without consent at the level proposed here.

That having said. I'm not opposed to the term "privacy nut".
I've no issue with being the crazy one and it does get the point across.

So long as it's not used to dehumanize people who care about privacy or minimize the risks involved, hushing people into silence.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Lofty

I'm not even what you may call a "privacy nut".

Although this is a common turn of phrase. It's time we removed the association of conspiracy theorist with a human right to privacy.

I agree.

Quoting: LoftyIn the early day's people were far more trusting of technology and saw it as largely altruistic and a benefit to society (which with opensource it still can be) but invariably the usual shadowy forces do their thing and here we are.

[bolding by me]

... but this does sound... conspirational.

Maybe they aren't out in public stood on a box selling you data viewable on a large screen but im perfectly happy to identify groups tucked away in some monolithic corporate box connected to a vast data center sharing deeply personal information about you or your loved ones to the highest bidder as shadowy forces.

To me that is the usual shadowy forces. i couldn't think of a better phrase as my "tin foil" hat is blocking the connection to my neural-link Ai brain feed.

if you cant think of a better turn of phrase then let me know.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm not even what you may call a "privacy nut".

Although this is a common turn of phrase. It's time we removed the association of conspiracy theorist with a human right to privacy. In the early day's people were far more trusting of technology and saw it as largely altruistic and a benefit to society (which with opensource it still can be) but invariably the usual shadowy forces do their thing and here we are.

i don't feel like im a 'nut' i.e nutter <=> mentally unstable for wanting some privacy on my digital devices.

View this comment - View article - View full comments