Quoting: elmapulwhat is next, rockstar will make an patch so you cant kill any one anymore in GTA? and you will say that is not censorship?

yes that would not be censorship. You playing a video game is not you expressing your right to free speech. Rockstar changing their game so that you can't kill any one any more is actually Rockstar expressing their right to free speech.

Now Rockstar being forced to do this by a 3d party like the Government, now that would have been censorship by that 3d party. But this rarely if ever happens in our western democracies, yes the alt-right is crying loud about companies doing this do appease to "a different audience" but that is just them crying about it, as normal zero points of evidence is ever presented (which they see as proof that it is a conspiracy). Nor would it follow any forms of logic since this "other audience" is a very small group of people that would never buy the game anyway (which the companies knows full well) so that is not why they are doing changes like this (and there is also not a lot of cases of companies doing this either, I mean Skull Girls is not an example of a company even doing this and yet it will still be an a list somehwere of a situation where it happened).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapulbut most of the time the changes arent trying to censor something for another audience that is bothered by this type of content

The SICs always makes this claim but is there any evidence what so ever that the devs made this change for "another audience" and not just because they themselves begun to feel uncomfortable with the original design?

i dont know what SIC means, but the staff changed completely afaik, the new staff have 0 respect for what came before then or the original target audience.

Appears to be exactly the same team minus one guy that where accused of sexual abuse at the work place by the staff. Still see no evidence that they are trying to cater to "a new audience", and honestly this line of reasoning is fast becoming old, that "other audience" that SICs keep on talking about are just some small group of marginalized women with strange hair colours that have zero power and zero reach yet we are somehow to believe that they in secret are "taking away our games, movies and comics". Stop falling for SIC (Social Injustice Crusader) propaganda, that is all that it is.

the public that purchased the game as it was liked it as it was, so yes, changing it is catering to a new audience.
the fact that a lot of things are geting censored nowadays is not an conspiration theory.

yes it is a conspiracy theory. Just look at this very game, you keep on saying that it was censored for "another audience" which is just a dog-whistle for "woke left feminists" and now it suddenly is "oh the ones that bought it isn't happy so it must be for a new audience", well to begin with you have not asked 100% of the people who bought it and secondly a game is always sold to new people (it's not like the same person is buying the game twice), so this explanation does not make sense.

And this is not censuring, this is simply a company not wanting to be associated with nazi-symbology and panty shots of underage characters. Censuring would be a 3rd party forcing the company to make these changes (and by strict definition that 3d part would have to be the government), a company changing their mind is a whole different story.

Like with Star Wars, Han no longer shooting first is not censuring, that is Lucas changing his mind. Now we might not like his change (I know that I don't) but not liking it does not make it censuring. Stephen King decided to withdraw Rage after the 1997 Heath High School shooting, his own decision as a creator and owner and not censorship.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedjeAs far as hating on removal of racist imagery making you a racist? What if it is important to the story line that you are taking out a band of racists, but some sensitivity editor decides that shouldn't be in the game, and now you're just killing a bunch of random people? :P

a good example of that is the series "everybody hate criss" wich have a bunch of racist jokes that are intended to show how absurd racism is, it make fun, mock how ridiculuous racism is all the time, yet it feature racism to show that.
should it be censored too?

Blazing Saddles is a perfect example of this.

Blazing Saddles is a funny example indeed, too many people have always told Mel Brooks that "one could not make this movie today" so he answered "one could not make this movie back then either" :)

Pretty sure Brooks is deluding himself on that point. As someone who grew up in the 70's, the casual but prevalent racism back then took the edge off a lot of the purposefully un-casual racism in Blazing Saddles. You might still be able to make such a movie today, but it would be derided and buried under a sea of angry one-star reviews, much like toning down the panty-line in an underage female fighter in Skullgirls has had the same result.

I'm not so sure, there have been a lot of younger YT reactors reacting to Blazzing Saddles in the last years and they have all loved it, not a single comment on that it should have been banned or never made. However also lots and lots of YT comments on each and every such video on "how such a movie couldn't be made today".

So to be completely honest I think that there are far more people who believe that it couldn't be made today than people who would be upset if it was made today.

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedjeAs far as hating on removal of racist imagery making you a racist? What if it is important to the story line that you are taking out a band of racists, but some sensitivity editor decides that shouldn't be in the game, and now you're just killing a bunch of random people? :P

a good example of that is the series "everybody hate criss" wich have a bunch of racist jokes that are intended to show how absurd racism is, it make fun, mock how ridiculuous racism is all the time, yet it feature racism to show that.
should it be censored too?

Blazing Saddles is a perfect example of this.

Blazing Saddles is a funny example indeed, too many people have always told Mel Brooks that "one could not make this movie today" so he answered "one could not make this movie back then either" :)

Pretty sure Brooks is deluding himself on that point. As someone who grew up in the 70's, the casual but prevalent racism back then took the edge off a lot of the purposefully un-casual racism in Blazing Saddles. You might still be able to make such a movie today, but it would be derided and buried under a sea of angry one-star reviews, much like toning down the panty-line in an underage female fighter in Skullgirls has had the same result.

The difference between why it couldn't be made back then vs now is that back then, the racists were pissed off that they were being made fun of and it was showing them how dumb they are.

For today; the younger generation no longer have a sense of humor and don't understand satire. Life of Brian falls under that same category. Back then all the religious people were pissed off at it (without ever watching it). And These days it's the opposite side that doesn't like it / wants to censor it.

"Where are the white women at?"

I haven't seen any one wanting to censor Life of Brian from that crowd today, what I have seen though is John Cleese claiming that a particular scene must be included and that he refuses to censor it although no one have wanted to censor it (quite the opposite infact, but those people have begun to question the scene now that JC so actively is defending it).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedjeAs far as hating on removal of racist imagery making you a racist? What if it is important to the story line that you are taking out a band of racists, but some sensitivity editor decides that shouldn't be in the game, and now you're just killing a bunch of random people? :P

a good example of that is the series "everybody hate criss" wich have a bunch of racist jokes that are intended to show how absurd racism is, it make fun, mock how ridiculuous racism is all the time, yet it feature racism to show that.
should it be censored too?

Blazing Saddles is a perfect example of this.

Blazing Saddles is a funny example indeed, too many people have always told Mel Brooks that "one could not make this movie today" so he answered "one could not make this movie back then either" :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapulbut most of the time the changes arent trying to censor something for another audience that is bothered by this type of content

The SICs always makes this claim but is there any evidence what so ever that the devs made this change for "another audience" and not just because they themselves begun to feel uncomfortable with the original design?

i dont know what SIC means, but the staff changed completely afaik, the new staff have 0 respect for what came before then or the original target audience.

Appears to be exactly the same team minus one guy that where accused of sexual abuse at the work place by the staff. Still see no evidence that they are trying to cater to "a new audience", and honestly this line of reasoning is fast becoming old, that "other audience" that SICs keep on talking about are just some small group of marginalized women with strange hair colours that have zero power and zero reach yet we are somehow to believe that they in secret are "taking away our games, movies and comics". Stop falling for SIC (Social Injustice Crusader) propaganda, that is all that it is.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapulbut most of the time the changes arent trying to censor something for another audience that is bothered by this type of content

The SICs always makes this claim but is there any evidence what so ever that the devs made this change for "another audience" and not just because they themselves begun to feel uncomfortable with the original design?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Still no support for my K100 unfortunately. Never understood why companies like Corsair doesn't make all their protocols public, people like the ones behind ckb-next would then be able to go completely bonkers and create new fancy stuff that Corsair themselves would never imagine raising the value of their hardware.

edit: not to mention firmware updates only via their iCUE Windows only software.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualOut of curiosity, what justification would you accept?

Honestly: none. But this one is particularly selfish I think. Plus I don't believe your software have to be proprietary to have "exclusive right to commercial exploitation". You can make money from Free Software, and that's not necessarily a bad thing...
I agree with what others said, especially Purple Library Guy (who's surprised?).

Also "exclusive right to commercial exploitation" will almost never happen for a project like this, it's a far to volatile mine field to be able to exploit, I mean look at what have happened to the few projects that have tried so far, GTA, Dolphin and so on.

Quoting: MilaniumI think it is not Open Source because he is using various existing Open Source projects and bundles them under a new name. One developer, so many engine ports. It seems very fishy.

That should be quite easy to find out by looking at the binary though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: hardpenguin

Quoting: F.UltraI hope we get an early SDL2->3 shim library this time in before distros decide to make SDL2 obsolete.

We will. Which brings us to the question: Will SDL 1.2 to SDL 2.0 compatibility library be compatible with SDL 2.0 to SDL 3.0 compatibility library?!

It should be, I mean the 1.2 to 2.0 shim would use the 2.0 to 3.0 shim, so yes there would be overhead due to every single call being several calls underneath the hood but it should work out of the box so to speak.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I hope we get an early SDL2->3 shim library this time in before distros decide to make SDL2 obsolete.

View this comment - View article - View full comments