Awesome Rees! Spotted the tiny pc straight away. Was my first PC as well, and it was a P100 too. I spent ages trying to find one, and I currently own a P166MMX, which I’ve upgraded to a P233MMX
I saw articles recently about layoffs in the It world. It's YOUR fault Rees! 🤣🤣🤣 I really want to go down the MiSTer route and the clone availability may finally be my way to start.
There's a lot more to the RomHacking debacle than what you see on the site. As usual, the story runs much deeper and does not paint the site maintainer in a good light at all, frankly.
Sorry if it's been mentioned before, and it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but... Your sound is out of sync. "It's not me, it's you" because volumes 70 and 74, where you're not using your usual setup, are fine.
As much as I understand and relate to the idea of preserving games, I'm afraid that the end result of 'stop killing games' will simply be that publishers will have to give better and more visible notice about when servers will be shut down, or offer refunds to people. That of course is a good thing, but it won't preserve the games or the experience. But then again, I think that there really might be something to be said for allowing some aspects of our culture to be temporary. As a music promoter i organised something like five thousand live events and I was often aware of the idea that the show I was at was a unique experience that would never be repeated or captured, and that made it all the more visceral as an experience. I think it's a good idea for games to remain archived somewhere just in case someone wants to research them in a hundred years time, but I don't think it's realistic that every game that ever existed should be available to anyone that wants to play it, and even if that were possible, I think it might devalue things somewhat. All things must pass, sometimes you have to let things go.
@@hatchetman3662 in which case, perhaps you misunderstood it. Forgive the long reply, I got a bit carried away with the idea. My first point was that the law won't preserve games, because the law is primarily about ownership. For example, if I own a priceless Picasso, in theory I have the right to destroy it. If you buy it from me, I lose that right. If however, I rent it to you for an agreed period of time, I would still have the right to destroy it, but it would mean a breach of a rental contract to do so, to which you would likely be due some form of compensation - not for the destruction of the painting or its cultural value, but simply because I did not deliver on my promise to you. Consumer protection law is not there to change what companies offer, or tell them what to do with their property, but simply to ensure that their offer to the customer is clear and fulfilled. Therefore the question is not whether a large software house has the right to offer a particular deal, but simply whether they honour it. In the case of 'The Crew', they have clearly misled their customers, but that does not require them to offer a service or free up that service for others to offer. So then to the question of preservation. The logical conclusion of the preservation argument is that anyone who creates culture has an obligation to preserve it for future generations. It's not exactly practical however. For example, in the UK, the original Wembley Stadium was knocked down. Probably the most significant sporting building in the country, there would surely have been an argument to say that it should be preserved for future generations. The overall consensus was that the money would be better spent building a new one. Popular culture is full of such things - should we force chocolate manufacturers to keep producing the sweets we ate as children, simply because we want our own children to experience them? Should we maintain a single Woolworth's shop somewhere in the country so that people will know what it was like to go through the pick n mix? Speaking as someone with a degree in History myself, I fully recognise how important it is that the past inform the present, and that culture should be preserved in some form. So, what to do? Clearly it's impractical to keep everything in the state in which it originally existed. We cannot make everything available to everyone in its original form. I think the answer is that some things which are particularly significant, like listed buildings, can be given a special status. Others can be selected and curated in a single place such as Neil's excellent museum for people to experience in a different way - it's not the freedom to have everything, but it's a way to get a flavour. Other items, like particular films and books, can be archived and accessible for research purposes, as the British library does. And some things, in particular services as opposed to physical products, will simply be preserved in magazine articles, films and memories. As I said, everything changes, and all things must pass.
The thing is, you absolutely don't. The software still exists. You're inventing issues out of thin air. It used to be the norm that players could host their own servers. It is in no way an unreasonable demand.
Nice pickups, and great job on TWIR!
Congrats on covering for Neil on the podcast, you'll do just great! 👏 Also, great to see the affordable Mister go forward. 🎉 Cheers!
Thanks for the weekly ramble! I'm awaiting the TWIR episode later/earlier today :)
Awesome Rees! Spotted the tiny pc straight away. Was my first PC as well, and it was a P100 too. I spent ages trying to find one, and I currently own a P166MMX, which I’ve upgraded to a P233MMX
I saw articles recently about layoffs in the It world. It's YOUR fault Rees! 🤣🤣🤣
I really want to go down the MiSTer route and the clone availability may finally be my way to start.
There's a lot more to the RomHacking debacle than what you see on the site. As usual, the story runs much deeper and does not paint the site maintainer in a good light at all, frankly.
Thanks for the ramble, always enjoyable and looking forward to you covering for Neil
I like your openess with your sponsors/revenue
WHAT'S IN THE BOX, WHAT'S IN THE BOX?!
Is that a Lemmy sticker on your laptop?
Wow Hello there Reese!
I'm really late or you are early? 😂
I found out those "Tiny" PC's wern't that small after all..............
Sorry if it's been mentioned before, and it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, but...
Your sound is out of sync. "It's not me, it's you" because volumes 70 and 74, where you're not using your usual setup, are fine.
As much as I understand and relate to the idea of preserving games, I'm afraid that the end result of 'stop killing games' will simply be that publishers will have to give better and more visible notice about when servers will be shut down, or offer refunds to people. That of course is a good thing, but it won't preserve the games or the experience. But then again, I think that there really might be something to be said for allowing some aspects of our culture to be temporary. As a music promoter i organised something like five thousand live events and I was often aware of the idea that the show I was at was a unique experience that would never be repeated or captured, and that made it all the more visceral as an experience. I think it's a good idea for games to remain archived somewhere just in case someone wants to research them in a hundred years time, but I don't think it's realistic that every game that ever existed should be available to anyone that wants to play it, and even if that were possible, I think it might devalue things somewhat. All things must pass, sometimes you have to let things go.
Shit take.
@@hatchetman3662 to be honest I was hoping for a more enlightening counter-argument than that.
@@HappyCodingZX Sorry to disappoint. I didn't see a reason to elaborate or have further discussion. The comment speaks for itself, much like your own.
@@hatchetman3662 in which case, perhaps you misunderstood it. Forgive the long reply, I got a bit carried away with the idea.
My first point was that the law won't preserve games, because the law is primarily about ownership. For example, if I own a priceless Picasso, in theory I have the right to destroy it. If you buy it from me, I lose that right. If however, I rent it to you for an agreed period of time, I would still have the right to destroy it, but it would mean a breach of a rental contract to do so, to which you would likely be due some form of compensation - not for the destruction of the painting or its cultural value, but simply because I did not deliver on my promise to you. Consumer protection law is not there to change what companies offer, or tell them what to do with their property, but simply to ensure that their offer to the customer is clear and fulfilled. Therefore the question is not whether a large software house has the right to offer a particular deal, but simply whether they honour it. In the case of 'The Crew', they have clearly misled their customers, but that does not require them to offer a service or free up that service for others to offer.
So then to the question of preservation. The logical conclusion of the preservation argument is that anyone who creates culture has an obligation to preserve it for future generations. It's not exactly practical however. For example, in the UK, the original Wembley Stadium was knocked down. Probably the most significant sporting building in the country, there would surely have been an argument to say that it should be preserved for future generations. The overall consensus was that the money would be better spent building a new one. Popular culture is full of such things - should we force chocolate manufacturers to keep producing the sweets we ate as children, simply because we want our own children to experience them? Should we maintain a single Woolworth's shop somewhere in the country so that people will know what it was like to go through the pick n mix?
Speaking as someone with a degree in History myself, I fully recognise how important it is that the past inform the present, and that culture should be preserved in some form. So, what to do? Clearly it's impractical to keep everything in the state in which it originally existed. We cannot make everything available to everyone in its original form. I think the answer is that some things which are particularly significant, like listed buildings, can be given a special status. Others can be selected and curated in a single place such as Neil's excellent museum for people to experience in a different way - it's not the freedom to have everything, but it's a way to get a flavour. Other items, like particular films and books, can be archived and accessible for research purposes, as the British library does. And some things, in particular services as opposed to physical products, will simply be preserved in magazine articles, films and memories. As I said, everything changes, and all things must pass.
The thing is, you absolutely don't. The software still exists. You're inventing issues out of thin air. It used to be the norm that players could host their own servers. It is in no way an unreasonable demand.