Jump to content

PCGamingWiki will use a Single Sign On (SSO) system to bridge wiki and forum accounts which is ready for testing. You may login using the 'Login with PCGamingWiki' button on both the wiki and the forum, which will soon be the only option. If you have any issues please message Andytizer on Discord.

Aemony

Administrator
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Aemony last won the day on September 13

Aemony had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Aemony

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Undisclosed

Recent Profile Visitors

577 profile views
  1. It's a more complex discussion and one not relevant to the topic described in this thread, but the general gist, or underlying reasoning, of the policy is arguably to prevent PCGW from providing instructions to users how to bypass/circumvent/remove DRM, as such a thing might not be legal in all countries worldwide. In that sense, merely providing instructions on how to "copy files" etc would be in violation if those instructions were provided with the intention of knowingly and directly circumventing the DRM of a title. So it comes down to, among other things, whether the need of the disc is due to DRM or if it is due to some form of requirement at the time (e.g. needing the disc to offload some data from the HDD to keep storage requirements low). Beyond that, No-CD patches and the like have usually been ignored (as in, PCGW "looks the other way") when they've been bundled with other fixes if the overall fix itself if beneficial to users. A balancing act, basically. The vagueness of the current policy is both to our benefit and our detriment, both because of its current nature where it allows for flexibility and difference in interpretations. Take my two comments on that Star Wars: Dark Forces section as an example. My previous 4 months old comment was made when focusing on the initial sentence of the policy, and took a hard line judgement based on that. However this time around, I instead focus more overall on what the policy is actually intended for, and especially on the third restriction: "Finally, do not give details on how to install/use the patch/application and how to fix any issues that come up while using said patch/application." In this case, I'd interpret the "install/use" portion to mean that providing detailed instructions in the way that the Star Wars: Dark Forces section does might have it violate the policy as well. This is all sorta moot though, since I haven't (intentionally) actually bothered to fully contemplate and look into the matter with Star Wars: Dark Forces since that section involves DOSBox, and I am uncertain of how that changes things around (I am not a user of DOSBox, so I am not familiar with its limitations or restrictions that might be relevant or affect the matter).
  2. This is the written rule on bypassing DRM: Technically speaking, at a first glance that Star Wars: Dark Forces section might be in violation of that rule and would need editing to be aligned with the rule as it is written.
  3. About time. I'm cautiously optimistic, and the idea of dynamic collections I really like.
  4. I'd argue that no, PCGW shouldn't list these sorts of things for current and "active" games (as in the developer still actively works on it and releases content for it). This is in essence similar to the controversy/discussion around Mass Effect 3 and its "on-disc DLC" that were technically "on the disc", but not accessible without forking over some additional cash. In this particular case (Control), we're talking about an outfit available only for pre-orders for now (meant as a pre-order incentive) as well as another outfit limited to console platforms only. We have no idea the developer/publishers future intentions of this content, and it is very likely that this content will later down the line be sold separately to players, or used as another incentive (e.g. when the game hits Steam). I don't think it would sit well with developers/publishers if PCGW flagrantly included instructions on how to access content locked behind a paywall for free, and it could be argued as actively encouraging piracy as well. In this particular case I don't really agree on the "harms the average PC gamer" perspective either, as the average player isn't harmed by not having access to the two outfits in question (or e.g. the on-disc DLC of Mass Effect 3 that were mentioned previously). I think an exception can be made and allowed for cut content that was never intended to be finalized and released. I can also see how stuff like pre-order DLCs exclusive to a certain vendor or platform might be seen as acceptable if enough time has past since the release of the game in question (but it would basically involve years as compilation editions that includes previously exclusive content can be released even years later).
  5. Someone over on GameFAQs mentioned the following to another HL1 player: Might be worth checking out 🙂
  6. Flash games that works standalone are pretty much guaranteed to work for years to come, even without this project, as desktop Flash "projectors" have existed for years, both in official forms from Adobe and recently in third-party open-source alternative Flash "players" such as LightSpark. The games that are questionable are the ones that relies on some form of online DRM solution (as in, they require a connection to a server and/or sign-in to play). Those are unlikely to function regardless of what third-party solution is used, if the servers it depends on are taken offline.
  7. It's pretty simple, in a way: They're doing whatever they can to further build their brand and platform. Allowing triple-A titles to simultaneous ship on their platform and others is part of that. As is ensuring timed exclusivity of anticipated or seemingly well-developed indie titles.
  8. Version 1.0.0

    9 downloads

    These are the two English fan translations of Konosuba: Fukkatsu no Beldia (localized as either The Resurrection of Beldia or Verdia of the Resurrection) that is floating around online. Download and install just one of them, by extracting the dial.dat file into the data\font\ folder, overwriting the existing file. Note that menu items etc are not translated, as those requires binary patching the executable. Sources: Fan translation from 2017 by an unknown author: https://pastebin.com/xbQHV5DE Fan translation from 2018 GungnirHeart and CyanideBlizzard: https://konosubaitltranslation.wordpress.com/konosuba-verdia-of-the-resurrection/
  9. Aemony

    Draugen

    Well, due to its age and lack of performance there's sadly not much you can do but play it on another computer entirely.
  10. Aemony

    Draugen

    “Feature level” in DirectX speech is what your hardware supports. So while you have DirectX 11 installed, your hardware itself does not support feature level 10.0 for DirectX 11. What graphic card do you have? And have you installed the drivers for the graphics card? Edit: ... Just saw your dxgi.txt file... The NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE is an /extremely/ old piece of graphic card. In fact, it’s apparently 15 years old by now ( https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-6150.c2158 )... It’s simply too old to run any modern games created in the last decade or so as the hardware lacks a lot of necessary features that modern games (even those designed to look “old”) expects.
  11. Version 1.0.0

    14 downloads

    PCGW mirror of Steam user Phi Zero's DualShock 4 button prompts mod and Steam guide for ONINAKI. Phi Zero's Steam Guide Original download link (Google Drive) Installing the mod After downloading the zip file, extract it in your ONINAKI folder. Example C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\ONINAKI Simply double click _install_prompts.bat Done! If you don't trust batch files or just want to do it manually: Simply move the buttonprompts_pc file over to -> ONINAKI\ONINAKI_Data\StreamingAssets\STEAM\ui\platform\pc Uninstalling the mod Just double-click _uninstall_prompts.bat or just rename the original file back if you did it manually. OPTIONAL: Changing the pause button On PS4, the pause button is touchpad. However, the default controller config has this mapped to Share. If you do not care about this, you're done. If you'd like to change this, read on. Please note that if you do not change this, in game the pause button will show the touchpad, but it's instead the Share button! Connect controller and turn it on. Right-click on ONINAKI in your Steam library and select Edit Steam Controller Configuration Click on the touchpad mapping (which should say Mouse Button) then change it to: Single Button -> Trackpack Click -> SELECT Done!
  12. Most likely due to the report being a bit unfocused and not clear on the details, and possibly not providing them with a good POC that showcased how it easily it can be used to obtain elevated privileges. Luckily making the vulnerability public helped it gain exposure, prompting Valve to take action and solve the issue.
  13. Aemony

    Tomb Raider Mouse Helper (for TR1-5)

    A new recompiled version of the script have been uploaded by @Suicide machine to clear the false positives of the file. If it where to trigger false positives in the future yet again (which I sorta expect, seeing how it's using AutoHotKey to monitor the system for key presses to enable its functionality), users can follow the instructions in the Modification section of the file description to recompile the executable file themselves, which might clear the false positives.
  14. Of the below three possibilities, which one do you find most likely to be the case? A nefarious actor have obtained access to Epic's internal systems. Instead of going crazy and making big bucks of all of the millions of accounts they have access to, they only make charges against a few random accounts at a time. A nefarious actor downloads a publicly available password dump and tries known email and password combinations against Epic's sign-in page, and finds a couple of accounts that reused their password across multiple services. A nefarious actor sends phishing links to potential victims to a custom webpage that has been crafted to look like a legit sign-in page for Fortnite, instructing users to sign in using their Epic account to obtain free "V-bucks" (or whatever they're called), and users fall for it and hand their accounts and passwords over. Personally, I'd say the second or third ones, as a lot of users still fall for phishing attempts and password reuse is extremely common and few users (even technical minded ones) applies proper password management for their accounts and services. This is probably even more true for Fortnite in particular, which have repeatedly been mentioned to have a lot of young players. Epic Games is not responsible for either the second or third possibilities. They're only responsible for the first one. An argument can be made, however, that the situation of the hacked accounts might have been partially influenced by Epic's lack of forcing some basic protections unto their users earlier. For example, EGS did not require email verification on sign-up for the longest of time. While this by itself isn't an issue, it does mean that multi-factor authentication in the form of sign-ins requiring an randomized access code sent to the mail address wouldn't be possible on a newly created account, and therefor additional protection for the account wouldn't be available. But that is sorta true for most services or websites, and if that alone was enough to shift the blame from the users (whose bad password management allowed it to happen) to the service provider, then that sorta can set a dangerous precedence for other services and websites, I think... Yeah, that's the tweet I was thinking of. I tried to find it myself but couldn't, so thanks for finding it! 🙂
  15. I am still waiting for more details about this lawsuit coming out since... well... it seems as of this moment to be baseless. Nowhere from what I can tell have neither Check Point nor Epic Games concluded that the vulnerability they found and fixed was ever exploited by anyone (I believe Tim Sweeney on Twitter mentioned the opposite, in fact), which makes the number of affected users by that vulnerability in specific a big 0. Fixing security vulnerabilities before they're found and exploited "in the wild" should never result in a class action lawsuit, as it seemingly have done here... Even Check Point's own report on the vulnerability uses phrasing such as "could have allowed a threat actor" as they also seemingly did not find any indications that the vulnerability was actively being used and exploited by bad actors. Beyond that, users whom have lost access to their accounts most likely lost that access due to a lack of appropriate security on their own part, through e.g. reusing passwords, or being affected by malware on their PCs, etc, which all are outside the ability of Epic to prevent. Honestly speaking, in terms of preventive action, Epic Games takes a much more active approach that I've publicly seen from organizations. Checking accounts against known password dumps online and resetting the password for those affected is a slowly growing occurrence in IT, but I am not aware of any corporation within the video games industry that does this yet, except for Epic. So yeah... We'll have to see where this goes, but I don't expect it to go anywhere since seemingly nobody have actually been affected by the vulnerability this whole class action lawsuit seems based around...
×