Monthly Archives: June 2014

June 18, 2014 · 12:31

About Gamespot!

It happens; we all make mistakes, even I (although I do not think I made one). I have been a member of Gamespot, officially since 2005, unofficially several years longer. I reviewed, I wrote and sometimes I complained. So, last week during the E3, where I followed it all for the second year in a row, I was again confronted with the technical flaws from Gamespot during the E3. Now, is it the fault of Gamespot? That is hard to answer, considering that they get a few million plus watchers to see the E3 shows live as many cannot attend the events in person. (it costs a boatload to get to E3 and stay there for 3-4 days). So we see the shows, the live events and the walk through the event.

These items are nearly always flawed because we get a lag, the buffers time out and then the show stops until we restart it and we miss some of it. Such things happen when too many attend (or even too many watching from the distance and your ISP times out). Several steps going wrong and it is unclear to see if there is even any blame. Oh and every time there was a timeout and you reloaded the screen we got the mandatory UBI-Soft advertisement again and again. I reckon I saw the Black Flag advertisement trailer at least 50 times during E3 2013.

That is one side. The other side is different. At times we the viewer would get the chance to ask questions live on the show. These are golden moments and we all hope that our question gets asked. Can you imagine getting personally answered by Hideo Kojima, Nobuo Uematsu or Yoshitaka Amano? In the past I met and spoke with Sid Meijer, Richard Garriott and Peter Molyneux and a host of other game makers. I can tell you that getting a personal response from a man like Hideo Kojima would be similar to Lara Croft walking up to you and asking you to sit down and share a beer with her. These are epic moments we might get once in a life time (if ever). So when I wanted to ask a question last year in regard to Arkham City the following happened.

The Gamespot comment screen shows a ‘log in’. (I was already logged in), but I go to the login screen, I re-entered my name and password and it takes me to the comment screen and I cannot comment, because I am not logged in. I try it half a dozen times and the moment to ask the question is gone. Man was I angry! However, I get that the servers are busy! I complained and let it go. Sometimes technology is not on our sides and we just have to swallow the bitter pill of defeat. This year the same thing happened when I was trying to comment on events and this time I really lost it (which happens to all of us)!

Even when angry I do try to keep my sense of humour about myself. So when I saw the article “E3 2014: Kojima Responds to Metal Gear Solid 5 Torture Controversy“, my pesky and creative inner demon woke up. It was quite an interesting article (at http://www.gamespot.com/articles/e3-2014-kojima-responds-to-metal-gear-solid-5-torture-controversy/1100-6420442/), and I responded on my Gamespot blog roughly (the response was deleted by Gamespot) as stated below:

“Perhaps it is an idea to add an Easter egg and let the gamer torture information from the Gamespot web team“. There was a little more, but that was what it amounted too.

So read this carefully! I added ‘Easter egg‘, so something to unlock in a game, more importantly, the game Metal Gear Solid 5. The Metal Gear Solid being one of the most revered gaming franchises in gaming history. I would reckon that the web team would like to be immortalised in such a revered gaming franchise. As you see, I did keep some sense of humour about it, even though as I saw it, the Gamespot system failed twice (perhaps even more often). What was their response? I have now been banned (perhaps for life from Gamespot). It is interesting how some people react to issues.

The response was unbalanced and extremely unfair. I decided to take an additional look at Gamespot. There was a lot on IGN and most of it related to either biased or incompetent moderation. The quote “I have been temporarily banned for voicing my opinion on another member’s poor review of a game, after he continually sent me hostile PM’s” is only one of several voicing the quality of moderation. I did however find something else that made me wonder about the state of affairs at Gamespot. I found this at http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=116270

“By now, most have heard that Jeff Gerstmann, Editorial Director at GameSpot, is now the former Editorial Director at GameSpot. The short of it, confirmed through our own sources: Gerstmann was fired for his negative review of Eidos Interactive’s Kane & Lynch. But there’s more to the story in which Gerstmann — one of the site’s leading editors for over a decade — was terminated this week.

The GameSpot staff is currently keeping publicly quiet, but CNET, the parent organization of GameSpot, issued a response today. “For over a decade, Gamespot and the many members of its editorial team have produced thousands of unbiased reviews that have been a valuable resource for the gaming community. At CNET Networks, we stand behind the editorial content that our teams produce on a daily basis,” reads CNET’s statement.

We’re told Eidos had invested a sizable chunk of advertising dollars for Kane & Lynch — check the before and after shots above of GameSpot’s front page for proof — and then allegedly threatened to pull the ads if the “tone” of Gerstmann’s “6.0” review (just under the current Game Rankings average score of 70%) wasn’t changed. Gerstmann did alter the tone of his critique ahead of publication, but it looks as if that wasn’t enough for management. When asked about the situation, Eidos declined comment to 1UP. “Eidos is not able to comment on another company’s policies and procedures,” said a company representative.

But pressure from other advertisers may have contributed to the clash with editorial. Just a few weeks prior, GameSpot came under fire from Sony Computer Entertainment America for scoring Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction a 7.5. In his former position, Gerstmann was responsible for overseeing (and defending) all reviews.

1UP did contact Gerstmann, but he declined comment, likely due to signing a non-disclosure agreement upon his termination, common in situations such as these.

What’s interesting is the timing of his termination, though. GameSpot has never been a stranger to review controversy or publisher backlash. Gerstmann himself had a long history of bucking the popular trend with certain review scores over the many years he critiqued games for the site, most recently scoring The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess an 8.8 on Wii. With no transparency into the situation, no one knows if this is something that had possibly been brewing for a while now, but sources point to a recent change in GameSpot management as the real catalyst. Stephen Colvin, former President and CEO of Dennis Publishing — the group responsible for publications like Maxim, Blender and Stuff — became CNET’s Executive Vice President at the end of October. One of Colvin’s jobs would be to oversee the growth of CNET websites, including GameSpot. The editorial in Maxim and Stuff, publications who routinely review games months ahead of their completion and where the line between marketing and editorial is a little less clear, is much different than GameSpot’s. That was apparently reflected quickly when Colvin joined CNET. “New management has no idea how to deal with games editorial,” said one source not long after Colvin came on board. Indeed.”

The question becomes what is happening at Gamespot. This is not about the web team, or just the quality of moderation, this goes much deeper. Consider the almost massive amount of advertising that is as I see it UBI-Soft only advertising. I am adding two questions here.

  1. Is UBI-Soft the only one advertising? Which would be rather odd as the gaming industry is a lot larger than just UBI-Soft!
  2. Why was Assassins Creed Black flag reviewed so immensely high? It could be a genuine rating!

I personally saw Assassins Creed a firm notch lower, especially as it contained a repeated 4th generation of glitches. The blog post lights on several issues I had noticed on Gamespot, the first being that early reviews and ratings were less and less common. Consider this quote from Gamespot “We have no player reviews for EA Sports UFC yet“, which is fair enough as the game is not out until…… Yesterday! So that is possible, there is however also no review from Gamespot, which is in my book slightly unacceptable. Are they or are they not a gaming site? I know the E3 just ended, but not all writers went to the E3, did they? The same could be said for Sniper Elite 3, out next week. Not all game developers want their games reviewed early, but at this stage when loads of games are only reviewed after they get into the stores make me wonder why Gamespot is not taking a harder look on this. Over time I have seen several reviews that would not appear until after the games were in the store.

I have been a reviewer myself for 13 years, published in several magazines. In one high point of my ‘career’ I wrote 18 pages in one issue (which was a unique event), which might have been overdoing it a little. For the most, I always wrote positive reviews. As I had at the most space to write about 2-3 games, I had to choose the good ones. I had no intention wasting space on a 30% game if I only had 3-4 pages to write about.

I have seen other opinions from people writing that the 100% game does not exist. Yes, they do, but they are rare moments!

I have given (as far as I remember it) two 100% scored games. The first one was Ultima 7: the Black Gate. When it was released in 1992 in the age of floppies, 640 Kb computers and extended memory, this game was so high above what was released in those days, it was intense. The water views, the houses, the characters. This game was ahead of the games pack by a lot. The second one was Neverwinter Nights. It was released in 2002. This game took RPG in a visible, creative and story based level unlike before. The creation set was just the icing of a very impressive cake. I still regard these two games as bright lights showing the way to game developer as possibilities on how high the quality of a game could go. There were others, but they got a 90%+ rating. Games like System Shock that even, if re-released today, would likely become greater hits then what they were when they were initially launched.

Let’s get back to the issue. I cannot tell how true the blog was. I do however question the influence that is implied in the article on reviewers. I think that GTA-5 is a good game (not my choice of game) and 90% is a view of the reviewer, as was the 75% for Ratchet and Clank. Is the review far below our expectation less value than the one reviewed higher? I have always loved the Insomniac games (I have the bulk of them), which makes me wonder what to make of the ‘star destroyer’ piece and more important are the high reviews too high, the low too low and where do we base the comparison on?

The quote “New management has no idea how to deal with games editorial,” is another matter. A game is software, which means we look at the quality, the play value and the content. Is there a reason to debate Infamous Second Son at 80% when we get 15 hours of play time? Yet, Thief was only granted 60% (which was too low in my mind). A reviewer writes in his (or her) own street of passion, and in my street the games like Ultima, Mass Effect would end up with a high score compared to GTA-5 (which was not my cup of tea). However, no matter what my view is, over the timeline of games reviewed there would be a consistent view, and as such, some will value my views, some will value the view of Carolyn Petit. In the end, reviewers, not unlike columnists will have their own distinct styles and choices which they voice. I believe true reviewers will keep a fair view towards games, even towards games they do not like.

If Gamespot as implied by some has become a mere vessel for advertisement and basic information, then what value is there? The quote “I agree with Gamespot, they use to be good but have gotten far worse” is one that I have seen growing for some time now. I wonder why CBS Interactive is letting, what could be a powerful trademark, slip into something that just seems to become below average. I do not think it is just the people. I immensely enjoyed Johnny Chiodini when he was making Feedbackula (still a shame it got scrapped), Jess McDonell, gaming goddess, wearer of the coolest gaming T-shirts and bringer of excellent news in an upbeat way and there is Cameron Robinson with his Reality Check. They all bring video news in interesting ways. Gamespot also has its share of writers, which makes me wonder why CBS is not taking much harder stance on protecting and ensuring the value of the Gamespot Trademark and the issues that are at hand as I see them. Getting back to Cameron Robinson, you should watch his video “Surprising Facts About Video Games You Probably Didn’t Know” and it only gives a lot more question marks in regards to the implied ‘buckling’ of reviewers to the pressure by the software houses. Is it true? I cannot tell as the only name that keeps coming up is Jeff Gerstmann but the numbers that Cameron Robinson brought states that gaming sales is outperforming the US box office numbers, giving additional power to the question why CBS is not stepping up to the plate fast and immediate.

In the end games are product, they have a represented value and they rely on ‘good’ views. The consumer relies on a trusted portal where they can get reliable information from those with a view on that industry, simply because most people only get to spend money on a game once and they want the best game for them. If Gamespot loses the credibility, then others will step up to the plate, because one does not ignore a market that surpasses the 100 billion dollar mark this year, others will come and take the Gamespot share, whether they will or not will mostly rely on the actions of CBS Interactive.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 17, 2014 · 10:30

The real issue here!

Last night, just as I was about to break my own record in snoring, a message appeared on my screen. As I tend to be more curious then is good for me, I took a look. It was the article at http://advanced-television.com/2014/06/16/australian-media-chief-lambasts-google-over-movie-piracy/.

So this morning, as the dream of being with a ginger haired girl with a passion for playing Diablo 3 fades away, I decided to have a go at this article (we must keep a priority for interesting dreams first).

The title itself is interesting ‘Australian media chief lambasts Google over movie piracy‘, being honest here, using the word ‘criticising‘ instead of ‘lambasts‘ would have made the article every bit as ‘strong’ but would have implied less posturing, because that is what seems to be happening here.

The quote “Our Attorney-General George Brandis is attempting to reform our copyright law. Meanwhile Google, one of the multi-national companies attempting to avoid paying tax here, is lobbying in Canberra to stop this, by putting forward the following six fundamentally misconceived arguments” is also interesting, for reasons I will return to later.

The six points are given and the points made are to some regards highly hilarious. In point one we see: ‘piracy legislation would have little effect‘ and ‘they would no more illegally download than go into a department store and steal a book or a DVD‘. Is it really? Then why is Game of thrones the most pirated series in internet history? People can buy the series on DVD and Blu-Ray. Google’s point seems to be made by the comment ‘It may be the most pirated show, but it can break sales records too!‘ which was in a Yahoo article. Forbes gives us another part of this equation (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/04/15/game-of-thrones-sets-piracy-world-record-but-does-hbo-care/). The episode in question was downloaded 1.5 million times (a number that will be important soon). What we can say for certain is that according to figures almost 200,000 copies of series three were sold in week one, breaking records for well over a decade in place. So, almost 20% end up buying the discs (implying 80% will not).

I think that the Google argument has been seriously debunked at this point.

The second point is about legislation being for big business. Not only is this incorrect as the response showed, more important, legislation would oppose big business as will be shown soon enough and it would also hurt Google. This is closely followed with statement three where we see a reference to impeding ‘new’ business models. Actually it is impeding a very old model, but I will get to that. The response using the quote from Steve Jobs ’from the earliest days at Apple, I realised that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software we’d be out of business‘ is indeed true, yet, the one part no one answers (only implies) is in regards to the application of the Intellectual Property.

The fourth issue is a strong one and as I see it both are dancing around the issue here. It is not as Google suggested ‘an availability and pricing problem’, but the reference towards the music industry is also not correct as I see it. For a long time it had been about ‘availability and pricing‘ as Google correctly stated, but more important it had been for a long time around overheads. The gaming industry in Australia is proof of that. In Australia we pay on average 60%-100% more than in the US and in return we also get a lot less for it. How often do we see games that truly offer exclusive options that are NOT available in the US? That list is a very long one for most of the NON-US nations and it used to be the same for music in non-US nations. So it was often not about pricing, but about a lack of global fairness in pricing.

Issue 5 is made by both sides; it is so moreover for the reasons we will see soon enough. It is not because of the hypocritical ‘US view’ that opposes certain issues and views we see too often and not because of, and I quote ‘advertising models that almost totally promote pornography, gambling and scams‘. It is however because these markets represent billions in dollars of revenue, and many of these places will pay their taxes as (and if) applicable. One does not bite the hand that feeds the IRS ever!

The last one is the bomb as they say it. The mention of ‘Google says the proposed three strikes policy is too Draconian‘. Is that really so? We should all take a look at the Google approach of people getting banned on AdSense. I can tell you now, there was no strike two (or three for that matter), the quote I read “I’m really disappointed on Google support on this matter, there are no email addresses or real people to talk to” shows an approach even more Draconian then their view of Draconian as one might say. There could be valid reasons on some banning, but the issues I saw were not in that direction and in this instance Google is preaching a ‘pot calling the kettle black approach’.

So six issues of fun and frolic, but where is this going to?

In my view both are dancing around the options. It is my view that Attorney-General George Brandis had put his hand in a Hornet’s nest to say the least and now he is dancing with other people in some version of musical chairs. The powers behind all this do not want the change that some legally want. It is my view that Graham Burke, Co-Chairman and Co-CEO of Australian media group Village Roadshow does know what is actually going on, but he is not willing to say it out loud, even though he is representing those artists and people behind the entertainment industry. I had raised similar issues before. I did so on January 3rd 2014 in my article ‘FACT on piracy?‘ In my view going after certain groups was just plain stupid, for obvious reasons, yet there is another side to all this. You see, the Attorney-General realised that the consequences if pursued would be dire indeed. Even though Mr Burke does not want to hear this argument (for obvious reasons), but the people in charge do not care that The Castle, Red Dog and Muriel’s Wedding were downloaded 50,000 or even 100,000 times. Even if 10% would buy it (that is a strong if here), it amounts to $50K or even at the most $250K, which would be a decent part for the artists as they are entitled to part of this. You see, the Hornet’s nest is the consequence for companies like Telstra, Vodafone, iiNet and Optus. It is that part no one wants to touch. Australia has roughly a little over 80% online. If we use the numbers of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, then we are looking at a little over 12 million connections. Should we accept the statements at http://www.news.com.au/technology/third-of-australians-admits-they-download-movies-illegally/story-e6frfro0-1225786870239, which now seem to imply that 4 million people download movies illegally. If this is stopped then these 4 million people would decrease their broadband plan, by $40 and up to $80 a month. This is the real number! These Telco’s would now collectively miss out on $160,000,000 to $320,000,000 EVERY MONTH! If managers at some of these telco’s are rated on their value, how long until they are out on the street when they end up having to tell their stakeholders the following: “the good news: movie piracy is no more, the bad news: you miss out on a quarter of a billion in revenue every month from now on!”
It should be quite the show and I will sell tickets and popcorn when it happens.

This is at the centre of it all. From my point of view Mr Burke knows it, Mr Brandis knows it and Google, who has every profit with large broadband usage, knows it too. I think it is time for this sanctimonious posturing to stop. The internet is bandwidth and the more we need, the more we get charged. It is the cost of doing business and morality falters where profit takes a centre seat. Google has a vested interest in all this. If we look at http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/googles-youtube-ad-revenues-may-hit-5-6-billion-in-2013/, we see that Google is set at the centre of a large web of connections. If Google’s value is partially dependent on bandwidth usage (as it has been implied often enough), then laws that could cut down massively on usage are definitely not in Google’s best interest. Australia, is less likely any more than a blip on the global radar (which makes the current efforts shown by Google interesting as well). Yet, if Australian laws are successful, it could start a change in other common law nations and that would scare Google a lot.

So, we see the players, but in my view, the real issues are for now hidden from view by all players, because the loss for the collected companies in Australia is too large to contemplate and they do tell certain people what is not acceptable, those getting told tend to listen to the few that can destroy their future.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 15, 2014 · 10:50

Rising rates from just economy?

It is not always that one wakes up badly to ‘good’ news, but there you have it! When looking at http://news.sky.com/story/1281763/interest-rate-rise-signals-end-of-crisis, we see the changes that are now at odds when we consider the end of a crisis.

The question becomes, why am I not all in glorious ‘hurray!’ on this one? The economy is getting better, the time line which I proclaimed since early 2013 has indeed been correct. All these people following some economic analyst on half-baked data have been proven wrong, so why am I not happy?

That is because this has all to do with what we call in Australia ‘Fair Dinkum‘. I have always believed in this and matters are not in any dinkum stage and they are a lot less fair.

The quote “With the economy recovering faster than anticipated, analysts predict the interest rate hike could even come as early as this year” is at the heart of this. You see, the economy has become strangely unbalanced. As powers had been given to big business, leaving many nations with certain levels of legalised slavery, we see that their businesses are indeed getting better, there is more commerce and as such, things should be getting on par for all. There is the crux, ‘on par for all’. That is the part that is no longer in the stated cost of business. For those working people, who has not heard the following “this is for <insert name of large company>, we have to finish this off today“, “if we lose this client, we have to let go more staff members” or “we can’t afford to keep slackers around“. On average well over 80% of the workers will have heard these phrases in their work environment. The BBC published this in 2005 (at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4149835.stm). The quote “Britons work so much unpaid overtime they are, on average, providing their employers with free work for the equivalent of nearly eight weeks of the year“. That was in 2005. I feel certain that this number is a lot higher now. So, it comes to companies getting almost 20% of free workforce and they are not in any hurry to change these numbers, which makes for two dangerous issues. One is that as this had not been dealt with the effect of legalised slavery grows and grows, which in term stops these people from adding people to the workforce, which means that the unemployment rate is not dealt with, so the end of a crises is not yet in sight and rate rises give a signal that almost 10% of the UK population are about to get worse off. When we look at two quotes from the same BBC article “People don’t tend to feel resentful because the whole bonus and compensation system is geared up to rewarding people for their performance” and “The whole thing’s just money driven. If people don’t feel their bonus is reward enough they’ll just leave and go somewhere else“, these two quotes ignore several markers. One is that bonuses are often for management only and the people working overtime are not paid for it. The second marker is that the term ‘go somewhere else’ is often not even an option, which makes for these two observations to be inaccurate and also guiding marks to how office slavery tends to get legalised. These parts are only emphasised by the small fact the BBC mentioned “Londoners do the most – putting in 7hrs 54mins extra per week“, that adds up to one day a week of unpaid work ‘free labour for the manager‘, do you have any idea how many billions this adds up to?

So when we see the end of the crises motion, we should regard this as an additional signal that exploitation is quite possibly reaching an almost uncanny height!

Let me be blunt to ‘some’ extent, I am not against working an extra hour every now and then. This just shows dedication to your work, but an average of 8 hours a week is not dedication, but clear exploitation. It is interesting that no one is currently actively researching those bosses is it not?

So how did I get to this when we consider the quote in the Sky News article “the British economy is growing, that jobs are being created, and homes are being built, and that’s part of our economic plan“?

First we have the following BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27791749) stating the following “The number of people out of work fell by 161,000 to 2.16 million, bringing the unemployment rate down to 6.6%“, which is great news. The second quote to consider is “But the quarterly rate of earnings growth, including bonuses, slowed to 0.7% from 1.9% the previous month“. So, are these connected? Consider the following “The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance in May fell by 27,400 to 1.09 million, the ONS said“. So the jobs created are not on par. Yes, there are less seeking a job seekers allowance, but that is not the only source. It seems that jobs are shifting, but how many people ended up with multiple jobs just to get the bills paid?

In my view the last quote gives us the angle “Weak pay growth and the ‘cost of living crisis’ remains the Achilles heel of the economic recovery, said Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit.” This is where the elements meet. Yes, the UK is getting stronger, but what side is getting stronger? If we consider those happy to even have a job and working one day a week for no pay, then the bosses are mighty happy, yet when we consider the payments required getting by, we see a dangerous side that is now rearing its ugly head. I think it is important EVERYWHERE in the Commonwealth that we do not end up with some kind of Wal-Mart example, where the working people ending up on food stamps and government support because their income still keeps them below the poverty line. Whatever the republic on the other side of the Pacific river (for people in the UK it is that nation on the other side of the Atlantic river) wants to do, but we as children of the British Empire (I like the old titles at times) have a sworn duty to ourselves and to our sovereign Queen to make lives better for all of us as well as for our country. We do not deny our bosses their profits, but they are required to give us the fair share of our labour, unpaid overtime to the extent it is pushed onto many of us is massively unacceptable.

It is perhaps the one blemish that is still undealt with if we consider the following (at https://www.gov.uk/overtime-your-rights/overview), where it states “Employers don’t have to pay workers for overtime. However, employees’ average pay for the total hours worked mustn’t fall below the National Minimum Wage” I think it is up to the Prime Minister (David Cameron) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (George Osborne) to change that part into “Employers don’t have to pay workers for overtime. However, employees’ total overtime hours worked must never exceed 10% of the paid hours worked a week”. I just saved the people in London half a day of non-paid working hours, which might get more people into jobs as well.

I will of course as per today humbly accept my knighthood (should it be offered).

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 14, 2014 · 10:45

UBI is not going soft!

Another year and another E3 ends for the gaming industry and their devoted disciples, the gamers! Do not think this group to be soft, to be forgiving or to be misguided. They are running beyond 1 billion believers and they all believe in the power of joy from the game. It is a dedicated group. They have existed for over three decades and their numbers still grow.

They are not dressed in clerical outfits worshipping the house of Pong (it’s an Atari thing). They want their games hard, direct and lasting. I truly believed that this group had been deserted by UBI-Soft. I remain true to the feeling that UBI-Soft had gone soft on gaming. There was that Assassins Creed wannabe game regarding pirates (rated much too high), there were a few flops (which any maker will have) and Watchdogs, which was going to be a PS4 launch night game was delayed by a lot. Then we got Watchdogs, which was good, but had been overhyped too much by too many (not all due to UBI-Soft). So, here we have a maker, making a billion plus, losing the game, or so I thought.

I must admit that UBI-Soft is showing true gaming promise, even if some of the cut scenes are massively overdone (but the younger players love them).

There is Far-Cry 4, a game that until recently I would never consider touching. This game must be mentioned for two reasons. I bought the first one on the 360, and I still regard that as the WORST purchase ever! I did not play the second one, yet at some point I did play the third one and it was excellent. The game showed the openness of Midwinter (an old Microprose game), had the interest of many options, choices and sides and left me with a very good aftertaste in my mouth. UBI-Soft turned a fiasco into a winner. As I bash Yves Guillemot around at times, I must be honest enough to admit victory where he (or his minions) makes them.

I think that E3 2014 shows that not only is UBI-Soft back in the game; they are on route of reclaiming the number one development spot (which I considered that they had lost). There is more of course. I loved the Splinter Cell games, but they messed up Blacklist by not setting up the interface for replaying any better (it was the only flaw in my mind).

As for the new games, I was never much for racing, but the Crew has me yearning for the controller to play an ‘open’ racing game! There is a lot we might still wonder, but the presentation shows something that Sony with Drive Club did not deliver from demo day one and now is unlikely to equal. Now THAT is how you set up a game Monseigneur Guillemot!

Getting back to killing people! Whether the streets of Paris are the place to wander in anonymity is matter for another discussion, yet the idea that it will be an open environment game is without a doubt a massive step forward, especially in the light of the size a village like Paris represents. I was not impressed with Black Flag, but bought it regardless (lack of PS4 choices at launch night). It turned out I was right (read the other articles ‘A body blow to gaming‘ on March 6th and ‘Fifth in a trilogy!‘ on December 4th). Yet, the demo I saw in regards to AC Unity has me interested. It could be a massive turn for the better; I will however write fire and brimstone if they revert to the same ruddy glitches I have seen for 4 iterations.

Next, there will be more Tom Clancy in both the new Rainbow Six (not my cup of tea) and ‘the Division’ which seems to be very much my cup of tea.

Yes, as I see it, UBI-Soft is waking up to smell the need of the gamers and they are implying in their presentations that they are meeting the challenge. Time will tell, but I am a lot more positive about the course Yves Guillemot is taking UBI-Soft. I reckon that Next Gen gaming is finally getting a secure spot in the future.

When it comes down to Next Gen, I am not done yet. I have spoken out against Microsoft (or Micro$oft) in past items more than once. The image they left in 2013 drove me powerfully away from Xbox One and straight into the arms of Sony, which I considered to be the true consoles for a long time (PlayStation One, Two, Three and Four). Their approach of an ‘entertainment’ system in 2013 left me without a doubt that even though they seemed clued in with the Xbox 360, the top of Microsoft forgot what gaming was all about and came up with a half-baked device. I still think that the Xbox one is flawed on several levels, but their presentation on upcoming games does show that they are trying to figure it out. Their show was indeed really good (against Sony’s presentation which had slipped slightly) and the funny remark by Peter Molyneux in regards to Fable Legends that ‘it needs more dog‘ (via Twitter).

There is one more issue that I want to raise at present. It is all about the delays. Part of this is because of places like Gamespot, part of this is because of the Marketing divisions of places like UBI-Soft (and many others) and most of it is because of a truckload of gamers. Yes, I agree I want to play all the games today or even tomorrow, but a good game requires waiting at time. A good game will be done when it is done. So when we see a list of games like Batman: Arkham Knight, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, The Order: 1886, Quantum Break, Dying Light and The Division that will not make it to the console in 2014, gamers need to stop crying like little bitches! We (me and millions of gamers) want to play a 90% plus game that is legend, not a game that became mediocre like Thief, because someone at marketing pushed for a quicker deadline. The difference between Arkham City (90%) and Viking: Battle for Asgard (50%) is both timing and vision. We cannot do anything about a lack of vision (something the delayed games are not in short supply of) and timing is what we should give them, even though the valid issue remains ‘why show anything at E3-2013’, which is a discussion for another day; let me assure you of that. If we get back to UBI-Soft, then we must admit that Watchdog, with a 500 page hint guide shows that this game is loaded with stuff. It ended up being an 80% game, on release date this would have been a mere 45% rated joke.

We should never be dependent on ratings, that evidence is seen when we look at Gamespot with AC4 Black flag at 90%, which was too high and Thief at 60% was unfairly low (in my opinion). Yet, they are indicators of what we might want to spend money on. Games will always be overhyped by all (including me), it is influenced by what we played (Thief 1+2) and what we expect to see (the Thief demo at E3 2013). So will the next Rise of the Tomb Raider learn from the mistakes (as I see them) that they made with the 2013 release?

Time and patience will tell!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 12, 2014 · 11:44

Golden age of Journalism?

There is a speech on Sky News. In this video, we see John Ryley stating that the Golden Age is now. He talks about the pessimists, but is he correct? Well, in all honesty, he is not wrong. Yet, the dangers are not really shown in his speech. The statement for some journalists that ‘the golden age is now’ is indeed a statement that is laced with truth. As in the past journalists going into the news were hoping and praying for their ‘live’ moment, that golden age is indeed now, they can ALL be live in a matter of seconds. It is the quote he makes in the video (at http://news.sky.com/story/1280339/sky-news-head-golden-era-for-journalism ) it is at 1:43 where he mentions that all news is available on-demand, live all the time is also laced with a danger he does not mention ‘the key to exploiting these multiple opportunities‘ is the quote we see next. Here is the danger we need to understand. Yes, we have more news and as John Ryley states, there is a growing abundance of analytics, facts, snippets and other streamed information being added to our field of vision, yet what about the quality? In the past journalists grew into a job, now we see all graduates rush to get the headlines that get them the job to go forward. In this changing view, levels of quality are no longer pursued (just perused at best).

We have to accept that we do not get the best numbers at times. When something happens, we are often given a few facts linked to the events, yet, when we start adding analytics that are meant to be part of the same news cycle, how reliable are these numbers? I am not talking about business news here. In those cases the journalists have decades of numbers at their back and call. No, I am talking about dumping false data at the mere press of a finger. In that regard, I think Australia outdid itself when a girl in May 2009 gave false testimony on TV and gained the reputation of the ‘Chk Chk Boom’ girl. It is not the most extreme example, but it illustrates the dangers. There is no blame to the journalist, yet the impact was there, even though people laughed it off to some extent. Now consider that what is laughingly regarded by some as journalism. It was the Daily Telegraph quoting “Flight MH370 ‘suicide mission’” on page one, PAGE ONE no less! Now, almost three months later, there is still no sight of the plane and no actual evidence that there was a suicide mission. These two parts give the indication. No matter how much journalists are entering the Golden age of direct media opportunities, the growing need for ethics and quality checks in an age of immediate publication is growing at an almost exponential rate.

This all gets another flavour when we consider certain parts of the Leveson report. “A free press, free of the censorship and restrictions imposed by the powerful, … serves the public interest by its investigative and communicative role. Both roles are necessary.” (at volume,page1:64). Yes, I am all for freedom of the press, but not for freedom of non-accountability. In case of the ‘Chk Chk Boom’ girl, the press was not guilty, they were talking to a ‘witness’ and that got reported, in case of the Daily Mail, serious questions about the journalist could be made (as well as its chief editor). Here we see the danger, we cannot avoid issue one in a time pressed event, yet when the journalist shapes the story, by intentionally adding non verified data, we get issue number two and here we see, what in my mind adds up to intentional inflicted harm (to the family of victims) for the greater ‘need’ of some headline, which then results in tiers of damage control and carefully ‘phrased’ denials. None of those events could or would be regarded as journalism. John Ryley does not dig into that danger (as far as I know).

 

The last danger is the one John Ryley was not going to talk about (assumption on my side) and as I see it, he should not have to. Yet, the dangers that his Golden age of Journalism brings is the added hype of trial by social media. When given form, events will more and more shout out for witch-hunts via social media. This is not started or at times intentionally instigated by the journalists, which must be stated quite clearly, yet the dangers we all face as someone emotionally responds to any news event is always there. Yet the dangers that any news that spreads online will be accompanied by the dangers of social media “hang ’em high judges” should not be underestimated, giving the increased need for quality checks and verification in an age when doing just that out-dates the news instantly. There is no real good solution here and it must be said that a journalist cannot be blamed for any social media prosecution hype, yet, when proven that the news that sparked the witch-hunt was irresponsible, (like the MH370 story by the Daily Telegraph), should the journalist bringing the story be held accountable for the consequences? In that case I say ‘Yes!’. So, even though if we are to believe that journalism is entering a Golden Age, we must also look at the consequences of their acts and hold journalists accountable for some of their actions as such.

A view, I have had for a long time, but was raised by Sir Christopher Meyer on the 19th of February 2009 (long before I started my accountability act crusade).it can be found on the Leveson report (4:1539) “I am afraid that we also require some reassurance about the credentials of those carrying out the inquiry. In addition to the inaccuracies … the report does not appear to have been written by anyone with much understanding of self-regulation or the relationship between the PCC and the law. More fundamentally, we have to ask ourselves whether this enterprise is being undertaken in good faith…” (from pp1-5, Stephen Abell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Exhibit-SA-T1125.pdf).

I will add one more part to this all. I wrote a blog on March 19th called ‘Any sport implies corruption!‘. Yesterday’s news (at http://news.sky.com/story/1280406/qatar-corruption-claims-coca-cola-concerned), directly links to this. My issue is that the quote “Mr Quincey’s comments are significant because Coca-Cola is one of Fifa’s leading sponsors along with Adidas, Budweiser, Sony and Visa and, as such, a major provider of revenues to the organisation, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fifa’s coffers.” is not entirely complete as I see it. Moreover, there are still serious issues with the claims of corruption to begin with.

The end of that quote “contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fifa’s coffers” should in my view be changed into ‘contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fifa’s coffers for as long as it favours the business views and other financial obligations these large companies have set in motion.‘

My reasoning here is that Qatar was selected, and it was not long until the intense heat that the players faced would become a visible issue. The best source of quality information in this case is the Washington Post (at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/dcunited/fifa-prosecutor-probe-already-had-qatar-evidence/2014/06/11/ffcef57a-f199-11e3-b140-bd7309109588_story.html).

I actually do not know whether the Qatar bribery issues are real. It seems that FIFA prosecutor Michael Garcia is on top of this, yet the Sky News quote ‘Yet this inflamed the situation and led to calls on Tuesday from a succession of European football chiefs for Mr Blatter to step down‘, is adding to the fire and I wonder what actually is in play. We know that the Qatar World cup would, due to a date shift have consequences. This can be best seen in the BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/24401699), The quote “However, that could lead to a potential clash with other big sporting events, notably the Winter Olympics and American football’s Super Bowl, as well as domestic football leagues and the Champions League“, which makes me wonder whether these ‘secret’ documents are about the sport, or about the advertisers. When we consider the list of ‘sponsors’ that Sky News mentioned, namely Coca-Cola, Adidas, Budweiser, Sony and Visa we see a different picture, is it about corruption or about the fear that these big corporations are confronted with up to 40% of diminished advertisement power? I do believe that Qatar will do whatever it can to not overlap the winter Olympics, yet the fact that there will be an overlap with US sports and likely the European soccer season is almost unavoidable. If we are fair then we accept this, especially as this is such a rare event. The rest should be ignored, for the simple reason that this is about the sport, not about the ‘comfort‘ of those sponsors who basically tend to be at EVERY event.

So here we see the direct consequence of what John Ryley calls the golden Age of Journalism. When we look at these headlines “Qatar DID buy the World Cup, email reveals” (The Daily Mail), we have to wonder how much danger people will be placed in when social media turns an irresponsible article into a witch-hunt. If the golden age of Journalism is now, then so is its accountability, which is at the heart of the published Leveson report. Consider the Leveson header ‘The importance of a free press: free communication‘, is that the case here? I wonder how much pressure certain articles are receiving from advertisers/sponsors. The concluded report will give us reason to lash out, so until that happens (in roughly a month) we will have to wait when I write my follow up.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 9, 2014 · 10:10

Criminally stupid!

Another day and another Sky News article grabbed my attention. Today it is “Metal Studs Treat The Homeless ‘Like Animals’” (at http://news.sky.com/story/1277765/metal-studs-treat-the-homeless-like-animals).

In London, the reaction to a homeless person sleeping in their entry hall was met with an almost medieval solution. They decided to place spikes on the floor at an interval so that a person would not go to sleep in that location. Most people reacted in outrage on the solution. The article goes on a little more and added the following statement “Homelessness charities say this is not a one-off, metal studs have been appearing across the country for the last decade as the number of people sleeping rough rises.”

So the people are actively ‘acting’ out against these homeless people. The part that puzzles me is the legal side of the matter. In the UK they have R v Miller [1982] UKHL 6, a criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act. The judgment here “I see no rational ground for excluding from conduct capable of giving rise to criminal liability, conduct which consists of failing to take measures that lie within one’s power to counteract a danger that one has oneself created, if at the time of such conduct one’s state of mind is such as constitutes a necessary ingredient of the offence.”

I found it pleasing to use the vagrant case, because the person who did this is less a person than the people he/she is trying to chase away. In this case it is not just the homeless person, but ANY person tripping, falling and getting hurt because of those spikes. The culprit who placed the spikes will be directly responsible for inflicting grievous bodily harm, which under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 could get the spike culprit a sentence up to life imprisonment. It was interesting that the news cast did not bear this out, or any criminal transgression for that matter. The Guardian has almost the same story and is pleading for the Southwark council to act against this.

Let’s look at this situation one more time from a legal perspective (me now grumpily looking up my UK Offences against the Person Act 1861 section 18 in PDF form). Even if it is the homeless person and not an innocent bystander, we could prove harm with the first instance (one drop of blood is enough) and as the victim is likely either a homeless person or even a junkie, we get a factor indicating greater harm as per “Victim is particularly vulnerable because of personal circumstances” in addition we have culpability through “Offence motivated by, or demonstrating, hostility to the victim based on the victim’s disability (or presumed disability)“, which we might achieve considering the social status of the person, which also proves discrimination. The spikes and the effort required shows premeditation and the two additional aggravated factors are “Deliberately causes more harm than is necessary for commission of offence” and “Deliberate targeting of vulnerable victim“.

My question becomes, why are the parties (or so they seem to) not talking to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Services) in regards to this act? There is a host of additional parts in these events and they all point to acts of maliciousness.

Even here in Australia the NSW Crimes Act 1900 would have a powerful case against the placer of these spikes. It becomes thus a question on whether it is just for the council, or are nations in the Commonwealth facing a new level of intolerability and as such, the wave of these events are not even properly looked at. The fact that the press is not speaking out in regards to the crimes that these spikes represent is also a matter of question, as is the lack of visibility from the CPS in this matter, especially if we consider the quote “they appeared a few weeks ago after someone had been sleeping rough there“, which implies that several authorities should have alerted the police and they should have alerted the CPS to these events.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

June 8, 2014 · 10:13

17 or 70 trillion?

Even though we see so many ‘stories’ on how well the US is doing, we must ask ourselves on what value these numbers are trying to convince us of.

The thoughts I am about to phrase started a little after the following had been released (at http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/06/06/standard-poors-is-concerned-about-the-u-s-debt-burden/). “Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services put out research Friday confirming the AA+ rating of the U.S.“, so the US has dropped a notch on the credibility scale. This in itself should not be a reason for direct concern. The one part that does worry is that S&P was the only one doing this. The other part we should notice is the quote “The federal debt was $16.1 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2012, according to the Government Accountability office.” why are we not seeing a 2013 number, which according to some is over 17 trillion? How interesting is it to see the numbers game whilst the numbers quoted are not up to date?

The next part is the article from Bloomberg on April 29th 2014. Here we see the following “The drop in net marketable debt will be $78 billion in the April-June period, $38 billion more than the pay down projected three months ago, with an end-of-June cash balance of $130 billion, the Treasury said today in Washington. The improvement will be short lived — net borrowing of $169 billion is projected next quarter, with $130 billion in cash Sept. 30th“. Can anyone see the issue I have with this? The debt of well over 17,000 billion is getting met with a quarterly pay down of less than 0.4588%. How is this progress and even though we see that the US still has a high credit score, is the likelihood of a continued credit score even realistic?

That part can be seen in the Market watch quote “We believe that renewed debate over the debt ceiling could resume after the midterm elections in November 2014 under certain scenarios. While we expect the discussions about the debt ceiling to be ultimately resolved as they have been, we still see risks that these debates entail.” So, not only is there no solution to the current debt levels, the chance of any serious solutions occurring within this current administration is close to zero, which means that the next administration will inherit a debt closer to 20 trillion. I do find the headline about ‘US debt level concerns‘ hilarious. Many with me had raised these dangers for well over 2 years and now as the game is up, some are ‘raising’ concerns, whilst those in charge and those on the watchdogs of economy had long known that any level of lowering the debt had been a mere myth for over 2 years.

There are of course other views. One is from Chad Stone who wrote in US News (at http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/05/16/too-much-deficit-and-debt-reduction-too-soon-will-wreck-the-recovery) “now about $17.5 trillion, found on the ‘debt clocks’ that are so popular with debt hysterics. Gross debt (and its close cousin, ‘debt subject to limit’) is debt held by the public plus debt internal to the government“. This is fair enough, yet there is no information, not even any indication when this debt will start to lower. There is another side to consider. When we look at the IRS data book (at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13databk.pdf), consider that the IRS collected a net value of taxation of 2.4 trillion dollars. A slightly more accurate number is 2,490 billion.

When we consider all the numbers thrown at us, like the ‘% of the GDP’ and so on, even if we accept that the 17 trillion dollars debt is held on multiple level, compared to what the IRS collects, we see a number that reflects the tax collected, compared to the total debt. The US gets through taxation a mere 14% of where the debt is at. How is any of that realistic? So, the total collected taxation, before any other cost is taken into account (like paying government staff and utilities), it only amounts to 14%, after all that is done 0.1% is left if the US government gets a fitting budget (something that has not been achieved since president Clinton was in office).

My issue is not just with the US debt levels, it is also about the ‘blasé’ approach economists are throwing at the people stating that things are not that bad and that it will all work out. That part is a figment of THEIR imagination, because for things to resolve, actions must be taken and none are getting taken at present (or in the near future for that matter). My biggest issue with the Article of Chad Stone is seen at the end. His quote “Lowering the debt ratio comes at a cost, not only risking the recovery if it’s done too fast but also in burdening businesses and households with larger spending cuts, higher taxes or both to stabilize the debt ratio“. There is truth in that statement, yet the issue that the money should have NEVER been spent is an issue that is ignored. The culprits of this dangerous endeavour are not named, not held accountable and many of them walked away with millions in bonuses.

We are however nowhere near the end of this debacle. The articles give another view on the matter. An article was published in 2013 stating an entirely different matter of debt. The REAL total debt is set at 70 trillion (at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/15/california-economist-says-real-us-debt-70-trillion-not-16-trillion-government/). The quote that matters is “Hamilton believes the government is miscalculating what it owes by leaving out certain unfunded liabilities that include government loan guarantees, deposit insurance, and actions taken by the Federal Reserve as well as the cost of other government trust funds. Factoring in those figures brings the total amount the government owes to a staggering $70 trillion”

Now we are off to an entirely different race, this only gets worse if we take the Bloomberg article into account from March 2014, which headlines as ‘Debt Exceeds $100 Trillion as Governments Binge‘ (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-10/debt-exceeds-100-trillion-as-governments-binge.html). Make sure you realise that this last article is about global debt and not about US debt.

This was already on my scope for another reason, but I will return to that shortly. I need to return to the Fox News article where it stated the view of Professor Hamilton, an economics professor from San Diego. The reason for this is because I try to stay fair and balanced (statement plagiarised from Fox News) and as such, as I found additional views from the professor, it is only fair that I mention that too. This all is linked to a paper he published in 2013 (at http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilton/Cato_paper.pdf), it is the starting quote “This paper examines the growth of federal liabilities that are not included in the officially reported numbers” which should grab your attention. Yes, we are talking about ‘off’ the book liabilities, which should make us all wonder whether ANY government should be allowed to be part of liabilities that are not on the books to begin with. If our job is to stem the tide of irresponsible spending, then keeping things ‘off the books‘ as the ‘kids’ seem to state, should not be allowed under any condition. If we look at the quote that was found in the Econ browser by professor Hamilton, we see “Similar calculations from the trustees reports for Medicare report Medicare’s net unfunded liabilities for current program participants to be $27.6 trillion. For more details see Table 4 and the accompanying discussion in my paper.” The floor should open to an entirely different debate and soon. I think it is high time that these events are properly mapped out and as such ALL governments need to adhere to a different level of ‘accounting’. Their books can no longer remain silent in regards to unfunded liabilities. Is it any wonder books are not in order in a massive amount of nations?

This now grabs back to other observations I made and more important the small revelation my data implied. On March 22nd 2013 I wrote the blog article ‘60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!‘, here I quoted “If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and US combined) then that difference would be $112T“, I implied to some extent that not only were the percentages messed with, I had some reason to believe that someone had messed with the total trade value that LIBOR represents. Perhaps my mistake (to some extent) was thinking that it was ‘just’ manipulation. In my defence, I came up with these findings before Professor Hamilton had finished his paper, so as a non-economist I was slightly in the dark to begin with. Consider that some politicians could be overspending, whilst using the options of unfunded liabilities within LIBOR to excuse themselves for accountability? What will other governments say, when such events are brought to light (if that would be happening). More important, if my number was closer to the truth then many considered, the global economy is playing high stakes poker with debts twice the size then most realise and our cost of living is based partially upon the irresponsible spending of both Washington and Wall-Street. How are the people ever to get a fair shake at a happy life, when a group of no more than 3000 people have been spending the dreams and futures of well over 1 billion people? Most do not realise that this goes way past the borders of the US, if there is indeed an established group editing the total value of trade considering the manipulation of the LIBOR percentage, the established setting of unfunded liabilities, as well as the breaking up on loans as they might occur. For this example, I would like to point you towards www.lsta.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2480, here we see a paper from Credit Suisse made by Julia Kingston in August 2006. The next part is just pure supposition on my side. Look at slide 35, here we see a term loan set in three parts. What happened when something falls over in 2 or 4 months? How many parts when Wall Street made its 8 trillion bungle was not written off? Is my consideration that the TOTAL LIBOR trade value has a massive amount of ‘entries’ that had remained hoping it would turn for the better? We have seen a multitude of financial advisors playing just such a card on many levels in the 2008-2011 periods. My question now becomes, was my implied 11.2% just the tip of the iceberg?

I am not claiming, nor do I pretend to have the actual answer here, My issue, as it was in the past is that ‘proclaimed’ Journalists sitting in the top newspapers have not taken a hard look at some elements. It is nice for them that Reuters does much of their work for them and many aspire, but will never come close to people like Paul Mason, Robert Peston or Deborah Hargreaves. Yet, how deep did they dig into LIBOR? Also linked (especially with the Guardian) was the claims that Jullian Assange made in regards to banking, they were never followed up (or so it seems), not even by the Guardian as far as I could tell. Consider the article the Guardian had on February 10th 2011 (at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/10/julian-assange-wikileaks-book-claims). The quote “Asked about the ostensibly sensational bank leaks Assange keeps suggesting he is ready to release, Domscheit-Berg said the only banking documents he knew WikiLeaks had were ‘totally unspectacular’ is at the heart of this”. When it was ‘just’ about the US military there was some upheaval (especially by the US), yet when banking issues were raise (slightly mentioned in the Forbes interview in November 2010 at http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/). The interview gives us the following “Will we? Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a mega leak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it. Is it a U.S. bank? Yes, it’s a U.S. bank. One that still exists? Yes, a big U.S. bank.”

After this the hunt for Jullian Assange really takes on additional energy. I have no idea what he found, or if it is even related, the issue is that there is a recorded atmosphere of unaccountability within the banks (on a global scale) which must stop, if not, not only will governments be allowed to continue in irresponsible ways, but the additional ‘myth‘ that banks and governments apply checks and balances need to be thrown out of the nearest window. A last quote from the Forbes interview is every bit as important “We’re still investigating. All I can say is: it’s clear there were unethical practices, but it’s too early to suggest there’s criminality. We have to be careful about applying criminal labels to people until we’re very sure.”

This is the part I had written about for some time, it was not just that the issue with Goldman Sachs imploded the financial industry; it was the issue that they, in black letter law, basically had not broken any laws. The people lost well over 8 trillion and no crime was committed even though their money was basically gambled away. It is that part, especially in the LIBOR sight, as well as the issue raised by Professor Hamilton in regards to unfunded liabilities. No laws are broken, but we are all kept in the dark in regards to the debts inflicted upon us, which in itself is a massive wrong.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 7, 2014 · 09:59

A Spruiker’s deal

I got caught out a few days ago. There was something about the spruikers deal and me with my European education thought it was some kind of a Dutch deal. Now I am learning it is nothing of the sort and the entire spruikers issue is a real and a very dangerous one.

It seems there are two methods (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-24/wa-lead-charge-on-property-spruikers/5280420), one is the rent-to-buy the other is the Vendor finance with a delayed settlement. To be honest, I do not see the initial deal with the objection to this. Consider that I end up being renter to buy, with basically the rent becoming the mortgage. What is wrong about that?

That part is seen when we look at the following two quotes: “Some of them are doing very legal things and they’re giving advice and they’re qualified to do so, but then there are those who promise things to those who look for hope, who have perhaps not been able to afford their own home in the past or not been able to enter the market of investment” and “They’re the type of people we target as collectively, ministers for consumer affairs, to make sure that the advice that’s being given is both legal and ethical“. So basically, the entire spruikers deal is about hunting down the unethical exploiters and the damage that they cause.

When looking into these losses, I learned that this is not a new issue. The Spruikers deal and negative gearing has been around for some time and the news has been mentioning issues of exploitation going back to far beyond 2011. This is not a new deal, so why does this remain an issue?

In my mind, the world (Australia too) is filled with idiots who think that there is a quick deal, that makes you rich. The old saying ‘if you buy a diamond for a dime, you end up owning a diamond not worth a dime‘ is the most fitting expression that applies here. Some sales people rely on greed the others on desperation. The big thing is that some are actually on the up and up and as such, this is why the entire spruikers deal stays around for so long.

I see that at times desperation is at the centre of it all. The Age had an interesting quote on April 18th 2013 “ASIC reviewed 100 investor files relating to the establishment of an SMSF. The files were not selected randomly. Most of the DIY funds had a fund balance of less than $150,000. Industry professionals often cite $300,000 as being the minimum needed to make the costs of running a DIY fund worthwhile“. Here is a truth we can work with. A group of people with an insufficient super to make it through retirement is getting targeted to invest in what should be seen as way too risky, especially when the investment would likely deplete your investment to ZERO. This is at the centre of it and this should give a clear signal to the UK that what has been happening in Australia could easily happen in the UK (and is already happening to some extent). Consider the housing boom that the UK is now having (because of regulatory investment options), how long until less scrupulous real estate agents start playing that card? Our collective retirement options are not that great; keeping the retirement options safe for these people should be on the minds of watchdogs in both the UK and Australia.

Yet, I am still smitten with the rent-to-buy option in both the UK and Australia. For the governments to invest in those places allowing people the rent-to-buy option will have two distinct bonuses. One, people will take increasingly care of these places, giving a better long term value to areas that are now often ‘written off’. In addition, the entire community will get an increased economic boost as rent is no longer a down the drain issue, but the start of a future. I see this as a possibility in some places where at present a non-future is regarded to be the norm.

Should the government get involved?

This is a valid question and even though there is validity in both answer options, my answer to this is ‘Yes!‘. In my view, in Australia (and to some extent in the UK as well), the government has remained massively absent when it comes to the creation of affordable housing. The issue of less than 1% rental availability in Sydney alone for well over a decade is clear evidence of that. NSW housing is dealing with a backlog of well over a decade. This is evidence of a faltering system. A government rent-to-buy option could make a change, but it is important to act firmly with some caution, to avoid some quick scheme that will backfire on both the tenant owner and the government in equal measure.

Yes, I think we can all agree that these options are not meant for villages like London and Sydney, but there are plenty of places where it could make a real difference, lowering rental tensions all over the nation(s). Another view of the dangers of spruikers can be seen in the Sydney Morning Herald, an article that was published in August 2013 (at http://www.smh.com.au/business/property-spruikers-scent-big-opportunity-in-super-20130830-2swcq.html).

It clearly shows the issues about all the good and none of the risks being disclosed and it also mentions the real life dangers (read risks) that these investors face making it all a high risk endeavour. In that article another link (as statement) is added “Large funds trying to bridge gap with flexible investment options“. So are spruikers the undefined link between funds (trying again to get high risk yields by dumping the consequence on unsuspecting consumers) and flexible and quick dumped options, leaving the trustee (you, the investor) with a bag of smelly poo no one wants? That is the question that should be raised as well.

This is at the centre of the Spruikers deal and as long as some people are desperate to assure themselves of a decent retirement, spruikers will remain a danger. It is at the end of the Sydney Morning Herald article where we see the jewel we need to keep in our hearts. It was stated by Pauline Vamos, chief executive of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. She says “anybody giving advice – even if they say they are only providing ‘information‘ – about any investment into an SMSF should be licensed. That would start to ‘turn the tide‘ against property spruikers, she says. ‘It would help fill consumer protection gaps.’”

In my view she is entirely correct. Yet, at this point, the government should intervene to another extent. Whether it is in the way South Australia did a few years ago by handing $1 (or at least a really low amount) leases of land to new builders, or to get the rent-to-buy going in other directions, rental properties are not here and there is no light at the end of the tunnel for a long time to come. Only when those issues are dealt with, new progress can be made and these spruikers are likely to seek other shores for a quick profit.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,