Tag Archives: Electronic Arts

September 4, 2014 · 10:58

Values of insanity

I need to revisit my last article ‘Evolving our lives’, not the article itself, I thought it was a decent article and I stand by what I write. It is the massive absence of visibility that I see in the press that is so overwhelming, that it makes me wonder what on earth is going on.

You see, the fact that someone hacked the phone of Jennifer Lawrence is ‘great’ news. It had several pages of links of all shapes and sizes. I feel for Jennifer, I am happy that she is taking a stand and I hope her lawyer gets to take the hacker and his family to the cleaners for the next 5 generations.

The statement from her attorney Lawrence Shire is quite clear “This is obviously an outrageous violation of our client Kate Upton’s privacy. We intend to pursue anyone disseminating or duplicating these illegally obtained images to the fullest extent possible” (source: Perez Hilton at http://perezhilton.com/cocoperez/2014-09-02-kate-upton-leaked-nude-photos-addresses-statement).

My issue is not with Jenifer, as I stated I do feel for her. It is the LA Times (and many other US newspapers) that I am having an issue with. The LA Times who published only 10 hours ago: “After illegally obtained nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence and other actresses were made public Sunday, the FBI is on the case — and so is Lena Dunham“.

It is interesting that the FBI is all about the famous, yet, as it is portrayed Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and a few others, who seem to be the object of extreme hatred and this visibility, remains mostly absent.

Now, I do not agree with some of the views Anita Sarkeesian had, especially in her video ‘Women as Background Decoration (Part 2)’, she is entitled to this view. She does bring in several cases a correct view, but again the fact that the view of the Darkness 2 is pretty much how the comic depiction is was not stated. Also is not stated that the prostitutes in Assassins Creed 2 and Assassins Creed 2 brotherhood were a weapon for Ezio Auditore to kill from hiding and to remain unseen. There is more than just a game here and courtesans were a reality in that era in Italy.

Consider the following historical fact “The Venetian authorities became concerned that it was impossible to distinguish between courtesans and respectable women. Rules drawn up in 1543 determined what the courtesans could wear” and “There was a red light district in Venice but there were also courtesans who were less obvious. They were educated prostitutes who were refined and well dressed and serviced the social elite“. This is how reality was. There is no real defence from me, for the most Anita Sarkeesian gives a truthful view, even though that view is not giving the whole picture. The same she does with watchdogs, where not just women, but also men are the target, yet her reasoning does hold water. In addition, the issues as shown in Far Cry 3 are not unknown (at http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21586575-laws-punish-domestic-violence-are-too-often-honoured-breach-everyday-aggression) the economist and many others show that there is an abundance of violence against women. This does not make it okay, but it is a reality we are all still fighting against. The economist states “it is a slow process“, I personally think is “a much too slow process“. There have been several views by many people that things have to change and I personally believe that Anita Sarkeesian should be allowed to voice these issues in safety and whilst not getting harassed.

My issues only partially against that view is that Bethesda (Fallout, Fallout New Vegas, Oblivion, Skyrim) and Lionhead studios (Fable series) and Electronic Arts (Mass Effect series) offer the option of creating a main female character, that part she left out. In addition, Female Shepard from the Mass Effect series is just as deadly as the male one. Yet, I admit these seem to be exceptions.

As Anita and Zoe are real people, why is their safety not more strongly advocated? Anita Sarkeesian’s dangers made the Washington post, yet it seems that these people (both Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn) seem to have escaped the view of the bulk of all American Newspapers. An Indie game developer stood up for her, his name is Phil Fish. When I looked for more info, I found this description on some Wiki page “Phil Fish (Powerword: Jacques Paul Philippe Poisson) is a shitty video game designer who received immense praise following his creation of a Super Paper Mario rip-off called “Fez”. A filthy hipster, Fish is widely reviled on the internet mostly because he’s a douche and a drama whore. He’s also French Canadian, which goes a long way towards explaining why he’s such a stuck-up narcissistic twat“. The hatred spilt all over several sites is unbelievable, now, perhaps the man has an ego issue, I do not know, because I do not know the man, yet his quote in support for Zoe Quinn drove a level of hatred that is beyond belief.

Let’s get back to the issues involving women.

There is an anti-women group in gaming wave going on that seems to be utterly unparalleled and is far beyond any normal dimensions. I have no idea how repugnant something called ‘the Daily Caller‘ is. Yet consider the issue. A model named Kate Upton, her phone was hacked and we see this “So What Does Rep. Fred Upton Think About Kate Upton’s Hacked Nude Photos?“, which intros as: “Michigan U.S. Congressman Fred Upton is staying personally silent on the weekend hacking and posting of nude pictures belonging to his niece, model and actress Kate Upton“, so the man is her uncle and he is asked to give his view on his naked niece? How sick is this reporter? This was not some photo-shoot in Playboy and Penthouse, no this was the violation of her privacy and many are making ‘light reporting’ of it all. This is a side that Anita Sarkeesian seemed to have missed in her article, it is not just the gaming image but the press is to some extent glorifying this! Is it such a wild assumption that this is bringing a new low level of cyber-paparazzi? I wonder how much money lawyer Lawrence Shire could get and how much publications will bring in revenue on this matter. This is not about objectifying women, this all reads as a chauvinist tactic ‘to keep women in their place‘, which, if true is a crime as heinous as the acts Pol Pot’s killing of well over a million people. Does anyone remember the Killing Fields or did you all forget that massacre?

The victims are given this response “After more than 40 hours of investigation, we have discovered that certain celebrity accounts were compromised by a very targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions“, so if there is a targeted attack, where did it come from? We get back to the basic need of a secure internet. The system has been built on such levels of ‘convenience’ for speed, that the entire issue of security seems to have been ignored to some degree (a targeted attack that becomes a successful transgression is one that requires investigation). You see, if we accept that any system can be transgressed upon, that it stands to reason that a clear market for the wealthier client is required. Consider the news that the US president was not allowed to have an iPhone and we read “explaining why he is sometimes seen with a bulky super secure Blackberry“, why are the personal assistants of both Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton not looking into that field? Yet, are these not new values of insanity?

Why should any woman need these additional levels of protection from criminals like these? It all goes back to the issue of non-accountability. People can do whatever they like and no one will be there to stop them. If we see the years of publications and the years of recorded issues on Domestic violence, we see an utterly flaccid legal system with too little actual results. The internet is just a new iteration of inaction.

Yes, the FBI is looking into this, yet how long until these women see results? How long until Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian can go home in relative safety for using their right to free speech? How long until the international press will take these issues and goes for real coverage of the issue, and not in some feigned opposition view as we saw in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/01/how-to-attack-a-woman-who-works-in-video-games) with text like “So, for those out there who have decided to join in and harass a woman developer or critic out of the games business, this is how you do it“.

Did the Guardian print the following in their papers: “If you want to take a good honest look at the breasts of Jennifer Lawrence and perhaps more, this is how you hack the phone“? Oddly, that is not what was printed, so why these two values? Yes, I know that the piece of Zoe Quinn was in sarcasm against the harasser, but I think it missed the point, especially as there is an abundance of non-journalistic sources burning her, whilst only the Guardian gave her any (but debatable) visibility. Is this the realistic view of Anita Sarkeesian view that women are objectified, yet now in a very real way?

Moving forward

I hope that Lawrence Shire might be willing to place a few calls and get a group of real journalists into the plight of both Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, possible with Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton standing next to them. You see, I think that this is all linked to a much bigger problem, if the threat to both Quinn and Sarkeesian is unreal, then people have a right to know, but if the threat is real then ignoring the threat is no less criminal then what the hackers are trying to publish. All this whilst the media is just printing the names that will improve their circulation, so in their view, the lives of Quinn and Sarkeesian have no value and are ignored.

I will accept that a Hollywood star is news, however, within the last 15 minutes as I was writing this last night speculations regarding Jennifer Lawrence grew by 12 pages, not one fact on either Quinn or Sarkeesian by any reputable source was added. This is not life in the fast lane, this is ‘garbage in the junk lane‘ and too many who should be vocal, remain silent.

The responses

Emma Watson’s response on Twitter is perhaps the clearest “Even worse than seeing women’s privacy violated on social media is reading the accompanying comments that show such a lack of empathy“. Yet, I am personally not certain whether she is correct; when the by-line from the Independent ends with ‘Poor Jay Law!‘ which was read by another woman in a tone of ‘ah well’ we can safely state that the matter is a whole lot worse. The tweet from Ricky Gervais, although badly received is deeper than some realise “Celebrities, make it harder for people to get nude pics of you from your computer by not putting nude pics of yourself on your computer“, which might read as “When you are famous, you have no inherent rights of ANY kind, which means that either you pose naked for the press at large or someone will get those shots for them“.

Which gives us the unjust consideration “Breasts and genitals are coin, coin is essential, you are only temporary!” Whether Ricky Gervais was actively trying to state this, or “The only safe nude of you is no nude of you!” is up to Ricky Gervais, but I hope that my way of stating this all shows that the dangers women at large face (famous and non-famous alike) seems to be escalating. The view that “Domestic or partner violence is a global concern. Worldwide 30% of partnered women will experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime” is not a figment of anyone’s imagination, yet the fact that women overwhelmingly do not report these issues and only a fraction of the reported issues are successfully prosecuted remains a fact. This all links to all the issues we saw earlier.

There is an implied inherent air of ignoring, not prosecuting and persecuting these offences, yet overall these issues are more and more visible. I do personally disagree with my previous statement, yet consider the amount of registered domestic violence occurrences and how many of them were successfully prosecuted? Here I do not blame the police; it seems to me that at times their hands are tied even more than those of the victim. Consider the quote from the less likely reporting instance (the Daily Mail). “Domestic abuse prosecutions more than doubled from 35,000 in 2005 to 74,000 in 2010, and the conviction rate increased from 46 per cent to 72 per cent“, yet as we have seen from several sources like the CPS we see: “Nearly 1 million women experience at least one incident of domestic abuse each year (2009/10 British Crime Survey data: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210.pdf as reported in latest cross-government VAWG strategy http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/call-end-violence-women-girls/vawg-paper?view=Binary)“, so in 2010 we still see that less than 10% makes it to court, for whatever reason, so that 72% is not a victory it is nothing less than a joke on a massive failure in my view.

That what follows!

For some reason the NSA has an abundance of data, yet women remain in fear of life, we see that consultants and federal agents are looking into the mailbox and pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, yet no progress has been made. You see, something does not add up, when you target 101 celebrities, it means that you are trying to invade 101 secured accounts, now, it might be possible to get ‘easy’ access to some of them, but 101 targets gives the FBI a place to hunt, this is another question that boggles me and I do have a postgraduate degree in this area. Yes, I know that there is plenty of technology around, but in all these issues, traffic needs to occur and specific points were accessed. How did Perez Hilton get her pictures so fast? Was his ‘apology’ sincere? Was he used or was he the go between so that the global press knows that they are truly out there and for sale?

I do not have the answers, yet, here we see again a press driven value of insanity and let us be honest, at present there is no end in sight and too many women are currently in the firing line, not a firing line of Misogyny, but one of Inaestimabilis (non-English for worthlessness), which is a much more dangerous notion, because hatred can be fought, yet if a population at large deem a group to be without value, then we as humanity will have truly become a failure.

Should you consider me wrong (which is forever a valid consideration) then answer the following questions for yourself:

In the US the following numbers were published by the Huffington post: “Number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq: 6,614: Number of women, in the same period, killed as the result of domestic violence in the US: 11,766“, now make a 1% list, so make a list naming 66 dead soldiers and naming 117 women killed through domestic violence. How long did it take to make either list?
The following two facts come from Steve Stewart, Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County, Indiana. Namely “Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the United States, more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. (“Violence Against Women, A Majority Staff Report,” Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 102nd Congress, October 1992, p.3.)” and “There are 1,500 shelters for battered women in the United States. There are 3,800 animal shelters. (Schneider, 1990)” Now, these numbers are a little old, but even then a dog was more than twice as likely to receive safety and treatment than an abused woman.

Where to go next? Well, that is as ever a good question and I am honestly not certain. In my view, placing these issues in the light and coverage by all papers it needs to have is an absolute first. I also think that the US Congress needs to think this through to a larger extent, they should consider that as UK and Australian law is a little better in protecting privacy they should consider the consequence of these women, packing up for a large part of the year and move to Sydney Australia (or London). These places have the same exotic shopping places and they are more likely to enjoy privacy away from the US, how would congress react when the Hollywood top feels safer outside the US and ends up spending their millions outside of the US? I wonder if Governor Jerry Brown truly considered the dangers that the lacking and hacking safety of women will bring him (and the state of California).

Pricing a Sony game!

If you followed the changes, then it is clear that the console war is currently getting fought and they are now going for all kinds of niche based solutions to keep a handle on greed (as in, to make it more money in any way they can).

In these hard economic times we are all trying to find a solution to make ends meet. If we focus on the gamers, then we see a group of people that is massively represented by those still being tertiary students and many of them are younger than that. So, this is a group that is not overly wealthy. Even the working population that might be into gaming is trying to make ends meet and they too are not swimming in loads of cash. It was in this environment that places like EB-Games are making decent cash to sell pre-owned games. When you do not have a load of cash, getting a pre-owned game at $15-$50 is a lot more appealing than getting the newly packed unused version at $89-$119.

As per last week that commercial game is changing fast on two fronts. The first one is the TPP (Trans Pacific Pact), if this one gets pushed through (the Australian liberal government was trying to do this in secret, but several sources are now openly aware of it), that pact will be an option for Microsoft AND Sony to make even more money than before (as in charge us more for products, as discussed in my previous blog). So, the fact that we in Australia pay on average 35%-60% more on a game was perhaps not enough margin, which will mean that new games will find even less appeal.

But have no fear, Sony (Microsoft too) already has a solution to stop alternatives. In the updates last week, my PlayStation 3 was shown a new agreement and we either agree with this or we lose the online options, which is disastrous for ALL gamers owning a PlayStation.

In this new agreement it stated:

7. Resale
7.1 You must not resell either Disc-Based or Software downloads, unless expressly authorised by us and, if the publisher is another company, additionally by the publisher.

So, the end of pre-owned games has come. Basically, until they can check and enforce it, we are breaking the law, which might give Sony the option to cancel our PSN account and once they can check whether a game is new or not (perhaps they already can), they will just charge us an additional fee or shut the game(r) down. The agreement has many more needles involving unlocking regions, reverse engineering and so on. There are a few sides to that, but in that regard, personally, I think that any company would want to protect their own product, which is fair enough.

Did anyone realise this? So, not only are they greed driven on selling new games, they are destroying a commercial part that has not ever been illegal. Many expected this, but most did not see this coming from both sides at the same time.

No matter how we go next, whether we go to download games, which means Sony stops paying a lot more corporate tax in Australia (and other nations too), or we end up paying way too much for games. So, nextgen consoles will now start to show that it will cost us (more).

In regards to borrowing, Sony never stopped others borrowing a friend’s game. For Sony it is just good business, however, the console game has changed and will keep on changing a little longer at high cost to many of us. So, it is important to see that they never lied; they just did not mention other changes.

So our world is changing fast and it starts changing faster and more extreme as per the end of this year. It is interesting how America, who claims to have high morals, will sell others down the track to big business for simple greed; this is how I see the TPP.

Consider that this could be the end of gaming as we know it. If you think that this is exaggerated, consider that good games are original games (or come directly from them). EA and UBI-Soft are showing us less and less originality. (An 11th version of a sport game or a 4th sequel to Assassins Creed is not an original). Our hopes were with the Indie developers who come with that golden idea that will invigorate us with the passion of a new gaming era. As the TPP reads (for as far as I read parts of them), the pact is there to push IP powers to the US and its allies (where these big businesses are based). This is not what IP was about, it was always about protecting innovation, not for big business to exploit and to hammer down their interests to their extent.

In gaming, innovation has not come from big business for a long time!

Consider Minecraft and Catherine, some will not call them great games, the first one is massively addictive, both are originals. Even next year’s release of ‘the Evil Within’ which comes from a small player called Tango Gameworks should be seen as an original. Even though many of their staff come from Capcom, this new player has the creative mind that brought us Resident Evil. It is important to protect these small developers, even (or better especially) if they are not from Japan or USA. Forcing them under some IP umbrella designed by the TPP was never the goal (this is how I see this going in the future). When innovation goes, games (or art) will suffer first! That has been proven more than once. So how will you feel about a $500 console when big business decides what makes a good game? Consider that NONE of the big boys (in those days) wanted to publish the game Lemmings. I remember that it only got out because some people at Psygnosis were not too busy. It became one of the most successful games EVER to make it to the home computers and to my knowledge the only game EVER to be released on most 8-bit and 16 bit systems (it was a really addictive game).

If we look at 2013, then in my view, ‘The Last of Us’ (by naughty dog) and ‘Beyond Two Souls’ might be the actual original games of 2013, even though the latter one is based on the Heavy Rain engine, so originality is a little bit of an issue there. If you want to see another example of originality then ‘Dragon Story’ comes to mind. Even though I think that they made several greed driven mistakes via their IOS edition, this game could be on Nintendo, the game that will compete with Pokémon. If they grow the engine beyond what they have now, it could become a mega seller for the younger players on any console if they add more game play to what they have.

Yes, 2013 had great games, but they were all sequels beyond the ones I mentioned (I apologise for any titles I missed), so if we are to grow as gamers, then we need originality! The changes as we see them will drive us all to other systems and perhaps that might become the very expensive lesson that Sony and Microsoft will have to learn the hard way. Consider the option of getting that Google console for $99 and buy (and play) a ‘Minecraft like’ game on that! Over a hundred hours of fun for the price of a single Sony/Microsoft game.

Gamers do not like to get boxed in, both Sony and Microsoft better learn this fast!
If consumers who are into gaming would consider waiting no less than three months before they buy a next Gen console. They might end up getting a much better deal in both the short run and the long run. How much damage are Sony and Microsoft willing to suffer? Holding a 16 billion dollar industry at ransom is currently the only option I can think of, especially as governments (Australia included) are very willing to give the keys (and powers) of Intellectual Property unjustly to big business.

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Politics

Tagged as Capcom, Dragon story, EA, Electronic Arts, Evil within, google, Microsoft, Minecraft, Pokemon, Psygnosis, Sony, Tango gameworks, TPP, Ubi-soft

July 2, 2013 · 15:38

Microsoft Mattrick was not alone

Anyone who has any view on the gaming world, then that person might have heard about the Xbox One and also heard the scary announcements that were made by Don Mattrick. Views that had to be altered only 2 days after the E3, the most important event in the Gaming industry. Do not think it is a small geeky thing. The E3 is massive. The gaming industry has grown in 15 years from ‘sizeable’ into a multi-billion dollar industry, so those who are there are there for plenty of reasons. The E3 is next to Comic-Con seen as the place to be to bump into Hollywood stars. Funny part is that they get to revere the geeky guys who come up with games like Mario, Metal Gear Solid as well as leagues of sport stars when they announce the EA sport line.

In this environment the Xbox One was launched, and the following revolt by gamers all over the planet gave Microsoft the scare of their lives. As a result Microsoft did a 180 degree on their policy, giving their new console the nickname Xbox 180. That was not the end. Even though things are announced to be back to what they were, their market share is not. It is not unlikely that Microsoft is now at risk of losing 30% of their market share and most of that to Sony. That, in a multi-billion dollar industry is a lot, it could be the biggest drop in market share a main player has ever experienced by its own plans.

So the following news I saw today that Don Mattrick is leaving Microsoft for Zynga (the people behind Farmville), as I read it, I saw many messages drop by. Some making fun of Don, some leaving a ‘happy you leaving’ message to Don. Gamers can be so emotional!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/07/01/report-microsofts-don-mattrick-to-leave-microsoft-considering-zynga-role/

The reality is that this is far from over. Do you think that this is over? Do you think one man like Don Mattrick actually sets the trend to a market THIS BIG and you think he is alone? No, he took one for ‘the team’, and it likely comes with one hell of a golden parachute. You see, the picture that seems to be intentionally missed is that data gathering is big business. I am not talking about what the NSA might be doing. This is about market research, customer metrics and product predictions. Gathering certain key factors makes all the difference. That is the multi-billion dollar industry that Gamers are not interested in, but one that Microsoft is adding and as such the Xbox One is not a gaming console, but a Home entertainment system. It will be offering TV, Movies and games. All that info will help them finding the holes in what we desire and cashing in on it. Information that is worth millions! Now this data would be grabbed on a scale of many million consumers and on a global scale. The value that it would represent is beyond what you can imagine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/microsoft-expands-gathering-and-use-of-data-from-web-products.html

So, I was not the first to state it, and I will not be the last. It is important that you realise that these claims do not come from some conspiracy theorist wannabee, but from Journalists working in some of the most renowned newspapers in the world.

So Don ‘you have to go on-line daily’ Mattrick is not alone in this game. To start this all with the Xbox one would have been only the start in achieving gathering on a much larger scale. That is how I see it, and that is also why interactivity with other devices was so important. The more interaction there is, the more complete the picture becomes. Smartglass is only one part of interaction, the fact that they are letting you interact with your home system with iPhone and iPad means that they would be getting even more of your available data.

Do not think I am just making this up. The privacy issues, as reported initially, were reported by IT experts in privacy in Germany and several other nations too, amongst them Peter Schaar who is in charge of Data protection and freedom of information in Germany. In the German magazine ‘der Spiegel’ he mentioned the dangers on privacy that the Xbox One could be. http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/games/ueberwachung-datenschuetzer-peter-schaar-kritisiert-microsofts-xbox-one-a-901893.html

Do not think that you are suddenly getting downloaded. No, that would be illegal! This will be a smooth transition over the next 2-3 years. By interacting you will get many cool little extra’s you normally would never have. Like movies behind the screens on your iPad (as they showed on CNet). Soon it will interact getting your mobile to Skype directly to TV, to switch information through your pictures and events. Before you know it, you will move all data to the cloud for ‘free’ backup services; you will only need to agree with the terms of service. That is when it will happen. A new form of business and it is enterprising on a new level. Where business sits in the centre of the web and we are all like a fly, just going into their web. We do this because of the benefits we are offered, like an exponential multimedia interacting form of Facebook. We by ourselves have no value, but their return comes a million fold as we all accept their terms and conditions as we are offered free extras.

Why is this situation so dangerous?

You see, initially we think that there is no difference, but consider that these numbers are all used to find the points of profit. Where we are subjected to what 98% likes. By that reckoning cult series that grew over time will now get cut suddenly or after a few seasons, as the results are not up to marketing standards. Consider that series like Firefly, Pushing Daisies, Veronica Mars, Jericho, Dollhouse, Heroes. These series got all cancelled on ratings. In the new set-up they could get cancelled in half the time. An interesting part is that the writers of Veronica Mars set up a kick-start event, and the funds for a third season were achieved in 10 hours and will launch early next year. So one in several series gets another shot after the ratings. What series will you lose because 98% prefers sports or Glee? You see artistic creativity is not about numbers. Remember, that because of fans the original Star Trek series got another season, now that series and what came after is now the biggest milk cow in the history of Paramount. There is no way that this could have been predicted.

We will miss out on series after series, limiting views and artistic growth, because it does not confirm to what people expected initially. It is not initially an issue for most, but these events will add up and we diminish ourselves accordingly. It is a danger I do not want to see, because those who will be given the power to decide will always act on greed. We have decades of evidence in that regard.

Government ministers, be warned!

This is a call, not to the gamers, but to the finance and Justice Ministers in those nations. Whatever plans you have to boost your economy/security, as present indicators go, Microsoft and likely Sony too, are uniting to make it a lot harder for you.

They will come with all kind of presentations, half-baked spins and flat out misrepresentation. The goal is for some of the fat-cat executives, who are already on 6 and 7 figure incomes to get more bonuses. Guess what! They will not pay taxations, and your economy will become harder challenge if you do not act NOW!

So, here are the facts.

Currently game shops buy games and resell them. This is called the sale of pre-owned games. There is nothing illegal; the original purchaser is getting rid of his/her game. Often this does not even go for money, but for credit in the same store. This has been going on for at least a decade. With game shops living on the minimal margins as is, this boosts their shop enough for them to get by a little better. If this falls away, these shops will have to let go of more staff members and as such it will hurt the economy. This is what some would call: ‘the margin of the little guy’.

The last one is almost literal. Most kids, and at times also their parents cannot afford to buy new games all the time, many not even some of the time. A new console game is often between AU$80 – AU$139 (or equivalent). So, to be able to buy their kids a pre-owned game is a way to stop piracy. Personally I think it is a good solution.

This has been a thorn in the eye of some game makers as they imagine that their revenues are down because of this re-selling of games. Simply put, they are slightly nuts (yes, they might lose a little revenue, but nowhere as much as they claim). The overwhelming part CANNOT afford the amounts charged for new games. They will often buy 1-3 new games a year, but that is it. So if they want to play a little more they will have to rely on a few pre-owned games. That market is now more under threat. In addition, the solutions that will come into play, is that these people must buy an ADDITIONAL fee to unlock such a game. Interesting enough, that fee part is likely to be nicely arranged through a non-taxation nation, which means YOUR economy will not gain an inch, it will lose a mile.

There are two parts to this issue. 90% is the simple pre-owned game that is played by one person. The other part consists of games like Mass Effect 3, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed and a few others. They have a specific additional option to play online. Now often, these games have a voucher to freely unlock the multi-player part. This is only for the original buyer. Whoever buys a pre-owned game would need to buy such a seasonal pass. I do not object to that part. I think it is fair that these resources (server connections) are intended for the original buyer. This option often also affects the sport games. Information has been spread all over the gaming sites that indicate that Electronic Arts, Microsoft and likely Sony are now price arranging certain affairs to force people to such fees. This is an arrangement that is so unacceptable that Finance ministers need to step in.

Their intervention is required on two fronts!

1. In your own benefit, if these fees are forced, they are to be arranged, not only on a local level, but these fees are to be TAXATED! That means that Microsoft will start paying tax on every unlock they charge, in addition they will have to mandatory report all numbers in this regard. It might make the price of a game unlock a $3-$5 more expensive, but it is the only way to force these numbers out. These three companies are bleeding people dry and no-one is stepping up to the plate to protect them from this entertainment Cartel, because, simply put, that is pretty much what they are now.

1b. for decades the console industry has been numbered away in the margins whilst this is a multi-billion dollar industry (on a global scale). People get taxed, taxed and taxed again, whilst those big companies are taxed less and less, because it is all virtually done somewhere else. It is time that if new Digital legislation is passed in their favour, then it will not be allowed until the rights and duties on the consumers site is agreed upon, including setting the transaction location at the BUYERS location, not at some vague transaction point. Any minister looking at a deficit, well here is a possible option for more taxable revenue.

2. All the indication point to a certainty that these two companies are now expanding into data collecting on a massive scale. Soon, people will have no longer a private identity, but a digital one at the mercy of Microsoft/Sony, to use as they see fit. I think it is now becoming essential to protect your local business environment that also depends on collected data to prevent 2 companies to freely have access to hundreds of millions of records with no accountability to anyone. I feel that it is important that a digital identity must at any given time be free from all identifying marks before it is collected, not when it is cleaned. In 2011 Sony lost millions of account details including credit card details. The moment these events allow massive data files to come into the hands of cyber criminals, we will experience additional dangers to identity theft, large scale fraud and banking hazards. I regard that legislation in these fields are not ready on a global scale. When this happens it would quickly escalate to a point where the banks will no longer be able to take such damaging hits. What happens then? What happens when people lose all their money because their safety is now in the hands of 2 companies whilst the consumer has almost nothing to control in the matter?

Microsoft and Sony are both playing on hypes and marketing to unleash a sincere danger up on the world. Many will trivialise this, but when these consoles start to link to the social media, an abundance of data will be collected, including all kinds of personal details, including banking details. Should you the reader think it is all a joke, then question why Microsoft announced a growth from 15000 servers to over 200000 servers? This is a cost unlike any company has ever seen, and Microsoft does not do things from the goodness of their hearts (Neither does Sony for that matter). Whatever the business purpose it has, we can be certain that several segments of business all over the world will feel that result. It is important that business or not, it is the individual that has the right to switch these intrusions off without that hurting the option of playing a game.

It must be stated clearly that not all is known yet, however as both companies will release these systems on a global scale within 6 months, it is clear that not doing anything now, will mean that these companies will get free reign soon enough. Issues that must be properly investigated and it must be made clear to the consumer what they are in for.

First Source Gamespot (http://au.gamespot.com/news/xbox-one-has-preowned-fee-report-6408671): “Microsoft today confirmed with Wired that all Xbox One game discs must be installed to the HDD to play and that while installs to other hard drives are allowed, users will need to pay an unspecified fee to do so.”

– In this scenario a person cannot give an old game to a family member as a present. This is unacceptable. In the scenario I mention it is clear that only ONE system can access this game (as it should be). Again, I must underline that this is for single player option only. It is fair that the second person has no free access to an online option, options that cost resources and it is not fair to make these providers give away such resources for free.

In addition, as Microsoft calls their system an ‘all in one entertainment system’, whilst only adding a 500Gb drive, with all these installations and downloads, it becomes a debate whether such a system is properly equipped to deal with customer requests without forcing people to download under expensive broadband plans. An issue I raised in a previous blog (Source: https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/05/24/spin-dryers-by-microsoft).

Second Source (source: http://au.gamespot.com/news/german-commission-calls-out-xbox-one-privacy-issues-6408935): “Speaking with news site Spiegel (translated by Games Industry International), Germany’s federal data protection commissioner Peter Schaar likened the next-generation console to a ‘monitoring device.’”

– There are several issues involving the privacy of a person. If this is no longer a gaming console, but an all in one entertainment system, then this system is supposed to go to a much larger audience, and as such, monitoring activities of these advanced nature where all our actions are registered on the cloud (as some vaguely report) should raise a lot more questions then they currently are. In this case it was the German magazine Spiegel that had the inside track, yet it seems that many options to evade privacy remain possible. In another article the following quote was placed “a Microsoft representative said that the machine ‘is not always watching or always listening.’” So who decides this? Many people will not know the intricacies of such settings and as such we can paraphrase Nietzsche by “And the data collectors, they collected on”.

I did mention in the very beginning that Electronic Arts is involved. How so? (Source: http://au.gamespot.com/news/ea-killing-online-passes-for-existing-games-6409065). In this article titled: “EA killing Online Passes for existing games” it was stated that EA was no longer charging for online gaming. I do not see this as an act out of the kindness of their hearts. I read this personally as an act to smooth the way for pre-owned charging. EA needs these two consoles and it is playing nice to smooth the way for certain people to charge in the field discussed earlier. That is my personal vision. The quote read: “We heard the feedback from players and decided to do away with Online Pass altogether.” This sounds great, but those online services cost money. Normally a new game gives access; so again, it seems to me that these passes are all about the pre-owners. This is likely to evade a future discussion of double dipping the credit card of this consumer group.

The question remains, what exactly will Sony do? Until the biggest console point in the year (the E3 in America) happens, we will likely stay in the dark. It is however likely that Sony and Microsoft have completed deals; as such an advantage would not be given to any competitor to avoid a massive global shift of the console market. Such an agreement could be seen as evidence to price fixing and a Cartel approach to a consumer market. Since when has that EVER been an acceptable step?

So, now it is time to get personal in this blog.

Australia
To Mr Wayne Swan, our current treasurer and Mr Joe Hockey, our current shadow Treasurer. Australia has a deficit and we are always looking at a solution that allows for the growth of our nation. Should these issues be allowed as they are? We all pay taxation, and as such it is in all our interests that if businesses get hurt in the way they are by charging for pre-owned gaming. No matter what solution Microsoft comes up with in regards to these charges, it is revenue, and as such it should be taxed in Australia. To Mr Prof John McMillan, Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), how protected are we from this level of data collecting? I would like to raise the case R and Credit Reporting Agency [2011] AICmrCN 12. Specifically Section 18G(a) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Even though this is not just about credit information. These consoles will hold all kinds of information as well as in many cases Credit Card details. Specifically “(b) ensure that the file or report is protected, by such security safeguards as are reasonable in the circumstances, against loss, against unauthorised access, use, modification or disclosure”. There is no way that this can there is any reasonable case of security and as such a case could be made that many levels of data collection should be controlled. I would like to add that this goes beyond normal safeguards to allow the case where an option of “Feely handed over details” is to be allowed as a defence by the collecting companies. If we consider that I showed from past events that these details can be obtained, then a clear option to block access to all these data segments should be clearly documented and should initially be switched off on all levels, so that access must be specifically allowed. However, apart from the normal credit card option, these systems should allow for alternative forms of payment (like the prepaid credit vouchers as they are currently sold by Microsoft and Sony).

United Kingdom
As our good old Australian point of historical origin, the UK also embraces the Common Law, and as such the financial parts would fall into the laps of The Rt Hon George Osborne MP and The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP. I reckon with well over a trillion pounds in debt and the additional issues they had with Google and Amazon they might be interested in a group that would not be able to get away with this. Consider that the UK has 400% more people living on an island decently smaller then Australia, the amount of revenue that this affects would be interestingly more than the numbers Australia has to deal with.

In the UK, data privacy falls in the lap of Christopher Graham who is the Information Commissioner. His office keeps eye on many issues, including Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. Both might have issues with these new next gen consoles and the information they could be gathering. How complete has these checks been in regards to the privacy of UK citizens?

Netherlands
Even though the Netherlands is based on Civil law (not common Law), they have their own issues with deficits. In addition, a massive source of revenue in the past from a national icon called the Free Record Shop (which is now bankrupt and also sold games) is no more, so it is even more pressing to keep a balance of affairs as they lost to all kind of on-line traders, many not operating within the Netherlands. Even at only 0.5% the size of Australia, it has the same size of population and many of those play games. They too deal with deficits and several issues where people are just too intensely taxed, whilst loads of online revenue gets away from them. In this case it involves funds that Jeroen Dijsselbloem loses as Finance minister. A man who likes the Dutch treasury coffers to be filled a lot more then they currently are. This is the man we all know as the Chairmen of the Euro group. As such he could even make a case that this is an issue that floats far beyond the Dutch borders.

The issues involving their privacy is set in “Wet bescherming persoons gegevens” (translation: “Law to protect personal details”). The law came in effect on September 1^st 2001. Their Article 76 comes close to what we have in our privacy act as states in Section 18G (a). The question that rises again is on protection and security of these facts. We have learned in more than one occasion that the required level of security falls in the range of illusionary, hence again the question becomes, why allow it in the first place. (Did I oversimplify the issue here?)

In the Netherlands these issues seem to fall with the Justice department and as such it falls on the plate of Minister of Security and Justice Ivo Willem Opstelten. Another interesting fact is that his wife is Judge Mariette Opstelten-Dutilh. So these issues might make for an interesting conversation on more than one level. The second reason for adding the Netherlands in this regard is that their minister of Justice is also responsible for the coordination of counter-terrorism policy, which again gives thought to these data collection issues on another dimension. If these levels of collection enable an easier access to identity theft, then each of these members would need to take a stronger look at a danger they are trying to prevent on one side, and ignore them almost completely on the other side.

As mentioned earlier in this article. What Microsoft claims on their stated security measures comes from their ‘marketing and sales’ divisions. Their stated interest is never what we need it to be, do these politicians realise that?

Sweden
Sweden is one of the most liberal nations in the world, with a quality of life that is second to none. Civil law gets a new level of comprehension as you experience the politeness of the Swedish police officer (beyond the mass riot times we saw recently). What is interesting there is that it is regarded as one of the Nanny states (US expression), yet when we consider the Swedish Minister of Finance, Mr Anders Borg, we see a slightly different view. He is seen as the man who has been slowly dismantling the social democratic welfare state, giving it a more business like character. I think it is fair that he takes a look at this as well. Like the other nations, Sweden is dealing with unemployment rates. If we see business going the way it is on-line, whatever they have must be protected. In addition, Sweden like the UK has a sizeable segment on video games. Sweden has produced its share of games and is after the UK one of the larger producers in Europe. They have over 2 dozen developers, in a nation with a population less than half of either the Netherlands or Australia. So keeping that industry safe is in their interest, and personally, with the unacceptable steps currently under review, that industry could feel pressure.

When it comes to data matters you can see why I mentioned that if we take the previous mentioned issues. For Sweden there is the following statement in regards to data matters “Generally, it is prohibited to transfer personal data that are being processed to a country outside the EU/EEA that does not have an adequate level of protection for personal data, unless the data subject has explicitly consented to the transfer.” It is the ‘unless’ part that becomes interesting. So in these nations we have seen broadly similar, yet specifically different issues that are affected with personal data.

The Swedish data inspection board is run by Mr Hans-Olof Lindblom, Director General. Their public office takes into account the Personal Data Act (1998), the Data Act (1973) and the Credit Information Act (1973). It is important to note that these acts are at least 15 years old. There is decent question rising on technological issues that were not even an option until 5 years ago. So it stands to reason that there are concerns on issues when it involves security and cloud. Some parties have stated long before these consoles became an issue that the expressions ‘data cloud’ and ‘firm data security’ should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

In the end, this is not about just a pre-owned game. We seem to be embracing new hypes and new technologies without thinking through the danger we burden ourselves with. These new systems are about to set new levels of digital rights and new forms of data collection, where we become the marketing product on several levels. In addition, there is more and more moving towards some cloud we know not of how secure. In an age where identity theft can have a debilitating factor on us for a long time, serious questions must be asked to several companies and a non-marketing answer must be coming our way publicly, long in advance of any official hardware release. With their release dates now less than 26 weeks away, several parties on levels of government, commerce and Justice should be asking questions.

Perhaps they are, but apart from Microsoft Marketing we hear much spin and decidedly little final details. And what will Sony do?