Archive

Castle Co-Op

‘Any Questions For Ben?’ – The Red Carpet Première, Melbourne

February 13, 2012
Castle Co-Op, Event, Film, Interview
Leave a Comment

This was the Red Carpet Coverage/Interview of the Melbourne Première of ‘Any Questions for Ben?’ for Castle Co-Op - a website dedicated to Film, TV, Music and Culture – Published 06-02-2012

Co-Written and Directed by: Rob Sitch
Co-Written by: Tom Gleisner, Santo Cilauro
Starring: Josh Lawson, Rachael Taylor, Daniel Henshall, Felicity Ward, Lachy Hulme, Rob Carlton, Ed Kavalee, Jodie Gordon, Christian Clarke

‘Any Questions for Ben?’ is the latest Australian Film from Working Dog productions (The Castle, The Dish) brings an all-star Australian ensemble cast revolving around our protagonist, the carefree and cocksure Ben (Josh Lawson) and our leading lady Alex (Rachael Taylor) the accomplished U.N ambassador cast as the unwitting catalyst leading audiences through the social phenomenon of the quarter-life crisis. Melbourne City is portrayed as a playground for the affluent and privileged that makes me think ‘damn, where in Melbourne is that?’

Below is an abstract summation of the Red Carpet event as well as the Image Gallery coverage of the event:

__

“Arriving an hour late, we were underdressed and unprepared for the glamour of the evening to come. With colleague in tow we adorned our personalised media passes; the shiny laminated tag granted access to the trail paved in luxurious crimson.

Entering the bull-pen, a quartered-off square encased the media-elite, reserved for only those with legitimate accreditation in the Australian media-circles. Why were we here? The media personalities performed convincingly for the cameras, the collective experience simply oozed from the reporters sent out to cover the event. 

The bright flooding lights strobe as familiar faces quietly sneak through the scramble of iPhone’s outstretched, hoping to record any marketable sound-byte; deviously listening to every step, every word, and every breath.

The Red Carpet quickly filled with the icons of Australian Film, Television and Sport; while I stood slightly dumbfounded trying to decipher the name behind the familiar face. Flashes from imposing DSLR cameras were flaring all around as my only conscious concern was to somehow conceal our woefully archaic point-and-shoot camera in fear of humiliation and ridicule from the others.  

Here I stand, at the very heart of the publicity, ignoring the ubiquitous stares of the on-looking crowd and feeling comfortably out of my depth.

Armed with BlackBerry and a unassured self-awareness our designated targets approach – the films Co-Writer Tom Gleisner and Co-Writer/director Rob Sitch approach, followed closely by the stars Felicity Ward, Josh Lawson and Rachael Taylor”

__

See Gallery for Full Coverage (photographs by Nathan Lai)

For the full interview see Castle Co-Op – conducted by travel blogger Brendan Wan (audio transcribed by Nathan Lai)


The Online Pass Debate – Consumers Vs. Publishers

February 12, 2012
Castle Co-Op, Feature, Versus
Leave a Comment

Another article written for Castle Co-Op, a website dedicated to Film, TV, Music and Culture – Published 12-02-2012

Cracking open my brand-new copy of Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, a startling discovery makes itself present; a seemingly innocent insert containing a PSN code to access the ‘House of Valor’ DLC Pack featuring seven additional Single Player quests. This thinly veiled attempt to rebrand the Online Pass as day one DLC has ignited my otherwise placid view on the debate surrounding the pre-owned Video Games market. This aggravated response isn’t necessarily targeting the existence of the Online Pass, but its necessity for offline Single Player content – it just stinks of corporate greed.

The Online Pass is a system that enables publishers to restrict the online content or online multiplayer components of a game. This is basically a non-issue for those who purchase the game new from retail establishments (an online pass is provided for free); however this requires players with pre-owned or second-hand copies to purchase a new code in order to access this material.

The reasoning behind this initiative is justified as publishers and distributors – not the creators or developers – claim its primary purpose is to make back the money supposedly lost to piracy and the second-hand games market. The additional revenue is also used to keep the servers maintained and operational. Any player purchasing a pre-owned game hasn’t attributed any revenue toward the publisher and is therefore using their service for free. This is how publishers claim the used-games market is ‘robbing them blind.’ Therefore an Online Pass is used as a detrimental disincentive to the used-game market especially with a popular game like Battlefield 3, a largely online experience.

The Online Pass isn’t a new phenomenon as it was used with the PlayStation 3 release of Mass Effect 2. It was widely advertised as the ‘Complete Edition’ of Mass Effect 2, however this is only achieved through downloading additional content using the Cerberus Network, an Online Pass only available with an activation code for the PlayStation Network (again, available free with new purchase). Hence the product is not as advertised with the ‘complete’ experience closed off for some players without PSN access.

This issue was also sparked late last year with Batman: Arkam City’s necessity of an Online Pass to access some of the Catwoman DLC. The outrage was aimed toward its necessity due to the original nature of an Online Pass; to access online content and multiplayer functions. However Arkham City is an offline Single Player Game.

You can be in two camps about this current issue; satisfied that the justification of purchasing the product new grants you additional content for free because the developers deserve the money, or that you are sick and tired of paying for content that should be available on the disc upon release as advertised.

It’s a mystery seeing publishers creating ill-will and unneeded animosity towards their supposed target demographic. Instead of blaming a service like GameStop (Electronic Beautique/EB Games in Australia) why not compete with them by providing a superior means of service, i.e. offering consumers with a trade-in or buy-back system toward ensuring future patronage from consumers. Better yet, with the vast library of used-games collected vis-à-vis this service, you can sell them back to the public with an advantage no other service can provide; packaged DLC content with used-games. Odds are consumers are more likely to purchase from the certified publisher considering the value is reasonably competitive.

Publishers curse the used market because they don’t see profit in the resale of their product. The aforementioned scenarios seem a more advantageous way to profit from the used-games market; a more elegant solution than an Online Pass.

The validation of the Online Pass is somehow unfairly attributed to piracy. By definition, piracy takes a single ‘game’ either leaked or purchased illegally and replicates it multiple times. However every used game sitting on a shelf at your local retailer represents a sale each. Despite other allegations, the used-game market exists legally within the same capitalist regime in which their original publishers operate and continue to profit to the tune of millions per year.

To be blunt, I actually am impressed with some developers who charge for DLC available the same day as the games release; they truly have steely nerve to put a price-tag on what I see as cut content from the retail release. I mean they are already collecting revenue from the sale, coupled with fans buying the ‘additional’ content as DLC from the online store. Then we see publishers make a complete 180 and demand to take a $10 cut from a used-game sale in order to keep the game or servers running; fundamentally telling the world “we still need more money.”

Impressive. Yes. It is also by and far the most grotesquely greedy exploit publishers have to close off the single avenue and advantage we can get as customers (reselling an undesired game) because that’s the one aspect of the sale they cannot profit from.

On the opposite end of the spectrum other will argue the used-game market is damaging to the industry as a whole and a result of the retail sector trying to combat the growth (and inevitable domination) of digital distribution.

The reason digital downloads has not fully encapsulated the market is that ownership of the physical media is vastly superior for a number of reasons. Not only is there a slight romanticism about owning a physical object, but you can then sell the item and use the revenue to fund your next purchase.

The majority of profits generated from the sale of ‘new products’ go to the publisher and developers to contribute to a continuing improved service. Opposed to 100% of the sales generated from a used game going to the seller, a party that has no influence on the product at all.

With all said and done – here comes the hypothetical. What if you purchased a game brand new at retail and hated it. What else could you do with it? Could you return it to the store? Perhaps. Would you throw it away along with your $60 ($100 in Australia) investment plus tax? Absolutely Not. Give it back to the publisher? If only. It’s not like you can return the product direct to the publishers if you’re not satisfied but in their minds, if you’re not purchasing games new at full price, you are a thief.

Often I cannot personally justify buying full price retail (especially in Australia) for a game when I know my obscure value to enjoyment ratio wouldn’t be satisfied. However I generally import games brand new anyway, so this debate really doesn’t revolve around me – and to be frank, as long as developers are worthy of my hard earned cash, I’m happy to pay for the continual service and promise of future releases.

In its current state, I see the both the value and corrosive nature of the used-game market that’s focused on maximising their own profits. To me, I fall under the category where the whole Online Pass debacle is a non-issue. The only exception would be back catalogue games, but to date, no title so far is yet to hold any Online Pass. To top it off, the rise of digital distribution will render this controversial topic moot.

The only reason I would sway my vote against the use of Online Passes in favour of a free used-game market is because used-games is the only functioning avenue that supports our rights as gamers. The capitalists are merely looking to extend their revenue beyond their legal right; seeing as how each individual product sold is now under the ownership of the consumer (disregarding warranty policies), and s/he is welcome to do whatever they like with their property.

The facts are used-games still have value despite the absence of publisher approval. The inclusion of an Online Pass devalues the product as soon as it’s paid and played – especially for a Single Player Experience like Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning with day one DLC content; purposefully cut content. Publishers need to resolve the dichotomy between themselves and their consumers. Stop screwing around with your customers, compete and grow within the gaming-industry instead of whining about it, and try to create a win-win situation for all parties.

The Internet Wins – SOPA and PIPA Postponed Indefinitely

January 25, 2012
Castle Co-Op, Internet, News
Leave a Comment

The first article of 2012 for Castle Co-Op, a website dedicated to Film, TV, Music and Culture – Published 24-01-2012

With the current state of SOPA and PIPA all but dead – or postponed indefinitely – this is a good chance to close out this controversial topic ignited by the internet illiterate and the technologically challenged members of the current U.S Congress. By no means do I take authoritative license to detail the very long and poorly drafted proposed legislation – but as with everybody who writes for a blog or website, I feel emphatically obligated to inflict my opinion on the web as a concerned citizen who doesn’t want Americans fucking around with the internet.

 “To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S property, and for other purposes”- Bullshit!

SOPA and its lesser form PIPA was the cancerous vein poised to disperse a malodorous miasma under a guise that protects the copyrights of American corporations. The ambiguous definition of rouge and foreign sites, the lack of any due process and the terrifying DNS blacklisting was the detrimental issues to freedom of speech and undermines online innovation. This bill isn’t a surgical procedure to eliminate the pirated content but a blatant nuclear strike on the very foundations of the internet.

Thanks to the support of numerous websites and individuals signing online petitions, calling their local congressman and generally raising awareness of this heinous act, the bill (that was to be voted today 24/01/2012) has been postponed indefinitely. The real decisive blow was the January 18th blackout to imitate the DNS blocking provisions of SOPA. The blackout of Reddit, Wikipedia and an additional 7000+ websites resulted in many former supporters in Congress now opposing the legislation. This tracking image says it all.

Inundated with other priority topics concerning budgetary quandary, high unemployment, questionable health care, unease in the Middle East and the ubiquitous environmental issues to address, why is the U.S Congress concerning themselves with a slew of 14 year old girls posting copyrighted music videos of Justin Beiber on YouTube?

What amazes me is the hypocrisy and sheer deluded sense of grandeur the U.S lobbyists have to claim rightful jurisdiction over the internet despite violating the cornerstone of the American Constitution; the First Amendment’s right to Freedom of Speech.

The only ones unaware of SOPA are the ones unaffected by it, however the overreaching nature of this legislation potentially kills off any future innovations of the next technological marvel; an enigma fostering in the minds of the next generation.

In truth online piracy is not the biggest threat to American corporations and their copyrighted intellectual properties. Even so, it is proven that censorship similar to the Great Firewall of China is not the solution. By providing consumers with a superior method of obtaining products through searching, downloading and streaming services is a far better alternative to combat online piracy – it’s the reason iTunes, Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Instant Stream aren’t huge American failures.

SOPA and or PIPA is not the current iteration of this idea to censor copyrighted material, nor will it be the last as RIAA, MPAA, ESA and the fossils in Congress (with the average age of members encroaching 70 years of age) prepare another stupid acronym that will threaten a free and open internet. With the battle over and the war continuing, it’s a pleasure to congratulate everyone who raised awareness and protested en mass as SOPA and PIPA take a decisive arrow to the knee.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.