Free2Play is evil

Mobile phone tariffs and contracts are notoriously complicated and opaque. Choosing the right one for your needs is difficult: Should you take a flat fee subscription plan or some pay-by-minute version? But most people realize that this question can't be universally answered. Some offers are good for some people, but not for others. If you have a mobile phone mainly for emergencies and being reachable, but don't phone much yourself, you'll need a different plan than somebody who is talking all hours. The exact same thing is true for business models of online games: Some plans are good for a specific group of people, but not for others. Flat condemnations of the Free2Play model usually come from those who benefited a lot from the injustices of the subscription model, which is the cheapest option if you play a lot, but makes you overpay if you play little.

I have seen many Free2Play games in which the specifics were very much to my liking, for example I always found the payment plan of World of Tanks very fair, especially since they changed the "gold ammo" to be available through playing. Other people repeatedly pointed out League of Legends as having a good Free2Play model. On the other hand I have played some games in which the monetization strategy was so repellent that I stopped playing quickly, or at least refused to pay. There has been some discussion on the gambling aspect of selling "lockboxes" or the keys for them, which are a part of many games, and I'm not a fan of those either.

So I think that the stupid "all Free2Play is evil" ranting is not constructive. It would be far better to discuss specifics, like what shop items in what specific game are fair or unbalanced or overpriced. Which games are discreet about the payment options, in which games do you hit a pay wall, and which games shove "you should spend money" advertising down your throat every minute? I do think such discussions can accelerate the spread of best practices in Free2Play business models. Rejecting all Free2Play downright is just Luddite, and will never succeed in putting that particular genie back into its bottle.

The Snowdon affair

The facts so far:

Edward Snowden is a 29 year old whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations.

He is currently in a transit location at Moscow airport, why? because America has rescinded his passport.

So why hasn't President Putin handed him over, especially as last week at the G8 he was all buddies with the west.

Well, it might be to do with the fact that Putin is essentially still the street tough he was when he was raised in the poor section of St. Petersburg. From the time he was known as the no-nonsense deputy mayor of that city, his worldview has been mostly shaped by that upbringing and his career in the KGB, when his job was to find ways to oppose U.S. power and influence.

Let's be frank, Vladimir Putin is loving the position he is in at present and is not going to make any instant decisions...

Where are we now?

Behind the government's rhetoric, things aren't getting better for working people. They’re getting much, much worse.

Let’s take welfare reform. The challenge for welfare reformers is not whether you can dream a dream. It’s whether you can deliver. For all their tough talk about "welfare reform", the reality is that the benefits bill is rising by £20bn more than planned because David Cameron is doing nothing to address the long-term drivers of social security spending. And right now the welfare revolution we were promised is simply falling apart.

Last year, Norman Tebbit attacked the government’s "abiding sin" of simply seeming "unable to manage its affairs competently". A year on, things are not getting better for working people. They’re getting much, much worse.

Labour is proposing a radical alternative. A 'triple lock' on welfare spending with an overall cap on the budget, a household benefit cap and a limit of two years to the time you can spend on the dole. But we’ll back this with a jobs guarantee that will channel investment into support for private sector jobs for young people and the long-term unemployed. Labour councils all over Britain are trialling the idea and it is proving an incredible success. And we’ll move to put the something for something back into social security with extra help to find work for those who have cared for others or paid in for a lifetime.

But would they carry on in the same direction if they were the government?

The deal is done

We find out this week which departments will be hit by austerity cuts.

I don’t suppose  'George' Osborne much enjoyed being called “Jeffrey” by the most powerful man in the world at last week’s G8 summit. But to an extent that is hard to communicate in his current job, he is amused by the ironies, fiascos and satire of politics, even when he is their victim. He understands that the political universe is governed by the laws of entropy, and the trick is to hold things together for as long as you can. Yet it is in the nature of a capricious universe to deliver unexpected moments of good fortune, too.

We are going to go through another round of giving & taking between government departments in the hope of having something left over for 'large scale' infrastructure projects. However, according to the criteria he himself set in 2010, Osborne’s spending review this week, demanding 6.6 per cent additional cuts in 2015-16 from departments whose budgets are not ring-fenced, ought to be a moment of ignominy. But it will be no such thing, for reasons that are instructive about the Coalition as a whole.

So on day one George Osborne [conservative] will detail who is losing what and on day two Danny Alexander [Liberal Democrat] will list all the wonderful projects that can now be brought forward...

Politicians to account

Andrew Lansley threatened Kay Sheldon with the sack when she blew the whistle on the corrupt CQC leadership.

He should now apologise to her publicly...

Now this is a surprise

Of all the banking institutions in the world, I would have said that Barclays & Nationwide were possibly two of the strongest. Not so according to the PRA [Bank of England's Prudential Regulation Authority].

In the past week, it has told the big banks that it wants them to have equity equivalent to 3% of their gross loans and investments on a so-called stressed basis, or taking account of potential future losses. The introduction of this tough new leverage ratio, may sound boringly technical but it matters, because it means that two big institutions, Nationwide and Barclays have to raise quite a lot more capital than they thought.

There will now be a negotiation on how and when they will raise the necessary equity - but it will be easier for Barclays, with its stock market listing, than for Nationwide as a mutual building society. All they can hope for is that more people put money in, and during this time of austerity, there is not a very high expectation of that in the near future.

Care Quality Commission

Name those responsible that took part in the cover up of Furness Hospital.

Period.