#they both act in accordance to game code but Sans can control parts of it (can see the timeline) while Benrey is much more subject to it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

foxjevilwild · 3 years

Text

Thought on the game some more and I'm building a bit of a theory:

-Kris, when they rip their SOUL out, is not being controlled by anyone else. That's Kris, the actual character, taking those actions and creating the DARK fountains.

-They're trying to find a way to remove the SOUL, and free themself from our control.

-They freak out when Spamton[Neo] dies on Pacifist, because they realize that beings in this world die when their STRINGS are cut and they're trying to do the same to the SOUL that's controlling them. Kris wants to be free of it, but if they completely untether - they'll end up a dead husk like Spamton. (this is one of the few times their emotion is expressed and we get no choice over their reaction, this is real Kris screaming out)

-This world has crashed and looped multiple times because of what is interfering in it so Kris is unafraid of the Roaring, and prepared for the SOUL (the cage is already there in chapter 1)

-The same being responsible for the DARK is responsible for implanting the Player SOUL in Kris, and has turned Kris's world into a sort of beacon to draw in SOULs (This is probably Gaster)

-I think everything in the game is some form of acronym - DARK is probably something like "Data-Array Restructuring Kernel" and SOUL is something like "System Operator Unicode Language"

I think the world of Deltarune (and Undertale, really) is a world that knows it is a Game, that it exists as Code in some form, and that it is a constructed reality. I think Gaster (and their followers) are able to see behind the curtain and make this realization, and Gaster has dedicated his existence into first escaping his own STRINGS or script, hiding in the unused files, and then in recoding the world into the image he wants.

I think when Players arrive and start making choices in the original program, it disrupts the process he is using, and so he has created the world of Deltarune by rearranging Undertale and creating a sort of 'trap' for us, the Player, by rigging the SOUL's intended vessel.

I think the Vessel we created in Survey_Program was the original game's 'main character' for the player to control, and Gaster hijacked the process to force the SOUL into Kris.

I think it's called Survey_Program because Gaster was surveying for a suitable Player again, someone to enter their world of code and power the engine he's building there. If the player is too aware, the program crashes - because they are unsuitable for the purpose. If we're able to look too deep into the code, or know who Gaster is - it's dangerous for him and his continued existence. He doesn't care if you name it after Sans or another character (it's amusing to him) - but if you name it after him...he panics and aborts.

Basically I think Real Kris is *also* throwing a wrench in the plans of the unseen villain - they're trying to break free of this forced control and go back to a normal life. To some extent Gaster has anticipated this (he picked Kris for a reason, shaped them in the bunker) - but I think depending on the Player it can go one of a few ways:

1) Our choices align with the best interests of Real Kris, and there is formed a bond between the SOUL and Kris that allows the world to resolve in a healing way, possibly even letting go of our control over them (Similar to the True Pacifist Ending in UT)

2) The neutral ending - where we stop the Roaring but Real Kris steps in to make it happen by ripping their own SOUL out and cutting the strings ( They choose Death or Reset instead of slavery), because we are still controlling them (the neutral ending)

3) The Proceeding, where we force Kris over and over to do what we want them to do. Where we use our knowledge of the game, of the code, to break them and everyone around them to have our fun. Where our voice as the 'Player' gets to take dominance over what the game is supposed to be. (This will be like the Genocide Run)

Toby is making a commentary with each of these choices - mainly about what we expect of a sequel, how we as a fandom can both adore and reinterpret characters, and about the limitations of a sequel as opposed to an original work.

The world is a meta-text on Storytelling *and* Game Creation - it is a story told through a Game because it can only be told through a game - or it wouldn't have any of the thematic punch that it does.

The Dark is reinterpretation, rearrangement - pieces taken from their original setting and reshaped or re-contextualized into something new - still recognizable, but new. This is how a sequel is created, but it's also how we as Players interacted with the original creation. (How many Undertale AU's are there again? Hundreds?)

Anagrams are a major theme - everything in this world is a mish-mash of constituent parts. Two things combined into a new thing. Everything is repurposed and reshaped from an Original. Gaster can manipulate the code, but he can't actually write an original world...not yet. He has to work with the parts that exist. -- The same is true when creating a sequel, or continuing a story. This is both textual, and meta-textual on Toby's part. The literal act of creating a sequel to Undertale, and the game's metaphorical 'Undertale 2' rearrangement, are this amazing little interplay going on between the Audience and Author and Creation.

Our SOUL or our control over the world is how we interact with that creation - there is a sort of undercurrent of power-struggle. The artist wants to tell a story, the characters want to be true to themselves and who they are, the world wants to resolve in a natural way - but in order for us to have choices, the world has to adapt to us, change according to our whims as players of the game.

Sometimes what we want aligns with what the characters want - sometimes what we want is better for them than what they'd choose for themselves - but ultimately we are tyrannical. These little monsters are trapped in a looping prison, chained to our whims by lines of Code they can't see - living in loops bound to our Determination and our absolute mastery over them.

We get to play the game when we want, we get to choose what they do, who they love --- we get to choose how they die. We get to choose if they kill... and we get to do it again and again, changing the outcomes as we please. For Fun.

This process has been hijacked, and our usual choices that would have been coded in are ineffectual. Our 'choices' don't matter, but we still force them on the game. Some characters can ignore us, others don't or can't - sometimes we choose what the character was going to do anyway. Someone cut the string, and we have no control here...

But there are other ways...other routes...to bring our voice back into power over the game. Ways we can break the script, the same as the one who rearranged it.

I think the narrative within Deltarune is that someone is fighting back against us, against that Player and against that control. That someone is Real Kris.

Gaster created the engine beneath the world, the DARK that allows it to rearrange - and the world has been looping through, the Door-Portals into the DARK created and recreated and Player after Player has passed through with Roaring after Roaring fueling the engine he's buried somewhere beneath, hidden in the code.

Most of the denizens aware of this truth go mad, or Gaster uses them and they go mad, or they follow him in a cult like state. Gaster is the only hope for their freedom - the only one able to manipulate the CODE besides the player. Gaster is ultimately selfish, trying to break himself free of the Code - but to these beings he is the only chance at any sort of self-Determination.

Kris is intended to be a puppet, just like Spamton, just like Jevil was going to be (and failed, quarantined). Kris is the end result of Gaster's research - a false vessel for the SOUL that can be scripted along the world's pathing, a character with a pre-existing story to keep the SOUL trapped within a specified loop.

Gaster wants the Roaring, wants the world to loop. Wants us to play the game he's re-scripted for us to power whatever he's using to break things and escape his 'prison of universes' within the Games' code.

We'll have our fun, find our ending - and maybe even get the happy one. Ultimately though, we're not the only ones playing this game...we're not the only Player. Someone will come along again, or we'll reopen the save...and we feed into the engine beneath. The heart of Darkness...

Will it be enough to give them a happy save file? Or are we going to have to force the program into a total crash, expose the being manipulating the strings... will we have to create terrible circumstances for these creatures in order to free them of Gaster? Are we any better, stepping in and shaping their lives? Are they truly free to Hope...to Dream?

Kris is trying to be free of both of us. Kris is trying to save their mom and their friends. I think Kris is the true hero.

We, the player, are just another antagonist.

#long post #deltarune #deltarune spoilers #theory crafting #i'm on my bullshit again

19 notes · View notes

residentgoodgirl · 6 years

Link

It would be easy to imagine that after participating on a reality show, one either returns to television via all-star spin-offs like the Challenge or simply resumes their “normal” life. A recent article in the New York Times about Real World: New Orleans alum Preston Roberson-Charles, however, highlights the difficulties cast members can face after filming. After some of his particularly unflattering behavior made air, he received a lot of negative feedback — but more importantly, his mistakes were now searchable online. The digital footprint of his time on the show made it almost impossible for him to find a job, leaving him homeless for two years. While an extreme example, his story did not surprise me; as a former cast member on the MTV reality show circuit, I have seen dozens of participants experience similar consequences after their time in the spotlight.

At 18 years old, I was cast on The Real World’s sister show, Road Rules, and ultimately participated in seven seasons of MTV reality programs. For me, a white, perky blonde, the show provided an income, adventure, and (mostly) positive attention. Most of my seasons were filmed before the rise of social media, and I largely avoided being GIFed and memed. Participants who are portrayed as aggressive, promiscuous, or villainous, however, can struggle upon returning to their life, leaving them caught in the strange state of being semi-famous, yet alone. And people who lack financial resources or misbehave on the show (at the not-so-subtle behest of producers) are often forced to choose between entering the cycle of reality appearances or risk financial devastation. We don’t hear the stories of reality TV trauma, though, unless they end up in a “Where Are They Now?” listicle or their mugshot or death announcement makes it onto TMZ.

Some cast members experience financial woes, health issues, professional frustrations, and substance abuse relating to their appearance on television, and are left with few resources to handle the challenges (no pun intended). This is particularly true for people of color, LGBT folks, and women on the shows who are often portrayed as accessories to the main event, while the white, straight, cis men are heralded as the shows’ unofficial heroes and mascots.

—

The mythology of reality tv begins with Mary-Ellis Bunim, the executive producer of soap operas like As the World Turns, teaming up with news producer Jon Murray who pitched a documentary-style program by promising, “[Producers] were not going to step in. We will chronicle what happens to [the cast].” The mix of soap opera drama with documentary voyeurism was a hit.

The Real World made a name for itself as a groundbreaking documentary series, both in its inclusion of people from underrepresented groups and its unflinching portrayal of controversial subjects including abortion, gay rights, and racism. The early seasons included the show’s signature drama, but seemed to have a higher cultural purpose. The creation of its competition spinoff coupled with the mainstream success of Survivor and other series changed the tone and direction of the franchise. Producers felt the pressure, and cast members paid the price.

Producers control every aspect of the filming environment, and when they perceive a lull in the action, they accuse us of being boring and “not making the most of the experience” — which is code for: “Do something interesting.” These implicit directives lead to fights, hookups, and bullying among the cast.

When placed in an environment where bad behavior is incentivized, cast members often exhibit unsavory behavior, and the magic of editing exaggerates the high-intensity personalities. If the behavior is scandalous enough there can be consequences in terms of professional viability and personal relationships in real life, but those concerns seem insignificant from inside the bubble. Additionally, cast members receive mixed signals regarding their behavior. Contracts include punishments for violence, yet the physical and verbal fights that arise are used to promote the show. Furthermore, violent cast members are often invited to return for subsequent seasons. What is punished in the moment is often rewarded in the long run.

Much of the drama, violence, and sexual activity on The Real World and The Challenge results from heavy on-set alcohol consumption. Producers forbid the use of recreational items like books, phones, computers, playing cards, and crossword puzzles, but they provide virtually unlimited amounts of alcohol, which creates a frat-house atmosphere that naturally acts as a lubricant for hookups and other shocking antics. This party lifestyle isn’t restricted to the house, however, as high-profile cast members are sometimes paid thousands of dollars to do “bar and club appearances” after their show airs.

Nate Blackburn, who appeared on The Real World: Seattle, claims his wild on-camera persona as the life-of-the party bled into his real life. He felt pressure from fans to be an exaggerated version of himself off the air, which led him into years of drug addiction and alcoholism. “Drinking and being funny and just being wild was my identity from of the show, and people knew that,” Blackburn says. He also describes a deep insecurity that he would hide with drugs and alcohol. “I felt like if people really knew who I was, they wouldn’t like me…so I had to put on that mask.” Blackburn eventually got clean, and now works full-time helping other people get sober.

Not all cast members are as lucky as Blackburn, however, as the deaths of Joey Kovar (The Real World: Hollywood) and Ryan Knight (The Real World: New Orleans) demonstrate. Kovar told the Chicago Tribune that part of the reason he was cast on the show was because of his “honesty about using drugs and partying,” which raises questions about the ethics of such a casting decision. Knight also struggled with addiction, and ultimately died of an accidental overdose after filming Season 26 of the Challenge. According to a source quoted in the Boston Herald, ‘“He felt stuck, like he was just waiting for the next Challenge.”’

The system of recycling the cast members like Knight who provide the best (and most scandalous) storylines encourages the individuals with the fewest resources in real life to misbehave as a means of job security. The “all-star” re-casting process occurs on numerous competitive reality shows like Survivor, The Bachelor, Top Chef, and RuPaul’s Drag Race, and if participants see reality television as their only potential income, they are more likely to behave in a way that will ensure future invitations. That behavior is also what makes it more difficult for them to thrive in the (real) real world, creating a vicious cycle.

The producers of these shows are also under pressure to stand out in an ever-growing sea of entertainment (reality tv and otherwise), so they must continuously up the ante to ensure “the most dramatic rose ceremony ever” or “the most difficult final challenge.” To create drama, producers often push cast members to their physical and emotional breaking point.

The physical challenges, while exhilarating and potentially financially rewarding, have their drawbacks, and they leave many participants with injuries that extend beyond filming. In the last few Challenge seasons alone there have been broken bones, a ruptured spleen, dislocated fingers, and one person was knocked unconscious, fell 30 feet into water, and was filmed floating lifeless until he was pulled out and taken to the hospital (this was used as a promotional clip for several weeks before airing). “Minor” injuries are treated with ibuprofen and eyerolls from some producers who refer to contestants who request care as “high maintenance.” The “perfect” injury requires an ambulance (great for on-air suspense), but doesn’t result in a lawsuit or death. Less severe injuries interfere with production, but don’t provide story.

One participant who experienced a life-changing injury was Tim Beggy, who originally appeared on the second season of Road Rules and returned for several seasons of the Challenge. Beggy was an accomplished marathoner, triathlete, and Ironman competitor. That all ended, however, after a Challenge elimination round gone wrong. He was placed in a enclosed triple-pane glass box suspended in the air and, to win that week’s challenge, had to punch his way out faster than his opponent. Beggy explains, “I don’t believe the game was tested properly…because as the broken glass piled up, it chewed through the ‘protective’ gear, and turned my knees and patellar tendons into hamburger meat. For up to a year later, I would get large bumps on my knees, pop them, and glass would come out. I went from a guy running marathons to the old man limping from one ill-fated Inferno.”

For many, however, the worst pain is not physical, with many cast members experiencing emotional and psychological difficulties related to their time on television. I am among the many who was diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety due to my time on the show and a violent encounter with a cast member off-set. My psychologist equated the experience of filming the show to the Stanford Prison Experiment, which explored questions of power, torture, and relationships using unethical means. But because television shows are under no obligation to be ethical, the methodology of their social experiment is designed to create the same effects without concern for the well-being of the participants. Other cast members have experienced PTSD as well, and Frank Sweeney (Real World: San Diego) sought counseling after the show (an option less available for cast members from lower socio-economic backgrounds) and said coming off the roller coaster of tv created a “complex post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Beyond addiction, injuries, and mental health concerns, cast members encounter logistical difficulties. Some legally changed their names, others paid to have their Google search results scrubbed, and many avoid social media in an effort to regain control of their lives, careers, and identities. Some were told by potential employers that they were not hired because they appeared on the show. In an age of branding, many companies don’t want to be associated with “trashy” tv stars. I was told I was rejected from a law school despite having competitive scores and credentials, because my presence would be a distraction to the other students and would “lessen the credibility” of the institution.

Reality creators often frame the experience as an “opportunity” for participants and a “springboard” to bigger and better things. Unfortunately, for many of us, it’s a springboard into an empty pool. At best, our time in the spotlight becomes a story we’re forced to retell at cocktail parties. But having an edited version of your best and worst moments on national television can leave some participants vulnerable to financial and emotional ruin. For many of your favorite tv “characters,” things don’t truly start “getting real” until they are home picking up the pieces of the reality wreckage without a camera crew to document it.

The casual viewer may imagine that being on a reality show is just a parenthetical aside within the larger story of someone’s regular life — a brief, if exciting, pause from the narrative, from which you can quickly resume normalcy. The truth is that these experiences are our real life. They aren’t separate. We form relationships and rivalries and experience pain and redemption, and it’s all on the public stage. People aren’t interested in listening to z-listers bellyache about the difficulties of being famous for nothing, but the reality (!) is that producers and networks get rich off the personal narratives of the casts then leave them worse off than they found them. We become your memes and gifs while we’re being diagnosed with PTSD and filing for bankruptcy. Your guilty pleasure is our literal reality, and it’s unseemly to whine about the price we pay — even if the experience leaves us broke and broken. As it turns out, fifteen minutes of fame can be expensive.

#telerealite #articles

26 notes · View notes

tripstations · 5 years

Text

Delta says next big battle between airlines will be on the ground

The airline industry is experiencing strong financial performance — Delta Air Lines recently hit a record stock price and United Airline Holdings grew profits in its latest earnings, and the U.S. economy continues its decade-long run. Airline industry conditions are so good, long-time airline-stock hater Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway became one of the sector’s biggest investors in recent years after a wave of consolidation brought the fleets closer to the almost-monopoly conditions he looks for in businesses. But other recent highs in air travel are not so positive: Airports all over the country setting new records in monthly passenger levels.

As the airport experience remains one of the worst “legs” in a traveler’s journey, major airlines flush with money for reinvestment are making the on-the-ground experience a greater focus of their efforts to out-compete rival carriers.

“I think the next area of competition in air travel is in the airport,” Paul Jacobson, executive v.p. and CFO of Delta said at the CNBC @Work Human Capital + Finance conference in Chicago last Tuesday. “How do you continue to streamline that the on-the-ground experience. It is a big part of how passengers rate the experience.”

In major metro areas, the two biggest issues in airport satisfaction are access to the airport (with so many major airports far from city centers) and the terminal itself, at No. 1, according to J.D. Power.

“The most common PR headline from any airport any month is ‘X airport sets new monthly passenger record,'” said Mike Taylor, J.D. Power’s travel practice leader.

But that does not necessarily mean it is good PR with so many airports so dated.

PhotoAlto/Thierry Foulon | Brand X Pictures | Getty Images

There are some aspects of the airport experience that airlines can’t do anything about. Only 6% more airports have been built in the U.S. since 1980, despite 181% more domestic passengers.

“They can’t build another four-line highway to the airport,” Taylor said. “Most of the airports are shoehorned into areas never meant to handle this much traffic.”

Those problems don’t end once at the airport, either: Many parking lots closest to terminals at some of the busiest U.S. airports are now completely full and closed on multiple days per week. This is the type of on-the-ground frustration that leads to missed flights, and missed flights lead to the blame being placed all around.

“People are more stressed on the airport and airlines side of things, and they blame both,” Taylor said.

For the airlines like Delta, it does not matter that some of the terminal experience is beyond their control. Taylor said that when an aircraft closes and sits on the ground because the FAA is holding them there, passengers do not complain about the FAA. “They paid the airline, and they pick up the cocktail napkin and swear at it.”

For more on tech, transformation and the future of work, join CNBC at the @ Work: People + Machines Summit in San Francisco on November 4. Leaders from Dropbox, Sas, McKinsey and more will teach us how to balance the needs of today with the possibilities of tomorrow, and the winning strategies to compete.

Scott Mayerowitz, executive editorial director of travel information site The Points Guy, said the airport experience is unique in the travel journey in being so bad, and it is an important part of the journey that is under-examined. “Until my head hits the pillow in a hotel room, I am on the go, and it all matters,” Mayerowitz said.

Delta is collecting as much data as it can from passengers to improve the travel experience. “We survey everything,” Jacobson told attended at the CNBC event in Chicago. “A lot of that comes down to the psychology of the customer and understanding what each leg in the journey makes the customer feel like.”

Wall Street is watching

Wall Street is focusing more on the airport experience in its analysis of airline stocks. Hunter Keay, a Wolfe Research analyst who covers Delta, wrote that the Delta CFO is correct in his focus on the airport as a competitive key. Keay wrote in a late 2018 research note that Delta’s major investment in “Investment-starved airports” like New York City’s LaGuardia “are not so much an act of generosity but a strategic decision that we believe will further widen DAL’s competitive advantage to peers by driving up costs for marginal competitors there that lack scale, pricing power, or both. … This is literally a 20-year competitive advantage DAL is building today, arguably the hardest one yet for competitors to copy.”

Delta is investing $12 billion over a five-year period investing in its airport infrastructure, primarily at New York City’s LaGuardia, Los Angeles International, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Salt Lake City International Airport and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

“Airports have always been a challenge for airlines who haven’t been able to crack that code due to more pressing capital needs internally, fear of committing to longer-term, big dollar projects due to business cycle risk with questionable balance sheets, or the challenges of driving buy-in or consensus with the government agencies that run these airports. But it seems to us that DAL is figuring this thing out,” Keay wrote.

One of the terminal chokepoints where Delta made an investment is through a stake it owns in biometric screening company Clear. Jacobson pointed to the Clear investment as part of its efforts to streamline the passenger experience through investments in technology. “We’ve made big bets in technology in the past few years thinking we can turn it around into revenue generation,” the Delta CFO said at the CNBC event. Jacobson said technology like Clear should ultimately improve the experience beyond the security checkpoint.

“I think ultimately the technology around identification, whether facial recognition or fingerprints, is coming to all transactions,” Jacobson said.

“Delta has recognized that security is a horrible headache for people,” Mayerowitz said. “Clear is at many more airports than before because of the Delta investment and they’ve done saturation at their key hubs. ”

Mayerowitz, who is a Clear member, added, “In two to three minutes at LGA or JFK I can make it from the curb to the other side of security. Clear gets me to the front of the precheck line and I just put my bag in and walk through, and I’m done.”

The timing is right for airlines

A focus on future revenue is one of the reasons why Delta is making the investments now, before a recession hits and operating conditions weaken.

Yael Taqqu, a senior partner at management consultant McKinsey, who spoke on a panel with Jacobson at CNBC’s @Work Human Capital + Finance conference, said investments like the ones Delta is making now are designed to be “revenue enhancements” out ahead of the next downturn. “In a downturn, the wedge between digital haves and have nots, which is already wide, will get wider,” said Taqqu.

Taylor said the timing is right from an airline industry perspective too. “You have to have three things happen to really expand airports. The economy has to be good, the airline has to be making money, and policies have to be right. These days, we have all three of them working in the airlines favor. … When they are not making money, those things get put on hold. They would like to have everything set up for the passenger to be happy before getting on the craft.”

Airlines also are running out of ways to improve and “disaggregate” — price-tier — the in-cabin experience.

“Right now airlines have healthy profits and are reinvesting,” Mayerowitz said. “Delta likes to brag that they have the most inflight seatback TVs of any airline, and they’ve built a business around what they say is a superior product in the sky, and it commands a revenue premium, people willing to spend $10-$15 extra. But at the end of the day, there is only so much you can do to increase costs in the sky.” He added of Delta’s focus on the terminal, “They are right, especially as airlines cram more seats into planes and come up with hideous slim-line bathrooms just so they can get an extra row of seats in.”

Delta is among the airlines that have cut down bathroom size in some cabins to add an extra back row.

Airports are just pretty bus terminals. There is only so much you can do.

Scott Mayerowitz

The Points Guy executive editorial director

Some of the on-the-ground improvements won’t be available to all passengers — in fact, they are designed to find ways within the terminal to extract greater revenue and reward elite levels of passengers.

“Space dedicated to lounges will continue to grow,” Taylor said. “They are looking for more space in which to hand out perks and do the same thing as they are doing in the cabin … and trying to monetize some of it.”

Mayerowitz, who holds 19 credit cards offering access to many different terminal lounges, said that frequent flyers need better club options because classic lounges at big city terminals can often be “packed.”

Lounge investment is not limited to the airlines. American Express has its own series of luxury lounges for elite car holders, the Centurion Lounge. “Centurion has really upped the game in design and food offering,” Mayerowitz said.

Airlines including American Airlines and United (Polaris Lounge) have added multiple-tiers of lounges in addition to the classic options (e.g. AA’s Admirals Club).

“The lounge is crowded for most of these airlines and they are trying to differentiate it. … If you’re paying $10,000 for a one-way flight, you better be getting something better than a $450 traveler on the same trip. That’s why they have separate entrances for check in,” Mayerowitz said. He added that international travel already features some of these perks, but a passenger flying domestic will has not historically seen this level of service except to limited cross-country routes.

Luxury perks also have extended to travel between terminals. United offers Mercedes Benz cars for elite passengers that need to transfer between terminals for ground connections, a perk that Mayerowitz says can make quite an impression. “Elite members are whisked in these luxury cars around big planes to their next flights.”

Delta offers Porsches; American Airlines uses Cadillacs.

All the airlines will spend “multi billions of dollars,” in all, Taylor said.

Better food offerings and private dining on demand for top-tier travelers is coming. “Why have cheese cubes and crackers at the lounge when you can pay for fresh made?” Mayerowitz said. His credit card collections makes sure he always has options and he is seeing more of the benefits as lounges improve.

“I was just in Las Vegas and went to a lounge, got in thanks to my Chase Sapphire Reserve card and it was great. Nice views and good snacks and a perfect place to unwind before heading out on the next part of my journey.”

But there are limits to how far the airport improvement era can take the passenger.

Mayerowitz is not getting his hopes up too much. “Airports are just pretty bus terminals. There is only so much you can do.”

The post Delta says next big battle between airlines will be on the ground appeared first on Tripstations.

from Tripstations https://ift.tt/30IWWw3 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Tripstations

0 notes

newssplashy · 6 years

Link

Late in 2014, Nicholas Woodman, the founder and chief executive of GoPro, announced what appeared to be an extraordinary act of generosity.

Woodman, then 39, had just taken his camera company public and was suddenly worth about $3 billion.

Now he was giving away much of that wealth — some $500 million worth of GoPro stock — to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, an organization based in Mountain View, California, that would house the assets of the newly formed Jill and Nicholas Woodman Foundation.

“We wake up every morning grateful for the opportunities life has given us,” Woodman and his wife said in a statement at the time. “We hope to return the favor as best we can.”

The executive basked in prestige and gratitude. The Chronicle of Philanthropy named Woodman one of “America’s most generous donors” that year, placing him alongside established philanthropists like Bill and Melinda Gates and Michael Bloomberg.

But four years on, there is almost no trace of the Woodman Foundation, or that $500 million. The foundation has no website and has not listed its areas of focus, and it is not known what — if any — significant grants it has made to nonprofits. An extensive search of public records turned up just one beneficiary: the Bonny Doon Art, Wine and Brew Festival, a benefit for an elementary school in California.

Instead, the Woodman Foundation essentially exists as an account within the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which is not required to disclose details about how, if at all, individual donors spend their charitable dollars. Woodman, GoPro and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation all declined to discuss the Woodman Foundation.

If the benefit to the needy is difficult to see, the benefit to Woodman is clear. After GoPro’s initial public offering, he faced an enormous tax bill in 2014. But by donating via the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, he eased his tax burden in two ways. First, Woodman avoided paying capital gains taxes on that $500 million worth of stock, a figure that most likely would have been in the tens of millions of dollars. He was also able to claim a charitable deduction that most likely saved millions of dollars more and probably reduced his personal tax bill for years to come.

Woodman achieved this enticing combination of tax efficiency and secrecy by using a donor-advised fund — a sort of charitable checking account with serious tax benefits and little or no accountability.

Donor-advised funds, or DAFs, allow wealthy individuals like Woodman to give assets — usually cash and stock but also real estate, art and cryptocurrencies — to a sponsoring organization like the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Fidelity Charitable or Vanguard Charitable. But while donors part ways with their money, they don’t give up control. The sponsoring organizations make grants to hospitals, schools and the like only at a donor’s request. So while donors enjoy immediate tax benefits, charities can wait for funds indefinitely, and maybe forever.

For these reasons and more, DAFs have become one of the most controversial issues in the charitable world.

Proponents say DAFs have democratized giving, because they are simple to create and the individuals who use them are more generous than those who establish family foundations. “It’s a win-win,” said Greg Avis, interim president of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. “The donor has a tax benefit, and the beneficiaries are the nonprofits.”

But to critics, DAFs represent the worst of philanthropy today — a system of guaranteed perks for the rich and uncertainty for the rest.

Unlike family foundations, which are required to distribute 5 percent of their assets each year and have historically been the way wealthy donors disbursed their philanthropic firepower, DAFs have no distribution requirements, meaning that billions of dollars earmarked for charity can sit idle for decades. And because organizations that manage DAFs are not required to report which funds give money to which causes, it is impossible to know how much money individual donors are giving to nonprofit organizations.

Their rise is also part of a broader move by the wealthy and powerful to shield much of their giving from public scrutiny. Just last month, after lobbying by conservative groups and donors, the Trump administration said it would stop requiring certain nonprofit organizations to disclose the names of large donors, a change that will make it easier for some political groups to hide their funders. And many conservative donors, including the Mercer family, have used DAFs to obscure their political activity.

“The world of philanthropy is becoming less transparent, and that’s not a good thing,” David Callahan, author of “The Givers,” a 2017 book about big philanthropy, wrote in a recent essay. “Recent years have seen the rapid growth of a shadow giving system that funnels billions of dollars in gifts in ways that leave no fingerprints.”

That DAFs have become so popular with Silicon Valley billionaires has only added to their intrigue. Society is still reckoning with the dark sides of social media and online privacy, and there is concern that DAFs — a dream vehicle for the overnight wealthy — may prove to be another instance of techno-optimists disrupting a system with unintended consequences.

“They’re a fraud on the American taxpayer,” said Ed Kleinbard, a tax professor at the University of Southern California. “They’re a way for the affluent to have their cake and eat it, too.”

‘Playing Timing Games’

Donor-advised funds in their current form have been around since 1991 and drew light attention from Congress in 2006. But lately their popularity has surged. Contributions grew 15 percent in 2016, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, and the accounts now contain upward of $85 billion, according to the National Philanthropic Trust, a public charity that manages DAFs. Fidelity Charitable, the largest manager of DAFs, is now the biggest recipient of donations from the public — receiving more money than the United Way or the Salvation Army. In 2017 alone, DAFs managed by Fidelity Charitable received contributions from more than 30,000 new donors.

Nowhere has the growth been more startling than in Silicon Valley. Among the billionaires who have established DAFs just at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation are Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Netflix’s Reed Hastings, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Google’s Sergey Brin, WhatsApp’s Jan Koum and Brian Acton, and Microsoft’s Paul Allen.

Approaching the Silicon Valley Community Foundation after a tech windfall has become a familiar pattern. In December 2012, just months after Facebook went public, Zuckerberg donated $500 million of Facebook shares to the group. In 2014, soon after Facebook acquired WhatsApp for $19 billion, Koum and Acton donated a combined $846 million to the foundation. In both cases, the establishment of DAFs allowed the men to reap a substantial tax advantage just when they needed it most.

Some of this money is put to swift use. Zuckerberg has used his DAF to give away tens of millions to schools and hospitals in the San Francisco area. Hastings has used his DAF to give to the Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley and the United Negro College Fund. In each case, the donors voluntarily publicized their gifts.

Organizations that manage DAFs say most of their account holders, anonymous though they may be, are similarly generous. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation distributed $1.3 billion during the last fiscal year to groups including the South San Francisco Unified School District and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Schwab Charitable, another big sponsor of DAFs, said it distributed nearly $2 billion during the last fiscal year, making some 420,000 grants to nonprofits including Feeding America, the American Red Cross and Planned Parenthood.

“I’m mystified by the detractors,” said Pamela Norley, the president of Fidelity Charitable, which made DAF grants worth some $4.5 billion during the 2017 fiscal year. “The money is not just sitting there. It’s getting out the door in huge volumes.”

Yet in the case of Woodman, there is reason to question how much money was made available for charity. He established his DAF the day after GoPro stock approached its highest-ever price, about $95 per share. From a financial perspective, Woodman could not have timed his gift more perfectly.

News of his donation sent GoPro shares tumbling as much as 14 percent the next day, as investors interpreted the move as a lack of confidence in the stock. By the end of the year, GoPro had lost more than a third of its value. By the end of 2015, the stock traded near $18 a share. Today, GoPro stock is worth less than $6 a share.

As GoPro shares plummeted, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation held on to the stock, refraining from diversifying until “later in 2015,” according to Woodman, who briefly discussed his DAF in 2016 during an “Ask Me Anything” conversation on the website Reddit. While investors suffered steep losses, and the value of Woodman’s DAF likely shrank precipitously, his tax savings were pegged to the shares’ all-time high.

“Smart donors have been playing timing games with the charitable deduction for a long time,” said Roger Colinvaux, a tax professor at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law. “In this case, he potentially gets a very large deduction and gives nothing away. That’s a disturbing public policy issue."

On Reddit, Woodman suggested that his wealth was reaching charities: “The Foundation has gone on to fund causes supporting women and children and will continue to do so!!!!” Just how much money has gone to which organizations, of course, remains a mystery.

Wall Street Fees

When it comes to DAFs, the U.S. tax code rewards the promise of good intentions. Wealthy donors — including many of the Silicon Valley billionaires who have asked the public to trust them with their digital lives — pledge to distribute their funds to charity once they get their tax break. But in the absence of rules requiring donors to give their money away, it is hard to know what public good comes in exchange for those lucrative write-offs.

Skeptics see a system ripe for abuse. Donors might wait years to engage in meaningful philanthropic activity or decide to simply leave the fund for their children to manage.

“We’ve put this rule in place that says you get maximum tax benefits when you make a donation,” said Ray Madoff, a professor at the Boston College Law School and a vocal critic of donor-advised funds. “But you don’t have to do anything with it.”

Norley of Fidelity Charitable argues that on balance, account holders are generous. At her organization, roughly a quarter of the assets held in DAFs have been distributed to nonprofits in each of the past two years. Other sponsor organizations report similar distribution rates.

Yet such statistics can be skewed. In many instances, these figures include transfers from one DAF to another. In the most recent fiscal year, for instance, Vanguard Charitable sent more than $15 million from its DAFs to Fidelity Charitable. Sponsor organizations say this is simply a matter of wealthy donors adjusting their accounts. But it also creates the illusion of meaningful philanthropic activity where there is none.

And while the overall payout rate at an organization that manages DAFs may be substantial, the numbers could be warped by a few donors who give away huge sums, while a majority of donors give away virtually nothing.

Critics argue that some sponsor organizations even have an incentive to keep funds undisbursed to charities. That is because DAFs have emerged as a lucrative source of revenue for financial firms.

For example, Fidelity Charitable, which is structured as an independent public charity, pays millions in annual fees to Fidelity Management, the big asset manager. Fidelity Management then invests the billions of dollars held in Fidelity Charitable’s DAFs, making money there as well. Vanguard, Schwab and Goldman Sachs all get millions in fees from their affiliated public charities. The more money held in DAFs, the greater the potential earnings for the financial groups.

The fact that DAFs have become a profit center for Wall Street firms is a perversion of the philanthropic system, critics say.

“The charitable deduction is not meant to give tax breaks to very wealthy people. It’s meant to encourage giving to worthy nonprofit organizations,” said Dean Zerbe, an attorney who worked for Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, when Grassley was chairman of the Finance Committee. “What you’ve got instead is a huge warehousing of funds with massive amount of fees being extracted by Wall Street.”

Fidelity and Goldman brush off such criticism as misinformed, arguing that they are simply providing a valuable service to their clients by streamlining their charitable giving and offering them legal tax benefits. Some DAF sponsors have rules in place that require accounts to disburse at least some money every few years.

“It’s not a bad thing,” said Karey Dye, president of the Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund, where Laurene Powell Jobs and former Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer recently established DAFs. “People have irrevocably given money away to charity. Most often they are wanting to give money away to things that are meaningful to them and make a difference.”

A Philanthropic Arms Race

At the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the drive to accumulate assets appears to have been particularly intense. Former and current employees said the former chief executive, Emmett Carson, wanted to make the organization one of the largest sponsors of DAFs in the country and engaged in an arms race of sorts to woo big donors.

The employees said this led Carson to turn a blind eye to misbehavior from his top fundraiser, who was allegedly verbally abusive to colleagues. That scandal burst into public view this year, resulting in the departure of several top executives, including Carson, and prompted a re-examination of the rise of DAFs in the philanthropic community.

In spite of his ouster, Carson appears to have succeeded in his goal. Thanks to big gifts from tech billionaires like Woodman and Zuckerberg — and the relatively new practice of accepting highly volatile cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether — the Silicon Valley Community Foundation is one of the largest such groups in the country, with more than $13 billion in assets.

In the last fiscal year alone, that figure leapt by some $4.5 billion. Most of that, according to a recent audit released by the foundation, was the result of the soaring value of cryptocurrencies.

Congress and the IRS have recently requested public feedback about possible legal reforms to charitable organizations, including DAFs.

In response, Madoff and Colinvaux wrote a letter to the Senate Finance Committee calling for changes that would include establishing a payout period for DAFs, and other measures they say would improve accountability.

Several philanthropic trade groups quickly sent their own letter to the committee. “There doesn’t seem to be a public-policy problem requiring urgent action,” the groups argued. Instead, they proposed that Congress “acknowledge the self-policing work of the sector by continuing to work with us and other practitioners to write legislation that reflects the realities of philanthropic work.”

It wouldn’t be the first time that Washington has tried to take action. The Pension Protection Act, passed in 2006, was the first law to specifically address DAFs. It established some basic rules that barred self-dealing but stopped short of more fundamental changes, such as mandated distribution requirements or less generous tax breaks.

“We were basically trying to undo a giveaway by the government,” said Zerbe, who worked on that bill while he was at the Senate Finance Committee. “But I’m never convinced we can totally keep the weasels down the hole.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

via NewsSplashy - Latest Nigerian News,Ghana News ,News,Entertainment,Hot Posts,sports In a Splash.

#IFTTT #NewsSplashy - Latest Nigerian News #Ghana News #News #Entertainment #Hot Posts #sports In a Splas

0 notes

williamsefton · 6 years

Text

Software developers all over the world can benefit from an increased understanding of intellectual property (IP) laws and how those laws may affect their work. Software programs are often complex works that include both functional and artistic elements and may be covered by a variety of different types of IP laws. This can be very confusing for those who haven’t been taught about IP and can cause them to miss out on opportunities to protect their own work or to accidentally infringe on the work of another.

The purpose of this article is to provide information about one type of IP law, copyright law, for software developers who live or work in the United Kingdom. Below we will discuss the definition of copyright law, the source of UK copyright law, and how it applies to technological works. I'll also elaborate on what is not covered by copyright law, as well as the UK concepts of fair dealing and moral rights as they are related to copyright law.

You can learn more about copyright law in general and about how it applies to software in my previous article. Go to article →

What Is Copyright Law?

Copyright law is a type of intellectual property law that protects creative works, which can include things like plays, movies, drawings, songs, and many other things. Around the world, copyright laws give the authors or creators of literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works the right to control the ways in which their material may be used. With regard to software, copyright law generally covers the artistic elements of a software program as opposed to the functional elements.

“You must unlearn what you have learned!” Meet the brand new episode of SmashingConf San Francisco with smart front-end tricks and UX techniques. Featuring Yiying Lu, Aarron Draplin, Smashing Yoda, and many others. Tickets now on sale. April 17-18.

Check the speakers →

What Is The Source Of Copyright Law In The UK?

Copyright law originated in the United Kingdom from a concept of common law; the Statute of Anne 1709. It became statutory with the passing of the Copyright Act 1911. The current act is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. Those interested can read the full text here.

The relevant government office for copyright inquiries is the UK Intellectual Property Office. The UK is also a signatory to the Berne Convention, an international agreement concerning copyright law that has been adopted by 172 countries worldwide.

How Does UK Copyright Law Apply Specifically To Technological Works?

Copyright law can apply to all kinds of technological works that are used with computers, tablets, smartphones, or video game systems. This includes apps, computer programs, databases, spreadsheets, screen displays, and even virtual reality environments. Copyright also applies to works that are used or distributed on the internet like websites, blogs, and other online content. In the UK, computer programs are specifically protected as literary works.

Throughout the European Union, the Computer Programs Directive provides guidance regarding the legal protection of computer programs. The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations of 1992 extended the rules covering literary works to include computer programs in other European countries as well.

What Is Not Covered By UK Copyright Law?

Copyright law in the UK, as elsewhere, does not protect ideas, procedures, methods of operations, or mathematical concepts (though other types of IP may protect them under certain circumstances). In other words, copyright law is about protecting a particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself, and not functional elements of a work. Additionally, names, titles, short phrases, and colors are not generally considered unique or substantial enough to be covered by copyright law. However, a work that combines some of the elements, such as a logo or design, could possibly be eligible for copyright (and perhaps trademark) protection.

How Long Does Copyright Protection In The UK Last?

Because the UK is a signatory to the Berne Convention which covered this issue, a copyright in the UK will typically be protected for either the life of the author plus 70 years from the death of the author or, for published works, for 70 years from the date of first publication. However, there are many exceptions to this rule, and each work should be treated on a case-by-case basis if there are any doubts.

One notable UK-specific exception has to do with the boy who never grew up, Peter Pan. Author J.M. Barrie gifted all of the rights to his creation to a children’s hospital in London. When the original copyright expired in 1987, an extension was added to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 mentioned above so that the hospital could continue to collect royalties based on uses of the work (though the hospital has no creative control over how the work is used). Ultimately, this is only an unusual — and perhaps endearingly British — exception to the normal copyright term.

Photo by Christian Battaglia on Unsplash. (Large preview)

What Is Fair Dealing?

The copyright laws of almost all countries allow exceptions for certain permitted uses of copyrighted works such as news reporting, educational uses, or where the use of the work is de minimus. In the United States, one can assert a "fair use" defense if accused of infringing a copyright if the use was due to one of these permitted activities. In the UK, these permitted activities fall under the legal concept known as "fair dealing." According to the University of Nottingham, eligible activities which can be conducted without infringing a copyrighted work include:

Private and research study purposes;

Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes;

Criticism and news reporting;

Incidental inclusion;

Copies and lending by librarians;

Format shifting or back up of a work you own for personal use;

Caricature, parody or pastiche;

Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes;

Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time;

Producing a back-up copy for personal use of a computer program.

How Does "Fair Dealing" Affect Technology Copyrights In The UK?

The "fair dealing" exceptions mentioned above may specifically impact copyrights for technology-related works such as software programs or databases. For example, producing a backup copy of a software program for personal use only would not be considered copyright infringement under a fair dealing exception. Though fair dealing explicitly excludes decompilation or copying a software program during decompilation, the European Software Directive allows software licensees to use their copy of the software "to observe study or test the functioning of the program" in order to "determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program."

Therefore, users may freely observe a program as it operates to determine their functions and its underlying ideas, even if the goal is to create a competing program (see the UK case SAS Institute v. World Programming for more information on this concept). However, actual copying, for example in the case of source code copying, is not tolerated since this is explicitly protected by copyright.

For practical reasons, database copyrights would not be infringed if a person with the legal right to use part or all of a database performs steps necessary to use or access the contents of the database. Also, accessing a database for the purposes of private study or non-commercial research does not infringe copyright in a database.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Unsplash. (Large preview)

Moral Rights In The UK

Another difference between the UK and other parts of the world with regard to copyright law is the UK’s emphasis on the importance of moral rights. Though this issue may not often arise in technology-related copyright disputes, moral rights are additional rights over and above the economic rights typically protected by copyright law.

In the UK, moral rights are: the right to attribution, or the right to be known or recognized as the author of a work; the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work, which includes any addition, deletion, or adaptation of a work that would distort or “mutilate” the work or injure the honor or reputation of the author; the right to object to false attribution, which basically means that you would not be named as the author of something you didn’t create; and the right to privacy of certain photographs and recordings, such as those commissioned for a private occasion.

One reason moral rights might be important for developers is that the moral right to attribution gives the developer the right to be named as the author of the software program, even though it is not common industry practice to do so. By the same token, if a developer doesn’t get their name associated with projects they didn’t work on, the right to object to false attribution protects them also. Find more information about moral rights here.

It is our hope that this information has been helpful for UK software designers and developers. Though this is only introductory information, and should not be substituted for legal counsel in the event of specific questions or disputes, education about copyright law issues and other IP issues helps to empower software designers and developers to make sure their works are fully protected.

(da, ra, yk, il)

from Articles on Smashing Magazine — For Web Designers And Developers https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2018/03/copyright-law-basics-for-uk-software-developers/

0 notes

russellarmstrong1 · 6 years

Text

You can learn more about copyright law in general and about how it applies to software in my previous article. Go to article →

What Is Copyright Law?

Check the speakers →

What Is The Source Of Copyright Law In The UK?

How Does UK Copyright Law Apply Specifically To Technological Works?

What Is Not Covered By UK Copyright Law?

How Long Does Copyright Protection In The UK Last?

Photo by Christian Battaglia on Unsplash. (Large preview)

What Is Fair Dealing?

Private and research study purposes;

Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes;

Criticism and news reporting;

Incidental inclusion;

Copies and lending by librarians;

Format shifting or back up of a work you own for personal use;

Caricature, parody or pastiche;

Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes;

Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time;

Producing a back-up copy for personal use of a computer program.

How Does "Fair Dealing" Affect Technology Copyrights In The UK?

Photo by rawpixel.com on Unsplash. (Large preview)

Moral Rights In The UK

(da, ra, yk, il)

from Articles on Smashing Magazine — For Web Designers And Developers https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2018/03/copyright-law-basics-for-uk-software-developers/

0 notes

gta-5-cheats · 6 years

Text

Nintendo Lowered 'Barriers of Entry' to Bring Physical Games to Nintendo Switch: Strictly Limited Games

New Post has been published on http://secondcovers.com/nintendo-lowered-barriers-of-entry-to-bring-physical-games-to-nintendo-switch-strictly-limited-games/

Nintendo Lowered 'Barriers of Entry' to Bring Physical Games to Nintendo Switch: Strictly Limited Games

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

With video games increasingly going digital, we’ve seen the likes of Limited Run Games cater to the section of gamers looking for physical copies of the titles they want to play (or to display on their shelves). They’re not alone in doing this – Germany-based Strictly Limited Games is a two-man operation consisting of Dennis Mendel and Benedict Braitsch, dedicated to bringing digital games in your hands. The company’s first release was stellar indie action game, Tokyo 42. This was followed up by 2D medieval shoot ‘em up Gryphon Knight Epic and retro-themed brawler, 99 Vidas. Gadgets 360 spoke to Strictly Limited Games’ Dennis Mendel to find out more, starting with asking how games are selected for the Strictly Limited treatment.

“Well, basically we choose games that we, as fans and collectors, would love to see in our shelves. So in most cases it’s our gut feeling that comes into play as the most decisive factor. Of course suggestions from fellow gamers are very welcome as there are so many great games out there and it is virtually impossible to keep track of them all,” Mendel says.

While it might seem like a self-serving enterprise to simply bring on board what the duo want, this will change soon. Mendel wants the community to have a larger say not only in the games that it is releasing, but in the bonuses that get packed in with each release such as post cards or even steelbooks — special metallic cases which are usually reserved for collector’s editions.

“Steelbooks could definitely be a thing, but it depends on how many people really want that. We have some nice specials for the retro game lovers up our sleeves and we hope people will like it. The feedback from the community is extremely important so in the near future, we want them to have more decisive influence on our releases,” he says.

This matters a lot because Strictly Limited lives up to its moniker by staggering releases out to not more than a single game a month. According to Mendel, doing that allows developers more time and a platform to be seen by more people. “We release only one game per month [which is] what makes every release special. The developers we have talked so far really appreciated the fact, that we offer them a stage to present themselves to a broader audience. The people behind these games deserve much more public attention as they are apparently getting at the moment,” he says.

To Mendel, the longer time frame could translate to a larger audience as well. He admits that the audience for physical games is usually the domain of collectors, although this is changing. “There are also many people who would not call themselves collectors but who grew up with physical media and who just don’t like the fact that with digital downloads, you don’t own that specific digital copy of the game, you have only acquired the right to use it. And by presenting the devs and their ‘baby’ on our website, we hope to broaden the audience for these great games even more,” he explains.

On that note, we brought up the topic of video game preservation. The game industry doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to maintaining its own body of work. According to Mendel, a former game researcher, part of the problem lies with the acceptance of games as a media compared to the likes of music and films.

“I do have the impression that the industry as a whole has not yet understood the importance of their own creative work. But this is not only the responsibility of the gaming industry; it is also the politics obligation to address this issue. Movies and the movie industry are already far ahead which ensured their societal and academic acceptance,” he stresses. “In my opinion video game preservation as well as the establishment of ‘game literacy’ both play a significant role in the advancement of games. Games can teach us a lot – no matter if they are good or not so good, you can always learn something by looking more closely. But this requires a library or an archive that gives you access to these games and you also need scientific as well as practical assistance to point you in the right direction.”

Having said that, we wondered if Strictly Limited Games could bring back out of print titles for consoles like the PS1 and PS2. While this seems unlikely, efforts are underway to bring games that aren’t available in material form or those that haven’t been released.

“This is a very difficult subject. Of course we’d love to re-release gems like Kyuiin, Gaia Seed or Rapid Angel, just to name a few. But besides the manufacturing and licensing processes that raise many questions and problems, it’s also a financial issue. We are very small and we cannot act on too many different fronts. Even though they’ve become rare, these games are physically available at least somehow, so we think we should concentrate more on those games, that have not yet been available in physical form before…or on games, that have never been released in any form, for that matter. Stay tuned,” he teases.

And while he remained coy on what to expect, it would be safe to say it would be akin to Sayonara Umiharakawase — a Japan-only platformer game for the SNES that found its way to the PS Vita digitally and on Windows PC via a Steam-only release. Now it’s getting its first physical outing as Sayonara Umiharakawase ++ through Strictly Limited Games for the PS Vita.

“Sayonara Umiharakawase ++ is a good example for what I would call a ‘dream project’. It is one of those games with a long history. I played it on my Super Famicom more than 20 years ago, that just did not receive all of the attention it merits, at least outside of Japan. Despite the difference in our age, Ben and I, we both love 2D games and retro games in general. Umi ++ combines both, tradition and an exceptional style, so we really feel lucky that [Toshinobu] Kondo-san [the game’s creator] from Studio Saizensen is part of our story,” he tells us.

Shop On SecondCovers

As for the PS Vita, it’s pretty obvious that Sony has all but written off the console. To Mendel, though, the lack of support from its creator is far from a detriment. “Just like the Dreamcast, the Vita is a great console abandoned by its parents way too early. As long as devs are continuing to produce great titles, the community will be large enough to justify physical releases, I hope,” he believes. Having said that, Mendel adds that he sees the Nintendo Switch taking on the mantle as a powerful, games-focussed handheld.

“Besides the Switch I see no other game system at the moment that could fill that gap as we will probably never see a PS Vita 2,” he muses. We wondered if we’d see games for Nintendo’s console from Strictly Limited. Currently Mendel says the intent is to get the company’s workflow for the PS4 and PS Vita in control before “reinforcing the resources for Switch development and publishing. What I can say is that there are already some potential Switch releases on our table but we don’t have anything conclusive yet.”

youtube

Considering that most physical releases are on the PS4 and PS Vita due to Sony’s flexibility in terms of quantity manufactured, could Nintendo offer the same courtesy?

“Nintendo’s Switch is a great success and Nintendo were completely packed since the beginning. Now that the initial waves have calmed, Big N was able to lower the barriers to entry [for bringing independent games on cartridge for the Nintendo Switch]. I am not sure if there ever will be the same flexibility as with Sony, but we’ll see,” he says, referring to the minimum order quantity allowed by these companies. The minimum order quantity or MOQ as its known in distributor parlance is the commercially viable lowest number of a game that is produced for sale.

For its part, Sony allows the PS4 and PS Vita physical game MOQ to be as low as 1,000 units. Previously, Nintendo’s MOQs had been 6,000 units for the Wii U and Nintendo 3DS. While Mendel could not go into specifics of what the Nintendo Switch MOQ is, we won’t be surprised to see an announcement sooner rather than later given that the likes of Limited Run already have games for the Nintendo Switch lined up.

Despite no plans for bringing its games to the Xbox One (due to Microsoft requiring a minimum run of 75,000 discs, according to sources in the supply chain speaking to Gadgets 360 – the Xbox 360 had a 50,000 unit MOQ), Mendel suggests that Strictly Limited has “plenty of ideas [about] what could be done on that platform.”

With three games to its name, Strictly Limited Games has built a steady clientele of returning customers Mendel tells us. What’s more is, it extends well beyond its borders.

“Since the release of Gryphon Knight Epic we already have attracted customers from more than 40 countries which is just incredible. Even though we are based in Europe about half of our clients are from North America and we are doing our best to making progress in Europe, Asia and the other continents as well,” he claims.

Finally, being based in Germany that’s known to have a strong PC gaming culture (to the point where games like Gone Home and Limbo received boxed releases in the country) could Strictly Limited Games bring its expertise to PC? Mendel left us with this:

“Germany has very strong PC gaming culture indeed and we enjoy games on PC too. Unfortunately a lot of PCs (at least outside of Germany) don’t have a disc drive nowadays. Not being able to use and play the disc is a major problem with physical PC releases. An option would be, to include an additional download code for the game, but it’s just not the same as inserting the disc and playing a game straight away.”

If you’re a fan of video games, check out Transition – Gadgets 360’s gaming podcast. You can listen to it via Apple Podcasts or RSS or just listen to this episode by hitting the play button below.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

0 notes