Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 05:01:02 AM

It's interesting that I wasn't sold on Starmer and thought Nandy would be the better option primarily because I thought she'd be more reformist while Starmer was running as "Corbynism without Corbyn", while you were convinced with him.

Now there's this long read on the Mandelson to Starmer's Blair and I think their analysis and approach is right, while you have doubts.

I suppose it points to the criticism of Starmer made by the left - which is sort of fair (although I'm not sure how fair) - that he basically lied. If we're talking about dishonesty/lies in public life, Starmer running for leader on a 10 point list and basically dumping all of them within 2-3 years is up there. I get the Truss disaster gives a good alibi for getting rid of spending pledges but it is striking. Also striking, people don't care if you're winning and I see it as refreshingly ruthless

But it's one of those things where I think there's a bit of truth at the heart of that. If he becomes PM there will be scandals, there will be questions of dishonesty and I think when his poll numbers are down, what's currently perceived as ruthlessness/realism will become cynicism/dishonesty. I could be wrong, but I suspect that'll end up being a complaint about Starmer as PM.

I'd argue it has always been about technology.
The third industrial revolution which we're still seeing now started off way back in the mid 20th century. Harold Wilson and his white hot heat of technology speech and all that.
Globalisation was merely a way in which the core technology change issue showed itself- other countries doing a better job of embracing modern technology than we did, the massive drop in number of workers needed for the same jobs meaning just a few companies in the world could do their job for everyone, etc...

I think there are similarities and differences with Blair's view of technology and Wilson's. In both cases I think there's a degree of political advantage-seeking - to claim "science" and modernity and progress for Labour. I also think in Wilson's case the Labour Party at the time was quite divided between the right and the left (plus ca change) and technology was useful for a leadership that was trying to straddle that divide. But it was technology at the service of the country - to modernise the economy, to improve life of workers etc.

Blair's current obsessions are AI, digital IDs and digitisation of health. Everyone notes that Larry Ellison who has major investments in all of these areas is also a big funder of the Tony Blair Institute. I don't think that's cynical, but I think there is a conflict of interests particularly in TBI seconding entire teams into African governments as "delivery units" (based on Blair's own "delivery unit" in Number 10).

I don't think Blair sees technology (or globalisation before it) as a tool to fix the country. I think he sees them as one way, inevitable historical forces that you can't really control, alter or mitigate - the best you can do is re-distribute the proceeds (I think this might be part of the problem, in retrospect). I think for Blair it is more teleological and determinist. The question isn't what they can do for the country. But how can you put the country at the cutting edge of these forces because they are inevitable and the future so that is the "progressive" thing to do and your country will reap the benefits more.

Running with the Canute analogy I'd introduce one of my own we should seek to embrace: Holland.

Didn't expect you to back Johnson's idea of reclaiming Doggerland as a centre for off-shore wind power. I mean I'm game but...

The left also won the leadership in 1983 and had an awful lot of power 74-76 with Wilson effectively leaving a gaping hole in place of a leader.

Fair but Kinnock was on the soft left - he'd opposed Benn's deputy leadership run and was less open to the non-parliamentary left, while Corbyn ran Benn's campaign and his bit of the party was always for a "no enemies to the left" approach.

Also it's true on 74-76 but Wilson's cabinet was a balancing act. You had Benn who was very much on his journey - but you also had Healey, Jenkins etc with Callaghan, like Wilson, as someone who could work with both sides.

I didn't really understand the article. Obviously the international openness of the Labour Government of 1997 onwards is not and could not be replicable. We have acompletely different world now - tariffs, Trump, Xi, Brexit. Who on earth is saying otherwise?

I think there's lots of people who basically just want the 90s back and the politics of it. I think Blair is an extreme example (though, as I say, I think he's moved from globalisation to tech), but I think you see it in quite a lot of commentary. And also I think you still see a lot of framing for Starmer around Blair and 97 (in a way I don't think happened with Blair and Wilson).

The US has moved on totally so it's not just Trump but also Biden. I think there's a new consensus on trade and openness as national security issues in competition with China in the US that in Europe we're still catching up with.

There is a lot to learn from Labour's domestic policies in the Blair government largely pursued by Brown in terms of progressive policies where spending was severely restrained - minimum wage; sure start, free museum entry, smoking ban, human rights act. 

Obviously not in style but I think they could also do worse than look at Gove in education and to a lesser extent justice for what you can do in terms of reform without necessarily having to increase spending significantly.

I'm a bit of a heretic on free museum entry because I'm not sold on the value of free entry to "national" museums (often in London) which have huge visitor numbers including from tourists while small and local museums across the country are struggling.

But as you say the focus has to be productivity and growth - as Starmer and Reeves bang on about, but that's going to be tough. I think planning is a good example of something that would have an impact but not necessarily cost much money, I also think they should look at Brown's policies to film and TV because that's an example of industrial policy in the UK that has really worked. And possibly at whether there's areas we can usefully diverge from Europe (on AI we definitely should, for example). I also just hope they kind of embrace the country we are and the strengths we have economically: services (especially financial and professional services), higher education, culture and, to an extent, tech. I think for a lot of the last 8 years especially the key areas of the UK economy where we have an advantage and do well have been denigrated - either because everyone hates them (bankers) or because they're too culturally lefty/woke/remainy (higher education and culture). Just starting from trying to work with what we've got rather than aspiring to simply be Germany would be helpful.

#2

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Josquius - Today at 04:28:05 AM

I didn't really understand the article. Obviously the international openness of the Labour Government of 1997 onwards is not and could not be replicable. We have acompletely different world now - tariffs, Trump, Xi, Brexit. Who on earth is saying otherwise?

Corbynites and the like I guess.
I have seen many of them moaning about Starmer being Blair again.
Which...
1: That would be fine.
2: But he isn't.

#3

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Gups - Today at 04:26:35 AM

Oh you're absolutely right.

But it is unfortunately a fairly often repeated cycle for Labour after it's been in government (in the 30s, 50s, 80s and 2010s) - and right now Starmer has been absolutely ruthless (particularly in selecting candidates) in purging the left.

So, after the next period of Labour government, when the disappointment returns and the left make a comeback I'd expect them to be just as ruthless (though they've only won the leadership once). The main criticism of Corbyn on the left is that they didn't press their advantage enough.

The left also won the leadership in 1983 and had an awful lot of power 74-76 with Wilson effectively leaving a gaping hole in place of a leader.

I didn't really understand the article. Obviously the international openness of the Labour Government of 1997 onwards is not and could not be replicable. We have acompletely different world now - tariffs, Trump, Xi, Brexit. Who on earth is saying otherwise?

There is a lot to learn from Labour's domestic policies in the Blair government largely pursued by Brown in terms of progressive policies where spending was severely restrained - minimum wage; sure start, free museum entry, smoking ban, human rights act. 

We don't know much about the policies that Starmer will pursue but there are good signs on planning and on health. The absolutely no 1 priority has to be increasing productivity. We can't afford to do anything otherwise.

#4

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Josquius - Today at 03:17:06 AM

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.

You often hear the same sort of thing from certain people when it comes to slavery; "What about the Muslim slave trade! It enslaved far more people! And the Africans sold slaves to the Euros!".
And to this... yes.
But when we're talking about British or American history that's not really relevant. That's something Algeria, Nigeria, etc... need to come to terms with. It is the crimes of white people that are ours to own.

[Making good, profitable games 'will no longer keep you safe': industry expresses fury and heartbreak over closure of Hi-Fi Rush and Prey studiosGamers and game developers are reeling from yet another wave of layoffs and studio closures.]

#5

Gaming HQ / Re: News from the lovely world...

Last post by Syt - Today at 03:13:55 AM

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/making-good-profitable-games-will-no-longer-keep-you-safe-games-industry-expresses-fury-and-heartbreak-over-closure-of-hi-fi-rush-and-prey-studios/

Making good, profitable games 'will no longer keep you safe': industry expresses fury and heartbreak over closure of Hi-Fi Rush and Prey studios

Gamers and game developers are reeling from yet another wave of layoffs and studio closures.

After laying off thousands of employees over the past couple years, games industry executives appear to be adopting a more efficient method of what they euphemistically call "reprioritization": closing entire studios. Take-Two axed two studios just last week, and now Microsoft has bulldozed four more, including Arkane Austin and Tango Gameworks, which it acquired when it bought Bethesda in 2021.

The dissolution of these talented, well-respected teams has reinforced the feeling among gamers and developers that nothing is good enough to earn security under big publishers today. In one popular tweet, indie developer Maisie Ó Dorchaidhe listed 11 things "that will no longer keep you safe in this industry," including "a good game," "a profitable game," and "long hours and sacrifice."



Indeed, Tango Gameworks' Hi-Fi Rush was deemed by Microsoft to be a "break out hit" in "all key measurements and expectations" last year. And in his email to staff today (acquired by IGN), Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty said that the studio closures "are not a reflection of the creativity and skill of the talented individuals at these teams or the risks they took to try new things." Rather, Microsoft is "prioritizing high-impact titles."

The message being heard is that you can do everything right, but still be deemed 'low-impact' at any point by the suits upstairs, and then it's curtains. In the wake of the announcement, fans and developers have expressed fury, heartbreak, and unease, especially over the future of other Microsoft-owned studios, which include Obsidian, inXile, Double Fine, and Ninja Theory.

"Extremely cool and not devastating at all how even studios and devs who make award winning or best selling games aren't safe from ✨restructuring✨ and ✨divesting resources elsewhere✨," wrote Firaxis writer Emma Kidwell.

"I don't understand the closure of Tango Gameworks," wrote Helldivers 2 studio CEO Johan Pilestedt. "I mean... Why close instead of divest [sell]? Surely the team would easily have been able to find a new home."

"I cannot imagine hearing you're being let go because of prioritisation of *another developer* is especially good for morale," said Larian publishing director Michael Douse, "especially if you're in another regional office of a shuttered sister office 🤦�♂️- imaging reading that and working in Obsidian, or something. Wild."

#6

Off the Record / Re: Star Wars Megathread

Last post by celedhring - Today at 03:13:35 AM

Getting up to date with Bad Batch.

For some reason this show has never grabbed me. I don't think it's a bad show, but I think, in the end, I just haven't been able to get emotionally attached to the protagonists.

Anyway, I like Assaj a lot but I wish that fan-favorite dead Star Wars characters would just stay dead for once.

#7

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Josquius - Today at 03:13:19 AM

The big long article- very mixed views, some stuff I really disagree with others less so.

Such failure offered an opportunity for something new, the author argued. "The old parties cannot face the future because they have run out of answers, energy and leadership. Now is the time for Britain to move on and face the future." A new "movement" to bring forward "a new political class" was needed. This new political class would then "scale the social innovation that is already happening in our communities" while "incubating solutions not ideology".

Such solutions are then set out in distinctly New Labour language: early years education to reduce inequality; universal child care to help people back to work; a strong NHS and affordable housing. Planning reform is also mentioned, or what the author calls "rezoning land up, out and in". Taxes should be on land, not work; the economy remain open; and "meaningless immigration caps" removed. Britain must also reclaim its role "as a global leader" by tackling international challenges such as climate change. "We can move on to this future, but only if we have the courage to face it." As worthy as these policies may or may not be, they seem unlikely to form the basis of a great new popular uprising.

McSweeney's view, according to those who know him well, is even harsher, seeing the document as everything that is wrong with progressive politics today, attempting to tap into an anti-political sentiment with a clarion call for a new political class wrapped in language seemingly from another era. At the core of his disagreement, however, is the document's attitude to class. "Every century in Britain, a new force in politics has emerged as a result of big shifts in society," the document declares. "These shifts create the new coalitions upon which a new politics can be built." And the big shift in the 21st century?"The growing dominance of the middle classes and university graduates". Among these "rising social groups" as the document calls them — "graduates, middle-class professionals, and ethnic minorities" — there is an openness to the world not found among those from "the once-dominant but now fast-declining groups" listed as "older white voters, the working classes, and school leavers".

The central argument for the proposed new political party, therefore, is that class is no longer the central divide in democratic politics. "A voter's views on multiculturalism, diversity, immigration and the internet are now a better predictor of political allegiance than economic interests," the document argues. A majority of "open" voters in every region of the UK believe "multiculturalism, social liberalism, feminism, environmental sustainability, immigration, globalisation and technology" are positive.

1: As the dominance of the middle class in the traditional meaning of the word- yes, absolutely.
But at the same time we've "Lost" the middle class.
These days there's not really much of a divide at all between those in middle class and working class jobs. They live next door to each other, hanging out together, they're much of a muchness.
This is good on one level, but on another it is a key part of the problems we face in this country today; rising to the "middle class" has never been easier.... but this means fuck all. You don't see much of an increase in quality of life for your efforts.
Rather than working-middle-upper class, the divides today are lumpen-working/middle-rich.
I do think this is core to the rise of populism, this lack of hope in the future, a belief that no matter how hard you try you're never going to measurably improve your situation, the world isn't going to get any better.

2: The electoral map is hinted at here but not really mentioned in the article much that I notice. Labour's problem pre-Starmer was as Sheilbh says an inefficient vote. Piling up supporters in the cities with young working/middle people, whilst the grey ex-industrial towns wavered, large chunks of the traditional labour support base were.
A: Educating themselves and getting the fuck out.
B: Retiring reasonably well off and selling out to paranoia over modernity.
C: Dropping below the working class into being lumpen wastes who rarely vote, and if they do its for the easy answers that don't require thinking about complex problems.

3: The way they word it here in terms of openness is one way of looking at it. I see it kind of relatedly in terms of hope for the future vs. a coalition of nostalgia and nihilism.
The big divide is in those who think we actually can make the world a better place and those who think its irreversibly stuck as a zero sum game and all they can do is fight for the biggest share of the scraps.

As such "for the first time in a century, a new national force in British politics could thrive". To get such a movement off the ground, a charismatic leader was needed and an army of new supporters. Oh, and money — hence the proposal. The document suggested offering free membership to all with a higher £5.99-a-month "founder" tier with the offer: "Found the new politics for the same price as a Netflix subscription."

The system naturally frowns on such things. Its curious though you never really hear any talk of how Labour supplanted the Liberals for an example of how such things can happen in the British system.
The answer I suspect is one that whatever divides we have today they just don't compare to those of pre-WW2 Britain.

McSweeney found a place failed both by its Labour council and its Labour government. At the centre of the borough was Becontree, once the biggest council estate in the world, supported by the Ford car plant in nearby Dagenham. By the time Blair became prime minister in 1997, however, deindustrialisation and right-to-buy had undermined its social fabric. Homes had been bought by landlords, divided up and rented out, often to new immigrant families attracted to the cheapest housing in London. As the area became more transient, it became less maintained. As tenants came and went, landlords would simply dump their unwanted belongings in front gardens. When residents complained, the council produced pamphlets disproving this "disinformation", and emphasising how much they had spent cleaning up the area. Enter the BNP, who simply blamed the foreigners.For McSweeney the problem was not one of communication, but of reality. The area had got worse. Families who had lived here for generations were embarrassed that the houses next to them were suddenly a mess. They were also angry that absentee landlords from Hackney, Islington, Essex and beyond were able to act with impunity, while they could barely change the colour of their front door without council permission. In response, McSweeney encouraged the removal of the existing council leader and helped deliver one of the most popular policies in local government history: the "eyesore gardens policy", proposed by the new council leader Liam Smith, whereby the local council sent in workers to remove the rubbish outside people's homes — and then charged the landlords for the trouble. In 2006, the BNP had stood 13 candidates in the local elections and won 12 seats. In 2010, they lost them all as Labour swept the board winning every single seat in the borough.

Oh yes I've seen this.
Its so bad it often seems intentionally so- these shit exploitative right to buy landlords often renting to foreigners, usually packing them into HMOs. Its just so easy to blame the renters who are disproportionately non-local than the faceless landlords.
This stuff needs a huge crackdown.
I like the Dutch system of placing price caps on rent for the quality of a home.

Curious they speak of it in the past tense though. Now its sorted in London its sorted? Its really not up here....

McSweeney's lesson from Barking was not just that voters should be listened to because that was good politics, but that voters should be listened to because they knew what they were talking about. They were right about Barking and the council had been wrong. Nationally, however, a similar story was playing out, McSweeney believed.

Yes. But with a huge but.
Just listening to the voters is a path of populism. Joining in with the pitch fork waving mob.
But listening intelligently, figuring out the actual problem from what they're saying...100% the correct path.

In 2010, the Labour Party had gone into the election telling voters the recession wasn't their fault because it was caused by a global crisis; they were acting like a giant Barking Borough Council. Voters had every right to blame the Labour government for the reality of falling living standards. Something new was needed, but Labour wasn't offering it.

Gordon Brown saved the world. We need to stop letting the Tories write history.

There were other projects available, he admitted. One alternative was what he called the "rabbit hole of identity politics". But the other was more pointed. "You could even completely unmoor from the concerns of working people," Starmer said as Blair watched on. "That sounds ridiculous to me, but some people did seriously suggest it after the Brexit referendum." Starmer here, is of course conveniently skating over his own support for a second referendum at this time, but there is little doubt where his remarks were pointing. Starmer then went on to add that, while he agreed with Blair that the technological revolution would be game-changing, there was "one place where I do take issue with Tony: the idea that this is somehow beyond Left and Right. No, for me, this is a progressive moment."

It seems to be hinting at the myth here that working people support brexit?...
And that amongst those who do this is a deeply held concern?
This I will not agree with.

I think this also captures the essence and problem of Blairism and what I think it got wrong and why it's not an answer now. For all the fact that he is very much in the centre, there is something determinist and teleological about Blair that is almost Marxist - a lot of his idea of politics is that the forces driving societies are broadly beyond political control. They are deep, structural shifts and the job of a "progressive" leader is to embrace those inevitable and progressive changes and place their country in the vanguard. In the 1990s and 2000s it was globalisation, increasingly in Blair's interviews it's now tech. Attempting to temper or adjust the course of history is Canute-ish - at best you'll fail and disappoint your voters, at worst you'll actively harm the country.

I'd argue it has always been about technology.
The third industrial revolution which we're still seeing now started off way back in the mid 20th century. Harold Wilson and his white hot heat of technology speech and all that.
Globalisation was merely a way in which the core technology change issue showed itself- other countries doing a better job of embracing modern technology than we did, the massive drop in number of workers needed for the same jobs meaning just a few companies in the world could do their job for everyone, etc...

Running with the Canute analogy I'd introduce one of my own we should seek to embrace: Holland.

As he points out the divide isn't left-right but, in Blair's phrasing, open or closed - or perhaps radical v conservative.

Not sure on radical vs. conservative. I'd say more forwards vs. backwards.
We're currently in a pit of shit. In which direction should we head to get out.

The problem with that is that I think in practice it created vulnerabilities with the crash and the combination o the global financial crisis and the war on terror (including Iraq) I think undermine Blair's "inevitability" analysis. I also think that in the last 15 years it has become even clearer the importance of contingency, the open-ness of the future which means trying to shape it rather than simply embracing and being the cutting edge of current trends - and I don't think Blair has really adjust/been able to adjust to that.

I also fundamentally think that any analysis of democratic decisions that just end up saying "voters were wrong/have been duped" is at best a dead end politically. And without getting too Marxist, you can't change the coalition of a party of the left to not include the working class without fundamentally changing the nature of that party and the politics it will pursue. I think Blair is fine with that - I'm less comfortable.

Yes. You absolutely need to take care of working people for myriad reasons.
Even if some brain wave came along and made it so everyone on less than 30k a year was suddenly a horrible racist and this rule would remain in place forever...the sensible thing to do would be not to ignore them but to try and uplift as many of them as possible out of this.

#8

Gaming HQ / Re: The Miscellaneous PC & vid...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 03:12:04 AM

As much as Sony was in the wrong/messed this up, I understand them being fired.

[Microsoft announces 4 studio closures—including Arkane Austin and Tango Gameworks, creators of Prey and Hi-Fi Rush respectively]

#9

Gaming HQ / Re: News from the lovely world...

Last post by Syt - Today at 02:22:46 AM

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/microsoft-announces-4-studio-closuresincluding-arkane-austin-and-tango-gameworks-creators-of-prey-and-hi-fi-rush-respectively/

Microsoft announces 4 studio closures—including Arkane Austin and Tango Gameworks, creators of Prey and Hi-Fi Rush respectively

Microsoft's Xbox division has announced a rash of studio closures as part of an effort to prioritise "high-impact titles" according to multiple sources, including IGN and Bloomberg. Included in the four announced studio closures are Arkane Austin, Tango Gameworks, Alpha Dog Games, and Roundhouse Games.

Arkane as a whole has been responsible for several excellent games over the years—such as Dishonoured, Prey, and Deathloop. Arkane Austin's most recent effort, Redfall, was far less well-received. Arkane Lyon will survive Arkane Austin's closure to work on its adaptation of Marvel's Blade.

Tango Gameworks, meanwhile, developed The Evil Within games and Hi-Fi Rush—as well as Ghostwire: Tokyo. Both will be joining Alpha Dog Games and Roundhouse Games (formerly Human Head Studios) in the round of closures.

As per a letter sent to IGN by Matt Booty, head of Xbox Game Studios, the decision was made out of a desire to funnel more resources into "high-impact" titles, including Bethesda's games.

"Today I'm sharing changes we are making to our Bethesda and ZeniMax teams," Booty writes. "These changes are grounded in prioritising high-impact titles and further investing in Bethesda's portfolio of blockbuster games and beloved worlds which you have nurtured over many decades.

"To double down on these franchises and invest to build new ones requires us to look across the business to identify the opportunities that are best positioned for success. This reprioritization of titles and resources means a few teams will be realigned to others and that some of our colleagues will be leaving us."

Arkane Austin will see some, but not all, of its members moving to work on other projects under the Bethesda banner—likewise, Roundhouse Game will also be merged with ZeniMax Online Studios. Otherwise, it's shut doors all 'round.

Developers have already taken to Twitter, both to express their frustration at the sudden news—and to offer sympathy for those impacted. "This is absolutely terrible," writes Dinga Bakaba, co-creative director at Arkane Lyon. They implore those in charge to avoid the kind of cutthroat behaviours that led them here in a further thread:

"Don't throw us into gold fever gambits, don't use us as strawmen for miscalculations/blind spots, don't make our work environments darwinist jungles. You say we make you proud when we make a good game. Make us proud when times are tough. We know you can, we've seen it before ... For now, great teams are sunsetting before our eyes again, and it's a fucking gut stab."

This news comes as a further pile-on to the crushing waves of layoffs that rocked 2023 and are, unfortunately, continuing into 2024.

It's a sting in two parts—Arkane has historically had a great pedigree of titles, while Tango's work on Hi-Fi Rush was extremely promising. Plenty of infuriated fans of the latter have already brought up this tweet from almost a year ago by Xbox's Aaron Greenberg, who called Hi-Fi Rush: "a break out hit for us and our players in all key measurements and expectations".

However, Arkane's Redfall was a major embarrassment for both the studio and Microsoft in general, and while Hi-Fi Rush is an exceptional, extremely popular videogame (it was my personal pick last year, after all) Ghostwire: Tokyo didn't quite set the world on fire. As such, Microsoft's mission statement here could be read as bracing for Starfield's short tail by scuppering—and the air quotes hang heavy here—'underperformers'.

Starfield sold well, of course it did, but it had nowhere near the continued interest as some of Bethesda's other mainline RPGs. As our online editor Fraser Brown pointed out last week, the modding community isn't as ravenous, and while Starfield was nominated for a lot of awards, it didn't win many. I'm not sure Bethesda can afford for its next project to stumble in the same way.

Microsoft itself also spent $68.7 billion on Activision Blizzard recently, which firmly plays into the persisting, Embracer-style story of large companies snatching up a bunch of studios, only for the house of cards to crumple later at the cost of said studios and their cancelled games.

Ultimately, these closures are a grim reminder of the sudden collapses that accompany a AAA industry dominated by large-scale acquisitions and gung-ho business decisions. It's a pattern plenty of developers have picked up on, and they're reasonably unhappy about a titanic industry that, somehow, completely fails to remain stable.

Is there any other industry (esp. outside entertainment) that sees (fairly well known) companies constantly rise and fall like the gaming industry?

#10

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Admiral Yi - Today at 12:53:08 AM

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.