Hench

There aren't "police contractors" per se in the USA as of yet. However, the foundation work of monitored alarm systems like ADT are available, where they then call the police on your behalf. It isn't a massive leap for that alarm monitor to create a security division to respond to triggered alarms. If you look on Google, ADT own a fleet of impalas with light bars marked "Patrol and response" - pretty police-like. As to your point about the UK police, a few years ago I would have argued the toss, but I am no longer as sure that the police can cope. As a taxpayer I would look at the service (less officers, people discouraged from reporting crimes) and ask whether I would pay for it with the option.

This question depends on what you mean by "police", if you mean a tax-payer funded public service then no you don't need the "police" as there are other private services and contractors available, but even this can be looked at depending on the society you are in. For instance, if you were to pay for "police" services like you paid for insurance, then this would not work in countries like the UK or the USA, where personal indebtedness is very high (as well as income inequality) and people own very little "wealth" with which to make a market work better than current state services, which are politically (with political capital accessible to us all) accountable rather than financially accountable (capital which is not readily available), and therefore a state service is really the only fair way to ensure people's security (which is the need strand in this debate). I base this on the idea that for the freedom of the insurance markets to work properly then people both need choices of products and the option to "opt out" as they can fall back on "rainy day" cash, as well as the ideas of Thomas Picketty who has observed that wealth generate wealth faster than income does. Having "private" police contractors would therefore only work in places like Luxembourg or the city of London where people can afford to participate in the market and "opt out" when there is not a product for their needs/wants. How the systems supporting this sort of "market" system would work is a different issue, and does not necessarily support the case "for" or "against" this particular quandary, rather they can be made to work for either. So I answer "no" but only on the basis that it is possible to go without the "police" as we know them currently, but recognise that to get to that point, western societies would have to change drastically. Regards, Hench.

Your instincts were correct this was a model of KevinDV's. He posted it on gtamoddingchest.com (him and his friends website, I think) along with a very nice looking Caprice. However, the website has closed and the model wasn't re-released anywhere to my knowledge.

Despite being British, I actually happen to agree with American constitutionalists on the role of religion in society. That whilst people should have the freedom to worship as they please, it shouldn't become institutionalised i.e. no faith schools, no state religion. Unfortunately, there's a tradition of the monarch being the head of the Church of England and as such religion has been institutionalised, which is fine. I do, however, feel that an institution, particularly one with some form of "public authority" as religious ones do, has an obligation to act in accordance with the various conventions on human rights. The European Convention in particular, which outlaws discrimination of any kind by public authority i.e. both types of partnership have to be legally recognised. On the issue of "same sex marriage" an ultimatum should have been issued - either offer the sanctimony of marriage to everyone or become de-institutionalised, including removal of bishops in the House of Lords. I mean you could expand this out. There's a lot of religious tension in the UK, Muslims appear to want to become institutionalised, why not offer them it? Of course, in turn you could get them to turn around views on women, how they teach the quaran to young children (rocking back and fourth, is questionable) and of course the issue of "same sex marriage". A more extreme version touted by some libertarians I know of is that public worship of religion (i.e. churches) should have certain conditions attached (i.e. recognising "same sex marriage", offering it) and if the conditions aren't met the places of worship should be closed and worship only allowed privately, so that there's no bearing on public life. I suppose the fundamental point I am making is that public authority comes with responsibility, one of those being equal treatment. Which brings to bear why civil partnerships aren't available to heterosexual couples? Regards, Hench

You're correct, it isn't. However, it does document the work of regulatory bodies and works along side them (which was why the story was covered), passing along information if necessary, often the public humiliation is enough to see a business change its ways. I am also lead to believe most of the presenters and staff behind the show are former civil servants who worked in OFT, TS. It is then the retailers responsibility to ensure their stock gets updated, i.e send all the old back to Rockstar for new, as it would be illegal to continue displaying it with misleading information once the ASA or OFT has stepped in. It depends how prominent it is on the box. Recently in England we had a spate of pay-day loan companies, which said you could borrow up to £500 in BIG letters, but in tiny small letters said at 1777% APR and that was ordered to change. In terms of your cruise question, the picture has to be representative of the quality of the room you would get for £50, if it is vastly different then it could be considered misleading. Many businesses work around that though by not actually showing a room, but rather the communal facilities. Okay, I was exaggerating that I would expect Rockstar to last 1000 years, it is more the case that I would like my favourite developer to last a 1000 years. Of course, it is legal to shut down a service, but it needs to be done with care and consideration. That consideration usually being notice, 30 days, now Microsoft has given notice in regards to the end of its GFWL service - even though it said it doesn't have to, but the disclaimer I made reference to seems to be separate from that and specific to the Rockstar Games - who has given no notice or acknowledgement of this scenario and until they do I can continue to expect the service. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the word "reasonable" is used a lot in consumer law and I would query whether, even with notice, it's reasonable for Rockstar to end its online services. Firstly, GTAIV Pc multiplayer is still used by thousands, if not, tens of thousands of people and secondly, the service will continue on Ps3 and Xbox 360. In addition to this, it's convenient and would be to Rockstar's gain to force the PC users, who up until now I have said "I'll wait for GTAV to come to the PC and play GTAIV multiplayer in the meantime" and by stopping GTAIV multiplayer it is effectively pressure selling the console copy. It's like a window salesman saying "You have double glazing at the moment, but look at our new triple glazing" then when you say "I'll wait" him the proceeding to smash all of your windows in. Regards, Hench

Yeah I admit you got me there cp702, both of those pieces of legislation more or less say the same thing, but yes it was a typo, clearly I combined the two together due to their likeness. “There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.” - Oscar Levant Jesting aside however. In terms of case law/evidence, it is very rare any sort of consumer law stuff reaches court in the UK, at least not consumer vs. business - usually you drop a letter to trading standards or the Office of Fair Trading - they say jump, business says how high. Your second question in regards to statements and third in regards to boxart are one in the same - the Sales of Goods Act requires goods sold to be "Fit for Purpose" and "As Described" - this meaning any purpose mentioned by the "offeror" (Rockstar games) to the "offerree" (me). Rockstar mentioned their product could be used for the purpose of engaging in 32-person multiplayer therefore that must be what it does throughout its life, the moment it no longer does that the product is no longer as described nor fit for purpose. An example of where a games company fell fowl of this was the launch of Fifa 13 by EA, in which all of the were offline meaning the multiplayer service wasn't there , as a result the case was investigated on the BBC's Watchdog. The boxart is a means of communication between the offeror and offerree - if the box is saying the product does something that it no longer does - it is misleading, and whilst not illegal per se, it would make Rockstar liable for enforcement action by www.asa.org.uk which can order it updates the information on the box. One specific example that actually backs up my boxart case is this: http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/9/Euroferries-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_232723.aspx Finally, both of your last questions as to the inadequacy of the clause on the box, a disclaimer doesn't affect my statutory rights, that is the "reasonable" expectation for my goods to be "as described" and "fit for purpose" and achieve a partial or full refund if not, which before it is asked, I can do at anytime, as it may be some time before the defect in the product becomes apparent. No I do not have the expectation that GFWL will be online for 1000 years. I do have the expectation that GTAIV multiplayer will, irrespective of whether GFWL closes or not. As I said Rockstar outsourced the hosting of Multiplayer to Rockstar and is therefore responsible for the continuation of the service and it is the case that if Rockstar do not continue the service that they are in breach of consumer law. GFWL closing is a separate legal issue between Rockstar and Microsoft. Regards, Hench

All I can express is my utter relief that I didn't get sucked into the Xbox marketing and media hype and buy one for myself. Not least because Xbox consumers, not least here in the UK have been getting the bum deal time, after time, after time. What I mean by that is whilst the Xbox may be cheaper as a unit and seem like it has more to it, but it is far more expensive in the longer term. First off, the console itself is poorly made and prone to faults throughout its life. The RROD error was linked to console overheating, Microsoft's advice: "Play it for less time." but that makes the product not fit for purpose (Trades description act 1968) as most of the games have a play time of 18 hours upwards, so it's reasonable for anyone to expect the console to hold out that long, but most barely held out for 30 minutes. I could go on forever about it's issues: the laser engraver, the fire starter, so on and so fourth. But onto the subject at hand, the online service. £70 for a year's subscription to Live, now to me that's extortionate and unjustifiable, and what's even more ludicrous is that Microsoft seems to think it can ban and suspend without reason or consultation, taking absolutely no account of the fact that people have paid good money to use the service and the service is not delivered. As to Microsoft stopping Xbox Live for everyone in three years time - this is the mourning song of a failing, poorly managed organisation. Now while Bulmer (or whoever is in charge now) and the board may be patting themselves on the back for saving money by cutting its services, it didn't take into account its legal responsibility to provide the service. Certainly, here in the UK the Xbox has been sold in packages such as the "Elite", which promised, both on the box and in marketing "unlimited free access to Xbox Live". Now much along the lines of debate I outlined over Microsoft's closure of GFWL on the PC (find it here: ) Microsoft therein becomes in breach of the Trades Description Act 1968 (as the box provides false description of what the consumer is buying), as well as the Sales of Goods Act 1979 (that says much in the same thing). Also the marketing materials would then become misleading and Ofcom/ASA rules breached. Furthermore, those who bought subscriptions separate to consoles will have their contract of sales breached by Microsoft, if they still have subscribed time after the cut-off point. Some people may say that "Oh you can just buy an Xbox One and then there's no problem", apart from the fact that cutting off a service someone has paid for, while starting a new one and saying "Tell you what pay £400 and you can have it back" is a form of pressure selling that's disgraceful and immoral, especially in these austere times, you know, what if that person is 100% satisfied with their 360 and wants to keep using it, Microsoft has a moral and legal obligation to ensure that person receives what they pay for, throughout the life of the product, irrespective of their new money-milking machine. Alas I digress, it would however be nice, in relation to GTA Online, to see Rockstar Games come out and explain what this means and what it will be doing to put pressure on Microsoft, to ensure that GTA Online will still function for the 360 audience, as GTAV is likely to be the most current GTA game for a half-decade or possibly more. I also sincerely hope Rockstar will stand their ground and say "it's staying on 360 and Ps3, and not going any further" (well apart from PC). As was with my previous little rant, feel free to use any of my arguments in your battle with Microsoft, if you're so inclined. Regards, Hench

Hey Jetfighter6969, Sorry to hear you're having issues with your game. Funnily enough, I suffered the fail to launch after the Rockstar Games login issue myself, but after a fresh install. In fact I created a topic on it, concluding with a fix, but if you missed it never mind. As it transpired the launch issue was cause by a problem with Games For Windows Live not installing properly or becoming corrupted during the install process and thereby preventing the game from starting up. The fix is quite easy, download the files from the description in this video and unzip and drop them into the game directory (obviously excluding the readme :p). In terms of your DFA error, I would run a fresh install, and then take things step by step. So start by launching the game (if it doesn't launch use the fix above), play through the first mission or save your game just to ensure everything is running hunky-dory, then patch the game, run it again and save the game, then begin adding mods, one by one running the game after each addition, so you can isolate and sort any issues. I hope this helps, and good luck, Hench

This is certainly an interesting predicament, especially for a consumer rights enthusiast like myself. I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is this: "Is it entirely legal or fair for GFWL/Microsoft delivering a promised service on behalf of Rockstar Games/Take2 just stop its provision come July 2014?". The first place to start is with my game case, the blurb of which says this: Exclusive PC Content Stunningly detailed, high resolution graphics Video editor allows you to capture and edit in-game footage to share 32 person multiplayer with Custom Match feature for optimised experience Customize a radio station using your own songs with independence FM It's there black and white on the case, and because it's there, the law says it is reasonable for me to expect to receive that promised service, if the service isn't provided or doesn't exist it constitutes a breach of the Trades Description Act 1979 which requires goods, including software to be: "as described – match the description on packaging or what the trader told you." Furthermore, I seem to recall a whole bunch of promotional activities/materials produced by Rockstar Games in regards to GTAIV PC Multiplayer - if the service no longer exists but advertisement still in circulation it's therefore misleading and in breach of consumer and advertising regulations. Of course, on the flip side of these two arguments is this little clause: But this makes no difference to my statutory rights or my expectation of receiving a service I was advertised and paid for. The only remaining question is who is culpable for this? Rockstar Games/Take2 or GFWL/Microsoft. Well the promise of a service was made by Rockstar, who outsourced the provision of the service to Microsoft and it's GFWL platform, but Rockstar are responsible to ensure the services continuation and quality. That is why, I suspect, Rockstar are so quiet. On a side note, for anyone with purely online games (like AOE) and you've paid money for them, then I would recommend you take up your case ASAP with Microsoft and failing them, trading standards. Anyhow, I haven't much cared for the whole GTAIV Multiplayer phenomenon - I find single player the much superior aspect, so as long as these changes don't interfere with my accessing of my software live and let live I suppose. However, for those who do feel free to use any of my arguments when making your case to Microsoft, Rockstar, trading standards or whoever. Regards, Hench

Timezone: GMT (Great Britain) Is your copy of the game legal?: Yes Question: Keybinds? Mind if I use them - for tactical benefit ofcourse, seeming as i can't/wont use voice communication. Regards, Hench.

UPDATE: Apologies for the lateness. This issue has been solved by re-downloading the xlive.dll files, which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpexR_ztIBw&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LLGLvmhwq18dxr6sPwxyD41Q (For EFLC atleast)

No I did not have any mods installed before the first launch. I uninstalled any mods I do have currently installed and tried running it; to no avail.

Ok, I find the launcheflc in the game directory, I right click, run as aministrator, the social club app opens up (the one after 1.1.2.0), i click play (I have entered all of my correct account details), the app closes and my PC acts as though it is starting the game, the disk appears for a short time then the windows loading anim happens, then it all just stops and nothing else happens. From my experience RSGSC gives an error, so I doubt entirely it is that.

I do have all three GTAIV, TLAD and TBOGT. I have EFLC installed (no errors or anything), which requires the disk to run. However I put the disk in and click the run button, yet it doesn't start. I did observe slightly fewer files in the root directory than last time.