Gaming News

seitora

Well-Known Member
Potentially the worst drivel of analysis I've seen with the GameStop short squeeze (maybe I should've put it in Outline first to even deny them clicks).
 

chronodekar

Obsessively signs his posts
Staff member
Potentially the worst drivel of analysis I've seen with the GameStop short squeeze (maybe I should've put it in Outline first to even deny them clicks).
Without even following the link, I just hover to look at the title and see "gamestop-stock-surge-trumpism". The attempt to link stock market short selling with the political movement of a former US president, shows a terrible lack of understanding of both issues.

About the short-selling mess, I like the way Elon Musk tweeted about it. To paraphrase him,

Can you sell a house you do not own? No.
Can you sell a car you do not own? No.
But you *can* sell a stock you do not own.

A simplified explanation of how short selling works, is that you (the short-seller) sell a stock (which you do not own) to someone today. Then, you actually buy the stock tomorrow (or on some specified future date). A catch with these type of transactions is that you cannot guarantee what the future price of the stock would be. What happens if there is a small number of those stocks, but no one is willing to sell to you? You have a contractual obligation to buy the stock - no way out of it. Only option available? To offer a higher price and pray that someone sells to you. In a sense, its gambling.

A lot of "big money" hedge funds decided to gamble with Gamestop's stock and short sell it. A random guy on reddit noticed that they (collectively) sold (short sold?) more stock that was physically available in the market. He buys a large chunk of the stock, publicly talks (or brags) about it weeks ago - basically a reverse gamble. A lot of other random internet people see his analysis, check it for themselves, decide that it's good and do the same thing.

The story *should* have ended here with the hedge funds being forced to pay whatever high price the stock is currently being sold at.

Instead, the hedge funds use their influence on multiple brokers (the middle men between you and the stock market) to prevent people from buying Gamestop stock - they only allow the stock to be sold. Which is blatant market manipulation, if I ever saw it!

One part, I'm personally unsure of is with the US-broker named "Robinhood". What is unusual about them is that they do not charge comissions to their customers. A very unusual agreement. Here in Canada, I use Questrade as my broker - they let me buy/sell whatever I want on the Canadian market, but charge a 0.xx% comission on the sale (I do not remember the exact comission number). Robinhood ... does not charge anything - so it feels fair to me that they get to tell their customers "Sorry, but we can't let you do any more transactions". i.e. they are offering a free service - if they want to stop doing that, they should be allowed to do so.

-chronodekar
 
Without even following the link, I just hover to look at the title and see "gamestop-stock-surge-trumpism". The attempt to link stock market short selling with the political movement of a former US president, shows a terrible lack of understanding of both issues.

About the short-selling mess, I like the way Elon Musk tweeted about it. To paraphrase him,

Can you sell a house you do not own? No.
Can you sell a car you do not own? No.
But you *can* sell a stock you do not own.

A simplified explanation of how short selling works, is that you (the short-seller) sell a stock (which you do not own) to someone today. Then, you actually buy the stock tomorrow (or on some specified future date). A catch with these type of transactions is that you cannot guarantee what the future price of the stock would be. What happens if there is a small number of those stocks, but no one is willing to sell to you? You have a contractual obligation to buy the stock - no way out of it. Only option available? To offer a higher price and pray that someone sells to you. In a sense, its gambling.

A lot of "big money" hedge funds decided to gamble with Gamestop's stock and short sell it. A random guy on reddit noticed that they (collectively) sold (short sold?) more stock that was physically available in the market. He buys a large chunk of the stock, publicly talks (or brags) about it weeks ago - basically a reverse gamble. A lot of other random internet people see his analysis, check it for themselves, decide that it's good and do the same thing.

The story *should* have ended here with the hedge funds being forced to pay whatever high price the stock is currently being sold at.

Instead, the hedge funds use their influence on multiple brokers (the middle men between you and the stock market) to prevent people from buying Gamestop stock - they only allow the stock to be sold. Which is blatant market manipulation, if I ever saw it!

One part, I'm personally unsure of is with the US-broker named "Robinhood". What is unusual about them is that they do not charge comissions to their customers. A very unusual agreement. Here in Canada, I use Questrade as my broker - they let me buy/sell whatever I want on the Canadian market, but charge a 0.xx% comission on the sale (I do not remember the exact comission number). Robinhood ... does not charge anything - so it feels fair to me that they get to tell their customers "Sorry, but we can't let you do any more transactions". i.e. they are offering a free service - if they want to stop doing that, they should be allowed to do so.



-chronodekar
I agree with you to a point. The problem with Robin Hood shutting down their services is the same issue I have with Facebook and Twitter censoring people. They are public forums, meant to be easily accessable to the common man. Platforms enjoy protections that publishers don't because they "don't control what people post". When they cross the line into censorship, they should lose those protections as they become a publisher.

The redditors did nothing wrong and should not have been shut down like that. Likewise, many of those same people were then kicked off Social Media platforms like Twitch and Discord because of what they were doing. Nevermind that one of the hedgefunds that lost a bunch of money was Citadel, who owns Robin Hood.

The whole thing stinks of corruption and collaboration between the Government, Big Tech and Wallstreet.
 
Last edited:

da_fox2279

California Crackpot
EDIT: Removed because the link wouldn't post right.
 
Last edited:

da_fox2279

California Crackpot

chronodekar

Obsessively signs his posts
Staff member
What is remarkable about the Terraria/Google story is how long it's been going on and what Google/Youtube was doing about it. As I understand things,

* the dev tried contacting Google directly, but does not hear from them
* the dev publicly contacted the official Youtube twitter handle and offered to have a DM (direct message) private conversation about the issue. The YouTube response was "no need for that, have you tried these generic suggestions". It is a big insult that one of their suggestions was about "what to do if you forget your password" - which means they did not fundamentally understand what the concern was about.
* weeks later, still without access to their Google account, the dev publicly decides to jump out of Stadia.

From the dev's perspective, what *might* have started the whole thing was a strike on their official Youtube channel - which they use to post trailers of their game (if nothing else, I think we can conclude that they own the rights to the videos posted there). BUT, they hadn't posted anything new to their Youtube channel in almost 3 months - so they conclude that the strike was a mistake and do not pay it much attention. A reasonable course of action, if I were in their shoes.

My conclusion with this whole mess? Move away from "free" email providers and store your own backups. A LOT of work, sure - but better than just losing it all because of a decision out of your control.

-chronodekar
 

seitora

Well-Known Member
Market dominance + Google probably not giving a duck since they'll be shutting Stadia down in 6 months anyways (nothing official was announced, but this is Google)
 
The release of the 2nd Part of the Final Fantasy VII remake has been announced for June.

With the 1 year Exclusivity Contract with Sony about to end in another week, rumors of PC and Xbox releases of FFVII Remake have heated up again with some retailers hinting at it.
 
I'm pretty sure that's just an updated re-release for PS5/next gen + a dlc campaign involving Yuffie.
 
There is that too, but it's been heavily hinted separate from that, that it will come to PC and Xbox. I've also seen rumors that PC will get it and Xbox won't, in retaliation for Microsoft buying Bethesda and rumors that Fallout/Elder Scrolls possibly not getting future PlayStation releases.

Square-Enix hasn't said anything either way, so we'll see.

However, given that certain games like the Kingdom Hearts series got delayed PC/Xbox releases, it stands to reason that PC and/or Xbox will release Parts 1 and 2 at the same time, PS users get Part 2. Which coincides with PS5/XBX releases of current titles like FF7 Remake and Marvel's Avengers.
 
Remakes of the Diamond/Pearl Pokemon games have finally been announced: Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Pokémon Shining Pearl

Coming late 2021 (almost certainly November)
 
Remakes of the Diamond/Pearl Pokemon games have finally been announced: Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Pokémon Shining Pearl

Coming late 2021 (almost certainly November)
Given the low quality of Sw/Sh as well as Omega Saphire and Alpha Ruby I don't foresee these games being particularly good.

The backlash that's sure to follow might be entertaining at least.
 
I agree with you about SwSh, I wasn't impressed with them. ORAS weren't that bad in my opinion though, but I can see your point.

They also announced something called "Pokemon Legends: Arceus", which apparently is going to be a new adventure in the Sinnoh region either in some alternate timeline or a long time before. It looks like it has potential too. It's coming out in Early 2022, apparently.

And the Pokemon Snap sequel/remake/whatever comes out on April 30 of this year I think it was. So, two months.
 
My 9 year old son was just taking about that this morning. He's pretty well stoked. I'm more ambivalent since I haven't played Pokemon since Sapphire and Fire Red came out for the Gameboy SP.
 
I do know that if I ever played the Legends game, I'd be picking Cyndaquil as my starter. Rowlet is cute but I don't care that much for Decidueye (or Dartrix >_<), and I outright loathe the Oshawott line.
 
Honestly, I'm just happy to see a Johto starter again.
 

AoMythology

Apparently a report-er
I don't much care about the Johto starters honestly, for all the nostalgia. I like the Hoenn equivalents much better.
 
Top