Going....going....

There was always a reason Garfield hated Mondays. Many owners of older PlayStation 3's will wake to the news of a late Sunday post over at the PlayStation blog announcing the "Install Other OS" option will be removed from the system in the upcoming firmware update.  The reason cited includes being able to "continue to have access to the broad range of gaming and entertainment content from SCE and its content partners on a more secure system." (Emphasis added.) Users can continue to keep this feature by declining to upgrade, at the expense of the PSN, "future" Blu-ray titles, media servers with DRM, and future PS3 features. (*cough* bullshit *cough*)

Bad form Sony, bad form. The "Install Other OS" option was a touted feature at console launch, and despite this particular option falling into obscurity, it sets a nasty precedent for the future of "fat" PS3s. We fully expect Sony to make some sort of statement, be it official or otherwise, reassuring gamers backwards compatibility or other features will not be removed from older consoles. Problem is, Sony has gone on record stating they don't intend to "bring back" backwards compatibility, and it's reasonable to assume this potentially means not supporting existing BC as well - an argument further supported by the gradual phase out over the console's lifespan. In addition to this, there's the factor of the cost of supporting multiple firmware options on the same basic system - Sony stands to save a lot by standardizing the features offered across all PS3s.


Are we saying BC or other features are going away? No, but Sony has most certainly planted some very sinister seeds of doubt in the minds of many and unfortunately the Japanese giant seems to have a way of causing seeds to bear fruit.

Six Months Later - Tidbits of Interest

Digital Stardust has been mute primarily for a single reason - we have had nothing to say for quite a while. Our stated mission statement remains "Analysis and Commentary on the Video Game Industry" but the problem is so little has changed in a significant way in the industry since our last post in August 2009. A few things have crossed the radar, but nothing alone has been enough to warrant a standalone post. Rather than continue to wait, we present several small items of interest we believe keep in line with our mission statement.

Analyst Claims Wii May be in Hot Water
Industry Gamer reports analyst Mike Hickey has been crunching the numbers and is predicting the Wii will "Fade meaningfully" during this year. Consoles typically last around four to five years in traditional lifespan, and the Wii appears to have been designed on this timetable. Nintendo is also releasing all their big-hitter titles this year (Mario Galaxy 2, Metroid: The Other M, and Zelda), leaving a fog of uncertainty once the release cycle completes. Can Nintendo afford to announce and launch another console when the 360 and PlayStation 3 appear to have plenty of steam left? Hickey suggests Nintendo instead offer a console price drop and open the door wider to third-party support.

Source: Industry Gamers


Music Gaming Sales Down
Billboard reports music gaming sales are down about half when comparing December 2008 to December 2009 ($468m to $250m). Several commentators around the internet have speculated, and I have to agree, the trend is being caused by lack of real innovation in the formula employed across most music games - timing notes move toward a fixed point on the screen and you press a button, hopefully in time with the music. This has been the case since beatmania and persists into recent titles such as Guitar Hero: Van Halen. Solution? Change the formula to be fresh and new. Will Power Gig accomplish this? Time will tell.

Source: Billboard


Reggie Has Spoken
One of DiS' biggest gripes is the lack of the Regginator's crowd-exciting speeches we heard back five years ago before the Wii launch. We're pleased to report Reggie has spoken with Forbes magazine. The results, however, have left us scratching our heads - for instance, Reggie indicates Mii clothing will not be made available as "it's not an idea that creates value for the consumer" (Nevermind the fact 360 Avatar clothing has made enough money to draw big names like Disney). He also states Nintendo is not interested in HD as it does not create new experiences for gamers. We smell a bit of Sony attitude here, and we don't like it.

Source: Forbes


GameStop Alternatives Going, Going, Gone?
Some shoppers love GameStop, some hate it (I do). It appears GameStop's position as one of North America's dominant game retailers has been strengthened with Movie Gallery's (owner of Game Crazy) filing for bankruptcy this week. Reports claim a combined 760 Movie Gallery, Hollywood Video, and Game Crazy stores will be shuttered. Several of my local Game Crazy stores have gone off into the abyss, so if you're inclined, check in with yours to ensure they'll be there when you need them.

Source: The Lamron


This is Digital Stardust, signing off.

The Market - She's Dead, Jim. Or is She?

You may have noticed Digital Stardust has gone mute for several months now. This is no accident. The intent of DiS is to comment on the game industry as a whole, with a focus on trends and topics affecting large portions of the community - developers and gamers alike - but when the industry stagnates, there is only so much you can say before you have become a broken record. Rather than become a site riding a dead horse, we've simply gone quiet in the meantime. Plans are in the works to change the situation and provide engaging content, however these things take time, so your understanding is appreciated.

The time has come to momentarily break the silence and speak to the staleness that is slowly creeping through the industry, and possibly discover who could hold the blame for the situation the industry sits in. The results may surprise you, they may anger you, but they'll certainly get you thinking, even if you don't agree.

What is causing the video games industry to stagnate? Before you can answer this question it is important to note the industry as a whole has not come to a grinding halt. Companies such as PopCap Games are doing very well with their famous casual titles such as Peggle and Bejeweled. The stagnation does exist, however, with powerhouse companies such as EA and Activision reporting slower sales and releasing fewer blockbuster titles this year as compared to years past. But what is causing this? Console and software pricing? The poor economy? Or is it something else entirely?

The first argument in our discussion-gone-monologue sits squarely at the console price. Console price has become a hot topic of discussion among developers as available dollars to purchase consoles and increase total number of potential software buyers has decreased due to the poor economy. It just makes little sense to the unemployed consumer to purchase a pricey console, so the cost of entry has become of increasing importance to developers. Yet, the cost of entry has sat squarely in the same position since each of the current-gen consoles launched. The sorest point is named "PlayStation 3", exacerbated only by the moves of Microsoft as they position the Xbox 360 as the biggest bang for the buck on the block. Microsoft has done a good job of managing the 360 SKUs available to the consumer from the get-go, charging less for systems with fewer accessories and more for systems with more accessories, but keeping the basic console playability the same. Sony by comparison has removed functionality from their system in an effort to reduce cost, something the consumer is less concerned with when they see the system they've been eying does less for the same price. Nintendo makes a profit for each Wii sold, but they've attracted a market segment previously not known to exist, which allows the Kyoto-based developer to keep console prices the same due to their current market segment not being accustomed to price drops.

No matter where you sit in the console interest matrix, the fact remains the fun boxes are pricey machines. Developers know this and have been increasing pressure on manufacturers to drop the price, especially Sony. It is no small potatoes when the president of the company known for Guitar Hero and World of Warcraft delivers a clear threat of stopping console development for the PlayStation 3 if the console does not become more accessible to the average gaming consumer. Square-Enix has taken notice in North America and Europe, by developing the upcoming Final Fantasy XIII for the Xbox 360, breaking the PlayStation 3's exclusivity on the title and marking the first time in the franchise's history a title will launch on multiple consoles. The Land of the Rising Sun is also showing troublesome signs for the market, as console sales in general are down 25% year over year, with a large portion of this being attributed to the high cost of the PlayStation 3. Sony may have billions to recoup from the Cell processor, but their current strategy is strangling the market in general. To cope, current console lifecycles are being extended (newer hardware over time becomes older hardware, which becomes less expensive to produce and develop for) and older technologies are being extended (case in point, the Wii is a souped-up GameCube).

What about the global economic recession? Without a question this is a factor in the current equation adding up to the market situation. The average consumer is seeing a decrease in work or the same pay in a market where prices are higher than they ever have been, in effect creating less buying power power per dollar. What you could buy with a $1 now requires $2 or you get less for that same $1 (14oz. Coca-Cola, anyone?). Console prices are higher than they ever have been, but even those with the same total dollars available from before the recession are seeing their overall total effective buying power decreased, reducing the market's accessibility to them. This reduced buying power manifests itself through stronger sales of software for consoles already owned and fewer pieces of software sold for newer consoles. In short, consumers are getting more choosy about their games because they want the biggest bang for their buck. Developers often develop "throw away titles" - titles created with a small budget and a big license to generate sales with a high profit margin, which they use to fund their AAA-class blockbusting titles, however sales of "throw aways" are through the floor, reducing available R&D resources. This explains why only a handful of established franchises are turning out titles in the current market, as opposed to a more balanced mix of new franchises and established ones - with less money coming in developers are not as willing to risk their limited capital on a new franchise. Fewer new faces on the shelf create the impression of a stagnating market in the consumer's mind, leading to a circular effect of reduced interest in spending money on gaming as a whole.

So is the market stagnating? If you count the slower pace at which flashy new gaming consoles and technology driving them is being trotted out, the strategy of developers to "play it safe" by sticking to established franchises and invest in fewer new ones, and reduced console and software sales as a whole, yes. There are a few shining examples where the recession has not hit, such as the iPhone App Store and casual gaming provided by companies such as PopCap, but the market in general is down and slowing. Consoles are pricey, dollars buy less, and software sales are on a slow slide. But is there a possible underlying cause to even these reasons? Did something sew the seeds of market slowdown even before the global recession hit?

There might be.

What is this possible underlying cause? Us, the consumer. Let's back up to 2004, when the PlayStation 2 was in an intense battle with the Xbox. The PlayStation 2 was an established powerhouse with a massive install base in the millions and heavy hitting titles blowing even the highest expectations out of the water. The Xbox was making waves in North America by releasing titles so gorgeous, yet playable, even though it was never expected the console would beat the PS2 (that honor was saved for the 360 vs PS3 race). Developers were releasing titles to great, beautiful success coated in a layer of eye-candy.

If you have a good thing, doing more of it will be even better, right? This became a persistent cry from gamers - we want MORE beautiful titles, we want MORE powerful systems, and we want MORE fun. Manufactures responded by doing just that, creating powerful multi-core processors requiring billions in investment dollars. Gamers got what they wanted, but they had to pay the piper for it, and a lot of them weren't ready. The development investments needed to be recouped and the consoles were priced accordingly, bringing us into the pricey console era that exists today. The $400 console is a result of the demands of consumers and gamesmanship of the previous era, but at $400.

So the next time you're visiting your local game retailer, take some time to consider where you're going to vote with your money. Do you want the $60 title, or might it be worth waiting for the title to become less expensive? What console do you want to purchase it for? The less expensive ones, or the more expensive ones? Digital download or physical disc? Memory unit or hard drive? In an era when developers are watching the market closely, they have, they can, and they will know when sales increase due to price drops. If it becomes a recurring trend, developers will have to rethink what the public is willing to pay for their gaming fix. Instant gratification has its short term expense, for sure, but the long term effects may be more important than ever.

Tales of Playstation 3 Purchasing

I went to go buy a Playstation 3. It's still $400. 2 years later. I did not buy my Playstation 3. Way to go Sony.

Playstation 3 - The New Dreamcast

The economy is in a downturn. EA, Microsoft, Nintendo and even Disney are reporting down profits or planned layoffs. The world is on its ear, it seems. Then there’s Sony. EA looks like they’re set for smooth sailing compared to the former electronics giant. Today the company reported a 95% drop in profits compared to last year. This is not a normal piece of news. CEOs and executives are often removed from the companies they lead for reports like this. People killed themselves in the 1930s for such news. Due quick publication of this article, Sony has yet to show any reaction to this news from its earlier publish today.

Driving this news is simply a case of Sony’s being out of touch with the market. The Playstation and Playstation 2 are some of the best consoles to ever hit the market and new PS2s still sell to this day. The platforms are easy to program for from a designer standpoint, and the install-base (which is used to determine potential sales) is incredibly large. Sony made the bad assumption of gamers just simply moving straight over to the most expensive console of all time – one hell of a gamble on just the Playstation name. They also exhibiting some of the poorest business decision making skills witnessed in business.

Historically the market does not support any console over $399 – each attempt has failed. The Philips CD-i, TurboGrafx-16, NeoGeo AVS, and 3DO all died summary deaths based on the price point limiting the install base. Sony is also echoing a bad business decision repeatedly stated as the reason Sega died a manufacturer’s death – supporting too many consoles. Upon the launch of the Dreamcast a decade ago, Sega was still manufacturing and supporting the Mega System, Mega Drive, Sega CD, 32x, Pico, Saturn, and Game Gear consoles in combination for various markets around the globe. Splitting resources so many ways drives inefficiency and spreads resources thinly. Sony is supporting the PSOne, PS2, PS3, and PSP – when history shows only two consoles is what a company can support while still achieving significant financial success, as Microsoft and Nintendo do.

Also driving Sony’s severe downturn is the cost of investing in the cel processor. Some investors have indicated the company many never make a profit on the processor and any feasible plan would require a significantly longer product lifecycle for the PS3 or a recycling of the processor for a theoretical Playstation 4. If this is done Sony cannot afford to market or let any sort of recycled product image enter the market or the console will suffer.

But gamers rarely care about the business factors and historical trends associated with games – most only know of the premature death of the Dreamcast and the Sonic franchise. A majority of gamers care only about what the console can do for them, how much space it wants in the living room real estate puzzle, and how much it costs. Cost has already been addressed – it is simply too high for historical trends but it is also too high when comparing it to what the console some of the true factors involving console sales come to light.

In an era of companies pushing high definition gaming and multifunction devices, gamers want consoles that play not only new titles, but their older titles as well. When deciding for one console or two, one will always win. Sony’s decision to remove Playstation 2 compatibility all currently-sold Playstation 3 models has left a bitter taste in fans’ mouths. PS3s that can play PS2 titles do a fantastic job of upscaling older titles and adapting them for HD on the fly and it once served as a significant selling point to potential buyers of the hardware. With this feature removed, gamers are not nearly as interested in placing an entirely new console into their entertainment centers without removing another. Yes, PSOne compatibility is there, but the PS2 era is where Sony’s titles began to shine and garner their dedicated following. Removing this option to play PS2 titles was just plain stupid when you consider Sony’s decision to cash in on the Playstation brand name. Couple this with the high cost for such a small usable library, and you’ve got a recipe for poor sales.

So is Playstation 3 the new Dreamcast? Yes. Given Sony’s continued game of making decisions and correcting mistakes later versus anticipating and invigorating the market, it is likely the powerhouse console will likely die off completely a la Dreamcast, see some drastic hardware changes, or be refreshed as a different console. Trying to let Sony know how to change is like screaming at a brick wall, so I won’t even try it. Anyone want some popcorn? I’m going to watch the show.

Me and my PSP

The PSP and I have had a rocky relationship over the years. I was right there in line at launch day and got mine, but I was trading it back in and repenting for getting rid of my DS within a month. It just seemed all the cool demos and promises weren't there when Sony had promised me they would. Software also wasn't that great. A few months later I again purchased a PSP in the vain hopes something better had come along - but nothing doing. Again it went back into the trade bin. Nearly two years later and I'm again faced with a PSP decision, mostly on the grounds of the upcoming Kingdom Hearts game and all the great mods the system supports. So today I'm going to head down to Best Buy and check out the possibilities for my purchase. Patapon certainly looks interesting, as does Crisis Core, but I'm likely to keep it simple for now and use the PSP more as a media device until my money works out more in favor of PSP software. I just worry I may end up regretting my purchase...again. My DS took a fat crap on the R button and I'm not forking $90 to Nintendo for a new unit, so I think now may be the time to check out the smaller PSP-shaped gorilla.

Sony is Playing Too Much

Sony has been boneheaded about the Playstation 3. Before all you fanboys jump onto the comments board and start flaming me, hear me out. It's a clearly established fact that the PS3 contains some incredibly saucy hardware capable of curing cancer, finding aliens, and assisting you with your assination information gathering. It's also a clearly established fact that Sony has no clear hardware roadmap as everything from price to system configuration has changed more times than ever seen with any console. While it appears the PS3 is on the way to recovery, has the system screwed early adopters of the console?

Consoles in the gaming market rarely see core hardware changes due to necessity. Developers often enjoy developing for consoles as opposed to a PC because game code can be optimized for a universal hardware base, where a PC game has to be optimized for the lowest possible configuration or two listed on the box. This convenience has lead to some incredibly astounding console games in both graphics and sound, but also play, as developers do not need to spend time optimizing code for several hardware configurations.

This isn't to say that core hardware changes don't occur - they do, namely in the form of shrinking the hardware or placing the actual chips in different spots on the circuit board. But these aren't true hardware changes in the sense of chips being eliminated or more RAM being added to the board or a better graphics chip being inserted. Miniatureization is an essental non-change, as it does not split the market between older console owners and newer owners. The Xbox 360, while also in three retail configurations, sport the same basic motherboard no matter the package. The minute a manufacturer starts removing microchips, the sooner they invite new electrical and processing problems into the motherboard.

Going a step further, developers will not even start to develop games on the assumption a peripheral has penetrated the market as deeply as the console core itself, despite the sales numbers showing high attachment rate, as they begin to split the market and decrease potential sales when they do. The Wii is an example of this, as no developer has dared to optimize a game for anything but one controller and nunchuck. Every wonder why games that are based on a special peripheral always include it, or why sequels have a separate SKU for an edition that comes with hardware? It is to avoid market segmentation.

Enter Sony and the Playstation 3. After numerous console delays and even more speculation as to cost, Sony released their next-gen console with a huge loss margin and at a price that is historically not supported by the market. Desperate to recover costs on the slow selling software, Sony did whatever they could to reduce cost. Enter the first hardware change - a smaller hard drive and the removal of the actual Playstation 2 engine chip from the motherboard. Enter a second change - the removal of the low end 40GB edition and a new, differently configured model. Now the market had three different hardware configurations of the same console and developers quickly became confused, as evidenced by delayed and slow releases. Sure, the CPU was the same but what else was? Sony themselves didn't know, as several more console configurations were released around the globe in an effort to somehow "catch on" with the mainstream. Even Sony's legacy - backwards compatibility - has gone out the window in an effort to just sell consoles.

The net result? Severel confused gamers that are cheated out of their money. Sony once touted all PSOne games would play on PS2, and PS2 would play on PS3. Now they can't all play together and if you listen, you will hear the confused and angry consumer complaining about this. Consumers are screwed in another way as well, in the form of development. Developers for the PS3, while still dealing with richly powered hardware, are unable to develop for a better configuration as they now have to focus on the lowest end configuration. While this may translate into a lost cutscene that would, say, show a cameo of an older PS2 game that could utilize the PS2 hardware to save resources, the impact could be much more significant in terms of taking advantage of full console power. And software emulation of PS2 hardware versus the actual on-board hardware? I smell an Xbox 360 syndrome in which many Xbox 1 titles will never be playable again. Consoles that were based on software emulation will be ignored as Sony focuses on the current line that lacks backward compatibility. Let us not forget that any Guitar Hero fan will have to buy an all new game an guitar controller for the PS3. A net change in dropping backward compatibility support is a drop in research to create hardware that bridges older peripherals into the new hardware. A PS3 with an emotion engine in it will not allow you to use the PS2 guitar, a huge slap in the face of fans of that hugely popular series - all in the name of cutting cost, since now Sony is not about to invest in an easy-to-produce PS2 to USB adaptor.

This is just one example of how early adopter gamers were screwed by Sony. Developers now will be forced to watch the hard disk cache, consider HD limitations for non HD iterations of the console, consider gamers without DualShock 3, and how to release games onto the PSN for play, since the hardware has changed so much. Xbox Live Arcade requires "trial versions" of all games, which is something PSN could learn from, but may struggle with due to said fractured hardware SKUs. There are a number of people who refuse to download something they are unsure of because of this. The list is longer than this but I think I've made my point. If you bought the PS3 early, you were screwed. Sure, another hard drive could be added here or there but the point is you shouldn't have to. The Playstation 3 is a great console, and one I want myself, but I'm still waiting on the final configuration to be decided upon so that I can make the best investment with my gaming dollar. What do you think? Has Sony really messed up with killing hard disk space and backwards compatibility? Are you willing to pay for previously included features at a later date? Do you even care? Let me know your thoughts.