Regional controls aren't what they used to be. At first they were physical incompatibilities, easily gotten around with cartridge converters. With the advent of the Playstation and Saturn, the regional-lockouts were built in (the 3DO had no regional lockouts). But something happened... starting with the original XBox , things started softening for home consoles. Microsoft decided to let the publisher decide if they wanted to have regional lockouts for their games or not, as opposed to mandatory lockouts.

To the best of my knowledge, no publisher (deliberately) took advantage of that (Capcom had a "whoops!" with Street Fighter II: Anniversary Edition).

Now? The 360 continues the publisher optional lockouts, and the PS3 (allegedly) will ship with no regional lockout for games at all. Veritably, this is a dream for people with tastes for games that exist outside their markets: Japanese dating sims, European football (soccer) hooligan games, etcetera.

There's a lot of talk with the pro-Blu-Ray crowd about having multiple localizations on a Blu-Ray, and that could be great for niche titles that might not be viable outside their home region - just print a few more out for fans outside the country. However, I don't see Blu-Ray being essential to this for most games - text takes up very little space, and cinematics could have a seperate audio track - you don't need to redo the video (assuming there's FMV used instead of the ingame engine). Given current audio-compression techniques, you could get a lot of audio in relatively small amounts of space (for example, I have a 3 hour audio book that takes up 43megs). Just layer the spoken audio on top of the music/sound effects.

Personally, I'd rather get the original voice actors and read subtitles (which every game should have anyhow for the benefit of those with hearing difficulties or roommates/spouses). Localization gets expensive since you need to find, negotiate with and hire voice actors, rent a studio, do all that studio work, make sure it syncs up decently, edit, redo, etc. And if you're trying to get actual talent (not phone-in's/hacks), the costs only go up.

There's one other consideration, one I'm sure more than a few publishers have thought of; the major disadvantage of not having regional controls once a game is cracked, it's cracked everywhere. Add in the localization being on-disk, then a game that was originally pirated in China (where there's a actual market in illegally copied software, movies, etc) could be bought by and played by English speaking gamers without a mod. So potentially any system available could play pirated games.

If Sony enables Self-Protecting Digital Content style DRM for PS3 games, the further complication would be a person could try a pirated game, "kill" the PS3, and either chuck it (environmentally irresponsible), try selling it (ripping someone off), or returning it claiming the system is defective (ripping off the store). Worse than that is somebody (say your friend Bob) could try playing a bootleg game on your system, kill it, and never admit it. All you know is your PS3 stopped working.

For this reason I hope that Sony changes their stance on the PS3 being completely region free for gaming to being optionally region free depending on the publisher. While Sony has not announced using the SPDC DRM on the PS3 (and might well not), the risk of bootleggers being able to take a single, universal version of a game and sell that isn't good for publishers. Most western pirates will take an ISO of that disc and make it available for other pirates for download further compounds the risk.

As much as I love imported games, I'm going to have to say that publishers need the option to enforce market regions, especially given the rising costs of next-generation games. It's a small, simple thing; practically nobody outside a small segment of the market as a whole cares about it; and Sony would offer their developers and publishers a nice (token) security blanket and an additional level of control that they'll appreciate. Publishers can take the regional controls and use them as it best suits them, ranging from tight control, a completely open game, and anything in-between.

Follow up to the A-XNA commentary: The thread devolved into the usual nonsense - there were some *very* good posts, but they were lost admidst the wailing of idiots on both sides. Aaanyhow...

---

Since nobody cares that Sony wasn't the first out with a hobbyist console development (NEC was with the Develo for the PC-Engine), can we at least agree this is good in that Microsoft is at least *actively* promoting and refining the idea? And hope that Sony (with their ties to Linux and OSS) would respond? And that (dare I hope) Nintendo does likewise?

Hobbyist game making isn't for everyone - no denying that. But for the people its meant for this is great, and could respark interest in doing homebrew/recreation game creation, which could lead to a boom of professional gamemakers ten years from now (remember Jazz Jackrabbit? Gears of War creator CliffyB's first game?). And if all the console makers get involved in this (opening up to hobbyists), then they'll keep each other honest in order to attract the hobbyist community.

For once lets stop caring "who was first," "who ripped off who," "that company sux" and all the other idiotic fanboy CRAP and look at the bigger picture: we could well be staring at the start of a gaming renaissance, but instead of just being on the computer (where things have been for years) it's happening on current consoles, being promoted by the console makers; not somebody trying to make a new Atari 2600 game long after the system's dead.

Original story here.

------------------
Renaissance  - n 1: the period of European history at the close of the Middle Ages and the rise of the modern world; a cultural rebirth from the 14th through the middle of the 17th centuries 2: the revival of learning and culture
------------------

This is *superb* news. The only thing that could make this better is if Sony and Nintendo responded with a comperable product that would work for the their consoles, maybe Windows, and in Sony's case, Linux. Get the products and their respective communities working together (and some friendly rivalry, of course) and we could well see a renaissance of hobbiest games!

Not only can we hope to see new, innovative titles, but certain niche titles that aren't financially attractive to most publishers anymore (2d games, beat'em'ups, scrolling shooters, adventure games, etc) could see a grass-roots, community based resurgance! If nothing else, just like cooking can deepen your appreciation of a meal, I think this will help the gaming community better appreciate games that come out - developing one's palette, if you will; or at least understanding how hot the kitchen gets!

Well, I'll be getting a 360 now - this *really* tipped the scales for me ^_^

I simply have to ask - why are people tracking me?

Just curious. I'm pretty sure I'm not passing money out, so...

Original story here.

So - it seems there are rumors of a PSP price drop. While it would be nice, I don't quite see it just yet. Sony and Nintendo both claimed the two systems "weren't competing" back in the day (allegedly each system is going for different parts of the market without much overlap). If Sony is currently profitable with the PSP, a price slash won't make too much sense unless they think they can get a substantial gain in users. Given the type of people that the DS is attracting in droves (casual-, non- and former gamers), I'm not sure they'd want a PSP even at a lower price. The PSP, to me, seems more for the casual, enthusiast and hardcore gamers, to me. It wouldn't be the first time Nintendo has beaten off a technologically superior rival - the Gameboy has a pretty large body count of dead "rivals." Shooting for a different market segment (especially considering how big the gaming market is now) makes sense.

Let's not forget Sony is launching the PS3 this year also, which will lose between $150-250 per unit sold depending on who's estimates you use. If Sony isn't losing money on the PSP (or better yet, is making money), I can't see a single reason why they would want to have two money losing systems out at once. The PSP is selling nicely (although trailing behind the DS, it's "non-rival"), and I'm sure the games are doing decently at that. There should be a great crop of games coming out this holiday season, and for everything it does the PSP isn't *that* horribly priced (although it's hardly an impulse purchase). UMD movies aren't doing so well, but I think that has to do with lack of interest more than installed user base.

One guy on thread wrote "Make a dent my ass. The PSP seems to be going the N-Gage route." There are numerous other comments that the PSP is a failure, piece of trash, etc...

I don't think so. The N-Gage could only dream of doing 10% of what the PSP has so far. It's a viable handheld system, has good titles, has real marketing behind it, and while a bit expensive, I have no issues with it (darn drive for the UMD - I dislike moving parts, but that's about it). No, when everything is said and done, I think Sony is going to end being a profitable "number 2" in the handheld market. Which is more than anyone else has ever done, I think.

Bottom line? Sony needs the revenue from PSP and PS2 related sales this holiday season (and for the forseeable future) to help offset the PS3 losses and expenses. I don't see a price drop coming for the system this year, although I certain wouldn't complain if I got proved wrong. I'm not overly interested in the system myself, but I certainly wouldn't begrudge someone the system of their choice. If Sony plays their cards right, the PSP should be a solid, steady money maker for them for many years to come.

I personally miss the Neo Geo Pocket Color, but I am a SNK fanboy ^_^

Same place - Commenting on a remark concerning next-gen systems typically adopting a next-gen storage format.

The main difference between game systems adopting DVDs during this past generation and Sony adopting Blu-Ray for the PS3 is that DVD players and media came out starting in 1996, the PS2 debuting in 2000 - by this point the DVD format was relatively mature, proven, and the price point was coming down nicely. This go round, the PS3 is coming out with Blu-Ray in the same year, 2006. Its new, unproven, and has not only its predacessor to compete with but HD-DVD. It is also possible that neither format will win out - by the time HD is a "must have" for everyone, its possible that online, on-demand, or some other storage medium (such as holographic storage being developed by InPhase Technologies and built by Hitachi Maxell)  might render them irrelevant.

While I think Sony's plans are good long-term investments/gambles, I will readily admit there's too much riding on the PS3's success (Cell, Blu-Ray, etc). And for the time being (indeed, the next few years) there's nothing wrong with DVD's as a storage medium, either single or dual-layer (4.7g and 8.5g each, respectively), especially when you consider the price per disc (see my post below).

Sony is pretty much pricing themselves into a "premium" corner for the time being, and its purely because of Blu-Ray. It's risky, has debatable value for gaming in the next few years, has driven up the price of the system (they're still losing *how* much money on each PS3 sold?), and makes a game more expensive to physically make (leading to my belief that a lot of PS3 games will actually be printed on regular vanilla DVD's). Never mind the potential hazards of the PS3's initial shipment (launch systems usually aren't the greatest) AND the fact that Blu-Ray is new itself.

I went to Newegg for prices (manufacturers will get lower prices, obviously):
100 CR-R's = $0.20 each
100 DVD-R's = $0.40 each
1 Blu-Ray DVD-R = $15.99 each

Yes, recordables cost more, and these are retail prices, but the point is easy to see; its significantly cheaper to put a game on multiple DVDs than to use a single Blu-Ray disc. If a game will fit onto 2-DVD's, why pay all the extra money for unused space? If you only need 7-8g (less than 2 DVD's), but end up paying for 25g (Blu-Ray), you're wasting 17g worth of space, and all that money (at those prices DVDs= $0.08/gig versus BR= $0.64/gig). And as it's been pointed out before, most games don't even fill up a single DVD (not even Oblivion on the 360!).

While its nice that Blu-Ray can offer so much space on a single disc, it's still expensive per disc. I strongly suspect that many PS3 games will actually come on DVD rather than BR discs; if you don't need to use BR media for your game, then it makes more financial sense not to use BR media. The less it costs to make the game (physically), the better. Any savings or additional costs will be passed on to the customer, and the next-gen games are going to be expensive enough to make for companies...

Original Story
While not the best option (I always wonder how well "add-ons" really do), it's not horrible, either. From what I've read, I much perfer the HD-DVD specifications, partly because a HD-DVD movie can be backwards compatible (ie, it can be made to play on a standard DVD player), and partly because it has less DRM than Blu-Ray (which might be why more movie companies like Blu-Ray; they love that DRM!). Also, unlike Blu-Ray, it is the true successor to the DVD (as per the DVD Forum).

It's a bit safer in some ways, also. If/when the format war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD has a winner, by using an external drive Microsoft (or some 3rd party) can make sure that format can be played back on the 360 - Microsoft has already said they can make an external Blu-Ray drive, but have no plans to do so. And unlike Sony, they aren't losing money on supporting a HD-format out of the box, nor is it jacking the price of the system up (how much cheaper would the PS3 be if it wasn't for Blu-Ray?).

As for game storage - the HD-DVD is just for movie playback, no gaming aspect. Personally, its not that big of a deal to me - just ship on multiple discs if you're going to use that much space on a 360 game. Companies that like to use tons of pre-rendered CGI or video will probably perfer Blu-Ray (like Square), but in all honesty with the power of these new systems I don't see why more cinematics can't be done with the ingame engines...

At any rate, I perfer to actually have a choice in the matter. HD simply is not important to me, so not having to pay for it is fine by me. When I'm ready to move up to that in a few years, fine. But don't bother me until I can get a small HD set for around $100-150 USD and the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD format war has been resolved.

 Like a lot of people here, I like to post my two-cents worth on the different news threads. However, I am really beginning to understand an observation made by someone around here:

"People go to forums to speak, not listen."

It's difficult to keep track of all the posts, I realize, but at the same time it seems like the only reason many posters read anything someone has to say is so they can insult them later on. Not very useful to anyone. And like many forums, there's a fair bit of equally useless chest beating that goes on around here. Instead of seeing who is/isn't a true American, cultured, "pure (insert ethnic group)," etc., around here it's who is or isn't a "true gamer."

Oh for crying out loud...

"A true gamer would have no problem paying over $600, or even $1,000 for a (insert launch console, "on eBay" optional)" "A true gamer would never buy a game from those sell-outs at (insert game publisher/developer)!" "A true gamer would recognize that only (insert genre) are where gaming is heading..." "True gamers don't play (insert genre/sub-genre). Only (insert derogotory name for people-group) play that junk - like you, you (insert derogatory remark)."

Drivel. Nonsense. Idiocy. And making us look like a bunch of freaks. Triumph the Insult Comic Dog is on line one for the gaming community - he'd like to speak with a few of us concerning our personal non-lives.

Although in vain, I hope to see a day when "h@rdk0r3 l33t g@mrz" aren't doing the talking for the community. If they annoy and disgust people within the gaming community itself, they must seem like complete, anti-social, mal-adjusted rejects by everyone else. Can we just agree that "gamer" means "one who plays games," regardless of genre, play mechanics, etc?

Original story:

While I'm disappointed Halo 3 isn't coming out, I'd rather Bungie not be rushed. Epic (and Cliffy B.) make some great games, so I am excited about this.

Chances are Gears of War will not stop someone who's getting a launch PS3 from buying one; so forget about it affecting the PS3 launch sales - those are practically guaranteed. However, there will be a LOT of people who, for one reason or another, will not be buying a PS3 at launch (price, availability, etc). Those people will be be looking at PS2's, 360's, Wii's, etc., this holiday season. Gears of War is a showboat title for the 360, and can help turn those customers who won't/aren't/can't get a PS3 towards the 360.

GOW won't steal launch sales from the PS3, but could affect Sony during the holidays regardless by stealing sales from the more profitable PS2, and potentially stealing some who might've been a future PS3 customer. The average person/gamer is not going to get the PS3 AND the 360 at the current price points, if at all; it'll be one or the other, and if one loses out (ie, they buy one and end up getting the other later), the old system will probably get sold or traded-in.

Microsoft gets more systems out, has an opportunity to lessen the pool of customers Sony gets for the PS3, and (hopefully) gets that much closer to profitability for the 360 in '08. It's a smart, solid move, and serves them better than a rushed version of Halo 3 would.

Now, a real bombshell of an announcement would be GOW comes with a Halo 3, Live-enabled demo O_O