Sony: Price cut would "annoy" UK customers

You know what really irks me? When poorly-selling, overly expensive electronic hardware is given a price cut. Nothing bugs me more, seriously. At least, that's what Sony's David Reeves, the head of SCEE, thinks.

Just when I thought Sony's PR machine couldn't do or say anything even more stupid than their pre-release hype, they come out with this absolute gem.

Reeves has claimed that the reason the UK will not be getting a price cut on their £425 PS3 is because he believes that doing so would, "annoy a lot of people".

On top of that foot-in-mouth moment, Reeves also stated that he doesn't think a price cut in time for Christmas 2007 is important, but instead 2008 will be more of a critical time for dropping the PS3's RRP.

Finally, Reeves is quoted as saying, "I see [the PS3] more as kind of like a tsunami - it starts small and gathers speed, and eventually, after four or five years, it will start to take you over."

Now, it's been said before by PlayStation big-shots that Sony has a ten-year plan for the PS3, and they expect the machine to have the hardware grunt to last at least a decade before they need to start on the PS4. But it seems ridiculous to suggest that it will be "four or five years" until the machine starts to take over?

If Sony don't sell the machines - and they won't, at £425 - they won't sell software or Blu-ray discs, which is where the money's really at. After another year or so they might have gotten manufacturing costs down enough to turn a small profit on each box they sell, but by then the 360 and Wii will be even further out in front than they are now.

I sort of applaud Sony for having a long-term machine, rather than the usual rapid upgrades you expect from videogame generations, but at the same time it seems like a ludicrous strategy to launch with a machine that few people would deny is overpriced and has a lack of AAA titles. They've fallen so far behind thanks to that double-punch, it's hard to see how Sony could reclaim the top market share, especially against the sales behemoth of Nintendo's Wii.

Microsoft's hardware woes might put the brakes on their efforts a little, but the 360 still has a tremendous library of games, some of which are famous as PlayStation titles; in addition to the Grand Theft Auto franchise, Microsoft will be hosting the next installments of Devil May Cry and, rumour has it, Metal Gear Solid. The one weak point in Microsoft's giant enemy crab is the Japanese market, but even there the 360's doing much better than anyone would have expected, and it's not all that far behind the PS3 (compared to Wii, anyway).

It's easy enough to paint the PS3 as an investment - Sony don't have much choice with the initial outlay required of consumers - but so far there's been little to suggest that it's an investment that will pay off, in entertainment terms. Especially with high-definition standalone players falling in price faster than the PS3, the biggest selling point of the PS3 given it's current lack of software - that it's a cheap Blu-ray player - seems to only be getting weaker and weaker.

iWant

I've been skeptical about the iPhone pretty much since it was announced; the iPod's synonymity with "mp3 player" pissed me off, especially since it's tied into iTunes so completely. I was expecting a lot of the same PR flash and no actual bang from the iPhone, but to be honest I'm getting more and more convinced.

I'm still far from a sure sale for Apple, though. For one thing, I have a problem the lack of a 3G or GPRS data connection. If they really want me to use it as a portable internet/email device, it's got to be at least as quick as my current phone. There's plenty of software concerns too; there are strange limitations on what you can do. For instance, there's no way to delete multiple emails at once - you've just got to wipe them one at a time. I get 50 or 60 spam emails a day, thanks to my email appearing on my website; having to go through each of them one by one would just get frustrating.

So, on that front I'm going to have to wait for the next model, which will hopefully address some of the missing hardware and software functions. Which doesn't bother me, really; I'm not sure I could justify anything like £300 on a mobile phone.

But if it was available as a free upgrade, colour me very interested indeed. Shame that's not going to happen though; while it was rumoured for a while that my cell provider, Vodafone, was going to get the exclusive iPhone contract, it's now looking likely that O2 (my old provider, as it turns out) is getting it instead. TMobile got the contract in Germany.

Which is a pity. I might still see if I can get into an O2 store and demo the thing when it launches (or a couple of weeks after, once the hysteria dies down), but this first generation is a no-go for me, at least until the exclusivity deal passes and I can get one for much less than retail.

I really, really want one, though.

EDGE's top game of all time...

What a load of bollocks. I've never been able to understand what people see in Ocarina of Time that's good, never mind the fevered worship for Miyamoto's weak 3D adeventure game. I hate just about everything about it; the plot's atrocious, the level design is weak, the overworld is uninspired, characterization is abysmal, and the whole thing is just so boring. If it didn't have "Zelda" on the box, these same idiots would be up in arms complaining about how poor the whole thing was.

Didn't stop EDGE, the UK's bastion of self-important videogame wankery, from naming it their number one game of all time in a recent list (can we quit it with the lists, already?).

Other mentions go to Resident Evil 4 at #2, which is fair enough - although I think REmake on Gamecube was a more complete experience. Tetris only made it to 9 - immediately behind Halo, an abomination which shouldn't even be on the list. I'm surprised at Final Fantasy XII's inclusion as well; I'd have expected to see VII instead - not because it's better, but it's more like the faux-intellectuals at EDGE to bow to fanboy pressures like that.

There's a full 100 list due out in a future issue (apparently Crackdown's at 100), but Lord knows it's not worth buying EDGE for. I'll just read it via NeoGAF when one of them posts it.

"Terrorism"

I've been bristling a little over the last few days every time the news mentions these "terrorist attacks" in London and Glasgow - so, every 30 seconds or so. I couldn't place my finger on why exactly - from all the available information, terrorism seemed as good a label as any.

But then I read this article from The Register, which managed to put into words exactly what I'd been thinking all along.

We're giving these guys too much credit.

Frankly, if this kind of thing is the only backlash the West experiences for Iraq, we've got off pretty much scot-free: we should indulge in a spot of military adventurism any time we feel like it.

Conversely, if this is all al-Qaeda have to offer, we should never have lost a moment's sleep over them - let alone shoved our valuable appendages into the military meat-grinder of Afghanistan (I'm choosing to assume here that al-Qaeda only became a serious presence in Iraq after we invaded the place. Argue among yourselves as to whether Saddam was more or less threatening than Osama).

Getting back to here and now, these have to be some of the most pathetic terror attacks ever - difficult to distinguish from minor accidents. For goodness' sake, a car is full of petrol anyway; and gas cylinders too often enough. People drive cylinders of gas around all the time. Now and again - oh my god! - they probably carry boxes of nails, bolts, tools or whatever in the same vehicle. (Aiee!)

Sometimes these fiends crash their cars, and sometimes the vehicles burn out. It's one of the costs of living in the industrial world; if people couldn't get fuel - portable energy - easily enough to have accidents with it, most of us would still be dirt-poor, illiterate, shovelling muck for a living and dying like flies from disease - rather than dying very rarely in car crashes or gas explosions.

This kind of event happens on the motorways almost every day, at least the petrol fires and often enough with the other hazards added. The roads get closed off as a result, sometimes for hours - just like the Haymarket did on Friday morning. It causes massive inconvenience to lots and lots of people.

But the perimeter is manned by firemen and traffic cops, not bomb teams and terror-feds. And so this weekend a minor news story - one injured in bunt-out car / suicide attempt causes travel chaos - becomes a big international media frenzy, a "test of the new Prime Minister's mettle," if you please.

There's a lot more on the site, and it's worthwhile to read it all, even if it's just as a counterpoint to all the hysteria bullshit that's even being spread in the US.

UMG tries to bite Apple

I'm a big proponent of free (libre) software, and by extension of DRM-free media. If you want to take my money for an album or a movie (or office software), give it to me free first.

As a result, I'm not a big fan of iTunes. The EMI deal in April was a step in the right direction - better-quality songs without spyware for just a little more than regular songs. Still, the company's draconian approach to DRM in general (and the monopolistic iTunes/iPod tie-in bullshit that ties you to one player and one software app) irritates me.

Still, there's no question at all that iTunes was a step in the right direction. If the music labels had hammered out a deal with Napster back in the day, we'd not have to put up with all these crazy "CD sales are declining oh noes!" press releases from record labels. Labels who market their MAFIAA lawsuits as making sure the artists get their dues, all the while trying to reduce the amount of royalties they have to pay to those same artists.

Anyway, a legal download option has helped. For a start, it spread the truth about peer-to-peer filesharing's illegality. I'm rather astounded that some people still don't realise it's against the law (regardless of the moral standpoint).

But now, despite the fact that Apple's iTunes is the only really viable, legal music download vendor, Vivendi's Universal Music Group - the largest record label in the world, which includes Polygram, A&M, Geffen, Motown, Island, and Verve - has decided it doesn't like Apple's business and is pulling out of the iTunes store.

I think Cory Doctorow has a pretty good take on the whole thing:

But there's no denying that the iTunes Store is the only successful digital music seller that the majors have tried. They cry piracy all day long, and now Universal wants to shut down the only legit alternative?

It's clear that Universal wants leverage against Steve Jobs so that they can set their own prices, but brinkmanship won't win it for them. Universal already faces an increasingly tough time showing up in Congress and begging for more opportunities to strip everyday Americans of their life's savings (20,000 record industry lawsuits and counting). Going back to DC after shutting down the only successful online Universal retailer will be a fool's errand. "Help us protect our copyrights by suing people who take them without paying, even though we shut down the only store that anyone liked using."

This, of course, is the same Universal Music Group that wanted to sue MySpace and YouTube, and insists that everyone with an iPod is a thief.

Pulling out of the world's most recognised download store like this is especially insane when you consider that CD revenues are dropping off in a bad way - up to 40% in some markets. The former managing director of Island Records, Tim Clark, has described the CD business model as "fucked ... Physical revenues are going down like nobody's business and it's cataclysmic" - and this was in public, on record. He's got some pretty harsh words for the industry in general, which makes worthwhile reading.

There's more on the Universal story at The Register, with a slightly more reserved interpretation.

Stupid petitions

Following the BBFC's refusal to certify Manhunt 2, some bright sparks here in the UK got together and thought, "Hey - the Prime Minister's website has an online petition feature! Let's get on there and complain that we can't play a videogame!"

So they did.

Here's the full text of the petition proposal, followed by my arguments for why I thik it's a stupid move and a missed opportunity.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Restrict the powers of the BBFC with regard to the banning of videogames.

More details from petition creator
The BBFC have recently refused to rate the videogame "Manhunt 2". As such, adults in this country will never be allowed to play this game. Adults should be allowed to make their own decisions with regard to what videogames they want to play. We all understand that this game is extremely violent and unsuitable for children. As such an 18 rating should have been applied.

Why, for the love of God, did they restrict their complaint to just this one videogame? The BBFC should not, in my opinion, be able refuse certification of any media. If it's violent, slap an "18" on it and let that be the end of it. The BBFC should operate on the assumption that their ratings work, not worry that someone might get their hands on something deemed "inappropriate". In my opinion, that's just admitting that the system's broken.

Even aside from that, by only pointing out the games angle, the petition makes it sound like a bunch of petulant kids whining that they can't play Nintendo. I mean, if it was a commentary on the state of the ratings system and asking the Prime Minister to review the BBFC's powers and even the relevance of the Video Recordings Act 1984 in today's society, then it would possibly be taken seriously. As it is, it's just... weak.

I still signed it, though.

The Manhunt Debacle

I'm not the first person to offer my two cents about this, and I'm pretty sure I won't be the last. Still, I've had a hard time getting my opinion on the BBFC's decision to refuse classification to Rockstar's latest, and might as well use this space to try and put it as plainly as possible.

Firstly, I don't believe that the BBFC should be allowed to refuse classification to any material submitted to them. As a (legally) responsible adult, it should be my decision - not some quasi-governmental censorship body's - what I watch or play in my own home. Once you reach an "18" cert and keep cutting, you're telling me that despite being legally responsible for everything I do, I am not capable of making decisions about my choice of entertainment.

Now, some people have tried to stump this position of mine, attempting to fluster me by asking if I believe all content should be allowed in games without a censor's intervention. A couple brought up the notion of a game including player-controlled child abuse.

Honestly, I've got to say that - no matter my own opinion on the suitability of that subject matter in entertainment of any sort - I couldn't in good faith suggest that such material would be grounds for a ban of a game. So long as no real children were harmed during the production of the game, and are not harmed by someone (above 18, or who otherwise meets the age guideline) playing the game, what possible reason would there be to ban it?

My position on censorship in general is that it's a bad thing, which was also challenged by a brain trust insisting that, since I would be against a ban on violence in fictional entertainment, I must be for the idea of broadcasting real-life brutal murders (specifically beheadings) on the evening news.

The difference there, as I've explained to no avail, is that there's real harm involved there, as well as someone actively breaking the law. Willfully viewing or spreading footage of illegal activity should be viewed as complicity (except in terms of law enforcement professionals in the course of their job, obviously) in those acts. As a result I don't think the images themselves should be banned; rather, make it an offence to watch or broadcast them.

That's maybe a little more police state-ish than the idea of censorship, but there's my two cents on the whole issue.

In short: If it's not hurting anyone, why should I be prevented from watching or playing any TV show, movie or videogame I want?

Of course, Nintendo and Sony themselves made this all a moot point by saying they wouldn't allow the AO-rated game to be released on their machines in any territory.

Thirty years from now, we'll be arguing about holograms, or something

Following the recent resurgence in anti-videogame propoganda by Hillary Clinton and Jack Thompson, there've been all sorts of articles and reports about the GTA:SA Hot Coffee mod and so forth.

Now, the "do video games cause violence" debate is raising it's ugly, misguided head once again.

I was in a shop near work this morning grabbing some stuff, and of all magazines, The Economist cover leaped out at me, with this cover, which certinaly implies a much more negative view of the videogame industry than the article actually provides.

Chasing the dream
As video gaming spreads, the debate about its social impact is intensifying

IS IT a new medium on a par with film and music, a valuable educational tool, a form of harmless fun or a digital menace that turns children into violent zombies? Video gaming is all these things, depending on whom you ask.

Gaming has gone from a minority activity a few years ago to mass entertainment. Video games increasingly resemble films, with photorealistic images, complex plotlines and even famous actors. The next generation of games consoles—which will be launched over the next few months by Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo—will intensify the debate over gaming and its impact on society, as the industry tries to reach out to new customers and its opponents become ever more vocal. Games consoles are the most powerful mass-produced computers in the world and the new machines will offer unprecedented levels of performance. This will, for example, make possible characters with convincing facial expressions, opening the way to games with the emotional charge of films, which could have broader appeal and convince sceptics that gaming has finally come of age as a mainstream form of entertainment. But it will also make depictions of violence even more lifelike, to the dismay of critics.

This summer there has been a huge fuss about the inclusion of hidden sex scenes in "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas", a highly popular, but controversial, game in which the player assumes the role of a street gangster. The sex scenes are not a normal part of the game (see above for a typical image). But the offending scenes can be activated using a patch downloaded from the internet. Senator Hillary Clinton and a chorus of other American politicians have called for federal prosecutors to investigate the game and examine whether the industry's system of self-regulation, which applies age ratings to games, is working properly. Mrs Clinton accused video games of "stealing the innocence of our children" and "making the difficult job of being a parent even harder".

Overall, it presents games in a very positive light, and the quotes from the anti-game brigade make them come across as being incredibly badly informed, especially when they're accompanied by ratios about gamer demographics and crime statistics that show a decrease in violent crimes since the PlayStation was launched in the 1990s.

There's also a pretty good editorial on the subject, that's "premium content" (read: you have to pay for it) on their site. Forunately, I'm at work and extremely bored.

Breeding Evil?
There's no solid evidence that video games are bad for people, and they may be positively good

"It is an evil influence on the youth of our country". A politician condemning video games? Actually, a clergyman denouncing rock and roll 50 years ago. But the sentiment could just as easily have been voiced by Hillary Clinton in the past few weeks, as she blamed video games for "a silent epidemic of media desensitisation" and "stealing the innocence of our children".

The gaming furore centres on "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas", a popular and notoriously violent cops and robbers game that turned out to contain hidden sex scenes that could be unlocked using a patch downloaded from the internet. The resulting outcry (mostly from democrat politicians playing to the centre) caused the game's rating in America to be changed from "mature", which means you have to be 17 to buy it, to "adults only", which means you have to be 18, but also means that big retailers such as Wal-Mart will not stock it. As a result the game has been banned in Australia; and, this autumn, America's Federal Trades Commission will investigate the complaints. That will give gaming's opponents an opportunity to vent their wrath on the industry.

Scepticism of new media is a tradition with deep roots, going back at least as far as Socrates' objection to written texts, outlined in Plato's Phaedrus. Socrates worried that relying on written texts, rather than the oral tradition, would "create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves." (He also objected that a written version of a speech was no substitute for the ability to interrogate the speaker, since, when questioned, the text "always gives one unvarying answer". His objection, in short, was that books were not interactive. Perhaps Socrates would have thought more highly of video games.)

Novels were once considered too low-brow for university literature courses, but eventually the disapproving professors retired. Waltz music and dancing were condemned in thew 19th century; all that twirling was thought to be "intoxicating" and "depraved", and the music was outlawed in some places. Today it is hard to imagine what all the fuss was about. And rock and roll was thought to encourage violence, promiscuity and satanism; but even today grannies buy Coldplay albums.

Joystick junkies
The opposition to gaming springs largely from the neophobia that has pitted the old against the entertainments of the young for centuries. Most gamers are under 40, and most critics are non-games-playing over-40s. But what of the specific complaints - that games foster addiction and encourage violence?

There's no good evidence for either. On addiction, if the worry is about a generally excessive use of screen-based entertainment, critics shouls surely concern themselves about television rather than games: American teenage boys play videogames for around 13 hours a week (girls for only five hours), yet watch television for around 25 hours a week. As to the minority who seriously overdo it, research suggests that they display addictive behaviour in other ways too. The problem, in other words, is with them, not the games.

Most of the research on whether video games encourage violence is unsatisfactory, focusing primarily on short-term effects. In the best study so far, frequent playing of a violent game sustained over a month had no effect on participants' level of agression. And, during the period in which gaming has become widespread in America, violent crime has fallen by half. If games really did make people violent, this tendency might be expected to show up in the figures, given that half of Americans play computer and video games. Perhaps, as some observers have suggested, gaming actually makes people less violent, by acting as a safety valve.

Neophobes unite
So are games good, rather than bad, for people? Good ones probably are. Games are widely used as educational tools, not just for soldiers, pilots and surgeons, but also in schools and businesses. Every game has its own interface and controls, so that anyone who has learned to play a handful of games can generally figure out how to use any high-tech device. Games require players to construct hypotheses, solve problems, develop strategies, learn the rules of the game-world through trial and error. Gamers must also be able to juggle several different tasks, evaluate risks and make quick decisions. One game, set in 1930s Europe, requires the player to prevent the outbreak of the second world war; other games teach players everything from algebra to derivatives trading. Playing games is, thus, an ideal form of preparation for the workplace of the 21st century, as some forward-thinking firms are starting to realise.

Pointing all this out makes little difference, though, because the controversy over gaming, as with rock and roll, is more than anything the consequence of a generational divide. Can the disagreements between old and young over new forms of media ever be resolved? Some attitudes can change relatively quickly, as happened with the internet. Once condemned as a cesspool of depravity, it is now recognised as a valuable new medium, albeit one where (as with films, TV and, yes, video games) children's access should be limited and supervised. The benefits of a broadband connection are now acknowledged, and politicians worry about extending access to the have-nots. Attitudes changed because the critics of the internet had to start using it for work, and then realised that, like any medium, it could be used for good purposes as well as bad. They have no such incentive to take up gaming, however.

Eventually objections to new media resolve themselves, as the young grow up and the old die out. As today's gamers grow older - the average age of gamers is already 30 - video games will ultimately become just another medium, alongside books, music and films. And soon the greying gamers will start tut-tutting about some new evil threatening to destroy the younger generation's moral fibre.

But that quote of Clinton's is very telling, too - "[videogames are] making the difficult job of being a parent even harder". Parenting is hard, but having to take responsibility for the games you buy your impressionable six-year-old is part of the deal. If a parent buys an M-rated (or, 18-rated in the UK) game for their child, it's the parent's responsibility if something goes wrong, not the game company who branded their product as unsuitable for under-17s. Games ratings are there for a reason, and while it wasn't surprising to see politicans call for enforcement of the rules, most of the time store clerks don't sell GTA San Andreas to any underage kids - they sell it to the over-18 parent who's buying something for their spoiled brat and doesn't even bother to check the game's content before they use it to raise their child instead of doing some actual parenting.

Like rock and roll in the 1950s, games have been accepted by the young and largely rejected by the old. Once the young are old, and the old are dead, games will be regarded as just another medium and the debate will have moved on. Critics of gaming do not just have the facts against them; they have history against them, too. "Thirty years from now, we'll be arguing about holograms, or something," says Mr Williams.