Gameloft Sells 20 mil. Games via App Store

Gameloft has sold over 20 million paid games since the App Store opened in July 2008.

Of the 47 iPhone & iPad games launched from the beginning of this year, 42 titles climbed to the top 5 best-selling games on the App Store with 25 of the games reaching the number one spot. All of these consecutive and successful launches have helped Gameloft achieve a new level of sales on the App Store. Gameloft’s Let’s Golf ! franchise has continued to perform well with the launch of Let’s Golf ! 2 on the iPhone and the arrival of Let’s Golf ! HD on the iPad. Other notable titles include Iron Man 2, the number-one game sold in the United States and Europe; Brothers in Arms 2: Global Front the top ranking game for both iPhone and iPad; and the very successful launch of N.O.V.A. Near Orbit Vanguard Alliance on the iPhone 4.

Gameloft has developed and published 100 games since the App Store was launched in July 2008, including 18 iPhone games and 29 iPad games since January 2010. 15 other titles will be added to the catalog of games already available on the App Store by year’s end. This includes NFL 2011 HD, Assassin’s Creed: Altaïr’s Chronicles HD, Spider-Man: Total Mayhem HD on the iPad, as well as Dungeon Hunter 2, Gangstar: Miami Vindication, Star Battalion and Modern Combat 2: Black Pegasus (also available on the iPad) on the iPhone.

The first half of 2010 marks a new step for us on the App Store,” declared Michel Guillemot, President of Gameloft. “The launch of the iPad and iPhone 4 has opened new horizons for developers and allowed us once again to transform our consumers gaming experience. 20 million paid downloads is proof that our games meet the expectations of our players and we will continue to satisfy them.

Published on September 20, 2010 20:42.
Filed under: GI Analysis, News Impact Tags: , , ,

Game Violence? Game Over!

You’re all familiar with the latest installment in the Medal of Honor series and the fact that its multiplayer mode allows you to play as the [wikipop]Taliban[/wikipop]. Right? This piece will cast a new light on some of the accusations floating around, but more important will solve once and for all the ever lasting problem of “video game violence”. Epic!

First, the game.

Medal of Honor, an M rated game, launches soon. October 12 in North America and October 15 in Europe, for the PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. The game is set in 2001′s war-torn Afghanistan and uses a modified version of Unreal 3 for the singleplayer and the DICE’s Frostbite engine for its multiplayer.

Second, the controversy.

Karen Meredith (twitter/blog/info), the mother of Army Lt. Ken Ballard who was killed in Iraq in 2004, stated on her blog that “Last week, when I heard about the details of this game and the ability to be the Taliban and shoot US soldiers, I was shocked at the insensitivity to releasing this game as our members of the military fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This game trivializes the training and the service of members of the military.” She was also on Fox News. You can watch the video here.

A little bit over the pond, in the UK, Defence Secretary Liam Fox called it an “un-British game” and urged retailers not to stock it. Oh, but it doesn’t stop here. We’ll go back over the pond, this time in Canada, where Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay stated something quite similar.

Now that we stated the facts, lets see if it’s too soon to play such a game. First of all, I’d really wish Karen Meredith read these interviews. Of course, they represent the opinion of maybe too few persons and while everyone is entitled to his or her personal opinion, these interviews might be irrelevant, as they do not express the opinion of a majority. On the other hand, what EA has chosen to do is not a question of legality, but morality. Is it fair for the families who have lost their sons in Iraq or Afghanistan? I’m also a parent (though SHE’s just six months old). From a parent’s perspective, no, it’s not fair. Unfortunately life is not fair and if we start pretending it is, we’ll end up living in a bubble, an illusion a lot more dangerous than the Taliban from Medal of Honor.

Let me put it another way. How many victims of road accidents are the in US each year? According to the US Department of Transportation, the 37,261 Americans killed in car accidents and other collisions in 2008 marked the lowest number since 1961. You can start checking the database here, if you feel brave enough. Of course, I cannot state that every such victim had a family, but it’s probably safe to say that most of them had one. Does this mean we should impose a ban or publishers should remove the driving titles from their portfolios? There are driving titles which seem to be more brutal than others, with unprecedented levels of car damage (Burnout Paradise for example). Of course, you don’t see anyone killed or lots of blood splashed on your screen in Burnout, but one can argue it promotes unsafe driving and trivializes accidents. The gamers should know that driving a real car is not the same thing as driving a virtual one. This is why, all such games feature a statement in the very beginning asking players to drive safely in real life. Maybe it’s time for first-person shooters to feature a similar message. War is not a game. War is real. The people are real and their death is, unfortunately, real.

During my occasional browsing for news on this subject, I’ve stumbled upon a discussion from The Globe and Mail where a few people/parents from Toronto asked if the Taliban video game trivialize war. It’s a little bit biased, but one user definitely got my attention. He said that if the Tier 1 operatives viral videos made by EA would be included with the full game, then Medal of Honor could become a learning material. If more information about the harsh reality of war makes it into A game, then yes,  that game will provide a unique view of the conflict. On the other hand, the single-player of the game follows Tier 1 operators from the National Command Authority, so no first-person taliban here.

Last but not least, I’d like to point out the fact that actual/recent real events have always been a source of inspiration for all kinds of media. If history is more or less harmless, then real recent events can disturb some of the persons still envolved. Unfortunately, there are many similar situations out there. The 37,261 victims of road accidents surely have families mourning them. I don’t know if all the WWII games out there are historically accurate or not, but sincerely I don’t care. Some historians might care though. In the future. Do we really have a reason to ban these games? I’m sorry for everyone’s losses, but no, we don’t. There is no legitimate reason for banning them. It’s just a question of morality. Is it fair? No, it’s not but as a parent, I’d like to see people have a choice, just as my kid will hopefully have a choice when she’ll be an adult, allowed to play such games.

SO, it’s quite a simple conclusion. Play it and maybe learn something out of it. Don’t play it and  live on. That’s everything there’s to say about it. Or is it?

Back when I started writing this I promised you I’ll solve the “video game violence” problem. In the future, I’ll probably conduct a deeper analysis on the subject, with international reach, but for now I’ll stick to the US which is one of the dominant markets for this industry, especially if we’re talking FPS and action games.

First of all, let’s look at some charts from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. Just for facts.

Crimes committed with firearms, 1973-2006 – After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988. For crimes committed with firearms, the number began at 361,141 in 1973 and decreased to 301,590 in 1977. Then the number increased to 581,697 in 1993. It then fluctuates with a low of 338,535 in 1999, before increasing to 388,897 in 2006.

Nonfatal firearm-related violent victimization rate, 1993-2008 – Nonfatal firearm crime rates have been declining since 1994, before increasing (just a little) in 2005 (and starting to decline again afterwards). For firearm crime rates, the rate of victims per 1,000 residents began at 5.9 in 1993 and increased to 6.0 in 1994. After 1994, the rate decreased, reaching 1.4 in 2008.

Nonfatal firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, before increasing in 2005. For firearm incidents, the number of nonfatal firearm incidents began at 1,054,820 in 1993 and increased to 1,060,800 in 1994. After 1994, the number of nonfatal firearm incidents fell, reaching 280,890 in 2004, before increasing to 499,390 in 2006. For firearm victims, the number of victims began at 1,248,250 in 1993 and increased, reaching 1,286,860 in 1994. Then the number fell to 331,630 in 2004, before rising to 561,760 in 2006.

After declining since 1992, motor vehicle theft rates leveled off after 2000. For motor vehicle theft, violent crime rate per 1,000 households began at 19.1 in 1973 and fluctuated with a high of 19.5 as it decreased to 14.2 in 1985. After 1985, violent crime rate climbed to 22.2 in 1991, before it decreased to 8.4 in 2006.

After many years of declining, burglary rates have stabilized. For burglary theft, violent crime rate per 1,000 households began at 110.0 in 1973 and climbed, reaching 111.8 in 1974. Then violent crime rate fell, reaching a low of 27.7 in 2002. Then it fluctuated reaching 30.2 in 2006.

For property crime, violent crime rate per 1,000 households began at 519.9 in 1973 and climbed to 553.6 in 1975. Then violent crime rate continued to drop reaching 160.5 in 2006.

For rape, violent crime rate per 1,000 persons began at 2.5 in 1973 and climbed to 2.6 in 1974. Then violent crime rate decreased to 2.2 in 1976, before increasing to 2.8 in 1979. After 1979, it fell to 0.4 in 2004, before increasing, reaching 0.8 in 2006.

For robbery, violent crime rate per 1,000 persons began at 6.7 in 1973 and increased to 7.2 in 1974. After 1974, violent crime rate dropped to 5.9 in 1978, before increasing, reaching 7.4 in 1981. It then decreased to 2.1 in 2004, before increasing to 2.9 in 2006.

Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993.

This is an important one. The proportion of serious violent crimes committed by juveniles has generally declined since 1993. According to the victim’s perception of the age of the offender, the number of serious violent offenses committed by persons ages 12 to 17 declined 61% from 1993 to 2005, while those committed by persons older than 17 fell 58%.

Violent crime rates declined in recent years for most age groups. Teens and young adults experience the highest rates of violent crime, but 2008 levels are a lot smaller than the 1994 ones.

Since 1994 violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005. For overall violent crime, violent crime rate per 1,000 persons began at 47.7 in 1973 and increased to 52.3 in 1981. After 1981, violent crime rate decreased, reaching 24.5 in 2006.

For those charts where I have not posted additional data, there is a small [D] besides the chart. Click it and you’ll get relevant info, including data.

As you can see, all the rates and levels in these charts decreased over time. There was a peak in 1994-1995, but then they decreased again. Whatever makes them decrease, it’s really working.

On the other hand, December 1994 meant the launch of the first PlayStation in Japan. Just have a look at some of the games from that era and compare them with what 2010 has to offer. It’s quite a big change from ANY point of view. Visually, games are a lot more appealing today. The gameplay is a lot different. In the end, you feel immersed in the detailed universes that unravels in front of you. The market is also totally different today, than it was in 1994. There are big players selling lots of games and there are very big franchises selling lots of units (as they probably don’t like to call them copies). Over the years we had lots of GTAs, CoDs, MoHs, Halos, Hitmans, Resident Evils, Silent Hills  and other crazy Japanese horror games, Carmageddons, Need for Speeds, Burnouts, Mortal Kombats, Tekkens, Virtua Fighters, DOAs and lots and lots of other beautifully violent video games. Heck, even adventure games like Sherlock Holmes were a bit “murdery” violent.

And we loved it. We loved every minute of these violent fantasy we call video games, while the violent crime rates were falling. How’s that? I don’t know. All I know is THAT VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES HAVE NEVER EVER DETERMINED AN INCREASE OF THE U.S.A. VIOLENT CRIME RATES OF ANY KIND. If someone actually intends to conduct a useful analysis, then we should try to understand why violent video games HAVE NOT determined an increase of the violent crime rates AND what legal/social mix was the exact cause for the decrease we see in the charts. Understanding the past is the key for understanding the future and we have the past right here. Let’s just look into the future. Let’s try to bring everyone in this pursuit of happiness. Happiness of parents, of children and, of course, of gamers. We are somebody’s child, maybe parents and definitely gamers, all in one. The burden is ours and we shouldn’t forget that. If we let other people decide for us, then we have no future.

This concludes my rather long trip through video game violence. Of course, I’d like to conduct a deeper analysis of this phenomenon and its influence or better, lack of it, on our society over the years. Obtaining an international view of the problem might be useful. A study on violent crime and its root causes can also be a starting point. I promise I’ll think about it. If you feel you have something to say, drop a comment or two here or register in the forum, if you plan to stick around for a while. I hope you found this piece interesting and hopefully useful. Epic, isn’t it?

Published on August 25, 2010 21:34.
Filed under: GI Analysis Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Blizzard Gets $88M – Faulty System or Mock Trial?

This one has already made quite a big tour throughout the news/media websites, but we’ll trust gamasutra for now. It seems that last year, Blizzard Entertainment sued Alyson Reeves, operator of Scapegaming, for copyright infringement. Scapegaming was offering its users access to private World of Warcraft servers, asking donations for the service. Apparently, Alyson Reeves raised $3,052,339 out of this operation. An U.S. District Court judge awarded Blizzard $88M, including, as gamasutra states, “over $3 million in disgorged profits, $85.4 million in statutory damages and $64,000 in attorney’s fees.” WoW, Alyson Reeves must have had a pretty lousy lawyer.

So, how did it happen? Is this ammount correct? Is the legal system faulty, was it a mock trial or simply did Alyson Reeves get what she deserved?

Well, I have a background in law. I never practised (and this is a good example why), but at least I can understand what’s going on and try to explain what happened in the end. Of course, the law I was taught is a lot different than the US one, as it’s a different legal system, but some of the basic principles are everywhere the same. One of these basic principles states that the injured party’s position should be restored, as if the infringement has never happened. The verdict should restore both parties to their initial positions.

Of course, this is not always easy, especially when we’re talking copyright. One way of doing it is by analyzing the losses the injured party suffered and the profits the injured party never made. Sometimes you have to choose between them, as you cannot ask for both of them. In the US, there is another way, by asking for statutory damages. What are they? Well, you can read here, but I think it’s too complicated for many of you, so it’s better if you try Wikipedia. When it is too difficult to establish how many copies were made or how many times the infringement took place, the owner can choose to receive compensation per work, instead of per copy (when the judge should have calculated the losses and the profits).

It seems that, during the trial, Alyson Reeves lawyers said that Scapegaming users were not aware they were accessing private, not legitimate, servers. It also seems the judge bought it and that’s why he calculated 427,000users times 200USD. The Scapegaming community had 427,000 members in June 2008. Blizzard submitted evidence showing that during the very same month Scapegaming hosted 32,000 users on a given day. Reeves stated that 40,000 people were playing on Scapegaming’s servers every day. These contradictory statements could have lead the judge to use the total number of members, instead of counting the active accounts.

So, what should have happened?

First of all, Alyson Reeves and her lawyers should have sent the full logs of the servers to Blizzard. Let them digg through the logs and check how many active accounts were on their servers at any given time. Alyson Reeves could have retrieved the statistics quite easily and if she said that there were around 40,000 accounts, let’s believe her for the sake of our (legal) exercise.

So, how much did Blizzard actually lose?

40,000 accounts times 15USD which is the regular WoW subscription means Blizzard lost $600,000 a month. Lets say the service operated for 3 years. I don’t know how long it actually operated, but let’s just assume it was 3 years. That’s 36 months. In this case, we have $600,000 times 36 months. $21,600,000. It actually makes more sense to say that Blizzard should have been awarded $21.6 million instead of $85.4 million.

From this point of view, Blizzard could have chosen to receive either the losses Alyson Reeves provoked, or the profit Alyson Reeves made out of the operation. Why not both? Because the profits she made, in this case, should be included in Blizzard’s losses. If the profits were higher, Blizzard could have asked for them, instead of the losses. This is where the system is faulty. If the aim is to restore both parties to their initial position (executing compensations in order to do that), then those $3 million dollars Alyson Reeves made do not belong to the parties, but to the people who donated, because the verdict should have put the parties in a state where THE INFRINGEMENT NEVER TOOK PLACE. If Alyson Reeves would have been forced to pay damages to Blizzard for copyright infringement, she should have been forced to return the money she made to the people she conned. So, any way, those $3 million should have never been awarded to Blizzard. Unfortunately, that’s theory we’re talking here. Or not!

Blizzard submitted evidence of the PayPal transactions. Blizzard asked for statutory damages, instead of losses (and profits). OK, why not summon to the trial all those who have donated? Why assume they did not know these were not official servers? This would have been a very good defence and this should have slowed Blizzard quite a lot. A judge cannot rule on assumptions. Burrying Blizzard’s lawyers in server logs and PayPal transactions could have lead to an understanding between the parties where Alyson Reeves had to return the profits and MAYBE go free.

Well, in the end, was it a mock trial? I don’t think so. I just think Alyson Reeves’ lawyers didn’t have the experience necessary to handle such a case and, of course, the system in its current form is faulty. Alyson Reeves has undoubtedly committed copyright infringement but, in the same time, $88 million is a ridiculous ammount, pretty much like the statutory damages concept. The system should adhere to the “reasonable royalty” concept, which tries to define what someone would have paid the copyright owner if a royalty system was available before the infringement.

The legal system should be used to restore the balance and put both parties in the initial situation, not give one party the chance for profit. Unfortunately, many legal systems today, including the US one, are geared towards profit, competition and marketing. If one serial killer gets 200 years in prison, the next one thinks something like “I can beat that, no problem!”. This way, the system generates competition and unwanted advertising. The system should never be used for such things. Give all serial killers prison for life (or death sentence if available) and that’s it, no more competition, hence lower criminal activity. All copyright owners who sue other parties should have the obligation to show how many times their rights were infringed or how many illegal copies were made and award them the right ammount of money for their losses. That’s just common sense.

Of course, Blizzard will never get those $88 million. What they get is what they intended to get in the first place, free advertisement. All the media picked up on this, but nobody judged Blizzard (or its parent company Activision) for it. They used the system to get free advertisement and to send a clear message to those who use their copyrighted content illegaly. I’m sorry, but IT’s WRONG. This is not what the legal system should be used for. If they actually tried to obtain some money from Scapegaming, then I would have believed their intentions were to shut down the servers and obtain damages, which would have been very well their right. Unfortunately, they used the system for other purposes, exposed in this article, and the system allowed them to do it. If this is not a faulty system, I don’t really know what is. Leave a comment below or discuss this in the forum (registration pending approval).

UPDATE: This is just one side of the coin. For the other side, check the comments below.

Published on August 17, 2010 10:31.
Filed under: GI Analysis Tags: , , ,

3D Animated Terminator 3000 Terminated?

Did you know some people were planning a new Terminator movie? Animated, by the way. Everything was fine until the owners of the Terminator franchise, a company called Pacificor, realised they didn’t know anything about it. Well, lets start with the beginning.

Back in February 2010, Halcyon Group, the bankrupt production company behind last year’s “Terminator Salvation”, transferred the rights to a hedge fund, Pacificor, for $29.5 million plus $5 million for each sequel produced, despite objections from Sony and Lions Gate. The update for this piece quotes Wayne Flick, a lawyer for the hedge fund, saying “We expect there to be a fair amount of interest. We know this is a very valuable franchise and, in the coming weeks, we will be considering all of the various options.”

Well, it seems they didn’t BECAUSE in May this year more news about Pacificor hit the press, this time saying the hedge fund was looking for an agency to help them sell the “Terminator” rights. And they found one. [wikipop]William Morris Endeavor[/wikipop]

Again, nothing happens or at least there are no public details on the agreement with William Morris Endeavor. Fast forward to August 12th, two days ago. Hannover House, the entertainment distribution division of Target Development Group, Inc., issued a press release, proudly announcing they have “entered into a feature film development venture with Vancouver-based Red Bear Entertainment, for “Terminator 3000,” envisioned as a $70-million dollar budgeted, 3-D animated feature film based on the characters and situations introduced in the original “Terminator” feature.”

Who is Hannover House? It seems, and I quote from their Company Information page, that “Hannover House is a full service media company, specializing in the production and distribution of feature films onto the DVD format for the North American retail marketplace.” You can read the rest on their website.

What about their parent company? Target Development Group, Inc. is a Wyoming based corporation (with just 8 employees?) and the parent company of Hannover House. Target is a publicly traded entity on the Pinksheets exchange under the trading symbol:  TDGI. You can find the company information on the otcMarkets website. It’s market capitalization is just $18,448,268 as of August 13th. Can they finance the movie? Not by themselves apparently.

So they entered a development agreement with Red Bear Entertainment. Who? Has anyone bothered to search for such a company? IMDB hasn’t heard of them so, naturally, I searched Linkedin. It so happens that a certain Lindsay Macadam is the president of RedBear Entertainment. The company is real, as I’ve search for a new British Columbia company name and it listed RedBear Entertainment Inc. So why choose an anonymous production company? It seems that Lindsay Macadam has some experience in asset management and commercial banking. She was employed as a Commercial Account Manager with [wikipop]HSBC[/wikipop] (2001-2004), “responsible for closing nearly $100 million in loan growth, specializing in large scale single family home residential and commercial real estate development”.

So, back to Pacificor. When they realized they weren’t invited to this “sweet” deal, their lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to Erik Parkinson, the CEO of Hannover House. You can find all the details here, as well as the letter in its original format. What’s more interesting is Erik Parkinson’s statement. “We’ve arranged a meeting, we’ll show them our money and if the rational brain prevails, they’ll take the deal. If not, I can’t do it without them. You’ll have a followup next week that we are either holding  hands, or not doing the film. At least we now have our meeting. I hope they will can think outside the box, because if we can make a movie that delivers a $20 million to $30 million rights payment, that is an income source they didn’t realize was possible. If not, it was a good idea anyway.”

I don’t know many of you are actually trained to analyze such statements. I don’t want to brag about it, but I have some experience with it and this is what you should understand.

First, let’s clear the statement and organize the ideas.

- “it was a good idea anyway” which means “in the first place, it was a good IDEA”.

- “I can’t do it without them” – which means “I knew I can’t do it without them, but I had that “good IDEA” and I had to find a way to make it work”.

- “we’ll show them our money” – meaning “we’ll show them how much we’ve got and maybe they’ll be interested to finance the rest of the movie”.

-”if we can make a movie that delivers a $20 million to $30 million rights payment, that is an income source they didn’t realize was possible” – lol, IF you can make it? You’re not sure? This statement should have been something like “This movie will deliver between $20 and $30 million, an income source they didn’t realize was possible”. “IF” and “CAN” shouldn’t have been anywhere in this sentence. Hey, big shot CEO, IF you cannot write a statement properly, have someone do it for you.

- “At least we now have our meeting” – meaning ” at least our goal is almost happening”. THIS is the key sentence in all the statement. All they wanted was a meeting.

And now, the conclusion.

Let’s think for a moment. If a small company would have approached you directly, you owning the Terminator rights, would you believe them in the first place? You’d have said ” Come on, I won’t make any deals with you. What proven track record do you have to show me?”

Instead, they (Hannover/Target) decided to issue a press release, KNOWING that Pacificor lawyers would spring into action. Negotiations are necessary, so this basically translates into a series of meetings where Hannover House has to convince them “it’s a good idea”. The question though is the following. Will they ask Pacificor for money or show Pacificor they have access to a line of credit for financing the production?

Either way, I’d say Pacificor should better be damn careful here. Last thing we want is Pacificor losing time and money on a company who cannot deliver. The franchise needs some serious rework and a company with a proven track record would be the right, business healthy, choice.

A video game for teenagers, inspired by this animated movie, would be ANOTHER good idea, especially if the cast will lend their voices, but I can also imagine an animated mini-series and why not comics, since we’re talking about a PG-13 product. 

Give it two, maybe three years, and everybody will be hyped about the next, 3D animated, Terminator movie. While yes, it’s maybe a bad idea today, in two, three years time, I have to quote big shot CEO Erik Parkinson, “it was a good idea anyway”.

Published on August 14, 2010 21:28.
Filed under: GI Analysis Tags: , , ,

PSP/PSPgo Discontinued?

We have all found out via Engadget that Sony-Ericsson may be planning (and developing) an Android-powered PSPgo-like smartphone. It seems it’s a landscape slider with all the PSPgo buttons in place, except the D-pad which has been replaced with a long touchpad. It should be powered by Android 3.0 coupled with a 1GHz [wikipop]Snapdragon CPU[/wikipop] and its graphics should be powerful enough to play PSX/PSP games. Engadget estimates that its release should be somewhat around the corner, with October 2010 as a possibility.

OK, nice rumor. We all know many people have been asking for a PlayStation phone and this may be it. Let’s say for the sake of our small analysis that this rumor is actually TRUE. What does it mean? Where does it lead to? Why has Sony concealed this device up until now?

First and foremost, let’s consider what Sony currently has in production. On one hand we have the PSP-3000 which can play both UMD and digital titles, while on the other hand we have the PSPgo which targets the digital distribution fans. We don’t have an update on their sales for August, but in March 2010 Sony had already sold 17 mil. units in North America and 60 mil. worldwide. On the other hand, back in March this year the company declared that the UMD format is still “alive and well” and that they had no plans to ditch it.

Sony has also stated they have a dual strategy concerning their handheld line, which makes sense as they cannot ditch UMD (and retailers) over night. Retail is still going strong, many people still buy these games so it’s not a very healthy business decision to give up this channel just yet. On the other hand, Sony has a pretty powerful digital distribution channel, the PSN.

So, from my point of view, the best business decision IN CASE the upcoming rumored smartphone exists, is to DISCONTINUE THE PSP. First of all, I asked myself why Sony-Ericsson would make such a great deal about it and keep it a secret. Imagine they would have announced it back at E3 this year. That’s June. How many PSPs do you think Sony would have sold between June and October? Closed to none? Keeping it a secret and announcing it at TGS for example (in September), could be enough for a late October, mid-November launch. On the other hand, pushing two PSP offerings in the same time with such a smartphone, can hurt sales (of the smartphone, of course).

So, having prepared you in the paragraphs above, I can safely say that Sony will discontinue at least one of its PSP models this autumn IF the smartphone rumor is TRUE. My guess, as well as everybody’s, would be the PSPgo but, there are other scenarios, like killing the PSP and PSPgo for good. Eventually, the PSP will stop selling like any other console out there approaching the end of its life cycle. It’s not a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN. Starting with a smartphone that can play PSX/PSP games also means this is the first device (the flagship) of a range, so cheaper/limited versions will eventually see the light of the day, effectively killing the PSP alltogether, as the price goes down.

Will it happen in October? I don’t know. I just took a rumor and ran with it in my mind. Is this what I believe will actually happen. Well, I think Sony-Ericsson is late to the table and they know it. If they intend to develop an instant hit then yes, the Android-powered PSPgo-like smartphone could be the right solution. Android is on the rise, PSN is doing very well (much like the PS3 sales) so adding a new device to the mix will fill a gap while starting a new era of mobile gaming devices. Let’s just wait and see if they are smart enough to do it. What do you think?

Published on August 12, 2010 19:12.
Filed under: GI Analysis Tags: , , , , ,

QR Code Business Card