The Gaming News Thread

[Martok]

This could be interesting to see where it goes:

Stardock working on non-invasive copy protection for other publishers.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

On Friday, Stardock CEO Brad Wardell revealed to Edge that his company is developing a non-intrusive copyright security solution for external publishers.

The initiative came in the wake of The Gamer's Bill of Rights, which implores game makers to ditch obnoxious copy protection methods. Stardock has been an advocate of non-intrusive copy protection for years, selling commercially successful games such as Galactic Civilizations and Sins of a Solar Empire that have no copy protection.

But as Stardock approached major publishers to agree to the terms of the Bill, they were still unwilling to go DRM-free.

Wardell said, "While Stardock doesn't put copy protection on its retail games, the fact is that most publishers are never going to agree to do that.

"So the publishers are telling us, 'Put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you guys develop something that you think is suitable that would protect our IP, but would be more acceptable to users?'

"We're investigating what would make users happy to protect their needs, but also provide some security for the publishers. ... We're actually developing a technology that would do that."

Wardell didn't divulge which piracy-fearing publishers had suggested Stardock take on the task.

He did say that one goal of Stardock's security solution would be when a consumer buys a PC game, that game, or technically the license to play it, belongs to the consumer. Often, DRM methods only allow a certain amount of installs on a certain amount of machines. "We want that license to be yours, not per machine. ... It's not your machine buying the game. It's you."

Wardell said he's exploring a system in which if a customer loses the physical copy of a game, he or she would be able to re-download the game by simply matching up a previously-registered e-mail address. "If my license is attached to my [e-mail] account, let me go online and download the whole game later."

Wardell argued that if a publisher wants a user to jump through a security hoop, that user should get something in return.

He steered away from the idea that Stardock is developing a DRM solution (presumably because of the baggage the term carries with gamers). Asked if Stardock is creating a method of "DRM," Wardell replied, "The problem with 'DRM' is that it's so loosely defined. ... Stardock's products use activation, and I wouldn't say that it's DRM. We're just verifying if you're real customer."

The CEO said that Stardock has looked to its community to ask what kind of security measures are acceptable and which ones are not. "It should be completely invisible to the user."

DRM has been a hot topic as of late, the most recent case being EA's highly-anticipated PC game Spore, which implemented protection technology from SecuROM. One customer filed a class-action lawsuit against EA over the game's DRM.

Despite Wardell's distaste for intrusive DRM, he said that filing a lawsuit is going a bit overboard. "Publishers should have the right to be stupid if they want. That's their right. And it's the right of the consumer to choose not to buy."

He vouched for the huge faceless corporations that sometimes seem to be oblivious to the plight of the DRM-afflicted gamer.

"It's not that these publishers are DRM-happy. They're not completely in love with it. It's just that there aren't very many alternatives."

[Mailman653]

That's quite a task they set out for themselves, if they pull it off they would become the champion of gamers and silence their critics. If they fail, they would be the laughing stock of other publishers and probably lose some cred with gamers.

[Caius]

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thum...kaging-artwork

I don't see the similarity.

[TevashSzat]

World of Warcraft hits 11 million

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Blizzard's monstrously popular MMOG reaches new subscriber milestone two weeks before launch of second expansion.

Blizzard Entertainment is just over two weeks away from releasing the second expansion pack to its genre-dominating massively multiplayer online role-playing game World of Warcraft, Wrath of the Lich King. And despite increased competition this year from the likes of Funcom's Age of Conan and EA Mythic's Warhammer Online, Blizzard has managed to continue to stave off WOW fatigue to usher in that expansion's arrival.

Today, the Irvine-based developer said that its worldwide subscriber base had exceeded 11 million. Adding a little color to that number, WOW's citizenship would rank just higher than the total population of Greece, according to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Fact Book.

As revealed in Blizzard parent company Vivendi SA's recent financial reports, World of Warcraft has been on the cusp of hitting 11 million subscribers since July. Today's milestone comes just over 10 months since Blizzard touted WOW's 10 millionth subscriber in January.

As Blizzard uses a variety of payment plans in different countries, the publisher defines "subscriber" thusly: "World of Warcraft subscribers include individuals who have paid a subscription fee or have an active prepaid card to play World of Warcraft, as well as those who have purchased the game and are within their free month of access. Internet Game Room players who have accessed the game over the last 30 days are also counted as subscribers. The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired prepaid cards. Subscribers in licensees' territories are defined along the same rules."

World of Warcraft subscribers hail from a number of countries and regions, including North America, Europe, China, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Chile, Argentina, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. Most recently, WOW was launched in Russia and Latin America.

That is simply crazy......11 million without including those who have stopped. The thing is, WOTLK will probably be bringing alot more people back into WoW so 12 million might not be far off

[Martok]

That's quite a task they set out for themselves, if they pull it off they would become the champion of gamers and silence their critics. If they fail, they would be the laughing stock of other publishers and probably lose some cred with gamers.

Indeed. Hence, why I said it would be interesting to see how it all turns out.


In other Stardock news, Brad has said they're going to officially announce their new fantasy strategy game next Tuesday (Nov. 4). Can't wait!

[TevashSzat]

PS3 sales near 17 million as Sony profits sink

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Electronics and financial services drag down Japanese company; game losses narrow as PS3 outpaces 360 in July-Sept.

Sony wasn't joking when it said last week that it was in for a grim fiscal year 2008. As a portent of things to come, the Japanese electronics company revised its profits projections downward an additional 39 percent for the year, which runs April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, in all putting them off a full 59 percent from last year's performance.

Keeping in line with those expectations, Sony said today that net profits for the July-September quarter slid 72 percent, falling to ¥20.8 billion ($213 million) from ¥73.7 billion ($755 million) a year ago. Total revenue stood at ¥2.07 trillion ($21.3 billion), off half a percentage point from last year. Operating income skidded 90 percent year-over-year, falling to ¥11 billion ($113 million) from ¥111.6 billion ($1.14 billion).

Sony's bread-and-butter electronics segment, which accounts for the bulk of the company's revenues, saw a .6 percent decline in sales for the reporting period, dipping to ¥1.7 trillion ($17.4 billion). The decline comes despite stronger sales of the Bravia LCD TVs and Vaio PCs. As the company noted last week, the yen's strengthen in the global market as well as tighter profit margins due to increased competition contributed to the company's lackluster performance in this area.

Gamers will be pleased to know that Sony's games segment actually saw some gains during the period. For the quarter, Sony's games arm generated ¥269 billion ($2.76 billion), a 10 percent increase year-over-year. Naturally, the publisher attributed its performance to rising sales of the PlayStation 3 and PSP, with the former shifting 2.43 million units and the latter moving 3.18 million systems. PlayStation 2 sales continued to dwindle during the quarter, falling to 2.5 million units.

Of note, PS3 sales stood 200,000 units higher than those of the Xbox 360 over the same stretch. Last week, Microsoft said that the Xbox 360 sold 2.2 million units during the comparable period of time, which was a 20 percent increase year-over-year. To date, the PlayStation 3's global lifetime sales stand at 16.85 million units.

Though the game's unit saw increased revenue for the quarter, it remained in the red. Sony's games arm posted a ¥39.5 billion ($405 million) operating loss for the July-September period, an improvement over the ¥96.7 billion ($991 million) deficit it posted for the same period last year. Sony noted that this tightening of losses was due to a decrease in production costs on the PS3, an increase in software sales for its flagship console, and strong hardware sales of the PSP.

Not unsurprising considering the global economic crisis, Sony's financial services segment took a significant hit during the quarter, seeing an operating loss of ¥25 billion ($256 million) and falling revenues of ¥100 billion ($1.02 billion). Conversely, the movie business performed quite well--with sales increasing 3.4 percent to ¥196 billion ($2.00 billion)--on the strength of Hancock, Step Brothers, and Pineapple Express.

You know, I find it really hard to understand people all yelling about the doomsday of the PC gamer when consoles have not made ANY money for their producers(Microsoft and Sony here, I don't consider Nintendo's Wii as really a "hardcore" gaming console) A loss of 405 million dollars is nothing to scoff at and its only three months, making the yearly loss easily 1 billion plus. This is only after a ton of improvement too as manufacturing costs have gone down significantly as technology improved. Microsoft doesn't face much better at all and is consistently losing money too. The only reason that consoles have done so well relatively is because their companies are willing to lose billions to prop up their product. If EA tried to waste that much money, their shareholders would kill the board of directors...

[Veho Nex]

PS3 sales near 17 million as Sony profits sink

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Electronics and financial services drag down Japanese company; game losses narrow as PS3 outpaces 360 in July-Sept.

Sony wasn't joking when it said last week that it was in for a grim fiscal year 2008. As a portent of things to come, the Japanese electronics company revised its profits projections downward an additional 39 percent for the year, which runs April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, in all putting them off a full 59 percent from last year's performance.

Keeping in line with those expectations, Sony said today that net profits for the July-September quarter slid 72 percent, falling to ¥20.8 billion ($213 million) from ¥73.7 billion ($755 million) a year ago. Total revenue stood at ¥2.07 trillion ($21.3 billion), off half a percentage point from last year. Operating income skidded 90 percent year-over-year, falling to ¥11 billion ($113 million) from ¥111.6 billion ($1.14 billion).

Sony's bread-and-butter electronics segment, which accounts for the bulk of the company's revenues, saw a .6 percent decline in sales for the reporting period, dipping to ¥1.7 trillion ($17.4 billion). The decline comes despite stronger sales of the Bravia LCD TVs and Vaio PCs. As the company noted last week, the yen's strengthen in the global market as well as tighter profit margins due to increased competition contributed to the company's lackluster performance in this area.

Gamers will be pleased to know that Sony's games segment actually saw some gains during the period. For the quarter, Sony's games arm generated ¥269 billion ($2.76 billion), a 10 percent increase year-over-year. Naturally, the publisher attributed its performance to rising sales of the PlayStation 3 and PSP, with the former shifting 2.43 million units and the latter moving 3.18 million systems. PlayStation 2 sales continued to dwindle during the quarter, falling to 2.5 million units.

Of note, PS3 sales stood 200,000 units higher than those of the Xbox 360 over the same stretch. Last week, Microsoft said that the Xbox 360 sold 2.2 million units during the comparable period of time, which was a 20 percent increase year-over-year. To date, the PlayStation 3's global lifetime sales stand at 16.85 million units.

Though the game's unit saw increased revenue for the quarter, it remained in the red. Sony's games arm posted a ¥39.5 billion ($405 million) operating loss for the July-September period, an improvement over the ¥96.7 billion ($991 million) deficit it posted for the same period last year. Sony noted that this tightening of losses was due to a decrease in production costs on the PS3, an increase in software sales for its flagship console, and strong hardware sales of the PSP.

Not unsurprising considering the global economic crisis, Sony's financial services segment took a significant hit during the quarter, seeing an operating loss of ¥25 billion ($256 million) and falling revenues of ¥100 billion ($1.02 billion). Conversely, the movie business performed quite well--with sales increasing 3.4 percent to ¥196 billion ($2.00 billion)--on the strength of Hancock, Step Brothers, and Pineapple Express.

You know, I find it really hard to understand people all yelling about the doomsday of the PC gamer when consoles have not made ANY money for their producers(Microsoft and Sony here, I don't consider Nintendo's Wii as really a "hardcore" gaming console) A loss of 405 million dollars is nothing to scoff at and its only three months, making the yearly loss easily 1 billion plus. This is only after a ton of improvement too as manufacturing costs have gone down significantly as technology improved. Microsoft doesn't face much better at all and is consistently losing money too. The only reason that consoles have done so well relatively is because their companies are willing to lose billions to prop up their product. If EA tried to waste that much money, their shareholders would kill the board of directors...

Do it ea, you've done about everything else, give us the reason to find and destroy you.

[Husar]

So here we have two companies who actually take deep cuts into their overall profits (not losses) to please their customers and now that is a bad thing. And EA who just look for their own profits are bad as well so whatever a big company does is bad? Commie!

[Mailman653]

Beatles video game, 09

Atari might pick up Ghostbusters game

[frogbeastegg]

You know, I find it really hard to understand people all yelling about the doomsday of the PC gamer when consoles have not made ANY money for their producers

Console makers lose money on hardware and make a killing on games and peripherals. It's been the case for generations. A console like the PS2 having sufficient success and lifespan to end up cheap enough to build at a profit is a relatively recent development.

[Praxil]

Something ugly is going on over here...

Your forum account will be directly tied to your Master EA Account, so if we ban you on the forums, you would be banned from the game as well since the login process is the same. And you'd actually be banned from your other EA games as well since its all tied to your account. So if you have SPORE and Red Alert 3 and you get yourself banned on our forums or in-game, well, your SPORE account would be banned to. It's all one in the same, so I strongly reccommend people play nice and act mature.

Seems to me that this "act" will brake some laws. Unless this is clearly informed on the game cover before the product is bought.

[Martok]

That is disturbing....

[Husar]

Well, if people cannot behave...

[naut]

Ha, doesn't bother me. Since I wouldn't buy an EA game anyway.

[Veho Nex]

EA just wants us to hate them huh?

[TevashSzat]

You know Veho, your wishes may just get answered...

EA laying off 6% of workforce

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[UPDATE 2] Despite 40% jump in quarterly revenue, losses lead megapublisher to pink-slip more than 500 employees; Madden sells 4.5 million, Spore 2 million; Warhammer subscribers hit 800,000.

It's been a rough year for Electronic Arts. Last Halloween, the Redwood City, California-based publisher had a share price of $61.12 and was riding high on the acquisition of superdeveloper BioWare/Pandemic. Today, the company's stock ended at $27.73, after a steady decline accelerated by the past month's economic bloodbath on Wall Street.

Unfortunately for many EA employees, 2008 is about to get a whole lot rougher. Today, Electronic Arts announced that it is laying off six percent of its global workforce as part of a company-wide cost-reduction plan. With a payroll of about 9,000 worldwide, the layoffs will affect approximately 540 people. In a conference call this afternoon, executives said the layoffs will come from EA's publishing and corporate divisions, as well as from its various studios and labels.

Today's battery of pink slips may not be the last. Executives also said that EA "will manage head-count decisions aggressively going forward." The company plans to reduce hiring in high-cost territories, and will expand operations in "lower-cost locations."

By EA's own estimates, the layoffs announced today will save it more than $50 million annually--money the company sorely needs. Today, EA announced a greater-than-expected $310 million loss, or 97 cents per share, during the July-September quarter. During the same period last year, the company lost $195 million, or 62 cents a share.

The loss is doubly harsh because it comes in the face of a 40 percent surge in quarterly revenue for EA. For the quarter, the second in the company's fiscal year, earnings totaled $894 million, up $254 million from the same quarter in the prior year. Best-sellers for the period include Madden NFL 09, with 4.5 million copies sold worldwide, and Spore, with 2 million units sold worldwide. Another high point was the launch of Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, which now boasts 800,000 players on 1.2 million units sold. NCAA Football 09 sold 1.8 million copies, and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09 sold 1.9 million--the same number as Mercenaries 2: World in Flames. Combined, Rock Band and Rock Band 2 moved 1.5 million units during the quarter.

In a statement, EA CEO John Riccitiello put a brave face on things. "Considering the slow down at retail we've seen in October, we are cautious in the short term," he said. "Longer term, we are very bullish on the game sector overall and on EA in particular. The industry is growing double-digits on the strength of three new game consoles and increases in the number of homes with broadband Internet connections. EA is well-positioned to benefit from these technology drivers due to the strength of our creative studios and our broad collection of game properties."

Unfortunately, the markets were not as upbeat as Riccitiello. As of press time, EA stock was down nearly 14 percent in after-hours trading.

[UPDATE] In the conference call, Riccitiello and other executives laid out the reasons for the major shortfall. One major factor was the postponement of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which was slated for a late summer release to lead up to its film tie-in's November debut. When that film was suddenly delayed until summer 2009, EA was forced to sit on a nearly finished game it had already spent million marketing. As a result, EA had to move $120 million of revenue into its next fiscal year. Of that, roughly $48 million was expected in the July-September quarter, when the game was slated for release.

[UPDATE 2] Besides international exchange rate issues, which cost EA 12 cents a share, the other big reason for the shortfall is EA's lavish investment in future ventures. The company spent over $100 million in expanded development costs, and invested a further $150 million in building a direct-to-consumer download business. The company also spent $35 million in upfront expenses for its EA Partners deals. Those include the recent publishing agreements with Epic Games, id Software, and Grasshopper Manufacture, as well as the just-announced agreement to distribute MTV and Harmonix's rhythm game based on the music of The Beatles.

Analysts sour on EA

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Lazard Capital Market's Colin Sebastian downgrades publisher's stock as industry-watchers take management team to task.

Analysts never like to hear bad financial news from the companies they cover, but yesterday's glum quarterly report from Electronic Arts seems to have hit a nerve. A flurry of investor notes this morning weighed in on the publisher's results, and there was little sympathy to be found, starting with Lazard Capital Markets' Colin Sebastian lowering his rating on the stock from "Buy" to "Hold."

Sebastian noted that EA has been stagnant at a point in the console cycle where it should be ramping up for significant growth. With time running out before publishers have to start investing in software for the next generation of consoles, he noted EA is becoming less likely to generate strong profits before the downturn of the cycle starts. The publisher's recent stated emphasis on quality might not be paying off either, according to Sebastian.

"While we are encouraged by improving quality ratings of several annualized EA Sports titles, as well as recently released Dead Space, we continue to believe the improving product execution is coming at a high cost," Sebastian noted, "and EA's margins are ramping more slowly than we originally expected at the beginning of the year."

Some analysts were clearly frustrated with the publisher's malaise. Pacific Crest Securities' Evan Wilson said the firm had become bored writing investors notes about EA lowering its profit expectations.

"The justification for the delay in profits is always heaped into 'digital investments for the future,'" Wilson wrote. "While it was a different management team singing the tune, the commentary was the same in 2005 as we entered this cycle. The investment needs to be justified eventually, but as of yet it has not been. Today's negative reaction to the delay in profitability is not surprising, but management's continued insensitivity to investors' desire for profit growth in the fourth year of the video game cycle is. ... EA is positioning itself as a victim of its circumstances--that the best is yet to come as the company makes its way through these difficult times. However, we continue to believe that its actions exacerbate the negatives that the videogame industry is facing. EA's results have been mediocre for too long."

In his own investors note, Wedbush Morgan Securities' Michael Pachter was similarly unhappy with management's approach to its quarterly report.

"EA management was somewhat aloof during the earnings call," Pachter said. "With the stock hovering near a seven-year low, management continued its recent history of disappointment, and spent an inordinate amount of time sowing seeds of fear about the potential for a tepid holiday sales season."

Despite lowering his 12-month guidance on EA stock from $53.50 to $38, Pachter retained his "Strong Buy" rating on the publisher. He noted that the company has been producing better games, has been maintaining "robust sales" of new games, and has a number of big releases in the pipe.

"However, management has demonstrated an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the eyes of investors," Pachter wrote, "and we think that these old habits will take a long time to die."

As of press time, EA stock was trading at $22.98, down more than 17 percent from yesterday's pre-quarterly-report closing price of $27.73.

[Kekvit Irae]

Barack Obama and Sarah Palin kill people and blow stuff up. And no, I'm not talking about the presidential race.

[Martok]

That is both funny and disturbing on multiple levels....

[seireikhaan]

ROFL

[Veho Nex]

This could be interesting to see where it goes:

Stardock working on non-invasive copy protection for other publishers.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

On Friday, Stardock CEO Brad Wardell revealed to Edge that his company is developing a non-intrusive copyright security solution for external publishers.

The initiative came in the wake of The Gamer's Bill of Rights, which implores game makers to ditch obnoxious copy protection methods. Stardock has been an advocate of non-intrusive copy protection for years, selling commercially successful games such as Galactic Civilizations and Sins of a Solar Empire that have no copy protection.

But as Stardock approached major publishers to agree to the terms of the Bill, they were still unwilling to go DRM-free.

Wardell said, "While Stardock doesn't put copy protection on its retail games, the fact is that most publishers are never going to agree to do that.

"So the publishers are telling us, 'Put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you guys develop something that you think is suitable that would protect our IP, but would be more acceptable to users?'

"We're investigating what would make users happy to protect their needs, but also provide some security for the publishers. ... We're actually developing a technology that would do that."

Wardell didn't divulge which piracy-fearing publishers had suggested Stardock take on the task.

He did say that one goal of Stardock's security solution would be when a consumer buys a PC game, that game, or technically the license to play it, belongs to the consumer. Often, DRM methods only allow a certain amount of installs on a certain amount of machines. "We want that license to be yours, not per machine. ... It's not your machine buying the game. It's you."

Wardell said he's exploring a system in which if a customer loses the physical copy of a game, he or she would be able to re-download the game by simply matching up a previously-registered e-mail address. "If my license is attached to my [e-mail] account, let me go online and download the whole game later."

Wardell argued that if a publisher wants a user to jump through a security hoop, that user should get something in return.

He steered away from the idea that Stardock is developing a DRM solution (presumably because of the baggage the term carries with gamers). Asked if Stardock is creating a method of "DRM," Wardell replied, "The problem with 'DRM' is that it's so loosely defined. ... Stardock's products use activation, and I wouldn't say that it's DRM. We're just verifying if you're real customer."

The CEO said that Stardock has looked to its community to ask what kind of security measures are acceptable and which ones are not. "It should be completely invisible to the user."

DRM has been a hot topic as of late, the most recent case being EA's highly-anticipated PC game Spore, which implemented protection technology from SecuROM. One customer filed a class-action lawsuit against EA over the game's DRM.

Despite Wardell's distaste for intrusive DRM, he said that filing a lawsuit is going a bit overboard. "Publishers should have the right to be stupid if they want. That's their right. And it's the right of the consumer to choose not to buy."

He vouched for the huge faceless corporations that sometimes seem to be oblivious to the plight of the DRM-afflicted gamer.

"It's not that these publishers are DRM-happy. They're not completely in love with it. It's just that there aren't very many alternatives."

I got to say, looking at the picture of the CEO makes me feel trusting, while the picture of EA's CEO makes me think of a wolf in sheeps clothing, is this normal?

[Husar]

I got to say, looking at the picture of the CEO makes me feel trusting, while the picture of EA's CEO makes me think of a wolf in sheeps clothing, is this normal?

It's called a prejudice.

[Veho Nex]

prejudice how? they're both white.

[naut]

prejudice how? they're both white.

Um, prejudice:

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

Prejudice doesn't specifically apply to racism.

[Veho Nex]

But it's not... well anyways. Lets get sum new news up in har

[TevashSzat]

EA stocks feels burn, Universal stokes inferno

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wall Street Journal muses a Disney takeover of share-price-challenged publisher as Variety reports movie studio has landed rights for unannounced game set in depths of hell.

Last week, Electronic Arts made headlines for posting a $310 million quarterly loss and laying off 6 percent of its workforce. As a result, its stock took a drubbing on Wall Street, dropping over $3 per share in after-hours trading to end the week at $22.78, just above its one-year low of $21.91. As a result, the publisher, which recently was poised to acquire rival Take-Two Interactive, has become the subject of takeover talk itself.

In a piece this past weekend (subscription required), Wall Street Journal columnist Martin Peers mused that media giant Disney might buy EA outright. He points out that the Redwood City, California-based publisher's market capitalization is now just $7.2 billion, down from $19 billion "a few years ago." Peers believes that, given the near-certainty its value will rebound, EA is a great bargain for a larger media company to scoop up, and that Disney--with its better-than-average stock performance--would be an ideal suitor.

But while the Journal article is purely speculative, Variety had more concrete news involving EA. Namely, that the publisher has struck a deal with Universal Studios to make a film based on yet another of its games. According to the Hollywood trade, the agreement came after a brief bidding war which had Paramount, MGM, New Regency, and Warner Bros. all interested.

More remarkably, the game in question hasn't even been announced yet. Titled Dante's Inferno, it is reportedly about "a journey from the depths of hell" and would presumably be inspired by medieval author Dante Alighieri's book The Divine Comedy. No developer or platforms were mentioned, though Variety did say it was set for release next year.

The Universal-EA deal comes just over a week after the pair inked an agreement on a big-screen version of Army of Two. EA has also sold the film rights to The Sims to 20th Century Fox, while producer Avi Arad holds the movie license to Mass Effect, made by EA subsidiary BioWare. The production status of those two projects is unclear.

As of press time, EA reps had not returned requests for comment about either the Journal or Variety articles.

It looks like gaming is not recession proof after all and several companies are being affected by this recent global problem.

Although most do not love EA at all, I doubt anyone would want to see Disney in control of such a big piece of the gaming industry...

Game bill will go to the Supreme Court

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Last week, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the state of California's case in defense of its overturned violent game restriction law. While a ruling on that case might not come for months, the author of the bill thinks the judge's decision won't settle anything.

Earlier today, California State Senator Leland Yee visited GameSpot's offices for an appearance on Tuesday's HotSpot podcast. During more than a half-hour of conversation about the disputed law and the state's role in parenting, Yee said he doesn't believe either the state of California nor the Entertainment Software Association would accept defeat at this point.

"However the Ninth Circuit's going to rule on this matter, I think either side is going to appeal this," Yee said. "It's going to go to the Supreme Court. Hopefully what we're going to end up [with] in California and throughout the nation is a balance. How do you protect the first amendment and ensure there's not going to be limitations on the free expression of individuals' desires and wants and creativity when developing these games but at the same time protecting our kids and the general public?"

As for whether a flood of constituent complaints could persuade Yee to drop the matter, the politician suggested this was one issue where voter outcry would not change his mind.

"There is an organized effort to let me know very clearly that a lot of the gamers are not supportive of what I'm doing," Yee said. "I'm not trying to be arrogant or disrespectful toward them, but I am a legislator myself. And I need to look at what is also right. Leadership is sometimes not about simply putting your finger in the political wind and seeing how everybody feels. Rather, it's having some hard, core values as to what you think is appropriate and right and trying to do the right thing."

The full interview will be included in this week's edition of The HotSpot, scheduled to go live Tuesday evening.

So, let me get this straight......your constituency even doesn't like the bill, but you don't care about them and still defends your bill?.

An appropriate follow piece here:

New study sees tenuous likes between violent games, aggression

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yet another study that looks into the relationship between violent games and aggressive behavior in children has caught the attention of the press, appearing everywhere from CNN to the Washington Post. Once again, the study is being offered as conclusive evidence that violent games are bad for kids; the Post quotes its lead author as stating, "we now have conclusive evidence that playing violent video games has harmful effects on children and adolescents." But the study itself is far less decisive than that statement would imply, and some aspects of its methods have already been criticized by others in the psychology community.

It appears to be generally accepted within the research community that real-world violence and, to a lesser extent, violent media, can promote aggressive behavior in children. Violent games have attracted attention because their immersive environments and personal involvement appear to place them somewhere between real violence and passive media consumption. To date, however, there hasn't been clear evidence that games are any worse than other forms of media consumption. More generally, connections between aggression as assayed in studies and real-world violence have also been tenuous.

Analyzing the literature is made more challenging by the fact that the studies that address the topic rarely use standardized study populations or measurements of aggression or violent content. Trying to identify reasonably equivalent papers in order to perform a meta-analysis leaves most of the field's literature on the cutting-room floor. Unfortunately, the new paper, available as an open access publication in the journal Pediatrics, doesn't appear to improve the situation.

The authors perform a single analysis that incorporates three longitudinal studies of aggression and gaming, two performed in Japan, and one in the US. Students were surveyed on the types of video games they played, and then a follow-up survey determined their levels of aggressive behavior several months later. Unfortunately, almost everything else involved in the studies was different. The three surveys targeted different age groups with essentially no overlap, used different measures of violent game content, different measures of physical aggression, and performed the follow-up surveys at different time periods.

The results suggest that, even in the two very different cultures, there was a significant correlation between the use of violent games and physical aggression. The authors correctly note that the persistence of this correlation across ages and cultures suggests it is significant.

Unfortunately, the authors attempt to treat the data as a single, unified body when they perform a pathway analysis in an attempt to demonstrate a degree of causality; given the differences described above, their decision to do so doesn't appear to be well justified. Regardless, when evaluated for its predictive power, playing violent games came in a distant third behind two well-known predictors of aggressive behavior: gender (boys are more aggressive) and current instances of aggressive behavior. Controlling for those two did reveal that violent games had a statistically significant predictive value.

To be clear: I wouldn't be shocked if these results were replicated in a better-designed study. I just don't think that the authors' conclusion, that "frequent playing of violent video games is an important causal risk factor for youth aggression," is actually well-supported by this work. I'd be equally skeptical if other psychological studies lumped nine-year-olds with people in their late teens and used different measures of behavior.

[Husar]

Can't wait for that "The Sims" movie.

[Mailman653]

New Xbox Experience Trimmed Back?

[Kekvit Irae]

This is what happens when your mentally-unstable kid runs away from home because you wouldn't let him play with his XBAWKS.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...ppearance.aspx

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ORO-MEDONTE, ONT. -- After an exhaustive search that lasted more than three weeks, Ontario Provincial Police on Wednesday recovered a body they believe to be that of missing teenager Brandon Crisp in a wooded area near Barrie.

Barrie Police Sergeant Dave Goodbrand delivered the news to a crush of reporters on a narrow road not far from the cornfield where hunters reportedly came across the body.

“We are definitely moved by this. This is obviously a very tragic day,” Sgt. Goodbrand said.

On Thanksgiving Day, Brandon, 15, had packed a backpack with some clothing and a toothbrush and angrily rode his bicycle away from the family home in Barrie, about 10 kilometres south of here, after his parents took away his X-Box.

[Veho Nex]

Ohhh lol, I know I should be sad but imagine the stupidity that must have been felt after the parents are like.... Dont worry he'll come back.

[Martok]

This is what happens when your mentally-unstable kid runs away from home because you wouldn't let him play with his XBAWKS.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...ppearance.aspx

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ORO-MEDONTE, ONT. -- After an exhaustive search that lasted more than three weeks, Ontario Provincial Police on Wednesday recovered a body they believe to be that of missing teenager Brandon Crisp in a wooded area near Barrie.

Barrie Police Sergeant Dave Goodbrand delivered the news to a crush of reporters on a narrow road not far from the cornfield where hunters reportedly came across the body.

“We are definitely moved by this. This is obviously a very tragic day,” Sgt. Goodbrand said.

On Thanksgiving Day, Brandon, 15, had packed a backpack with some clothing and a toothbrush and angrily rode his bicycle away from the family home in Barrie, about 10 kilometres south of here, after his parents took away his X-Box.

Uff da. That's rough.

I admit I'm a little torn, however. On the one hand, any 15-year-old that flips out like that over losing his/her console privileges needs to get a grip.

On the other hand, he almost surely had to have been having problems before this, which begs the question: Why/how did his family not realize he was in trouble? I realize that sometimes the warning signs can be hard to spot, especially in teenagers, but I still can't help but wonder.