Playstation 4.5/4k

More reports are rolling in that Sony is planning a half-step successor to the PlayStation 4. Following up on a Kotaku report of a PlayStation 4.5 earlier this month, Digital Foundry and the Wall Street Journal have both independently confirmed the basics surrounding the machine.
Citing "people familiar with the matter," the Wall Street Journal said Sony is planning to announce the upgraded system before the October launch of the PlayStation VR headset. The new PS4 will be capable of outputting higher resolution graphics, and is also intended to help provide PSVR with extra muscle necessary for competing against the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive headsets running on high-end desktop PCs. However, the paper notes that it is "likely" all games would run on either system.
Digital Foundry's Richard Leadbetter reports that multiple sources referred to the system as PlayStation 4K, but added that the extra GPU power Sony was said to be planning would not be enough to ensure native 4K resolution for standard AAA PS4 titles.
"Everything we've heard positions PlayStation 4K as a machine capable of playing current and next-generation ultra HD media, while also offering support for other aspects of the 4K spec, such as high-dynamic range and a wider colour gamut - aspects of the 4K spec that could be introduced to gaming," Leadbetter said. "However, in terms of additional computational power, we've got be realistic about what Sony can deliver with a mid-generation refresh."

Millennials vote Republican after 40k salaries

My generation is a disaster, politically. They typically hold views that either are in direct contradiction of one another, or make zero sense altogether. As The Atlantic noted in 2014, Millennials support President Obama and the concept of universal health care, but oppose Obamacare. They hate political parties, but are the demographic that give Congress its highest marks of approval. We’re also the only age group, where a majority–53 percent–holds socialism in high regard. Yet, there is a silver lining, as both The Washington Post and The Atlantic noted that once Millennials get jobs–their support for socialism drops dramatically as they become more economically conservative. Fancy that; once you start getting an actual paycheck after working yourself to death–and see how much is taken out by Uncle Sam–income redistribution really doesn’t seem like a charming idea, huh (via WaPo):

Are millennials ushering in a sea change of public opinion? Do they signal the transformation of the United States into a Scandinavian social democracy.

The expanded social welfare state Sanders thinks the United States should adopt requires everyday people to pay considerably more in taxes. Yet millennials become averse to social welfare spending if they foot the bill. As they reach the threshold of earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year, the majority of millennials come to oppose income redistribution, including raising taxes to increase financial assistance to the poor

Similarly, a Reason-Rupe poll found that while millennials still on their parents’ health-insurance policies supported the idea of paying higher premiums to help cover the uninsured (57 percent), support flipped among millennials paying for their own health insurance with 59 percent opposed to higher premiums.

When tax rates are not explicit, millennials say they’d prefer larger government offering more services (54 percent) to smaller government offering fewer services (43 percent). However when larger government offering more services is described as requiring high taxes, support flips and 57 percent of millennials opt for smaller government with fewer services and low taxes, while 41 percent prefer large government.

Millennials wouldn’t be the first generation to flip-flop. In the 1980s, the same share (52 percent) of baby boomers also supported bigger government, and so did Generation Xers (53 percent) in the 1990s. Yet, both baby boomers and Gen Xers grew more skeptical of government over time and by about the same magnitude. Today, only 25 percent of boomers and 37 percent of Gen Xers continue to favor larger government.

Now, that doesn’t mean conservatives should just stop emphasizing the importance of free markets and economic liberty because the tide of history seems to be with us once young Americans become employed and start making money. The good news is that the notion of Millennials becoming less economically left leaning once they start making $40k and more remains steady. Additionally, younger Millennials (18-20 year olds) aren’t as liberal as their older peers. So, alas, maybe there is hope for Millennials on the economic front; they just need to find jobs.

Sony Computer Entertainment headquarters in California now

=

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a mantra that seemingly holds little meaning at Sony; it's just decided to undertake the most dramatic reshuffle of its videogame business since the 1990s right in the midst of stellar sales of its most successful home console yet. Business units will be rearranged and merged, organisation trees pruned and spliced, and most dramatically of all, the PlayStation business' headquarters will shift from Tokyo to California. News of the changes has, understandably, been mostly shrouded in that special version of the English language spoken only by corporate PR people (a dialect uniquely horrible and utterly meaningless), which has left many of the company's customers and even its partners wondering exactly what it all means.
In some senses, this is just tidying up. The separation between Sony Network Entertainment and Sony Computer Entertainment was a well-intentioned one at the outset; there was a future vision which imagined that network services, like the PlayStation Store and PlayStation Now, would eventually be something much, much larger than the PlayStation console itself. The idea was that Sony Network Entertainment would end up being a business unit that worked not only with SCE but with every other aspect of Sony's business, underwriting the future success of the company as a whole. That future might still come to pass, but things haven't played out as originally anticipated, partially because the company's grand plans for network services have been undermined by the success of rivals and partially because PlayStation has done far better than expected. As a consequence, Sony Network Entertainment presently mostly provides services for PlayStation consoles; it makes perfect sense for it to be brought together with the PlayStation itself. Optimistically, one can hope that removing this paper screen in the corporate structure will also help to fix some of the lingering problems with Sony's network systems, which are all-too-often an unreliable negative counterpoint to its otherwise impressive hardware and software.

"one can hope that removing this paper screen in the corporate structure will also help to fix some of the lingering problems with Sony's network systems"

Rather more dramatic is the move from Tokyo to California - and the rather less widely reported change to the company's global management structure, which will seemingly see the European, US and Asian divisions of Sony Interactive Entertainment (the new merged entity) sharing a single top-level management team. It's not clear whether this will have any impact on the actual independence of the regional teams - SCEE and SCEA always had quite a surprising degree of autonomy - but a structural change like this is usually designed to reflect an intended outcome, and in this case it's not unreasonable to expect that the regions will be working more closely together after the changes take effect.
What of that move to California, though? Isn't PlayStation, like Sony itself, quite intrinsically a Japanese brand? Aren't many of the values and qualities of the console and its software that actually appeal to consumers down to the fact that it's a Japanese creation? I've seen those arguments and plenty of others shoot back and forth over the Internet in the days since the announcement; and I have to confess, I have a little sympathy. In the eras of the PlayStation and PS2 in particular, the Japanese roots of the consoles were a major selling point; the systems became a window on to a world that was fascinatingly different, culturally and creatively, and I don't think it's unfair to say that much of the subsequent success of Japanese pop culture overseas owes a debt to the gateway drug of PlayStation. If the whole thing is now going to be based in California, is it going to lose that cultural value somehow?

" In the eras of the PlayStation and PS2 in particular, the Japanese roots of the consoles were a major selling point; the systems became a window on to a world that was fascinatingly different"

Well, no; I think fearing that PlayStation's identity will be lost in this move is a consequence of misunderstanding what PlayStation's identity has actually been all along. Sure, the Japanese origins of the console were a big and important part of its DNA, but if anything, the appeal of PlayStation since the early years has been founded in Sony's willingness to entrust the keys to the kingdom to its overseas offices. That exhibited itself in software development - WipEout being a key title for the first PlayStation is an early example of a tradition that went on to deliver pillars of support to the platform from overseas developers, from God of War to Uncharted to Killzone and plenty of others besides. It went further than that, though; Sony Computer Entertainment divisions outside Japan were trusted to develop key technologies and services that would come to define the future of the platform, and key staff from those overseas divisions became a part of decision-making processes at Sony in a way that has very rarely, if ever, been the case at PlayStation's rivals.
That's what leaves PlayStation in the situation it's in today - with one of the most impressively multi-national core teams you could hope to put together to run a platform business. From Sony boss Kaz Hirai on down, top executives on the PlayStation side of Sony speak fluent English and have extensive overseas experience; while people like SCE (soon to be SIE) boss Andrew House and PlayStation architect Mark Cerny have come to the company from overseas divisions, risen to enormously important positions and work seemingly seamlessly with the Japanese organisation. That might not seem like any great shakes in some regards, but in the context of a Japanese business, it's a big deal; it's indicative of a willingness on Sony's part to really embrace the idea of being an international business, not just a Japanese company that does some business overseas. That's the DNA of PlayStation, more than anything else, and it seems eminently unlikely that that's going to change with the move of headquarters to California. It's not like Japan Studio, the actual source of most of Sony's interesting Japanese titles, is going anywhere, and if Sony's commitment to Japanese game development wasn't clear, consider the enormous amount of cash rustled up, upsetting every damn budget in the company in the process, to ensure Hideo Kojima was on board after leaving Konami.

"at the moment only about one in every 18 PS4 units sold is being sold in Japan"

There will, of course, be changes; an organisational shift like this is expensive and messy, and Sony wouldn't be bothering to do it if it didn't want to see some changes. One can easily guess at one of the catalysts for the move; the Japanese market is less and less relevant to the home console business with every passing year, and at the moment only about one in every 18 PS4 units sold is being sold in Japan. In contrast, Vita does reasonably well in Japan, but is an irrelevance everywhere else in the world. It's not hard to see the argument that putting so much of the decision-making capacity for PlayStation in the heart of a market that no longer buys home consoles has the potential to warp perceptions and force errors. The creativity and imagination of Japanese developers is essential to PlayStation; the country's business environment and consumer market, by contrast, seems like an active impediment to Sony's success. Far better to put Sony's videogame business overseas, where it'll be in the same environment as Sony Pictures and Sony Music - the media arms of the company with which it arguably has far more in common than the remaining Japan-based divisions.
Plenty of analysts are spending plenty of time teasing out Sony's new structure and organisational chart to try to understand what will happen to PlayStation in future; the bottom line of what I'm trying to say here i that we shouldn't expect very much change in the short to medium term, at least not of the kind that will be remotely apparent to consumers. The firm may, to some degree, be ignoring exhortations not to fix what isn't broken; but it will also be keenly aware that PS4 is a goose that keeps laying golden eggs, and won't be waving any knives in its vicinity where possible (unlike the ones presently being brandished at me by the Metaphor Mixing Police). We can expect no major changes of course for Sony's console strategy in the next year or two; if there's to be real fall-out from this change, it will be in planning for the longer term, as the new management team tackle the question of what PS4's success means for the future of the once-presumed-dead console business.

ESA almost irrelevant

Two weeks ago, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) lashed out at market research firm NPD. Most of us know that NPD has been the primary source of industry information when it comes to games sold at retail in the United States. The ESA hosts a conference each year that caters to retailers and allows publishers to show off their new wares: E3. Unsurprisingly, because of their shared interest in catering to companies that generate revenue from retail-based game sales, NPD and the ESA are long-standing partners. And the ESA honored this partnership by publicly shaming NPD. Again.

What's wrong with these people?

Besides the obvious insensitivity, it is comments like these that tell you how close an association like the ESA is to becoming irrelevant. For one, the industry is changing drastically, and that should not come as news to anyone watching over the last ten years. Today, at $75 billion across categories, the worldwide market for interactive entertainment is more than three times larger than it was ten years ago. People now play games on a wide variety of devices, publishers draw earnings using several new revenue models, and the process of development and distribution has unprecedentedly low barriers to entry. But perhaps most importantly, gaming has, finally, graduated to becoming a mainstream form of entertainment.

"The very ground that the ESA was built on is starting to crumble"

In the United States, video games represent a $24 billion industry and are now bigger than newspapers ($21 billion), radio ($17 billion), magazines ($16 billion), film box office ($11 billion) and music ($9 billion). Of every dollar spent on entertainment, $0.13 goes towards gaming. It is remarkable then that the best-known association that looks after the interests of an industry that has tripled in size, has somehow managed to become less important.

With regards to growing share of digital revenues for game companies, the ESA states: "Scores of millions of consumers purchase innovative content in myriad ways." That is about as vague as a statement can get. It suggests that beyond the mandatory hyperbole, the very association that looks after one of the biggest games markets in the world is clueless to even quantify the market at its most basic level. Worse, according to its website, the ESA currently has 33 members, of which only four are digital-only companies. By comparison, its counterpart in the United Kingdom, Ukie, which represents a market that is roughly one-fifth the size of the US, counts 250 members. And this includes many of the same names and big publishers. The ESA also tells us that nowadays consumers are spending money via "subscription services, digital downloads, and via their mobile devices." Yet we notice an absence of companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, Valve, Supercell and King, each of which represents a household name in gaming and holds a vested interest in the US market.

You can't sit with us

Last week, Electronic Arts announced that instead of buying itself a booth at E3, it had decided to leave the show floor and will be organizing its own fan-oriented event elsewhere. After years of criticism that E3 doesn't provide enough coverage on game categories that lie outside of retail, now one of the majors is fleeing the nest. At the same time, we've reached the peak of the current console cycle, arguably the very core of the traditional games industry, which means that the focus in the next few years will move to mobile, PC, virtual reality and eSports.

Central to all of this, of course, is an inevitable decline of specialty retailer GameStop. While some of its digitally focused assets like Kongregate continue to do well, the firm has made a clear decision to diversify its overall retail offering with the acquisition of related businesses such as Cricket Wireless, ThinkGeek, Spring Mobile and Simply Mac. Confronted with a decline in the number of unique physical titles released every year, dropping to under 200 in 2015, GameStop is now experimenting with becoming a publisher and partnered with Insomniac Games on Song of the Deep. And with the holiday season behind us, we anticipate that GameStop will announce layoffs and a reduction of its overall retail footprint during its next earnings call, possibly arguing that it is the result of a seasonal pattern. The very ground that the ESA was built on is starting to crumble.

Step up or step off

The games industry is riddled with people that hold strong opinions. Consumers, developers, press: everyone's a critic. But when it comes to stepping in and advocating for a real cause, there's a lot left to be desired. Case-in-point: as the top trade body for the games industry, the ESA probably could have done more when the chaos around Gamergate erupted last year. At the very least, something a bit more proactive than emailing a boilerplate response and then only after being asked by a reporter.

"...we need true leadership, not a bunch of people ready to step on others to elevate themselves. If the ESA finds there is not enough market transparency, it should encourage and not criticize"

As an industry researcher, I share the frustration and challenge that comes with analyzing and accurately capturing what is clearly the inevitable future of interactive entertainment. But beyond my own personal fascination and business agenda, this is also an industry that struggled for years to gain relevance with mainstream audiences. Anyone who works in the industry, regardless of what side of the fence you're on, has dealt with incredulity and mockery. Now that games are finally getting the respect stakeholders have fought so long to obtain, we need true leadership, not a bunch of people ready to step on others to elevate themselves. If the ESA finds there is not enough market transparency, it should encourage and not criticize.

We all understand that the industry is changing and that digital is the future. And it would suit the top trade body for the games industry to take some initiative and provide guidance. Different from ten years ago, there now is a generation of academics and analysts who would like to see games truly evolve. In the past few years a slew of academic programs at esteemed institutions like NYU and USC have popped up that encourage young adults to consider a career in programming, design and development. As a colleague recently remarked: "Game developers hone skills that are applicable across a range of industries, and not just gaming." At the same time, there still exists a lot of uncertainty around recently emerged categories like mobile casino games and free-to-play games that target kids. These are all areas where a strong regulatory body could play a critical role, build relationships and find common ground.

So, with the very foundation of the games industry shifting, I invite the ESA to step up to the plate. What we need is leadership from an association that is in touch with the industry and cares for its constituents. Instead of booing the ESA should be building bridges. And in return, we can help you lose the ever-stronger stench of irrelevance.

iOS the 2nd perferred gaming platform after 3ds

Apple's iOS may be losing market share to devices running Google's Android, but the iPhone maker should continue bringing in more money from games on its platforms for years to come. That's according to a new report from DFC Intelligence covering the global games and apps market for smartphones and tablets.

By 2018, DFC expects annual revenues from iOS games to hit $9.7 billion, compared to $2.7 billion for games from the Google Play store. For reference, the report lists the current record for single-year mobile game revenue on a platform as $6.6 billion, a mark reached by the Nintendo DS in 2008.

Even as Apple continues to lead the way in mobile game sales, DFC anticipates the company's iPhone and iPad lines to be outsold by a proliferation of Android devices. The report predicts a worldwide total of 829 million active Android phones in 2018, compared to 265 million active iPhones. A similar disparity is projected to surface in the tablet market. As for how Apple can grow revenues while losing market share, DFC cited the user-friendliness of the iOS ecosystem, and the way it allows purchases to be accessed through multiple devices.