Speaking with Eurogamer earlier today, peripheral manufacturer Mad Catz revealed a struggle to meet UK demand for the Street Fighter IV FightStick: Tournament Edition (pictured). Considering the UK is "over there" and we're, well, over here, we wanted to see the situation report for North America.

We spoke with the company's PR head, Alex Verrey, who was surprisingly candid about the situation. The issue is that the initial production run of the $150 Tournament stick consisted of 3,000 units. The company's pre-order count is now "many, many, times that amount," which Verrey admits caught the manufacturer by surprise. The sticks are currently going back into production, but it will take a little time for turnaround. Naturally, more units were allotted for North America than Europe, but he couldn't get into numbers. Although many who order now may not get the stick day and date with SF IV's release, we were informed the company intends to make sure that pre-order demand is met.

As for the other official Street Fighter IV controllers, Verrey believes that there should be adequate supply. Another topic we discussed at length was the quality of Mad Catz products, and he asked that consumers don't think of this Mad Catz as the same one they remember. He emphasized the new Mad Catz has evolved and is focusing more on quality. He reiterated that its wares come with a two-year warranty and they are committed to better products.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/14/ma...iv-fightstick/ ...

Hoo boy. It's time to get all crazy with your Avatar fashions, Xbox 360 owners. Major Nelson has announced that more Avatar duds are now available within the New Xbox Experience, with no fewer than four new, totally extreme ... polo shirt options. Here's a breakdown of the latest shipment:

Boys' Department:

Striped Polo Shirt
Striped Jacket with Polo
Checked Jacket with Polo
Open Neck Cardigan
Embroidered Pants
Suspenders with Hi Pants (Dress Up)
Girls' Garb:

Hacking Jacket
Chinos with Belt
Rainy Day Boots
Scarlet Pumps
Lavender Polo Shirt
Like us, you're probably wondering what, exactly, a "Hacking Jacket" is. It isn't what Trinity wore in The Matrix. It is this. So there you go.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/14/no...r-nxe-avatars/ ...

Hoo boy. It's time to get all crazy with your Avatar fashions, Xbox 360 owners. Major Nelson has announced that more Avatar duds are now available within the New Xbox Experience, with no fewer than four new, totally extreme ... polo shirt options. Here's a breakdown of the latest shipment:

Boys' Department:

Striped Polo Shirt
Striped Jacket with Polo
Checked Jacket with Polo
Open Neck Cardigan
Embroidered Pants
Suspenders with Hi Pants (Dress Up)
Girls' Garb:

Hacking Jacket
Chinos with Belt
Rainy Day Boots
Scarlet Pumps
Lavender Polo Shirt
Like us, you're probably wondering what, exactly, a "Hacking Jacket" is. It isn't what Trinity wore in The Matrix. It is this. So there you go.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/14/no...r-nxe-avatars/ ...

When Sony rattled off at last week's CES that 17 million PlayStation Network accounts had been registered, we were at once both impressed and skeptical. That number happens to match Xbox Live's data that was released days prior, despite its one-year lead and more aggressive push in the field.

The Doubting Thomases over at MTV Multiplayer got in touch with Sony to clarify the figure and gain some more perspective on the issue. As it turns out, that number includes people who have created accounts via PS3, PSP or the official website, which requires a PSN ID to access the forums. While still impressive, we're happier to have some more context on this one.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/14/ps...ficial-forums/ ...

This week I've been at the Game::Business::Law Conference, and one of the speakers was Jason Holtman, Director of Business Development / Legal Affairs for Valve. Jason set out a fascinating theory on piracy: The majority of 'pirates' are just underutilized customers.

This certainly sets forth an interesting business proposition, but also interesting possibilities for legal strategies related to piracy management and IP protection. I do want to caveat that this is building on a theoretical basis, and that doesn't necessarily mean any of these strategies is optimal for any given company. I want to summarize Jason's viewpoint to better frame the discussion. His view, and his research suggests, that piracy is heavily mitigated by ensuring worldwide cross-market releases.
"The majority of 'pirates' are just underutilized customers. "

For example, there will be far more piracy in Russia if the Russian release is 6 months after the US release. When there is a delay like that, someone is bound to go take a copy, translate it to Russian and resell it because the market has a heavy PC saturation and a combination of online and television advertising will drive desire to play the game. So, if a game developer takes the effort to have copies in stores in Moscow or available online in Russian at the same time as the US or European release, far fewer copies will be pirated. Beyond that, though, I do think there's a segment of the pirate community who are disgruntled customers, and not simply based on lack of release in the market.

As I do read all of the comments to my LGJ columns, I have noted a good number of comments related to piracy out of frustration. That may be related to older software that didn't run on newer operating systems, or as some sort of misguided protest to, for example, the Spore DRM. Another likely example is that I would imagine piracy is down on NES/SNES titles available on WiiWare. Many had long used the excuse they could not locate the cartridge, which is a limited commodity. WiiWare negates that excuse to the extent titles are released. There is definitely something to be said for piracy being in part driven by frustration, and based on that there is both a business and a legal strategy associated with this viewpoint. From a business side, there is money to be made satisfying this segment. Think of it this way: a grumpy customer would be giving you money if you made them a happy customer. "Think of it this way: a grumpy customer would be giving you money if you made them a happy customer."


From the legal side, this poses a more perplexing quandry. On the one hand, legal action to prevent piracy will likely turn a frustrated customer to a non-customer. On the other hand, you do want to protect your rights and really there's no downside to pursuing action against other pirates, whether they do it for fun or some other reason, other than potential negative press generally tied to the appearance of being excessive with enforcement. Because of this dichomoty, there are a few possible approaches, each with plusses and minuses.

As a developer, you could just ignore the pirates completely while trying to bring the business side up to speed. As a plus, you won't lose any customers if the theory holds true. In fact, you'll be gaining back the frustrated customers by resolving the issue that frustrated them. On the other hand, there's then no dis-incentive to other pirates, no potential risk, and likely the biggest concern, you risk your trademarks by not protecting them. Copyright, as we've discussed previously, isn't a 'protect it or lose it' system, but trademark is.

Of course, the opposite end of the spectrum is equally problematic. If you pursue action against all pirates, you'll be reigning in those potential customers with the pure pirates, and running off potential business. This strategy, however, is the most secure for trademark rights. Certainly, there are plenty of companies who employ this strategy with success, so it's not completely out of the question either.

The third strategy I want to propose is a bit more radical. Specifically, it's a three part strategy: Choose your battles, Resolve consumer frustration, and Talk to pirates. If you're a developer, that's a strategy you might have paid a consultant six plus figures for, albeit in a far more simplistic form. This isn't anything radical in the grand scheme of things, but it's a shocking idea to a lot of people in IP protection. Rather than a complete distruction or ignore the problem approach, a moderated, strategic approach will maximize the return to the business on all fronts. "If you are a pirate, there are plenty of ways to voice your opinion anynonomously if in fact you are pirating out of frustration. "


Let's take a look at each step in slightly more detail. First, choose your battles. This more or less speaks for itself. Go for the 'big kill' litigation and don't focus on as much of the small stuff. Much like I've stated ...

This week I've been at the Game::Business::Law Conference, and one of the speakers was Jason Holtman, Director of Business Development / Legal Affairs for Valve. Jason set out a fascinating theory on piracy: The majority of 'pirates' are just underutilized customers.

This certainly sets forth an interesting business proposition, but also interesting possibilities for legal strategies related to piracy management and IP protection. I do want to caveat that this is building on a theoretical basis, and that doesn't necessarily mean any of these strategies is optimal for any given company. I want to summarize Jason's viewpoint to better frame the discussion. His view, and his research suggests, that piracy is heavily mitigated by ensuring worldwide cross-market releases.
"The majority of 'pirates' are just underutilized customers. "

For example, there will be far more piracy in Russia if the Russian release is 6 months after the US release. When there is a delay like that, someone is bound to go take a copy, translate it to Russian and resell it because the market has a heavy PC saturation and a combination of online and television advertising will drive desire to play the game. So, if a game developer takes the effort to have copies in stores in Moscow or available online in Russian at the same time as the US or European release, far fewer copies will be pirated. Beyond that, though, I do think there's a segment of the pirate community who are disgruntled customers, and not simply based on lack of release in the market.

As I do read all of the comments to my LGJ columns, I have noted a good number of comments related to piracy out of frustration. That may be related to older software that didn't run on newer operating systems, or as some sort of misguided protest to, for example, the Spore DRM. Another likely example is that I would imagine piracy is down on NES/SNES titles available on WiiWare. Many had long used the excuse they could not locate the cartridge, which is a limited commodity. WiiWare negates that excuse to the extent titles are released. There is definitely something to be said for piracy being in part driven by frustration, and based on that there is both a business and a legal strategy associated with this viewpoint. From a business side, there is money to be made satisfying this segment. Think of it this way: a grumpy customer would be giving you money if you made them a happy customer. "Think of it this way: a grumpy customer would be giving you money if you made them a happy customer."


From the legal side, this poses a more perplexing quandry. On the one hand, legal action to prevent piracy will likely turn a frustrated customer to a non-customer. On the other hand, you do want to protect your rights and really there's no downside to pursuing action against other pirates, whether they do it for fun or some other reason, other than potential negative press generally tied to the appearance of being excessive with enforcement. Because of this dichomoty, there are a few possible approaches, each with plusses and minuses.

As a developer, you could just ignore the pirates completely while trying to bring the business side up to speed. As a plus, you won't lose any customers if the theory holds true. In fact, you'll be gaining back the frustrated customers by resolving the issue that frustrated them. On the other hand, there's then no dis-incentive to other pirates, no potential risk, and likely the biggest concern, you risk your trademarks by not protecting them. Copyright, as we've discussed previously, isn't a 'protect it or lose it' system, but trademark is.

Of course, the opposite end of the spectrum is equally problematic. If you pursue action against all pirates, you'll be reigning in those potential customers with the pure pirates, and running off potential business. This strategy, however, is the most secure for trademark rights. Certainly, there are plenty of companies who employ this strategy with success, so it's not completely out of the question either.

The third strategy I want to propose is a bit more radical. Specifically, it's a three part strategy: Choose your battles, Resolve consumer frustration, and Talk to pirates. If you're a developer, that's a strategy you might have paid a consultant six plus figures for, albeit in a far more simplistic form. This isn't anything radical in the grand scheme of things, but it's a shocking idea to a lot of people in IP protection. Rather than a complete distruction or ignore the problem approach, a moderated, strategic approach will maximize the return to the business on all fronts. "If you are a pirate, there are plenty of ways to voice your opinion anynonomously if in fact you are pirating out of frustration. "


Let's take a look at each step in slightly more detail. First, choose your battles. This more or less speaks for itself. Go for the 'big kill' litigation and don't focus on as much of the small stuff. Much like I've stated ...

The British Board of Film Classification has passed Sega's MadWorld with an "18" rating. The Wii title received the classification for containing "very strong, stylized, bloody violence." Sega has been working with both the BBFC and the United States' ESRB to avoid the respective regions' "kiss of death." The publisher contributed builds at various times for feedback on what needed to be changed to dodge being "unclassified" in the Britain and receiving an "AO" rating in the States.

We're unaware if Sega has also been showing builds to Australia's conservative OFLC. If any region is going to "ban" MadWorld, it'll be the Aussies, due to the region's lack of an R18+ rating for games.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/15/ma...ing-from-bbfc/ ...

We're not sure who exactly said video games were "recession-proof," but, as you've probably already guessed, they were sorely mistaken. NPD senior account manager Michael Klotz detailed the incorrectitude at the Game Business Law summit, saying that the industry was already feeling the effects of the economic slowdown.

The games industry is still growing, but that growth slowed considerably towards the end of 2008, with 9% growth in August, 12% in October and 8% in November. Most embarrassing was September, which actually saw a 7% decline. And with that, we've just passed 80 words, which is the maximum amount of time we're able to focus on economics without blacking out. Thanks for hanging in there.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/15/np...-in-recession/ ...

We're not sure who exactly said video games were "recession-proof," but, as you've probably already guessed, they were sorely mistaken. NPD senior account manager Michael Klotz detailed the incorrectitude at the Game Business Law summit, saying that the industry was already feeling the effects of the economic slowdown.

The games industry is still growing, but that growth slowed considerably towards the end of 2008, with 9% growth in August, 12% in October and 8% in November. Most embarrassing was September, which actually saw a 7% decline. And with that, we've just passed 80 words, which is the maximum amount of time we're able to focus on economics without blacking out. Thanks for hanging in there.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/15/np...-in-recession/ ...