Did you know?

We've added more customization tools to make your reading experience more personal. You can now adjust the background color, font and font size for this page and any other content page by hovering over the image below.Log in to have your settings saved for future visits.
 
 
News

Patapon 2 Going Digital Only

| 13 Apr 2009 21:44
image

There won't be a UMD version of Patapon 2, as Sony is using the game's release to test the waters of digital-only distribution for PSP titles.

Originally scheduled for a regular old retail release, Sony has trashed that idea and will be going full-on (or at least partially) digital for Patapon 2. The game will be sold for $15 on the PlayStation Store, while retailers will also be selling a $20 physical version that doesn't come with a UMD but a download code inside the box. So if you care about adding another case to your shelf of PSP games, go for retail. If you care about saving $5 for a footlong at Subway, go for digital.

Sony's doing this to test the waters of digital only distribution. "We're considering a digital only format for the Patapon 2 release as a one time test case as we continue to explore consumer preferences for digital content," Patrick Seybold of SCEA said.

Why is this significant for people who don't give a hoot about rhythm games with cute little characters saying really annoying chants? While it's true that Sony did this about a year ago with Echochrome on PSP, the timing for this coincides with multiple rumors about a new PSP without a UMD drive (and possibly with a touch screen) that'll get all its games via a PSN store.

Could be a sign that Sony's gearing up for this rumored UMD-less PSP or it could just be Sony exploring "consumer preferences for digital content." Either way, Patapon 2 will only be $15, and that's something to be happy about.

[Via Ars Technica]

RELATED CONTENT
BEN "YAHTZEE" CROSHAW | 9 Jul 2008 15:55
DAN DORMER | 27 Jun 2006 12:06
THADDEUS STOKLASA | 31 Jan 2008 17:00
CHRISTOS REID | 28 Jul 2009 12:27
HAL HALPIN | 8 Jul 2008 12:30
JOHN SCOTT | 5 Dec 2006 12:00

Comments on