Slashdot Mirror
Sony To Release PSP Handheld Console In 2004
JayBonci writes "According to News.com, in a news conference before this year's E3, Sony announced its plans to release a new gaming handheld called PSP, slated for release late next year. Presumably, this would be to compete against Nintendo's Gameboy Advance, a clear winner in the handhelds department for years now. The games come on a new media format, half the size of a CD or DVD, holding 1.8 gigs. Other Gameboy competitors such as the Neo-Geo Pocket Color have suffered from small game libraries and the inability to get over the GBC/GBA's entrenched marketshare. Despite all of this, Sony isn't SNK, and obviously has a lot of muscle to push its way to where it wants to be. It will be an interesting fight."
Ech, How long will two AA batteries run an optical drive and a color display with a backlight? My guess is about how long the Game Gear lasted on four AAs, a couple of hours.
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
I wonder what companies they will team with to create new games. In order to beat Nintendo, they're really gonna need an awesome initial lineup of games. I'm thinking at least 25 or so. And they'll need some big named games as well, like Castlevania and whatnot.
Also, what are they going to do to entice developers. Gameboy has such market penetration that it'll be hard to convince them that they can make more money with the new handheld. I expect to see a lot of games developed for both systems, or 3d ports of games for the PSP.
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
The disk size and format (small DVD) sounds like the GameCube format. I beleve that format is a standard, like mini-CD.
Wonder if this is a new format or if they are using that one. Don't see why they would roll there own with there's already one existing. Of course this is the same company that came up with Beta-Max and Mini Disk.
"Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
The games come on a new media format, half the size of a CD or DVD, holding 1.8 gigs
----
I sure hope their new format is solid state, because portable units are meant to be.. well.. portable. If it's a disk based format I doubt it will be nearly as durable as the cartridge based gameboy. Also battery time must be considered, if it's an optical disk the unit will not have a battery life nearly as long as the game boy advance.
I have a feeling this system might suffer the problems as some early PDA's: overpowered, too expensive, and not portable enough. Nintendo and Palm both tackled their respective markets aiming for two goals: Portability and Efficiency. I hope sony realizes this before going against the behemoth of Nintendo's Gameboy.
George Harrison, a vice president at Nintendo of America, noted that much of the competition's success has been built on socially questionable games such as the street-crime romp "Grand Theft Auto 3." He promised Nintendo wouldn't go down that alley. "Mario will never start shooting hookers," he vowed.
Kind of reaching there huh guys? Rockstar told you to go piss up a rope didn't they? Lets face it, with games like GTA and Metal Gear as exclusive titles you guys didn't stand a chance. Zelda isn't _that_ good.
Nintendo has had that stance for, oh, 20 years now. Whether it's successful, or even reasonable, is debatable... but it's definitely NOT some new reaction to Sony. It is to a large part based on Miyamoto's attitude and design philosophy, visible from his earliest games.
...the Atari Lynx, the world's first color handheld (and still the best!); the NEC TurboExpress; the Sega GameGear; and the Sega Nomad. Making a portable that uses optical media is asking for trouble. A proprietary SD memory card would be the better route for vibrations, although the media would be more expensive.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Additionally, I do not know why Sony is attempting to release an "all in one" portable machine that plays games, places calls, and serves as a PDA. That to me just seems like they are trying too hard to incorporate too many groups of people under the same device. If I want a PDA, I buy a PDA. If I want a cell phone, I buy a cell phone. I doubt there is a big market for people that want a cell phone/PDA/handheld game device. Why pay for this unless you want everything that comes with it? Just my $.02
Compairing the PS2's hardware to the X-Box is a bit hard.
The PS2's hardware was designed from the ground up to run games... where the x-box is basically.. a PC with some optimisations.
The PS2 has a lot of power still that a lot of companies don't (or can't) yet take advantage of. Unfortunatly one of the bad things about the PS2 is that its not eactly the easiest to program for. (Sony isnt exactly helping too much with this either.)
I have a feeling we are going to see games evolve over the years on the PS2... (Same thing that happened on the PS1. Compare almost any first gen PS1 game with one of the last gen PS1 games to see what I mean. They almost look like they are for totally different hardware platforms.) While on the other hand, graphics on the xbox will be more or less the same. (Developers already know how to program its hardware, obviously.)
Anyways... Im in no way trying to say the PS2 is more powerful than the X-Box. I am just trying to explain why compairing the two is kindof useless... atleast when your just going by pure specs. (Which btw, you dont mention anything about the PS2s processor design, which does have advantages over the xbox.)
Anyways... this is the same reason why you cant compare AMD and Intel chips directly just by specs.
Anyways... back to my beer =P
Luke
Remember the Portable PlayStation
On Classic Gaming? This guy ripped apart a Playstation One and a mini-TV and built his own back in September of 1991. It was cool because the CD for it spun freely on the back of it without an enclosure. The builder of it even called it the PSP. Hmm... wonder if Sony "stole" the name for theirs from his sight? =)
Your post contains so many odd and/or illogical statements I felt compelled to reply.
"How did Sony with with the PS2?"
Discounting Sega, they were first to market.
Why discount Sega? - Sega were first to market with a comprarable console *years* before Playstation 2 (the Dreamcast was released in 1998).
"They got into the market far later than all except Microsoft;"
You forget the generational cycles in the video game industry. To an extent, all bets are off when the next generation of console rolls out, which means (discounting the Dreamcast) Sony had the first-mover advantage.
They relied primarily on the sucess of the origional Playstation brand to sell the Playstation 2. This is what kept people from investing in Dreamcast's - they had been constantly told the 'next big thing' is round the corner, and they were led to belive it would be far better than anything they have previously seen.
Sony have a lot of great consumer technology but ought to be ashamed of themsevels for the PS2. Partly because it is has proved very difficult for developers to use the Emotion Engine effectively, and partly because simply the hardware is not particularly capeable (support for only low resolution textures, lack of hardware support for environmental effects, max polygon limits that proved an issue almost immediately [compare DOA3 on PS2 with DOA3 on XBox]).
After the initial rush of playing great games such as GTA:VC many regular users are only just beginning to realise that the PS2 is a bit of let down from a hardware perspective (which was something most hard core gamers realised in the first few weeks, not that it would necessarily stop you from buying one, just that you might not by many games for it). Even looking at some games such as Rogue Squadron on the GameCube is enough to make Playstation owners lament the lack of hardware accelerated special effects on their own console.
"their hardware is far behind the XBox,"
Debatable. We're not exactly comparing a Genesis with an SNES.
No it's not really debatable, it's simple statement of truth, the XBox is a far more able console than the Playstation 2. There surely can be few rational people who doubt this?
A hard disk, a network interface, and crucially - the ability to shift more polygons per second, with much more detailed textures as well as hardware rendered effects* including bump mapping, environment mapping, reflection and Full Screen Anti-Aliasing make it a more capable console (and, with these features built in it is of note that it still retails for less than a Playstation 2).
[* = While the Playstation 2 can also do effects such as bump mapping, they are not hardware accelerated and the frame rate takes such a hit as a result that few developers have been able to use it (which is why it's rarely present in games).]
The Playstation 2 is not anything like a good as it should have been considering the Dreamcast was released in 1998. The PS2 has primarily been successful because of the hype that followed due to the overwhelming success of the original Playstation and because of leverage it has been able to exert on publishers* (e.g. with the Grand Theft Auto series), not because it is competing on technical merit.
[* = Much as have Microsoft have done with Bungie.]
"Sega, who's technology was often cutting edge and who had a long history in the industry, is now defunct in the hardware market."
Sega's problems were never because of either hardware or software. Their main pitfall was marketing. In my opinion, if the Sega Saturn had been backwards-compatible, Sony would be the one out of the hardware business.
You mean Mega CD games? They were not popular in any case, which means that wouldn't have helped. Perhaps you mean with cartridge based media? They already tried this with the Mega CD and 32X fiasco's - both of which were also no