Sony PSP - Pricing Hints Emerge?

Thanks to MCV for their interview with Sony Europe boss Chris Deering, in which it's mentioned again that Sony's PSP handheld "will be launched across the world in the final quarter of 2004." But Deering also talks price, suggesting that the PSP would launch at "closer to 200UKP [369USD] than 300UKP [554USD]" in England. Meanwhile, a Gamesindustry.biz article takes note of "information from Japanese retail sources earlier this week, who told us that a price point around 50,000 Yen [448USD], was being bandied about in Tokyo." Recent exchange-rate changes complicate U.S. launch pricing estimates, though - the PSP will likely launch at less than those raw dollar conversion rates Stateside, but is not intended to be a hardware loss-leader for Sony, with Deering suggesting: "The feeling is that this product should generate profit on hardware alone. We want to make it affordable for publishers to produce a wide range of entertainment and so [Sony-payable] royalties [on software produced for the PSP] will be lower down in the mix this time round."

Comments

damn

[Anonymous Coward]

At those prices, it better have a special suction mode for when I am playing in privacy.

Re:damn

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a console that really sucks then get an xbox.

Re:damn

[Zaphod Beebelbrox]

Maybe they'll have this as an option.

Re:damn

[BigKato]

Why is this modded as troll?

I thought it was funny, jerk.

Re:damn

[a whoabot]

Remind me to dump my girlfriend.

What exchange rates?

[lightspawn]

Recent exchange-rate changes complicate U.S. launch pricing estimates

No, they make things simpler. As a rule of thumb, hardware that costs $100 in the U.S. costs 100 UKP in the U.K.

Re:What exchange rates?

[simoniker]

True - just trying to make the point that you shouldn't necessarily think the PSP is going to cost 560 bucks in the U.S. :)

Re:What exchange rates?

[buffer-overflowed]

But it looks like it's definately going to be over $300. The dollar isn't exactly strong right now, and Sony isn't a US based company. With the current lowest cost trends, I'd be deeply surprised if it wasn't in the $400 range.

It's all but dead in the water at that pricepoint. I just don't see it happening.

Handheld Pricing

[MBCook]

So, what will I buy (price wise)? Let's take a look:

• $0 to $50 - I'll grab it, what's to lose?
• $50 to $100 - I'll look a little harder, but still great
• $100 to $150 - OK, this will take some considering
• $150 to $200 - It better be one hell of a product
• $200 to $250 - And it should include 2 games
• $250 to $350 - And a Gameboy
• $350 to $500 - And a PS 1
• $500 to... - And a girlfirend

I trust Sony a LOT, and I do intend to buy a PSP when they come out, but it costs anything more than $200 they're idiots. You can get a brand new GBA for $60. One of the reasons that many people get GBAs for their kids is that they are $60. Who would buy their 10 year old a $300 portable game system? I wouldn't trust one with something that expensive. If they're smart it will price at about $150, $200 if it includes a good game or two. Anything more than $200 is shooting themselves in the foot.

Of course this is all speculation. Currency conversion, taxes (like I assume VAT is included in the European prices?), and such all factor into the numbers posted in the article. p But in closing, it's one thing to pay $300 for a console, but something like a handheld that can get scratched/lost/soaked in a puddle/stolen/run over with a car/etc. the chances of getting people to pay $300 or more is PATHETIC.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[sladelink]

You can get a brand new GBA for $60. One of the reasons that many people get GBAs for their kids is that they are $60. Who would buy their 10 year old a $300 portable game system? I wouldn't trust one with something that expensive.

Sony is betting on selling the PSP to the market of teens-early 30 somethings, not as a toy for adults to get for their kids. That's what they think GBAs are for.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[MBCook]

I thought about that while writing my post, but I think that the vast majority of the sales of GBAs and GBA games go to kids, so by pricing the system out of the reach of kids you are killing off a large and important market. Just because it's not your target market doesn't mean that you have to bar them from buying your product (which is what a $200 price would do).

And even with the 30 something market, the price still worries me for the drop it/lose it/scratch it/etc reasons I gave in my post. One of the great things about the GBA (in my opinion) is that you don't have to treat it like a Fabrige (sp?) egg or diamond ring. While it's not cheap, it's not hard to replace. Most 30 something would be able to drop $60 for a new GBA if they needed, but how many have $250 or $300 to spend at the drop of a hat if something happens to their PSP?

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Kyouryuu]

$250-$300 is definitely quite expensive for a handheld console. Nokia found that out the hard way by offering a sub-par handheld at an unusually high price. Sony is the one entering a market literally dominated by Nintendo. As the newcomer, it would be arrogant to somehow "expect" that people will flock to it no matter what the price.

And kids are an important factor, no matter what the market strategists say. I can correlate taht - I've seen far more pre-teens and younger playing with Game Boy Advances than people my age and I have a feeling that parents would not be keen on handing a $300 device over to a little kid. Though I might be closed-minded in saying so, it also seems like aiming for the "young adult" crowd is asking for trouble. I have a hard time grasping the notion that the stereotypical games such player enjoy - like survival horror or bloody FPS combat - would translate to a tiny screen very well.

And like you said, longevity is another questionable factor. I've had to replace my GBA once due to a non-functioning shoulder button and while I cringed at paying Nintendo $100 for a glitch in the design (thus rewarding them), it didn't kill me. But a lost $300 PSP?

All I can say is that I hope, at that price, the PSP doesn't take off and usher in a new era of really expensive portables. The leading home consoles can be had for half that price, and I suspect that the next generation of consoles will probably have $300 as a starting point. That said, with its then-ancient PS2 technology, Sony is being quite ambitious and greedy.

Much like Nintendo's arrogant reluctance to accept that Sony is a legitimate threat to the console market, so too is Sony's arrogance that it will single-handedly conquer the market without trouble. Playstation or not behind them, history has shown that Nintendo is a very difficult opponent in the portable market - moreso than in the home console market - and it would be a mistake for Sony to underestimate that.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Babbster]

I think you're wrong. If the PSP has a good portion of the capability hyped, and obviously if there are good games with the promise of more, there is a large segment of the gaming population who WILL buy it. The idea that people won't spend $200, $300 or more on a portable device has been disproven by the success of the iPod. Further, unless one is afflicted with a serious hand tremor (i.e., Parkinson's and the like), the risk of dropping it with serious damage is minimal unless it's really badly designed.

For me, if the device has good games (new games at PS1-minimum technical quality) and the battery life is decent (8 hours minimum, preferably 10), I'd go for $300-350. The combination of Memory Stick compatibility and MP3 playback will be a nice bonus for those of us who haven't yet taken the portable digital music plunge.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[MMaestro]

I don't think the PSP has any sturdy foundation of first-gen games. Simply reread the Slashdot report.

'... but [it, being the PSP,] is not intended to be a hardware loss-leader for Sony, with Deering suggesting: "The feeling is that this product should generate profit on hardware alone."'

They want to generate profit off of the hardware? I'm sorry, but wtf are they smoking? Do they -really- think that the name brand alone will sell the PSP? Pretty much every video game system, console or handheld, has remained to the tried and true method of 'sell the system at a loss, make a profit on the games.' Even the cell phone companies follow a similar trend by giving out free cell phones, chargers, ear phones, and other accessories. If Sony thinks it can get away with selling the hardware at a profit, they're in for a rude awakening. This is not just another cool MP3 player from Sony, this is a gaming system. As much as Sony exceeded people's expectations with the PS1 and the PS2 (FAR, FAR outdated hardware), the PSP its probably going to teach Sony to not be as cocky.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Kris_J]

Sony is betting on selling the PSP to the market of teens-early 30 somethings, not as a toy for adults to get for their kids. That's what they think GBAs are for.

Because, of course, Nokia have shown this to be such a profitable, receptive demographic for portable gaming.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Babbster]

What you're describing is conventional wisdom as opposed to the truth. The truth is that Nintendo has claimed that they always profit on their hardware, Sony has said that at worst they have broken even on hardware, and even Sega has only tried to dump hardware when they've been in trouble (see Saturn, see Dreamcast). Only Microsoft with the Xbox has used the true "razor blade" model, and even then they weren't planning on a profit in the current generation.

As far as your comments about the PS1 and PS2, it seems to me that Sony has proven that they know how to fight in the console trenches and produce systems that people want. I think YOU are the one being cocky in assuming that Sony doesn't know what they're doing and is going into the portable gaming arena with blinders on.

In short, just because YOU think that the PSP is too expensive doesn't make it so to others. Frankly, if the PSP meets their lofty performance expectations (near-PS2 quality), they might not be charging ENOUGH compared to the "FAR, FAR outdated hardware" of the GBA.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Guppy06]

"The idea that people won't spend $200, $300 or more on a portable device has been disproven by the success of the iPod."

But the iPod more or less had its killer app even before the folks at Apple thought of the idea. Hardware capabilities alone will make some money in the Japanese market, but at that price it better have some damned good games if they intend to sell it to us gaijins. And they had best be launch games, seeing as how it's not backwards compatable with the older library (probably a big factor in the successful launch of the PS2).

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you smoking?

The only company that sells the hardware at a loss is Microsoft.

Nintendo makes money off GCN and GBA sales, Sony makes money off PS2 sales.

They can't afford to sell it at a loss, they dont't have the OS monopoly(which everyone who buys an X-Box supports btw) to prop it all up.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the pricing of a GameBoy Advance makes it more likely to be bought for kids might once again raise the argument that the GameBoy is a "kiddie" game system, an argument that also applies to the GameCube. However, whether you're a kid or not, crap happens. As you said, it can get lost or damaged in a number of ways. A low price doesn't make the handheld "kiddie," but rather, an investment that is less of a hurt when you totally destroy the unit. If your $300+ toy breaks open when it falls outta your pocket, you probably won't be forgiving yourself anytime soon.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Txiasaeia]

"That said, with its then-ancient PS2 technology, Sony is being quite ambitious and greedy."

I thought this too until I thought about the GBA SP and Gamecube - here in Canada, they both cost $139. Why? The Gamecube is more powerful, comes with a controller... but the GBA SP comes with an LCD screen and a LI-ION battery. That and miniturisation jacks up the cost. For a tiny PS2 with a LCD screen, maybe it would cost them $200 or so to market it, eh?

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Rallion]

I'm not sure anybody's connecting the flaws in this PSP plan. Nobody's grasping the grand connectedness of all the problems.

They're entering a market that's been dominated by Nintendo since the release of Game Boy in 1989. Really, what was the biggest competitor for the Game Boy since it came into existence? Game Gear? Maybe WonderSwan in Japan? Pffft. Game Boy sales are tens of times higher than those two combined.

And they're making it so that it's really only accessible to people in late teens or older.

And Nintendo's fan loyalty is freaking legendary.

And the GBA has some of the greatest games I've ever played, handheld or not.

So, in conclusion, Sony is releasing a product in a field that's virtually monopolized by a company that already has a superior product (initially, and possibly permanently, again, the games are amazing), for about five times the cost of said product, and are targetting the very demographic which is more likely than any other to like this superior, cheaper product, targetting it to the extent of excluding other demographics almost entirely?

Woo! Great job, Sony!

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Dark Paladin]

Actually, I've seen the opposite. Or a parallel Gameboy purchasing evolution.

I've seen quite a few of the penetration testers and other folks I work with whom have to travel picking up a GBA SP for themselves - especially when they see the strategy games they can play. Advance Wars 1 and 2 have sold quite a few games all on their own from what I've seen.

So I agree with you - a lot of them go to kids, but don't be too surprised at the "older crowd" picking up what they might see as an "adult system".

I've already committed myself: if it's $149 and below, I'll get one. Any higher, and I'll wait to get one. (Unless Konami makes a Suikoden I and II remake on one disk - then we'll think about it.)

Re:Handheld Pricing

[dootbran]

Sony is making the assumtion that the games industry has really changed, more money and wider audience. Both of these are pretty much true but the older segment doesn't buy gameboys. I've got an advance but I think only 2 of my friends do and one never plays it. But almost all of my friends have a ps2 or an xbox. Sony's thinking that the reason why no-one in the 18-34 range has a gameboy is because none of the games interest them or the gameboy/nintendo is too kiddy for them.

But what if there was a little ps2 they could carry around with portable versions of their favorite games? Its kinda like "Field of Dreams" but instead of a baseball diamond its a tiny ps2 and instead of gathering dead baseball players Sony is gathering high profile developers.

Now the question is do people 18-34 even want to do portable gaming. Personally I'm pretty satisfied at having my Gameboy Advance (aside from wish I'd waited 2 months so I could have gotten the SP :p ) and I think most guys just don't care about gaming on the go, whether the games look like they're for kids or not.

Even so this may very well usher in a new era of expensive portables but NOT at the expense of the Gameboy. Nintendo knows no parent is gonna hand over a $300 unit to their 8 year old, thats why they'll continue to make a cheap and durable unit that can be replace for well under $100 if it is broken.

Oh and BTW... after the PSX thing in Japan .. can you blame them for over pricing this? :p

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Anonymous Coward]

"I trust Sony a LOT"

Interesting. I own a PS2 as part of my console collection, but I don't trust them at all, from hardware QA to corporate politics. The Sony logo on an electronics product, with the odd exception (computer displays), is a negative point for me, when it comes to comparison shopping.

Simply put, I don't buy into their marketing and I discount their brand name as a positive factor in my buying decisions. By applying that same premise to all electronics manufacturers, I have found that Sony almost always disappoints, but they seem to thrive regardless, since, like you, many people hold their brand name in high esteem for whatever reason.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Kyouryuu]

What the PSP has going for it, aside from its name, is ushering in a new era of portable gaming involving optical discs. This in and of itself is not a bad idea, although suddenly it involves moving parts (the GBA, by comparison, has no moving parts). The discs will obviously be able to contain an absurd amount of information, allowing the designer to do PS2-level graphics.

The big question would be what are people willing to pay to do this? The GBA is not without some 3D titles of its own, like Driver 2, Doom I and II, and the upcoming Need for Speed: Underground (which actually looks quite impressive, hardware limitations nonwithstanding). But these games aren't any more popular than the traditional 16-bit era titles. If anything, the GBA has become a mecca for the more simplistic sprite-based game, as if there were a system in between the SNES and the PSOne. And, as the high numbers of consumers have shown, people are happy with this.

If Sony is indeed going to rock Nintendo's world, it has to come in at a much lower price point, even if it's a loss in the short-run. Because, given a $100 GBA SP and a (perhaps) $150 PSP, the consumer acting on graphics alone is going to spend the extra $50 for superior technology. But at $100 vs. $350, the PSP is doomed.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

The problem wasn't that the market isn't there - the problem was in execution. Let's think about it - you're seeing a shift in the average age of a gamer [average age currently is 29], so obviously you've got people of a higher age who enjoy playing video games. The fact of the matter is that if there's a group of people that are older who enjoy playing video games from their couches, these people would probably enjoy playing when they've got a few minutes on the toilet.

Do you actually believe that Nokia's failure proves the market is not there or were you just being snide?

[By the way, Bush is going to win the election.]

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Kris_J]

I was being snide. Or possibly facisious.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[YomikoReadman]

"...but at that price it better have some damned good games if they intend to sell it to us gaijins."

Someone needs to brush up on their japanese skills. Calling a foreigner a gaijin is the rough equivilent of calling an italian-american a wop, or a black person a nigger. A foreigner is acctually gaigokujin.

Re:Handheld Pricing

[Firehawke]

Replace? You probably could have sent it in for repair and paid $30 or so. Even out-of-warranty repairs are reasonable from Nintendo.

Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, for those prices I'd rather have a Pocket PC and pay for some slick games.

Re:Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that was so shameless :-)

Re:Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[NanoGator]

"Dude, for those prices I'd rather have a Pocket PC and pay for some slick games. "

I wouldn't. The PocketPC is a terrible gaming platform. If I'm willing to spend that much for a gaming machine, it sure as hell isn't going to be on a PocketPC.

Re:Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[Kris_J]

Two words: Tapwave Zodiac.

Re:Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[NanoGator]

Rebuttal: Gameboy Advance + GameCube.

Re:Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[starX]

I completely agree... for me, the major factor in deciding whether or not I'm going to get a gaming system is the fun of playing the games. There are a lot of great games out there for the GBA, and if I ever get bored with the new ones, I've got a lot of old GB games hanging around that I can pop in. And what with a couplemp3 player add ons and a video player on the way, the system is plenty customizeable (not to mention the number of people who develop homebrew games, and the wide availability of emulators and development kits.

For the kind of money that these folks are talking about, I want a unit that will run my favorite text editor, have a web browser, and will compile code. And it better damned well play mp3s too. That's a serious chunk of money, and if I'm going to shell it out, it needs to be a serious machine.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for competition with the GBA, but anyone who does has the problem of having to compete with everything that GBA offers for about the same price, or less. On the other hand, there will always be folks out there looking for the real 3d experience, but when you've got such a tiny screen, I have a feeling that the most phenomenal 3d engine wouldn't make the game up to snuff for that crowd.

I wish Sony best of luck on this, as any success they have will only motivate Nintendo to do better, but realistically, even if the NGage did live up to all of its hype, the price would still doom it in the end, and Sony is looking at a similar scenario.

Re:Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[Kris_J]

Let me show my rebuttal. Neither a GC or a GBA are a PDA or a mobile phone.

Re:Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[NanoGator]

The cost of it being a PDA is it isn't much of a game library, at least not compared to GC or GBA. You end up spending more money too. You could buy a GBA, GC, and a cheap-o Palm for $300. There, you got your PDA, and 2 great game machines with a HUGE library of games.

Re:Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Nano I think you're totally wrong. There are plenty of compelling titles on PocketPC. Unfortunately, many of them are from independent developers so you just don't hear as much about them. Take Digital Concepts for instance, their first game Rocket Elite, almost completely unmarketed, was 50x richer than anything else you'd find on any other handheld gaming platform at the time, maybe even now. Having the stylus as an input device dramatically improves the experience on that platform, it's the same sort of thing people say about consoles vs pc's, it's gamepad vs keyboard/mouse... a mouse allows for richer gaming experiences.

Re:Sheesh, get a Pocket PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you being serious with that rich gaming on the pocket pc? All those games look like some shitty shareware from 1995. Those games don't add up to what the gameboy has.

And the stylus arguement. The mouse does not enhance every game. Pretty much only first person shooters and real time strategy games.

Easy Decision

[heinousjay]

I'll decide for this one like I decide for every other console. If it looks like there will good games available, then it's mine. I may not get anywhere near launch, though. These things always come down in price, and that will be a factor.

Considering the competition, I would bet this thing will drop precipitously, because the GBA SP will probably be 75 or less when this comes out.

Any word on what will be available? I haven't followed too closely.

N-Gage

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the starting price for the N-Gage? $299 seems cheap now ;)

Otherwise, you can get a N-Gage now for ~$150...

Hmm....

[suyashs]

Ill take a next-gen 40 GB video iPod, thank you!

Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

This is just plain too expensive. Fancy graphics aside, who wants to pay $200+USD for a portable console? The GBA is a great platform because it's cheap, backwards compatible, has decent graphics and a TON of great games, also at reasonable prices. I have a feeling that terrific anti-aliased graphics and complex 3D renderings would be lost on a tiny screen, whereas the GBA's cartoon style is perfect for the screen size.

Re:Way too much money

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Who wants to pay $200+ for a portable console? Hard to say but that's because I don't employ a worldwide marketing division who are paid to survey consumers and find out exactly where certain price points are. Call me crazy but I think I trust Sony's ability to define a market for a portable better than some guy on Slashdot.

Furthermore, when the iPod was announced, did you make a similar prediction? I mean, who wants to pay $400+ for a portable music player when you can get a discman for less than $100? Sure, the $400+ model has more features but who wants to pay that much?

Yeah, I think you're wrong and it's not "just plain too expensive."

Re:Way too much money

[NanoGator]

"This is just plain too expensive. Fancy graphics aside, who wants to pay $200+USD for a portable console?"

Don't forget that the price will go down.

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

Your iPod comparison doesn't do justice to the situation. You forget - the GBA is the market leader and it's incredibly cheap. Imagine the iPod selling for $70 USD, and then a HP or Dell Mp3 player debuting at $200 a year or two later. Not to mention that the GBA has fifteen years of backwards compatibility, whereas the PSP is brand new.

As for predictions: I *did* predict that the n-gage would flop precisely because it was too ambitious and too expensive before it came on the market. I'll say it here too - the PSP will have its market share because it's being pushed by Sony, sure, but the GBA will not be dethroned until its Nintendo successor comes on the market. Why? Battery power. Low battery power on a laptop is acceptable because it's used for work and Suits don't mind having the thing plugged in for most of the time (yes, generalisation, sue me), but customers of the GBA and PSP want to be mobile (think kids in a minivan for a long ride, or students wasting time between classes at univ). Predicted battery life of the PSP is 2-3 hours. This is far too little for a portable gaming platform - see Sega Game Gear for an example. GBA SP's battery life is ~8 hours with light, ~15 without, and that's more than plenty.

SO: Unless the PSP will cost at the highest $50 more than the GBA, and unless it has more than 4 hours of battery life, it's not going anywhere.

Re:Way too much money

[Kris_J]

Don't forget that the price will go down.

Don't forget that the first week or two of sales will shape the bandwagon that is popular opinion.

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

Agreed; the dropping price point of a Gamecube has convinced me to buy one, where I wouldn't have bought one for twice the price two years ago. But I'm sure that Nintendo will bring GBA SP's successor by late 2005 (at the latest), and since the PSP is supposed to be released in Q4 2004 (optimistic), Nintendo has all the time in the world to react to the PSP.

Re:Way too much money

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Oh my fucking god!!! You predicted that the N-Gage wasn't going to sell well! You're a genius!! JESUS CHRIST! If you say that the PSP is going to be a flaming pile of shit, you must be right! And long before the system has barely left the 'sketch a design' phase, you already know the battery life! You are truly all-knowing.

note sarcasm.

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

Hey, there's an idea - if you can't actually counter my ideas, just attack me personally! Yeah, a priori attacks work every time, right?!? Um... no. Thanks for reminding me why I shouldn't respond to people like you.

Re:Way too much money

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

That wasn't a personal attack pal. I was attacking the idea that since you were able to predict that the N-Gage was a failure, you must have much more knowledge and ability in predicting video game hardware sales than anyone else. The fact is everyone knew the N-Gage was going to be a failure except Nokia.

And feel free not to respond to me, although I wonder what exactly you mean by "people like you." Who am I? What do you know of me? Answer: very little. So I don't understand how you can already classify me in an entire group BUT it's no skin off my back, son.

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

You're a liberal basher. You don't think that people on welfare should be allowed to vote. You're elitist. When you can't counter somebody's ideas, you attack them personally. You somehow think that you're older than me, as indicated by your "son" comment, despite the fact that you're either in univ or late 20's at the oldest.

You fully support Bush and his war in Iraq. You think that people who don't support the war shouldn't enjoy the "freedoms" that you do.

You're a troll, as evidenced by your other posts. You try your hardest to get people to attack your posts, as indicated by your bio on your /. hope page ("let's get more freaks and foes! let's see how many people can hate me!")

That pretty much sums it up. Am I wrong? No, probably not.

Re:Way too much money

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

"as indicated by your bio on your /. hope page ("let's get more freaks and foes! let's see how many people can hate me!")"

Is that my what bio reads? I think not. My bio references fans and freaks. Typical liberal disinformation.

Take your smear campaign elsewhere. I would respond to your other allegations but I would first like an apology since you just made a false statement about me.

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

Awesome. You mean I was spot on about everything else? Thanks, you just made my day.

Re:Way too much money

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, not what i said at all. you really can't read for meaning very well, can you?

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

Don't worry, we both know what you meant. Now, don't you have some zionist conspirators to ferret out? A klan rally to attend? And why are you posting anon?

Re:Way too much money

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a racist now? Wow - why exactly are you making these personal attacks against me? This is so childish of you. I've done nothing to you and you make false statements about what is in my bio and then you make very disgusting and, again, false statements about me being a racist. Is this the type of political discourse you believe in?

It's funny, liberals try to say that conservatives have been preventing debate in this country by calling anyone a traitor who disagrees but from your behavior, I'd say the problem lies firmly with people with your mindset. You are rude and making up lies about me that have no basis in reality. You owe me many apologies.

Can you even cite one instance where I have lied about who you are?

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

"Can you even cite one instance where I have lied about who you are?"

Sure. I'm not a liberal. Look buddy, you seemed to be okay with personal attacks earlier, so I don't know why you're crying about them now. The tone of *all* of your posts (not just the ones to me) are incredibly elitist and are pretty disgusting too.

I know that you're an American and you believe that somebody is either liberal or conservative, but in other places of the world this is not necessarily the case.

As to the tone of *my* posts and the "I've done nothing to you": you've never responded to any of my posts in a logical, consistent, cool tone, you're incredibly quick to insult and judge, and you have little tolerance for views that are not your own. Why should I bother restraining myself? I haven't even read one post from you that doesn't contain one insult. Need I say more?

Re:Way too much money

[Anonymous Coward]

What insults? Examples!!! And just because I'm not open to other peoples ideas, I dismiss them with points concerning the actual subject matter being discussed - I don't resort to lies and charges of racism. Why would you call me a racist? I think that is a rather low blow.

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

My comments record for /. only goes back 24 entries... in this thread: charges of being childish, "Typical liberal disinformation" and sarcastic remarks in regards to the n-gage come to mind.

"Why would you call me a racist? I think that is a rather low blow."

Ahh, are your feelings hurt? Lemme get you a tissue.

Re:Way too much money

[Anonymous Coward]

You consider a sarcastic remark to be a personal insult? That's funny.

And you did spread disinformation about me, which of itself is either childish or you're just plain stupid and didn't realize it was disinformation; either way, my personal attacks on you are much more grounded in reason and logic.

Don't you care about my feelings?

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

"Don't you care about my feelings?"

What, are you joking? Of course not! I don't have any idea who you are; I couldn't care less about you. In light of this, this response will be the my last to you; this thread is completely unproductive and quite frankly a waste of my time. In the future, if you will do me the courtesy of not responding to anything I have written, I will return the favour. Have a wonderful life.

Re:Way too much money

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because companies are always right.

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

"I have won this."

"I"? A fine thing to say from a person unwilling to use his real handle. You haven't won anything, buddy, especially if you're not willing to lay karma down on the line for it. I haven't insulted anybody but an Anonymous Coward, so I haven't slandered anybody's "good name." Can you prove otherwise, bitch? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

Your comment (anon):

My response:

Your response, again anon

Oooh, it hurts, don't it?

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

"Your original lodge at me of being a ***racist*** came when I was still not using an anonymous post method."

In the referenced post, I noted the following points of your personality:

-liberal basher
-welfare people shouldn't vote
-elitist
-you like ad hominem attacks
-think you're older than me
-like bush's war
-don't think people who agree with you should have freedom
-you're a troll
-try to get people to flame you

I'm sorry, don't see racist there. Am I using small enough words? Do you understand? Yeah, didn't think so.

Re:Way too much money

[Txiasaeia]

"I am still waiting for an apology regarding the filthy lie you told about me."

Not going to happen, sweetheart. And as for "mature conversation," read my first response to your first post. That was serious. Once you threw sarcasm into the mix, I'm not going to take anything seriously you say after that. Including this delusion that somehow I owe you an apology. You weren't logged in, I could have been talking to *anybody*, I don't owe you anything and you know it.

Give it up, man - you're not going to win this one.

Re:Way too much money

[3ngine]

i've been following this thread for a while, and i've come to the conclusion that youre both idiots. acidic, if you want to have a grownup conversation, don't use sarcasm. txia, what kind of bloody racist are you? you had some good points but after all this who cares? this thread is completely fucking useless. i think you should both apologize to me for reading this bullshit!

If that's the console's price...

[orthancstone]

...what will the games cost?

Anything more than 30 and Sony is shooting themself in the foot...

Re:If that's the console's price...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.

For what I currently see and hear about the capabilities of the device, I would pay at most $130 for one, and a max of $30 each for games. I'd raise my max price for the system to $150 if they could fix the shit-awful d-pad and button design that is in the prototype mock-ups. (Both control elements are shown as being flush with the rest of the system, which is a horrible idea.)

The reason I'm low-balling it is because I would only buy it for games (not proprietary movie or audio discs or any other kind of media playback), and I'm not willing to spend extra money for features I'd never/rarely use - something that only makes sense to experienced electronics consumers (as opposed to sufferers of have-it-all-now syndrome, the likes of which were the basis of humorous stories back when the PS2 was hitting $600 and up on ebay after its shameful launch).

Um okay

[NanoGator]

Well it's got neat specs, but it's very pricey. What games are being made for it?

Even if this was a Nintendo product, I doubt I'd be an early adopter for it. And I'm one hell of a Nintendo zealot.

Re:Um okay

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Details are a little hard to come by regarding games BUT this site might be a good place to keep in mind for the future. Some possible games that I've seen mentioned there include Wipeout, a Dynasty Warriors game, a game called Joe from Humansoft, Xyanide [shooter] and PSP Racing [name subject to change I bet!] from Playlogic. That's all I've been able to gleam.

I'd guess that just as many old SNES games filled the market for GBA, old PS1 games are going to fill the market for PSP.

Re:Um okay

[ziggles]

The only thing that worries me more than the price of the PSP is the idea that it will just get a bunch of PS1 ports or PS1 style games. I can't think of a single good PS1 game that I think would work well in a portable/handheld environment. It'd be one thing to have 3d games like Mario 64, where everything is brightly colored and fairly obvious.. but most of the good PS1 games are dark and somewhat confusing to navigate on a regular TV, I can't imagine playing on a 3 inch screen. Handheld gaming is the last bastion for 2D gaming, with good reason.

Re:Um okay

[Rallion]

This is just my thinking. Not 'real information.'

Sony is the company that makes consoles with more games than would fit inside the moons of Mars. Games have never been a problem for them, they're the clear winner in quantity, to such a huge margin that it doesn't even matter that (IMO) Nintendo always comes out on top in quality.

But now they suddenly need to keep royalties low? So low that they need to make a profit off the system itself? This implies one of two things, I think:

It's possible that they want to have a library to compete with the impressive GBA offering as soon as possible. This IS, in fact, vital for the PSP to have any degree of success at all. But somehow it doesn't seem likely to be the main reason for it in my mind. For some reason, possibility two seems more likely to me.

They may be having trouble getting developers to put in any decent amount of effort at all. If so, this is going to be a disaster. How can the more expensive system beat the cheaper one with more and better games?

I have no real reason for thinking that the latter possibility is the right one, so don't trust me on that. While I've heard of less companies jumping onto the PSP than I think Sony should be hoping for, I don't follow the news quite religiously, or know what companies AREN'T saying. But it does make me suspicious, and I'd at least pay attention to that if I were you.

Re:Um okay

[utawoutau]

Yeah, I have to agree about PS1 games on a portable being too ambitious. As a matter of fact, Nintendo's next gen portable system might be equally too ambitious.

Although I can't exactly say at what point this will occur, I do believe that there is certain level of detail and or complexity that past which it will make absolutely no sense for it to be a portable game.

And I don't know if anyone feels the same as I do but while I love the games that the GBA has, I hate portable gaming. What?? As soon as the Gameboy Gamecube player came out I picked it up and chucked out my GBA. I love the games - real throwbacks to the 16/8 bit era - but I hated playing them on that little screen.

Re:Um okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. I by far prefer to play GBA games on my GameBoy Player because of the enlarged screen and better playing position (head looking straight at TV instead of down at handheld), although I enjoy the games so much that I play them on the road with my GBA or my SP (in daylight, I use the original GBA because of the more comfortable layout).

I am not impressed with what I've seen so far of the PSP. It's definitiely not going to be on my pre-order list, and I expect that I'll be waiting to see how much it is, whether they fix the controller issues before releasing it, what kinds of games are released for it, and how much those games will cost. While I'm perfectly fine with paying $25 to $30 for high-quality SNES-level games, there's no way that I'd pay that much for primitive PS1-level 3d games, particularly when I haven't yet been convinced that 3d works effectively in a portable system.

Re:Um okay

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it would be wise to wait and see what the PSP has to offer before deciding its worthiness as a gaming machine. As Sony's first dedicated handheld game system (PocketStation, Clio, Vaio, cell phones, and their strategic alliance with Bandai for the promotion of the Wonderswan don't count), there's very little that we can expect yet, other than the strong likelihood that it will fail to meet the specifications that Sony is currently trying to generate advance hype over (as per their standard operating procedure).

Re:Um okay

[I(rispee_I(reme]

I might pay $400 just for a portable Symphony of the Night experience, especially considering all the half-assed sequels on GBA...

Re:Um okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for Aria of Sorrow, which objectively destroys SOTN.

Re:Um okay

[Firehawke]

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Dark, yes, but one of the games I would NOT mind re-purchasing to have in portable form.

Maybe a port of Phantasy Star Online with Wifi LAN play? That'd be pretty cool.

Depending on the screen, Metal Gear may be possible-- the GBC demonstrated without a doubt that you need a screen capable of doing the radar without making you blind.

Of course, a disc with a Ridge Racer compilation would be kinda cool, too.. maybe a Hyper SF2 port since it has enough buttons.

I can think of a number of good possibilities, but only time will tell.

Multiple Consoles, but only one handheld

[WaKall]

I can see why people would go for multiple consoles in-the-home. You've got plenty of space there. I don't think many people would be willing to own two (or more) handheld consoles. If I can only carry one or want to carry only one, then I would probably go for the one with the biggest library. Also, the casual gamers buy a handheld to occupy time, not to play specific games. One is enough, and it need not be the best one.

That's just me though. I wonder if Sony is betting on the folks that haven't bought a GBA yet, because I don't see a lot of overlap unless they put some must-have games ONLY on the PSP. That's what it will take to get me to buy one. That, or the ability to run some kick-ass emulation on it. If it can run a SNES emulator, I am there.

Re:Multiple Consoles, but only one handheld

[AzraelKans]

Actually I think the market for sony is precisely those who dont own a GBA lets face it, a lot of people consider the GBA as a toy, nintendo marketting campaigns (starring mario,pokemon and a kid playing in church) and the fact that most of its library is rated "E" doesnt help. The psp wont only feature T and M rated games like Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Silent Hill and GTA it will also feature a minidvd and mp3 player (among other things) and it will be marketted as an electronic gadget of sorts. Even your wife will understand if you want to buy one to watch movies in the transfer back home =)

What the online article doesn't say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a subscriber to the full print version of MCV. The online article is a somewhat condensed version of the interview (print is 2xA3 - 3 = bigger or smaller? I get confused). Gonna copy from the article now:

"We want to make it affordable for publishers to make a very wide range of entertainment and so maybe the royalties will be somewhere lower down in the mix - and we've got to make money somewhere, so the plan is for the PSP hardware to have its own profit stream. I think it will be pitched as a great games machine that does other stuff, but that will be pretty important and impressive other stuff. I don't believe it's a direct competitor to GBA. First of all, it's more like TV picture quality and it's not a direct price point comparison.

There's room for both to be successful and our objective isn't to have any direct affect on GBA or anything else that comes along from them. We want to create a new market with a higher level of resolution and gameplay features that doesn't compete with handhelds or cell phones as previously defined."

And remember, people said Sony wouldn't have a chance against the likes of Nintendo before the Playstation 1 was released...

Re:What the online article doesn't say...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think a little harder, you'll find that your final point has nothing to do with the Sony rep's statements.

In truth, Sony is pulling a Microsoft with their released statement. Since they have doubts about the possible success of their product at this price point in this new market, they are claiming not to be aiming at dethroning the established leader, using price point as a VERY noteworthy differential beween the two systems (bad news for anyone expecting PSP to usurp the GBA's position at any foreseeable time). If they thought they had even the slimmest of chances, they would outright say so, by (again, in Microsoft fashion) taking backhanded slaps at the competition - ignoring them altogether in press statements, or discrediting their ability to compete, whichever makes better sense given media climate and public opinion.

Sony knows the PR drill; they are as shrewd as any multi-national corporation.

Re:What the online article doesn't say...

[Firehawke]

The only reason Sony had a chance is because Nintendo shafted them bigtime. The original PSX is just a reworking of the design they and Nintendo put together for the SNES CD-- Nintendo shot themselves in the foot here, because their shafting of Sony and Phillips just ended up costing them access to good sound chips (Sony produced the SNES sound chip) and optical drives.

This karmic retribution has hurt Nintendo for over ten years now..

Having their cake...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, according to this article, they want to sell the hardware at a profit (vs. at a loss, like most consoles, and *certainly* most consoles at launch) *AND* they want to lock out non-licensees from developing for it, so they get their % per sale? (I can assume, since they haven't said any differently, and they're awfully proud of their new 'Mini Disc of Piracy Prevention +5'.)

That's some pretty brazen double-dipping on their part, I'd say!

If they were willing to say "Okay, 300-400$ for the hardware, and here, we'll throw in the SDK," then *maybe* I'd buy one, because I could have fun with it. And developers would be more interested.. which (as Sony WELL knows) would mean more end users.

Or if they made it cheap, people wouldn't mind being locked into licensed games.

But _neither one_???

(Of course, this is all hypothetical. Part of me trusts/hopes Sony will be smarter than this...)

Re:Having their cake...

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

"(vs. at a loss, like most consoles, and *certainly* most consoles at launch"

Incorrect. Nintendo has never sold a console at a loss. That's quite a few consoles in the history right there that were not sold at a loss. Atari did not sell the hardware at a loss - so there's another bunch that weren't being sold at a loss. The Saturn from Sega was not sold at a loss. The Genesis was not sold at a loss. The PSX was not sold at a loss, even though Sega charged that Sony was doing just that. Most consoles are not sold at a loss. Most consoles are sold at or slightly, very slightly above cost. People have gotten it into their heads that everyone sells consoles at a loss but it is simply not true. Stop spreading this lie.

Re:Having their cake... (followup)

[Anonymous Coward]

(I posted the original.)

Ok. Thanks for the correction. I'll do some research on it. If I find examples, I'll email them to you, Mr., uhh, Diarrhea.

Selling at cost may not technically be a "loss," but it does equate to tossing the customer a bone. Even if you s/loss/at cost/g, the argument holds, I feel.

I just don't think the (rumored)$400 price point is going to get them into the handheld market, even if they *are* Sony. Hell, look at how much MS had to lose per box to break into the console market. Granted, MS didn't have strong developer/publisher ties like Sony. But how many publishers are going to jump on the PSP launch title bandwagon with these astronomical price points being bandied about? That's a lot of faith, even if you are down with Sony.

I think people with $400 to spend are just going
to buy a decent Palm/PocketPC handheld. Especially if/when ATI and/or nVidia start to sell handheld 3d acceleration chipsets. Especially since, supposedly, the PSP target market is around 18+ (it'd have to be for >$200.) People that age are going to be comfortable enough running Palm/PocketPC/whatever.

Who knows, though. I'm sure it'll be a fine system (I doubt, for instance, you'll have to remove the batteries to change games. :) ), and it may become some sort of craze.

But, IMHO, when someone _does_ manage to deploy a 3d handheld below $200, well, then, and only then, do they have a real shot.

I think you are missing the point.

[AzraelKans]

The reason why you get the gba sp at $100 is because you are getting a portable SNES, the N-Gage (besides a Joke) is a portable PS1, the PSP is a portable PS2 all the games you can play at a PS2 will be possible in the PSP. Think about it for a while (drool as needed) then comprhend the fact the PSP is a portable PS2 Now, pop quiz: what is more expensive a desktop or a laptop? (with the same components) that's right! a laptop! the PSP is going to be more expensive (or as expensive) as a PS2. Just like a portable gamecube would be as expensive as a gamecube. Read it, think on it, then stop trying to compare the PSP price with the gameboy. The PSP is going to cost $200-$300 and you are going to be able to play Silent Hill 3, Gran Turismo 3, FFX and GTA3 anywhere. Questions? no? great! move on and start saving.