Slashdot Mirror
Sony Hints on PS3, PSP, and PS2 Plans
jaaron writes "The Register/GamesIndustry.biz reports on what Sony may have in store in terms of gaming hardware for E3, and according to remarks from Sony Computer Entertainment Europe president David Reeves: 'PSP games will probably be region-free, that PS3 will be intrinsically linked with PSX and may appear in home server and standalone gaming versions, and... Sony may announce a stripped down, PSone-style PlayStation 2 product.'" The interview also mentions: "Looking further ahead, Reeves spoke about Sony's 'ultimate goal' for PlayStation 3 - 'to get into electronic broadband distribution'."
Thought here on the region free aspect. Could they be doing this to try and remove the most widely stated fair use reason for mod chips? Eliminate the need for a mod chip to play discs from other regions and you've just made a big impact on the perceived legitamacy of mod chips on the whole.
Well, at least they'll get _SOMETHING_ right.
Any PSP movies, however, will probably have to remain region protected, even if Hollywood decides to back the UMD format for distribution, although there may be other incentives to buying movies this way.
Oh well :(
where've you been?
"Looking further ahead, Reeves spoke about Sony's "ultimate goal" for PlayStation 3 - "to get into electronic broadband distribution"."
I hope to god Sony's attempt at online delivery is way better than Steam. *shudder*
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
> US $50 is simply too much for a new PS2 game.
Really? How much time do you spend with a typical game?
Considering going to a movie for 90 minutes is usually going to set you back at least $15 when you include admission and transportation, good video games are a bargain. I've logged hundreds of hours playing Ratchet and Clank, Socom II, and Dynasty Warriors alone.
Game consoles are supposed to be simple, turn on - insert disc - play game. Sounds like you might as well just buy a computer.
I so wish that Sony won't put a hard drive in their boxes. A tiny part of the reason that the PS2 is so successful is because it's a slick, EASY TO USE everything box. Mine runs about 24/7 with either a game, movie, music, etc. A hard drive both complicates things, and leaves another point of failure.
This sounds more like Sony marketing to me. Remember all the promises they made regarding the PS2, during the run-up to, and launch of, the Dreamcast?
/their/ own maneuvering - as opposed to Sony screwups.
This is likely just Sony throwing smoke to steal the thunder from Microsoft, and snow the existing Sony userbase into thinking the PS3 will be much better than it really will be (just like PS2 v DC).
Either way, two versions of the same console would be gimmicky at best. It'd have the same problem all add-on hardware does: developers can't count on possibly expanded functionality being there on every box, so they don't spend time/money to leverage it in a meaningful way.
So there would be no reason for the average consumer to buy a psx+ps3 instead of just buying a ps3 and a tivo.
Perhaps they're trying to push microsoft and nintendo into budling expensive multifunction bits into their boxes -- allowing sony to punish them on unit price and take the 'high-road' of selling a box that 'just does games'.
Likely the only way Sony will 'screw up' the PS3 and allow Nintendo/MS to reclaim some of the market due their own bad decisions - is if the Cell continues to be behind, and they show up late to market with an outmatched product.
It's much more likely that any market share reclaimed by Nintendo/MS will be due
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
-
I'm a programming dork myself mostly, I hardly play games at all, and I must confess I like singleplayer the best. When I'm finding myself playing, it's mostly because of relaxation. I don't want to communicate with other users. I don't want to play stressful FPS's against other computer/tv-games player. It just gets my nerves going in a spin I can't controll and that's actually exhausting, I can't play for more than an hour or I'll get all fuzzy in my head.
You're not alone or old fashioned, nor old (I'm 32, so don't even say you're old.I just want to sit down, drink some coffee and run a few laps around the course in GT3 or bash some cars in GTA3. If I want to play multiplayer, I'd much more prefer to do it together, like playing the "Pro Evolution Soccer" game at my friends house or batteling eachother in "dance dance revolution" or such similar game.
I certanly see why people enjoy multiplayer, but I don't like the idea that I need to cough up with $50 more for the network adapter and god-know-how many hours of development which goes into the console for developing this.
Maybe I'm just "old fashioned", after all, I'm closing 30 ;-) But what's bad with a choice?
Still, the focus on multi-player and online gaming worries me too. I'm afraid game companies are going to forget that there are still plenty of people happy playing single-player, offline games.
If by dull, you mean blurred, then yes, the PS2 is pretty dull. Its mostly because of the limited amount of memory, the games have to use such small textures, that become stretched and blurred. Xbox does look slightly better then the PS2 from what I've seen, but both suck greatly if you have ever played a modern 3D game using a GF4 or some other nice video card with 128M+ video memory.
Plus playing 3D games on an *interlaced* TV set really sucks when you try to move around fast. PS2/xbox are only worth looking at if you happen to have a progressive scan TV and the console actually uses it.
All I want in a future console is 3 things:
* a LOT more memory then the current generation consoles.
* progressive scan support.
* joysticks with trackballs instead of stupid analog sticks, with support for optional mice you can buy separately.
Morphing Software
I continue to find it amusing that no one is going to comment on whether you "own" these downloaded games or not. If the hard drive eats it, do I get all my games back? What about the time it takes to download a multi-gig game? The broadband industry is gonna shit itself having to deal with that kind of bandwidth usage. These entertainment companies either need to make MAJOR investments into fiber or they need to realize that no one is gonna spend all week downloading Final Fantasy XXX. And what about the HAL-9000 servers and rainbow-bridged-mega-channeled-OC-192s that they are gonna need on THEIR end? That's a nightmare waiting to happen. Thank you, I'll spend the time and gas to go to Walmart or BestBuy.
People like you making comments like that is why games are $50-$60+.
> Everynight, I get to play with the best players in the game
Y'see, that's the problem. People who play online tend to be a lot more skilled than me. There are a few reasons for this, but it boils down to the fact that my game playing time is extremely limited (I consider 5-6 hours over a week to be a lot), because I'm too busy doing other stuff. The people that play online tend to both put more time in, and just care more about how good they are.
So, while I think on-line gaming will continue to be really popular, it's also important for people to realise it's not going to appeal to everyone. I tend to play games vs my flatmates, when I do play multiplayer, and that works well for me...