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'."
anyone remember this?
This time maybe it could work!
(for longer anyway)
+++ ATH0 +++
Ooh man, I don't think Sony would ever be able to compete with Infinium Labs....
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.
PlayStation 5!
Would it be neat if Gamecube and Playstation merged to become Playstation cubed (PS^3).
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 :(
From the article and talking about it linking to the PSX, it doesn't really sound like they're considering the PS3 to be a next-gen console, but something else. Frankly it sounds strange linking it to the PSX which is based on PS2 technology gaming-wise. It should be quite interesting to hear what Sony has in mind for the PS3, but right now it's sounding like they might be about to screw up and give Microsoft and Nintendo a chance to grab more of the console market.
Unsurprisingly, Reeves came out strongly in defence of the PSP as its own product and not a Game Boy replacement. "It's not, as people have said, a new Game Boy," he said. "There are so many other features that you can add onto it, whether it's GPS or GPRS even."
I can't decide if this is cool or not. A GPS receiver and cellular phone attached to my portable gaming device? What for?
Now, if it had a touchscreen, Palm OS, and a secure way to copy my games onto the device so I don't have to carry them around with me everywhere... then we're talking.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
I'm already bored with the PS3 stuff. I like to look ahead. I'm interested in the PS4/Microwave/Can Opener/Satellite Radio Combo. Definately want the stand-alone on something like that.
US $50 is simply too much for a new PS2 game.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
I might have misread, but it seems like they were talking about BANDWIDTH NEEDED! :o
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, &
You guys are so behind. I just bought myself a Samy Playstation 4 i Hong Kong!
To me it sounds like they are planning to distribute broadband electronically!
Over Dial Up modems I hope, that would be excellent.
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
Hopping on the Infinium Labs bandwagon?
IL didn't and doesn't have a Phantom console, they were selling this concept.
I wouldn't be the least surprised if Sony acquires IL for 'intellectual capital' that they've already compiled from 'researching' this market strategy.
My guess is that it was IL's plan all along, don't sell a product-- just an idea.
I really hope Sony doesn't spend too much time screwing around with the home server. They just need to concentrate on making a solid console with some good games, especially at launch.
Game consoles are supposed to be simple, turn on - insert disc - play game. Sounds like you might as well just buy a computer.
Ever since I heard XBox was coming with a broadband adaptor and ps2 likewise, I've been wondering what makes it so big buzz.
;-) But what's bad with a choice?
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.
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
Albert
Spellchecked by my cat Zelda.
the fabs Sony/IBM are building for the Cell-chips will not be ready until early 2006.
-
I kept eye-balling PS2s on sale here there and yonder. I'm very tempted to buy one. Then I think about how long the PS2 has been on the street and I decide that maybe I should wait until the PS3 comes out. The only question is when?!
Honestly I'd get the PS2 now and not worry about the PS3. Estimates so far place the PS3 no earlier than 2006, and their are tons of great games for the PS2. You can also play most of the PS1 games (there's a list of ones that don't work quite right, but it's only about 20 or so, and most aren't very popular ones. Final Fantasy Origins is one of the popular ones that won't FYI.). You can also use it as a DVD player if you don't have one, or if you want one in your gaming room.The PS3 will be backwards compatible with PS2 and PS1 games, Sony's already announced that, so if you decide to get one in the future you can use it on all the games you already bought. The main reason I suggest buying the PS2 now is price. When the PS3 comes out, it'll probably cost at least $300. Right now you can get a brand new PS2 for $180, and if you get the network adaptor bundle (also comes with a copy an ATV racing game you can play online) it's just $200. The network adaptor alone is $40, so the bundles the best deal if you intend to play online.
The only waiting I'd recommend is till after E3, there's a good chance Sony will lower the PS2's price to match or beat Xbox's new price of $150.
So things are definetely decided then?
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 imagine this is part of the reason for the speculation of 2 versions. A gaming system really has no use for a HD, but a "Home Server" ala TIVO basically has to have one. They have already done this with the PSX. This thing is still probably 2 years off, so maybe some new breakthough storage will come oout by then.
the PSone-style PS2. i used to have a PS2 (sold it a while back), and recently got a new car and was considering throwing a PSone/screen combo in there since its only like $90...but a PS2 version would be ever so nice, especially if it keeps the PSone backwards compatibility.
An integrated network adapter should cost essentially nothing. A modular one is more expensive to make, and most of their cost was markup anyway. At most, this is a $5/console difference.
The decision on including a hard disk is a little different, as hard disks actually cost something to produce. Network adapter is pretty much about "can we make them pay for one more accessory?" vs. "can we sell more consoles by including this".
I'd like an adapter for my GameCube. I wouldn't use it to game online, but because 4 people just isn't enough with Mario Kart.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Maybe they'll remove all the breakable parts...
compete with Infinium.
Sony wastes all that money in "production", "advertising", and "sales networks" of actual systems...
Who remembers Sony's television commercial for the PS9, the entertainment system you inhale so it can access your brain directly?
(If someone has a link to the commercial itself, please share!
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
You have no idea what your missing.
Background: I'm 34, make my living in creative tech, been addicted video games since Asteriods.
Simply put, after Xbox Live, there is no going back. Everynight, I get to play with the best players in the game regardless of where they are. I'm in Los Angeles, they could be in Miami or even the UK. But in reality, it makes no difference. They might as well be sitting right next to me. Their player is right there on my widescreen, in my living room! We're competing in real time with no lag and no cheats. We're sharing stories, having a laugh or maybe cussing each other out.
It's a revolution in gaming and there's no turning back.
P.S. Xbox Live will someday get its due. Partisan Slashdotters will never praise it and PS2 gamers shun it for a variety of reasons most of them having little to do with gaming itself.
Microsoft did Xbox Live right out of the gate.
Pulling out an internal hard drive and blowing on it to get it to work just isn't the same. ::sigh::
.deviatefromtheabsolute.
If it ever gets to the point that I can't purchase a system and a game and outright play them at no cost beyond the initial costs, then I'm going back to books and media that do not have recurring costs and subscription fees. Otherwise, I already have enough monthly bills to deal with, telephone, insurance, rent, utilities, etc., I certainly don't need one dealing with entertainment. The only reason I have a cable bill is for my broadband connection. My cable tv is the most basic package that I can get because I don't want a $120/mo cable bill. What are those theories that competition brings prices down? I certainly haven't seen it with the 500 channels competing against one another, target markets and demographics be damned, my cable bill has only gone up, so it was time to get rid of it. Sorry for the rant....
Amigori
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
according to a gamespot article, Sony is also considering using Blu-Ray drives in the PS3...
Oh lord, cry me a river.
You think that the art/game design for zelda took more R&D to create than for Splinter Cell?
Vice City stands on its own as a completely new game.
And here's the biggest thrill of them all, you are permitted to wait for the prices to drop, which they will.
No one is forcing you to buy them when they first come out at $50. Stop being cheap, if you want it first you'll have to pay for it. If you can wait you'll be able to pick it up at $20-30 relatively soon.
-- taking over the world, we are.
> 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...
It was called "Sega Channel". This early application of push technology let subscribers select a game of up to 2 MiB and then wait until the repeating broadcast looped until that game "came on." Learn more about the Sega Channel
Psht, no attraction for me, then. I buy all my games second-hand to stick it to The Man!
You must think in Russian.