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'."
Especially if they also allow any code to run on the system and maybe even make an SDK available. That way anybody could make homebrew stuff for the system and thus seel even more units.
Would it be neat if Gamecube and Playstation merged to become Playstation cubed (PS^3).
> 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.
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.
-
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?"