Slashdot Mirror
PSP Developer Interview
zmcnulty writes "Over at TechJapan, we've finished our three part translation of Game Watch's interview of Mr. Izumi Kawanishi, one of the PSP's lead designers. New details revealed include a few about the USB interfacing (with both PS2 and PC), a small hint about the elusive battery life, and best of all, that game saves can indeed be copied from Memory Stick to PC by using the PSP's USB interface. Here's part one, part two, part three, and the original Japanese interview."
It seems as though their aim is at making the battery last about two hours... which I suppose IS an improvement over the previously reported 90 minute battery life, but it's still nowhere near the Nintendo DS' 11 hours or so.
Considering the biggest failing of the Sega Game Gear and the Sega Nomad were the pitiful battery lives, why on earth would Sony have such a relatively short battery life?
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
I just don't see this as a smart move on Soney's behalf. The PS had appeal because it tore down Nintendo's more chilidish marketing and development. Adults liked it. I do not see the same effect in a portable.
Sure, some adults will buy this thing, but I would argue, with no data to back me up, that adults by and large want nothing to do with such a system as a cell phone is already enough to lug around and it isn't easy to get a date while playing a portable game system.
Kids buy these things and Nintendo has the market square. They are constantly reinventing the system and the parents who buy these things for kids will buy Nintendo.
Good chance I'm wrong as I'm sure similar things were said about the PS, although my initial reaction to the PS was this was going to rock everything as it went beyond the types of games, but rather the media type, etc.
Is there really room for 2 portable systems? It has proven time and time again there is not. Ask SNK, Sega, Turbo Graphix, those Wonder Swan people and the resounding answer has been no. Sony's only chance here is if there is enough room for two markets. My initial reaction is many developers are having cold feet about it as they feel this too.
Either way I don't care. I don't own stock in either company or work for them or own a portable system nor do I plan on buying one. I don't think many other people plan on buying one too.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
When I go out with my game boy, I wind up with four or five games getting strapped together with a hairband and dropped into my pocket next to the pens, cellphone, and KEYS.
They're expecting exposed optical media to survive sitting next to keys???
Wow.
In part one of the article, Kawanishi makes this statement:
Updates are technically possible using Memory Stick or network transfer. I think firmware and software updates will be done using those methods.
If he's serious, then I think that Sony is already going to be in deep trouble as far as hacking/piracy goes in this handheld. How long do you think it will be until somebody figures out a way to spoof a firmware update that would have the same essential functions of a modchip, such as booting pirated games or unsigned software?
Or worse yet, wouldn't this also be a dangerous exploitable security hole if, like he said, firmware updates via network were possible? That could lead to virii similar to the ones that have been created on bluetooth-enabled phones that could disable the PSP completely, and as I'm sure we all know, a botched firmware update can easily turn devices into nothing more than expensive paperweights.
For Sony's sake, let's hope they're not serious about this.
Before now I was holding a shred of hope that perhaps I was looking at the PSP's issues too negatively, that Sony would find a way to compensate for them, that they were just getting their feet wet and might improve now that they have some feedback. That hope is now gone. Time and again he makes comments that indicate they just don't understand the portable market. Users won't be satisfied with sub-PS2 graphics? I realize Sony aims for an older audience, but between the small (though comparatively large for a handheld) screen and, well, the fact that it's a *portable* and not meant for hardcore gaming sessions, is it really worth having beefier specs at the expense of battery life and price? And on the same tack, what older gamer would want PS2 graphics on a tiny screen (and where) when he has his PS3 at home? It doesn't make sense. And, of course, the futility of making a powerful system and then telling the developers to limit how they use it. I'll give them partial credit for making the batteries swappable, but until they reveal if/how you can keep the game going I'm not convinced. Then there's the proprietary and expensive DVD/MP3 media, but that's old news. What really knocked my socks off is that they don't think leaving the disc exposed is a problem! It makes no sense. Being Sony I'm sure they'll avoid being complete retards and have some sort of case, but why? What's the point of giving the UMDs their own little caddy if it doesn't even cover it? Okay, perhaps I STILL have a shred of hope, that they'll have some brilliant marketing package with pack-in extra batteries and memory sticks, but for them to do that and maintain a competitive price would hemorrhage money like no other. Outlook not so good.
The battery life figures being thrown about is speculative. The same about the pricing. There really isn't a whole lot of information about the PSP.
Anyhow, regarding feeling the disc spin, I would imagine yes but I really didn't think it was annoying when I had a minidisc player. If it is the same then I really don't expect it to be a problem.
Me-quote:
Having two screens, in fact, just may enable different kinds of play that a single large screen might not.
You-quote:
And that would be a lie....
Me response:
NO, it's not a lie. For starters, I thought I was rather clear with the word "may" and "might" that I was speaking hypothetically. It might be possible, but I don't know if it WILL happen or not.
Further, it's not a lie because the separation of the screens is the factor. People are trained, through long years of watching TV, to watch all of one screen.
Having two screens on which things occur means having to look back and forth between them, splitting your attention, which is a gameplay obstacle we've seen very little of. (Even Nintendo's old Punch-Out!! arcade game, which used a similar setup with two monitors, didn't use them very well.) That's the primary difference having two screens provides, and what I had in mind when I wrote the comment. Technically you can do this with one large screen, but due to the way people have been trained to play games it's not exactly the same.
The other use for two screens is that, since they're obviously separated, it makes a better logical fit to always use one screen for game information and the other for a playscreen. Bear with me now, as this is a weird description:
Take The Legend of Zelda series. It was one of the first games to use a subscreen, that is, an alternate screen in an action game that you can call up any time and that, while you're in it, the game is paused and you can make certain gameplay decisions and review data, mostly involving your equipment. In fact I think the original Zelda was where the word subscreen came from.
But why doesn't the game just keep the subscreen up all the time? And why don't other games do this? The answer is because it takes up precious real estate. The player expects a full screen to view the action. On the DS, the second screen is an element that lies outside of player expectations, so the developer is free to devote it to full-time use as a subscreen. And since that screen is always there, the player can always make adjustments on it (using the handy touch-sensitive feature, which starts to make more sense), and doesn't have to pause the game to do so. And if you don't have to pause, then you can have more devious things like combat sequences where real-time item selection is part of the tension.
In both these cases, the utility of the screen comes from playing with the player's expectations for what a game should be. There's no *technical* reason there's two screens, but it could work out anyway.