Slashdot Mirror
Sony Admits to PSP Button Flaws
Apparently despite the original company line, there are indeed problems with the buttons on the PSP handheld. Sony has announced that they will repair the small number of units affected for free, and Tech Japan has the details. From the article: "The defect occurs in part of the initial shipment of PSP units and is caused by excess plastic not being completely removed during the molding and manufacturing process of the outer cabinet. As a result, when a button is pressed, it can become caught on the excess plastic and not return fully to its default position."
It's good to quash this kind of stuff as soon as possible. At the price they are selling, they need to take away any technical excuse to not buy a PSP in order to compete with Nintendo at the portable level.
Earn a free iRiver
"The defect occurs in part of the initial shipment of PSP units and is caused by excess plastic not being completely removed during the molding and manufacturing process of the outer cabinet. As a result, when a button is pressed, it can become caught on the excess plastic and not return fully to its default position."
"This is intentional, and in our oppinion a good design feature."
This doesn't seem to affect the fact that the square button is not right over the sensor. Are gamers still expected to "have to deal with it" or is this being addressed as well?
"The Nintendo handheld monopoly has got to go."
Why? It's there because the market decided it should be there, not because Nintendo has a gun put to everybody's head. Frankly, if Sony isn't getting things right, like YOU said, then why on Earth would you want THEM to be in a monopoly?
"It's funny that Nintendo released gameboy boy black and white lasting a decade, with zero motivation to improve."
0 motivation? I suppose you forgot Nintendo's innovation attempt called Virtual Boy. Tee hee giggle snort. Anyway, the main reason why Nintendo hasn't had a serious competitor is because the 'innovators' destroyed a key factor that made their units worth having. Usually it was battery life, although sometimes it was size. The Game Boy had the right balance to pleae a lot of customers, and the technology didn't allow much wiggle room here. It wasn't that Nintendo didn't have motivation to innovate, it was that Nintendo wasn't stupid enough to destroy the successful formula.
"Then GB advanced, color and DS all launched in the span of 3 years under competition from Sony."
The GB Advance (no d.) was out long before Sony was 'competition' in the handheld market. Additionally, it was in development long before Sony released the PS1. I don't think there's any doubt that Sony kicked Nintendo in the rear to innovate, and I agree that competition's good, but your impressions about Nintendo are a little skewed.
"Derp de derp."
Nintendo had a good solution for the time and they marketed it better than others. The Lynx, originally a creation of game publisher Epyx, came into Atari's hands when they ran out of money. Even though the Lynx debuted at almost the same time as the GB, and had great technology and decent battery life, Atari(once again) failed to market and distribute it successfully. Similarly, the Game Gear was good(not as good) tech but was marketed poorly, coming at the time when Sega was also dividing itself between the original Genesis/Megadrive, the 32x, the Sega CD, and finally the Saturn.
Because cheap and small technology for portable devices didn't really advance until the late 90s(remember that's when cell phones took off), the Game Boy didn't. They did the Super Game Boy for the SNES but that was different. When portable tech finally improved, they opted first to slim it down with the GB Pocket. Then they made a few incremental steps in technology for processing power and graphics. But none of this was really provoked by competition.
As soon as "real" competition appeared from the likes of Sony, they broke the mold of technological improvement and moved to the DS which is definitely very unique. They probably plan the same thing for the Revolution.