Slashdot Mirror
Playstation 3 Not A Video Game Machine
Gamespot has coverage of a pair of interviews with Ken Kutaragi in which he states that the PS3 isn't really a gaming console. Instead, it will be an all around device that will allow the owner to experience all sorts of different types of new entertainment. From the article: "The PS3 is the product we have been aiming for since the establishment of SCEI...We haven't been creating our [past] PlayStations for the sake of games. Our belief, and the motivation behind running our company, has been to [explore ways of] applying the power of computers to entertainment and enjoyment. We equipped the original PlayStation with a 3D graphics chip, and we equipped the PS2 with the Emotion engine. The PS3 isn't designed to lean towards games. It's not a computer for children. In the sense that our goal has been [to create] a computer that's meant for entertainment, you could say that the original PlayStation and PlayStation 2 had existed as steps towards the PlayStation 3."
Is it me or is Sony starting to sound like Microsoft?
We like iPods, we like Cell phones, we like digital cameras, but we don't buy PDAs that do all three. Even camera-phones are tremendously underwhelming to all but tech-nerds and 14-year-old girls.
I would suggest that Nintendo is poised for a MAJOR comeback if they do the system right. They have said in no uncertain terms that the revolution is about games, not convergence. You heard it here first.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
We went through this before with the PS2.
Tell me what an emotion engine is, exactly, and why anyone should care? It's a processor. Woopty doo, you gave your video game machine a processor.
Unprecidented.
The PS3 will not be a supercomputer. The PS3 will cost $300 - $500. When an IBM workstation with dozens of PowerPC cores costing half a million dollars can only do 40 or so GigaFLOPs, there's no way in hell that the PS3 (based on the same basic Power Processor architecture) can do 2 TeraFLOPs. Not if they're measuring the same thing anyway. Otherwise, why doesn't IBM just use those in it's big iron instead of Power PCs, and market themselves as offering "A Gazillion YottaFLOPs!!!!"
Because IBM has a reputation to uphold, and they market to people who aren't teenagers dazzled by the biggest number they can think of. The people they market to will hold them to their promises.
Sony is just hype.
Yes, digital convergance. Yes, bringing it all together. Blah blah blah. Sony, you're not the only one working toward this goal, and frankly, you're not NEARLY in the position MS is in to offer it. Their market penetration on the desktop PC gives them a powerful edge, as does the fact that they started doing it in the last generation, so people who were looking for that kind of convergance already found a good thing with the X-Box.
Sony should not be allowed to market.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
His point was that Nintendo's public assertions concerning their purpose is more to his liking, and that he bases his purchases on the games offered. It seems that he likes games in which he can "kill people with a big noisy gun." Ignoring my opinion that a nice PC can compete on that front, XBox definitely leads the current consoles in the killing-with-a-noisy-gun genre. It's the only console with Halo, Halo 2, and Doom 3, with Half-Life 2 on the horizon, and the cross-platform games tend to play and/or look best on the XBox (e.g. the Splinter Cell games. And yeah, the PC versions can look even better, but this is about consoles).
I think I'll probably end up with a 360 and a Revolution in the next round (accidental pun!). I like dedicated gaming systems, but I'm interested to see how well Microsoft handles their convergence efforts. PS3 is a toss-up for me, based on game selection and price, but I'll probably wait regardless.
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
I guess you've never played a movie before? This whole thread is so stupid. The guy said that the PS3 will be for more than just games and you've all made some big deal out of it... WTF is the big deal?
Which of course is because that nothing that does all three does any of them particularly well. Link me to a device that will play my music with at least 20 gigs capacity, allow me to use it as a drive, and have features at least approaching an iPod or another highend mp3 player; be a cell phone with entertaining ringtones (ok, this isn't hard); and is a digital camera with at least 5 megapixel reso and optical zoom, very good pixel quality, and other "good" digital camera options, and I'm all over it. Oh, and throw in features of a low to mid end GPS as well, and some generic PDA features. And it better be pretty small as well -- should fit in my pocket with no problem. And it should all integrate with my PC.
Helluva task for some designer, not to mention keeping the price of this down since you're miniturizing everything.
The thing is, this convergence box, regardless of who makes it, is going to be somewhere in between a console and a computer in terms of complexity and cost.
Cost is a big issue, because it's one of two things that consoles really have going for them (the other being ease of use, which I'll get to in a moment). Basically, consoles can deliver a whole lot of bang for the buck because they've historically used less powerful hardware, but been much much more optimized specifically for gaming. You can either despecialize the hardware (and become more computer-like), or just throw enough raw power into it that software can pick up the slack. The second option seems to be sony's chosen path, and the high price tags being thrown around for the PS3 reflect that.
Ease of use is the other one. How functional beyond games can something get with a game controller as a primary interface? Once you add a keyboard and a mouse, you're going back to a computer. I guess the point is, this convergence thing is going to be a simplified computer, or a beefed up video game console.
I'd have more faith in a computer company (Apple comes to mind first), successfully paring down their knowledge into something workable than I would a company like Sony kludging together a bunch of different pieces well.
Like the parent post said, the computer is an all in one magic box. It's already here, it's been around for a while, people have experience with it. All that's left is to strip out some of the extra parts and make it easier to use. Sony still has to build something that works first, then strip out the extra stuff, and make it easy to use. That first step is hard.
MS would seem to be in a better position than Sony to do this, except stuff that just works has historically been rather difficult for them.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.