Slashdot Mirror
PS3 Apparently A Computer
Rinzai writes to mention an article on Gamasutra, noting a statement by Ken Kutaragi where the CEO states that the PS3 is a computer, not a console. From the article: "He went on to outline a scenario where many parts of the PS3 were upgradeable, much more like a PC, noting: 'Since PS3 is a computer, there are no models but configurations', and continuing (though talking in the theoretical): 'I think it's okay to release a [extended PS3] configuration every year'. It's clear from the comments that Sony is indicating that it will be possible to upgrade hard drives and perhaps even other components easily."
'Luck with that one guys.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Consumers of gaming consoles buy consoles for gaming, not because it is a computer.
Even with the "extra" feature of being a computer, at the price it is, it will most probably sell very badly, if not fail.
Sorry Sony, you made a *serious* mistake. Remember that money is one of the most important things in this world, even if it comes and goes.
A computer, huh? Sold! And here I was afriad my $600 machine was only gonna be able to play games.
Seriously, is there any distinction anymore? Does being easily upgradeable magically make it a "computer"? I still consider my original NES - having a processor, input interface, and the ability to read instructions on ROMs and provide output - "basically a computer".
This sounds more like a change in marketing strategy than anything else (compare "hey, the PS3 is twice the cost of these other consoles" to "hey, this PS3-computer-thingy is only half the cost of my desktop computer!") Either way, I wouldn't be pleased knowing that after shelling out $600 I will have the option to pay more next year to keep the thing updated.
Disclaimer: I'm a Nintendo fanboy and have never had any interest in PlayStation consoles.
Of course they're computers. Whether or not you can use them easily in a general purpose manner is another issue entirely. EG, my Linksys WRT54GL is a computer and can easily be used as a general purpose device by uploading 3rd party firmware such as OpenWRT. So can my Dreamcast. On the other hand, I can't do the same with my XBox 360 (at least until someone figures out how to run unsigned code). But they're all computers nonetheless.
Forgetting for the moment that all videogame consoles are computers...
What else could be upgraded besides the hard drive? I really doubt you'll be able to swap in a new CPU or GPU. Maybe RAM like you could upgrade on the N64. (though I have my doubts) Or, does he mean that new PS3s will be more powerful than the old ones and that the old ones won't be upgradable?
What would be the point of continuing to call it a PS3 then? People who bought a PS3 for $600 in 2006 would be homicidal if a "PS3" game was released a couple years down the line that couldn't be played (or maybe it could only be played at a low resolution/framerate) on their old PS3. People expect a game for a console to just work in that console.
Also, wasn't the PS2's official title "computer entertainment system"? Look how that worked out.
"'I think it's okay to release a [extended PS3] configuration every year'. It's clear from the comments that Sony is indicating that it will be possible to upgrade hard drives and perhaps even other components easily."
Please note that nowhere does it state that the CONSUMER will be able to upgrade hard drives or other components easily. In fact, what they are implying is that they will release a different "upgraded-from-core" model every year. I would assume that one would have to buy the entire thing to get any upgraded components. After all, I don't think Joe Sixpack is going to be comfortable swapping out a hard drive on a PS3 any more than on a "real" computer.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
There is no way that plan will pan out. There's a reason that people choose consoles over computers: they are a known, stable hardware platform which is easy for developers to target, and thus every game works reliably. The second you start allowing significantly different versions of the consoles to exist, you run into compatibility issues, users being unclear which version of the console a given game will work on, developers being unwilling to take advantage of the hardware in order to avoid alienating users, and a host of other issues.
Limited, carefully-controlled upgrades can succeed (e.g. memory expansion for N64), but so far has only worked when distributed as a pack-in in a popular game. Significant console upgrades (e.g. every upgrade ever released for the Genesis) have all failed in the marketplace, for the reasons described above.
Sony owned the market. The PS3 was a guaranteed success. A license to print money. And now they seem fixated on painting a target on their feet, merrily humming away, completely ignoring what their potential customers actually want. Nintendo could easily leverage this into a return to first place in the market, if they play their cards right.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Um, I thought the whole point of a console was to give everyone the same configuration so that developers can target a single stable platform without having to worry about configuration issues....
So, if it's a "computer", does that mean that they'll let me in to hack to my hearts content without any sort of encryption key BS? Or are they still going to try to lock me out of my own "computer"?
Because a hot-shit graphics card will run you $400; You can get the PS3 for the price of a graphics card, DVD-ROM, case, and a decent power supply, and you still don't have motherboard, cpu, memory, hard disk, or a game controller.
Also because the PS3 is supposed to play PS1, PS2, and PS3 games, as well as Blu-Ray movies (FWIW). PC plays PS1 games, and not necessarily all that well.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It didn't work with the 32X or the Sega CD. It didn't work with the N64 RAM upgrade or the 64DD. It sure as hell didn't work with the PS2 HDD. I have no idea why Sony thinks it can pull this upgrade crap off.
It's getting so bad that the more times Kutaragi shoots off his mouth, the more I think that he is purposely sabotaging the PS3 out of anger that he was not named CEO. I thought Nintendo requiring a $50 (?) upgrade to their $200 N64 was crazy. This is just ridiculous.
Come on, Ken. You are selling this idea to people who pay some goon at Best Buy to install their new sound card.
Watch, in two years $600 will get you a PS3 with BD-ROM with a decent speed, a HD big enough to actually give you some advantage loading your games, and enough RAM to actually play the new games.
There is absolutely no reason to buy a PS3 before Sony makes their plans perfectly clear in this regard. Fuzzy quotes about what you might need in the future to make your $600 paperweight playable again is an insult to any potential customers.
Not to leapfrog over it. If you take a serious look at the Xbox 360 you will see some of the same upgradability built in. Plus since most of it's software is really an internet service, the interface can be upgraded seamlessly on the fly. Sony has to create something similar or face being marginalized.
While I agree with most people here that the PS3 will be overpriced, I want all that functionality to be built in. I want my game console to also play DVD's, MP3 from my computer, record TV, output digital Audio in every format known to man (DTS 7.1 anybody?), download new expansions to existing games through the Internet, etc. Come one people. Why would you not want this stuff? Even if you use only part of the functionality of the system, it still adds to the value if you use that part. Plus Microsoft screwed people by offering reletively small hard drives with the 360 when it shipped. I hope that Sony will offer 300GB upgrades because frankly, I could use them.
And lastly dammit, I want a keyboard! It's freakin' hard typing in chat with a controller! Just allow the device to use a wireless standard keyboard or a USB one like the PS2 does already.
It's called a Mac
Holy crap. Sony has gone insane.
As other posters have pointed out, this has been tried and tried and tried and tried. Intellivision. Atari. Coleco. Even priced efficiently, it's never worked and for good reason: the WHOLE POINT of owning a console is to ONLY HAVE A SINGLE, STANDARD CONFIG!!
I bought Half Life 2 when it came out, and I still haven't been able to play the damned thing despite owning a machine far more powerful than the specs require. The thing keeps crashing, and after several months of watching the Steam forums Valve came up with a workaround for the many, many others who had the same problem: go into BIOS and jiggle your memory timing! Well, that's great. Only my particular motherboard doesn't have that option, and even if it did, I sure wouldn't be screwing around with BIOS just to get a single program running. Far as I know, Valve *still* hasn't fixed the problem; as far as they're concerned, it's already fixed. Just jiggle your timing, guys.
That whole experience drove me away from Valve for good and back to my trusty PS2 for gaming. Yeah, games have bugs, but if a game doesn't work then it doesn't work *anywhere*. In the console world, you simply never have game developers telling you to jiggle your friggin' memory timings just to get their damned product to run. Again, that's the whole advantage of being a console gamer over being a PC gamer; take that away and no thanks, I'll keep my real computer, thanks. Microsoft isn't this stupid and my slimline PS2 is doing just fine.
Dammit, Sony, don't you realize that Microsoft isn't your greatest competitive challenge here? Or Nintendo? Are you so stupidly blind that you can't see that the PS3's most dangerous competitor is the PS2? You know, that extremely stable platform with thousands of quality titles that developers know inside and out, the one that isn't trying to be anything other than what it is? Don't you realize that there are millions of folks like me who aren't debating between the PS3 and the 360, but over whether or not to ditch our trusty PS2s for this trick pony that's looking more and more like a '48 Tucker?
Maybe you like playing crappy grind fests on servers that aren't reliable, suffering hours while the company does "maintenance" on the servers and paying $15 a month for the pleasure instead of playing high quality RTS games or strategy games.
Because a computer can't play old psx games legally?
Actually you can. ePSXe will play your PSX games, all you need to do is grab your PSX's BIOS (which can be done fairly easily a variety of legal ways).
And that's one reason why. If I want a game console, I can get a 360 and a Wii for the price of one PS3. If I want general purpose computing, I already have a computer that I can hack around on, without Trusted Computing BS. There are plenty of good games that work fine, and my monitor is almost the resolution of a high-end HDTV. And if I want high-def video, I can *cough* buy porn that'll play on Linux with no DRM at all, downloaded, in high def, with none of the BS restrictions of Blu-Ray.
If Sony wants me to buy the PS3, they need a killer app for it. Throwing in everything under the sun comes close to being a killer app, even if they haven't come up with a single innovation. The deal-breaker is, I already have a machine that does all that and more, and it's called a PC -- and even if I didn't, I wouldn't buy a PS3 if I could get a decent PC for about twice as much, and I can.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!