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."

Comments

So...

[Shadow Wrought]

In a nutshell, Sony is conceding the next-gen console war and trying to take out the home computer.

'Luck with that one guys.

Re:So...

[spun]

Seriously dumb move, Sony. One of the things gamers and developers both like about consoles is that they aren't computers. The hardware isn't a moving target. You know your game is going to play the same on every console out there. No incompatability issues.

Argh. What arrogance and stupidity. What's next, the executives of Sony all line up and moon us?

Re:So...

[DrXym]

It seems weird for them to call it a computer. I would think a better tactic is to call it a multimedia centre. That would require that the PS3 can perform in such a role. Technically could, but this is Sony we're talking about here. The XBox 360 could have been that too but MS chose to NOT allow you to rip DVDs to the device and NOT have any kind of PVR functionality (even through a dongle) and NOT be any damned good for video content at all unless you stream from a PC (wtf?).

If Sony could produce a device which some or all of those things, that they could score a major coup. After, all most people only have so many plug points and space by their TV. If this thing can play discs, then why not store them too. They could sweeten the deal for themselves by having a built-in movie download service for $$$.

The system has the potential, but it remains to be seen if Sony being Sony will cut off its nose to spite its face. Again.

Re:So...

[RoadDoggFL]

I was thinking, with the way Sony's going consoles will lose the common hardware configuration. So it's possble that now there'll just be standard hardware configurations... say if you have certain parts from 2008 then your PS3 could be considered a PS3-8. Well could this philosophy of standardizing hardware be applied to PCs? Sony's edging closer to PCs, what if PCs also edge a bit closer to consoles? Hardware manufacturers could categorize their hardware to meet a specified performance on a specified hardware setup to label their hardware with standardized performance designators.

That's not to say I'm in favor of this... but having those standards in place, I feel, would greatly help PC developers.They'd be shooting for a 2008b hardware configuration when developing their game rather than shooting in the dark. I realize I haven't really explained this too well and if somebody cares to elaborate further then feel free. I also realize that this would require a certain level of honesty and cooperation among hardware manufacturers that likely won't be happeneing any time soon, just a thought.

Re:So...

[KDR_11k]

That system would need to be VERY scalable otherwise your rating needs a date at which it expires and Joe Sixpack wonders why his game won't run on his five year old "4-star" computer.

You had me at 'apparently'

[r_glen]

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.

They're technically all computers

[the_humeister]

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.

Ours is better! We swear!

[PSXer]

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.

Missing the point

[Futaba-chan]

Since PS3 is a computer, there are no models but configurations

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"?

Re:Makes sense

[drinkypoo]

So if the PS3 is basically a computer, why not get a 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.

Do they want to fail?

[SetupWeasel]

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.

Already exists

[starm_]

It's called a Mac

Re:Already exists

[NeoBeans]

No it's not. A Mac is a proprietary piece of hardware connected to a proprietary OS (albeit built with standardized and component parts in both) that is made exclusively by Apple (barring the clone years). Three faults to what you're saying:

1. Macs are now using bog-standard Intel CPUs, graphics subsystems, and can even run Windows.
2. Sony, in no way, is providing an "open standard" that other manufacturers can leverage. Hmmm, sounds like that would be proprietary by definition. The PC platform has a "standard" that everyone has to walk lockstep on, courtesy of the Microsoft DirectX APIs. Older equipment can't support the new APIs and is not supported. Of course, with Microsoft as the sole provider of the APIs, well... that's a standard only in the sense that Microsoft is a 900 lbs. gorilla making the standard.
3. Finally, given the need for hardware vendors (such as NVidia and ATI in the graphics card market) to differentiate themselves, it's entirely possible that when one leapfrogs the other, there can be a signficant difference between the vendors' products regardless of API compatbility. So there is not market pressure to provide such a standard.

That said, it'd be nice from a developer's standpoint, but keep this in mind -- game developers are extremely resilient and seem to handle the differentiation on the PC platform well. And when they don't, the gaming community seems to spend the $$$ to upgrade and build new systems to run the games.