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."
...so is my Abacus.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
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.
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.
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?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The only reason he's claiming its a computer is so it can skip some import duty in the UK and EC.
They tried the same stunt with the Playstation 2.
Actually, they were trying to make it into a generic game development workstation. It was basically a poor man's TOOL, or a second generation Net Yaroze. Very poor, but anyway... They weren't REALLY trying to make it a general purpose computer, or they would have added more memory.
The Dreamcast is actually the first console really usable as a computer; it has the low memory problem too, but it's considerably better documented than the PS2, whose internals are still mostly a mystery to anyone not gifted with a real dev kit. AND, they shipped a keyboard, mouse, ethernet adapter, and VGA adapter, and you could buy them one at a time. Of course, Dreamcast was murdered by a tag-team of Sony's Marketing Department, and ARRRR PIRATES. I mean, it was just so damned easy to copy the games, at a time when broadband was becoming prevalent and CD burners where everywhere. Anyone who says it wasn't a factor in the DC's demise is living in a fantasy world.
The PS3 is the first console really useful as a computer. It has plenty of ram, plenty of I/O, and plenty of horsepower. The Xbox is almost there, but has too little memory. (FWIW, I do run linux on my Xbox occasionally.)
If they can avoid fucking it up to the point where games don't work right on the various revisions of the console, and they give us a genuinely useful linux environment that can support all the latest eye candy, I think they could actually get some mileage out of a strategy like this. Certainly, a $600 Computer/Video Game System makes more sense than a $600 console.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
about 1 in 5 of these articles turn out to be anything more than misquotes, press releases out of context, rumors or just simple errors.
We get it, we get it already: Sony = Evil, the console is awful and if you buy it the CEO of Sony will come to your house and shit on your children. Enough already.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
I'm a Computer!!
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
It's called a Mac