Most games on PSP take too long to load. All you need to do is sit down and try one, and wait... wait... wait... . Honestly, it just doesn't play well for a handheld. Im not a Sony hater, but I expected much better from PSP.
I agree that people have more money to spend on game consoles in general, however I think Microsoft's price of $399 for a new console was adequate. Also, what you need to keep in mind is this thing called "market share". With a high priced release for PS3, no matter how nice and pretty the graphics are, Sony must retain its dominant market share. Market share is everything to Sony. This is the reason why so many 3rd parties flocked to PS2. This is why I think it is more important than ever to release a new console at a reasonable price compared to the competition. One more factor to weigh is that both Microsoft and Nintendo appear to have a better clear overall strategy this generation. Both will almost certainly have a better share of the market this time.
I think that market share will bring more 3rd party support. Why do all 3rd parties support PS2 right now? - Because you cannot ignore the amount of games you can sell, and there are many more PS2 units in peoples homes. I think the Revolution, with is lower cost, its enticing controller, and online retro gaming, cheaper dev kits and development costs, all play a part in making 3rd parties interested. Of course, if Nintendo hits a home run with Revolution, and it becomes very popular, 3rd parties will jump onboard very quickly.
Don't forget that this controller is the default primary control scheme for this console. Most all games will utilize it whereas the PS3 and Xbox 360 will mostly use their regular old controllers. I think they will release controllers on a game to game basis, which is expensive if you ask me. They will certainly have guitars, fishing rods, light guns, which will be made to play with specific titles.
Same here, although it is interesting technically, it doesn't do anything for games. Video on demand in better off remaining separate from console gaming.
I think the delay will have some impact, just not alot. I think the key factor for Sony will be price and the quality of the launch titles. I do beleive Microsoft and Nintendo are both primed to take a pretty good chunk of the market. I still beleive the launch price of the PS3 may seal its fate.
What everyone is forgetting about is that without HD, Nintendo does not need to develop games that run at higher resolutions (# of pixels). This way games can be developed with "next-gen" level graphics on hardware that is less powerful (and cheaper). Just run a pc game at 640x480 and you can always crank up more detail.
I say the best way to be adopted on the desktop by users is to provide 6 versions of linux. Here are the names -
Linux Starter 2007; Linux Enterprise; Linux Home Basic, Linux Home Premium, Linux ultimate, and Linux Business.
These "Power" line of chips are only used in large Unix based servers such as the P Series. These are not desktop chips or laptop chips at all so I think we should all ignore this article.
I beleive so, as much as AMD fan would like to admit, Intel has the upper hand for future chips. I guess the deciding factors for success will be raw speed vs. overall processing (more cores) vs. low power (portablility). I think with this past years increase of laptop sales, it shows that these people have a little more in mind than just having the fasted possible processor. The decline of the desktop is coming, and Intel seems to be ready.
Cell processors will not be powering new desktops in the future. I would bet money on that. Because of IBM's track record, the cell will probably be
1. Overpriced
2. Underperforming
They may have inked sweet deals with game console manufacturers, but I don't see what advantage it has on the desktop. The future of the desktop seems to be in mobile devices such as laptops and handhelds.
The whole multi core idea for gaming is all hype right now. Most games do not even take advantage of it yet, and when they do it will mostly be used for additional in game physics etc. The graphics are still controlled by your GPU for the most part. It will take some time until developers can get their hands around developing multi threaded games. I also don't know how this makes game development any easier. In fact, I've read some things that indicate that cross platform games (you see alot from EA, Sega, etc), are hindered by programming to use multiple threads on the individual systems. Porting the games across platforms could be painful. I wonder how long it took to make Geometry Wars on Xbox 360 and how many threads it uses. I think its the best game out of the lot.
Personally, I know 3 people who own a Nintendo DS and noone that actually owns a PSP. I think that is proof enough to me along with the fact that EB never stocks enough DS games as they are always "out" of new DS titles. I am sure some folks bought PSP, I just don't know them yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Most games on PSP take too long to load. All you need to do is sit down and try one, and wait... wait... wait... . Honestly, it just doesn't play well for a handheld. Im not a Sony hater, but I expected much better from PSP.
ya know psp is just terrible gaming machine. The load time are horrid.
I agree that people have more money to spend on game consoles in general, however I think Microsoft's price of $399 for a new console was adequate. Also, what you need to keep in mind is this thing called "market share". With a high priced release for PS3, no matter how nice and pretty the graphics are, Sony must retain its dominant market share. Market share is everything to Sony. This is the reason why so many 3rd parties flocked to PS2. This is why I think it is more important than ever to release a new console at a reasonable price compared to the competition. One more factor to weigh is that both Microsoft and Nintendo appear to have a better clear overall strategy this generation. Both will almost certainly have a better share of the market this time.
I think that market share will bring more 3rd party support. Why do all 3rd parties support PS2 right now? - Because you cannot ignore the amount of games you can sell, and there are many more PS2 units in peoples homes. I think the Revolution, with is lower cost, its enticing controller, and online retro gaming, cheaper dev kits and development costs, all play a part in making 3rd parties interested. Of course, if Nintendo hits a home run with Revolution, and it becomes very popular, 3rd parties will jump onboard very quickly.
Don't forget that this controller is the default primary control scheme for this console. Most all games will utilize it whereas the PS3 and Xbox 360 will mostly use their regular old controllers. I think they will release controllers on a game to game basis, which is expensive if you ask me. They will certainly have guitars, fishing rods, light guns, which will be made to play with specific titles.
Replaced? My company still has a boatload of COBOL programmers.
UMD load times are terrible. I will pass on Sony PSP.
I will buy one when the price is lowered down to around $300 when I actually own an High Def television.
Same here, although it is interesting technically, it doesn't do anything for games. Video on demand in better off remaining separate from console gaming.
Wow I hope this means they will drop the price to $99 or lower.
My next computer will be a Mac. XP is the last version for me.
I've never had disk read errors on my Gamecube, however my PS2 is a different story. It still can't play most disks.
I think the delay will have some impact, just not alot. I think the key factor for Sony will be price and the quality of the launch titles. I do beleive Microsoft and Nintendo are both primed to take a pretty good chunk of the market. I still beleive the launch price of the PS3 may seal its fate.
The Gamecube had excellent graphics!
It is also special because the DS is handheld, not a console. This will certainly give the revolution a boost when it is available.
What everyone is forgetting about is that without HD, Nintendo does not need to develop games that run at higher resolutions (# of pixels). This way games can be developed with "next-gen" level graphics on hardware that is less powerful (and cheaper). Just run a pc game at 640x480 and you can always crank up more detail.
Funny, I don't even have a dual core processor yet.
I say the best way to be adopted on the desktop by users is to provide 6 versions of linux. Here are the names - Linux Starter 2007; Linux Enterprise; Linux Home Basic, Linux Home Premium, Linux ultimate, and Linux Business.
IBM Mainframes also are slow when running virtual machines and java, both of which give you very very poor performance. Way too slow!
I didn't know Intel made Xbox 360 CPUs. Last I heard I thought it was only IBM.
These "Power" line of chips are only used in large Unix based servers such as the P Series. These are not desktop chips or laptop chips at all so I think we should all ignore this article.
I beleive so, as much as AMD fan would like to admit, Intel has the upper hand for future chips. I guess the deciding factors for success will be raw speed vs. overall processing (more cores) vs. low power (portablility). I think with this past years increase of laptop sales, it shows that these people have a little more in mind than just having the fasted possible processor. The decline of the desktop is coming, and Intel seems to be ready.
Cell processors will not be powering new desktops in the future. I would bet money on that. Because of IBM's track record, the cell will probably be 1. Overpriced 2. Underperforming They may have inked sweet deals with game console manufacturers, but I don't see what advantage it has on the desktop. The future of the desktop seems to be in mobile devices such as laptops and handhelds.
The whole multi core idea for gaming is all hype right now. Most games do not even take advantage of it yet, and when they do it will mostly be used for additional in game physics etc. The graphics are still controlled by your GPU for the most part. It will take some time until developers can get their hands around developing multi threaded games. I also don't know how this makes game development any easier. In fact, I've read some things that indicate that cross platform games (you see alot from EA, Sega, etc), are hindered by programming to use multiple threads on the individual systems. Porting the games across platforms could be painful. I wonder how long it took to make Geometry Wars on Xbox 360 and how many threads it uses. I think its the best game out of the lot.
Personally, I know 3 people who own a Nintendo DS and noone that actually owns a PSP. I think that is proof enough to me along with the fact that EB never stocks enough DS games as they are always "out" of new DS titles. I am sure some folks bought PSP, I just don't know them yet.