Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/36769.html

A good read.

I only read a couple of paragraphs. I think the part where he said there might be two types of PS3 was kinda interesting.

If the psp is going to play movies don't expect to pay less than $300 for it.

And the whole 2 different kinds of ps3's thing isn't going to work. People have a hard enough time choosing which console they want to buy let alone which version of said console they want to buy. Not to mention people are just going to look at it as the good ps3 version and the crappy ps3 version.

And the whole downloading games thing is not good. It gets into the whole drm issue.

and 600-700 euros , about 725 - 850 US dollars is 3d0 and neo geo like in its exorbitancy.

I just hope ps2 drops to $50 by the time DW8 is out.

yea psp going to be way to expensive. psone and its own lcd screen together still cost a load and to miniturize that. WOW

i think having 2 kinds of ps3 will b a really good idea, not everyone (including myself) want everything stuffed into a game system just to make the price skyrocket. as i hear so far xbox next is gonna have all this trash stuffed in like picture viewers and networking to comps. its all just worthless to me...

i think the two ps3's would be kind of a bad idea. it might piss off gamers if someone goes out to get the cheaper one, thinking it plays all games, and then the hottest new game comes out and uses the hard drive in the more expensive model. or, what i think would be a more likely occurance, developers wouldn't take advantage of the extra capabilities of the expensive ps3 because it could isolate part of its potential market.

the psp is looking less and less interesting lately as well...i dont see why we need all this functionality. give me a game player - i don't need movies, i don't need gps. and i don't need the crazy price tag

IMO, i think a few of those are bad moves, the two PS3 is obvious, no offense, but some back country redneck or whatever is going to be awfully confused.... and when the 300 psp is there, someone's mom or dad, or whatever is going to say... That gameboy is 300 dollars, ill buy the cheap gameboy.

At least you won't get lost if you decide to play your psp in the middle of the Atlantic - if that is the type of gps they are talking about.

Originally Posted by Theenternal someone's mom or dad, or whatever is going to say... That gameboy is 300 dollars, ill buy the cheap gameboy.

LOL. So true!

If the PSP costs anymore than 150 or 200 it probably won't survive. And downloading games straight to the PS3....wtf? I don't so much like that idea.

You guys are all trying to fit tomorrow's features into today's world.

Its all about the execution. Hell, there are two different versions of PS2 right now (in Japan anyway) and no one's made a fuss about there being a PSX and the original PS2. Same goes for the GameCube and the Panasonic Q.

Downloading games onto the PS3 will work if its done correctly. It makes it much easier for consumers to buy games, therefore it is an idea Sony should consider. If they can find an inexpensive way to do it, they should implement it. Next generation consoles will be pushing networking/connectivity a whole lot more, we'll be seeing more of it.

Originally Posted by sandwiches99 You guys are all trying to fit tomorrow's features into today's world. Its all about the execution. Hell, there are two different versions of PS2 right now (in Japan anyway) and no one's made a fuss about there being a PSX and the original PS2. Same goes for the GameCube and the Panasonic Q.

Yeah, but they were not released at the same time nor promoted as the same thing.

Downloading games onto the PS3 will work if its done correctly. It makes it much easier for consumers to buy games, therefore it is an idea Sony should consider. If they can find an inexpensive way to do it, they should implement it. Next generation consoles will be pushing networking/connectivity a whole lot more, we'll be seeing more of it.

The percentage of people who actually have and can afford broadband will never make this pheasable short term. Not to mention if something happens, poof, you lost your game and have to download it again which leads into bigger issues.

Plus downloading games cuts out the middlemen, namely the publisher, distributor and the retailer. That means more profit for Sony and the developers. Just expect to pay Sony $29.95 every month for the pleasure of playing games on their system. This is the real plan: to get your money every month like AOL does, not to sell you a $50 game every once in a while.

I haven't read the article, but this whole downloadable games issue is interesting.

I actually would much rather go out and have the physical disks in my hand rather than the file downloaded to the HDD. I know many gamers are collectors and having the game cases in plain view is something that we'd miss out on. It's just something to show for the money you pay. That obviously might not apply to everyone, but that's how it is for me, much like DVDs.

Heck, I'm one of those people who refuse to buy PH/GH/PC titles. Odd, I know, but that's how I choose to spend my money

Originally Posted by alongx i think the two ps3's would be kind of a bad idea. it might piss off gamers if someone goes out to get the cheaper one, thinking it plays all games, and then the hottest new game comes out and uses the hard drive in the more expensive model. or, what i think would be a more likely occurance, developers wouldn't take advantage of the extra capabilities of the expensive ps3 because it could isolate part of its potential market.

Isn't this the current situation with the ps2. Some developers are already developing games that require or take advantage of certain peripherals such as the ps2 hard drive or network adapter. So even now not everyone has the ability to play every game or take full advantage of the games that come out. Having two models just makes it more convenient than buying add-on after add-on for those interested in the extra features.

Originally Posted by dcfox Having two models just makes it more convenient than buying add-on after add-on for those interested in the extra features.

WRONG.

Add-ons give you the choice of what you want to buy or not buy. 2 different versions mean that if you only like 1 feature of the more expensive model you have to buy the whole damn thing and pay mega $$ just to get the 1 feature that you want.

PS3 + PS3+ = $1300

PS3 + HD = $400

I was under the impression that the expensive PS3's extra features will be non-game related, like perhaps a DVD re-writeable drive, a TV tuner, etc., much like the PSX. If this were the case, both systems should play all games. However, the hard-drive thing could be a problem, since it can become a game-related feature. If the expensive version has it and the cheap one doesn't, it will cause confusion. But, much like this generation, I don't think many games will require it, and maybe it will be sold separately for people with the cheap PS3.

I'll admit that having add-ons gives consumers the ability to customize their consoles to their liking but what about the add-on that are linked to other add-ons. For instance what good is the ps2 hard drive without the network adapter? To my knowledge ps2 games weren't designed to take advantage of the hard drive to get quicker load times like some xbox games. So in that case it probably would have been more convenient to bundle the two together.