Post by: StrikerObi on May 28, 2003, 06:54:29 AM
It looks really slick. I think it's a horrible design flat to have the controllers plug into the back of the unit. Other than that I think the name choice was absolutly horrid. "PSX" is going to confuse so many people who call the PSone that already. I also think they might be releasing this a little to late in the PS2's life cycle. We'll probalby be seeing new consoles in 2005/6, which doesn't give this thing a lot of shelf life. But damn is it pretty.
Post by: RickPowers on May 28, 2003, 06:58:10 AM
Holy crap. My level of technolust just blew right through the damned roof.
Post by: SCF on May 28, 2003, 07:11:13 AM
Post by: RickPowers on May 28, 2003, 07:48:11 AM
Post by: PIAC on May 28, 2003, 10:25:44 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 28, 2003, 10:28:06 AM
Yeah maybe they should wait a little longer so that they can put a PS3 in there instead. Of course maybe that's the whole idea. People drop like a grand on this only to have to buy the PS3 version (which will be called the PS1 so as to continue with this "confuse the hell out of everyone" naming scheme) a year later.
The idea of an all-in-one device is not that bad provided that each component can be purchased serperately. As long as the PS2 is a serperate unit then there's room for the PSX. This is what Sony has to do with the PS3 if they want it to be a set-top box. They have to provide a barebones PS3 model designed for the average gamer.
Post by: ThePerm on May 28, 2003, 10:43:49 AM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on May 28, 2003, 11:16:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
SEGA!
Exactly what I'm thinking.
Post by: jarob on May 28, 2003, 01:09:49 PM
Post by: ThePerm on May 28, 2003, 02:18:35 PM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on May 28, 2003, 03:40:45 PM
Post by: aoi tsuki on May 28, 2003, 04:45:49 PM
The PSX name thing is confusing, but only to the more hardcore gamers. The PSX abbreviation is mostly a web thing; in print and other forms of media it's referred to as "Playstation" or "PS".
This is completely different from Sega's hardware. The Saturn and Sega CD were "legitimate" systems. 32x was Sega of America's ill-conceived attempt at regaining marketshare in the face of the upcoming Playstation. Neptune and Jupiter were never released.
PSX is a digital entertainment hub, and as Rick said, it's aimed at a completely different market than the PS2.
Post by: nolimit19 on May 28, 2003, 08:41:57 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on May 28, 2003, 09:39:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: aoi tsuki
The PSX name thing PS confusing, but only to the more hardcore gamers. The PSX abbreviation is mostly a web thing; in print and other forms of media it's referred to as "Playstation" or "PS".
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
"Called SuperDisc this proprietary format would also form the basis of Nintendo's own CD-ROM drive - PlayStation was born!"
"At the end of 1992 Sony, Nintendo and Philips signed a deal whereby PlayStation would be able to run SNES CD-ROMs but left Nintendo with the sole rights to all its games. The version of PlayStation being developed at that time never made it into production."
"But, having come so far Sony were not about to abandon the idea completely and the engineers and designers went back to their drawing boards and started again. When the PS-X surfaced in 1993 it took the industry pundits by storm."
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Yeah maybe they should wait a little longer so that they can put a PS3 in there instead. Of course maybe that's the whole idea. People drop like a grand on this only to have to buy the PS3 version (which will be called the PS1 so as to continue with this "confuse the hell out of everyone" naming scheme) a year later.
Actually, it's probably more likely that they'd call the PS3 version the "PSX2", which would still cause confusion anyways.
And is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the "Playstation Portable" doesn't seem to be listing the ability to play PSX games as one of it's features, despite being disc-based and "slightly more powerful than a PSX"?
Sony's just blatantly milking the name for all it's worth now.
Post by: deminisma on May 29, 2003, 12:15:55 AM
PVR, 120GB HD, PS2 compatibility, Ethernet (hopefully using Apple's Rendezvous) and DVD burning.
If the price tag is only remotely in my region (say $500) i'll definately consider a purchase. Sounds like a winner to me. Where's Nintendo and Panasonic?
Post by: aoi tsuki on May 29, 2003, 12:27:19 AM
Quote
And is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the "Playstation Portable" doesn't seem to be listing the ability to play PSX games as one of it's features, despite being disc-based and "slightly more powerful than a PSX"?
It's not because it doesn't. It plays PSP games.
Quote
Sony's just blatantly milking the name for all it's worth now.
And why not use the Playstation name to promote their line of gaming-related electronics? It's called branding. "Playstation Portable" instantly brings to mind "Playstation". And everyone knows Sony makes the Playstation. Same thing with the Nintendo Entertainment System, Super Nintendo, and Nintendo 64. [Nintendo] Gamecube should technically be on that list, but it's the first system that's not bound to the Nintendo name. "Gamecube" stands on it's own, despite attempts otherwise.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on May 29, 2003, 01:02:12 AM
A controller port at the back? A horrible design that is. And the name "PSX" will sure confuse people. That was the first thing that popped up in my mind when I read the article.
Post by: ruby_onix on May 29, 2003, 01:26:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: aoi tsuki
And that bit of hidden info proves what exactly? What i was saying was that the name PSX isn't something the casual gaming audience or print/tv/radio broadcasts generally use. You just proved my point.
Okay. I thought you were saying that "PSX" was just something unofficial that people on the internet came up with. But there's a reason we call it that. It's because Sony used to call it that. The PSOne is the PS-X. The sequel to the ill-fated "original PlayStation".
Sony deliberately naming the "PSOne" what they did was an attempt to cloud their own history (probably to try and make it look perfect). Calling this new device the "PSX" is an attempt to bury their history.
QuoteQuote
And is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the "Playstation Portable" doesn't seem to be listing the ability to play PSX games as one of it's features, despite being disc-based and "slightly more powerful than a PSX"?
It's not because it doesn't. It plays PSP games.
I thought I heard something earlier about "Now you can play all your favorite 32-bit PlayStation games, on the go!" or something like that in one of the stories. I gathered that the PSP would be PSOne compatible (which would be a mistake, making it way too big, IMO) to combat the backwards compatibility of the GameBoy series, but that it's own proprietary games would be the mini-DVDs, so it could cut loose the bulky PSOne games by the next generation.
QuoteQuote
Sony's just blatantly milking the name for all it's worth now.
And why not use the Playstation name to promote their line of gaming-related electronics? It's called branding. "Playstation Portable" instantly brings to mind "Playstation". And everyone knows Sony makes the Playstation. Same thing with the Nintendo Entertainment System, Super Nintendo, and Nintendo 64. [Nintendo] Gamecube should technically be on that list, but it's the first system that's not bound to the Nintendo name. "Gamecube" stands on it's own, despite attempts otherwise.
If Nintendo had called the GameBoy in Japan the "Handheld Famicom", there would have been certain expectations about it. If Nintendo had started making "Famicom Board Games", people could (and probably did) accuse them of "selling out". It's just Sony's turn right now.
I'd have no problem at all with Nintendo Board Games. Or "Sony Portables". I'm just waiting for the PlayStation Underoos.
Post by: boggy b on May 29, 2003, 01:31:33 AM
Post by: oohhboy on May 29, 2003, 02:42:24 AM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 29, 2003, 05:31:28 AM
What are they gonna make developers do? Make games using the TV tuner? Give hackers the "great" opportunity to burn their games just to sell the console?
ARRRGH!
The console LOOKS good, but the features are unnecessary. The whole PROCESS of remaking a console is unnecessary. If you want to remake something, at least have it realted to games. The GBA SP was the most significant remake ever so far, since it introduced a light in the console, which ISN'T backlit!
What has the TV tuner got to do with games? The DVD playback??? The DVD BURNER?????
WHY??
WHy is this happening at ALL?
ARRRRGH!
Post by: RickPowers on May 29, 2003, 06:07:48 AM
Sony isn't forcing the "market" to go in any direction (by market, I assume you mean videogame market), and they aren't doing anything to "consoles".
They took the hardware that powers the PS2 and made a multi-purpose device for it, one that happens to play games too. This isn't even a device being made by SCE ... it's a SONY product. If this doesn't appeal to you, if you don't like it ... guess what? YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO! This wasn't made for YOU.
As for the controller ports being in the back, that's actually smart design. How? Didn't you notice that you can stand the machine on it's back-end? You can wall mount this unit, perfect for people with flat-panel televisions (again, this wasn't made for YOU), and the cords will hang down the wall appropriately.
Post by: pingsmoth on May 29, 2003, 06:34:35 AM
Here's how I see it, and consequently, how I think Sony is playing this whole deal. First, you have to dig back to the roots of the Xbox, which lie in WebTV. Some of the execs at Microsoft didn't want a gaming machine as much as they wanted a game-enabled WebTV. They wanted to make a super-duper WebTV which could record shows like Tivo, play games like the PlayStation, and surf the internet like...well...like WebTV. Eventually that idea fell by the wayside, probably due to the final cost of the machine being too far out of reach and too much R&D time to develop the thing. Remember, Microsoft uses a lot standard PC hardware in the Xbox, not custom stuff like Nintendo and Sony.
So what does this have to do with Sony and the PSX? Sony knows that the next Xbox will have the aforementioned Tivo-like features. Sony is also not ready to announce anything in the way of a new console other than they are working on it and it will use lots and lots of processors to do various jobs and will be a thousand times more powerful than the PS2. But if they announce this system, it will take a lot of steam away from Microsoft when they announce specs for the Xbox 2. It will come with these features like recording TV and possibly disc burning, but Sony will already have that machine, so why care? It's sort of like their announcement of the PSP, except this time they actually have something more than a sheet of paper with some proposed specs on it.
Post by: TOY on May 29, 2003, 06:44:47 AM
TOY
Post by: nolimit19 on May 29, 2003, 12:51:12 PM
Post by: ThePerm on May 29, 2003, 02:27:37 PM
the readers will just go to bitch about everything...even unreasonable things....just shrug it off and think..."im better then these people, i control these people, i am the forum master!!!"
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 29, 2003, 03:46:27 PM
But it's weird that something like this is coming at such a time in the market.
Post by: BlkPaladin on May 29, 2003, 06:17:06 PM
As for the PSP I doubt that it would be backwards compatible because of the size addition to have a drive that plays full sized disc media. I thought I heard it was going to utilize some form of the mini-disc.
Post by: aoi tsuki on May 29, 2003, 06:30:54 PM
Post by: BlkPaladin on May 30, 2003, 11:10:40 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 30, 2003, 02:28:30 PM
Post by: Cube323 on May 31, 2003, 11:15:05 AM
Plus this PSX is coming out a year before the PS3. Also I have heard that PSX will be the model for Ps3. Which leaves me to wonder, how much will the PS3 cost as every rumor I have heard indicates that the PSX will run for over $600.
You know why $ony feels the need to make stuff like the PSX? First because M$ has the same idea and secondly neither company can make a good game to save their lives! LMFAO!!!!!
You know that's true
Post by: BlkPaladin on May 31, 2003, 02:45:21 PM
Post by: Gamefreak on May 31, 2003, 02:59:26 PM
Seriously, the hardcore geeky people who are the target audience of this product already have high-end computers that can do all these things...And they probably have Tivo as well. So what's the point of buying this tin can?
Post by: Cube323 on May 31, 2003, 03:14:46 PM
I think this machine truly clarifies $ony's feelings toward game consoles. They see their consoles no differntly than they would a toaster. It's just a product to make money on, which is of course, all $ony has ever been interested in. They have no passion for good games and honestly they could care less about the quality of the games played on its systems.
Why else would they release PSX less than a year from the launch of PS3? $ony's attitude has always been "buy another."
Post by: Gamefreak on May 31, 2003, 03:30:53 PM
Post by: aoi tsuki on May 31, 2003, 04:31:41 PM
Quote
Erm...can't my computer do all the useful things that this little white box can, AND play PC games (which I'd rather play than PS2 games)?
Seriously, the hardcore geeky people who are the target audience of this product already have high-end computers that can do all these things...And they probably have Tivo as well. So what's the point of buying this tin can?
Sure, if you've got a DVD±RW drive and a tv capture card. If PSX can use TiVO-functions while you're playing a game, then you'd also need a high end PC. The hardcore geeky people are content doing everything consoles and devices like TiVOs do on their PCs. So who'll buy this? People who want and all-in-one device. Home electronics enthusiasts. Those who'll pay for style. Heck, i'd consider buying one if i had a desire for a TiVO. We'll get a better idea once we see just how much it'll cost, and how and where Sony wants to sell it.
Again, i think Sony, not Sony Computer Entertainment, is pushing Playstation and Playstation 2 gameplaying capability as a technology. This would be especially true if PS3 (Playstation 3) is backward compatible with it's predecessors. Eventually, people would come to expect DVD players, DVHS players, PVRs, etc. that were Playstation-compatible. It's the same basic idea VM Labs had years ago with their Nuon technology – a technology that could be inserted into DVD players to play games and enhance the features of the DVD player, adding value to it.
The more i look at it, the more the vertical, “mounted” position of the PSX appeals to me. Very simple, clean, and easy to see how the PSX logo will embed itself into your subconcious.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 31, 2003, 04:58:02 PM
I haven't played the game personally (I'd like to), but it has to be pretty damn @$%&ing good to be better than Super Mario Sunshine- best platformer I've played since SM64.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on June 01, 2003, 01:46:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RickPowers
Ok, let's get something straight, because the GROUSING in here is driving me crazy.
Rick, you didn't have to be mean us! I know the PSX is not for everyone and we don't have to buy it. And I didn't know that you could stand the machine on it's backend or wall mount it.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 01, 2003, 05:32:07 AM
SO in other words, Sony and M$ are 'forcing', in the slightest sense of the word, that this is the direction consoles take: Gaming platforms that also act as multimedia devices, and can fit into your everyday, multimedia electronic 'needs'.
People will start saying "Why doesn't Nintendo have this in their console?". When the next-gen consoles are with us, Nintendo will still be the only platform that only plays games, and even we, the Nintendo fanboys, will start saying "Why doesn't Nintendo put this into their next console just to keep up with Sony and M$?"
And while Nintendo is constantly pressured into making their next console with other features, I don't think they should. Nor should any company be pressured into remaking/redesigning their console simply to satisfy the multimedia market.
Post by: AERO on June 10, 2003, 05:31:23 AM
I personally think this looks pretty nice. I'd be interested in something like this, if they could pull it off for around $300. However I'd prefer it not have the ability to play ps2 games, as its not my cup of tea. But I would be interested in tivo like service, web browsing, and other functions like that.
Post by: PIAC on June 10, 2003, 10:19:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: AERO
So then they will market it to people who only want a videogame console, and have a smaller budget. And to people who actually enjoy nintendo games.
but that market is getting eversmaller, which is a shame really..
Post by: boggy b on June 13, 2003, 01:18:06 AM
Even if Nintendo lags behind, as long as the people who want Nintendo consoles buy them, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Another thing that annoys me (and I'm sorry for this personal attack) is Cube323 and his annoying, often insulting posts. He moans about how Sony and Microsoft are money-grabbing companies and then goes on to say how Nintendo are going to start making money again. WTF.
Post by: PIAC on June 13, 2003, 02:10:55 AM
basically i want to go back in time to the 16 bit days where games were pretty much just for nerds.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 13, 2003, 03:12:18 AM
There are things that need improving.
I like the direction they want to go in the game industry, however, but not Sony's or M$'s direction. You get me?
I know Panasonic's Q and Sony's NEW PSX are marketed at the people who like all this techno crap, but if they become popular, then Sony will probably take the initiative and put more crap into their next consoles, and the ones after that.
That's the direction in gaming I don't want to head into.
The Q was alright in that it only had DVD playback, but having stuff like TV tuners and other crap that only techno-babbled people will know is just...well...sh*t.
And unless you are extremely poor, you will have a DVD by 2005/6 when the next gen consoles come out.
EDIT: Oh, and another thing. I want Nintendo to move with the ever changing times in technology as well, but unless they go back to carts or something, then i believe there's nothing to extreme to worry about.
Post by: Bartman3010 on June 13, 2003, 04:45:39 AM
Post by: Clonester on June 13, 2003, 06:33:09 PM
Personally, I'm losing respect for Sony more by the day. Sony's only aim with the Playstation anything is to have a monopoly on the home entertainment business, and that is the aim of the PSX, so all the tech enthusiasts will have another piece of Sony hardware. They will probably follow suit on an all-in-one machine with the PS3.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 13, 2003, 06:36:53 PM
Exactly what I've been saying.
Post by: Bartman3010 on June 14, 2003, 05:36:29 PM
In some ways, this is a good idea if it would be cheaper. Its just all about price to me. People will make fun of its size more than the X Box's. Whoever said it earlier that it only applies to whoever said it best. But I think its silly to put it out now. I probably wouldnt mind if it was on the PS3 model, but with the time we have left before the next one is ridiculous. I think somebody said that earlier too. Oh well.
Post by: AERO on June 15, 2003, 01:10:56 PM
I don't think it will be all that much cheaper then the other systems. If they can get people to pay $150 dollars for a system they'll do it. At this rate if their making money of the system, then prices for games should start at around $30 or $40 to even things out. That would be a good selling point.
Post by: GaimeGuy on June 15, 2003, 04:43:58 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 15, 2003, 05:17:11 PM
What does it mean?
I thought it was a way of saying that they're both money hungry.
So why isn't it cool?
Post by: AERO on June 16, 2003, 10:19:03 AM
Post by: Uglydot on June 16, 2003, 12:01:07 PM
An argument which is the perfection of logic.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 16, 2003, 02:35:13 PM
Post by: ThePerm on June 20, 2003, 09:57:14 AM
There is an old Rorouni Kenshin game for PSX (PS1). Anyways, i was talking to a freind of mine...poor unfortunate soul. He is a little slow, but i dont hold that against him, he is a great person and at least he's not an asshole. He really is a gamer. He has little taste, but at least he beats the games he gets and that puts him above most casual gamers. Anyways he was a bit confused when he heard about the psx. First he thought it was Ps3, then he thought this Rorouni Kenshin game was only for this Ps3(PSX...um not ps1..um psx..yeah..um yeah....). He told me he was planning on gettign a psx when it comes out and Rorouni Kenshin. I had trouble explaining to him that PsX was just ps2 with a dvd burner and that ps1 and ps2 would play it just fine...i hope he understood.
