Sony's Next Generation Portable unveiling - PSP2 in disguise
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
You said it yourself: the traditional model is on the way out. Why stick to something that's doomed? As long as there's full backwards compatibility it doesn't really matter. It would be more complicated if they switch to SGX544 or SGX554 for some reason but even then it might still work. Obviously switching to Rogue wouldn't work though.
Right, so you need to consider both volume and profit. The problem for volume is price, differentiation with smartphones, and the burden of carrying yet another device. Obviously you need a low price to mitigate the impact of the other two points and so the second problem is profit. And the question there is whether you can make enough money back with royalties on software sales. The difficulty is the App Store model putting pressure on game prices and the traditional model giving too much money to retail stores.
Let's put the bar for success volume-wise at about 50M units. If Sony wants to succeed there, IMO they need to sell the PS Vita at $199 for the 2012 Holidays and then before the 2013 Holidays start selling a model with much faster graphics, a 3D Display, and a focus it around a PSP Go-like digital distribution model. Will they do that? Meh, who knows.
Long-term they obviously need to integrate this stuff inside a smartphone ala XPeria Play but with the exact same chip (or rather the 28nm shrink for the faster version) for full backwards compatibility and next to a baseband with its own application processor. Once again, who knows whether they'll do that in time to stay relevant (their inability to do so with the original PSP isn't encouraging).
Seems a bit premature to be talking about the next gen (which might well never exist) before this one is out the door, but I'll join in
I'm not sure why you took rogue out of the equation (as you indicated in a previous post). Clearly the existing system must surely be using some sort driver API calls, lets call them SGX driver. It has to be doable for rogue systems to intercept these and emulate the functionality, as well as having its own API.
Also, alternatively/additionally,assuming they do transtition to a digital download format, the download system could transparently select an appropriate build depending on the device requesting the download.
I agree that a more pertinent point is whether this type of device will be relevant enought in 2 years time to justify investment.
A company like sony, doesn't sound likely. If they drew the line at a higher level of abstraction - or offered a higher abstraction as an option, then it could work even for rogue.
Vita was targeted at $249. 3DS is @ $169. Smartphones go for $199. So far, not much of a difference. Besides, what might you save in a console apart from a baseband? The rest of the hw is deemed sine qua non even in consoles. And where is the subsidizing opportunity? Games have to sell for 9.99, preferably less.
You could try 3D gimmicks. But I am not convinced 3D is ready yet.
Apple is doing ~100M/yr. 50M over 5 years, just how pathetic the hw would be?
Exactly, have lots of phones, all PSP certified and make PS4 an uber PSP.
Yup. That's on top of the media costs. In addition, as I have mentioned before, not every game type will adapt to touch screen controls, and you sure as hell aren't going to find Pokémon on a smartphone any time soon.
People keep underestimating the Pokémon factor. The series is selling more and more units as time goes by.
Edit: Obviously, this only applies to the 3DS. For the Vita, who knows what will happen there.
I think the argument that smartphones require a 2 year contract + data costs is kinda irrelevent. For one 99.9% of people stay with the same phone number and same carrier for years at a time. They don't jump from one carrier to the next from month to month and change phone #s from month to month...lol. What that basically means is there's basically zero incentive to NOT sign a 2 yr contract.
Now with that said last time I checked you need to pay for phone service just as you need to pay for cable TV just as you need to pay for internet service....duh...is that now supposed to be an argument against smartphones? I don't think so. Whether you buy a smartphone or non-smartphone you will need to pay for phone service unless you just want the phone but don't want to use it as a phone...*facepalm*.
Now if you want to keep arguing that point then I give you the iPod Touch which DOES NOT require a contract....duh...and it doesn't require a data plan either....double duh. The 8GB model MSRP is $229 and the 32GB one is $299 both are basically iPhone 4 without the phone capability. They're basically portable music, game, media, internet, computing devices with built-in storage.
Carry on with stupid dumb tired argument that doesn't hold water...
Now with that said last time I checked you need to pay for phone service just as you need to pay for cable TV just as you need to pay for internet service....duh...is that now supposed to be an argument against smartphones? I don't think so. Whether you buy a smartphone or non-smartphone you will need to pay for phone service unless you just want the phone but don't want to use it as a phone...*facepalm*.
Now if you want to keep arguing that point then I give you the iPod Touch which DOES NOT require a contract....duh...and it doesn't require a data plan either....double duh. The 8GB model MSRP is $229 and the 32GB one is $299 both are basically iPhone 4 without the phone capability. They're basically portable music, game, media, internet, computing devices with built-in storage.
Carry on with stupid dumb tired argument that doesn't hold water...
Last edited by a moderator:
The point is people don't buy smartphones as gaming consoles. They buy them because they are PHONES that can play games and do lots of other things so the extra cost for "phone service" is irrelevent as is the contract. People don't change phone numbers every month nor do they change carriers every month.
Do people buy cars and complain they have to pay weekly for gas for the car to work? Do people buy toothbrushes and complain they have to pay extra for tooth paste? Do people complain they have to pay extra to buy batteries for their flash lights?
Can you surf the internet or check your email on a dedicated portable gaming console when there is no WiFi around?
Do you know why more iPhones are sold than iPod Touches even though they require a *cough* 2-year contract and data plan? Answer...because those extra costs are irrelevent.
The 3G version of PS Vita will require a data plan to use...*gasp*...
The sky is blue is a statement of fact....what's your point?
Do people buy cars and complain they have to pay weekly for gas for the car to work? Do people buy toothbrushes and complain they have to pay extra for tooth paste? Do people complain they have to pay extra to buy batteries for their flash lights?
Can you surf the internet or check your email on a dedicated portable gaming console when there is no WiFi around?
Do you know why more iPhones are sold than iPod Touches even though they require a *cough* 2-year contract and data plan? Answer...because those extra costs are irrelevent.
The 3G version of PS Vita will require a data plan to use...*gasp*...
The sky is blue is a statement of fact....what's your point?
Last edited by a moderator:
My point is it's IRRELEVANT to the discussion so why do your type aways bring it up???
When people buy cars they don't add up the cost of gas for the life of car ownership....it's STUPID and IRRELEVANT.
Going by your logic the real cost of my smartphone ends up costing tens of thousands of dollars if I stay with ATT for the rest of my life? Do you know how stupid that sounds? I guess that means my cable box costs thousands of dollars too...and my toothbrush cost $100...
Oh and the real cost of my socks and underwear aren't really just a few dollars because in actuality they total hundreds of dollars because of all the water and detergent needed to clean them...
When people buy cars they don't add up the cost of gas for the life of car ownership....it's STUPID and IRRELEVANT.
Going by your logic the real cost of my smartphone ends up costing tens of thousands of dollars if I stay with ATT for the rest of my life?
Do you know how stupid that sounds? I guess that means my cable box costs thousands of dollars too...and my toothbrush cost $100...Oh and the real cost of my socks and underwear aren't really just a few dollars because in actuality they total hundreds of dollars because of all the water and detergent needed to clean them...
Last edited by a moderator:
ltcommander.data
Regular
Bringing up the iPod Touch as Apple's most direct competitor to the PSP2, I wonder about those rumours of the next iPod Touch being on a minor refresh from the current iPod4,1 to iPod4,2. Presumably it'll still be A4 based, probably with 512MB of RAM like the iPhone 4, and if lucky a clock speed bump perhaps to iPad 1GHz levels. That would put the iPod Touch above the iPhone 4, but still leave it a generation behind the PSP2 whereas an A5 based device would arguably be the same generation as the PSP2 just slower. Given Apple's yearly refresh cycles that would give the PSP2 nearly a year in Japan and 6 months in the rest of the world, of a very distinct hardware performance advantage. Given Apple has previously been pushing the iPod Touch as a portable gaming device, it's hard to believe they would basically give up on this market by not providing an aggressive hardware refresh to meet the PSP2 launch and the 3DS's new price point.
Unless, Apple is going to refocus the iPod Touch on competing by price instead of specs, perhaps replacing the iPod Nano while it's at it. An A4 based iPod Touch for $149, the 3DS for $169, the PSP2 for $249, and say the rumoured $349 contractless cost-reduced iPhone 4 would make for a interesting landscape for consumers to choose from.
RudeCurve's right on this. Running costs aren't always factored in except perhaps comparing phone contracts. Initial purchase looks at the amount of money people shell out to acquire the product. This perhaps explains the world credit mess, where people aren't somewhat oblivious to the total ongoing costs they accumulate.
But regards buying a smart phone or a Vita, if the intention of the smart phone is to play games, then the question of choice based on cost will be, "how much of my current bank balance do I have to give up to get that phone versus that Vita?" There's little to no consideration of long-term cost. Alternative buyers might compare costs and go with a simpler phone (there are suprisingly functional £30 devices available) and a Vita. Of course that's two devices, but the trade is in functionality, and the cost of a second device gains the advantage of a dedicate gaming device with gaming controls. That's probably not practical in a lot of cases. Still, there are lots of pros and cons to weigh up, but the cost one isn't you portray it, any more than when someone buys a PSP they add in the cost of all those games they are going to buy. PSP plus 10 £20 games would cost £300, where a smart phone for £300 plus 10 £2 games will cost about the same, but no-one's going to look at a £100 PSP and consider it the same cost as a £300 smart phone.
