Sony's Handheld PSP Revealed

[blee337]

After years of speculation, they did it. Now maybe Nintendo will wake up and put some effort into their next Game Boy.


http://ps2.ign.com/articles/402/402220p1.html

May 13, 2003 - Sony came out swinging today with a major announcement regarding its entry into the handheld market: the PSP. With a screen measuring in at a tidy 4.5 inches, the new device surely must have Nokia, Nintendo and other portable/handheld deck-makers quaking in their boots. In fact, the device is apparently so monumental, it has at least one Sony exec calling the unit "the Walkman of the 21st Century." Additionally, Ken Kutaragi, CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and father of the Playstation commented that the device will be more powerful than the original PlayStation.

And just what makes this wondertoy so appealing? Well, other than the obvious welcome addition to the handheld market, we'd say it's these drool-worthy (and preliminary) specs:


UMD or Universal Media Device. This storage media is 60mm, about half the size of the traditional CD and has a capacity of 1.8GB. That's right GB. Expect massively complex, detailed gaming (for your handheld anyway). 2.4 inches.

ATRAC encoding support (Sony's proprietary sound format used in their minidiscs). This could mean it will be a multi-media device.

Graphics specs are also impressive: NURB technology for rendering with full 3D polygons.

The unit's widescreen LCD screen (480x272, that's the coveted 16:9 ratio we all love) will be backlit.

The unit's sound processing will feature full 3D sound, PCM, and will be "fully reconfigurable."

MIPS 32-bit processor.

Also, a secure ROM cartridge for anti-piracy efforts.

Super-one-chip solution for graphics, sound, etc.

Memory stick.

Rechargeable battery.

CPU: 90 nanometers with a clock speed TBD.

USB 2.0 connection for talking to your PC, cellphone, even your PS2.

Embedded RAM.

Supports additional video codecs (other than MPEG 4.)

We suspect that the PSP will also come equipped with an analog stick and, since the media is disc-based, it may also have a flip-top lid/cover.

IGN is tracking more info on the PSP and hopes to be breaking more news and details about the unit soon.

[RZetlin]

Also, a secure ROM cartridge for anti-piracy efforts.


I give this about a week for the hackers to crack the protection.

[Killtacular]

I hope this system kicks GBA's ass into outer space. Nintendo deserves it for all the stupid stupid things they have done. All the great potential the GBA had, ruined on mediocre ports.

And I'm mostly mad about Nintendo cancelling Donkey Kong Plus to make a Donkey Kong Country port. I'm sorry, but I cannot stay loyal to a company who cancels a sequel to the GREATEST DONKEY KONG GAME EVER (Donkey Kong 95/GB), just to make a cheap buck off of a port they've ALREADY MADE FOR THE GAME BOY COLOR.

[Killtacular]

I have to wonder about the price, though. I doubt it will sell well if it goes above $149.

[SNS]

According to IGN, Donkey Kong Plus's release date is December 31, 2003.

Oh & they are porting Donkey Kong Country to GBA because the GBC version wasn't a good port (they had to downgrade a lot of things).

[Killtacular]

It was a great port. The colors were washed out but it was 100% authentic. There is no reason to port it again.

And IGN don't know jack. If Donkey Kong Plus were still coming, it would be at E3 this year, which it ain't. Last year it was just a technology demo. Now, it's vaporware.

[SNS]

Well, one of the flaws with the game is the cave levels. Often the ground became nearly invisible, something that didn't happen in the SNES version.

[John Miles]

My first thoughts on this is that it seems like it's the end of an era. With Sony's new handheld system making the jump to 3-D, Nintendo's next handheld will pretty much have to support full 3-D graphics. The handheld market was 2-D gaming's last haven, but now I don't think it will be much longer before 2-D sidescrollers and the like are obsolete.

And about the Donkey Kong Country thing: I'm glad they're porting it again. The Game Boy Color version had washed out colors, crappy sound, and slow-down up the wazoo. Plus, the fact that the screen was square made it impossible to see very far in front of you, which really made a lot of the mine cart levels and such a lot harder than they originally were.

In my opinion, they had no business trying to port an SNES game to the Game Boy Color in the first place, and I'm glad they're giving Donkey Kong Country a port that does the game justice this time.

I do agree that there was (and still is) a lot of wasted potential with the GBA, though. We could quite possibly never see an original Mario sidescroller in the GBA's entire lifespan, and that's a crying shame.

[Andrew T. Hingson]

It was a great port. The colors were washed out but it was 100% authentic. There is no reason to port it again.

And IGN don't know jack. If Donkey Kong Plus were still coming, it would be at E3 this year, which it ain't. Last year it was just a technology demo. Now, it's vaporware.

Dont fret Matt you still get your DK game. Mario & Donkey Kong at least has levels from the game you speak of. They must have built that off of their first idea DK Plus. No cube connection that I am aware of though.

I agree DK94 ownz! I remember playing that back in the day. It had the first DK game built in and a ton more levels. Ah memories...

I think the GBA is doing very well. Golden Sun, Metroid: Fusion, Mario Kart: Super Circut, and Advance Wars are plenty of "new" for the system at this point. Ports aren't that bad. They were good games then. Why aren't they good games now (oh I forgot I was talking to Matt... n/m).

I don't think Gameboy will ever be dethroned. It's never had the best hardware (except in GBA's case) but it has always done better. Sega Game Gear, Sega Nomad, Game Com, Wonderswan, Wonderswan Color, Neo Geo Pocket, NGP Color, and the everything else all fell short. Nothing has ever stood up to it's might... ever!

You know why? It's got the games. Gameboy has proven time after time that Hardware isn't everything and I expect they'll do it again.

That being said I think Nokia's N-Gage has incredible graphics and I'm sure PSP will have graphics that are just as good or better, but in truth I don't care about full 3D on portables. I'd only like it for FPS games if anything. I love sprites and if portable gaming kills of 2D gaming then there will be no 2D games other than some PC shovel where and 2D fighters and puzzle games. 2D platformers, adventure games, shooters, and RPG's should live on through the portable systems. If they don't they will be lost and that would be an awful shame. Because as Guilty Gear X and so many other games have proven 2D can look sensational!

[The Jinjo]

Ok, I've been thinking, and this is how it is. Nintendo has a huge lead in the handheld business and if they put up a good fight,can easily make Sony fail this time. But Nintendo never has been one to make good plans during a console war.
What Nintendo needs to do is get a stellar lineup of exclusives for the holiday season that this comes out. Here are some ideas.
- Super Mario World 3
- New Metriod
- a GTA game (nintendo should act on this immediatly after Sony's contract it up. This is the game people will want
- a Resident Evil
- New Zelda
- New Kirby
- New FZERO
- a few new franchises
They should also try to get companies to release some movies for the GBA. If it has a good movie library, people will buy.
Advertise , advertise, advertise!
Some price cuts, (GBA only 49.99, GBA SP only 59.99)
Increase the money earned by 3rd parties for every game sold.
Make some connectivity to the new Nintendo console
And if things really heat up, release a new handheld and drop the kiddy image. No Mario at launch (or Luigi).

Nintendo has a huge lead, and if they start preparing for this now, they have a good chance. They saw what happened to the N64. No one thought that PSX would beat it, and only a little over a year after teh N64 was out, PSX was ahead. Nintendo, get ready, Sony will put up a fight. The last thing Nintendo needs is to lose ground on the system that gives them about 60-70% of their profits.

[Killtacular]

LOL. You think they're going to make a new Mario or Zelda game. That's hilarious.

[Beat]

32 bits?! WHY?!

[Killtacular]

Does it matter how many "bits" it has? I never understood why people obsessed over "bits". That led to some of the lamest flame wars on AOL ever. MY SYSTEM HAS 64 BITS YOURS HAS 32 ROFLROFLROFL##@!!!111

[Shnay]

LOL. You think they're going to make a new Mario or Zelda game. That's hilarious.

I don't know if you were just referring to Nintendo, but Capcom is making a new Zelda game. I think that's been confirmed for a while.

[Beat]

Does it matter how many "bits" it has? I never understood why people obsessed over "bits". That led to some of the lamest flame wars on AOL ever. MY SYSTEM HAS 64 BITS YOURS HAS 32 ROFLROFLROFL##@!!!111

It's insane. The PSP's disks hold more than the Gamecube's,(1.8GB vs. 1.5GB) and yet the console has only a quarter of the power.

[Killtacular]

I don't know if you were just referring to Nintendo, but Capcom is making a new Zelda game. I think that's been confirmed for a while.
Tetra's Trackers is not an actual Zelda game. It's some bizarre spinoff that almost looks like it was designed for much younger gamers.


It's insane. The PSP's disks hold more than the Gamecube's,(1.8GB vs. 1.5GB) and yet the console has only a quarter of the power.
.....right. The power of systems is not determined by the number of bits it has. PCs are 32-bit, and they're obviously not powerful. I mean look at DOOM III, that's obviously not a great looking game.

The power of systems depends on a multitude of things, from the speed of the processor, the strength of the video card, the RAM, etc. Bits have nothing to do with it (except of course for the amount of on-screen colors, I guess).

[Shnay]

I wasn't talking about Tetra's Trackers. Unless I'm mistaken, Capcom is working on a GBA Zelda. Maybe this news changed recently, but I remember hearing this confirmed a while back.

[Jaguar]

Capcom worked on Zelda: Oracle of Seasons/Ages and Link to the Past. If they are working on another I wouldn't be surprised.

[blee337]

Tetra's Trackers is not an actual Zelda game. It's some bizarre spinoff that almost looks like it was designed for much younger gamers.





Shnay's refering to a different game. Capcom is working on a brand new GBA Zelda game. Miyamoto confirmed it at the GDC and said it would be ready to unveil in about a year.

[The Jinjo]

LOL. You think they're going to make a new Mario or Zelda game. That's hilarious.

well, theres a new Mario coming called Mario and Luigi. as for a new Zelda (a real one), I can't prove you wrong there.

[Killtacular]

That's not a Mario sidescroller though. It's a Paper Mario type RPG. Which is cool too. But why can't we have a freakin platform game for the GBA that kicks ass?

[Killtacular]

Okay, another reason for Nintendo to die..

New Metroid = port of NES Metroid.

I don't care what anyone says, this is a stupid idea. Perhaps if they didn't already offer NES Metroid for free with Metroid Prime, I could understand MAKING A QUICK CHEAP BUCK.

And yes, it's quick and cheap. If you honestly think it's hard for them to slap Metroid Fusion graphics on the original Metroid, someone needs to re-educate the tar out of you. I imagine it would take a week at most to import the new tiles/sprites.

And I know where it will go from here.. I'll bet the next Metroid is a port of Metroid 2 with Fusion graphics. Then a port of Super Metroid with Fusion graphics.

That way, Nintendo never has to make a new Metroid ever again, for the remaining lifespan of the GBA.

Sigh.

[SNS]

That would be cool, the entrie Metroid collection will then be on the GBA! :D

*imagines having all the Metroid games portable*

[Killtacular]

You missed the point of my post entirely.

If you want a collection of Metroid games, buy them individually. You can probably get all 3 for under $20.

[Shnay]

And I know where it will go from here.. I'll bet the next Metroid is a port of Metroid 2 with Fusion graphics. Then a port of Super Metroid with Fusion graphics.

That way, Nintendo never has to make a new Metroid ever again, for the remaining lifespan of the GBA.

Sigh.

Well, this is, unfortunately, a possibility, but I don't think it's a given. If this was their strategy, why would they bother with a new Zelda or a new Mario (even if it is just an RPG)? Or why bother with Fusion in the first place?

It seems we get about one original game for every three ports. That sucks big time. But, with the quality of the original games, I'll reluctantly accept it.

[Artemis]

What Sony's PSP needs to do is kick Nintendo in the ass. HARD.

I hope it becomes a serious threat to Nintendo's hold on the handheld market. That way Nintendo will be forced to actually do something with the GBA besides porting old classics. Not that I have a problem with old classics, but I just want to see more actual content on GBA besides Golden Sun, MMBN, and a few other titles. This will hopefully get them to stop resting on their laurels.

[Killtacular]

If this was their strategy, why would they bother with a new Zelda or a new Mario (even if it is just an RPG)?
They do a new Mario because they're out of Mario games to port.

You don't know that the new Zelda game isn't a port or "remake" of Zelda 1 or 2.

[SNS]

Zelda 1 & 2 with GBA graphics & portability? That would rule! :D

BTW, can you merge the other topics about Sony's new system with this one?

[Shnay]

They do a new Mario because they're out of Mario games to port.

Well, not quite, but they're awful close. I see your point.


You don't know that the new Zelda game isn't a port or "remake" of Zelda 1 or 2.

I'm almost positive that they said it would be a completely original game, but I guess that is a possibility.


I hope it becomes a serious threat to Nintendo's hold on the handheld market. That way Nintendo will be forced to actually do something with the GBA besides porting old classics.

You know, I had forgotten entirely what this thread was actually about. The PSP. Right. Yes, I agree, nothing like a little competition to make a company get its act together. The only thing I'm worried about is that it usually takes Nintendo so frickin' long to realise what it's doing wrong (unfortunate rhyme) that it may be a while before we see any change.

[KingKoopa]

I wouldn't mind Metroid 1 & 2 on the GBA at all, but it'd be nice if they made new ones as well.

[blee337]

Okay, another reason for Nintendo to die..

New Metroid = port of NES Metroid.

I don't care what anyone says, this is a stupid idea. Perhaps if they didn't already offer NES Metroid for free with Metroid Prime, I could understand MAKING A QUICK CHEAP BUCK.

And yes, it's quick and cheap. If you honestly think it's hard for them to slap Metroid Fusion graphics on the original Metroid, someone needs to re-educate the tar out of you. I imagine it would take a week at most to import the new tiles/sprites.

And I know where it will go from here.. I'll bet the next Metroid is a port of Metroid 2 with Fusion graphics. Then a port of Super Metroid with Fusion graphics.

That way, Nintendo never has to make a new Metroid ever again, for the remaining lifespan of the GBA.

Sigh.


The top 100 list and this....you are just full of positive thinking lately aren't ya? he he. Just kidding. At least some of your passionate rants have logic behind them.
However, you paint a picture that a lot of people wouldn't mind seeing.

[Andrew T. Hingson]

It has similar levels to the first game, but so did Super Metroid in some aspects. Samus sure can do a heck of alot more in this one from what I've seen on IGN's footage. The dash move was not in NES Metroid and she couldn't aim diagonally or hang on cliffs. I'll say they could have thrown in the aim and the hanging without a hitch, but there are bad guys not found in Metroid 1, Kraid is huge in comparrision to the original (I guess that could be changed as well), and you couldn't dash in Metroid 1. Those are enough reasons for me to believe that it is not a port. Instead it is likely a game that is suppose to come between either Metroid 1 and 2 (like Metroid Prime) or Metroid 2 and Super Metroid. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be before the first game or between Super Metroid and Metroid Fusion.

Truth be told I wouldn't mind a direct port, but I'd want 1 and 2 as a packaged deal. They couldn't do Super Metroid though. Graphicly yes, but there aren't enough buttons unless they cut some corners (which Nintendo has done with past SNES ports *coughYoshisIslandcough*) but for the true experience of Super Metroid they would need four face buttons and the shoulders.

Btw... for new Metroid. What do you call Metroid Fusion and Metroid Prime? Prime 2 is coming out afterall, but if you are saying just for GBA then I could see how you have a valid point since SMB hasn't been new yet. Some games deserve a rehash or port though. Can you say that SMB 3, SMW, and Yoshi's Island on GBA is bad thing? Three of the finest platformers ever. But you know that when the 64-bit GB (and it will be 64-bit according to news in the past, it's based on N64 basically) they're gonna make Super Mario 64 portable. That I'd say is getting excessive... OoT portable on the other hand could be good times, and Smash Bros.... well actually a new SSB would be better in that instance. As would a new everything really... especially Mario Kart!

[Beat]

.....right. The power of systems is not determined by the number of bits it has. PCs are 32-bit, and they're obviously not powerful. I mean look at DOOM III, that's obviously not a great looking game.

The power of systems depends on a multitude of things, from the speed of the processor, the strength of the video card, the RAM, etc. Bits have nothing to do with it (except of course for the amount of on-screen colors, I guess).

Have they released the rest of those specs?

[Hatter]

Man, and I thought there was nothing that Sony could do to make me hate them even more...

Why do they have this vendetta against Nintendo? Are they still bitter about the SNES-CD thing? They're just not out for business, they're out for blood. They want to crush Nintendo utterly.

Jesus... it was bad enough that they ruined a golden age of gaming...
Back in the 16-bit days, the only major players were Nintendo & Sega. They were in competition, yes, but it was a friendly competition. These two companies are kindred spirits, and I think they realized that. They just wanted to make quality games.

Then Sony had to decide that it wasn't enough to just have a stranglehold on the majority of the electronics market. They had to stick their dirty hands into everyone's business. So they started playing dirty. They were pushing out dozens of PSX games per month - they only cared about quantity, not quality. Since they lacked in-house developers of their own, they decided to simply buy out the second-parties. Waving wads of bills under their noses. Ensuring that all of the industry's talent would be theirs.

Sega couldn't keep up with the new competition. But Nintendo adamantly refused to change their way of life. It was just a matter of quality games for them.

Then Sony releases the PS2, one of the most over-hyped, user-unfriendly pieces of plastic the market has ever seen. It's telling that it didn't have a single decent game in its first year of release. With their marketing strategy of only appealing to males who were too "kewl" and "mature" for Nintendo, they managed to snare the dollars of a demographic that doesn't deserve to be appealed to.

They managed to push Nintendo to second-place.
And then Microsoft came along and pulled a "Sony" of their own.
Jesus, what's next, the General Motors Game-Box?

Of course, threatening to destroy Nintendo's console market wasn't enough for Sony... they just HAD to entend their greedy reach to the handheld market, Nintendo's last bastion of pure gaming quality.
And of course, they missed the point of handhelds completely... the games are meant to be simple. I don't know why anyone would want to play a quick game of Metal Gear Solid 2 between classes. Although frankly, considering their past, I'm suprised they didn't try to fit in a cellphone, pager, and PDA along with the gaming hardware - "the ultimate extreme portable system!"
I hope with all of my heart that the PSP fails miserably.

You may wonder why I'm so bitter towards Sony -
Nintendo has been a part of my life since I was very young. The pure quality and genius of their games have been a constant in my life. The first game I ever played, I ever owned, was Super Mario Bros. I grew up watching Mario cartoons.
I am not going to watch as a greedy, soulless multinational corporation destroy the company that has given me so much joy in my life.
I'm not going to let them kill Mario.

May Sony rot in hell for ruining the videogame industry forever.

[JDuncan]

Of course, threatening to destroy Nintendo's console market wasn't enough for Sony... they just HAD to entend their greedy reach to the handheld market, Nintendo's last bastion of pure gaming quality.
And of course, they missed the point of handhelds completely... the games are meant to be simple. I don't know why anyone would want to play a quick game of Metal Gear Solid 2 between classes. Although frankly, considering their past, I'm suprised they didn't try to fit in a cellphone, pager, and PDA along with the gaming hardware - "the ultimate extreme portable system!"
I hope with all of my heart that the PSP fails miserably.
Pure gaming quality? Nintendo's made one great game for the GBA, and a ****load of ports. They, and most other companies, use it as a dumping ground. I hope the PSP lights a fire under Nintendo's ass and forces them to put out more original quality content.

[Killtacular]

No offense, but Nintendo ruined the videogame industry by encouraging everyone to fall in line. The N64 came out before the PSX, after all. Do people forget how smug Nintendo was about the "Ultra 64"'s success? I guess so. Well, I remember.

Seriously, noone ruined the videogame industry. If you think the PSX invented "quantity, not quality", you're wrong. Ever heard of a system called the SNES? or the NES? Or the Atari, for that matter? Atari was DONE IN by their attempt at quantity over quality, as a matter of fact.

And second parties.. once again, I must point out that Nintendo was the company that forged those kind of partnerships before Sony did. As anyone of intelligence would tell you, the reason the PSX survived and the N64 didn't had nothing to do with the first or second party games, but the third party support. Companies just liked the PSX more. Sony was very supportive towards new developers (Net Yaroze, anyone?). I wish I could say the same for Nintendo, but I can't.

The reason Sega died was because they came into the market too early, and the hardware was severely limited in comparison to the other systems coming out. Theoretically, Sony's brand name did help sell the PS2, but it was an earned reputation, not a bought reputation. Dreamcast, like N64, relied too much on Sega's own games and not third-party. They were too ambituous for their own good.

Your comments towards the PS2 are biased and incorrect, so they don't deserve my opinion.

Perhaps the Game Boy was for quick light games, but gamers demand and expect more from the GBA, which it has consistently failed to deliver. Companies don't give it respect, because it's just a toy to them. And it is, really, as long as Nintendo treats it like garbage. They deserve an ass-kicking.

By the way, "greedy, soulless multinational corporation" fits Nintendo's description too.

[SNS]

The N64 came out before the PSX, after all.

The N64 came out in 1996 & the Playstation came out in 1995, so I have no idea what you are talking about.


Do people forget how smug Nintendo was about the "Ultra 64"'s success? I guess so. Well, I remember.

Why wouldn't they be? Their systems had always done well & Sony was using a medium which had never done well.


Ever heard of a system called the SNES? or the NES?

Yes, two great systems with many great games (especially the SNES).


The reason Sega died was because they came into the market too early

No, the main reason was the financial problems they had before the system was even out.


Dreamcast, like N64, relied too much on Sega's own games and not third-party. They were too ambituous for their own good.

You can't blame them for the third party companies sticking with Sony, they can't force them to make games for their systems.


Perhaps the Game Boy was for quick light games, but gamers demand and expect more from the GBA, which it has consistently failed to deliver. Companies don't give it respect, because it's just a toy to them. And it is, really, as long as Nintendo treats it like garbage. They deserve an ass-kicking.

Yeah, after all it's terrible to play SNES classics portably :rolleyes:


By the way, "greedy, soulless multinational corporation" fits Nintendo's description too.

Yes, the company that has produced some of the greatest vidoe games ever created & is responsible for their revival is greedy & soulless :rolleyes:

[Killtacular]

The fanboys... surrounding me with their evil..


Yes, two great systems with many great games (especially the SNES).
And many bad games. But of course, people pretend those don't exist. NES and SNES were littered with poor games. All systems are. To imply that one system has less or more bad games than another is ultimately foolish. Even Dreamcast had its share of bad games (most of them third-party, but a couple of them first-party).


No, the main reason was the financial problems they had before the system was even out.
Their finances didn't become a problem until after PS2 beat the crap out of them. By that point that were less profitable than a milk company that poisoned Japanese schoolchildren.

Being in the red has nothing to do with it. Losing money on hardware sales doesn't matter (all companies lose money). What matters is the software sales. And it was the lack of third-party software that screwed Sega. Of course, that was because people were generally interested in the PS2. Though most people considered the Dreamcast the easiest to program for, the PS2 was technically more worth salivating over.


You can't blame them for the third party companies sticking with Sony, they can't force them to make games for their systems.
Noone forced anyone. For a company to be forced to make games for PS2 would be SECOND-PARTY. The third-party companies CHOSE to do games for PS2 because they felt it would be way more popular, and they were right on the money.


Yeah, after all it's terrible to play SNES classics portably
It is when they replace new, original installments of those classics. What if Nintendo cancelled Super Mario 128 and decided to port Super Mario 64 to the Gamecube instead? I'd like to see people defend them THEN. Noone understands until it hits close to home.


Yes, the company that has produced some of the greatest vidoe games ever created & is responsible for their revival is greedy & soulless
Sorry if that's too much for you to handle.

[Evil Dr. Reef]

WHY DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO FIGHT? IHATEYOUIHATEYOUIHATEYOU!

Jesus Christ, everyone calm down.

[SNS]

Noone forced anyone. For a company to be forced to make games for PS2 would be SECOND-PARTY. The third-party companies CHOSE to do games for PS2 because they felt it would be way more popular, and they were right on the money.

I wasn't saying their were forced, I was just saying that Nintendo & Sega shouldn't be blamed for the third parties picking Sony over them.

[Killtacular]

People shouldn't get mad at Sony then.