Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Announces "Qore" Playstation Bundle

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the pay-to-view-ads dept.

Sony 82

Sony Computer Entertainment America has announced a new subscription-based, multimedia, Playstation bundle that promises to feature developer interviews, game previews, demos, betas, and add-ons all delivered in high definition. Supposedly hitting the streets on June 5th, "Qore," seems an awful lot like paying to get more advertising. Hopefully the playable gems make this (admittedly cheap) service worth it.

cancel ×

82 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I don't understand why it's bad (4, Funny)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641567)

How can it be bad if it has Q in the name? The only way I would want it more is if it was named "QoreX" or "XCore".

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (1)

dissolved (887190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641587)

Or XCore Live?

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23641617)

How about XQrutiating?

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (3, Funny)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641857)

at least they didn't call it Q-ray or Qu-ray cuz they totally could have after they assasinated the e in Blu-Ray

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (1, Funny)

BirdDoggy (886894) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642173)

Sounds pretty qay to me.

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (4, Insightful)

JordanL (886154) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642199)

Most posters here seem like they are completely lost.

Not surprised with the uninformative summary though. This is basically a digital subscription to a multimedia version of a PlayStation Magazine. It's a more convenient, and slightly cheaper, alternative for those who love picking up gaming mags. No grand scheme of villany here, just a giant company changing their business model to reflect the changes in technology and consumer expectations.

Which if I recall correctly is something people here are usually begging for.

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23642907)

No grand scheme of villany here, just a giant company changing their business model to reflect the changes in technology and consumer expectations.

Which if I recall correctly is something people here are usually begging for.


{knee jerk reaction}
But ... but ... its Sony!

It MUST be E-V-I-L. ... right? {clricket chirp}
{/knee jerk reaction}

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (2, Informative)

revengebomber (1080189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23647603)

They're talking about having "exclusive demos and beta access". It actually sounds like Sony's trying to start charging for their online service, one part at a time.

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23655873)

Exclusive demos and beta access is what gaming magazines do, numb nuts.

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (0, Redundant)

qoncept (599709) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642407)

How can it be bad if it has Q in the name? The only way I would want it more is if it was named "QoreX" or "XCore".

I hate it when people do things like that.

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (1)

loafula (1080631) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642781)

How can it be bad if it has Q in the name? The only way I would want it more is if it was named "QoreX" or "XCore".
I am holding out for the iQore.

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (1)

Kavorkian_scarf (1272422) | more than 6 years ago | (#23645343)

the HCore would have been cool too.

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (1)

grayshirtninja (1242690) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643255)

So does anyone at Sony actually know how to spell?

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (1)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23646775)

Or HardQore?

Re:I don't understand why it's bad (1)

CogDissident (951207) | more than 6 years ago | (#23656689)

HardWar? What? Oh, nevermind, thought they were bringing back one of the best sci-fi games ever.

Odd. (2, Interesting)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641581)

At first I thought the summary was lacking, but there isn't even a mention of "PS3" anywhere in the article either. I take it this isn't limited to the ps3?

Re:Odd. (2, Informative)

Jor-Al (1298017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641657)

I take it this isn't limited to the ps3?
Since nothing in the Playstation family but the PS3 is able to play high definition content, it can be safely assumed to be PS3 only.

Re:Odd. (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641699)

I wasn't sure about the PSP.

Re:Odd. (1)

Jor-Al (1298017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641929)

But since the summary says that the content is "all delivered in high definition", then the PSP would be left out of this. This is all working under the assumption that this content is only in high def.

Re:Odd. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23648339)

GT4 for the PS2 supports 1080i AFAIK.

Re:Odd. (1)

Jor-Al (1298017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23655143)

There is no GTA4 for the PS2. WTF are you smoking?

Re:Odd. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23664409)

Where did you get the A from? GT and GTA are different series, GT stands for Gran Tourismo.

Re:Odd. (1)

Kelz (611260) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641685)

I think its sort of like an online magazine that you access through a PS3, with the benefit of more media attached than like a normal demo disk. Seems a good idea, if only to get into the confrontation beta.

Re:Odd. (3, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642985)

To quote the original Sony Blog entry http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/06/03/introducing-qore-taking-you-behind-the-curtain-with-playstation/ [playstation.com] :

To get Qore, simply log onto PSN and go to the PLAYSTATION Store, as you would purchase any other form of downloadable content. Once the single Episode or annual subscription is purchased, that month's episode will be downloaded under the "Game" heading on the Cross Media Bar (XMB). Users who purchase the "Qore Annual Subscription" will notice only that month's episode is available to download. The following month, the new episode will automatically appear in your download list.


So yes, its limited to the PS3. Its basically an electronic version of a "dead tree" PlayStation Magazine.

Personally I'm pretty excited about the idea of an "old style idea" (PlayStation Magazine) being adapted to a new media (made for on-line, Downloadable, Pay on-line, Automatically downloaded as soon as its available each month).

Re:Odd. (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 6 years ago | (#23645119)

The HD magazine in question is installed as a 'game' on the hard drive of the PS3 and is purchased and installed through the PSN Store via the PS3. The content _may_ be viewable elsewhere (such as on a PSP or via memory stick transfer) but there's no mention of such capabilities in their blog [playstation.com] on the issue.

Ownership (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641635)

I have to say any subscription based service makes me uneasy. What happens when they shut down the shop and I can't access my favorite game? What's going to happen to the classic gaming scene in 20 years, when all these subscription services have been down for years and you can't find a working console anymore?

I spend a lot more of my time and money playing classic games than new ones, I have 30 year old consoles that work flawlessly today. I just hope emulators for the current generation of systems get really good really quick.

Re:Ownership (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641687)

This is about a video. That you can download. And watch. For $2.99 an episode or $24.99 for 12 episodes. Games need not apply.

Re:Ownership (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23642253)

It's not just video. It's also "exclusive downloadable content" that includes addons to existing games and demos of games. There's no reason why this might not eventually spread to full minigames.

And it's Sony. Of course it's going to be DRMed up the wazoo. They've already announced that you'll need to be connected to the PlayStation Network with a valid PlayStation Network account in order to use any of the stuff you get through Qore.

And since it's Sony, we also know that they love to kill access to old services without warning. So when the PS4 comes out with the new PS4 CrappyLiveCloneNetwork, expect the old PS3 services to suddenly stop working without any warning.

Re:Ownership (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23647059)

Oh, a vague announcement of "exclusive downloadable content" which you won't find out until you buy the product? Can you say, "Be Sure to Drink Your Ovaltine" five times fast?

To be fair, it makes very no business sense to keep the old services going when a) they're not driving new sales, and b) customers continue to buy sony crap even after being burned several times.

Re:Ownership (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643021)

For $2.99 an episode or $24.99 for 12 episodes.


Just a nitpick, but the Sony blog says its $24.99 for 13 episodes.

Not sure if there is one planned "Holiday Special" or something, or they are just including the starting and ending month in the year.

Re:Ownership (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643299)

Or maybe it comes out every two weeks (52 weeks in a year).

Re:Ownership (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643557)

Or maybe it comes out every two weeks (52 weeks in a year).


Well ... "the fine article" mentions it coming out once a month, and mentions 13 issues in an "Annual" subscription, so I'm not really sure how that would work out.

Re:Ownership (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643607)

Oh wow, I was way off. I meant to say every 4 weeks. While not technically correct (except for February) a lot of people consider a month to be 4 weeks long. So every 4 weeks would be once a month, but you would end up with 13 in a year.

Re:Ownership (1)

GoodbyeBlueSky1 (176887) | more than 6 years ago | (#23646755)

Did you forget about Smarch [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Ownership (3, Insightful)

TypoNAM (695420) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641907)

The entertainment industry (Music: RIAA, Movies/TV:MPAA, Gaming: EA Games, etc..) wants it all it go subscription only so that they have complete control while the consumer has none. They want to either annually or monthly make you pay out of the nose so to speak for their "Intellectual property" of which according to them you're not buying the product instead you're licensing it.

I believe things are just going to get worse once the majority are convinced it's more "convenient" to just subscribe for movies, games, music and such instead of buying a hard copy. By then there won't be any alternatives to getting your fix of media except their "approved" subscription providers of content delivery services. Cause once they don't get their periodic payments they simply lock you out and only option you've got is pay to restore the subscription (of course there will be a re-activation fee). Then they'll start to decide on what content you'll get. Say they figure it's cheaper and easier just to provide music that is nothing more but remixes of past decade's music and not release anything unqiue or new until they feel they've squeezed every last penny possible out of it.

There's quite many different views to be taken on this whole subscription based media content and the reality is that they simply want to have complete control over their products and ultimately you as to what you've got access to, when, how, and limited iterations of playback without further payments.

Maybe I shouldn't post such dark discussions as they could be used as blueprints of world conquest by the entertainment industry. ;)

Re:Ownership (2, Insightful)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641911)

This sounds like a magazine more than anything else. Not like the Virtual Console or XBLA. I doubt anybody's going to care about the content released through Qore next year, let alone 20 years from now.

Re:Ownership (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23648349)

The Virtual Console is just for ROMs, there's a "Nintendo Channel" now that delivers videos, ads and demos (the latter only for DS games though).

I have to say (1)

hassanchop (1261914) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641983)

"I have to say any subscription based service makes me uneasy."

No one cares.

Re:I have to say (2, Informative)

pure_chownage (1297733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23645523)

"No one cares." Surely he's not the only one who is made to feel uneasy about subscription services. I'm sure all of *those* people care.

Re:I have to say (1)

hassanchop (1261914) | more than 6 years ago | (#23660323)

I'm sure all of *those* people care.


I was talking about his whining opinion, not subscription services themselves.

Are you always in a rush to be wrong and look retarded by responding to something you don't understand like you did here? Because you sound very moronic spouting off on something without having the slightest idea what the fuck you're actually responding to.

Re:I have to say (1)

pure_chownage (1297733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23664651)

erm... no. I was not talking about the services themselves but people's feelings towards them.

At no point did I state that subscription services *aren't* trustworthy, merely that people may believe they're not to be trusted for whatever reason.

So the question is: "Are *you* always in a rush to be wrong and look retarded by responding to something you don't understand...?"

Don't be so quick to assume what people mean...

Wow you're a fucking reatrd (1)

hassanchop (1261914) | more than 6 years ago | (#23680369)

erm... no. I was not talking about the services themselves but people's feelings towards them.


I didn't claim YOU were talking about ANYTHING, so once again you look like an idiot.

So the question is: "Are *you* always in a rush to be wrong and look retarded by responding to something you don't understand...?"


Nope. And since I didn't do that in this case either, what the fuck are you running your dicksucker about?\

Don't be so quick to assume what people mean...


You mean like you did in this very post?

How fucking stupid are you?

Re:Ownership (3, Funny)

grm_wnr (781219) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642193)

I have to say any subscription based service makes me uneasy.
You probably bought the internet wholesale instead of subscribing for access to it. Right?

Re:Ownership (1)

AdamThor (995520) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642325)

I feel the same way about steam. But their content is good enough that people can't bring themselves to care.

Re:Ownership (1)

MarkAyen (726688) | more than 6 years ago | (#23653057)

I find it impossible to get all bent out of shape over the prospect that I may not be able to access game demos and videos at some hypothetical point down the road when Sony decides to turn off the Qore content servers. While I still have my Xbox demo disks from 2001, I probably haven't used most of them since... well... probably 2001. I certainly can't imagine a scenario where I'll consider it a major loss if I can't access them ten years from now.

I'm a lot more concerned about my XBLA games. Most of them were purchased before my 360 red-ringed and I certainly can imagine that I might like to play them ten-plus years from now. It would be nice if they would strip the DRM from them before they turn off the authentication servers.

Everyone seems to agree that digital distribution is the future, but thinking it's going to happen without DRM is self-delusion.

Note to Sony (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641665)

This is the type of service you offer to milk your customers by charging them to watch advertisement AFTER you have a large fan base of fervent fanboys, not before.

Re:Note to Sony (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642255)

Where have you been for the last decade?

Re:Note to Sony (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642861)

I've been here, watching Sony build a gigantic empire only to see it crumble under the fail that is the PS3.

Re:Note to Sony (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643115)

So you saw the large fan-base and chose to ignore them?

Also, I hate to spoil your flaming, but it seems highly likely that the PS3 will be the best-selling high-def console of the current generation. It'll also likely be the only profitable high-def console this generation. What definition of "fail" are you using, exactly?

Re:Note to Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23643451)

What definition of "fail" are you using, exactly?

He's using it in the Alanis Morisette/Ironic sense, don't you think?

Re:Note to Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23644595)

He's using the same definition of "fail" as I do when referring to the PS3.
The failure to put it in our price range :( :( :(

Re:Note to Sony (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23650371)

Yeah, that's the definition I thought he was using.

I'd phrase it differently though. I'd call it "My mommy bought me a 360".

Re:Note to Sony (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23645115)

Is it standard now to use the "high-def" criteria when discussing the current console generation, so as to exclude the vastly better-selling Wii?

That's a bit like when the New York Times Bestseller List redefined itself to exclude Harry Potter books.

Re:Note to Sony (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23647089)

I'd like to read an article or editorial or something about that NYT thing. Got a cite?

Re:Note to Sony (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#23647735)

Try here. [salon.com]

Even funnier, after they created a "children's bestseller" list (so they could continue to use the adult's bestseller list as a marketing tool), the publishers of kid's books got ticked that the Potter books dominated that list, and shortly thereafter the NYT created another list, this time for "children's bestselling serials." That way, they could put Harry Potter in its own little corner, where it wouldn't embarrass the rest of the publishing world with its success.

Sony doesn't get it (1)

stewbee (1019450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641677)

Why would someone want to pay money for this? Will you get the ZOMG! level 50+6 two handed broadsword? If you are going to have online distribution, make it worthwhile. Take for example the Wii. There you can get plenty of old Nintendo and Sega games for a reasonable price. I know that Sony may not have the exclusive back library that Nintendo has, but you would think that they would find some of their old partners to revive the games and sell them online.

Re:Sony doesn't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23642447)

Considering that the PSX and PS2 were both considered to be incredibly popular consoles (PS3 probably gets the talk at dinner every night "Why can't you be like your older brothers?")

Release some of their old games on the network and you'll see rabid fans buying it up. Breath of Fire 3, Vandal Hearts, FFVII, FFVIII, Monster Rancher 1&2, Wild Arms 1&2, Symphony of the Night, Heart of Darkness, Silent Hill are just a few that come to mind. There are other ways to play many of these games, (psp/xbox live/emulators) but that doesn't stop Nintendo from raking in money with virtual console or DS/GBA remakes.

Re:Sony doesn't get it (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642885)

While it's only one of the ones you mention, you can download Wild Arms for the PS3. (I just found it while searching around for more info on downloadable games.)

Re:Sony doesn't get it (2, Interesting)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642989)

You can actually download Symphony of the Night and Wild Arms on the Playstation Network. The games work on either the PS3 or PSP.

Re:Sony doesn't get it (2, Interesting)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642935)

TFA says that you get "Calling All Cars" for free with an annual subscription. I can't tell how much that costs in a quick search, but TFA also talks about added content for other games. Stating the obvious: If you play the games the issues have addons for, it could be worth it.

Looking around the playstation network, I saw 70 games available for download for the PS3. I have no idea if that compares to the Wii's download library, but it does exist.

(BTW, I own neither a PS3 nor a Wii.)

Re:Sony doesn't get it (2, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643141)

"but you would think that they would find some of their old partners to revive the games and sell them online."

Most of their "old partners" would rather sell remakes at full price rather than the original games for a $10 download. Square-Enix, for example, has made it quite clear that you'll never see any old games with the words "Final Fantasy" or "Dragon Quest" in the title on any download service; they'd rather sell you Tactics as a $40 PSP game, or Origins as two separate $30 titles. Konami's SotN seems to be an aberration, and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't simply responding to some sort of pressure after releasing it on Xbox Live (and it's currently the most expensive PS1 downloadable by far).

There's also holes in the other download services as well (I'm not seeing the phrase "Mega Man" anywhere near the Virtual Console, not even Soccer), but the consoles supported by the Wii were and are all heavily supported by their respective manufacturers' first-party titles (Nintendo, Sega, Hudson, SNK, etc.). The original Xbox, like Sony's consoles, had a small number of self-published hits, and Xbox Live's collection of downloadable Xbox titles, dominated by Microsoft titles, is even smaller than Sony's.

To their credit, Sony's library of downloadable PS1 games is larger than Nintendo's N64 offerings, and I doubt there's any technical reason why many of the Virtual Console games can't be transferred to the DS, as Sony offers with the PSP. But Sony introduced a new approach to video game consoles with the original PlayStation, one that only really supplied hardware and let third parties handle almost all software sales. And unless those third parties see compelling reasons (read "cash") to release their back-catalog as-is instead of super duper ultra mega high-definition re-re-re-re-re-re-releases (complete with artwork and director's interviews), what you're seeing on the PlayStation Store is about as good as things can possibly get.

If persistent rumors of Super Mario RPG showing up in the Virtual Console end up being true and Square-Enix starts seeing some fat checks from their stake in the title, then you might see the third-party situation start to turn around on all three consoles. But it's a big "if" and even then I doubt things would change overnight.

Re:Sony doesn't get it (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23648533)

Square-Enix, for example, has made it quite clear that you'll never see any old games with the words "Final Fantasy" or "Dragon Quest" in the title on any download service;

Should be mentioned that only applies to OLD games, they do release NEW games for download services like FF Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King for the Wii (the one notorious for the huge amounts of "horse armor" you can buy).

I'm not seeing the phrase "Mega Man" anywhere near the Virtual Console

Megaman 1 and 2 are released on the VC.

Re:Sony doesn't get it (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 6 years ago | (#23652679)

"Should be mentioned that only applies to OLD games,"

Which I did. After all, I was responding to "Where's the PlayStation 1 back catalog?"

"Megaman 1 and 2 are released on the VC."

Only in the PAL regions, it seems.

Re:Sony doesn't get it (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23664399)

Only in the PAL regions, it seems.

Hm, I'd guess that's because none of the compilation discs were released here...

Doesn't Sony get it? (1)

rock56501 (1301287) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641791)

This just in... Sony developes a new worthless product and expects the public in large to pay for it.

What the Quck (4, Insightful)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#23641943)


If I'm interpreting this announcement correctly, this is pretty much the same thing as the "Nintendo Channel" that launched on Wii a couple of weeks ago, except all the advertorial content is in High Definition. And you have to pay for it.

Who qares?

Re:What the Quck (1, Informative)

Robert1 (513674) | more than 6 years ago | (#23644439)

People who have a PS3 come to mind.

Re:What the Quck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23647509)

yeah, the poor deluded fanboys that they are

Re:What the Quck (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 6 years ago | (#23651481)

Not sure. I have a PS3 and I don't really qare about this... However, this is just me. If they really want to win me over, make it so their online content is more easily navigated.

Half the time I can't tell if I'm getting a demo or a film preview or what... Now if you'll excuse me, I smell fanboi on the way... *dons asbestos undies* There we go. Nice and snug!

Does this mean the 80GB PS3 is finally back? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23642039)

Does this mean the 80GB PS3 is finally back?

Reads the article.

Oh, damn, not that kind of bundle. This is just a subscription service to receive trailers for $3/month on your PS3 over your already-existing broadband connection.

OK, not just trailers, you also get "exclusive downloadable content" but without any, say, details, I don't see why I'd want it. (Until I know that it won't be stupid things like "the character you already have, but with a green jacket" I'd rather not spend $3.)

Of course, I'm not going to be spending ANYTHING on it, since Sony has dropped the 80GB model. You know, the one with quasi-PS2 backwards compatibility, versus the 40GB one that has NO PS2 backwards compatibility, versus the 20GB and 60GB ones that have full PS2 backwards compatibility? (And, yes, the size of the hard drive is the ONLY way to tell them apart. Thanks, Sony!)

Until they start selling a PS3 with some form of PS2 backwards compatibility, I'm not making the leap. And, no, I'm not going to spring $600 for the stupid limited-edition MGS4 bundle with a PS3 that apparently does support backwards compatibility. I just want the damned console, not the game with 90-minute cutscenes and draconian restrictions on what reviewers can say about it.

Re:Does this mean the 80GB PS3 is finally back? (2, Informative)

Whyte Panther (868438) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642741)

The MGS Bundle for $500 that will be in stores next week has the 80GB PS3 with backwards compatibilty. Releases June 12 at stores everywhere. This is not the same as the OMG ITZ GR3Y! Limited gunmetal edition, which is a 40GB for $600, and is only available direct from Konami (seriously, who put THAT together)

Re:Does this mean the 80GB PS3 is finally back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23644161)

You mean the MGS bundle listed on Amazon.com (and NOWHERE ELSE) for $900?

Yeah, I MIGHT do that...

Re:Does this mean the 80GB PS3 is finally back? (2, Interesting)

Whyte Panther (868438) | more than 6 years ago | (#23645083)

Lots of places stopped taking preorders on consoles, after the XBox 360 and Wii fiascos. Amazon apparently is one of them. Dunno why those other companies think they can get away with selling those for $400 over retail.

Re:Does this mean the 80GB PS3 is finally back? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#23648549)

You misread his post. He said Amazon offers it for $900 and other companies don't offer it at all.

Re:Does this mean the 80GB PS3 is finally back? (1)

Whyte Panther (868438) | more than 6 years ago | (#23650801)

I didn't misread anything. Other companies are selling through Amazon at that price. Look for yourself [amazon.com]

Qore? (1)

abbamouse (469716) | more than 6 years ago | (#23642575)

Qoqsuqqers qan't even respeqt basiq spelling qonventions!

It's about time... (2, Funny)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 6 years ago | (#23643075)

It's about time a game company steps up and reaches out to the LGBT community... oh, it said Qore. I read that wrong. Nevermind.

Quseless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23644415)

Asssome. Now they're hoching eMachines with core processors. Thanks Sony!

Way to fight back (1)

LBt1st (709520) | more than 6 years ago | (#23646103)

So this is Sony's answer to Nintendo's new Nintendo Channel which offers news, interviews, demos, videos etc all for free?

-Bean

Veronica Belmont (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23646971)

Best part of Qore is Veronica Belmont (aka Hottie Hotworthy McHottington, III).

Esq.

Re:Veronica Belmont (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23647641)

When I read "Belmont" I thought: "They're previewing a new Castlevania character in the Qore package?"

Re: (1)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 6 years ago | (#23653325)

While it's only one of the ones you mention, you can download Wild Arms for the PS3. (I just found it while searching around for more info on downloadable games.)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>