Innovative maybe, but how fun will they be? I still don't see the appeal or practicality of playing a game with a stylus. I don't see how you can hold it comfortably and get to all the buttons while using a stylus. Maybe if you put it down on a table but then it's not portable. Try using your palm pilot while holding it and using the stylus. Doesn't leave much room to press buttons. And if all you use the 2nd screen for is a map then that's not really very innovative.

Links?

I will be surprised if the price isn't $299. Anything more just sounds too expensive, but less than that seems like it would be a big loss.

While I've thought the PSP looked like a cool system from the beginning, this video is indicative of several problems I have with it and Sony's handling of it.

My chief complaint is I've seen a lot of videos being played on the PSP, but little or nothing showing an actual game being played on it. The only apparent game footage we have here is a sorry ripoff of Animal Crossing. Nintendo was not only showing the DS at E3, but had many playable demos and has since released a solid list of real-world titles in development. Sony's done neither. Kind of a bad move from a company whose biggest strength, ostensibly, is its vast library of games and third party supporters.

And these critiques are independent of the already well-discussed concerns of battery life and price point. I think Sony better get their act together or else reserve a spot next to the Turbo Express, Game Gear, Lynx, etc. (all of which were technically superior to the Game Boys of their day, btw, except in terms of battery life). I still want one, but so far I think Nintendo's trumping Sony in the run up to release. Sony can't bank on its "sexiness" and grown-up image alone.

Should I even respond? Okay, I suppose I will this time.

Price is always a factor and $299 is a large amount for the average gamer to pony up, especially if it's not truly portable (2-3 hours battery life for gameplay).

http://www.pspinsider.com/modules.ph...rticle&sid=112

As for Nintendo, they mentioned this while being interviewed after dropping the price of GC to $99. Some reporter asked why they didn't just do that initially to wipe out Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo said they never take losses on consoles, so they had to wait for production costs to go down before lowering the price.

Of course, I can't find that statement now.

Yeah, I have the info of Sony saying they would sell at a loss already, thanks for posting that though.

I've heard many people say that Nintendo would never sell at a loss, but I personally have never seen any offical links with that info. Everytime I've asked someone to provide a source no on can, so I've been trying to verify if it's true or not. I'm beginning to believe it is merely editorial speculation, although it would not surprise me if Nintendo did say it, I just want proof.

It is alot of money....but loyal sony buyers will drop the cash for it. Also the 299 price tag is just rumor....we don't know the actual price.

You may be right, if this new post has anything to say about it:

http://game-science.com/news/000671.html