|
PSP is going to dethrone and kick the **** out of Gameboy and any other handhelds (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
I wouldnt say everyone. For one, the PSP was the new guy on the block. A lot of people thought Sony would be dead in the water because they were actually trying to challenge a company that has reigned supreme in the handheld arena for decades. Nintendo practically monopolized the handheld industry and were taking advantage of the consumer by releasing 40 versions of the same game and releasing an only slightly improved Game Boy every 2 years.
Did it ever occur to you that Nintendo might have created the DS the way it is BECAUSE they feared the PSP? They knew the PSP would slam dunk the Game Boy in terms of graphics, so why not take on the situation from a new perspective and come up with a different way of playing the game altogether? They are doing the exact same thing with the Wii; the PS3 and 360 dominate it in terms of graphical capabilities. But the PS3 and 360 are unable to fully replicate the Wii's control scheme, so it gives Nintendo a unique advantage. The same rate of success the DS is enjoying COULD also be experienced with the Wii, but that totally depends on how much the consumer loves HD graphics (which we really wont be able to tell until Holiday 2007 or around there)
I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I'm just saying that competition is what helps the gaming industry. I'm glad Sony finally came on to the handheld scene. I'm glad Nintendo was FINALLY given some real competition that made them actually create a kickass handheld (the GBA was dissappointing IMO).
And the PSP is capable of emulating practically any classic console, so technically, its library FAR exceeds that of the DS if you actually know how to use homebrew. Chances are the normal casual gamer does not, however. |
Good post. I don't have time to address all points, but I do know that when the PSP and DS were coming out, Nintendo was still planning on releasing the next generation Gameboy. From the looks of it now, I really really doubt we'll be seeing another Gameboy. I doubt Nintendo feared the PSP and it's graphical powers. They've been saying this for a long time, that there's too much emphasis on graphics in the industry and not enough on keeping gaming fresh. They said the same thing with the Gamecube, the only problem there was that they didn't have the right product to back-up that statement. Now they do. |
|
|
| chach |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
They've been saying this for a long time, that there's too much emphasis on graphics in the industry and not enough on keeping gaming fresh. |
your def. on point with that statement well put,
the reason i got the ds is because its something unique. same reason a diff buyer market is purchasing the wii |
|
|
| kid nyce |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
I wouldnt say everyone. For one, the PSP was the new guy on the block. A lot of people thought Sony would be dead in the water because they were actually trying to challenge a company that has reigned supreme in the handheld arena for decades. Nintendo practically monopolized the handheld industry and were taking advantage of the consumer by releasing 40 versions of the same game and releasing an only slightly improved Game Boy every 2 years.
Did it ever occur to you that Nintendo might have created the DS the way it is BECAUSE they feared the PSP? They knew the PSP would slam dunk the Game Boy in terms of graphics, so why not take on the situation from a new perspective and come up with a different way of playing the game altogether? They are doing the exact same thing with the Wii; the PS3 and 360 dominate it in terms of graphical capabilities. But the PS3 and 360 are unable to fully replicate the Wii's control scheme, so it gives Nintendo a unique advantage. The same rate of success the DS is enjoying COULD also be experienced with the Wii, but that totally depends on how much the consumer loves HD graphics (which we really wont be able to tell until Holiday 2007 or around there)
I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I'm just saying that competition is what helps the gaming industry. I'm glad Sony finally came on to the handheld scene. I'm glad Nintendo was FINALLY given some real competition that made them actually create a kickass handheld (the GBA was dissappointing IMO).
And the PSP is capable of emulating practically any classic console, so technically, its library FAR exceeds that of the DS if you actually know how to use homebrew. Chances are the normal casual gamer does not, however. |
Well thoughtout! Superb!
As for the last statement, isn't that the general concensus from the Sony's fanboy pov when we compare the ps3 and the wii? I mean that is exactly what i've been ranting, raving, and defending Sony for...it's ability to be modded and chances are the normal casual gamer is not interested in it being modded, they just choose to hear Nintendo release a PR statement like "the wii will be able to download games from it's legacy consoles" and everyone is in awe about this marketing tactic. I think Nintendo is doing a horid injustice to the amount of people that DON'T KNOW.
Either way I don't condone any of the other systems, just like everyone else it's preference! |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
From the looks of it now, I really really doubt we'll be seeing another Gameboy. I doubt Nintendo feared the PSP and it's graphical powers. They've been saying this for a long time, that there's too much emphasis on graphics in the industry and not enough on keeping gaming fresh. They said the same thing with the Gamecube, the only problem there was that they didn't have the right product to back-up that statement. Now they do. |
True, true, and true. The Gamecube didnt really have anything unique going for it. With its lack of DVD's, people couldnt use it as a movie player. With its general lack of online multiplayer support (something I think was responsible for a lot of the reason why people started hating the Cube), no big epic social games like Halo 2 or SOCOM could be released. I believe that online multiplayer is among the most important aspects of a console, and its a shame Nintendo didnt realize this back in 2003 when Xbox Live and PS2 Online were taking over. The Gamecube just wasnt capable of enough to compete with the Xbox and PS2.
But the Wii has online support. The Wii has 3rd party support. And the Wii has a control style that is 100% unique and only on the Wii. The Sixaxis is the same idea, but nowhere close to the potential.
Like you said, Nintendo is now completely able to back their statement that its all about the games.
And you are right about Nintendo really not fearing the PSP. I only said that in a hypothetical context :) There was even an article not too long ago where Nintendo even admitted that they didnt consider the DS and PSP to be competitors, because they were both aiming at different markets and different demographics.
Us gamers know thats not really true though. :)
| quote: | Originally posted by kid nyce
As for the last statement, isn't that the general concensus from the Sony's fanboy pov when we compare the ps3 and the wii? I mean that is exactly what i've been ranting, raving, and defending Sony for...it's ability to be modded and chances are the normal casual gamer is not interested in it being modded, they just choose to hear Nintendo release a PR statement like "the wii will be able to download games from it's legacy consoles" and everyone is in awe about this marketing tactic. I think Nintendo is doing a horid injustice to the amount of people that DON'T KNOW. |
My friend, you have nailed it. You have pretty much called out specifically why Nintendo always has high profits. They milk the hell outta their franchises. What Mario Party are we on again? 8? How many Pokemon games came out for Game Boy? Just what the hell was the difference between them anyway?? The pokemon? Some new pokemon worth 40 dollars? This whole Virtual Console thing is just a sleek, gimmicky way of reselling the same games we played 15 years ago! And, of course, PEOPLE WILL BUY IT!!! I dont understand it either...:(
I'm not trying to act critical. Nintendo is doing only what it needs to in order to stay in business. If people are dumb enough to fall for it, then more power to Nintendo. I respect all 3 of the major console companies, and like I said before, competition is everything. Competition is the reason Sony put a hard drive in the PS3, why Nintendo introduced the Wiimote, and why Microsoft is spending millions to net exclusives from Japan to hopefully improve Far East gaming sales. All of this only produces benefits, and those benefits go straight to us, the gamers. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
My friend, you have nailed it. You have pretty much called out specifically why Nintendo always has high profits. They milk the hell outta their franchises. What Mario Party are we on again? 8? How many Pokemon games came out for Game Boy? Just what the hell was the difference between them anyway?? The pokemon? Some new pokemon worth 40 dollars? This whole Virtual Console thing is just a sleek, gimmicky way of reselling the same games we played 15 years ago! And, of course, PEOPLE WILL BUY IT!!! I dont understand it either...:( |
Every company is guilty of this though. Ubi Soft is milking Splinter Cell, Nintendo is milking Mario, Sony is milking Gran Turismo, and EA is milking everything. If a company has a successful franchise, then why SHOULDN'T they milk it, right?
kid nyce: how is Nintendo doing a horrid injustice? By protecting their property and limiting piracy? The fact that Sony's consoles are so easily modded isn't a "feature" of the console. It's a weakness. Companies don't make systems "piracy-friendly" so that people can mod them and download all their games, because that would affect profits (this is why Nintendo pulls in the highest profits). The only "injustice" is that their virtual console prices are set way too high. I'd never pay more than $2.00 for a NES game.
Also, any of you guys notice the striking resemblence between Sony and Nintendo of today, to Sony and Nintendo of 1996? Complete role reversal. |
|
|
| DarkAngel |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Every company is guilty of this though. Ubi Soft is milking Splinter Cell, Nintendo is milking Mario, Sony is milking Gran Turismo, and EA is milking everything. If a company has a successful franchise, then why SHOULDN'T they milk it, right? |
Absolutely. If it's bringing in the money, than stick with it.
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Also, any of you guys notice the striking resemblence between Sony and Nintendo of today, to Sony and Nintendo of 1996? Complete role reversal. |
In the context of Sony dominating Nintendo in '96, whereas Nintendo is dominating Sony today? |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by DarkAngel
In the context of Sony dominating Nintendo in '96, whereas Nintendo is dominating Sony today? |
Well it's more about WHY the two are/were being dominated at the time. It's funny how similar the 2 situations are. Nintendo completely shot themselves in the foot with the Nintendo 64 by sticking with cartridges, which in turn alienated developers, which in turn alienated gamers. They had massive shortages at launch. They were arrogant and thought that they're unstoppable and that fans will just flock to their system no matter what. |
|
|
| kid nyce |
finally a good discussion, kudos to everyone in this part of the thread it really makes a difference from the "i hate sony the ps3 sucks and it will fail" syndrome, same goes for all consoles, even the wii.
| quote: |
kid nyce: how is Nintendo doing a horrid injustice? By protecting their property and limiting piracy? The fact that Sony's consoles are so easily modded isn't a "feature" of the console. It's a weakness. Companies don't make systems "piracy-friendly" so that people can mod them and download all their games, because that would affect profits (this is why Nintendo pulls in the highest profits). The only "injustice" is that their virtual console prices are set way too high. I'd never pay more than $2.00 for a NES game.
|
oh stop with the piracy ploy, maybe if we were in the audiogalaxy/napster time we can use that as a justified statement. so you're saying you think same platform same games is the way the gaming industry should go? that's fine in all the proprietory rights belonging to the company, but as a POWER USER of all electronics, I'd expect to not be confined to paying sony, nintendo, and microsoft, not because I want to chip out their revenue but because as a user I'd rather have 1 set top box versus 5, i'd rather carry 1 treo then a cellphone and a laptop. It's the end user preference that counts because that will ultimately affect MY buying decision. Not based on this is only sony, only nintendo, only microsoft.
To be honest that's what technological advancement is, it wouldn't be an advancement if we all stuck to our guns, if we all KEPT buying PCs where would Apple be? The IPOD revolution (even though I condone the product), where would it be without its competition? We'd have a monopoly and that my friend is an illegal binding contract between an innovation and the rest of the markets opportunity to explore that channel/innovation/market share.
I don't disagree with everything you note, I agree we want to keep piracy down. The fact is though, as the adolescences evolve with the technology, it can only grow if and only if we do not place these restrictions on them/or children. To me that's a money hungry ideology, a fair play fair chance shot which I think the inevitable is bound to happen. Free standing technology where the user chooses their preference and the technology suits that preference without having to committ to a specific branding. |
|
|
| CONNERMAN2000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Every company is guilty of this though. Ubi Soft is milking Splinter Cell, Nintendo is milking Mario, Sony is milking Gran Turismo, and EA is milking everything. If a company has a successful franchise, then why SHOULDN'T they milk it, right? |
Most definetely. Pretty much every single big-name developer has at least 1 franchise that they milk the hell out of just to keep a guaranteed steady flow of revenue. Like I said, I wasnt trying to be critical, and youre definetely right. Most of the gaming crowd WANT sequels to these games, so the company is only giving them what they want. I'm just not a big Mario Party fan, so Ill call out how Nintendo has whored that mother****** to death. But Halo... they could make 9 Halo's in a 4 month period and I would buy every single one! i know most of the other gaming TA's wouldnt though haha.
| quote: | Originally posted by DarkAngel
In the context of Sony dominating Nintendo in '96, whereas Nintendo is dominating Sony today? |
Haha, actually I dont believe Sony was really dominating Nintendo that early on. Super Mario 64 carried the N64 a long way, and it wasnt until around 1998, right around when the Dual Shock was introduced, that Sony started to take the lead. correct me if I'm wrong.
| quote: | Originally posted by kid nyce
I don't disagree with everything you note, I agree we want to keep piracy down. The fact is though, as the adolescences evolve with the technology, it can only grow if and only if we do not place these restrictions on them/or children. To me that's a money hungry ideology, a fair play fair chance shot which I think the inevitable is bound to happen. Free standing technology where the user chooses their preference and the technology suits that preference without having to committ to a specific branding. |
A very interesting perspective. Ive never heard it like this. If Im reading you correctly, you are saying that since a company created a technology that is capable of being modded, they nor the machine cannot be criticized for said ability? If thats what you are saying, I'm not totally sure if I agree, but its something I could ponder for awhile and still find to be a very good point in the end.
Or maybe Im misunderstanding you, in which case please correct me. I dont wanna up what you are trying to say haha. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000
Haha, actually I dont believe Sony was really dominating Nintendo that early on. Super Mario 64 carried the N64 a long way, and it wasnt until around 1998, right around when the Dual Shock was introduced, that Sony started to take the lead. correct me if I'm wrong. |
I don't have time to address all the points made here (by you and kid nyce, which were all good points). I just wanted to say that yes, Sony wasn't dominating Nintendo that early on. It happened over time. What really put Sony and the PS1 over the top, and in turn secured Sony's number 1 spot for the next 2 generations, was SquareSoft and Final Fantasy 7.
Playing the "IF" game, if Nintendo went with CD's instead of cartridges, Square would've developed FF7 for the N64, which in turn would've all but eliminated Sony from the console war. Squaresoft brushing Nintendo off in favour of the PS1 to develop their premiere franchise was probably THE biggest reason for Sony's success in the long term.
Following FF7's move to the PS1, companies such as Enix, Konami and Capcom started to look at the PS1 as a viable and profitable platform. Compared to Nintendo's expensive and "exclusive" platform, the Playstation 1 was the obvious choice. Sales were higher, development costs were much much cheaper. And on top of that, CD's offered a MUCH bigger storage capacity over cartridges. This is how games such as Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil and Final Fantasy became what they are now.
Once Sony got that ball rolling, there was no stopping them. Final Fantasy 7 hit in 1997 (if I'm not mistaken), and that's the time that the PSX really took off and killed Nintendo for the next 2 generations. Following FF7, every company went for the "cinematic" feel. There was absolutely no reason for companies to develop their premiere games on Nintendo's platform when Sony offered a much cheaper development investment, and more space on their medium. |
|
|
| k1ba |
sequels are mainly made now because of lack of development time and money to make new and creative games.
the budget to create new and exciting full-fledged games is between 15 and 30 million dollars on these new systems.
of course you have the simple games that are low budget and sell a lot but these do not promote nor show what the systems are capable of, they need the showstoppers to make your jaws drop, those are the big money makers and they dont always make profit on them.. so what do they do instead? take an already existing game and add things to it to make it a full-fledged show stopper which costs a lot less money then making something from scratch. this is not a nintendo, sony or microsoft thing. its business. you got a 2006 dodge nitro and the 2007 version just has some new things added. why build a car from scratch when u can just update the "older" model?
i cant say anything to kid nyce because sometimes he just dont make no sense. |
|
|
| kid nyce |
| quote: | Originally posted by k1ba
i cant say anything to kid nyce because sometimes he just dont make no sense. |
LOL and to tell you the truth you're probably right on that one, I don't make much sense at all, I'm a dreamer not a realist that doesn't mean I look past the now, just that maybe you see this as a GAMING INDUSTRY and maybe I see it as a multimedia platform where gaming is only 1 function of many functions.
I dream that sony's ps3 would be more than just a gaming console.
Alot of debating goes on about oh it sucks at gaming, why is it better than nintendo FROM A GAMERS POINT OF VIEW.
You say you don't understand me because I think a lot of people look at it solely from a GAMERS perspective. I look at it from say a COMPUTER perspective. I think like this - oh look it can game, WHAT ELSE CAN IT DO? Where as the typical gamers approach is - oh look it can game, but it's ty at gaming, or there aren't any games for it, or it cost too much.
I say this with the mentality that oh i built my Intel P4 with Audigy, 2gb ram, hard drive this hard drive that and I can justify my $1,000 I invested in my home built computer. I look at the Sony PS3 and think oh $650, I get HDMI, Blu-Ray, HD expandable to whatever the current market height is for a notebook SATA drive, AND A GAMING CONSOLE.
Where as most gamers look at it as it plays games and thats that, so let me compare it to a 360 or a Wii to JUSTIFY the price point. Then it cost way too much money to me simply because "I CAN GAME" on a Nintendo Wii for $250, why would I want to pay $650 for a console when I can do the same for 350?
So you see how I justify the PS3, to me its more than a gaming console, to gamers its just another gaming console which puts it in the comparison market to the Wii and 360. That's a fair comparison which I agree Sony loses at, but you don't mix the 360 or Wii if we looked at the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player or a media center with Fedora Linux loaded on it. Even if a Wii or a 360 has functionalities other than gaming, I think NO ONE has stressed these facts as strengths to a Wii or a 360.
I don't know I just think the GAMERS perspective is what it is, where as I see electronics as a whole, as if I'm an engineer trying to make things work together to be a more efficient utility then it's stand-alone product.
.......
OR You can not understand me because you aren't capable of thinking outside of a gamers mentality. That I can't fault myself on.... |
|
|
|
|
