Sony PSP vs Nintendo DS

[Iron Monkey]

Originally Posted by outlaw55

dumb fuck alert tinging

Breath buddy, breath. Now repeat after me: "it's only a game." Sheesh, somebody's got their panties in a bunch here. You really have to learn to relax it a little. Try going outside and getting some fresh air once in awhile. I'm sure it will do you some good.

[outlaw55]

Originally Posted by Iron Monkey

Breath buddy, breath. Now repeat after me: "it's only a game." Sheesh, somebody's got their panties in a bunch here. You really have to learn to relax it a little. Try going outside and getting some fresh air once in awhile. I'm sure it will do you some good.

i get plenty of fresh fucking air, you just act like a dumb fuck, sorry for pointing it out :P

[Shift_]

I got the solution to ALL your problems.

Buy both ONE DS nad ONE PSP...guess what, now you own both...no more arguement on which one you will get since you have both now...problem solved.

[Iron Monkey]

Originally Posted by outlaw55

i get plenty of fresh fucking air, you just act like a dumb fuck, sorry for pointing it out :P

Yeah, I'm sure you do. No less dumb than your fanboy rant awhile back. But hey, that's okay. This is coming from a guy who has a fund set up specifically for his stupidity, so I guess that shouldn't really be a surprise. I apologize for not noticing your intellect in the first place. You can't help it, I guess.

As for the "solve both your problems comment", if you noticed my posts earlier, that was my intention in from the very beginning.

[outlaw55]

Originally Posted by Iron Monkey

Yeah, I'm sure you do. No less dumb than your fanboy rant awhile back. But hey, that's okay. This is coming from a guy who has a fund set up specifically for his stupidity, so I guess that shouldn't really be a surprise. I apologize for not noticing your intellect in the first place. You can't help it, I guess.

As for the "solve both your problems comment", if you noticed my posts earlier, that was my intention in from the very beginning.

Yea, if you donate i could buy both

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by wnkryo

I'm the only one that liked shenmu?

You and me makes two!

Originally Posted by Wirhe

Do not forget that gaming industry depends pretty much of creativity, and as such should be viewed through the "creativity lens" as proved in Johnson & Scholes' "Exploring Corporate Strategy." What I am saying here is that once the competitive pressure rises in a market that depends of creativity and market specialization, it forces the companies to hone these skills if they wish to stay-in-business. Creativity in this case just means "making better games", or games that people want. That's what we were discussing; which system will more likely have games we want. If you read between the lines now, you'll know that the two previously mentioned do not even need to match -if the game is what we want, but not creative, does it matter? If it is creative and doesn't sell, the company suffers and will eventually change their marketing line or leave the market. Either way, having a lot of companies under their wing will benefit Sony more than Nintendo, who are forced to depend on a few brands to sell (like their Metroid and Mario -serie).

We're using two definitions of creativity than. You're using it as marketable(nothing wrong with that really, they are running a business but it tends to be flash with little substance) while I'm using it as original. Basically, an example of a game being creative in your definition would be like red faction, to make a pretty bland shooter stand out they put destroyable environments in the game. The sony library is huge and original games are hidden in the racks of clones and rip-offs. Nintendo's library is pretty slim (their biggest drawback) but theirs has a bigger chunk of that, which I'd consider original games.

To be honest, I think the console that sells more will come down to whoever has the best multiplayer games. If Nintendo puts out a pokemon game for kids they'll pretty much have the kids money in their pockets and only need to do so well in the adult market to break even with Sony. (Doa volleyball will give em the perverted teen/lonely middle aged men audience )

Originally Posted by Wirhe

I think, by these signs, that if Sony manages to breach the handheld market, and Nintendo's next console is a flop, like it was with Sega, we will soon see BOTH Sega and Nintendo as minor game-making companies in the market.

Agree with you here, if the PSP gains a major dominating force in the handheld market Nintendo could really get hurt. Not sure if they'd be wiped out but with hardware costs (they made a profit off selling the gamecubes unlike sony and microsoft but the DS will either have a hefty price tag or they may have to sell it at a loss) Nintendo may have to consider going into just making software like Sega. I remember the N64 was really hurt by psx and Nintendo tried hard to keep the system afloat. ( A graphics memory card that increased the systems usable memory for graphics (remember using it for the port of re2) and even that n64dd thing which i don't think got off the ground (which sadly robbed me of earthbound 2))

[mantidor]

Originally Posted by Sanjuronord

Agree with you here, if the PSP gains a major dominating force in the handheld market Nintendo could really get hurt. Not sure if they'd be wiped out but with hardware costs (they made a profit off selling the gamecubes unlike sony and microsoft but the DS will either have a hefty price tag or they may have to sell it at a loss) Nintendo may have to consider going into just making software like Sega. I remember the N64 was really hurt by psx and Nintendo tried hard to keep the system afloat. ( A graphics memory card that increased the systems usable memory for graphics (remember using it for the port of re2) and even that n64dd thing which i don't think got off the ground (which sadly robbed me of earthbound 2))

They wouldn't sell it at loss, but they expect to reduce the profit.
http://www.planetgamecube.com/news.c...n=item&id=5317
http://gamesindustry.biz/content_pag...e=pub&aid=3461

Besides, I don't see Nintendo becoming a third party developer for many reasons:

1. They are too proud to do it.

2. Developing in a foreign console would limit their freedom, and that would hurt their games, and I think Nintendo couldn't bear such a situation

3. They already said several times, "The day Nintendo stops making hardware is the day Nintendo would be quitting business".

Thats the most creepy statment ever, imagine a world without Zelda or Mario or Metroid games!

I think that number 1. summarized 2. and 3. but I want to give a little more in-depth thoughts

[nojevo]

Well mantidor and Sanjunorod said what I wanted to say. Wirhe, you made some good points in your post. But when you're talking about creativity, I also think of originality. I'm guessing what you want to say is that more competition drives developer to innovate and improve on what is already proven successful. If that’s the case then I think we should use the term "quality" rather than "creativity". Now this might turn into another big discussion but I think that this is what developers are aiming for. They want to create high quality games to win against the competition. They might innovate in some things, but they wont create something fresh and original. If that is the case that you want to present then I agree, but If you say competition promotes creativity as in originality then I disagree.

Honestly, I have no idea how this battle between the Nintendo and Sony in the handheld market will turn out. Nintendo is saying that the ds is their third pillar and that it wont replace the gba. If this turns out true then I think Sony is in for a tough fight. They have to catch up to the gba and at the same time fight against the ds which will have a couple of months of advantage.

[nojevo]

Heh, I would love to see Nintendo give the finger to their competition and say ‘We quit the video game business. So no chance you will see Mario or Zelda in your systems.’ I might miss seeing new titles, but the old ones will be enough to satisfy my needs for Nintendo games.

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by mantidor

They wouldn't sell it at loss, but they expect to reduce the profit.
http://www.planetgamecube.com/news.c...n=item&id=5317
http://gamesindustry.biz/content_pag...e=pub&aid=3461

Interesting article, I'm not sure if I'm more frightened by the aspect of a more expensive ds (though if nintendo thinks they can manage the cost and shortage of screens hopefully they will) or a lack of screens meaning a possible shortage of hardware in stores. Although such a shortage at release could probably work for Nintendo like it did for ps2. Everybody will kill and rob in the toys r' us parking lot to get one *shudders* and demand will go up.

Originally Posted by mantidor

Besides, I don't see Nintendo becoming a third party developer for many reasons:

I'm sure it's not an option they're fond of but I'm sure Sega didn't care for it and probably neither did Atari (I think they're still making games, can't think of anything off top of my head though or is that Transformers game by Atari?). I imagine they'd reverse that stance if they had to though. They'd all be out of jobs and upset a lot of fans otherwise.

Dunno what they mean by DS being a third pillar but since it's backward compatible I'll be using it as an excuse to pick up some gameboy advance games since I never bought that system.

[N1nj4]

I think that the DS has the upper hand over the PSP. First of all, it's the more powerful of the two. The DS is actually slightly more powerful than the N64, which was more powerful than the PSX(or would have been if it wasn't handicapped by the cartridges). The PSP is slightly less powerful than the PSX.(i take this part back. i'm speaking from outdated information)

At first I thought that the second screen was just a gimmick. But after reading a few articles from people who demo'd several games, I am now thoroughly convinced. The touchscreen opens up whole new gameplay possibilities.

And contrary to popular belief, Nintendo is doing quite well for itself. They aren't having any financial difficulties. The possibility of them becoming a third party developer (a la Sega) is quite remote.

[Ending]

We're using two definitions of creativity than. You're using it as marketable(nothing wrong with that really, they are running a business but it tends to be flash with little substance) while I'm using it as original. Basically, an example of a game being creative in your definition would be like red faction, to make a pretty bland shooter stand out they put destroyable environments in the game. The sony library is huge and original games are hidden in the racks of clones and rip-offs. Nintendo's library is pretty slim (their biggest drawback) but theirs has a bigger chunk of that, which I'd consider original games.

Not two *different* definations, but different *points of view.* You think of your own POV, when it should be the POV of a consumer (=market). If a lot of rubbish games can survive in the market, then part of the consumers want them -whereas you want quality games. Now, this could be identified as two different groups: those who want quality games, and those who take cheap games without giving too much thought. If it's the first group that brings more money, then the companies will make those and fill the market with them. In this case, it DOESN'T matter are the games good or not -it what people are willing to accept. If not, some of those games are "doomed" to be more unique than others (we can't assume that every team of game-developers would be the same, making the same thing). Thus, consumers can find "better" games and create that pressure on competitors. To me, this feels repetitive to say; the more competitors, the more good games can come out. Like it or not, but it is Sony that has most of the companies (IIRC, they have majority of markets in Japan and Asia, whereas X-Box has about 34% of Ireland and probably ~10-15% less in other markets (not a fact). What does N have? It would be good if you could dig out facts about that and get a bit more of that "substance" you boast to have.

However, he stopped short of saying that Nintendo would take a loss on sales of the DS hardware, as Sony is expected to on the PlayStation Portable and both Sony and Microsoft have done on their home console sales.

In other words: Sony is expected to do breach the market, use the money they get from PS/PS2, and force (eventually) N out ("killing blow"). Nice to see that others have noticed the same as I did.

They want to create high quality games to win against the competition.

Like said: only if they have to. Quality costs, and if it does not bring more capital than a regular-deadline game, it won't be made.

First of all, it's the more powerful of the two. The DS is actually slightly more powerful than the N64, which was more powerful than the PSX

Irrevelant. Sony will compare PSP to PS2, show it's muscle (so to speak), and marketing makes sure that you can find it from every store around the globe. To consumers it isn't anymore relevant is it "3000-bit" or "4000-bit" -that is geek-talk and Average Joe will not give a crap about it. It's the look, games/companies, battery-life, extras and -most importantly- price that determine will it succeed or not.

Didn't that article say something about N having difficulties of having to buy not only one screen, but two? (Double price...)

[Archaic]

Originally Posted by Wirhe

Didn't that article say something about N having difficulties of having to buy not only one screen, but two? (Double price...)

Double price my ass. If anything, they'll rank up a higher economy of scale in the production of the screens. It wouldn't be impossible for them to end up producing them at a cost that sees the end cost to them be less than if they were only producing one screen.

[Ending]

Normally, maybe; if there is unlimited supply of relatively simple raw-materials, but all flat-screen producers have the same problem of finding it at the prices they are willing to pay. Limited supply means higher price, thus I'm not sure if two screens is a good idea...

[outlaw55]

Originally Posted by Sanjuronord

Agree with you here, if the PSP gains a major dominating force in the handheld market Nintendo could really get hurt. Not sure if they'd be wiped out but with hardware costs (they made a profit off selling the gamecubes unlike sony and microsoft but the DS will either have a hefty price tag or they may have to sell it at a loss) Nintendo may have to consider going into just making software like Sega. I remember the N64 was really hurt by psx and Nintendo tried hard to keep the system afloat. ( A graphics memory card that increased the systems usable memory for graphics (remember using it for the port of re2) and even that n64dd thing which i don't think got off the ground (which sadly robbed me of earthbound 2))

PSP never will, the main attraction to ANY system is the GAME base, that is the ONLY reason Playstation sells (it has the worse graphics of ALL the 3 systems, but sells the best cuz it hast the LARGEST game selection). Since ALL of the Nintendo Handhelds support ALL of the PREVIOUS versions, that makes the game base MASSIVE! I don't see anyone taking over Nintendo's powerhouse on handheld UNLESS they stopped the compatablity thing (which i dont see happening). Just remember, if it wasn't for the game base, the PS1 would have NEVER sold that many units ...

[Archaic]

Originally Posted by Wirhe

Normally, maybe; if there is unlimited supply of relatively simple raw-materials, but all flat-screen producers have the same problem of finding it at the prices they are willing to pay. Limited supply means higher price, thus I'm not sure if two screens is a good idea...

Even if current producers have reached a plateau on the current production methods, such a dramatic increased demand should encourage existing prouducers to find more efficient means of production, either through the use of cheaper substitute materials, or more cost-effective means of producing the end product.

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by Wirhe

Not two *different* definations, but different *points of view.* You think of your own POV, when it should be the POV of a consumer (=market).

Oh, I see. It's not that we have two different definitions about creativity it's that we have two different points of view on what creativity means. Wait what?

Originally Posted by Wirhe

You think of your own POV, when it should be the POV of a consumer (=market).

I don't know where you're going with this anymore. So if the market thinks a game where you play an android who comes out of hibernation to jump out of his space ship in an escape pod to earth, where he uses bullet time, stealing cars, killing hookers, and stealth in a city on his way to save the princess in the other castle all whilst being the star of his own snuff film is original than I should too? Not a chance. An extreme example, but that's basically what you're calling creativity (since that is basically the sole thing that started this debate).

Originally Posted by Wirhe

If a lot of rubbish games can survive in the market, then part of the consumers want them -whereas you want quality games. Now, this could be identified as two different groups: those who want quality games, and those who take cheap games without giving too much thought. If it's the first group that brings more money, then the companies will make those and fill the market with them. In this case, it DOESN'T matter are the games good or not -it what people are willing to accept. If not, some of those games are "doomed" to be more unique than others (we can't assume that every team of game-developers would be the same, making the same thing). Thus, consumers can find "better" games and create that pressure on competitors.

*In his best Darth Vader voice*Your math betrays you my son. Basically it's this by your business model, companies aim solely (or we can say primarily since i disagree with this model though it does happen to some degree) to make
games the public want. So either A the public tells them what they want (in this instance the creativity relies on gamers answering a poll or something and usually means the sequel will have more of what the fans liked and less of what they didn't which leads to better games maybe but NOT creativity...) or what really probably happens they see a game that sells well and copy it (Also not creative at all). Since PS2 has MORE developers we'll see MORE clone/rip-offs coming out on PS2 than any other console. Hypothetically, for every good creative game on the PS2 there might be nine rip-offs where the gamecube might only have 4 ripoffs for every creative game. Hence, the PS2 would have one creative game out of ten where the gamecube would have one creative game out of every five.

Originally Posted by Wirhe

To me, this feels repetitive to say; the more competitors, the more good games can come out. Like it or not, but it is Sony that has most of the companies (IIRC, they have majority of markets in Japan and Asia, whereas X-Box has about 34% of Ireland and probably ~10-15% less in other markets (not a fact). What does N have? It would be good if you could dig out facts about that and get a bit more of that "substance" you boast to have.

Since I see no relevance in this to this debate on creativity I won't bother digging around. Honestly no clue where you were going with the majority of the markets since it's pretty well known that Gamecube doesn't have the majority of the CONSOLE market (wonder how those numbers would look if we counted the GB advanced in Japan huh? ). I mean, I could point out that Nintendo has more experience in the handheld market or a bigger market hold in the handheld market but like I said it's irrelevant to creativity.

[Sanjuronord]

Originally Posted by outlaw55

PSP never will, the main attraction to ANY system is the GAME base, that is the ONLY reason Playstation sells (it has the worse graphics of ALL the 3 systems, but sells the best cuz it hast the LARGEST game selection). Since ALL of the Nintendo Handhelds support ALL of the PREVIOUS versions, that makes the game base MASSIVE! I don't see anyone taking over Nintendo's powerhouse on handheld UNLESS they stopped the compatablity thing (which i dont see happening). Just remember, if it wasn't for the game base, the PS1 would have NEVER sold that many units ...

Sorry for the double post but didn't want to mix this in with the other debate. Yes, that's gonna be a big part of the handhelds probably. I was suprised that the psp didn't have backwards compatibility with the psx which would have seriously helped them out (all the potential of the ps2 and the ps1's library is a winning combination).

Also, kudos for making a post w/o all the profanity.

[wnkryo]

Originally Posted by outlaw55

PSP never will, the main attraction to ANY system is the GAME base, that is the ONLY reason Playstation sells (it has the worse graphics of ALL the 3 systems, but sells the best cuz it hast the LARGEST game selection). Since ALL of the Nintendo Handhelds support ALL of the PREVIOUS versions, that makes the game base MASSIVE! I don't see anyone taking over Nintendo's powerhouse on handheld UNLESS they stopped the compatablity thing (which i dont see happening). Just remember, if it wasn't for the game base, the PS1 would have NEVER sold that many units ...

Your arguement is irrelavent. Many people will still buy PSP. Why? Becuase 2 awsome games have been anounced and showed for the PSP; GranTurismo 4 and Metal Gear Solid Acid.

[Ending]

@ Archaic

Developing costs, and if it's the sellers market, then it's the buyer who pays the extra-costs. Dunno, PSP has that wide-screen too, but it's still less than two separate screens...

@ Sanjuronord

Hypothetically, for every good creative game on the PS2 there might be nine rip-offs where the gamecube might only have 4 ripoffs for every creative game. Hence, the PS2 would have one creative game out of ten where the gamecube would have one creative game out of every five.

Let me check if I understood this right: so it is better to have LESS games so there are less rip-offs? Less games == Better they are? In a way, every game today is a rip of something else, or just a continuum to old serie. Okay, maybe -if you can say that Metroid Prime is just a rip of the original Metroid, thus not very creative.

*Clop, clop, clop*
*Beams the Darth Vader*