Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

PSP faulty and Sony Doesn't Care!

Status
Not open for further replies.
metal gear acid is, but thats just because it is a stategy game that takes little movement.

the twisted metal game is horribly hard to control tho, the psuedo analog stick sux0rs major if you ask me
 
The PSP is good for people who want more than games, but like games on the side. But I don't see why you can't buy one of the better cell phones available today(those sliders are flippin' awesome!). I have a DS, and I have experienced no flaws whatsoever. The only complaint I have is that sissy stylus, I went out and bought some big manly ones so I won't have to use the micro-stylus it comes with. The PSP will stay afloat for a while, if just for the fact that fanboys are like: "OMG, The PSP PwNs teh DS!!!11eins!!1" The DS does have better staying power, though, because, well, Nintendo makes better games than sony. And FF and metal gear don't count, because we get them too, you don't want your project that you spent millions developing(only to be faulty, LOL) to run on Third party software. And sony doesn't have that. While nintendo has it out the ears,(metroid, zelda, mario, original weird games) and Feel the magic is just FREAKY. Tell me what car company makes a van that has a people-shooting slingshot attached to the back!
 
Kyfogre22 said:
Phoenix, to be fair, the DS' games are getting lower scores then the PSP's.
Click to expand...

That may be true to some extent but Nintendo has only released or should i say rereleased old titles in general. While sony has released some new well sort of new ones. So old title ie mario ds may have staying power but will not score has high as it did when it first came out while new ones for the psp get higher scores cuz they're are new and use the old concepts meaning they use the same old control scheme that has benn used for years now. I can see the DS getting better scores with their games when people ie the consumers/hardcore gamers will adjust to the new style of play. It just takes time just like when Nintendo was the first one to implement the analog stick into its consoles it took a while for everyone to get used to it rather than the D-pad and now every system uses it. That and nintendo truly releases a great title or more titles like warioware DS that best uses the DS innovative capabilites.
 
Warioware DS has been released and rated, if I'm not mistaken...

...And regardless of what Nintendo is doing release-wise, the fact remains that they're scoring lower then the PSP is.
 
Okay, but no killer-app titles have been released other than mario, and it's old. Give it some time, and the games will start getting better. wait for metroid hunters, that'll do it. well, maybe.
 
oh just so you know scores don't mean great sales and vice versa. Take pokemon for example although the games aren't rated very highly but they outsell many other games and sells millions of copies. So who's won to say score=game sales. If you're letting someone else decide what games you should play or not than you might as well be missing on some of the best games that don't neccessarily get the best rating. I could say GTA San andreas RE4 and Halo 2 suck eggs so you'll play those games anyways right. So you shouldn't base your game choices on ratings. It does help but if you are unsure of a game title just rent the dang thing first and check it out for yourself and decide for yourself. So how does this pertain to PSP and DS games well it does goes some PSP games i've played so far are good but some of them suk eggs "wont mention any titles" while all the ones I've chose to play for the DS are well pretty good. FYI Im not biased for Nintendo either. I have both sony and Nintendo stuff so yea.None of them a uber good but all fairly great titles. Especially for their price compared to the psp games of freaking 40-50 bucks a pop. I'd expect a killer game for a portable that nearly cost as much if not more then some great console games.
 
feel the hatred seething through the text?? i wanted to post quickly and laugh at whoever it was that said nintendo started it all, because that is funny. nintendo revolutionized the home video game market, but they did not pioneer it. the only reason that nintendo is where they are now is because they had no real competition in their beginning years. however, they were NOT the first to create a video game (i believe that was an arcade game called "computer space" back in 1971; its creator later formed atari and helped create pong in 1972) and they were NOT the first to create a home console (the nes was preceded by magnavox's odyssey, the fairchild channel f, atari's 2600 and 5200, coleco's colecovision, and mattel's intellivision). they were, however, the best at it for a long time.

in today's world, 20 years after the introduction of the NES, nintendo no longer has a monopoly and they are being forced to rethink their approach to the gaming world. it seems to me that they sort of let the market pass them by (or at least catch them) when they made the n64 a cartridge based system, and now they are clinging to their handheld gaming dominance and fighting to regain territory in the home gaming market. i think nintendo, and many of it's "purists" (or fanboys as many people call them), fails to see the potential of the media they are creating. they argue that extras, such as a dvd player, are unnecessary in a console and would only increase the price, but in a market where all of your competitors are offering it, why would you leave it out? i feel like nintendo is relying WAY too much on the youth market to hold itself up. i say that not only because nintendo has notoriously targeted younger audiences with its games (which i have no problem with), but because they refuse to add extras that many older people find appealing. none of nintendo's gaming systems has ever offered anything other than a video game experience. for people my age, video games aren't everything. in fact, i use my ps2 as a dvd player more often than i use it to play games, simply because i very rarely play video games any more. if i had bought a gamecube, i would be stuck with a useless console gathering dust on my shelf.

anyway, i just had to vent a little, because it is really annoying to see people back up their arguments with opinions or faulty facts. i also hate seeing the ignorant argument of nintendo versus sony versus xbox, because it all boils down to a matter of preference and opinion in most cases. i just find that the gamecube offers less than either of the other 2 home consoles it competes with (and its controller is just an awkward attempt to copy the ps2 controller; btw, the ps2 controller was just a rehash of the snes controller, so you'd think nintendo would have done better), and unless nintendo can appeal to the 18 to 24 year old male (girls/women would be a great demographic to target also) better than it has in the past, it will ultimately be relegated to the land of kids' toys...
 
Last edited:
For the record, space (the fight between the cigar with wings and the "other" spaceship) was created in its original form in 1957, and still available on the internet for download. The first home console wasn't created by Atari, it was the Odysssey developed by Magnavox (I think). Their first home videogame wasn't the NES either, it was the TV Game 5 or 6, can't remember.

Nintendo is currently failing in the market because they're telling us what we want.

Gamecube - Curiosity killed the internet. Apparently, gamers don't want the 'net on their consoles, and that online gaming is not a priority. Instead, we got GBA-GCN connectivity, which sucked, and the only games that really took advantage of it (LOZ:FS and FF:CC) would set you back hunderds of dollars if you wanted to take advantage of the product. The second thing they conveniently left out of the Gamecube that both of their competitors have is the DVD player. From a neutral standpoint, what would you do? Would you buy the one-trick-pony with no online play, or would you save money by getting a console that could do everything and had an ensured longer life?

Nintendo DS - Oh yes, where to start... The simplest thing is probably the lack of the DS' ability to do anything but play games. Oh sure, in Japan, you can listen to music if you pay an extra $30 for what is essentially a tiny MP3 player, but otherwise, you're caught in the dark. Second, inferrior technology. Yeah, sure, it makes the price cheaper (which they could have kept the price the same had they taken out backwards compatibility and improved the hardware closer to the PSP's standards), but the sales (rate of sales, not actual sales) seem to reflect that a lesser battery life... doesn't really matter. Third, the digital pad as opposed to an analog. Play Super Mario 64 DS with a d-pad. It doesn't work. If you're going to be playing 3-d games, you need an analog stick, I really don't know what they were thinking. The final beef I have is the touchscreen. It's a gimmick. So far, no game has truely exploited it, and until they do, it's a gimmick and nothing more.

And after all is said and done, the PSP still had the internet before the DS did.

EDIT: For he who said that all of the companies target a different demographic, that's not true. Nintendo targets under 14, whereas Sony and Microsoft both target the 15-30 area.
 
Last edited:
Kyfogre22 said:
For the record, space (the fight between the cigar with wings and the "other" spaceship) was created in its original form in 1957, and still available on the internet for download. The first home console wasn't created by Atari, it was the Odysssey developed by Magnavox (I think). Their first home videogame wasn't the NES either, it was the TV Game 5 or 6, can't remember.

Nintendo is currently failing in the market because they're telling us what we want.

Gamecube - Curiosity killed the internet. Apparently, gamers don't want the 'net on their consoles, and that online gaming is not a priority. Instead, we got GBA-GCN connectivity, which sucked, and the only games that really took advantage of it (LOZ:FS and FF:CC) would set you back hunderds of dollars if you wanted to take advantage of the product. The second thing they conveniently left out of the Gamecube that both of their competitors have is the DVD player. From a neutral standpoint, what would you do? Would you buy the one-trick-pony with no online play, or would you save money by getting a console that could do everything and had an ensured longer life?

Nintendo DS - Oh yes, where to start... The simplest thing is probably the lack of the DS' ability to do anything but play games. Oh sure, in Japan, you can listen to music if you pay an extra $30 for what is essentially a tiny MP3 player, but otherwise, you're caught in the dark. Second, inferrior technology. Yeah, sure, it makes the price cheaper (which they could have kept the price the same had they taken out backwards compatibility and improved the hardware closer to the PSP's standards), but the sales (rate of sales, not actual sales) seem to reflect that a lesser battery life... doesn't really matter. Third, the digital pad as opposed to an analog. Play Super Mario 64 DS with a d-pad. It doesn't work. If you're going to be playing 3-d games, you need an analog stick, I really don't know what they were thinking. The final beef I have is the touchscreen. It's a gimmick. So far, no game has truely exploited it, and until they do, it's a gimmick and nothing more.

And after all is said and done, the PSP still had the internet before the DS did.

EDIT: For he who said that all of the companies target a different demographic, that's not true. Nintendo targets under 14, whereas Sony and Microsoft both target the 15-30 area.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with some of what you say abou tnintendo's faults. Very plausible arguments. Having other great forms of media implemented into a game console isn't a bad thing as Nintendo says its a great things. But you have to think from Nintendo's perspective of Stubborness in that regards. They just don't have the freaking financial resources that Sony or definately Microsoft has as I've already said many times in this thread. Sure they could add MP3 and a DVd player but they would not be able to compete with Sony cuz they would be losing money with each console sold like the PSP and the Xbox are now. While hear me out on this Sony and Microsoft can take a hit on this with loss of millions and dare i say billions and can still make a system work and profitable in the long. While if Nintendo were to do that now in their place would be in the way of sega and thats something they obviously have no intent of doing it now. So nintendo has to take there stance in what they believe in or they'll lose all their consumers and potential ones. Besides what's with all the hatee on Nintendo I've been feeling of late. Nintendo is a great company and you may say im a fanboy and maybe i am. But if Nintendo weren't here to make Sony actually compete in the gaming business. Where would we be today. We prolly wouldn't have a Ps2 like it is now and if we did even now it would be instead of a low price point would be at a high price point. People ie us the consumers would have to still fork over the extra cash to if we wanted to play games and that sony was the only way to go. Ultimately what Nintendo is doing us all a favor and what you other ppl out there might see as crappy innovations is great thing which will lead to a game revolution. I'm not one to say that'll Nintendo will be able to usher in that era with the DS or to say the DS will do that only time will tell.

But who freaking cares. DS, PSP, GAMEcube, PS2, XBOX, crap even the N-gage is better than the other based on their ideology or technologies. Let's let them decide among themselves fight amongst themselves to decide who is best. Ultimately we as consumers are the ones to benefit from their rivalry and shouldn't be the one bickering among ourselves to say who's better than the other. Just enjoy what everything has to offer and leave it at that.
 
Kyfogre22 said:
Gamecube - Curiosity killed the internet. Apparently, gamers don't want the 'net on their consoles, and that online gaming is not a priority. Instead, we got GBA-GCN connectivity, which sucked, and the only games that really took advantage of it (LOZ:FS and FF:CC) would set you back hunderds of dollars if you wanted to take advantage of the product. The second thing they conveniently left out of the Gamecube that both of their competitors have is the DVD player. From a neutral standpoint, what would you do? Would you buy the one-trick-pony with no online play, or would you save money by getting a console that could do everything and had an ensured longer life?
Click to expand...

Indeed.

But Revolution is leaping forward with Wireless networking right out of the box, at the very least. Not sure on DVD playback, nothing's been announced. It'll also be backwards compatible. :)

Second, inferrior technology. Yeah, sure, it makes the price cheaper (which they could have kept the price the same had they taken out backwards compatibility and improved the hardware closer to the PSP's standards), but the sales (rate of sales, not actual sales) seem to reflect that a lesser battery life... doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

IMO this isn't a fair assessment. The first couple weeks of any system's release are usually the "fanboy buyers" (see also: virtual boy). The true test of whether things like battery life affect sales will be in the sales over time. I, for one, really care about battery life, and past history has shown that battery life does drive handheld sales more than hardware power or bonus features (see also: lynx, game gear, nomad, neogeo pocket, wonderswan, n-gage).

Third, the digital pad as opposed to an analog. Play Super Mario 64 DS with a d-pad. It doesn't work. If you're going to be playing 3-d games, you need an analog stick, I really don't know what they were thinking.
Click to expand...

They were thinking that analogue sticks are too fragile to have on a handheld that you can't just replace with ease like a controller. N64 controllers with sticks that are still out-of-the-box tight are nearly impossible to find now, unless you can track down one that's still factory sealed. Most people I know of don't like PSP's "slider" stick that much, either. DS just isn't thick enough to support a traditional style analogue stick at all...

Personally I feel that using the touch screen as a surrogate analogue stick like what Rayman and Mario64 do is good enough, though of course it isn't perfect or necessarily ideal. About the only thing I couldn't do consistently in Mario64 DS is U-Turn Jumps.

The final beef I have is the touchscreen. It's a gimmick. So far, no game has truely exploited it, and until they do, it's a gimmick and nothing more.
Click to expand...

WarioWare: Touched? Feel the Magic: XY/XX? Yoshi Touch&Go?

And have you seen previews for the new Kirby? It looks amazing.

And after all is said and done, the PSP still had the internet before the DS did.
Click to expand...

PSP had it out of the box, in its bios, whereas Nintendo chose to have the internet support driven by its software. Fair enough decision.

EDIT: For he who said that all of the companies target a different demographic, that's not true. Nintendo targets under 14, whereas Sony and Microsoft both target the 15-30 area.
Click to expand...

Demographic includes more than age.

Nintendo targets everyone, period, which most people interpret as meaning 15-... simply because if there's no blood, pr0n, suggestive themes, excessive violence, etc., then it must be intended for little kids. Right?

Sony targets late teen and young adult casual gamers with flashiness and "style", along with pretty much the largest variety of games, not all of them too complicated, and DVD play right out of the box.

Microsoft targets the same age range as Sony, and higher, but is aimed a little more at hardcore gamers, with somewhat more difficult exclusive games, on average, and an extra fee for playing DVD. Its only real draw for casuals, beyond the usual multiplatform stuff, is Halo/2 (and to an extent Fable).
 
coolmanderzx said:
But you have to think from Nintendo's perspective of Stubborness in that regards. They just don't have the freaking financial resources that Sony or definately Microsoft has as I've already said many times in this thread.
Click to expand...

While it is technically true that Sony and Microsoft have more money than Nintendo, that is only because they do other things besides gaming. Microsoft has the ever-lucrative Windows, and Sony has a crap-ton of other electronics. And, of course, simply because they HAVE that much money doesn't mean they're going to blow it all on risks for their gaming division. However, Nintendo's main breadwinner is gaming, and, believe it or not, they make the most money off it (bottom line).

Market share and profitablility don't seem to have much corelation, as evidenced by a report from DFC Intelligence. The actual report is like 750 pages, but that press release i a good enough summary.

Top Video Game Companies Generate Annual Revenue of $25 Billion According to DFC Intelligence

San Diego, CA --March 22, 2005

A new report released by DFC Intelligence takes a close look at the top publishers in the video game and interactive entertainment industry. According to the report there are several factors that leading companies share in common. These include expansion internationally, platform and business model diversity and a focus on core franchises that build value over time. Leading companies like Activision, Electronic Arts and Square Enix have a global business, are bringing core franchises to online and mobile platforms and are looking at emerging opportunities like advertising in games.

The seventeen companies in the report reported fiscal 2004 revenue of $24.5 billion, down 3% from fiscal 2003. So far fiscal 2005 revenue is up 3%. The four leading companies, Sony, Nintendo, Electronic Arts and Microsoft, dominate the market and reported fiscal 2004 revenue of $16.7 million. In terms of revenue, Sony is the clear market leader, having generated $45 billion in game related revenue from fiscal 1998 through 2004. However, Nintendo has been the most profitable company, earning about $7 billion in operating income from fiscal 1998 to fiscal 2004, compared with about $4.5 billion for Sony (from its games division) and $1.8 billion for Electronic Arts. Microsoft is clearly an up-and-coming powerhouse, although the company has reported heavy losses from its games division.

Beyond the top four companies, the interactive entertainment market remains fragmented. Other then Electronic Arts solidifying its position as the leading software publisher there has been very little consolidation in the game market over the past few years. Electronic Arts is in a league of its own and other software publishers are in a tight race for a distant second place.

The new report, Market Leaders in the Video Game and Interactive Entertainment Industry, is 750 pages and analyzes each publisher’s history, financial performance, the strengths/weaknesses of their corporate strategy, product lineup, development teams, marketing and distribution skills and future potential. DFC Intelligence is a market research firm focused on video games, PC games, online games and interactive entertainment. They offer free monthly research briefs to anyone signing up at http://www.dfcint.com/mailing_signup.html. Other DFC Intelligence reports include The Business of Computer and Video Games 2004, The Impact of Licensing in Interactive Entertainment, The Online Game Market, and. Worldwide Market Forecasts for the Video Game and Interactive Entertainment Industry.
Click to expand...

People tend to think that Nintendo fails for this reason or that, but when a company is doing better than many other companies you could name (gaming, non-gaming, whatever), is it really failing?

On a completely different note, graphics would have to be the most incredibly overrated part of any game ever. Graphics are, essentially, sprites and backgrounds for 2D and polygons and textures for 3D. It has very little (if anything at all) to do with how fun a game actually is. Citing craphics is like citing the type of paper a report is on.
 
well, I own a DS and it is very cool, The touch screen is great but it will be interesting to see if the touch screen is used the way it should be. I just got a PSP a few days ago and I have to say, it is hands down the best portable system I have ever layed my hands on. I got tony hawk and it looks just as good as it does on the ps2. It also came with a full version of spiderman 2 and it looks better on the psp then it does playing on my dvd player on my big screen tv. Now they are coming out with a ton of movies you can buy for the psp. It is great. It holds a bunch of songs and pictures too! It was the best 250 I have ever spent. Don't bash it until you have tryed it. The psp is going to be better than the DS if nintendo dosent do somthing, the psp will have a lot of third party support and nintendo dosent have much. The psp has a ton of features that the DS dosent have. don't call be a fan boy for sony because I own all 3 major consoles and DS and SP plus psp (I really like video games) and my favorites are the xbox and the psp. If you have the chance to get one, I would not pass it up, mine has had no problems at all (though I did get the extended warrenty just in case)
 
Orange Soda said:
While it is technically true that Sony and Microsoft have more money than Nintendo, that is only because they do other things besides gaming. Microsoft has the ever-lucrative Windows, and Sony has a crap-ton of other electronics. And, of course, simply because they HAVE that much money doesn't mean they're going to blow it all on risks for their gaming division. However, Nintendo's main breadwinner is gaming, and, believe it or not, they make the most money off it (bottom line).

Market share and profitablility don't seem to have much corelation, as evidenced by a report from DFC Intelligence. The actual report is like 750 pages, but that press release i a good enough summary.



People tend to think that Nintendo fails for this reason or that, but when a company is doing better than many other companies you could name (gaming, non-gaming, whatever), is it really failing?

On a completely different note, graphics would have to be the most incredibly overrated part of any game ever. Graphics are, essentially, sprites and backgrounds for 2D and polygons and textures for 3D. It has very little (if anything at all) to do with how fun a game actually is. Citing craphics is like citing the type of paper a report is on.
Click to expand...

Thanks for enlighting me with this information. :thumb: Yea doesn't surprise me Nintendo would be most profitable from gaming but you do have to admit having a huge financial backing does play a role in how much a company is willing to take to be successful in the gaming market. Look at microsoft they're starting to gain a lil momentum even after many critics and speculators said they weren't going to amount to anything and taking huge financial losses. But hey you make great points in your post.
 
A touchscreen is not an analog stick because there is no feedback or tactility, and it can't recenter itself.

Despite the fact that Nintendo is making the most money, from a console-buyers perspective, Nintendo's consoles are paling in comparison to the oppoments. They're not failing financially, but there is a rapidly diminishing reason to buy any of the consoles, right now, the only *real* selling point is price and the exclusive series'.
 
If it's good enough for you, then it's good enough for you. Keep buying nintendo consoles. =P

I don't know if I'll continue to stick with Nintendo as my first choice in future generations (It never has, actually, I bought a dreamcast YEARS before I bought a gamecube), but as long as LoZ remains nintendo-exclusive, I'll keep buying the appropriate consoles, as that's the only truely ancient series that doesn't stink like Miltank manure.
 
Kyfogre22 said:
If it's good enough for you, then it's good enough for you. Keep buying nintendo consoles. =P

I don't know if I'll continue to stick with Nintendo as my first choice in future generations (It never has, actually, I bought a dreamcast YEARS before I bought a gamecube), but as long as LoZ remains nintendo-exclusive, I'll keep buying the appropriate consoles, as that's the only truely ancient series that doesn't stink like Miltank manure.
Click to expand...

I was gonna counter this, but then I thought about it some more and realised there's no point in doing so, regardless who's right. ^^;

Mmm, video games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top