|
Interesting article on what Sony is doing wrong this generation
I didn't want to crap up the PS3 thread, but I thought this was an interesting and well-written piece about the troubles Sony will probably soon be facing.
I especially like the point about how the most powerful console hasn't always been the best. Something that I think a lot of the "kids" today don't really understand. Anyway, here it is: Link Paradigm Shift By GLDM @ Monday March 20th 2006, 4:32 pm “What was that popping sound?” “A paradigm shifting without a clutch.” — Dilbert and Dogbert, respectively I know some people are dissapointed by the delay of the PlayStation 3. I’m not sure how many are surprised, but given that development kits aren’t going out until June, that should have been a hint. The delay has been blamed on the Blu-Ray drives, but I think that’s just a scapegoat. It seems to me that Sony just doesn’t have a clue what to do with this next generation. The constant problems and flip-flopping on the hard drive seem to be indicators of a much bigger problem: Sony doesn’t get it. Some people don’t realize that a change has occured in the industry. I know people were talking about how great online gaming was going to be etc, but few seem to realize the exact extent this is changing things. Sony doesn’t seem to realize this either. Nintendo doesn’t seem to care, but they’ve got their own strategy and it looks like it will work for them. Microsoft however, seems to be on the ball. I’d like to propose the following hypothesis: The Xbox 360 is NOT Microsoft’s next generation product. The 360 is just incidental overhead. No, Microsoft’s product is Xbox Live. The 360 is just the client you use to get onto it. Those of you who own a 360 probably know what I’m talking about. Live is seemlessly integrated with the system and every game through and through. Everything supports it in some way, and often you don’t even know it’s there until it brings up your global rankings when you finish a lap of Project Gotham Racing 3. Other times its usefulness is completely obvious, such as the huge amount of demos that are available for download, which will likely start selling games left and right. Personally I doubt I’d ever have been interested in buying Fight Night: Round 3. Boxing isn’t my thing. But after playing the demo, we’re getting a copy. Ditto for Condemed: Criminal Origins. Detective work isn’t my thing either, despite my love of the F.E.A.R. engine. But after seeing it in action and playing the demo, it’s changed my mind completely on that game. Then there’s all the “incidental” bits of live. The free messaging, voice chat, marketplace, retro games, oh and let’s not forget, multiplayer. When you have Live, the 360 gives you effectively free unlimited long distance international calls. Well, free defined as for no more than you’re already paying your ISP for bandwith. But you don’t need to go bug everyone you know to download skype, or buy a quirky thing that plugs into your USB port, or cancel your phone service and switch to your cable company as your provider, you just use it. Yeah the quality isn’t going to blow anyone away, but it WORKS. That’s the key point. Meanwhile, back in PS3 land, Sony doesn’t seem to get the whole idea. Yes the PS3 will be able to hook up to a net connection, but it won’t have the centralized system that is Live. Each game must have its own servers run by the developer/publisher of the title. That means seperate fees, which is both going to be more expensive and more of a pain compared to Live. If I pay $50 a year for a Live subscription to play a game online, and then suddenly a new game comes out less than a month later that I switch to playing online, I haven’t lost anything. I’m not letting $13/month go down the drain because I don’t feel like playing the other game. It doesn’ t matter what game I play, it’s the same service. Sony needs to figure this out, and you’d think with their experience in MMOs they would. They even offer it on their own MMOs with StationPass. Perhaps someone from the PS3 division should go walk down the hall to SOE and have a chat by the water cooler. Now I’m sure all the fanboys will come out of the woodwork and start shouting about the power of Cell and how much better the PS3 will be etc. It doesn’t matter. The most powerful console of any generation has NEVER been the most successful. How many of you have a Colecovision? (I do, it sits next to my Vectrex) How about a Sega Master System? Atari 7800? Neo Geo? 3DO? Jaguar? Turbo Express? Lynx? Anyone even remember these “vastly superior and more powerful” machines? I do, I even have half of them. But none of them won the day in their respective generations despite their technological advantages. Why? Because gamers don’t buy consoles, they buy games! Whoever has the best games is the one who wins! The hardware means nothing! So, will the 360 have better games than the PS3? What about the Revolution? Well I think the PS3 is in the weakest position of the three. Here’s why: Familiarity. Cell is a powerful CPU, it’s true. But it’s also a non-standard design. It’s a bitch to program for, and without better compilers from Sony or IBM will probably be a royal pain. MS makes their own compilers for PC and Xbox and 360. They’re using a much more traditional architechure, their RAM is more flexible because it’s unified, the CPU is more symmetrical, and it’s using a lot of APIs that the PC shares like XNA and DirectX. This means games will be easier to develop, faster to develop, and that means more resources can be spent on things like gameplay, graphics, and testing. Man hours are a more limited resource than processing power at this point. This means whoever’s easiest to develop for will likely come out on top. Does this strategy work? Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, there was a little company called Sony. Sony wanted to make a video game console called the PlayStation. But Sony didn’t have much experience making games. They made a few on the SNES but they mostly weren’t very good. Nintendo had the home market and developers by the balls and Sega had a massive portfolio of arcade games to port to their new machine, the Saturn. The Saturn with its dual processors and more specialized and expensive hardware could easily trash the PlayStation in any synthetic benchmark. It could run circles around it without even trying. What happened? Well, Sega wanted their own games, specifically their arcade ports, to look the best on their system. So they kept all the best tricks and secrets of the hardware to themselves. The hardware was also very difficult to program for, and many developers struggled and produced substandard games. Sony saw this, and instead made their hardware use a very common MIPS CPU and some very straightforward hardware design, and then instead of making games, they made tools. They then gave the tools to other developers who made games easier and with better tricks, and thus the PlayStation became popular. But how did they beat Nintendo? Nintendo had grown arrogant in their position on top, and decided to push developers around with their iron fist. They wanted to stay on cartridges despite the high cost. They wanted to say who could make what for their new system, the N64. In the end, people left for the cheaper and more lenient PlayStation with its easy to use tools. Fast forward ten years. Sony now rules the market with an iron fist. They’re making a platform with confusing hardware that’s difficult to program for. They don’t want to give away their secrets. They want to control the developers and have exclusives and eat their cake too. They’re banking on having the most powerful machine, and everyone continuing to follow in their wake. Meanwhile Microsoft has made an easier to develop for machine, with nice APIs, and good compilers, and lots of tools to help developers make games…. Oh and Nintendo has decided to open their console and let virtually anyone make games for it. Nintendo’s looking pretty good too. They have the most traditional CPU. One core, modern design, good performance, familiar architecure. Yes it’s not some amazing blow the doors off multicore supercomputer of doom, but that’s not what they want. They want something people can work with as easily as possible, to spend more time on doing nifty things with their amazing controller! For those of you who say the Revolution controller is too crazy and will never catch on, let me ask you if you’ve ever used a controller with a d-pad, shoulder buttons, or an analog stick? Nintendo didn’t invent them, but they popularized all the above, and they caught the same crap each time about akwardness and how gamers would never like it and how it would never catch on. The only downside is Nintendo doesn’t seem interested in competing with Live, but that’s probably a smart move. They’re after the bigger market, the casual gamers. Everyone who’s already playing games, they’re sold on the consoles. It’s the people who never play or rarely play that Nintendo wants to bring into the fold through more innovative types of games, and so they really don’t care what MS and Sony are doing. Before you say that’s a bad move, go see who’s been making the most profit from their products lately. Nintendo is playing the long term game. They don’t need to win battles and pissing contests, they just need to make money, and they will. If they really get in trouble, they can just pull a Pokemon MMO out of thin air and watch WoW’s subscription numbers seem pitiful in comparison. So where does that leave us? MS has launched, and they’ve managed to create an amazing product. They obviously learned a lot from the first Xbox, which many of us always suspected was just a beta test, designed to lose money but teach MS how to cater to the console market. Sony seems to be floundering, trying to hide behind a curtain of excuses. They’re trying to impress people with numbers, but where are the games? They have no clue what online gaming is becoming and what Live is all about. They’re trying to take down the 360, but MS doesn’t even care because the 360’s just fluff, Live is the real monster. Nintendo has drawn a line in the sand, and walked away into the distance. When the other two stop fighting, maybe they’ll cross it, but I’m betting MS will follow first. If I can finish up with an analogy: Sony is planning on wowing everyone with their new bullet train. It’s sleek, it’s fast, it’s powerful. It can do seemingly amazing things. But it still only goes to the stations on the line, and the ticket costs a fortune. Microsoft has instead invested in cars, and given everyone standardized blueprints and built a global network of gas stations and roads. It may not be as fast as Sony’s wondertrain, but it can go ANYWHERE, which is in a completely differnt league. Nintendo has wandered off to build busses in the cities. They don’t care about the speed, only that as many people as possible can get a ride. |
Not article. Opinion piece with a clear bias. A highly speculatory one at that.
|
Originally Posted by Draven
I didn't want to crap up the PS3 thread,
|
Originally Posted by Groucho
Not article. Opinion piece with a clear bias. A highly speculatory one at that.
|
All that, and MS still can't sell the 360 to the Japanese. That's too bad.
|
Not a huge leap in logic there, been stated many times over, MS is interested in controlling the living room hub, not selling game systems.
At least this wasn't about Zelda. |
Originally Posted by Serious Groucho
Not article. Opinion piece with a clear bias. A highly speculatory one at that.
|
I'll agree that Live will have the best online scene, but Xbox have the best games? I don't know about that.
The most difficult console to program for last generation - by far - was the PS2. If the PS3 ends up being more difficult to program for than the Xbox (which is still up in the air), it won't be a change from the last generation. Clearly the PS2 had the widest variety and best games of any system (look and unit sales), so why would that change because PS3 is complicated as well? Also, comparing to history is incorrect. Compare the amount of manhours, people, and money put into a game during the Genesis days compared to today. Not even close. Plus, was the author trying to say that Sony is now a combination of Sega and Nintendo of the 32-bit era? Nothing really there. |
Originally Posted by fujishig
Agreed. I don't think Sony's fully revealed their online plans. And I have to think that, even though Live is amazing and a lot of people here have it, there are major obstacles to it being the vehicle that will make it the selling point of the system. Broadband access is not everywhere yet, and there are still people who hate the idea of paying for a subscription...
How Sony has any credibility wrt next-gen gaming is beyond me. Weeks away from their Spring launch and they hadn't debuted any working models. Sony finally states that the launch is pushed out to Nov 06 because of copyright protection issues with Blu-Ray and nobody questions it. Oh, and production-level dev kits will ship in June. Although Microsoft has failed to deliver on everything they promised for the 360, they have a product out that can be sized up and measured. While the guts of the PS3 sit on engineers' workbenches trying to figure out how all of the pieces will fit in the George Foreman Grill enclosure, they make statements promising the world and people accept it as true. :shrug: |
Sounds like someone who waited in line for a 360.
|
Originally Posted by sracer
Sony is a tale of two companies.... one keeps everything close to the vest, the other, promises the moon.
How Sony has any credibility wrt next-gen gaming is beyond me. Weeks away from their Spring launch and they hadn't debuted any working models. Sony finally states that the launch is pushed out to Nov 06 because of copyright protection issues with Blu-Ray and nobody questions it. Oh, and production-level dev kits will ship in June. Although Microsoft has failed to deliver on everything they promised for the 360, they have a product out that can be sized up and measured. While the guts of the PS3 sit on engineers' workbenches trying to figure out how all of the pieces will fit in the George Foreman Grill enclosure, they make statements promising the world and people accept it as true. :shrug: |
Some people are waiting for the PS3 to come out to see what it brings to the table and then make their decision on which to buy.
|
I thought it was in interesting article, but that doesn't mean that it's going to be fact. Case in point: Nintendo's transition from the NES to SNES was also laden with tons of difficulties, and ultimately they succeeded both critically and financially. Their transition to the N64 was also plauged with tons of problems as well, but that article seemingly doesn't recognize that the N64 was still a critical and financial success. It didn't put Nintendo in the poorhouse. Hell, the top ranked game on gamerankings is Zelda. Just because Nintendo doesn't completely control the market the way they used to doesn't mean they're a failure.
Furthermore, the market is much more diverse now than it was 10 years ago. There are more players in the hardware and in the software business. The market is also much larger. Lastly, just because of all these factors, does that mean people won't be buying the PS3? |
I think the piece does have some merit, particularly the comparisons made with Sega and the launch of the Saturn. When I was watching the news of that console and the PSX, everything I was reading about the difficult architecture and lack of tools made me pick PSX and unlike my $400-Saturn-buying-friends I wasn't disappointed. Sega came to market too expensive, and with sub-standard games from 3rd parties from lack of support. Sounds like Sony is re-treading the same ground. They still have time to turn that ship around, but not much.
In my mind XBox is now the "sexy" system for the teen-twenties crowd that Sony has so long banked on for their success. I say this objectively as someone who has never owned an XBox or 360. |
Forgot to add:
Most people buy a system for the games the system plays. I have never said "I gotta have that system!" unless there was something I really want to play that I can't play anywhere else, or is signifigantly better. Once you divorce yourself from name-brand loyalty for hardware, your horizons could expand enourmously. Of course, I'll always be a schill for Capcom and Konami. It's OK to worship software houses. ;) |
The only interesting thing he brings up in the piece that I had never realized is how the most successful console of each generation was not the most powerful one.
|
Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jim
In my mind XBox is now the "sexy" system for the teen-twenties crowd that Sony has so long banked on for their success. I say this objectively as someone who has never owned an XBox or 360.
In regard to the most "powerful" console, that is debatable. Many people thought the PS2 was more powerful because it could push more polys than the XBOX. Sure the XBOX had more cool effects (bump mapping etc), but most PS2 games optimized for the system managed to hold their own (MGS3, God of War, Gran Turismo etc). Lastly Playstation has become Sony's new Walkman. They bank on this business (pun intended) and have too much invested in it to screw it up. |
Agree with the Franchise. The only sure thing this next generation is that Sony will dominate it. How MS and Nintendo will do is up in the air, but Sony will sell a ton of PS3s and software. Bank on it.
Microsoft hasn't even made a dent in the market...particularly the world market because their games are so limited (driving games, first person shooters, and sports games). My bias? Meh, I'm a Nintendo guy lately. I only have time for 3-4 games per year and I can bank on Nintendo delivering 3-4 brilliant titles...I guess that's the other thing you can bank on. :) |
Originally Posted by slop101
The only interesting thing he brings up in the piece that I had never realized is how the most successful console of each generation was not the most powerful one.
SNES was more powerful than Genesis (arguable but I think true)? It could also be argued that the PS1 was more powerful than the N64 (in terms of polygon processing). I suppose the X-box was more powerful than the PS2, though I'm not sure how you'd measure that. Generally, the "winner" of each console generation is the one with the best games or the most good games...which power plays a role in but is hardly the deciding factor. |
Originally Posted by chess
What was more powerful than the NES in the 8-bit era? Certainly not the 5200?
Sorry about the "article" in the title - I do realize it's an opinion piece, I just thought it was a particularly well-written one. And I do stand by the idea that the level of tech is one of the least important indicators of a console's quality. |
Originally Posted by The Franchise
Lastly Playstation has become Sony's new Walkman. They bank on this business (pun intended) and have too much invested in it to screw it up.
|
Originally Posted by chess
What was more powerful than the NES in the 8-bit era? Certainly not the 5200?
Originally Posted by chess
SNES was more powerful than Genesis (arguable but I think true)?
Originally Posted by chess
It could also be argued that the PS1 was more powerful than the N64 (in terms of polygon processing).
Originally Posted by chess
I suppose the X-box was more powerful than the PS2, though I'm not sure how you'd measure that.
Originally Posted by chess
Generally, the "winner" of each console generation is the one with the best games or the most good games...which power plays a role in but is hardly the deciding factor.
|
Originally Posted by Draven
The Sega Master System.
Sorry about the "article" in the title - I do realize it's an opinion piece, I just thought it was a particularly well-written one. And I do stand by the idea that the level of tech is one of the least important indicators of a console's quality. I think that the guy's premise is way off base...at least if he's advocating the X-box, which appears to be the case. Tech isn't the most important but neither is the online service...still a decidedly niche market. Games. Period. Somebody will have the best or most games and they will win...and that someone will be Sony. Bank on it. ...and I'll probably be playing Zelda or Metroid. |
Master System was part of the same era as the NES.
Saturn was not more powerful than either PS1 or N64. |
Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
Sega Master System
Jaguar, 3D0, & Neo Geo were all more powerful than both Sega Saturn was more powerful than both that generation I'd definitely say the Xbox is more powerful than PS2. You are just reiterating the article. The point was that the most powerful never wins, the one with the games does. See the list of systems in this post for reference. I wasn't trying to make the point that "the most powerful system wins"...I was simply illustrating that this guy is full of guano...and on multiple levels. Not only is his basic premise silly, but his "data" are flimsy at best. |
Saturn had like a dual processor or something, it was the only one able to run an arcade perfect port of Marvel vs. Capcom if I remember although you needed the ram cartridge. I do believe it was the most powerful of that time but also the most difficult to program for.
|
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
...American developers are utterly incapable of producing something more endearing than skateboards, sports or FPS games. The Japanese have a virtual monopoly over games with heart and imagination...
"Utterly incapable"? I beg to differ. These western-developed games were all jam-packed with "fun and imagination" : Beyond Good and Evil Psychonauts Eternal Darkness Prince of Persia series Grand Theft Auto series Knights of the Old Republic series Splinter Cell series Ratchet and Clank series Sly Cooper series I think the problem is in the attitude of otaku fanboys who refuse to play something just because isn't "Japanese enough" to suit them (yes, I heard one say that). Anyone who would choose to play bad RPGs and card battle games instead of KOTOR or BG&E for this reason deserves what they get. |
Originally Posted by The Franchise
Playstation is like a Ford Focus and XBOX is like a <b>Ferrari</b>. One is clearly superior.
= J |
Sony to launch online service with PlayStation 3
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060323/...sony_online_dc
SAN JOSE, California (Reuters) - Sony Corp.'s (6758.T) top video game studio executive said on Wednesday that a new online service debuting with its PlayStation 3 console in early November will open up a world of new content for gamers as well as new revenue opportunities for the company. The service, which lets users buy games and communicate and compete with other players via the Web, again puts the company in head-to-head competition with Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) Sony, one of the world's leading technology manufacturers and entertainment companies, aims to retain dominance over the roughly $30 billion global video game market with the PS3. Rival Microsoft introduced its next-generation Xbox 360 game console in November of last year. The company's Xbox Live subscription service, which offers game downloads and online play, has been a hit on the new machine and Sony had been widely expected to offer a similar service. The basic level of Sony's online service, known internally as PlayStation Network Platform, will be free, Phil Harrison, president of worldwide studios for Sony Computer Entertainment, said at the Game Developers Conference in San Jose. Users will pay for subscriptions to game services and premium content, he told Reuters in an interview. When asked if Sony would tap its music and film libraries, he said: "Obviously, the strategy is for more than just games." |
His analogy is also flawed in the end. He's comparing methods of transportation to gaming systems...which can work, but here goes:
SONY is the one who is developing cars. They take you anywhere you want to go and are much more flexible but the amount of travel and enjoyment you get out of it is based upon how much money you have to throw around. The XBOX is a train. If you want a ride, you HAVE to follow their rules. If you want to go online with the Xbox, you MUST have Xbox Live. There is no third-party independent online access. And your only choice for communication is voice chat. |
Revolution is a helicopter.
That is all. |
None of the companies have showed me anything to really get me super excited for the next gen systems.
The Revolution has a ton of potential, but the controller could also be under utilized and just used as a gimmick or as a new way to control the same old games. Much like the DS. I love the system, but because it's the only place to get stuff like Castlevania, Princess Peach and Mario and Luigi (i.e. good, old school games) not because of the touch screen which has been fairly gimmicky. With the exception of Kirby I've not really enjoyed a game that made novel use of it. Thus I'm skeptical of more of the same with the revolution controller. As of now I'm planning on picking up a revolution for the Virtual Console and hopes that the controller will lead to a change in the types of games beyond what we've had on the PS, N64, PS2, X-box and GC as these systems have nearly killed my desire to keep gaming. |
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
None of the companies have showed me anything to really get me super excited for the next gen systems.
The Revolution has a ton of potential, but the controller could also be under utilized and just used as a gimmick or as a new way to control the same old games. Much like the DS. I love the system, but because it's the only place to get stuff like Castlevania, Princess Peach and Mario and Luigi (i.e. good, old school games) not because of the touch screen which has been fairly gimmicky. With the exception of Kirby I've not really enjoyed a game that made novel use of it. Thus I'm skeptical of more of the same with the revolution controller. As of now I'm planning on picking up a revolution for the Virtual Console and hopes that the controller will lead to a change in the types of games beyond what we've had on the PS, N64, PS2, X-box and GC as these systems have nearly killed my desire to keep gaming. |
Originally Posted by chess
This is the first era with three viable consoles. Everything you name was a non-player, other than the Saturn, which never really had a chance either...and sure didn't LOOK more powerful than the PS1 which was doing transparencies and other cool stuff IIRC.
We certainly agree on the last point, but I don't think the article made it. I don't think anybody in their right mind would ever make the case that the X-box had or is going to have the best games...which makes his true point (that Live is the big factor) moot. I wasn't trying to make the point that "the most powerful system wins"...I was simply illustrating that this guy is full of guano...and on multiple levels. Not only is his basic premise silly, but his "data" are flimsy at best. I will say though, whether a console is viable or not, there has always been a more technically impressive option out there than the dominating console. And it is true, they never win. |
Originally Posted by NC-36
I think the problem is in the attitude of otaku fanboys who refuse to play something just because isn't "Japanese enough" to suit them (yes, I heard one say that). Anyone who would choose to play bad RPGs and card battle games instead of KOTOR or BG&E for this reason deserves what they get. |
So the product is Xbox Live? No wonder I have no interest in buying. I will never be an online gamer. Free online with the PS2, PSP and DS hasn't pulled me in for more than a try here and there so there is no way a pay service will ever interest me in the least.
Whether the Xbox and 360's failure in Japan is based on nationalism or whatever it doesn't change the fact its a total failure and without a foot hold in Japan the 360 can never hope to knock Sony from their throne in the gaming arena. The mostly western game support killed my interest in the original Xbox and it looks like I will be passing on the 360 as well for much the same reasons. |
Originally Posted by NC-36
"Utterly incapable"? I beg to differ. These western-developed games were all jam-packed with "fun and imagination" :
Beyond Good and Evil Psychonauts Eternal Darkness Prince of Persia series Grand Theft Auto series Knights of the Old Republic series Splinter Cell series Ratchet and Clank series Sly Cooper series I think the problem is in the attitude of otaku fanboys who refuse to play something just because isn't "Japanese enough" to suit them (yes, I heard one say that). Anyone who would choose to play bad RPGs and card battle games instead of KOTOR or BG&E for this reason deserves what they get. For instance, I loved Beyond Good & Evil, but didn't think it was worth all the hype. It was basically just a watered down zelda game (since you didn't have the variety of items and attacks). I always suspected it got hyped as it was popular among people who though Zelda was too Kiddy. Out of the others you listed, Eternal Darkness is a classic, the first Prince of Persia was great, and Ratchet and Clank and Sly Cooper are solid but don't compare to say the Mario series. Psychonauts I haven't played yet. KOTOR is ok, but I liked it for the Star Wars atmosphere much more so than the gameplay. I'd prefer it to be more simpler, menu driven battles ala japanese RPGs. I loathe the GTA and splinter cell series. The japanese games just fit my styles more. And I'm hardly an Otaku fanboy as I don't give a shit about japanese culture, have never watched (nor plan to watch) an Anime etc. It's just my favorite developers (Nintendo, Sega, Konami, Capcom, etc.) who have historically made 99% of my favorite games happen to be Japanese. The western developers seem to just put out knockoffs that aren't as good, or focus on genre's like American style RPGs, FPS, RTS, sim games, open ended games like GTA, and so on that I just don't like. So I'm not saying western developers are inferior, but just that, with few exceptions, they don't make the types of games I like to play. |
Originally Posted by darkside
So the product is Xbox Live? No wonder I have no interest in buying. I will never be an online gamer. Free online with the PS2, PSP and DS hasn't pulled me in for more than a try here and there so there is no way a pay service will ever interest me in the least.
I'm 100% the same. I play games to unwind in the rare occasions I actually have some free time and don't feel like watching a movie. Thus I've never even been big on multiplayer games and it's not a competitive or social thing for me. Factor in all the idiots online, and the fact that even so many of the non-idiots play 100x more often than me and thus wipe the floor with me, it's just no fun. |
Originally Posted by Superboy
It's strange, but some of the most innovative games on the DS haven't even utilized the stylus, but I think the innovative nature of the DS itself has led developers to being more open to publishing titles that normally would never have left Japan. It was a great way to get some obscure titles in through the back door. Meanwhile the PSP, though technically superior, is much more a by-the-numbers system.
If not, at least I'll have the DS and the virtual console on the Revolution. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.