View Post
Cerebralbore101 said:

3rd party DS vs PSP looks even at first. But then you realize that a large chunk of the PSP's 3rd party offerings were just bad versions of games that were on PS3/360. DS on the other hand has a 3rd party library that is unique to the DS. Or to put it another way... PSP was mostly a 3rd party port machine, while DS got its own exclusive 3rd party games.

One 1st party enters the mix it's pretty much over for PSP. 

Don't get me wrong, I love my PSP, and will eventually have about 20 games for it. But it doesn't hold a candle to the DS. In many ways DS vs PSP was the exact opposite of Gamecube vs PS2. 

I wouldn’t say that. PSP was relevant.

The PSP has distinctive characteristics that were cutting edge in handheld gaming. Most notably, it was more powerful, and that drew a lot of interest in the console. The Gamecube, on the other hand, lacked any cutting edge features: while it was more powerful than the PS2, this power was neither cutting edge nor of interest to any significant number of people; the XBox was the cutting edge console in terms of power: the PS2 had DVDs and DVD playback: and ended up getting the vast majority of the exclusives that generation. Despite Gamecube having more power, developers still offered more features and content to PS2 games - in some parts because the controller on PS2 was more versatile (see Capcom fighters and SSX games) and others because there was a lot more space on the discs, and others because PS2 was perceived by devs as having the fan base of the games they were releasing.

When it came to content, PSP and DS both had a significant amount of exclusive content; the Gamecube’s third party support was your everyday repeatable multiplats (Ubisoft, EA, and Activision sorts of triple A shovel-ware, often spotted, though not always, by the year printed at the end of the game’s title).

The big issue with Gamecube is that (despite having a handful of survival and horror games) it was positioned in the industry as a console for children; this was its primary niche - while the PS2 took the crown as the mainstream console. The PSP was a first stab for Sony into the handheld market and it was a victory since it competed with DS in the mainstream handheld market, and wasn’t relegated to success in a niche like the Gamecube. The DS just happened to smoke the PSP in the end; and they did it primarily with what could properly be called a gimmick upgrade (DS Lite); and I don’t mean it like how people insulted Wii as a “gimmick” to try and downplay the fact that motion controls were an actual new way to play games that tens of millions of people found fun, and not just a bell or whistle to offer shine (Wii’s sleekness was a gimmick, though).

That’s my take on it at least. Gamecube was an inadequate follow-up to what is Nintendo’s biggest blunder in the company’s history: using bulky expensive cartridges on the N64 - which precluded devs from releasing their content on the console: it was enough that even Squaresoft quit and released some of the most significant games in history on another console; and they weren’t alone, many others left or did not release any significant games on N64 as a result of cartridges (Capcom had a boom period on PSX, and it could have been in N64 too: but it took them FAR longer to get a lower quality RE2 out on N64 due to cartridges). This is what Gamecube needed to make up for, and instead it was the only one of the four big company consoles that lacked any cutting edge appeal (DC’s cutting edge status was cut short when PS2 released, and it pretty much died on impact).

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.