By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What happened to "portable games for portable a console"

Tagged games:

I think Nintendo will do a Zelda game in the vain of a Link between worlds, Fire Emblem will be like its handheld counterpart but with flashy graphics. Don't forget Pokémon and Animal Crossing too.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:

This happened:

And this: (bye bye Brain Training/Nintendogs demo)

And in general the entire 14-35 demo was happy with their smartphone too, so bye bye PSP/Vita. 

Switch changes the rules by going upmarket and creating a higher end console style experience for portable play that can also be played on TV ... that counteracts smartphones/tablets eating up huge portions of the traditional portable market. If Nintendo had made a conventional DS-3 style portable and tried to sell it with "cute wittle little bite sized games that are $40" ... they would be in a world of trouble right now.

It's a no-man's land that's a death zone because $40 is fucking expensive these days for a "bite size" gaming when smartphones do it for free, and no "it haz buttons tho!" isn't good enough of a reasoning. Switch goes further by providing a high scale experience that can even handle some ports of modern console games like DOOM, Wolfenstein, Final Fantasy XV, NBA 2K, FIFA, along with Nintendo's high end IPs that previously were reserved for home console -- Zelda open-world, Splatoon, Mario open-world, etc. 

Nintendo must keep Switch relevant by providing it with experiences that are to the layman some thing close to what they would expect from a modern-ish home console. Doesn't have to be right on, but within 1 generation leap of what is modern. That's the key IMO. 

Eh, that really don't explain why Vita will end around 15m while 3DS around 70m+.



Turkish said:

It should be noted that the PSP sold more than the 3DS ever will. And yeah piracy killed it (and Sony never really being committed, saving PS3 was bigger priority). For a few years PSP was very competitive against the DS, even outselling it iirc, but then came the CFW.

PSP was a revolutionary device back in 2004. A widescreen LCD, PS2 like graphics, joystick, movie/mp3 player, internet browser, the XMB. Coming from a purple non-backlit gba it was crazy.

 

Piracy was present in DS as well, no problem. And Nintendo had the Wii to take care of too. It's an excuse. Ds crushes PSP on its merits. It's not Sony's fault entirely, competition was crucial. The DS was a better gaming device than the PSP, which reflects on long-term sales. Selling double and much more software, even suffering with a piracy equal or worse than the PSP suffered.



Agente42 said:
Turkish said:

It should be noted that the PSP sold more than the 3DS ever will. And yeah piracy killed it (and Sony never really being committed, saving PS3 was bigger priority). For a few years PSP was very competitive against the DS, even outselling it iirc, but then came the CFW.

PSP was a revolutionary device back in 2004. A widescreen LCD, PS2 like graphics, joystick, movie/mp3 player, internet browser, the XMB. Coming from a purple non-backlit gba it was crazy.

 

Piracy was present in DS as well, no problem. And Nintendo had the Wii to take care of too. It's an excuse. Ds crushes PSP on its merits. It's not Sony's fault entirely, competition was crucial. The DS was a better gaming device than the PSP, which reflects on long-term sales. Selling double and much more software, even suffering with a piracy equal or worse than the PSP suffered.

Hardware wise PSP was better, a generation better. And when it had Western support it was selling as good and even outselling the DS. There was nothing wrong with the hardware, it just lacked the games, both from Sony and 3rd party. DS piracy wasn't nearly as big an issue as on the PSP, getting pirated games on the DS was many times harder than on PSP, not to mention it came much later. Nintendo didn't have a console like PS3 and Bluray to save so I dunno why you brought up the Wii. Nintendo had the fortune to attract millions of non-gamers (which they lost a generation later), they were comfortable. Perhaps too comfortable as they ran into trouble later. The PSP did amazing considering it outsold or sold as much as any other Nintendo handheld, even the original Gameboy, if you dissect its total sales around 40 to 50 million of it is from the GBC.

PSP was a better handheld, and it had the better games in my opinion.



Soundwave said:

This happened:

And this: (bye bye Brain Training/Nintendogs demo)

And in general the entire 14-35 demo was happy with their smartphone too, so bye bye PSP/Vita. 

Switch changes the rules by going upmarket and creating a higher end console style experience for portable play that can also be played on TV ... that counteracts smartphones/tablets eating up huge portions of the traditional portable market. If Nintendo had made a conventional DS-3 style portable and tried to sell it with "cute wittle little bite sized games that are $40" ... they would be in a world of trouble right now.

It's a no-man's land that's a death zone because $40 is fucking expensive these days for a "bite size" gaming when smartphones do it for free, and no "it haz buttons tho!" isn't good enough of a reasoning. Switch goes further by providing a high scale experience that can even handle some ports of modern console games like DOOM, Wolfenstein, Final Fantasy XV, NBA 2K, FIFA, along with Nintendo's high end IPs that previously were reserved for home console -- Zelda open-world, Splatoon, Mario open-world, etc. 

Nintendo must keep Switch relevant by providing it with experiences that are to the layman some thing close to what they would expect from a modern-ish home console. Doesn't have to be right on, but within 1 generation leap of what is modern. That's the key IMO. 

You know, Smart devices had an impact - I'd especially agree with the Brain Training "casual" demographic - but I believe Nintendo gave up a lot of sales with bad decisions on 3DS.  The game lineup for the first 6-9 months was very poor, which I think discourage sales and ultimately 3rd parties, and I don't think the 3D screen was ever a big draw.   don't know about Vita - maybe it was completely hit by smart devices? 

I'm mostly in agreement with your main point - Nintendo does need to show experiences only the Switch can provide.



Around the Network

Soundwave said:

Switch changes the rules by going upmarket and creating a higher end console style experience for portable play that can also be played on TV ... that counteracts smartphones/tablets eating up huge portions of the traditional portable market. If Nintendo had made a conventional DS-3 style portable and tried to sell it with "cute wittle little bite sized games that are $40" ... they would be in a world of trouble right now.

It's a no-man's land that's a death zone because $40 is fucking expensive these days for a "bite size" gaming when smartphones do it for free, and no "it haz buttons tho!" isn't good enough of a reasoning. Switch goes further by providing a high scale experience that can even handle some ports of modern console games like DOOM, Wolfenstein, Final Fantasy XV, NBA 2K, FIFA, along with Nintendo's high end IPs that previously were reserved for home console -- Zelda open-world, Splatoon, Mario open-world, etc. 

Nintendo must keep Switch relevant by providing it with experiences that are to the layman some thing close to what they would expect from a modern-ish home console. Doesn't have to be right on, but within 1 generation leap of what is modern. That's the key IMO. 

If Nintendo made a sequel to the 3DS it would sell just as much if not more than the 3DS. Why? For starters the price would be insanely competitive. Nintendo sells the Switch at $300 and the 2DS XL at $150. I'm pretty sure PS2-Quality graphics are possible at a price point of a $150 portable these days (2DS XL is overpriced, to make 3DS XL prices look fair). Secondly, the 3DS had a rough start with a high price point, and a small library. Nintendo would have pulled a Switch and dumped an epic library on the masses early in the life cycle. This would have made a huge difference in sales numbers between the 3DS and our hypothetical sequel. Finally, and this is the most important thing... Nintendo's handheld offerings absolutely blow smartphones out of the water. We are comparing free to play shovelware, to full fledged games.

Yes, smartphones took a bite out of the handheld market, but they only really took the casuals that were playing Tetris, Nintendogs, and Brain Age. What remains of 3DS and Vita Sales is the core of the handheld gaming market, and those core gamers won't settle for the crap that is played on smartphones. That core of gamers will be a thousand times harder to capture than the casuals. Smartphones have no hope of taking that core, until smartphones offer experiences that are just as good as traditional handheld offerings. But that won't happen, because the entire Smartphone gaming market relies on baiting people in with free games, and then ruining those games with pay to win, microtransaction shenanigens. 



Switch isn't a portable, but a hybrid. You can't look at the success of a hybrid console, and then say "What happened to portable games for a portable console?" Home console games are best played at home, and those games don't do well on portable-only systems. This is part of the reason why the Vita failed. Not to mention those games are really expensive to make, but on portable-only systems the developer can only charge $40. But on Switch the developer can charge either $40 or $60, so there's no lost money from gong portable.



Veknoid_Outcast said:

With its mantra of "console gaming on the go," Vita success was predicated on AAA third-party support, which either arrived in sloppy, miniaturized form or didn't show up at all. Few people wanted to play Call of Duty Declassified, Golden Abyss, Killzone, and Assassin's Creed Liberation when their older siblings could be played on a giant TV at home.

Switch is doing the exact opposite. It's designed to succeed in the absence of AAA third-party support. A steady release of desirable first-party content is keeping it afloat.

I think that's the biggest difference. The Sony ecosystem is built around AAA third-party games. Gimp them or take them out of the equation and the system suffers. This is also why the WiiU struggled.

Conversely, the Nintendo ecosystem is built around first-party games. Switch has a lot of must-have first-party games in 2017.

Obviously there are other issues — memory card prices, marketing, optics  but I think the software library is the greatest ingredient.

I agree and disageree with this. First party support is doing what it always has for Nintendo - sell systems.  However, it cannot be overlooked how much potential any 3rd party release has on the Switch because of it's portability.  There's a non-trival amount of people who look at the Switch's current upcoming 3rd party/indie games and think "it's a slightly gimped DOOM.  But I can take it anywhere."  Same goes for any potential ports of old games and new 3rd party support.



"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"

Turkish said:
Agente42 said:

 

Piracy was present in DS as well, no problem. And Nintendo had the Wii to take care of too. It's an excuse. Ds crushes PSP on its merits. It's not Sony's fault entirely, competition was crucial. The DS was a better gaming device than the PSP, which reflects on long-term sales. Selling double and much more software, even suffering with a piracy equal or worse than the PSP suffered.

Hardware wise PSP was better, a generation better. And when it had Western support it was selling as good and even outselling the DS. There was nothing wrong with the hardware, it just lacked the games, both from Sony and 3rd party. DS piracy wasn't nearly as big an issue as on the PSP, getting pirated games on the DS was many times harder than on PSP, not to mention it came much later. Nintendo didn't have a console like PS3 and Bluray to save so I dunno why you brought up the Wii. Nintendo had the fortune to attract millions of non-gamers (which they lost a generation later), they were comfortable. Perhaps too comfortable as they ran into trouble later. The PSP did amazing considering it outsold or sold as much as any other Nintendo handheld, even the original Gameboy, if you dissect its total sales around 40 to 50 million of it is from the GBC.

PSP was a better handheld, and it had the better games in my opinion.

Bolded 1: Okay, what the hell are you talking about? PSP was never outselling DS. The closest it got was right after launch in 2005 when it sold 9.61 million versus the DS selling 10.99 million. But then the next year the DS started crushing it with 20.78 million versus the PSP at 9.49 million. PSP was never outselling DS. It was almost selling as well as DS at the very beginning of their lives, but that lasted less than a year.

Bolded 2: Yeah, and I guess DS Lite is the best selling video game console ever, once you dissect the 70 million PS2 Slims. Actually, that probably means that Wii sold more than PS2 as well, since the original Wii model sold around 90 million on its own before Wii mini came out.



Does anybody remember what DS games originally sold for? I could have sworn they cost $30 back in the day, and not $40 like 3DS games. Also the DS was $129.00 back in 2005. That's $161.00 in today's money.