naznatips said:
ssj12 said:
SleepWaking said:
naznatips said:
ssj12 said:
the DS is a handheld.. its in the handheld wars, which has already been decided that Nintendo will always control it.
The console wars = console not handhelds. The DS might outsell the PS2 but they are two different ballparks. |
That argument worked a lot better before games like Dragon Quest IX and Contra 4 were announced for the DS. At this point it just seems ridiculous. Of course handhelds compete with consoles in both software and hardware sales. Of course handhelds are just as relevant. When companies like Bioware are making games for a system it doesn't make sense to say it doesn't compete in the same market as home consoles. All game systems compete with each other for our time and money. If I buy a game for my DS, that's money I didn't spend on my Wii, PS2, or PSP. It's not like people have separate play money for handheld games. |
Was going to say the same thing until I saw your response and knew I couldn't explain it better. |
Normally yes I would agree with your statement 100% but I think even though handhelds negatively effect the home console market it still has some pull in its own section of the gaming market. You can say the PC takes away from the console market, which it does, but we don't consider it the same thing. They fall under gaming but they are all under their own sub genre of gaming, just like table games (poker, board games) and every type of toy and electronic that is considered a game (cell phone games are their own sub-genre btw). Each sub-genre effects the other sub-genres in their own ways. Betting in a poker game and losing all your cash doesn't really let you buy a console now does it? What system or console a developer chooses to make a game for doesn't matter. Remember Nintendo originally made board games, like Go!. If Bioware made a board game what would gamers do? buy the board game if they want to play right? lol, bad analogy but hopefully it gets the point across. Still, handheld systems can be taken anywhere, home consoles cant. They don't directly compete as handhelds don't compete for control of the living room. They compete and win quite effectively when it comes to going anywhere outside of the home. So my argument is, same genre, different sub-genres, one effects the other, but cant compare because there are to many differences better all the sub-genres. |
We don't consider the PC the same? I do. I bought Orange Box for PC instead of for a 360 or PS3. You did so as well. Wasn't that your decision to spend your time and money on a PC game as opposed to a console game? Now, I agree that handhelds have a larger available pool to get gamers from in general, but they obviously both compete directly for not only our gaming time but for the time and money of developers as well. Consider this: Bioware is making Sonic RPG for DS, but Bioware doesn't have a DS specific development team. They are making this game using their standard development team as one of their many projects. They commited time to making a DS game instead of making a console or PC game. Similarly, Dragon Quest is obviously one of the biggest RPG franchises in existence today, and Square decided to put it on the DS. Does the game no longer appeal to the fans of the SNES, PS, and PS2 games just because it's now on a handheld? No, and the DS will get sales from those people because of it. Contra is the same way. There is no huge dividing wall between the home console and handheld markets. Major games are released on handhelds more often than ever this generation and gaming in general is moving closer and closer to being handheld centric. Really, it's more important that these systems are competing for the time and money of developers than the time and money of gamers. Think about how many major games have begun development on the DS simply because of its userbase. Can you think of any companies that haven't released/aren't producing a major game on the DS? |
