| theprof00 said: Yes, that is funny, because if your original point is still intact, that consoles need third party support to be successful, then PSP is really the WORST supporting evidence you can use as it was still creamed by the DS. You now say "You think a system doesn't need big exclusive games. Let me think the opposite". I'm glad that you've now reversed your position on the exclusive games to now include first party sales. Maintainance: Again, this is a very time-sensitive thread commenting on a lack of announcements bar the next six months during which many of the games have been pushed to pre-Christmas, and the next 3 months have some very nice first party, and despite your opinion on them, ports with expanded content.
Your metrics are baseless in this whole point. Most of your point rests on this idea: PSP had 3pexclusives, ds did not, sales were 30 v 70% That is absolutely the wrong way to look at it because the most important thing to a console is THE GAMES. Not specifically who makes them. PSP just so happened to have some VERY GOOD 3pexclusive games, but 3ds still really doesn't, even though it has more 3pexclusives. Again, you are taking a random metric of what you consider to be a defining necessity, and basing all your assumptions of that incorrect assessment. To make it simple for you yet again, your metric is wrong because we haev historical evidence showing that consoles do not rely or require 3rd party exclusives to be successful. What is most important is the game library and the value of the system. Both of these requirements show in the 3ds, all of them show in the 360, ps3, and wii, and the psp, the one console that actually supports your viewpoint gameswise (needing 3rd party support) is not supported by it's own sales. Yes psp would have failed without good third party support, but it doesn't prove that a console needs 3rd party support to be successful. Period. |
When you include stuff like this, its easy to just ignore what you have to say. Everything else I agree with.
