By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
naruball on 27 December 2016
Edit Thread
Ljink96 said:
naruball said:

Nice assertion there. Completely ignoring the fact that back then what the psp could do was a novelty. There were no iphones or tablets and the device was unique in terms of watching movies/tv shows, music, and playing games.It even had skype which people could use to call their friends. You know what's also hackable? ouya. How much did that sell?

It's like saying that the only reason the wii was a success was because it was hacked. I mean why didn't the Wiiu sell well it was such a success? In other words, your argument is extremely weak. Especially claiming that it was the only thing that made it sell. The psvita didn't sell well for a number of reasons just like the psp sold well for a number of reasons, including how easy it was to hack it.

As for your second paragraph, you don't seem to understand the concept. It's supposed to be a phone. People are willing to spend up to $600 or more, unless they get a plan, which they could also do with what the OP described. The comparison with the Switch is completely invalid. The switch is a console. Not a phone.

No, the Wii Sold because it was novel. And again, people didn' have to pay for movies on PSP either, they could get pirated copies of films too. Wii was easily hackable towards the end of its life cycle. Before then it was still selling very well while PSP was hackable really early. Ouya wasn't anything new or exciting, it didn't have exclusives, it's an android TV device and they came a dime a dozen. Why buy an Ouya when your phone could essentially do better? There's tons of Android TV devices with emulators, why would anybody buy an Ouya? Not really a thoughtful comparison.

The MAIN thing that I think sold the PSP was how easy it was to pirate games on it. Sure, you could play videos but the music tech industry had something called iPod. It was also cheap, and like I said, had a fair number of great games. I didn't make the comparison to the switch, the switch was mentioned in the OP to go against this "new phone".  "BETTER HARDWARE THAN NINTENDO SWITCH(#sony phones are always up there on the top with mobile specs)".   And the switch is a hybrid, not a console. The only thing that differentiates a phone from a mobile game device is a phone service and a OS that runs apps. The Switch is rumored to run apps like Netflix, Grubhub, Crunchy Roll, etc. and have a service of some sort as you'll be playing games on the go. The Switch OS is also heavily rumored to be a heavily modified android fork. Where'd we stand if all this is true? Switch would be a handheld, console, and a phone... but I doubt it'll have calling capability.

I don't see how you thought that repeating what you just said would strengthen your argument. It doesn't.

bolded is factually incorrect.

As for ouya? And? You said that the only (not "main" like you just changed it to) reason the psp did well was because it was hackable. Yet another device is even more hackable and didn't do as well. Clearly, there was more to it than hacking that helped it sell so well. It was a novelty, just like the wii was. Why you refuse to accept this is beyond me.

Bringing up the ipod is irrelevant. Of course there were all sorts of mp3 players. But those couldn't play games, videos AND music.

The Switch is a hybrid handheld console and home console. It is a console.

There is nothing to indicate that the Switch will be a phone.

"The only thing that differentiates a phone from a mobile game device is a phone service and a OS that runs apps"

You're wrong. Even if 3ds had apps and phone services, it still wouldn't be called a phone. It just doesn't work that way. It would be a handheld console with phone capabilities. The average consumer wouldn't identify it as a phone, the same way they don't identify tablets (especially the huge ones) as phones (even if they provided phone services).