Wyrdness said:
No it can because your argument hinges on one region and not the market as a whole, PSP doesn't even help your argument here as that's a competitive platform that Nintendo had to battle, it in facts backs what I'm saying that had competent competition been around GBA would have had a much harder run getting the sales it did. PS1/Saturn/N64 came out the following gen after GB even launched, the consoles out at the time when it launch were SNES/MS/NEOGEO and it outsold them combined let alone outselling each of them. Even if we take your PS1 era attempt the GB outsold each of those consoles that gen as well despite them coming out 4-5 years after the GB's release so no Portables were always on equal footing with consoles before, PS2 was in fact the first time a console outsold the portable market platform beating out the GBA but then PS2 like the DS is an anomaly in gaming. All of this backs what I've pointed out in a shift happening in the 7th Gen. 3DS was coming off the back of the DS and was made to be more powerful than the PSP in order to help developers of key PSP flagship titles migrate over to the platform with out any compromise. Vita's high end approach pushed development costs up for portable development which turned off developers it ended up being a less powerful PS3 mini that was too expensive for most developers liking development wise and had pricing issues for the consumer while not even giving the mainstream market comparable graphical performance of the PS3 in an era where the PS4 was on the way. Well it's easy to say the 3DS/Vita era has increased because that's the truth GBA being cut short is null and void as far as anything is concerned because it's nothing to do with anyone else if the GBA lacked competitive power to deal with any competent competition. Banging on about GBA being cut short is like going on about the original Xbox being cut short, fact is these platforms were cut short for a reason that the platform holder made the decision to do so this doesn't help your argument in anyway it's just another what if scenario that holds no ground in a debate when looking at the numbers. Ofcourse they had to care about the Vita because PSP sold 80m anyone who follows gaming can highlight those numbers in any other gen could be market leading numbers Nintendo had to respect those numbers as those numbers indicate a competent competitor who can put up a fight. DS' numbers were also an anomaly Nintendo would be well aware the's no way to sell 160m units each gen and that if Sony built on PSP properly with Vita they would be in for a battle each gen and couldn't afford to not take the situation seriously. Like PSP/Vita or not they forced significant reactions from Nintendo, Sony unfortunately cocked up with the Vita in the end. |
So, the GBA gets beaten by 3DS in Japan, in Europe by PSP, but nothing counts unless it's either entirely beaten?
That view makes no sense, to be honest.
How can you speak of a monopoly and then ignore that despite that same monopoly it was beaten in two continents?
And that argument of being competitive or not has got nothing to do with this conversation. Gamers buy what they want, period.
Again, you ignore how long GB was on the market... 10 years! During that time, almost 2 generations went by.
GB just isn't comparable because home consoles, around NES days, were just restarting. Only natural that the NES (you can even count MS) gen sold less, but even then you have what, 70m in sales? Numbers that were achieved with less time one the market than GB had.
Then, from 1994 to 2001 you have to add the SNES and N64 generation.
If you look at how much handhelds (GB+GG) sold between 1991 and 2001, and look at how many consoles were sold in that same time frame, the difference is abysmal.
Handhelds didn't rule the market.
3DS wasn't more powerful than the PSP because of devs. What Nintendo console wasn't more powerful than the top console of the prior gen?
Dev costs also went up for those same devs who supported PSP. Did that change anything? No. Actually PSP sold a ton.
Same for Vita: did the costs went up? Surely. Was that the reason why devs (specially japanese devs) didn't support Vita? No.
As you said, price was a reason... memory cards, aswell... but the other - probably biggest - reason was that Nintendo secured the best deals (DQ, MH).
Also, it's hard to fight a 3DS at 170$ and MK7 and Mario3DLand at Christmas.
So, cutting GBA's life short when it had already sold 65m is the same as the Xbox being cut short when it had sold just 20-something millions?
Xbox had no sales potentail left. GBA, on the other hand, had a lot of sales potential. So much that, despite having two strong competitors on the market, it still managed another 16m.
If you want to ignore this "little" detail, so be it. Just don't expect me to follow suit.
So yes, having 2 distinct platforms does indeed help attract a bigger audience. And if Sony and Nintendo had replaced their respective consoles in 2015 or 2016, sales would have been even lower for 3DS+Vita.
That Nintendo respected what Sony did with the PSP, i agree. That they feared them like you imply, no.
For some reason you have this idea that if Nintendo went with old tech against a competitor like Sony, it would lose. You really give Nintendo little to no credit for what they achieved in the handheld market.
If anyone had fear, it would be Sony when they started realising that 3DS would be getting some of the most important support... exclusively.
If Nintendo feared Vita they wouldn't have made a 3DS that was just a DS+3D screen.
