Your english is not that great either ;)

Most of the 3DS games can be done on the wii in some way or another. 3D is not a game changer...it doesnt really change the core gameplay experience yet. So i dont get why you keep pointing out that the psv games can be easily done on the ps3? Ofcourse it can. Although i suspect games fully made around the touch/rear end touch in the future will not able to be done on ps3.

And im not sure if you've noticed but the PSV has been brought across (at E3) as a device thats capable of gaming experiences similar to the ps3. I think the main reason for that focus at E3 was to show off its technical prowess. Which is fine because thats the kinda things people wanna see from a next gen portable, especially Sony fans. But lets get this straight this is a good thing!

Ever since after E3 Sony has been touting the psv's other features, the features that make it a portable. And i think this is where you get redundant. You expecting something more from a console thats not designed for what your looking for: a truly unique way of playing. The psv, imo, is Sony playing to its strengths. So many people critized the psp as having a lack of identity and nothing truly unique. But what people dont get is that it was never ever meant to be anything more. So this way Sony is making it very clear this is the PSV, it can do everything (home gaming experiences as well as the portable experience which is where psp lacked). And i think as others has pointed out theres been a hell of a lot of games to take advantage of the psv controls as well as games designed specifically for portable experiences. A good example would be .....  cant remem what its called that game about escaping from a prision?

And to answer your question from OP, no it wont have an affect on ps3 sales. These are two completely different market spaces! A person looking for a handheld is generally not loking for a home console at the same time. They are two distinctly different platforms. The thing where the original psp got it wrong, was that it failed on both fronts to a degree. It didnt really recreate the home experience on the go, and it certainly didnt have that much games designed for portable it also failed to deliver 'unique' experiences so it was left no where (it stil sold well though, so maybe im being a bit harsh but im trying to make a point -_- ).Sony is looking to correct this and is trying to be succesful this time around on both fronts, and in doing so creating its won truly unique console.

I doubt that my english is bad...

3D is a game changer, it's the entire platform of 3DS. Wii can't do 3D, and 3DS can't do Wii Sports. They are completly different consoles, with different games, and audiences. I know people who only have Wii for Dance Central, and no DS/3DS, and I know people who have a DS just for Pokemon. Different demograph, with some overlap.

How many major PSV titles are centered on the touch pads? Uncharted is the crown gem so far and it's just a watered down version of the console interation (which isn't a bad thing).

bold - That's my point, so wouldn't launching the PSV in Japan affect PS3 sales? After all the Japanese audience is largely migrating to handhelds, if PSV is PS3 portable, some sales must be lost. This is my question in the OP.

You just said the PSV is marketed as a portable PS3, and now you are saying it's a completly different market place. You say the PSV is not unique in it's games, yet it is.

Make up your mind before you debate, you can't say PSV is both the same and different from the PS3 for opposite reasons.

PSV might do better then PSP, but that's not my point. I only asked in in Japan will PSV's launch hurt PS3 sales? In Japan, lots of people who look at consoles also look at handhelds. The market is migrating.

For 3DS vs PSV software, this may just be a matter of personal opinion. I don't think 3DS and PSV will be that different from DS and PSP, and if you ask me the DS has a better selection of games. Just lookin on IGN and there are close to 100 Editors Choice titles, but only a little above 50 on PSP. Either way, I'm willing to agree on us having a different view. well at first glance you may be right but i think Vita is the bigger picture. just a few more added features like the rear touch pad the second analog stick and the on screen buttons just leaves vita to many more options. UC golden abyss gives you an either or platform for controls so it sows wht can be done with so many otpions. while 3DS has the touch screen feature, you can't string things together to connect things like whts shown in UC golden abyss. i don't think we differ that much. its just all in the way you look at it. man on screen buttons. Vita is like a N64 controler. if you actually count the features PSV is less like a PSP then u'd think. the six axsis used to make pit fly and that added analog gives gamer 2 more options while vita actualy addeds R2 and L2 with the back touch pad, 512 of RAM where PSP only had 32ram, on screen buttons, 2 anoalog sticks, sixaxsis, and agumented reality. i'm sure i'm missing something but its all about options and Vita has more then all 3 of the handhelds you mention'd. yea the same games can be done on 3ds as vita but you'l have less options on the side of 3DS, and i beleave Vita has more ram but i'm nt sure so i'll leave that one out. i wouldn't use the 3DS touch screen as a second analog stick. it just sounds stupid and complicated to me. PSP v DS? DS has more great games and its proven. PSP has great games and it beat the NES. i'm all about more so DS wins this one.

 360 has only 2 models. 4GB Arcade, and 250GB Elite. However there is a 320GB available with limited editions of 360's such as the Modern Warfare 3, Halo Reach, and Gears of War 3 bundled 360's. I bet the 350GB will be upgraded to 320GB sometime soon. There are also boxed Kinect bundles, so if you count those then there are 4 models to choose from. so theres only 2 main modles. ok! those bundles will help MS this fall but it looks like Sont will cut the 360's lead to 2m before the fall season starts. if PS3 can manage even 180k next wk(not saying i think sells will fall from the price cut) the out look for the rest of the month is a gap cut by 2m. Sony picked the right time to make the price cut. Sept. has always been one of Sony's best months during the holiday season. Oct. has also been kind to Sony in the past so thats where Sony will find holding ground. Nov. Dec. are Sony's biggest hurdles. if Sony can take those 2 months aswell, or even sell a few k shy of 360 numbers or slell even to 360 numbers they won't sacrifise there lead. i think heading into Nov. PS3 will have a 2m unit lead over 360. its alread 1m+. just a thought.

For Agent and Versus. I always felt those games would go multiplatform. You make a good point about Versus, but FFXIII still went multiplatform relativly close to release, and it helped sales overall significantly. dito both could go multiplatform with Agent being more likely then Versus, but we'll see next yr, as that ones to close to call.

For 2012 software. My point is there isn't many well known major titles announced. We knew about Resistance 3, Uncharted 2, Killzone 3, LBP2, SOCOM and all the other major 2011 titles early into 2010, even earlier for some. I feel PS3 and 360 exclusive software is begining to rely more and more on sequels (almost every major title for both platforms this year is a sequel), and that overall less software is being made. Nintendo already announced the Wii U, I expect Sony and MS to be working on some launch titles, or early projects for that system by now. agreed. al we know about from Sony are twisted metal and the last guardian so there no telling. they are likely working on early launch's for PS4 and 720, but i don't think we'll here about them next yr. all eyes on Vita and Wiiu mainly in 2012.

I'll wait for TGS, but if nothing major isn't announced there, I don't think much more will be. I expect to hear about a Resident Evil 6, but that's a sequel, and Multi-plat. dito

For PS4, I think you are far too ambitious about Sony. You know prior to this gen, almost every console peaked in sales 2 years after release? DS was the first exception with a 4 year peak, then 360 made it 5. It's about time for sales to drop, I understand this gen will mark the start of longer generations of gaming, but a jump from 5-10 years all of a sudden is ridiculous. PS4/720 may come out in 2014, but PS360 sales will drop, maybe even this year. I can't see them holding above 10 million in 2013. hey i'm just looking at the potential of price drops? the $199-$149 prices are a steal and i think the ground is solid for PS360. we'll have longer period's in between price drops next gen no matter how cheap or expensive the consoles are. i don't think either console  will have a significant lead over another next gen. even with Wii out the gate first, so it will be fuck up time in the 8th genand the company that f's up will lose, but it has to be worse then  anything that happened this gen.

yea i know its a stretch thinking Sony will go that far back, but if Sony wants to win the 8th gen then they better rely on nostalgia and get it right, or next gen's race will be boring.

PSV has a bunch of new integrated control mechanisms, but hey you know what, so does 3DS. First of all 3DS is tilt and motion sensitive (like a Wii-mote, and six-axis). 3DS also has augmented reality (however I'm not sure if it's up to the same level as PSV. 3DS has a virtual console, DS Backward compatibility, an analog stick (FPS's wouldn't work on a handheld anyway, I think 1 is enough). 3DS offers about as much as the PSV does. The main difference I see is 3D/Virtual console/BC vs. back touch pad/second analog stick/graphics. it seems neither can do without a function of there home console counterparts with titl/motion controls. yea i think we should leave the augmented reality out of this as  neither one of us really knows to much about which is better. i disagree about the shooter on hanhelds not working. i think vita will get it right where no other handheld has. so we can scratch the motion controls cause PS3 and Wii have it, augmented reality since both handhelds have it, the 3DS analog since PSP had it first, the virtual console cause Wii has it, thouch screen since they both have it, and PSV wins by 1 anolog stick and a rear touch pad, while 3ds comes up short with just 3d lol. i just broke both dwon until they had something the home consoles , and there predecessors didn't have or things both have in common. 

i question. do you agree vita has more control options? oh the only reason i didn't take both analog sticks away from PSV is because 2 analogs are a first time introduction to handhelds.

I agree with you about PS3 cutting the lead to 2 million by the end of 2011. MS has got to do something, I know they are raking in the cash on every 360 console they sell, but they need to care about the consumers more. However for MS to sit back and do nothing, something is up. There should be at the very least a Kinect price cut. agreed to a point. i don't think MS has anything. there have been few surprises this gen. you say the info i gave on consoles in the console elimination thread right? well i bring this tid bit of info. PS3 has been making profit since 2009. it cost 240 to make PS3 in 2009 and thats when Sony cut the price to $299. funny isn't it. hey i was shock'd to find that out cause it was all doom and gloom for Sony back then on VGC.

For price cuts, most consoles have sold their greatest volume at the $199 price point. however with inflation, that price point is now approaching $250. I don't think any future price cuts will budge sales. When PS2 dropped to $139, sales barely budged, and look at Wii this year. I feel 2011 is the last year Sony and MS have a chance to break even. Next year I expect 20% drops for PS360. good point but remember me and you are not the average consumer so we see these things. wht the average consumer sees as a bargain price never changes, unless they have less money, and higher bills. a price cut is a price cut to the average consumer and inflation has nothing to do with spending when it comes to a seemingly attractive price, so inflation is not a factor in a purchase when it comes to the consumer, $199 has change for us because we know but not for the average consumer.$199 is means $199 to them. when was the last time you heard someone say "you remeber when gas was $1.00?" think about it then tell me if inflation means anything to the consumer.

Nostaliga.....the issue is that most of Sony's bigger PS1 and PS2 titles were third party, and most of which have gone multiplatform, or the IP has been sold. If Sony loses MGS exclusivity, that could really hurt them. Twisted Metal is a fun game, but not a best seller. Sony needs to expand Polyphony Digital, we can't wait another 4+ years for another Gran Turismo. I mean Turn 10 is over twice as big. well i can't argue that logic.

What other nostalgic games were you thinking of? PS3 franhcises? I agree that Sony should keep some PS3 franchises (definatly Uncharted), but they also need to make a bunch of new IP's. New Ip's really saved them this gen. can't disagree with that logic either. after wht we've seen from Sony this gen with the level, or multiple number of new IP released i find it hard to think Sony wouldn't follow up with the same trend next gen while pushing the ip that made them a success this gen.

If you took off virtual console cause Wii has it, then you should take off a second analog stick cause PS3 has it. It's only fair. This is also the first time virtual console has been on a handheld too. 3DS Virtual console is different from Wii because it does GBC and GBA games, were Wii does not (at least not GB/GBC games). Both PSV and 3DS have their own unique features, all I am saying is I feel PSV vs. 3DS will mimic the sales pattern PSP and DS did. So PSV will Rock out in Japan, but world wide, nostaligia and good old Nintendo quality will win. ok but if i add the virtual console then i got to bring back the on screen buttons for PSV. hey i'm not beating you down. just having alittle fun. i'm not sure about the sells thing. nostalgia is a good arguement for a 3DS win, but i'm just not sure about the sells thing, but its a great argument that holds weight.

As for FPS's on a handheld, maybe some will sell alright on PSV, but not Call of Duty. I only see single player FPS's taking off on handhelds, and the market will be much smaller then the console market. see the thing is that vita can play like the big boy's so i can see COD working well on vita. even in online multiplayer but we don't have enough info and haven't seen it in action so thats another one we'll have to drop for now.

Do I agree that PSV has more control options then 3DS. Yes, but I don't think most games will take advantage of that. Wii for instance has a gamecube controller as a backup control method, but how many games use it? When I play Mario Kart I stick with the nunchuch and Wii-mote option, and never pkay with another one. I think the back touchpad is great, but I don't see many games taking advantage of it, and if they do, people people won't notice. but wht buts? i don't see any buts! well i'm sure there will be games that only have touch pad and on screen buttons as the only option. it all about building the game around the options and i believe dev will take that advantage as they do on home consoles. bulletstorm for PS3 only allows you to shoot with R1 and not R2. theres no way i've seen to change that option, but looking at Resistance one where Insomniac let you customize controls catering to your play style.

Sony has been making profit on PS3 since 2009, and it probably costs them <$200 to develop now, but think how much does a 360 cost? I read Kinect costs $60 to build, but they sell it for $150, and if I had to guess, the 360 itself is an $80-$100 system. Selling it at $300 is too much profit for MS. thats a business arguement. considering most reports i here MS is taking a lose on the 360 division as a whole so somethings wrong with that area of oporations but we won't know wht that is until theres a leak.

Inflation matters! $200 now is worth less then $200 10 years ago. Where I live, Mimimum wage now is $10 an hour, 10 years ago it was $7. This means 10 years ago it would take 29 hours at minimum wage to buy a $200 console, now it takes 20. once again it matters to us because we see it. the average consumer doesn't. they see $100 as $100 even if its $200 cause the average consumer doesn't see inflation. they see price, and $199 is the price.

Inflation is why parents can buy their kids a $250 3DS handheld. I remember being a kid and having to wait for the Gameboy to drop to $100 before it was affordable to get. wait are we talking about the the reason for the cost of goods or the need for price drops? your lossing me on this one. ok. so your saying cause of inflation parents make moree money so there able to buy higher priced thing as when inflation was lower they waited for price drops right? heres a small counter for you. wht has happend since PS3DS had there price drop? a pick up in sells right!. that shows the visual price is whts important, bot inflation.

As for Nostalgia, I think we come to an agreement. doesn't surprise me lol.

What are on screen buttons? Is this just touch screen with buttons on the screen? DS and 3DS are touch screen too, and many games use the touch screen as a button pallet. yea but i'm talking about making buttons on screen for different functions. the stylus is the main point when it comes to touch screens on 3DS. on PSV you make the buttons if need be. 3DS you can't make buttons its just a touch screen with a stylus pen. and the fact that the buttons perform independently from the touch screen makes them an innovative first.

You don't have to agree PSV and 3DS will follow a similar sales pattern to PSP and DS. You're a smart person, and you clearly have reasons to believe future sales patterns will fall the way they do. yea but even so time will tell and we can laugh about it in 2 to 5 yrs lol.

For FPS... I get where you are coming from, but I just don't see FPS's working well for online play. PSV might be able to play FPS's as well as the consoles do, but I can't imagine seeing some of my crazier multiplayer friends holding the screen. FPS players are very figidy. To hold a screen and play a FPS, you need to be very calm, get excited and the screen shakes, making it harder to aim. Also I can't picture FPS players who want to play a FPS anywhere, but their couch. agreed.

I think FPS's on handhelds will be limited to campaign based games. Online multiplayer will be there, but I don't see CoD taking off on PSV. For single player FPS's, you don't need a second analogue stick either. The best FPS I have ever played on a handheld would be Metroid Prime Hunters, and to play, you actually use the bottom touch screen with the stylus to aim. This gives you Wii-mote like accuracy with the shooter, and is fun to play. Only drawback is zooming with the sniper (have to use your pinky to click the other shoulder button, while holding the stylus). Two analog sticks will definatly be an improvement, Resistance plays no better then a gamecube shooter, but the DS with two screens is actually just as good. the ds with to screens is a handheld computer with a pen and stylus. the pen is your mouse lol. i agree that most gamers are not going to want to play against PS3 owners online with Vita playng COD. 

For controls, what about my buts? I did use one! It's better sentance construction when you don't make run on sentances. Anyway, I agree with you, there will be games that require touch controls only (games like little deviants). However these games will not sell in large numbers, and won't exactly be system sellers. Bulletstorm for PS3 had terrible sames. I mean, picture a game like Pikmin for Gamecube. Was that a system seller? It's a well appreciated game, but definatly not something that makes people think " I must get a gamecube now." If it pushed systems, it only helped during launch, and that's it. i know but i was talking about real buts lol. a little humor goes along way. we can wait and see on the touch screen only games.

For Microsoft's profit. MS made a loss with the original X-Box in order to make a name for itself. I remember reading something way back that Microsoft has been profitable for wuite some time now. They are just greedy bastards, and you know it. It's really a matter of national values. Most American companies (Nike, Chevrolet, Apple, Microsoft) build their products under the cheapest conditions possible. Apple, and Nike both make products in sweat shops, and charge a ridiculous amount of money for higher profit margins. GM used to make cars which would work perfectly for 3 years, then all the parts would break down, forcing you to buy a new car every 3 years (planed obselence, back in the 60's when GM's still looked good), and now they save money by implementing cheap building techniques (which I still consider planned obselence). Wall-Mart also has some really nasty neoliberalistic marketing strategies which force more and more people to work under mimimum wage or slave labour considtions, while driving out small buisnesses and generation billions of more dollars for CEO's (message me and I'll explain this one). I could go on... thats ok i'm a business major so i know.

Japanese companies are very different, they care about what the customer wants. Nintendo for instance won't build consoles in factories which don't have the capability to build their product up to their high reliability standards (but they still employ slave labour, everyone does), and both Nintendo and Sony have given away free games in the past, when they feel that have not met up with peoples expectations (PSN down gave free games, 3DS mega price cut ditto). However I know the price of a Sony console is usually not much above costs. agreed, but i'm still trying to find my free LBP download.

For Sony and Nintendo, public image, quality, and overall sales are more important then profit and fairness. MS is opposite. agreed

I can say all this bad stuff about Microsoft because I always defend MS on this website. hehehehe For once, I can say something harsh without getting ripped apart by 10 users. rip lol.

For inflation, what are you basing your arguement on? Most average consumers have not been playing games for 10 years or longer. So $200 to a person now is different to a person 10 years ago. It's not some magical price tag that promotes sales. People make xx dollars an hour, and they judge their purchases based on their income. If people made $50 an hour, and everything cost 5x more, everything would sell just the same. Making $10 an hour and charging $200, versus making $50 an hour and charging $1,000 makes no difference. I would imagine this is how housing works. In major cities, houses cost more, but income is also generally higher, so it's sustainable. Otherwise people would all move out to rural areas. This happens to an extent, suburbs, but my point is if people make more, they are willing to spend more. Sorry about the terrible analogy. your analogy is ok. i was just saying that consumers see things by pricetage not inflation. most consumers don't even now wht that means but i know why your saying. some consumers don't know $1 may be $5 do to inflation.

Okay inflation. Sorry if I lose you, I'm really good with math and economics (take it in school, but it's not my subject post). ok. i like math but i'm better at business and politics which i hate the ladder.

I'm saying if people make more money, they are willing to spend more money. A price cut is a very sharp cut in price, of course sales rise. That case you mention is a sharp cut in price, while people still make the same amount of case. ok i understood that.

Inflation is a gradual process. Say we were going into recession again, and the average income dropped in half in 10 years (extremly unlikely, this would actually create a depression, but this is hypothetical). If Nintendo launched a new console at $200, it would not sell as well as it does now. That new system would sell significantly less because people have less money. However if they sold a new console at $100, sales in this hypothetical future would mimic sales of a new console, priced at $200 now. uh thats wht i was saying.

In reality, we are always going through inflation. Inflation encourages spending (because stored money depreciates in value since you can buy less with it in the future), and this helps the economy. dito. economic's 1o1

One thing which I do know from economics, is that general market trends heavily depend on the amount of expendable income the average person has (How much money people have after they pay their rent, bills, and other living costs). So if the cost of living (food, rent, bus fair/gas, heat, electricity, etc) remains constant, but the average income a person makes increases (or the price of goods decreases), then people spend more. The philosophy is "I have more, so I can afford more, so I'll spend more." This is why there is always a jump in sales after a price cut (goods dropped in price), so it becomes more affordable to people. i say that everyday

However if the cost of living and income have increased proportionatly, then in order to maintain the same level of retail sales, prices must increase proportionatly too. Basically, this is my point, if people make more they are willing to spend more. So $200 in 2001 translates more like $250 in 2011. i say that everday aswell

Just as an example, if $3,000 means $3,000 to a consumer, regardless of era, then how come per capita, automotive sales are not drastically higher now then they were in the 1960's? You can't buy a new car for $3,000 like you used to, so why are cars even selling at all? This is the same logic you present me under a shorter timeline. Televisions also follow this trend, the average price of a purchased tv now is a lot higher then in used to be in the 60's. well cars are a big ticket items so i wouldn't have even said that. its all about how the consumer preceives price but eveything you just said ties into that rendering that traditional cost to costly for purchase leaving the consumer to say " i'll wait for the price to drop". this is just something else we agree on and didn't know it.