The Gba has alot of origan games so I am not sure about that statement. It is very important to realize that the GBA is the reason why the DS is so successful. First of all the DS is cheaper all around, second of all it has more support. Because of nintendo's history in the handheld market they have recieved alot of support. And let us not forget that the GBA and DS doesn't really equate to success it is the name NINTENDO period that shines a light on the device in terms of comsumers. To say that the DS owes none of its success and to the GBA is a half hearted arguement that makes no sense, I am sorry to be so blunt. The reason why the DS and PSP is selling well, beleive me they both are, is because of consumer recognition and familiarity. If you look at the history of handhelds you will see why many didn't reach some mainstream success. Support and price is what has governed the life of a handheld and with Nintendo cornering the market I was really shocked that Sony would even try something but the PSP is doing well so I guess it wasn't a bad move.

Celine... GREAT post. Especially those 6 bullet points at the end... Great stuff... Been reading much Sean Malstrom? Static, look at the top selling DS games vs. GBA games. On the GBA, you have 3 Pokemon titles topping the list. This is followed by Mario Kart, 4 Mario remakes, and the "Namco Museum." Then theres a Zelda remake, and a series of the usual suspects like liscensed Disney games, Kirby, Sonic, Wario, and yet more Mario remakes. Where are the new properties? Where is the new gameplay? Certainly not among the best-selling titles. On the DS, you have some of those usual suspects like Mario Kart, Pokemon, a single Mario remake, Sonic, Kirby, Wario will be there soon... But you've also got Nintendogs, which has already outsold every individual GBA game ever released, and which isn't too far behind the combined Ruby/Sapphire sales. You've got a NEW Mario 2D platformer, which hasn't been seen for 15 years, and which has also outsold every individual GBA game. Brain Training and Animal Crossing are in a territory only touched by Pokemon on GBA. You've got WarioWare DS which far outperformed all the old versions. There are things like English Training selling in the millions of copies. And where are the third parties? Only three of them among the 22 games to reach to 1 million sales... And most of the games which look to be on the verge of 1 million are Ninty games too. Nintendo fueled the success of DS, and only once it took off did third parties come aboard. And now that they are coming aboard, its with mega-properties like Dragon Quest 9, which wouldn't have even been considered for GBA. And the top performing DS games are unlike anything GBA ever saw, and are outperforming all GBA games. So its hard to say that DS just depended on the Nintendo name, sustained third party support from GBA, and classic Nintendo franchises. The numbers tell a different story.

"Nintendo fueled the success of DS, and only once it took off did third parties come aboard" What I am trying to say is that people are familiar with the name nintendo. I am not saying that it was 1st party games that fueled the success. Before any games enter the equasion if someone mentions a new nintendo system or a new sony console is comming on the horizon that will generate interest. DQ9 obviously is not that big of a step since Square has been supporting nintendo's consoles alot more. Final fantasy tactics and Crystal chronicles functionality showed the forward movement in this area. Without delving into titles all I am sayying is that the DS was propelled by GBA's success. Of course after it sold quite a bit then more devs hopped on but that is expected. We can turn this on its ear. The PS3 has sold 1.5 million without any really good games (in my opinion) to prove its worth. That is because people expect the same quality of games that came out on the PS2. Now if later on this year the PS3's exclusives start to push systems then the argument will still remain. The PS3 has recieved these initial sales to the PS2. The DS recieved alot of its initial sales to those people who have owned a GBA. What happens after that is up to the games but I will stand by what I have said. Established names and reputations sell.

There is a key difference between the handheld and console market. The handheld market is for gaming on the go, while you are sitting on the train or waiting in line etc. It is designed for simple games that can be started up and played quickly. The DS have more creative original games, where teh PSP has sequals to console games. I personally would not want to play Portable Ops for an hour while sitting on my couch looking at a 4 inch screen. This is why the DS is superior to the PSP. The console market is for games that you want to sit on your couch and relax and play. Nintendo has abandoned its previous strategy of making epic games and is going to focus on devoloping simple pick up and play games like Wii sports. It does not look like third parties will fill in this void. There will still be Zelda, Mario etc, but don't expect new engrossing IP's. You will not see titles like GTA, RE, FF,or MGS or new titles like Gears of War and Bioshock on the Wii. You will see more exclusive like Elebits and Raving Rabbids. This is the problem with Wii and why it will not be able to maintain this momentum for the next 6 years. This is why DS success will not predict Wii success. I believe that the winner of this generation will either be XBOX 360 or PS3. If Sony cuts prices this year as I believe they will, they will make serious inroads and challenge Microsoft for 2007 sales. If XBOX 360 could be anything more than an abysmal failure in Japan, they will probably win this generation. The thing that bothers me most is how Nintendo advertises their shortcomings as if they are "features". 1. N64 - "We don't need a large library qualityand not quantity is what matters"... Of coarse there is no reason that you cannot have both like psx. 2. GCN - "We are a gaming only system".... lack of DVD and online is not a selling point. For a "gaming system" the GCN sure lacked games to play. 3. Wii - "They wanted HD graphics and we wanted to offer an innovative way to play games".... Once again there is no reason that we could not have good graphics and an innovative controller. Nintendo is all about doing things on the cheap and the better for them. They are by far the more profitible console manufacturer. But don't patronize us and say that these cost savings actually make gaming better in any way. Don't get me wrong, Nintendo is by far my favorite publisher out there with Zelda, Mario, Metroid etc, however you feel like you are force to choose between them and every publisher in the world when you buy a Nintendo console. This may be the first time I buy two consoles in my life, but I wouln't pay more $100 dollars for Wii (prob June 2009).

staticneuron, I would argue that devotion to the name Nintendo only exists because people have an expectation of quality from known Nintendo franchises like Mario, Zelda and Pokemon. Clearly, even this devotion was not enough to stop Sega from challenging Nintendo, or to stop Sony from toppling Nintendo, or to stop Microsoft from slightly besting Nintendo. When more games were going to systems from other companies, consumers went to other companies. The initial speed with which N64s were bought was due to faith in Nintendo, yes, and the initial slowness with which PSones were bought was due to unfamiliarity with the PS brand, of course, but in the long run, the system with the games sold 3 times as much. People thought the PSP line was going to sqaush Nintendo completely, marginalizing them in the handheld business too. The only videogame brand in history which was stronger than Game Boy was PlayStation, after all, and Nintendo was introducing a "third pillar" which was not part of the Game Boy line, and was just going to confuse customers and produce gimmicky games. But this new "DS" brand is now outperforming PSP and Game Boy, and every home console too, in every region of the world. Nintendo chose a new brand for DS on purpose. Edit: Oh, and DQ9 is MASSIVE compared to the spin-off titles. DQ7 and DQ8 were the #1 best-selling titles in Japan for the PSone and PS2 respectively. DQ returning to Nintendo, and to handhelds no less, is one of the biggest stories in gaming in 2006.

"I personally would not want to play Portable Ops for an hour while sitting on my couch looking at a 4 inch screen. This is why the DS is superior to the PSP." Have you played portable ops? I have been finishing missions in less than 20 minutes. Or how about games like loco roco? The point is really mute because you can flip the PSP on standby (given that you have not run out of battery) at any time. I only use my PSP on the go and I have felt no fustration in pausing or halting gameplay. The gameboy has controlled the handheld market for about 18 years. The gameboy line has sold about 188 milion units to date, which is alot more than any single playstation generation. From the gameboy to the gameboy pocket to the gameboy color to the gameboy advanced to the gameboy advanced SP all the way to the gameboy micro, nintendos's handhelt units have achieved an absurd amount of sales and has destroyed all competetion. I have never read anywhere or even known a person who seriously though that the PSP was going to come and unsurp the GBA's throne. With those numbers in mind is it really hard to believe why the would move the Tactics to the handheld? With the numbers of DS sold in the world being higher than all the next gen consoles combined made it a hard choice? I cannot say the I was surprised.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ catofellow said: There is a key difference between the handheld and console market. The handheld market is for gaming on the go, while you are sitting on the train or waiting in line etc. It is designed for simple games that can be started up and played quickly. The DS have more creative original games, where teh PSP has sequals to console games. I personally would not want to play Portable Ops for an hour while sitting on my couch looking at a 4 inch screen. This is why the DS is superior to the PSP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is true. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The console market is for games that you want to sit on your couch and relax and play. Nintendo has abandoned its previous strategy of making epic games and is going to focus on devoloping simple pick up and play games like Wii sports. It does not look like third parties will fill in this void. There will still be Zelda, Mario etc, but don't expect new engrossing IP's. You will not see titles like GTA, RE, FF,or MGS or new titles like Gears of War and Bioshock on the Wii. You will see more exclusive like Elebits and Raving Rabbids. This is the problem with Wii and why it will not be able to maintain this momentum for the next 6 years. This is why DS success will not predict Wii success. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read those "Iwata Asks" interviews. There is one section called "EACH PHILOSOPHY BENEFITS FROM THE EXISTENCE OF THE OTHER" in which Iwata, Miyamoto and Aonuma all agree it would be "unhealthy" to discontinue either type of game. It is true you won't see new IPs filling the "epic" type game on Wii, nor will you see any of those third party franchises you mentioned. Now, as for the idea that "The console market is for games that you want to sit on your couch and relax and play"... Well, Nintendo are obviously challenging that idea. They think people are interested both in those types of games, and in games where you stand up and get into the action. Japanese sales of Wii Sports back them up on that. I think if Nintendo keep both their traditional franchises coming (and they're packing the first year FULL of their traditional franchises: sequels in the works for 8 of GC's top 10 best selling games) and their new "casual" IPs coming, including ones which take advantage of the Wii as fully as Nintendogs took advantage of DS, the greater variety on Wii will propel it to first place. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I believe that the winner of this generation will either be XBOX 360 or PS3. If Sony cuts prices this year as I believe they will, they will make serious inroads and challenge Microsoft for 2007 sales. If XBOX 360 could be anything more than an abysmal failure in Japan, they will probably win this generation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sony are in the worst position to cut their prices this year. While manufacturing costs drop quickly from the outset, Microsoft and Nintendo are already making money off their hardware. It would be foolish for Sony to cut their price until they are in a financial position to do so, since the other guys would likely drop their prices right alongside. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The thing that bothers me most is how Nintendo advertises their shortcomings as if they are "features". 1. N64 - "We don't need a large library qualityand not quantity is what matters"... Of coarse there is no reason that you cannot have both like psx. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, this was Nintendo misunderstanding the market. Sony evaluated the market from the outside, and were able to take over. Nintendo's arrogance led to that mistake. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. GCN - "We are a gaming only system".... lack of DVD and online is not a selling point. For a "gaming system" the GCN sure lacked games to play. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gamecube was Ninty's attempt to correct the mistakes of N64... But they tried to do so just by imitating PlayStation, which was a mistake. You're right; neither developers nor consumers were going to jump aboard a Nintendoized PlayStation with less features. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Wii - "They wanted HD graphics and we wanted to offer an innovative way to play games".... Once again there is no reason that we could not have good graphics and an innovative controller. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sure there is. I can think of about 200 reasons. Thing is, it isn't going to matter to consumers how many pixels they can see. The only major videogame market where HD adoption is over 25% is Japan, where they seem to be buying the non-HD console the fastest. You can say "wait for the good games to come out" or "wait for the price to come down," but the fact that the price is sky high and that the games are arriving slowly is because they chose to go HD in the first place. It drove the console price up, drove game development cost and time up, and made it so that the console maker needs more money from third party game sales. If Nintendo had released an HD console, the same thing would have happened. They would have had a 450 dollar console with less overall games, and in turn would likely be selling slower right now. Who is THAT good for? And of course your comments can be turned around to say "How come if you're a giant company much richer than Nintendo, and you're charging 100-300 dollars more than last gen, can you not even give us a new way to play?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nintendo is all about doing things on the cheap and the better for them. They are by far the more profitible console manufacturer. But don't patronize us and say that these cost savings actually make gaming better in any way. Don't get me wrong, Nintendo is by far my favorite publisher out there with Zelda, Mario, Metroid etc, however you feel like you are force to choose between them and every publisher in the world when you buy a Nintendo console. This may be the first time I buy two consoles in my life, but I wouln't pay more $100 dollars for Wii (prob June 2009). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, Nintendo are the most profitable at this very moment, but PS2 was far more profitable than Gamecube (contrary to some people's belief). And I don't think it is patronizing anyone to say a lower entry cost for both developers and consumers is a good thing. It is an excellent thing. If Nintendo had come in with an HD console, I wouldn't own a next-gen console right now. I'm in the 85% of the Western world which DOESN'T own an HD TV. And I'm not interested in paying more for a feature I'm not going to use until, say, June 2009. Yes, you do have to choose between Nintendo's philosophy and the others, or pay for two systems. This is true. No system can be all things to all people. But differntiating themselves with the Wii and DS is the smartest thing Nintendo has done in two decades, and when it can result in broadening the overall market for videogames, keeping cost down for everyone, and fueling innovation in game design, the loss of a few pixels for a few years is a small price to pay. IMO.

------------------------------------------------------------------- I have never read anywhere or even known a person who seriously though that the PSP was going to come and unsurp the GBA's throne. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The PlayStation line sold more units in a lot less time than the Game Boy line. Yes, there were people who thought PSP was going to take over the handheld arena. Many of them. Just the reveiling of the PSP made Nintendo's stock take a hit. The DS was a joke when it was unveiled. Look at some messageboards from 2 and 3 years ago, if you can find them. No one was saying "Nintendo has always controlled the handheld market; the DS will probably be dominant." They were saying "The DS is only as powerful as an N64, the PSP is closer to a PS2. The touch screen is just going to be a gimmick. That greater power and multi-media functionality will be more important in the long term." They were saying "Nintendo's 'third pillar' strategy doesn't make sense. If they called the DS the Game Boy DS it would be more successful. Abandoning that consumer-trusted brand name is stupid."

In order for the Wii to be more diversified than say a PS3 or and XBOX 360, third party titles have to actually sell. It remains to be seen if this will happen. You are buying into the false choice dichotomy. I am not arguing that Nintendo should of outdid Sony and built the most powerful console possible. I didn't care that GCN was less than XBOX, I just wanted to play Mario and Zelda. There is no reason Nintendo couldn't of built a system with say maybe 75% of the XBOX 360's power and released it for $250 with the current controller. There would be absolutely nothing to prevent Nintendo from releasing Wii sports as it currently exists on this more powerful console. People didn't buy Wii sports for the graphics, they bought it for the experience. However nothing is gained by limiting others from building graphical masterpieces if they so choose. We will never see RE5, a sequel to the best 3rd party offering on the Gamecube because of the path Nintendo has taken. That being said the Wii will indeed be a success, but back to the original argument, the Wii will not spell "game over for Sony", and will not be enough to be market leader 6 years from now in my opinion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- In order for the Wii to be more diversified than say a PS3 or and XBOX 360, third party titles have to actually sell. It remains to be seen if this will happen. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? Nintendo is the largest publisher in the world; certainly if anyone can create a diverse lineup all by themselves, its them. Look at DS. They've got the traditional games, and then games so radical people call them "non-games." Third party sales are only recently becoming more impressive, with the likes of FF3 and DQMJ. With plenty of third parties on board, with their games selling, the games aren't looking too diverse on PS3 or 360. The main complaint with 360, and the thing holding it back, is that games like "Viva Pinata" are so few and far between, and sell so poorly when they hit. The majority of games on the system hit one audience. Even when a game has a massive launch like Gears of War, it doesn't even really affect sales too much, because the people intrigued by the game already have the system! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You are buying into the false choice dichotomy. I am not arguing that Nintendo should of outdid Sony and built the most powerful console possible. I didn't care that GCN was less than XBOX, I just wanted to play Mario and Zelda. There is no reason Nintendo couldn't of built a system with say maybe 75% of the XBOX 360's power and released it for $250 with the current controller. There would be absolutely nothing to prevent Nintendo from releasing Wii sports as it currently exists on this more powerful console. People didn't buy Wii sports for the graphics, they bought it for the experience. However nothing is gained by limiting others from building graphical masterpieces if they so choose. We will never see RE5, a sequel to the best 3rd party offering on the Gamecube because of the path Nintendo has taken. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It isn't a "false choice dichotomy." There is a big wall to climb to have an HD console, even if it were the least powerful HD console. It simply drives the price of everything up. Period. It IS a black-and-white, either/or type truth. As of late 2006, you can't make a system which supports HD without it costing at least a certain amount, far more than the $250 Nintendo is charging now. And if you're charging, say, 400 bucks for an HD console, no you CAN'T just leave your marquee, packed-in game in SD. You CAN'T tell people to pay 150 bucks for a feature most of them can't use, and then give them a game which doesn't support that feature! Do you see Sony or Microsoft allowing the production of non-HD games? Even something like Viva Pinata where the "graphics don't matter"? How about MGS4, when Kojima says he doesn't care about HD at all? Can you imagine the heat Sony and MS would take if they did that? And upscaling a game to HD takes MILLIONS. One dev estimated it would cost 6.5 million more to do the graphics on a PS3 game over a PS2 game. And there go all the minor developers lining up for Wii. They can't secure an extra couple million in capital. You won't see one-man dev teams getting games out in the launch window like somehow happened with Wii. With Gamecube, the system was similar in power to its competitors. And where were the big games from big third parties? RE4? And? And what was the incentive for smaller developers? There was no incentive for ANYONE to develop for GC. It had similar development cost and time, nothing differentiating about it at all. Developers might all want to try to develop something for the Wiimote right now, but publishers certainly don't care. They are intrigued by Wii development, and will be increasingly intrigued, because it will be cheap compared to the other consoles, and very possibly more friendly to new IPs due to the new control style. So basically YES there ARE huge advantages to staying away from HD right now. Keeping the cost down widens the field of both consumers and developers who can afford to invest in the console. Now obviously it won't always be black and white. Technology is always dropping in price. You can see it with the estimated cost of producing a 360 falling from 500+ before launch to about 340 now. Eventually, implementing a friendlier HD console will be realistic. But right NOW, it is not a "false choice dichotomy" to say that EITHER you make a cheaper, SD console, OR a much more expensive, HD console, and further that the higher cost means you have a smaller audience. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- That being said the Wii will indeed be a success, but back to the original argument, the Wii will not spell "game over for Sony", and will not be enough to be market leader 6 years from now in my opinion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah. Too early to say "game over." Waaaay too early.