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).

This would be an instant flop.


First of all, they would need to have some sturdy hinges for the clickable dpads, adding up to the price. Not to mention that sounds inconvinient and would add to the bulk, uncomfort of holding the device and weight.


Second of all, more powerful hardware than the Switch? Yeah, that would be impressive. You suggest Android (which would eat up RAM and sacrifice performance that could be used for games, unless Sony magically strips the features it doesn't need for Android which could result in incompatibility with a lot of Android apps which eliminates the purpose of having Android on it), meaning they would have to use Apple's new A-series (if they're already partnering for iMessage for some reason) chip to compete with nVidia ARM-processor wise, as x86 chips are not practical power-consumption wise, heat up easily without a good quality cooling system and they're more expensive than ARM chips. But even Apple would have a hard time beating the new nVidia Tegra chips, and Qualcomm is leaps and bounds behind these performance-wise. And there's no reason for Apple to collaborate with Sony, and they're the only one that have chips on the market that can compete with nVidia's.


Third of all, if it's more powerful than the Switch, why use PSNOW? It would probably be around XBONE or PS4 performance, meaning it doesn't need a streaming service (which would work badly on the go with mobile data in rural areas) as devs could simply port the titles over. Remote play wise, all it would need is cross saving I suppose if you already have the two consoles and maybe cross-purchases. Otherwise, it's not really needed. Heck, you point it out yourself, it would basically be a last resort if third party devs never ported anything to it (which would happen very shortly after launch).


QHD screens would eat up the battery for nothing, since it wouldn't be able to run any console-type games at that resolution at a stable framerate, unless you lowered the graphical settings which make no sense to sacrifice for screen resolution, 1080p or heck even 720p is fine on a 5-ish inch screen. Having such a high resolution for UIs and videos makes no sense for a gaming device, let alone a media consumption device at that size, unless it has a huge battery (like 8000-10000mAh which would again, add up bulk and costs).


And last but not least, this would never work as a phone. Cramming this all into a tablet is hard enough, having all of this in a device with a 5.2 inch screen would mean having gigantic bezels, and it would never compete with flagship smartphones, unless you prefer having a heavy, bulky device that's far too big to carry arround let alone put in a pocket for gaming purposes which will last you around 4 hours of battery life on a 5.2-5.7 inch screen QHD screen which hogs battery for pretty UI's and video watching (if you watch content availble in 1440p).


Also, no chance in hell this would cost 600-700 dollars. More like 850-1000 (which some people actually do pay for an iPhone, but I'd rather have an iPhone than this unpractical mess of a device for the price). The device you describe is currently impossible. And a better option would be having a standard flagship phone with PSNow support. This would never kill the Switch, even at 350$.


Heck, if you want the Switch killer buy a 200$ Chinese Windows Tablet and use the PS Now for PC service. If it doesn't have a SIM Card slot, buy a USB SIM Card reader for 3$. And you can also use Windows desktop apps on the go. Or even better, Microsoft is already working on emulating Windows on ARM chips (as they showed off) and it runs smoothly from what we've been shown, so when it's released in 2017, you could buy a Windows phone that supports Contiuum and use PS Now for PC.

No, nothing even close to a PlayStation Phone has ever been released. Sony Ericsson released the Xperia Play in 2011, but it only was only a PlayStation certified device. It had no access to PlayStation Network (PS Store, Friends List, Messaging, Trophies, Services, etc.), It recived zero support from Sony 1st and 2nd party, nor did it ever get a game from the likes of EA, Activision, Take 2, or any other major 3rd party. It was purely an indie ames device, with massivly underpowered hardware compaiered to the competition. 

Sony Interactive Entertainment (formaly Son Computer Entertainment) has never released a PlayStation Phone. 

No,they should stop making smartphones.

Your absolutly rght Smartphones are on their way down. Sony needs to innovate a new market that improves the mobile computing experience. Xperia and Android are a waste of time, PlayStation is the future of mobile for Sony.

They deserve it. I like Sony Playstation.
I hate Sony Pictures though, they are the ones that need a reboot.

Very true, PlayStation is doing extreamly well, and PlayStation 4 should be the standard for all future Sony devices. 

Sony Pictures Movie side is a complete mess right now. The TV side is doing good with shows like The Black List and Breaking Bad, but the movie side has bombed for the last few years. Then there is the internal competition they are creating in the 4K streaming landscape. I don't know why Kaz is letting Ultra and PlayStation Video compete. This is the kind of thing old Sony didi that never allowed them to build a competitor to iTunes. Too many division all making their own format or services, and never unifying the company behind one vision. 

This is why I keep repeating that Sony needs to roll everything under PlayStation, and set a unified course. That is the only way they can compete, because that is what their biggest rivals are doing. You can't have one body with with 5 heads, one watching the other four independently control each limb. It doesn't matter how strong one is, if they don't work to gether and comunicate, they wil never be able to walk, run, or climb to the top. 

Well, Sony is already in the mobile Market with their Smart Phones..

The interesting thing often repeated is the circular logic that a new Playstation Portable can't be successful without being the equivalent of a high end smartphone, because that is that only thing that would justify the cost of a $600-700 Playstation handheld game platform.

Nobody appears to be aiming for the low hanging fruit of a sub $300 handheld (which is no longer top end spec), which approaches the realistic ceiling of what the general consumer would be willing to pay for a portable game device. I don't buy the notion that Playstation would create the market for $600-700 gamer phones, which would remain a small niche product.

But naturally, the logic follows that if you tack a phone service onto a PSP, then it can and will sell for at least twice the price with the corresponding high end specs available to the smartphone market. The monthly service/data fees are about the only thing that would allow for high end specs (and corresponding price) unless the goalposts are moved so that Sony can either sell such devices at cost or at a loss.

That will not happen. It's a bit hard to follow that logic.

Yes, a high end smartphone with a monthly service/data plan fee sells for that price. Check. The assumption is that there would be enough general consumers who would switch to a Sony branded (sorry: Playstation branded as the argument follows that the PS brand is strong, not the Sony brand) smartphone, that will presumably be sold with Verizon, Sprint, AT&T phone and data service options as Sony doesn't own their own network and phone service.

Playstation (Sony) couldn't even sell Playstation fans on the 3G service, which had less to do with data speeds, and almost everything to do with Playstation fans not wanting to pay for 3G data plans in exchange for the limited benefits 3G data plans provided for games. I say this as first day PS Vita buyer who insisted on buying the 3G model, only to stop paying for the data plan because it added nothing in functionality for me as someone who was already using a smartphone. And no, I wouldn't have ditched my iPhone if my PS Vita had a phone number I could use for work.

I don't doubt there's a market for a $700 PSP. What those $700 PSP Phone pundits aren't being entirely honest about is the small size of such a market that would make such a consumer device a poor business decision for Sony. Or Playstation.

I wouldn't buy one, and I have bought everything Playstation since the original Playstation (PS, PS2, PS3, PS4, PSP, PSV). I certainly wouldn't replace my phone with one.