3DS has sold less than the PSP at 66m compared to 80m at the end of next year it'll be higher as it approaches the PSP's 80m and DS isn't impressive either but then that was the blue ocean when they were catering to casuals as well as it being the highest selling platform in history which is an anomaly much like the PS2.

So we have excuses for all situations right?

HH sell less SW, simple as that. And PSP were a first time, hadn't the stablished IPs from Nintendo so a 1 or 2 games less sold isn't unexpected. So if 3DS and DS sold less than 5 and less than 6, PSP selling a little less than 4 isn't entirely due to Piracy.

PSP was sucessfull and a PS5 portable could be as well, depending on how the platform holder makes the strategy.

Yes, I know what you are talking about. You aren't aware how many concessions it takes to make a portable console. Right now Switch is state of the art and features processing power in portable mode that is far below the home consoles released in 2013. A portable companion system to the PS5 would be weaker than the PS4. What you ask for is pretty much the same as putting high-end PS4 games on Switch right now.

The sales of the PSP don't mean much when it was followed up with the Vita and Sony's exit from the handheld market. PSP sales got boosted by multimedia functionality, but smartphones took that selling point away. This creates an environment where portable consoles have to sell on games alone. The sample size we have for Sony is two systems, PSP and Vita. One moderate success, one huge failure. On the surface it's a 50% chance for another Sony portable to be successful, but the beneficial factors that led to the PSP's success cannot be replicated, so the real chance for success is below 10%.

Sony's portable would have to sell on games alone. We know that Sony's first party isn't strong enough to carry a system on its own, so third party support is essential. We know that the only third party support that could help is AAA, but up till now the market reception for AAA third party games on handhelds has been largely underwhelming. Switch isn't going to change that, because most AAA third parties aren't interested to begin with. They weren't interested in the Vita either. It will be incredibly difficult for Sony to create a competitive product to Switch, and assuming for a moment they would try, they would pitch a more powerful portable console than what Nintendo has. That's exactly what every competitor to Nintendo has done and it was never good enough to end Nintendo's dominance.

Here the interesting question is why does Nintendo always win. What makes portable gaming unique is that it cannot be production value driven because the hardware doesn't allow it; comparable home console games are always far ahead of their handheld counterparts. When you now look at all the successful software publishers who are not Nintendo, it won't take long until you realize that their success is virtually exclusively driven by production values. Nintendo, however, can thrive with and without production values, that's why they always get the upper hand in portable gaming.

NES and GB were first times for Nintendo your point? PSP had Playstation in the name which is a well known gaming brand with some first party titles from Sony finding their way onto the platform.

To further this 3DS has more million sellers (despite at the moment having 15m units less) than PSP when digital is taken into account the latter stands at 57 or so, DS has 139 million sellers even with the piracy, the ratio just doesn't favour PSP in any scenario. PSP having 4 has a lot to do with piracy and emulation why do you think third parties avoided it like the plague later on despite being okay with the DS a common complaint was the terrible SW sales the platform would return. Under your argument more games in the west should have come out for it if it did fine.

Atari was successful in the 80s maybe a new platform from them can be as well right? No PSP did well due to factors that weren't really its own merit hence Vita's destruction, Sony have shown they can't support two platforms at once the only way to have a PS5 portable is by having a hybrid and then they'll essentially be forced to fight Nintendo on an even playing field where the latter has the upper hand. In fact Nintendo would be delighted with that because then it would mean the would be far less of a gap between the hardware and PS5 games would make it to their platform as well while they maintain the likes of Pokemon and AC. MS would also love that as they could continue as the sole traditional console, it's nowhere near as simple as you're trying to paint it.

Nope man, In 3 years we will have stronger HW than Switch. But the question isn't PS5 Portable being stronger than PS4, is their HW being compatible and running the same game at acceptable performance.

PSP is a moderate success by selling more than most Nintendo HH? And we are certainly changing the sole reason for PSP success... Notebooks and cellphones also do all PS4 do, and still the non-gaming functionalities of PS4 are quite appreciated.

They won't release a specific version for the portable, the games will be the same so they won't have to worry about the lack of 3rd parties support.

Yes, that's the question. The answer is that it's not possible because the power gap will be way too big and third parties aren't going to build their games for portable mode because they rely on production values to sell their games.

Yes, PSP is only a moderate success. The hardware was sold at a loss in the beginning and the software sales weren't big in the long run, so it didn't generate much profit overall. For sales numbers you also have to take the size of the market at the time in account. For example, the Atari 2600 was a more successful console than the PSP despite selling ~50m units less. I haven't talked about a sole reason for the PSP's success, I have only talked about contributing factors that ceased to exist over time, hence why the Vita couldn't reach anywhere close to the same market penetration. If there's no reason to believe that these contributing factors can come back, then there's no reason to believe that Sony can replicate the sales numbers of the PSP.

If the games will be the same for the PS5 as for its portable counterpart, you run once again into the problem of the storage medium.

PSP has sold more than exactly 1 Nintendo handheld. 1 out of 4 is "most," according to you?

Also, it's ludicrous that you think that full PS5 games could run on any handheld released at the same time. How weak do you think PS5 is going to be? You must expect it to not even be 1.5 times more powerful than a PS4 Pro. If PS5 is a full generation leap (and why wouldn't it be?), developers would have no reason to make games that can run at such varying levels of performance. They saw how Vita turned out.

I don't hear that all the time. I haven't come across any such posts after NX speculation was over.

Besides, if you believe that such claims are stupid, then why are you making the same ones now?

Don, are you trying to say the PSP outsold most Nintendo portable consoles?  I'm trying to grasp what you are saying here.

I am more on the 2 out of 4 (GBA was basically a tie with PSP and 3 out of 5 with Switch until it outsell if it does the PSP), for the first try of Sony it was quite good.

Full PS5 game? What about a scale down? If PS2 could run Fifa versions of PS4 and Switch can run PS4 games, why can't we have a scalability that would run on the portable.