Psp sucks, it does not affect sales of the vastly superior Ds in any way. People buy that mostly for videos/music.
Vaza said:
Nope the DS was announced March 03, then revealed at the e3 2003, at the same point as the PSP. Nintendo must have spent a lot of time developing the DS, so it most likely wasnt influenced by the PSP. |
Ummmm the new Nintendo handheld should had been a much more powerfull Gameboy... there where actually rumors that it was almost as powerfull as a GC... Nintendo didnt give out no specific details about his new handheld, because they knew that Sony is working on one to. So just before the PSP was revealed they went with the backup plan to create something original, and thats when they started the DS project.
The truth is that the successor of the GBA is the PSP, while Nintendo went on a new, original route with the DS. Nobody knew what will happen, but luckily both survived, and helped eachother to use their own sistems in a more original and bigger way ;)
Vote the Mayor for Mayor!
| invisible29 said: whats a psp?? lol (ALERT! THIS IS SARCASM!) |
You dont have to write that... you have a Coded Arms sig ;)
Vote the Mayor for Mayor!
| Griffin said: The DS would of sold less, Sony brought a great product to the market and Nintendo was forced to up their game. |
Does this make any sense? Did the N64 and Gamecube/Xbox jack up the PS1/PS2 sales? I really don't think that's the case...
c0rd said:
Does this make any sense? Did the N64 and Gamecube/Xbox jack up the PS1/PS2 sales? I really don't think that's the case... |
Of course it makes sense. I agree with him.
DS would probably increase by about 1/3 to 1/2 of PSP sales.
You have to figure some of PSP userbase also has a DS AND some of the PSP base didn't actually buy it to play games, but mostly because of the other features.
| hunter_alien said: I dont think that the DS would even exist if the PSP wouldent... Nintendo made the DS to be able to compete against Sony in a different way. Going head-to head wouldent have been a good decision, so they opted for something different, and it was a success. IMO if the PSP wouldent have been the market would be still ruled by a Game Boy ;) |
I would have to agree with this honestly. After fiasco with the Virtual Boy I can't imagine anyone at Nintendo was chomping at the bit to try something radically different. Their inability to compete head to head with Sony sort of forced their hand however. Direct competition had not worked, and the GBA was still a safe fall back if the gamble didn't work out. The fact that they removed the term "Game Boy" and called the DS a "third pillar" for the company is very strong evidence of this. Sony tried to challenge whatever unholy pact Nintendo signed to dominate the hand-held market and caused a massive reversal in fortunes that continues to this day.
Gnizmo said:
I would have to agree with this honestly. After fiasco with the Virtual Boy I can't imagine anyone at Nintendo was chomping at the bit to try something radically different. Their inability to compete head to head with Sony sort of forced their hand however. Direct competition had not worked, and the GBA was still a safe fall back if the gamble didn't work out. The fact that they removed the term "Game Boy" and called the DS a "third pillar" for the company is very strong evidence of this. Sony tried to challenge whatever unholy pact Nintendo signed to dominate the hand-held market and caused a massive reversal in fortunes that continues to this day. |
I think the history of the matter disproves that thoery.
1. DS came out first.
2. DS had zero features that really matched the PSP. No video, music, etc.
3. DS is simply the beginning of Nintendo's blue ocean strategy. It was their way of breaking the typical game mold first in the domain they already controlled.
DS would probably be 100 million now with 100% marketshare.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
