Author Topic: Why do people see handheld gaming as being inherently worth less than consoles?  (Read 14086 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NWR_insanolord

  • Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor....DAMN!
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: -18986
    • View Profile
In discussions of the 3DS, I constantly see people saying the hardware or the games cost too much for a handheld. My question is, why is there a defined difference between handhelds and consoles? Why would people refuse to ever buy a 3DS game for $50, but have no real problem buying the same exact game for Wii at the same price? I understand the argument that games in general should be cheaper, but I don't agree that handheld games are automatically worth less money than console games.
Insanolord is a terrible moderator.

J.P. Corbran
NWR Community Manager and Soccer Correspondent

Offline ShyGuy

  • Fight Me!
  • *
  • Score: -9660
    • View Profile
The screen size.

Offline MegaByte

  • NWR Staff... Can't win trivia
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 31337
    • View Profile
    • Konfiskated Teknologies Network
Until recently, handhelds were quite a bit less powerful than their console counterparts.
Aaron Kaluszka
Contributing Editor, Nintendo World Report

Offline Shaymin

  • Not my circus, not my monkeys
  • NWR Staff
  • Score: 70
    • View Profile
    • You're on it
Not enough shootan games.
Donald Theriault - News Editor, Nintendo World Report / 2016 Nintendo World Champion
Tutorial box out.

Offline Chozo Ghost

  • I do want the Wii U to fail.
  • Score: -431
    • View Profile
Ask this question again in another few years. The only reason it is viewed as "inherently inferior" is because the hardware was much more limited, but its catching up to the point that the difference is becoming less and less apparent. Eventually it may come to the point where consoles are considered inferior to handhelds.
is your sanity...

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
I think there are a lot of reasons.

First of all the hardware was always inferior.  The original Game Boy didn't even have colour!  The Atari 2600 had colour!  EVERY videogame system had colour!  So from day one handheld gaming was clearly inferior from a technical perspective.  And this is how things have always been.  It is expensive to make technology small.  Handheld technology is thus always inferior to non-portable technology at the same price point.

Second of all remember that most game companies don't put the sort of effort into portable titles that they do into console titles.  We get lots of scaled-down sorta ports or cheap cash-ins.  Going back to the original GB how many third party games would you consider on par with the console efforts of the day?  Yeah Metroid II, Pokemon, Donkey Kong and Link's Awakening are all as good as the console titles of the day but those are all first party.  Nintendo is the exception.  Most of the time the handheld titles were decent only in comparison to other handheld titles and didn't hold up compared to their corresponding console games.  We still see it now.  Does EA ever make ANY decent handheld games?  The lack of care contributes to the image of handheld gaming.  Hell third parties show that same lack of care towards the Wii and that sure as hell affects its image.

And finally there is the simple comfort factor.  Handheld gaming is a matter of convenience.  It is not the ideal gaming environment.  Why would anyone want to play on a tiny screen with a tiny speaker on the bus with a bunch of idiots causing distractions if they didn't have to?  Why would you bother with having to deal with battery life or requiring a whole other system to play multiplayer if you didn't have to?  Playing videogames on a big screen with good speakers while relaxing on your couch in the privacy of your own home is ideal.  If you could always play games like that you would.  Notice that those who are not so hot on handheld gaming usually also have less of a need for it?  Take away the situation where you need the flexibility of gaming on the go and the whole thing loses its appeal.  It's like how someone may like having a fancy car stereo but if they never had to drive anywhere they would never sit in their car in their garage to listen to music.  Handheld gaming is a convenient workaround for non-ideal gaming conditions.  One would naturally associate ideal conditions as the BEST conditions.  Thus console gaming is seen as superior.

The only way I see handheld gaming being seen as superior is when there is no difference between the two.  You'll have one system that is portable but can also be connected to a TV and played in a console environment.  The screen size would always prohibit handheld gaming.  Yeah everyone likes having a smart phone and all that but we also like big HDTVs.  People are willing to huddle over a tiny screen on the go but few would prefer to look at such a screen at home when they don't have to.

I will however put a "people are idiots" caveat in here though.  Some people demonstrate incredible stupidity in regards to cellphones.  I could see future generations where the whole family sits in the living room watching the same show on individual tiny screens with headphones, texting each other when they're two feet away.  I can see my future grandkids thinking I'm a total geezer because I watch TV on a large screen and TALK to people on the phone.  The phone thing pretty much makes me an out-of-touch geezer NOW.  So in such a world I could see anything non-handheld being seen as old fashioned and silly.

Offline EasyCure

  • wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle, yeah!
  • Score: 75
    • View Profile
You know, that was the best post I've ever read from Ian. Good job man, you saved me the effort of stating the same thing. You're my first ever applaud ;)
February 07, 2003, 02:35:52 PM
EASYCURE: I remember thinking(don't ask me why) this was a blond haired, blue eyed, chiseled athlete. Like he looked like Seigfried before he became Nightmare.

Offline Razorkid

  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
I agree with Ian's points on this subject completely.  Like it was said already in this thread, this will be a more interesting topic 2 years from now when the 3DS and NGP have grown into their own.


Another reason people see handheld gaming as being worth less than console/pc gaming now is due in large part to the App store on phones and the ever prevalent 99 cent diversion.


The handheld veterans are gonna buck at the new price parity of software with its console brethren. The cell phone dedicated are gonna look at graphical showcases such as Infinity Blade and Dead Space on their iDevice and ask why should I pay 3-4 times more for this on a 3DS/NGP?


We all want to pay less for games, but I don't see whats the problem with $40-$50 3DS games if they look and act like their console counterparts. 


Hell, what I'm really interested in is what Japan will look like in a few years once this new gen of handhelds have gotten to really grow roots.  Console gaming is already a ghost of it's former self (in Japan) and handheld games sell over there like Call of Duty here.  With graphical and feature fidelity almost at the same parity as the current gen of consoles, I don't see how the next gen of consoles will ever supplant handhelds in that country once they arrive (unless it's like VR or something) and I see that trend spreading world wide as well.


I'm not saying consoles will disappear or anything, but there will come a time when there will be more handheld devices that play games on par with current gen software in circulation than there are consoles.


Didn't mean to derail like that, but I personally think this handheld =/= console in software value mentality will go away in about a year over here.  It has long since in Japan.
"All the world is blind to my passing..."

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
While I can understand the lower price on games it seems silly that handheld hardware is supposed to be cheaper than home consoles considering the handheld has all the processing equipment and adds a battery and screen while keeping it all reasonably small. A home console needs to be plugged into the wall and TV to work yet the handheld is supposed to be cheaper while also including more stuff?

Offline MysticYumDrop

  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
I do agree on the power factor, graphics, and other factors that have been mentioned previously.  Handhelds usually are less powerful, the games are usually shorter, easier and cheaper to make, and they simply cannot do as much as consoles.

1.  You also cannot invite your friends over and all play your handheld.  For multiplayer, everyone must have their own console.  Then you can have only one console for the family if you choose to.
2.  The graphics of the games, and the stories, and features of them.  Console games have more gameplay time, their storylines are usually more engaging...they are becoming more and more like movies today.  Console games usually will have more gameplay modes and online features than their handheld counterparts.
3.  This gaming generation, the consoles have gotten more firmware updates and features added to them than the handheld.  Yeah, the PSP has been updated a lot, but the Nintendo DS, that will be starting with the 3DS mostly.  Console games have add-on, costume packs, and other DLC you can download.
4.  Consoles provide more of an social outlet, especially today with stuff like online gaming and Playstation Home.  You can do more than just talk online and you can meet friends using your console today.
5.  Finally, these days when people buy a handheld, they are looking for what it can do for the price.  I barely know anyone (except me) with a plain cell phone that only texts and makes calls.  Let's say the 3DS was was the DSi with a 3D update.  People wouldn't buy it seeing how it can only mainly play games and it is only a simple 3D update.  But let's add the features to it...the music, movies, pictures, gyroscope, VC, internet etc...yes, people would buy it. 

Would I pay $40 for a 3DS game?  I would.  The graphics, features, and gameplay has taken a huge step up from the DS games.  The games do look more expensive and time consuming to produce.  Then companies also have to pay their employees and keep money in the company for future projects...but I think that $50 per game would had been too big of a step to take right now. No one really knows how long is the average 3DS game, and such a huge price leap would deter people from getting the 3DS.

My Status:  Currently, I cannot wait for the 3DS and Spring Break next month.  They both start the same day!

Offline EasyCure

  • wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle, yeah!
  • Score: 75
    • View Profile
Hell, what I'm really interested in is what Japan will look like in a few years once this new gen of handhelds have gotten to really grow roots.  Console gaming is already a ghost of it's former self (in Japan) and handheld games sell over there like Call of Duty here.  With graphical and feature fidelity almost at the same parity as the current gen of consoles, I don't see how the next gen of consoles will ever supplant handhelds in that country once they arrive (unless it's like VR or something) and I see that trend spreading world wide as well.


I'm not saying consoles will disappear or anything, but there will come a time when there will be more handheld devices that play games on par with current gen software in circulation than there are consoles.


Awesome post, and it brought up something I haven't even thought about before (and Probably deserves it's own thread, as to not derail this one) but what if consoles did become obsolete in Japan? We know Nintendo is first and foremost a Japanese company and they cater to them first, the rest of the world is like an after thought. Suppose one day the release a console that flops only because the Japanese market would rather stick with their newest portable device, which is comparable to the console. How would that affect the rest of us?

I can't imagine them not releasing a console here (in the US) and expecting everyone to adopt to console-less gaming. Mass transit isn't as prevalent here and because of it you cut down on a big portion of people who would play a handheld on a bus/train ride as a casual pastime, vs someone who plays anywhere because gaming is a serious hobby. The later being someone who might actually only play his/her handheld at home, where they could just as easily play a console game. I know personally, I don't ever really take my DS out of the house because there are never any opportunities to get a quick game in. I wake up, drive 45 mins to work, spend half my day running around a hospital, the other half in my office in front of a computer screen, another 45 mins home and when I do have free time, I'm either relaxing at home where I might get a Wii session in, or out with my girlfriend or friends. There never seems to be an appropriate time for me to whip out a my DS and play. When there are, like say arriving to the theater early and the movie you want to see won't start for an hour and you don't have anywhere to go, sure I could sit in the lobby and play but that'd just be rude to the people I'm with. Where it stands, is portable gaming ends up being a conscious effort on my part, and because the home setting is the only place I seem to be able to enjoy a handheld game, the console triumphs every time because I'm honestly more comfortable sitting in front of my tv either in a chair, a sofa or bed than fumbling with the handheld.

With that said, and going back to my original point, what if Nintendo tried to go a portable only route? Would that fly with their audience outside Japan at all? Personally, I feel that it wouldn't unless the right steps were taking to accommodate those like Ian and myself who prefer the console experience over the handheld one, from a comfort perspective. If you gave me a handheld as powerful as whatever the most current console equivalent was, and gave it some sort of tv-out, that'd be the best of both worlds because I'd have the portable console that I could play like a console when I want it to, with games comparable to a console anyway.

The only problem I'd foresee with this would be the gameplay experience. The PSP approach would work because (until the NGP) games on the handheld didn't differ all that much from the console version, control wise. If we took Nintendo's current systems (and I'm counting the 3DS as current) this dual approach wouldn't really work because our current handheld and console play pretty differently. If Nintendo never went with motion controls for their console, maybe such a transition would be feasible, but where it stands.. not so much. Perhaps in a world where Nintendo were only focused on one dual-gaming device (ie console-to-portable) they could easily translate touch to motion controls in games, but even still.. depending on the game, the actual feel wouldn't translate the same. Take Goldeneye 007 (Wii), which I'm currently playing and loving, I haven't played the DS version but I'm assuming it controls like other FPS games on the system, and it doesn't feel as intuitive as the Wii version. This is ultimately the biggest problem, from a company that always claims to value gameplay over anything else.

Still, I'm actually waiting for a day like this because, personally, I feel it could only grow my gaming habit. Where as currently my budget leans towards console game purchases over handheld, because I play them more, a scenario where the games were all one in the same would lead to more of my money going to Nintendo in the long run. While I'll hold onto this wish for a dual gaming device, I know that realistically there are too many hurdles to over come before something like this becomes a reality (which can be discussed in another topic if anyone wishes, since this post has gotten way too long).
February 07, 2003, 02:35:52 PM
EASYCURE: I remember thinking(don't ask me why) this was a blond haired, blue eyed, chiseled athlete. Like he looked like Seigfried before he became Nightmare.

Offline Stogi

  • The Stratos You Should All Try To Be Like
  • Score: 18
    • View Profile
I think it would be pretty damn stupid for Nintendo to release a console/handheld hybrid.

They'll always make more money by keeping them separate.
black fairy tales are better at sports

Offline Razorkid

  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
 It's funny that you bring up that point about finding a time and place to game portably outside your home.  It was recently reported I think by NPD that like 47% (don't quote me  ;D ) of people who play mobile games, do so at home.  The next closest group I think were those who commuted and it was like 12% or something.


Not exactly accurate facts on my part and the report didn't specify the inclusion or exclusion of dedicated handhelds like the DS or PSP, but it is interesting nonetheless.


I can certainly understand, given the choice, to prefer to game on your big tv/monitor + sound setup vs. your handheld 5 inches from your face.  Personally, when the wife isn't in the mood and just wants me in bed by her side while she watches something on tv or is on her laptop, my DS has been a lifesaver and I've sunk a surprising amount of time into games.  Besides, it is quite comfortable lying in bed and playing my DS.


But everyones situation is different  :D
« Last Edit: February 13, 2011, 04:02:44 PM by Razorkid »
"All the world is blind to my passing..."

Online Luigi Dude

  • Truth Bomber
  • Score: 4
    • View Profile
Awesome post, and it brought up something I haven't even thought about before (and Probably deserves it's own thread, as to not derail this one) but what if consoles did become obsolete in Japan? We know Nintendo is first and foremost a Japanese company and they cater to them first, the rest of the world is like an after thought. Suppose one day the release a console that flops only because the Japanese market would rather stick with their newest portable device, which is comparable to the console. How would that affect the rest of us?

It wouldn't effect us.  Nintendo is not 90's era Sega who will sink their own company to please whatever nationalist pride they have.  There are certain decisions Nintendo makes based on a Japanese view but the majority of their decisions are made with worldwide sales in mind since Nintendo makes the majority of their money from America and Europe.

Japan is not the most important thing to Nintendo, MONEY is.  If Nintendo is making a couple billion dollars every year thanks to North America and Europe like they did with the Wii, then they're going to keep making home consoles for North America and Europe.
I’m gonna have you play every inch of this game! - Masahiro Sakurai

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
I think the Wii is largely a reaction to the handheld/console situation in Japan.  Japan doesn't need consoles anymore so Nintendo comes up with a feature in motion control that requires a console.  They created a kind of "fake" reason for the Japanese to own a console.

The handheld-only thing just would not fly in North America, at least not with our current way of life.  We're not all jammed into little appartments in highly populated cities.  The US and Canada are really large countries for a geographical point of view.  We're sprawled out and a lot of people live in places where they can have a fair sized house and have to drive a car to get places because the population isn't centralized enough for public transit to be efficient and convenient.  It's just a different kind of place with a different lifestyle.  Another important note is that in Western culture individuality is considered important.  Japanese culture does not work the same way.  So console aren't popular anymore?  Well that means that practically everyone in Japan has moved to handhelds.  In North America demographics matter more.  It's normal for there be a large group of people that want this and a large group that wants that.  The conformity just isn't there.  It's a culture where it is harder to offer a one-size-fits-all solution.

If it truly became unprofitable for Nintendo to sell consoles to Japan then I think the handheld/console combo is the best bet.  Nintendo does care about Japan.  I don't think for a second that if they had a console that was only for the west that they would put in the proper effort towards it.  NCL has Japan-centric tunnel vision.  I highly doubt we would see Miyamoto busting his ass to make a game that is only for the western market.  It won't happen.  I know North America is where the money is but NCL makes all sorts of decisions based entirely on Japan.  Twilight Princess is successful here and they're all pissy that it bombed in Japan.  They don't care that Metroid is successful here.  They got to jerk it around with an idiotic story and make it more linear for the Japanese market.  The combo is the only way where I can see NCL dedicating a proper effort to a western-only console.  Otherwise they'll just let NOA take care of it.

Offline Kytim89

  • Only question I ever thought was hard was do I like Kirk or do I like Picard?
  • Score: -156
    • View Profile
I think the Wii is largely a reaction to the handheld/console situation in Japan.  Japan doesn't need consoles anymore so Nintendo comes up with a feature in motion control that requires a console.  They created a kind of "fake" reason for the Japanese to own a console.

The handheld-only thing just would not fly in North America, at least not with our current way of life.  We're not all jammed into little appartments in highly populated cities.  The US and Canada are really large countries for a geographical point of view.  We're sprawled out and a lot of people live in places where they can have a fair sized house and have to drive a car to get places because the population isn't centralized enough for public transit to be efficient and convenient.  It's just a different kind of place with a different lifestyle.  Another important note is that in Western culture individuality is considered important.  Japanese culture does not work the same way.  So console aren't popular anymore?  Well that means that practically everyone in Japan has moved to handhelds.  In North America demographics matter more.  It's normal for there be a large group of people that want this and a large group that wants that.  The conformity just isn't there.  It's a culture where it is harder to offer a one-size-fits-all solution.

If it truly became unprofitable for Nintendo to sell consoles to Japan then I think the handheld/console combo is the best bet.  Nintendo does care about Japan.  I don't think for a second that if they had a console that was only for the west that they would put in the proper effort towards it.  NCL has Japan-centric tunnel vision.  I highly doubt we would see Miyamoto busting his ass to make a game that is only for the western market.  It won't happen.  I know North America is where the money is but NCL makes all sorts of decisions based entirely on Japan.  Twilight Princess is successful here and they're all pissy that it bombed in Japan.  They don't care that Metroid is successful here.  They got to jerk it around with an idiotic story and make it more linear for the Japanese market.  The combo is the only way where I can see NCL dedicating a proper effort to a western-only console.  Otherwise they'll just let NOA take care of it.

Nintendo will focus more of their attention and resources on the west if their survival was at stake. I do agree that Nintendo is adapting to the changing gaming paradigm in Japan by making the 3DS with a home console style graphics in mind. All Nintendo would do is cut their production of home consoles in Japan based on demand and raise the production of handhelds. Although Nintendo would be smart to aquire atleast two more western developers and then let Retro Studios focus on wester style gaming.
Please follow me on Twitter at: Kytim89.

Offline Adrock

  • Chill, Valentine
  • Score: 138
    • View Profile
Nintendo doesn't typically acquire other companies. I believe the last company Nintendo invested in was Monolith Soft a few years ago when they took some 80% from Namco. Most acquisitions often means just buying patents and properties since there's a chance some/most of the talent peace out or get laid off following any kind of buyout. In Nintendo's case, they don't really need any other company's IPs since they have the strongest, most recognizable stable of characters in the industry. Nintendo had a chance at buying Sega some 10 years ago and they passed. Smash Bros. with Sega characters would have been the shizzle, but Nintendo would have had to absorb their debt which was probably the deal breaker there. Nintendo operates mainly on maximizing profit margins. Think about games like Zelda which could be loaded with gorgeous CG and top notch voice acting, but Nintendo never does because they know the game is going to sell millions anyway. That's sound business logic when you think about it. Why spend more when you don't have to? No amount of CG is going to make Zelda sell significantly more no matter how neat-o some people would think it'd be.

Anyway, to answer the question posed in the topic title, it's because of who handheld gaming was/is primarily targeted at. They used to be merely pocket games and nothing more. Then, with the advent of Pokemon, it became something kids brought to playgrounds while the hardcore crowd performed fatalities and headshots. With DS, your mom was doing math problems and your little sister was cooking virtual meals or petting a Nintendog. However, there was always the subset of gamers who considered handheld gaming as just another console and that's the market that Sony is trying to cater to and Nintendo is finally admitting exists (outside of the Nintendo faithful who will buy anything with Zelda or Mario on it) by actively going after 3rd party support. It's really not worth less. That was just the stigma handheld gaming gained based on who was primarily playing handheld games. I know I'm willing and have paid $40 to $50 for a portable game. If I think it's worth it, I'll spend the money.

Offline Razorkid

  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
Well said.
"All the world is blind to my passing..."

Offline broodwars

  • Hunting for a Pineapple Salad
  • Score: -1011
    • View Profile
I wouldn't say I view handheld gaming as being worth "inherently less" so much as I am a console gamer: when I have free time, I prefer to lay back in my bed and game out on a controller while viewing the experience on a nice TV with a good sound system.  Back in the days when I still owned a DS, that was the system I'd pull out for my half-hour break at work; while stuck on a family vacation; or for a few hours at night before I go to sleep.  It wasn't a system I used a lot, which is why I got rid of it eventually as I purchased the remaining consoles.  The DS and GBA games I would buy, I'd often buy almost as an impulse purchase due to their low costs.  But with handheld games now costing as much as console games, I have to look at the comparative quality of the experience: do I want to pay $50-$60 for a nice relaxing experience I can play comfortably laying in bed with a nice-sized wireless controller while perhaps multitasking on my laptop...or do I want to pay $50 for a handheld game I have to hunch over to play; gives me eye strain due to the close proximity of the screen; plays music particularly tinny unless I purchase headphones I do NOT want to wear while lying down; occasionally forces me to do something goofy like mess with the screen with a stylus; and I have to keep tethered to a nearby power outlet?  Sorry, but I'll pick the console game 90% of the time.  It's just the experience that works for me.
There was a Signature here. It's gone now.

Offline Dannymcl

  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
In a couple of generations time when technology has moved on a bit there are gonna be handhelds that are just as powerful as the ps4 or whatever so they will have a bigger share of the market. Still though people are obsessed with screen sizes and three will never be 10" screen handheld and that is a problem that there will never be a solution too. But the processors are gonna not get any faster, at some point so they can only get smaller and then put into handhelds. I'm still a handheld sort of person, I love my original DS no end.
Danny "The Scotsman" McL

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
Quote
In a couple of generations time when technology has moved on a bit there are gonna be handhelds that are just as powerful as the ps4 or whatever so they will have a bigger share of the market. Still though people are obsessed with screen sizes and three will never be 10" screen handheld and that is a problem that there will never be a solution too. But the processors are gonna not get any faster, at some point so they can only get smaller and then put into handhelds. I'm still a handheld sort of person, I love my original DS no end.

"Obsessed with screen sizes" is a bit of an exaggeration.  I don't own an HDTV for example and am not that interested in getting one any time soon.  But even playing on a just regular old 21" CRT TV is superior to a portable.  There are people that always want bigger screens but there is also a difference between the size where have to hold the screen in front of your face and a size where you can sit back and view from a distance and have other people in the same room watch as well.  As you point out portability prevents a handheld from offering that.
 
Eventually videogame systems will hit a wall in terms of technology.  There will be a point where advancements in technology will not be sufficient enough to justify a new system on a regular basis.  There will be a point where it will not make sense from a financial point of view to make games that push technology to the limit.  That doesn't mean we're there now and this isn't even a permanent thing.  But videogame generations will become longer and longer as time goes on.  In that situation it will be easy to offer handhelds with the same level of technology as the consoles.  I figure someday we'll have generations that last for 20 years.  In such a time frame equivalent portables will be easily affordable.
 
At that point it just makes no sense to keep them as seperate formats.  Look at music.  We now have MP3s and portable music players.  But not everyone exclusively listens to their songs on headphones.  Some people want speakers to make music fill up a room.  But we don't have different formats for that.  I can put MP3s on my PC and hook it up to speakers.  Even if I buy a CD it is realistically the same format because I can rip MP3s off of it.  And I can take a bunch of MP3s and burn them to a CD.  The music file format has become the standard used for music no matter how we prefer to listen.  We don't have some songs exclusive to this format and some exclusive to that.  We don't have LPs in our homes and 8-tracks in our cars anymore.
 
I think they'll try to keep it seperate but one point the public won't accept it.  We're also moving towards digitial distribution for videogames.  So I buy it for my home console and know that my handheld is capable of playing the exact same game because it is available for both and there are no differences in side-by-side comparisons.  Am I going to be cool with being told I have to rebuy it for my handheld?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just be able to play it on both?  Of course this also involves all sorts of digital rights stuff that's a whole 'nother can of worms.  But it seems instinctive that if both systems are capable of handling the same game that I should be able to buy it once and play it on both, just like I can play a DVD in the DVD player in my entertainment system and the portable one I bring on flights.  And we know that both formats being capable of the same technology is inevitable.  And we know that due to the different needs and preferrences of different people that both options need to be available.  I think it is something that companies like Nintendo will be dragged into kicking and screaming but it will happen someday.
 
And when that happens there will be no attitudes about portable games or console games.  It will just be videogames.

Offline ymeegod

  • Score: -9
    • View Profile
For years I always looked away from the handhelds, this was during the Gameboy and Gameboy Color time.  I considered the handhelds a waste of time and money because the overall quality of games was pisspoor.  Back then the system was recieving awhole lot of shovelware and little else IMO.  But thanks to Pokemon alot of that changed, not because I liked the game but because it changed the way developers saw the system.  They saw $ and began to make big-budgetted handheld titles. 

This generartion I can easily say I've played an least a dozen + titles on both systems and say the system more than pulls it's weight.  Hell I think I three new titles coming in the next week or so--Okami Den :)


Offline Mop it up

  • And I've gotta say...
  • Score: 125
    • View Profile
I pretty much agree with what Ian Sane said, but to add to it: multiplayer is much easier on a console. With handhelds, everyone needs their own system and, almost always, their own copy of the game. I also like playing on a single screen as opposed to everyone having their own, it feels more interactive that way, but that's just a personal preference. So, yeah, for me there is a long list of reasons why consoles are better than handhelds, which is why I feel handhelds are not even close to being worth their current asking price for the system and games.

Offline Morari

  • 46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2
  • Score: -7237
    • View Profile
I pretty much agree with what Ian Sane said, but to add to it: multiplayer is much easier on a console. With handhelds, everyone needs their own system and, almost always, their own copy of the game. I also like playing on a single screen as opposed to everyone having their own, it feels more interactive that way, but that's just a personal preference.

A large percent of the games available on the DS had download play. While it usually didn't offer the full multiplayer experience, it's an idea that should continue outside of the realm of handhelds. It always reminded me of the old "spawn installs" you could do for PC games. Unfortunately, that isn't the case nowadays due to paranoid DRM schemes.

There are very, very few genres where sharing a screen actually works in a games benefit. They're all arcade genres too. Fighting games, SHUMPs, beat-em-ups, etc. Anything beyond that and you're forcing into split-screen, which is not only annoying, but strips a game of any meaningful competition due to "peeking" by the other player. That's why we have LAN parties instead. Everyone gets there dedicated station, but we're only ever a room apart. Still plenty close enough for smack talk. ;)
"This post has been censored for your protection."

                                --Bureau of Internet Morality

Offline RagnaBlade

  • Score: -3
    • View Profile
Oddly enough, I play far more on my DS than I play on my consoles! If you add up the play clocks of my top 3 played DS games (Final Fantasy Tactics A2 Grimoire of the Rift, DQ9, and The World Ends With you) I have played over 400 hours. And combined with my brothers, I have more games than I can count, I'll have to take inventory over spring break. My top 3 games on console are Fallout 3, Okami, and FFXII (yes, 12, not 13) and those only add up to 200 hours! My DS is a constant companion, and even when I am at home I sometimes just don't want to sit on a couch. I'll lay in  bed, and play a ton. My DS has been my most played system I've ever owned. It's definitely equal to other platforms, and I think the sales show that the general public don't see it as inferior, just different. I already have my 3DS preordered, and I cannot wait.
Sand will cover this place. Sand will cover you.