Antimatter said:
sure I have, I own one, and a nomad, a genesis, and a saturn. They aren't but 5 feet from me.
The Genesis was a bad-ass system, and I say that as a man who stayed true to the SNES. It was always a strong player in the games field. If only Sega hadn't fucked up with the 32X, and especially the SegaCD.
The Saturn was also a very kick-ass system. It got a major screwjob in the non-Japan market, though, primarily because of some very bad decisions by the Sega USA guys. A friend of mine had a Saturn, and we'd still be playing it had his stupid cousin not spilled lemonade directly into the box, thus short-circuiting and ruining it.
I do think the Saturn's method of saving game progress (battery backup inside the system case, which erases all saved games when the battery runs out) was utterly retarded, though.
The Nomad had a tiny little screen that didn't let you see any reasonable level of detail, and it too guzzled battery juice.
Nintendo could have made the jump to GBA SP tech years befefore they did, but chose not to, because they had no reason to.
Actually, the SP was long in development. First, during the GBC age, tech didn't allow for a clearly-lit color screen that didn't motion-blur to hell and back without carrying with it an insane price tag and a (this again) very short battery life.
Then, on the same general principal, they released the GBA with no light. The GBA, if you look at the hardware specs, is actually more capable than the SNES was, and it's still backwards compatible with GB and GBC games. But, since enough people compalained (rightly so) about the dark screen, they decided to develop and release the SP, with a rechargeable battery pack and frontlit screen. However, they held back on releasing it until a year had passed, so as not to undercut sales of the original GBA (they had to clear out inventory, y'know).
It was only major competition (on prelaunch paper at least) of the PSP that forced them to innovate in the handheld market, and then they just copied a few other designs, added a bit of nintendo (and Apple) flare, and sold it.
The PSP didn't play a part in the GBA:SP. It's entirely and solely up against the Nintendo DS. Since the two systems are pretty much entirely different (the PSP is more "computer-ish", while the DS is unique), it's not so much that they're fighting for the same demographic as that they're fighting for the overall market share. Considering the failure of UMD, and the pitiably short PSP battery life (there's that one again!), and also the improvements made by the DS Lite, PSP is losing ground.
Keep in mind the Gamegear has a portable master system.
The Master System? God almighty, now
that's a big seller! *end sarcasm*
Seriously. That sold virtually no-one on the Game Gear. The Master System had only cult popularity, at best.
the Nomad was simular, it was a portable genesis, which played genesis games.? Had Sega shiped ether with battery packs instead of AA batteries, they would have been perfect.? Well, as perfect as tech of the time allowed.
Actually, the "tech of the time" guaranteed their expensive paperweight status. Power efficiency was low, and even with rechargeables the playtime between chargings was low. The tech departments at Sega just refused to see this, thus the Nomad bombed pitifully and the Game Gear never became a real contender.
Remember, I liked the hell out of the Genesis. The Nomad was good in
concept, but trying to cram full-size TV graphics onto a four-inch screen means visibility is lost, and for a graphics-driven system like the Genesis, that's a death knell.
the 360 was "xbox but better"
See, that's what they
should have done with PS3. PS2 was a hugely successful system; even after two other consoles which were technically superior came along and claimed a spot, the PS2 was still top dog.
The things I wanted out of PS3 are simple:
*Do what PS2 did and better. Better graphics, faster response times, faster load times. DON'T TRY TO FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN.
*Wireless controllers. Really, nowadays this is simple to do. No reason at all not to.
*Online functionality without charging through the roof. Not absolutely necessary, but I see the draw.
*Backwards compatibility with all PS1 and PS2 games. I only want to have one Playstation in my house. I like to keep it simple.
*Built-in hard drive, preferably upgradable. Xbox did it, Sony must compete. Also, a near necessity when online play is involved.
*Affordability. I'd be willing to pay $200 for it, and $50 per game. That's reasonable, and is the "golden zone" for new game systems by my research.
That's it. Well, that and plenty of good games. Any system is made or broken on the games made for it. Sony's always been strong in that field, though, so that wouldn't have been a problem.
Even if it was because of fan outcry, $500 or more is
way too steep to capture the general market. I don't give a fat rat's ass what Sony's reasons for it are; the practical fact is that a large majority of the videogamers in the US cannot pay that kind of price tag.
Stupid move, Sony.
Approve
1
