Support NeoGAF

[Panajev2001a]

"Better placement of data on the UMD disc to allow less seekign back and forth on the disc: that is quite a big point which developers might overlook."

um - if Sony allowed people to burn their own UMDs then surely that would help them test?

I do not think the issue would change that much with either a UMD or a DVD-R being read: not accessing data sequentially on the disc is not something that is entirely specific to the optical disc itself.


Vark,

This time Sony is getting them good documentation early and a nice OpenGL-like API, so they do not have the excuse that the system is already ultra-tough to program for like they initially had with PlayStation 2. They can spend more time optimizing their work, especially considering that programming time is not the most expensive of modern game development in AAA titles.

 

[Panajev2001a]

"UMD accesses are one bad point, another is the screen: the fact it is sooo good does eat battery life, but you know what... I can take it, it is well used battery life ."

Now this is something i DEFINITELY agree on.

Good thinking DCharlie .

 

[kaching]

so how about this situation.... theoretical maybe?

...

Now, if suddenly they are told the can't exceed a certain power threshhold because it'll give shitty battery life, then that is a bit of a kick in the teeth to find out now.

Situation as you presented would be remarkably shitty for Sony to pull on devs and would gain them nothing as it would probably incur significant delays to software releases and engender extreme alienation among 3rd parties. Of course, for any dev to allow themselves to code a portable title to an advanced state without ever making a check on battery life expectations along the way would also be extremely irresponsible and unprofessional of the dev. If I were a dev and Sony was keeping me completely in the dark about battery life estimations, I would freeze development on all PSP titles until I got the answers I needed.

So what's the point of this "theoretical maybe" scenario, that wouldn't even get to the point you describe, if we're being realistic, nor even implied by the gi.biz rumor?

I don't mind being deceived when the numbers i get are ABOVE what they claimed!

But that wasn't the extent of what I said. I did also note that others have gotten less than what Nintendo claims for the GBA battery life.

A drop from a 12 hour peak (which is actaully closer to 15) to a 10 hour peak still represents a massive difference to a (alledged) 4 hour peak of the sony machine. i can't understand why you aren't grasping this as a concern for people and trying to twist into people having an agenda against Sony.

I grasp the concern for other people just fine. Stick to GBA or DS then - there's no need to litter almost every PSP thread with that ideology. Sony made a conscious decision to pursue a different design philosophy. It's not as if they set out to create a portable with GBA level performance but somehow managed to fail to give it GBA level battery life. If that were the case, I'd join everyone in the heckling.

No one is forced to buy a handheld gaming device and there are alternatives to the PSP that would seem to fit people's preferences better. So the only reason to be spending so much time criticizing Sony's design decision is if you had an agenda.

 

[Jonnyram]

Sony made a conscious decision to pursue a different design philosophy. It's not as if they set out to create a portable with GBA level performance but somehow managed to fail to give it GBA level battery life. If that were the case, I'd join everyone in the heckling.

But the PSP is reportedly selling for double (or more) the GBA's price, a good 3 or 4 years after the GBA was released. Noone would expect GBA performance nowadays. But it's still highly likely Sony are trying to release PSP ahead of its time.

 

[DCharlie]

"Situation as you presented would be remarkably shitty for Sony to pull on devs and would gain them nothing as it would probably incur significant delays to software releases and engender extreme alienation among 3rd parties. Of course, for any dev to allow themselves to code a portable title to an advanced state without ever making a check on battery life expectations along the way would also be extremely irresponsible and unprofessional of the dev. If I were a dev and Sony was keeping me completely in the dark about battery life estimations, I would freeze development on all PSP titles until I got the answers I needed."

I agree it's unprofessional and devs have to be partly to blame, but i guess it depends what they were told in terms of performance from Sony i guess.

"So what's the point of this "theoretical maybe" scenario, that wouldn't even get to the point you describe, if we're being realistic, nor even implied by the gi.biz rumor?"

... erm ...

"But that wasn't the extent of what I said. I did also note that others have gotten less than what Nintendo claims for the GBA battery life."

Can we actually do a straw poll on this because i geniunely think this is interesting. I'm currently testing my second GBA to see how it goes on a single charge.

"I grasp the concern for other people just fine. Stick to GBA or DS then - there's no need to litter almost every PSP thread with that ideology. Sony made a conscious decision to pursue a different design philosophy. It's not as if they set out to create a portable with GBA level performance but somehow managed to fail to give it GBA level battery life. If that were the case, I'd join everyone in the heckling.
No one is forced to buy a handheld gaming device and there are alternatives to the PSP that would seem to fit people's preferences better. So the only reason to be spending so much time criticizing Sony's design decision is if you had an agenda."

lol. You've got it all wrong. I'm all in favour of a 2 hour battery life IF the games kick all manner of ass. HOWEVER, if they are going to neuter the machine to some extent to get the battery life, then i still hold that the machine could have been better designed to fit a certain power range and probably better priced.

"But it's still highly likely Sony are trying to release PSP ahead of its time."

Indeed - at it's full tilt, it's probably a good year or two ahead of batter tech. I'm pretty sure we are going to see a few PSP revisions down the line as batteries catch up.

 

[Vark]

"This time Sony is getting them good documentation early and a nice OpenGL-like API, so they do not have the excuse that the system is already ultra-tough to program for like they initially had with PlayStation 2. They can spend more time optimizing their work, especially considering that programming time is not the most expensive of modern game development in AAA titles."

I'm not talking about the regular middleware, I was more making a half assed comment on the fact that Sony has effectively created another development hurdle with the whole 'hey devs we sort of dropped the ball here, mind pick it up for us?' battery life thing. My comment was that unless after creating the problem, someone's done something development side to help fix it (other than the emulator) then they've created a developmental problem that is going to cost developers in the end with time and money.

These last two things will become *increasingly* important this generation. Is it the end of the world? No. But its a huge pain in the ass that really didn't need to be there if Sony had done their part of the job.

Sony's job, which they are just now, but not entirely understanding, is to make developers lives easier. Better support, better middleware. The easier, faster and cheaper it is to get something up and running on their platforms, the happier publishers are, the better the results.

Nintendo is prohibitive through relations, Sony is prohibitive through Hardware, MS seems to be the only one that 'gets it' right now.

 

[kaching]

Jonnyram: It was an example meant to illustrate a point - to distinguish between lower battery life as a result of simple incompetence and lower battery life as a result of consciously emphasizing other design characteristics at its expense.

If the PSP is "ahead of its time" then what about all the other portable devices we've had access to for at least the past few years that sport similar battery life?

DCharlie:
"Can we actually do a straw poll on this because i geniunely think this is interesting."

By all means, although it would be missing the point of what I've said to do so. I'm not looking to indict Nintendo for battery life deception anymore than I am of Sony. My point is that people are putting too much stock in receiving a set of concrete numbers about battery life that actually mean very little when you get right down to it in portable devices like the DS and PSP which can have WIDELY varied power consumption. Ironically, for a battery life estimate to be accurate, handheld manufacturers would actually _have to_ impose a policy like the one this thread is about, in order to make sure no one strays below the boundaries of what they've promised.

"lol. You've got it all wrong. I'm all in favour of a 2 hour battery life IF the games kick all manner of ass. HOWEVER, if they are going to neuter the machine to some extent to get the battery life, then i still hold that the machine could have been better designed to fit a certain power range and probably better priced."

Actually, it's you that's got it wrong, because you're not keeping track of the distinct threads in our conversation...this particular line of responses has nothing to do with the machine being neutered as a result of this policy - it goes back to you questioning what I said about people valuing battery life over performance.

I really gotta stop getting into these conversations with you when you're a bit inebriated

 

[Fafalada]

okay, so how would you stream in a large GT4 track in a good and battery conscious way without disrupting the feel?

Given that none of the Prologue tracks did any streaming, I doubt GT4 tracks will have particular need of it.

To be fair, I believe a fair few games that DO use graphic streaming (like BO3, or SSX3) could be remade to work without it and not actually sacrifice visuals and size of individual tracks for it in any manner.
But you would have to sacrifice the connected tracks (SSX3 has those routes that take you across entire mountain, and BO3 also connects normally lapped tracks into one giant course for grandprix and the likes). Yes, it's a tradeoff - but is it really that crucial?
I also don't think constant graphic streaming is That common - but on the other hand, how do we classify Biohazards and SilentHills that load a new room every 20seconds? (exageration, but you know what I mean).

Anyway, my quote there was more about something else - namely that as system utilization improves, generally so will the battery performance (or if it stays constant, the game visuals etc. will improve).
This I expect will fly way over the head of many people that harbour the illusion that lower battery life automatically means game is using more system power.

I am not particularly favourable of straight PS2 ports on that front because the early ones are likely to underperform, perhaps badly - NFS:U looks like it will be a realworld example of that, unless it greatly improves before it comes out.

 

[DCharlie]

"I really gotta stop getting into these conversations with you when you're a bit inebriated "

lol- the worrying thing is, i'm at work and sober....

i'm just not paying enough attention (work and other pointless stuff getting in the way)

 

[Fafalada]

lol- the worrying thing is, i'm at work and sober..

I'd be more worried if you were inebriated this early in the day - even if it is Friday

 

[Chittagong]

Keep'em coming, we can do 400, do not let me down now!

 

[ourumov]

I am no expert but I have my doubts regarding what's the problem on PSP battery life and where does it come from.
You have high-clocked chipsets, a big screen and a spinning disk.


I don't think the problem is the spinning disk seeing how NetMD is always spinning and you get 50+ hours of battery life with a single AAA battery.
I also don't think the problem is the big screen since well, DS features TWO screens and the battery life seems enough good.
Then we only have an element and probably the element that will affect most the performance in games and that's the chips themselves. Polygons pushed, fillrate are features that 100% deppend on the clockspeed of the chips and you can do any kind of miracles to push more at a fixed clockspeed.

 

[TTP]

Oh man, stop this more polygons = more battery drain shit please. There are two battery drainers here, UMD drive and screen. That's it. Period.

 

[ourumov]

I have said more clockspeed = less battery life. That's different.
Anywas I refuse to believe screen/UMD are the main drainers.


Just My opinion.

 

[P90]

Your customer testimonial about your GBA battery life is fascinating, but it doesn't change the fact that battery life estimates for BOTH nextgen handhelds are down from what the GBA offered. Even if we accept that Nintendo is oh so conservative, their DS battery life estimate is still less than their GBA/SP battery life estimates. If you're among the crowd who claims that battery life >>>>>>> hardware power for handheld gaming, both PSP and DS should be equally condemned.

Anything much less than about 10 hours between charges is not good for a handheld gaming machine, no matter who makes it, to be attractive to the masses, as in being even remotely GBA-type numbers. Cruddy battery life means cruddy marketshare. History has shown that.

 

[jarrod]

Is that a 'Yes' or a 'No' to the question I asked about whether you've seen anyone say that battery life is more important than hardware performance ?

Not unless you simplify these things down to a yes/no issue (which you seem intent on doing). I've seen plenty of people promote a balance between battery life and system performance though, rather than favoring one wholly over the other... and that's where the criticism of PSP usually comes in (though really, the architecture isn't the biggest drainer).

 

[mrklaw]

MD doesn't spin the disc all the time. It spins up, buffers into memory, then spins down. However it does it, it does it very well,and hopefully SCEI were intelligent enough to wander across the halls to ask their advice on battery usage.

 

[kaching]

DCharlie: I do appreciate your willingness to hash out the issues here. I don't mean to be too sarcastic

jarrod: You're being evasive and attempting to portray what I'm saying as something that it is not. The question is observational - either something exists or it doesn't - and by itself does not polarize the issue, nor is it intended to. Just because I'm saying that there's a group of people that value battery life over hardware performance doesn't mean I can't also see that there's a group who believes in a more moderate stance of balance. I just happen to be addressing the former group in the comments you challenged. There's nothing about what I said that's meant to imply that I only see two sides to this, since I've only referenced one group in my comments and said nothing about how many other perspectives there might be.

P90: Based on metrics that were last measured when? Handheld gaming has largely been the domain of Nintendo with no significant competition to challenge that since the Game Gear. That was 10 yrs ago and portable devices in general have exploded in diversity and popularity since then, many of which sport battery life of less than 10 hrs. As jarrod might tell you, if he can spare the time from his attempts to paint me into a corner, the issue is not as black & white as that

 

[Lazy8s]

The screen is most likely the biggest battery drainer, but I get the impression that the PSP chips should've been designed better -- high-end graphics are delivered by other mobile chips at far lower clockspeeds.

 

[P90]

Yawn. Another feeble attempt at spinning actual history with the "no signficant competition" line. I guess the same could be said of the PS2. Look at the marketshare. In reality, the PS2 has no "siginicant competition". It just crushed the competition. Kaz even said as much. It is just that the Gameboy crushed the competition into insignificance for a loooooooooooooooong period of time. Give Nintendo their props for doing something right.

 

[Fafalada]

The screen is most likely the biggest battery drainer, but I get the impression that the PSP chips should've been designed better -- high-end graphics are delivered by other mobile chips at far lower clockspeeds.

And far lower performance characteristics. Besides, there's only one chip in PSP.

Plust the PSP isn't THAT high clock either - Intel powered PPCs have just hit 640Mhz (with very poor battery life too). Granted, the PSP cpu absolutely stomps those XScale cpus in any kind of math operations (both in performance and function) but that's another matter.

 

[kaching]

:lol @ P90. You accuse me of spinning actual history and then proceed to supply spin of your own. Why don't you inform me of the actual history in the handheld gaming market - who have been the competitors to the Gameboy dynasty that you feel had a credible chance of challenging Nintendo's dominance?

And who said anything about not giving credit to Nintendo for what they've achieved in handheld gaming?

 

[P90]

:lol @ P90. You accuse me of spinning actual history and then proceed to supply spin of your own. Why don't you inform me of the actual history in the handheld gaming market - who have been the competitors to the Gameboy dynasty that you feel had a credible chance of challenging Nintendo's dominance?

And who said anything about not giving credit to Nintendo for what they've achieved in handheld gaming?

OK...you accuse me of just spinning, then what is the truth about handheld gaming you imply you are so knowledgeable about? I am looking forward to reading your detailed, historically accurate, corroborated, non biased report complete with links to reputable sources.

 

[Lazy8s]

Fafalada:

And far lower performance characteristics.

Not for a handheld with what many would consider acceptable battery life. If performance is allowed to come at the expense of acceptable battery life, might as well stick the latest ATi or nVidia desktop GPU in there.

Anyway, MBX solutions can provide good fillrate, no-penalty FSAA, seamless curved surface rendering, and high precision color and Z, so it's competitive. G34 is available for licensing, and Gizmondo is launching the quite nice GoForce chip before PSP.

 

[jarrod]

jarrod: You're being evasive and attempting to portray what I'm saying as something that it is not. The question is observational - either something exists or it doesn't - and by itself does not polarize the issue, nor is it intended to. Just because I'm saying that there's a group of people that value battery life over hardware performance doesn't mean I can't also see that there's a group who believes in a more moderate stance of balance. I just happen to be addressing the former group in the comments you challenged. There's nothing about what I said that's meant to imply that I only see two sides to this, since I've only referenced one group in my comments and said nothing about how many other perspectives there might be.

I'm doing nothing of the sort... all I'm asking is for you to name this 'crowd' who's principles 'value battery life over hardware performance' to the exact degree you're setting (where any reduction from the GBA standard is unacceptable). I just haven't seen it outside this faceless group you keep referring to, maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

 

[P90]

all I'm asking is for you to name this 'crowd' who's principles 'value battery life over hardware performance' to the exact degree you're setting (where any reduction from the GBA standard is unacceptable).

kaching's explanation should prove to be interesting. Of course, he would never spin, like you or me.

 

[kaching]

P90: I already gave you the abridged version. Like I said, the handheld gaming market has been largely devoid of siginificant competition for a decade. In comparison, the console market is nothing like it - even when Sony dominates the marketplace for two generations, there has been competitor hardware that has managed to establish a worldwide userbase of 15 million or more which keeps a decent amount of ports and exclusive titles coming from 3rd parties for a 4-5 yr lifecycle at least. Nothing of the sort has been attempted for quite awhile in the handheld arena. It's not just a matter of Nintendo doing a really good job, its a matter of potential competitors not bothering to try. Without that competition, without the ability to measure the effectiveness of different strategic approaches to handheld gaming over time, you don't have enough data to extrapolate just what the current market will accept in terms of battery life. Meanwhile, the rest of the portable electronics industry has grown in leaps and bounds despite the fact that many of Laptops, cellphones, PDAs, digital cameras, portable DVD players and so forth that people buy all often have less than 10 hrs of battery life. So there's an open question just how much perceptions about battery life may have changed over the years, as a result.

jarrod: When you asked me to clarify my statement to Dragona, I did. And I have most certainly identified faces in the crowd when you asked previously. Meanwhile, I have asked you to answer a simple Yes/No question with a Yes/No answer and you've balked at each request. What's the point to anyone saying they think battery life is more important than hardware peformance if they're willing to turn around and trade off a significant chunk of battery life for hardware performance? You may very well be right that most people's true beliefs are that battery life and hardware performance are equal in value, but they're not all saying that and that's the problem. Those that aren't and are saying that battery life is more important than HW performance are either ignorantly contradicting themselves or playing favorites.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

I love this thread

 

[isamu]

In the end, even with infinite battery life, this platform brings nothing new to the market. It's just another machine we gamers have to shell out for if we wish to play all the games. You take away its portibility with lackluster battery performance and you might as well own a PS2.

 

[Fatghost]

Nothing of the sort has been attempted for quite awhile in the handheld arena. It's not just a matter of Nintendo doing a really good job, its a matter of potential competitors not bothering to try. Without that competition, .

There has been tons of competition in the portable market.

Game Gear
Turbo Express
Atari Lynx
Game.com
Wonderswan
NeoGeo Pocket

and so on, to list a few.

Most of these systems had superior hardware to the gameboy product on the market at the time, and and many of these had high profile titles and fairly significant third party support.

Nintendo does not dominate the portable market just because no other company sees fit to compete.

Edit:

And on the subject of the PSP itself, I wouldn't mind having a portable PS2. I'm still on the fence though if the PSP will be able to deliver in terms of battery life, software library, and price. But if it can, I'll definately pick one up.

 

[neptunes]

There has been tons of competition in the portable market.

Game Gear
Turbo Express
Atari Lynx
Game.com
Wonderswan
NeoGeo Pocket

Most of these systems had superior hardware to the gameboy product on the market at the time, and and many of these had high profile titles and fairly significant third party support.

Nintendo does not dominate the portable market just because no other company sees fit to compete.

The only serious competition I could retain from your list would be the game gear and maybe the NeoGeo pocket. The wonderswan was never intended for a American release. The rest are laughable.

Didn't the Game Gear do well?

 

[maharg]

I don't think the problem is the spinning disk seeing how NetMD is always spinning and you get 50+ hours of battery life with a single AAA battery.

There are various reasons for this, but perhaps the single most important is that a MD player need only sustain a bitrate of about 128kbit/s in order to successfully stream a song. As opposed to a normal CD player which needs to sustain about 1.4mbit/s, which is itself considered a fairly low bitrate. That means the MD needs to run about a quarter as fast (oversimplifying maybe), and probably requires significantly less than a quarter less energy to motivate it. This is also why MP3 CD players run so much longer.

Now how do you suppose it changes things when you're not just doing music, but also possibly video (and while audio is huge, video is massive) or texture data. Not only will 128kbit/s not come even close to doing it, but you also run a much higher risk of needing to seek on the disc, which is an expensive operation power consumption wise.

 

[Fatghost]

The only serious competition I could retain from your list would be the game gear and maybe the NeoGeo pocket. The wonderswan was never intended for a American release. The rest are laughable.

Didn't the Game Gear do well?

Depending on your time frame and geography, Game Gear, Wonderswan, Neo Geo Pocket, Lynx and Turbo Express were all very strong (superior to the gameboy of the time, in fact( in terms of hardware and software.

Of course sales wise, not even the Game Gear was able to really dent the Gameboy.

But the point is, the Gameboy's success is not due to lack of competition. It's not even due to the Gameboy itself being technologically superior or having the best software catalog.

There is probably some magic formula in terms of cachet, size, power, battery life, marketing, and Pokemon that gives Nintendo their strength in this market.

 

[arter_2]

Depending on your time frame and geography, Game Gear, Wonderswan, Neo Geo Pocket, Lynx and Turbo Express were all very strong (superior to the gameboy of the time, in fact( in terms of hardware and software.

Of course sales wise, not even the Game Gear was able to really dent the Gameboy.

But the point is, the Gameboy's success is not due to lack of competition. It's not even due to the Gameboy itself being technologically superior or having the best software catalog.

There is probably some magic formula in terms of cachet, size, power, battery life, marketing, and Pokemon that gives Nintendo their strength in this market.

IAWTP

 

[Brofist]

Depending on your time frame and geography, Game Gear, Wonderswan, Neo Geo Pocket, Lynx and Turbo Express were all very strong (superior to the gameboy of the time, in fact( in terms of hardware and software.

Of course sales wise, not even the Game Gear was able to really dent the Gameboy.

But the point is, the Gameboy's success is not due to lack of competition. It's not even due to the Gameboy itself being technologically superior or having the best software catalog.

There is probably some magic formula in terms of cachet, size, power, battery life, marketing, and Pokemon that gives Nintendo their strength in this market.

Only the Game Gear of those was real competition...the rest never had a chance. Also GB has always had much stronger software lineup then those "competitors". Sure some of those had random titles that were strong, but not enough variety or overall content to compete.

No one will run Nintendo out of the handheld business, but the PSP will fare better than those combined.

 

[jarrod]

jarrod: When you asked me to clarify my statement to Dragona, I did.

I'd agree.

And I have most certainly identified faces in the crowd when you asked previously.

Not to the degree you're laying down. I've yet to see anyone express their principles as being in line with that, to simplify things down you're essentially saying is someone says 'A', then they must believe 'B'. And when I question who's saying 'B', your response is "what, you haven't seen all those people saying 'A'"?

Meanwhile, I have asked you to answer a simple Yes/No question with a Yes/No answer and you've balked at each request.

Okay, ask again and you'll get a direct reply. Sorry I see grey.

What's the point to anyone saying they think battery life is more important than hardware peformance if they're willing to turn around and trade off a significant chunk of battery life for hardware performance?

Balance.

You may very well be right that most people's true beliefs are that battery life and hardware performance are equal in value, but they're not all saying that and that's the problem.

The other problem is I haven't proposed people see an equality between factors, but rather a balance with varying degrees. You see a yes/no duopoly of positions evidently.

Those that aren't and are saying that battery life is more important than HW performance are either ignorantly contradicting themselves or playing favorites.

I'm saying they're not, you're twisting people's beliefs into your own arbitrary "all or nothing" standard. To defend your favorite I'd say.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

Only the Game Gear .

was a huge ass battery hog. See : Similarities?

 

[Panajev2001a]

was a huge ass battery hog. See : Similarities?

First the major pain was the lack of a built-in rechargable battery: I did not mind the short battery life, I mind having to buy 6xAA batteries over and over and over and over and being in trips where my batteries would be gone and I could not buy more for a good while.

Second, many games had NO save feature: several had password systems, but most of the ones I had seemed to be made with the idea of being beated in one go.

Third, the system was very bulky.

Still, it had an awesome TV tuner which allowed me to watch TV in bed .

Also, I would not compare the support SEGA and third parties put into the Game Gear to the support Sony/SCE and third parties are putting into the PSP.

I am convinced though that if SEGA stuck with the Game Gear longer and released a Game Gear 2 instead of the Nomad (built-in battery, longer battery life and improoved graphics [but not a full Genesis in a box), that Nintendo would have felt the heat.

SEGA dropped a huge stone on their own feet, they defeated themselves.

 

[neptunes]

was a huge ass battery hog. See : Similarities?

Actually the gamegear did pretty good.

 

[Insertia]

First the major pain was the lack of a built-in rechargable battery: I did not mind the short battery life, I mind having to buy 6xAA batteries over and over and over and over and being in trips where my batteries would be gone and I could not buy more for a good while.

too add on to what Pana said..

Battery life was GameGear's biggest flaw, and it's misunderstood by most.

No one really gave a care that the batteries drained quickly, people bitched because when the battery died new batteries had to be bought. At least that feeling was shared by friends and myself who owned GameGears.

Luckily PSP doesn't have to deal with this flaw no matter how short the battery life.

 

[maharg]

Er, it's not like the GameBoy had built in batteries before after the turn of the millenium. Clearly people didn't mind buying new batteries for it too much, whether it took longer to need them or not (and with GG to GB, we're talking a factor of maybe 2-3 times longer at most).

Just like it was an equal factor then that you had to replace your batteries when they ran out, now it's an equal factor that you don't. I don't see how this significantly changes the argument.

Also, pana, I find it extremely unlikely that they could have used a rechargable built-in battery on the gamegear in any cost effective way around 1995 or before. At the time only high end electronics like camcorders had such things, and they were big bulky NiMH batteries with memories that lead to incorrect charging making them useless. Lithium Ion batteries weren't in popular use yet, if they were even invented.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Er, it's not like the GameBoy had built in batteries before after the turn of the millenium. Clearly people didn't mind buying new batteries for it too much, whether it took longer to need them or not (and with GG to GB, we're talking a factor of maybe 2-3 times longer at most).

Game Gear needed 3x the batteries to run as the GB and lasted far less: you had to buy new batteries VERY often.

Also, pana, I find it extremely unlikely that they could have used a rechargable built-in battery on the gamegear in any cost effective way around 1995 or before. At the time only high end electronics like camcorders had such things, and they were big bulky NiMH batteries with memories that lead to incorrect charging making them useless. Lithium Ion batteries weren't in popular use yet, if they were even invented.

Fine, then just optimize the chipset for better battery life: say that the new system would have lasted a bit more than the Game Gear did, but needed only 3 batteries.

It would have been a needed improovement.

 

[Argyle]

maharg: Think of it as a cost of ownership issue...on all systems, you'll have to buy new games, but classic Gameboy vs. GameGear/Lynx/TE, we're talking about a substantial cost of ownership just to play the thing...I think that's one of the main things that killed off the competition, and this is coming from a former Lynx fanboy Many of those systems had rechargeable battery packs but they were big and bulky and were powered by NiCad batteries which had memory effect, lower capacity than alkalines, etc...hell, the Lynx had an external battery pack that took D batteries, IIRC. Talk about ridiculous!

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd much rather the PSP have a 16 hour battery life I like how I charge my SP infrequently and it always seems to have juice in it...

But really, how many people spend more than, say, 4 hours on the road playing games in one sitting? It's certainly not an everyday thing for most people - the times you really want it (long air trips, say) are edge cases and yeah, it sucks that you can't play for the entire flight...but most of us are not flying across the country every day.

What is going to be annoying is remembering to charge the thing all the time. But personally, I don't think the battery life issue is going to bother me that much (assuming the games are rad)...I mean, I remember to charge my cellphone every day even though I don't always have to...but that's my usage pattern and yours may vary...

 

[TTP]

And let's not forget about Tetris...

 

[xsarien]

The wonderswan was never intended for a American release. The rest are laughable.

Didn't the Game Gear do well?

The "serious competition" strawman rears its ugly head again! The market decided which portable gaming device won out in each of those instances, and each time, it was the Game Boy. If you want to know why the others didn't succeed, well: Blame NEC for pricing the Turbo Express above what people were willing to pay; blame Atari for not mareting the Lynx correctly, ditto for Neo Geo; blame Tiger for not having anything worth playing; and blame Sega for sacrificing battery life for technology.

Any one of those devices could've been The Next Big Thing. But Nintendo, as already stated in this thread, managed to keep the price/power/game library equation in such perfect balance that the GB platform, to a lot of people, seemed to be the only sensible choice to make.

 

[jarrod]

Just a sidenote, both Mattel and SCEA were in serious talks with Bandai to release the WSC in America as their own... it was indeed intended for western release once upon a time...

 

[maharg]

I charge my cell phone about once every 3-5 days, depending on how much I use it. It's on all the time, though. I found my old cell phone where I had to charge it once a day terribly annoying.

So yeah, my charging pattern definitely varies

And I'm with xsarian. Dismissing a product that failed as a nonserious attempt at competition *because* it failed is circular. Those products all had big names behind them, a lot of money was put into them, and at the very least the GameGear, NGPC, and the Wonderswan had some very big name games on them (sonic, lots of capcom stuff, and final fantasy in particular, respectively). They were serious efforts hampered by a hard to enter market and stupid mistakes. Was the N64 not a serious attempt at competition just because it lacked in one key area? The notion that you can tell how serious a company is about competing by the success they achieve is absurd.

It's worth noting that the GameBoy MADE its killer app a killer app. Tetris wasn't exactly unknown before the GameBoy, but the success of the GameBoy put it way beyond where it was before. There was a mario game at the GB's launch, but I don't believe it sold that well and Tetris was a packin.

I think this sort of cyclical nature of success is often ignored when talking of consoles and portables. There has to be a feedback loop of success in various areas in order to sustain a successful entry into a market. The GB had the right price, the right battery life, and the right capabilities for its time. Tetris had the addictive quality needed to make people want to play it in public, which made more people aware of it, which made more people buy it, and so on.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Well, SEGA made more mistakes with the Game Gear than Sony is doing with the PSP and Sony might be putting more money and effort in the PSP than SEGA did IMHO: if SEGA released a Game Gear 2 instead of the Nomad, maybe we would have the Game Gear still alive (or at least it would have survived till the Dreamcast).

 

[DCharlie]

"Well, SEGA made more mistakes with the Game Gear than Sony is doing with the PSP and Sony might be putting more money and effort in the PSP than SEGA did IMHO: if SEGA released a Game Gear 2 instead of the Nomad, maybe we would have the Game Gear still alive (or at least it would have survived till the Dreamcast)."

... erm... what constitutes the more mistakes in the Game Gear?

I'd assume the mistakes you are talking about are :

1. Price
2. Battery power
3. you could play the same (or very similiar) games on a home console

*looks at PSP*
... ?

(seriously, what were the other mistakes of the GG?)

 

[Panajev2001a]

"Well, SEGA made more mistakes with the Game Gear than Sony is doing with the PSP and Sony might be putting more money and effort in the PSP than SEGA did IMHO: if SEGA released a Game Gear 2 instead of the Nomad, maybe we would have the Game Gear still alive (or at least it would have survived till the Dreamcast)."

... erm... what constitutes the more mistakes in the Game Gear?

I'd assume the mistakes you are talking about are :

1. Price
2. Battery power
3. you could play the same (or very similiar) games on a home console

*looks at PSP*
... ?

(seriously, what were the other mistakes of the GG?)

The size of the mistakes and the inconveniece they cause also relate dear DCharlie.

Price was absurdly high for what it gave: pure game machine (the TV tuner was sold separately and was its only "multi-media" extension).

Battery life was very short and forced you to buy a shitload of AA batteries or be with your parents in the mountains, enjoying the fresh air with no AA batteries sigh...

The Game Gear was a pure game machine: PSP offers me a lot of stuff beyond pure gaming.

Games were Sega Master System quality, NOWHERE near Genesis quality.