Support NeoGAF

[FitzOfRage]

Yeah right. How long you been gaming for? I remember Gameboys being out a lont longer than that.

Pokemon Red and Blue came out in 1996. The Gameboy came out when, in 1989? Did a little searching, and here:



So in 1997, we're talking about 45M GBs. In the last 7 years, Nintendo has more than doubled that total, but it's hardly indicative of Pokemon making the machine. It may have saved it from falling off the gaming map, but without that 40+M install base, I doubt we'd even be talking about Pokemon right now. My point is that the GB was the vessel that got Pokemon to the gamers. Pokemon didn't make the GB, the userbase was there. Red and Blue started it, but it could end just as well if the DS fails to take off. Nintendo can't keep releasing Pokemon games on the GB, GBC, PGB or GBA and expect it to continue to sell in the face of the PSP. If you think so, maybe you work for Nintendo, b/c it's that lame thinking that's gotten them into this predicament in the first place. This isn't the first time Nintendo has wasted their market. They did it with the NES and then kinda with the SNES after it. They procrastinate and now it's biting them in the ass. I think the future of Nintendo AND the Pokemon gaming empire (note, not the tv and movie juggernauts) rests on the shoulders of the DS. As has been mentioned, the GBA and GB userbases will be worthless in a couple years. Nintendo also can't release a new handheld in the next 18 months and expect to be taken seriously. So it's DS or die IMO. If the DS can carve out a market ala the GC, then Nintendo can buy time with Pokemon as their liferaft. They're just barely hanging on with the GC too, with their old franchises keeping them afloat. But this is a market they should be dominating. Sony shouldn't even have a chance to enter the game. Nintendo is just slow and stupid, and if you don't believe it, come back in a couple of years. I don't think there would be as many reactions like this is we all hadn't seen the same exact thing before. Anyone who's been around since the NES days and before knows exactly what's coming. The writing's on the wall. Seems the game companies aren't exactly the best at the game business. PEACE.

Are you sure those numbers are right? Because going by the oldest available annual report on Nintendo.com (the oldest one listed doesn't work for some reason) by March of 99 http://www.nintendo.com/corp/annual99/index.htm , GB was over 80 million. They also mention 1998 was their best year ever for the GB, topping the previous best year ever - 1997.


So if they did 45 million in the first 8 years, and then 35 million over the next 2 years, I think it's fair to say something pretty big happened in that time frame.

 

[jarrod]

Pokemon saved Game Boy. It drove userbase. Get over it. The end. PEACE.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Pokemon saved Game Boy. It drove userbase. Get over it. The end. PEACE.

You're right. Had the Gameboy just launched with Pokemon Red and Blue in 1996, the GB would have gone on to dominate the handheld market just as it did. Didn't the GB vanquish the Lynx and GameGear before Pokemon ever hit the scene? Right, I thought it did. And what exactly was the major competition since then, Wonderswan? Ngage? I'm not denying the market value of the Pokemon franchise, but it did not make the GB. The GB was around 7 years prior and had already killed off the two biggest competitors it faced in its entire lifetime before ever seeing a single Pokemon game. Pokemon saved the GB from Nintendo. It was slipping off the gaming map, but with over 40M sold, how on earth isn't that a massive factor in establishing the Pokemon brand? Without that large userbase, Pokemon would have had to have done two things in a short time. Establish the brand AND build the userbase to generate the revenue. Oh yeah, it would also have had to establish a handheld gaming market on its own. Like I said, if Pokemon is the king maker on its own, Nintendo is stupid for not putting it on the GC. I suppose the GC wasn't important enough to save, or they just expect to ride out the rest of eternity on Pokemon GB games. PEACE.

 

[jarrod]

You're right. Had the Gameboy just launched with Pokemon Red and Blue in 1996, the GB would have gone on to dominate the handheld market just as it did. Didn't the GB vanquish the Lynx and GameGear before Pokemon ever hit the scene? Right, I thought it did. And what exactly was the major competition since then, Wonderswan? Ngage? I'm not denying the market value of the Pokemon franchise, but it did not make the GB. The GB was around 7 years prior and had already killed off the two biggest competitors it faced in its entire lifetime before ever seeing a single Pokemon game. Pokemon saved the GB from Nintendo. It was slipping off the gaming map, but with over 40M sold, how on earth isn't that a massive factor in establishing the Pokemon brand? Without that large userbase, Pokemon would have had to have done two things in a short time. Establish the brand AND build the userbase to generate the revenue. Oh yeah, it would also have had to establish a handheld gaming market on its own. Like I said, if Pokemon is the king maker on its own, Nintendo is stupid for not putting it on the GC. I suppose the GC wasn't important enough to save, or they just expect to ride out the rest of eternity on Pokemon GB games. PEACE.

Okay, let's bullet point this mess...

-Game Gear was highly competitive with GameBoy, mainly thanks to western markets. It was actually supported up to 1996, at which point Sega cut R&D on all their consumer platforms to refocus on Saturn. In the end, GG managed a 12 million userbase and some healthy 3rd party support (EA, Namco, Taito, Acclaim, etc). Game Boy didn't kill it.

-Your own numbers show GB at less than 45M before Pokemon (which released the start of 1996 in Japan, meaning the 45M includes at least a year with Pokemon on market). IIRC, GBC sold around 30M and GB+GBC is quoted at 120M. Meaning GB made more than half it's overall sales after Pokemon hit the market, in only a 3rd the time it took to get those previous sales. Pokemon clearly drove userbase, it's monster success is what led Nintendo to start up GB R&D again (also since VB was faltering almost immediately). Today's youth centered handheld market is almost entirely attributable to Pokemon, while Nintendo's sold 120 million GB/GBCs in about 13 years they've sold 91 million GB/GBC Pokemon games in the last 7 years of that. The numbers just don't work in your favor, sorry. Pokemon might not have "made" Game Boy, but it certainly "made" today's Game Boy market.

-Game Freak has gone on record before concerning why they never made a console Pokemon... it nullifies the social component that's essential to Pokemon's design and really it's appeal. They've worked with EAD and Genius Sonority on the Stadium/Box/Colosseum games though, to try and bridge some crossover into the console market, and it's worked to some extent. But developing a console Pokemon directly sort of misses the point, it's not as simple as "popular IP, let's make a console version". I don't think you really understand why Pokemon was so successful honestly.

...hope that clears some things up.

 

[ravingloon]

Jarrod: I think you would agree the whole social element would have been easily solved on the console side if you could have traded and fought online. What a novel concept. Maybe someone should tell Nintendo this.

 

[jarrod]

Jarrod: I think you would agree the whole social element would have been easily solved on the console side if you could have traded and fought online. What a novel concept. Maybe someone should tell Nintendo this.

I'm not entirely sure online gaming is a solid match for Pokemon's target market though. Then again, it might grow a whole new kid focused online market too... but we already know Nintendo's opinions conerning online gaming. It won't happen until it's relatively free and simple on the user end, with little risk on Nintendo's end.

Game Freak is also too small to develop a 3D console level Pokemon themselves. They'd need to work with someone else (Level 5 might be good) on the engine and coding end.

 

[Axsider]

We might as well have some sort of guide to every Sony hardware launch:

*Insert inflated expected price here

*Sony announces lower price

*Low price shocks everyone

*Naysayers say Sony is going to take and bath and it is financial suicide to do this

*Sony turns a profit

I'm having serious flashbacks to the PS2 launch when it was talked about how there was no way Sony would recover from launching the hardware so cheaply.

So true! NOW it will end the same way.
Like it or not: SONY knows...how it goes

 

[Pimpwerx]

Okay, let's bullet point this mess...

-Game Gear was highly competitive with GameBoy, mainly thanks to western markets. It was actually supported up to 1996, at which point Sega cut R&D on all their consumer platforms to refocus on Saturn. In the end, GG managed a 12 million userbase and some healthy 3rd party support (EA, Namco, Taito, Acclaim, etc). Game Boy didn't kill it.

LOL! :lol So if the GB didn't kill the GG, what did exactly? Am I mistaken, or were the GG sales well on their way to dead long before the R&D funding was cut? And where was all this "healthy" 3rd party support at ((ie. substantial titles)? Are you getting this from archives, or do you actually remember what the actual gaming scene was like at the time?

-Your own numbers show GB at less than 45M before Pokemon (which released the start of 1996 in Japan, meaning the 45M includes at least a year with Pokemon on market). IIRC, GBC sold around 30M and GB+GBC is quoted at 120M. Meaning GB made more than half it's overall sales after Pokemon hit the market, in only a 3rd the time it took to get those previous sales. Pokemon clearly drove userbase, it's monster success is what led Nintendo to start up GB R&D again (also since VB was faltering almost immediately). Today's youth centered handheld market is almost entirely attributable to Pokemon, while Nintendo's sold 120 million GB/GBCs in about 13 years they've sold 91 million GB/GBC Pokemon games in the last 7 years of that. The numbers just don't work in your favor, sorry. Pokemon might not have "made" Game Boy, but it certainly "made" today's Game Boy market.

Which I won't argue. My point is that without those 40M installed systems, Pokemon the phenomenon has to drag itself and the GB up to prominence in a very short time. It became an almost instant cash cow and success b/c there was a base already there ready to give it a play and to spread it by word of mouth. IIRC, there wasn't much of an ad campaign for Pokemon back then, at least not in the US. It's the chicken and the egg argument. Now, back the original point, should the DS choke, there's no way Nintendo can hope to ride the Pokemon brand on a soon-to-be defunct system like the GB or GBA. The GBA has a huge userbase, but as time progresses, and if the PSP rises to prominence, then the active userbase shrinks faster and faster, and pretty soon those 100+M systems are worthless. I know it's merely speculation, but how could a GBA with Pokemon Raspberry and Orange compete with a PSP that might not have Pokemon, but has everything else under the sun? You gonna put GTA on the GBA? Madden? Etc... Pokemon is great, but it's enjoyed all this success on a system with a large and unchallenged userbase. This is why I say the DS has to work, b/c the GBA won't last long against the PSP (IMO), Pokemon or not.

-Game Freak has gone on record before concerning why they never made a console Pokemon... it nullifies the social component that's essential to Pokemon's design and really it's appeal. They've worked with EAD and Genius Sonority on the Stadium/Box/Colosseum games though, to try and bridge some crossover into the console market, and it's worked to some extent. But developing a console Pokemon directly sort of misses the point, it's not as simple as "popular IP, let's make a console version". I don't think you really understand why Pokemon was so successful honestly.

...hope that clears some things up.

I think it has nothing to do with the social aspects (as mentioned before, go online) and everything to do with not wanting to cannibalize already low handheld tie ratios. If you could get a better-looking Pokemon on the GC, would you really need to buy a GB? I sure as hell wouldn't since I never traded Pokemon once in the weeks I played the first game. The game is more about collecting to me. I'm curious to know how many people actually link up and trade. Is it even substantial. So a Pokemon on the GC would hurt GB sales and not exactly rock the world since the PS2 and Xbox would still have much more to offer gamewise. I don't think there's anything special about the GB that makes it the only place for Pokemon. I think that's a lot of marketing spin to avoid admitting that moving it to another platform would muck up the whole works. But they might not have a choice now since the GB's future could well be in jeopardy. PEACE.

P.S. This is assuming the PSP doesn't flop miserably, of course. Anything can happen.

 

[jarrod]

LOL! :lol So if the GB didn't kill the GG, what did exactly? Am I mistaken, or were the GG sales well on their way to dead long before the R&D funding was cut? And where was all this "healthy" 3rd party support at ((ie. substantial titles)? Are you getting this from archives, or do you actually remember what the actual gaming scene was like at the time?

You're mistaken, Sega prematurely killed Game Gear (along with MegaDrive/Genesis) in order to focus everything on their flagging Saturn. Proportionately, Game Gear held more of the handheld market than Xbox does the console market today. Madden, FIFA, WWF, PGA Tour, Mortal Kombat, Samurai Showdown, Pac-Man, Galaga, Bubble Bobble, NBA Jam, NFL QB Club, Puyo Puyo, MegaMan, Ninja Gaiden, Smash TV, Lunar among others were notable 3rd party IPs. Yes I actually remember the gaming scene back then, but it seems I'm not the one with memory problems here.

Which I won't argue. My point is that without those 40M installed systems, Pokemon the phenomenon has to drag itself and the GB up to prominence in a very short time. It became an almost instant cash cow and success b/c there was a base already there ready to give it a play and to spread it by word of mouth. IIRC, there wasn't much of an ad campaign for Pokemon back then, at least not in the US. It's the chicken and the egg argument. Now, back the original point, should the DS choke, there's no way Nintendo can hope to ride the Pokemon brand on a soon-to-be defunct system like the GB or GBA. The GBA has a huge userbase, but as time progresses, and if the PSP rises to prominence, then the active userbase shrinks faster and faster, and pretty soon those 100+M systems are worthless. I know it's merely speculation, but how could a GBA with Pokemon Raspberry and Orange compete with a PSP that might not have Pokemon, but has everything else under the sun? You gonna put GTA on the GBA? Madden? Etc... Pokemon is great, but it's enjoyed all this success on a system with a large and unchallenged userbase. This is why I say the DS has to work, b/c the GBA won't last long against the PSP (IMO), Pokemon or not.

You're missing the point, GB sales grew portionately alongside Pokemon. It drove new hardware sales, more than any game ever has for a platform (besides possibly SMB on NES)... the market was essentially dead when Pokemon hit the scene. It'd be like if Nintendo had released Mario World for NES in 1992, and it became a phenomenon making NES go on to more than double it's sales in the following 3 years.

By virtue of just having Pokemon, the DS is pretty much guaranteed not to fail. It'll exceed 25 million units at the least most likely, probably much better than that. It won't be netting GBA numbers no, but no handheld on the horizon can really expect that sort of unparalleled success.

Pokemon sold Game Boy... Game Boy didn't sell Pokemon. The numbers you provided even support that.

I think it has nothing to do with the social aspects (as mentioned before, go online) and everything to do with not wanting to cannibalize already low handheld tie ratios. If you could get a better-looking Pokemon on the GC, would you really need to buy a GB? I sure as hell wouldn't since I never traded Pokemon once in the weeks I played the first game. The game is more about collecting to me. I'm curious to know how many people actually link up and trade. Is it even substantial. So a Pokemon on the GC would hurt GB sales and not exactly rock the world since the PS2 and Xbox would still have much more to offer gamewise. I don't think there's anything special about the GB that makes it the only place for Pokemon. I think that's a lot of marketing spin to avoid admitting that moving it to another platform would muck up the whole works. But they might not have a choice now since the GB's future could well be in jeopardy. PEACE.

Congratulations, you again missed the point and clearly have little understanding about what drives Pokemon's appeal or design. Reread what I wrote before... keep rereading until it sinks in.

P.S. This is assuming the PSP doesn't flop miserably, of course. Anything can happen.

I can guarantee you, that won't be happening either.

 

[SantaC]

The gameboy killed off Lynx and Game gear because of it's great battery time, durability, and massive game library.

Also they couldn't compete against titles like super mario land, castlevania, metroid, zelda etc.

Pokemon just boosted the GB popularity, but it didn't make or break it.

I got a gameboy for x-mas back in 1989, and I had a friend who later got a game gear. There was only one game for Game Gear that I liked, and it was california games.

 

[MrSingh]

At 19,800 yen each, it's quite possible that Sony might even be making a healthy profit on each unit since everything is made in-house by elves and gnomes.

 

[Brofist]

The gameboy killed off Lynx and Game gear because of it's great battery time, durability, and massive game library.

Also they couldn't compete against titles like super mario land, castlevania, metroid, zelda etc.

Pokemon just boosted the GB popularity, but it didn't make or break it.

I got a gameboy for x-mas back in 1989, and I had a friend who later got a game gear. There was only one game for Game Gear that I liked, and it was california games.

Yeah I agree. Tetris sold quite a few GBs back in the day as well. I think it was the original killer app for it

 

[SantaC]

Yeah I agree. Tetris sold quite a few GBs back in the day as well. I think it was the original killer app for it

definitley. Tetris was the game.

I remember that Tetris and Super Mario Land were among the launch games. Killer apps.

 

[kaching]

At 19,800 yen each, it's quite possible that Sony might even be making a healthy profit on each unit since everything is made in-house by elves and gnomes.

:lol Shouldn't you and a couple of other GAF members posting from Japan be focusing on getting better sources for your info, rather than making more snarky comments?

 

[WordofGod]

FACT: Sony went with a cheaper screen. That is how the got the psp price so affordable.

 

[Guns N' Poops]

FACT: Sony went with a cheaper screen. That is how the got the psp price so affordable.

No. Fact is most important pieces are being made in Sony's own work and thus cheaper than expected. The display is still the same prototype we have seen, made by Sharp.

 

[DarienA]

FACT: Sony went with a cheaper screen. That is how the got the psp price so affordable.

Poor attempt to jump start this thread.

 

[jarrod]

No. Fact is most important pieces are being made in Sony's own work and thus cheaper than expected. The display is still the same prototype we have seen, made by Sharp.

What's most important mean? The chipset is really just low cost MIPS chips (which are pretty cheap), and the casing should be low cost too. The high expenses would be the propietary UMD drive (though it's been designed with low costs in mind) and the the huge, amazing, new tech, high color, high visibility outsourced Sharp screen, which is undoubtedly the most pricey component. I wouldn't be shocked if that screen was more than half the overall manufacturing cost per unit.

 

[WordofGod]

No. Fact is most important pieces are being made in Sony's own work and thus cheaper than expected. The display is still the same prototype we have seen, made by Sharp.

It is not the same display. This comes from a source I have known for many years in one of the biggest third party companies in the world.

 

[WordofGod]

Poor attempt to jump start this thread.

I do not care about jump starting anything. I just found this out yesterday after the price annoucement.

 

[Guns N' Poops]

What's most important mean? The chipset is really just low cost MIPS chips (which are pretty cheap), and the casing should be low cost too. The high expenses would be the propietary UMD drive (though it's been designed with low costs in mind) and the the huge, amazing, new tech, high color, high visibility outsourced Sharp screen, which is undoubtedly the most pricey component. I wouldn't be shocked if that screen was more than half the overall manufacturing cost per unit.

You are truely a NINTENDO addicted Handheld Emperor.

 

[Lord Error]

The chipset is really just low cost MIPS chips (which are pretty cheap)

PSP chipset is not even close to a stock MIPS chip, and you of all people should know that given your interest in all things handheld.

 

[jarrod]

You are truely a NINTENDO addicted Handheld Emperor.

Well, they are home to Intelligent Systems.

But on topic, care to respond to anything directly? Or are cute asides all you really have to contribute?

PSP chipset is not even close to a stock MIPS chip, and you of all people should know that given your interest in all things handheld.

I'm not saying that, but they're still basically low cost MIPS design and really and I just don't see the PSP chipset as being all that expensive. It's very efficent, smart design.

 

[MrSingh]

:lol Shouldn't you and a couple of other GAF members posting from Japan be focusing on getting better sources for your info, rather than making more snarky comments?

I'm bored.

At 19,800 yen I won't be able to get my hands on this thing for the next 1-2 years. It'll be sold out every where. And unlike Dcharlie, I can't be bothered to line up in the cold freezing winter to buy a handheld console.

I remember the PS2 being sold out all the time for the first 2+ years it was released. Justin Keeling was finally kind enough to give me his PS2 when he left Japan.

 

[Lord Error]

is not the same display. This comes from a source I have known for many years in one of the biggest third party companies in the world.

Look, mr. ex gamefan editor - in the official PSP specs, announced the same day the official price was announced, they listed the exact same speciffications for the screen that have been known pre-TGS. They even listed battery consumption according to the brightness setting of that screen. For the 180cd/m2 they listed the battery life as 4h. Key thing here is that 180cd/m2, which is the very same number that has been going around for a while, and that tells a lot abot it's quality. Screen with such contrast/brightness spec has never, to my knowledge, been used in a handheld device. So unless they started to outright lie about all that, and about the component that is by their own words "PSP's trump card" I don't see why should this official announcements be ignored over yet another negative PSP rumor (how many of those ever came to be even close to truth, btw?).

 

[border]

Can you turn off the backlighting to save battery power?

At 19,800 yen I won't be able to get my hands on this thing for the next 1-2 years. It'll be sold out every where. And unlike Dcharlie, I can't be bothered to line up in the cold freezing winter to buy a handheld console.

I remember the PS2 being sold out all the time for the first 2+ years it was released. Justin Keeling was finally kind enough to give me his PS2 when he left Japan.

Are you seriously not exaggerating??

 

[kaching]

I'm bored.

I hadn't noticed

 

[DarienA]

Can you turn off the backlighting to save battery power?

Well from the battery rating specs I remember reading you can adjust the brightness...

 

[kaching]

Another report on this conference with Kutaragi. Some different details communicated.

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=51200766

Kutaragi said SCEI procured from Sony Corp. 50 percent of the value of components used in PSP. Noting that ICs account for the majority of PSP's overall cost, Kutaragi said aggressive pricing for PSP was possible only because key ICs were designed and fabricated internally using a 90-nm process. "You can't pull off this kind of pricing by depending on off-the-shelf components," he said.

But, of course, it isn't completely free of off-the-shelf components...

While PSP was designed by combining Sony's key component technologies ranging from the CPU to UMD and encryption/decryption processing, Kutaragi acknowledged that memory, LCD panels and 802.11b PHY were supplied by others. Sharp Corp. is the single-source supplier of amorphous silicon LCDs used for PSP, he said.

What's most important mean? The chipset is really just low cost MIPS chips (which are pretty cheap), and the casing should be low cost too. The high expenses would be the propietary UMD drive (though it's been designed with low costs in mind) and the the huge, amazing, new tech, high color, high visibility outsourced Sharp screen, which is undoubtedly the most pricey component. I wouldn't be shocked if that screen was more than half the overall manufacturing cost per unit.

I'd agree that the screen is probably one of the pricier components, but I wouldn't expect a red-laser, read-only optical media drive to be one of the costlier components. I'd say the screen and internal memory are, outside of the cost of the IC as Kutaragi suggested.

 

[Lord Error]

Amorphous Silicon LCD screen? Wow, that's probably some updated version of technology used for Casio's old HAST (Hyper Amorphous Silicon TFT) which was an AMAZING screen for indoor use, but was quite bad when used outside under sunlight, and later replaced by today's Transmissive-Reflective screens, which to this day, look worse indoors, but are quite usable in direct sunlight. Casio used it on it's Pocket PC, like E100 and EM500.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I'm bored.

At 19,800 yen I won't be able to get my hands on this thing for the next 1-2 years. It'll be sold out every where. And unlike Dcharlie, I can't be bothered to line up in the cold freezing winter to buy a handheld console.

I remember the PS2 being sold out all the time for the first 2+ years it was released. Justin Keeling was finally kind enough to give me his PS2 when he left Japan.

Import it from the U.S., I cannot imagine the PSP being sold out for 2 years... not even for a full year.

They should be able to manufacture about 200-250k units a month with this number probably doubling in a year or less (if not going even higher, but I am trying conservative estimates here).

12 * 250k + 12 * 500k = 9 Million PSPs manufactured and shipped in 2 years.

I think they will be able to manufacture more than that though on a monthly basis: PlayStation 2 in 4 years has shipped more than 70 Million units. It is true that manufacturing the PSP might take a bit more work (jusdging by the number of units available at launch).

 

[Crazymoogle]

Well from the battery rating specs I remember reading you can adjust the brightness...

There's an interesting bit on IGN about this. Apparently you can not only adjust brightness (which can affect battery life by 20-30% if Sony's numbers are correct), but the screen is also automatically pumped up to 200cd/m2 when the PSP is using an AC adapter (that's 20 past the maximum handheld setting).

 

[kaching]

Just for shits and giggles...

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=24-007-032&depa=1

Sharp LCD Monitor - 15" 1024x768 $239

So how much is a bare LCD screen that is less than 1/3rd the size of this and has 1/6th the resolution liable to cost Sony to purchase in bulk from Sharp?

 

[DarienA]

Just for shits and giggles...

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=24-007-032&depa=1

Sharp LCD Monitor - 15" 1024x768 $239

So how much is a bare LCD screen that is less than 1/3rd the size of this and has 1/6th the resolution liable to cost Sony to purchase in bulk from Sharp?

I'm not sure what showing us this retail price proves though....

 

[jarrod]

Just for shits and giggles...

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=24-007-032&depa=1

Sharp LCD Monitor - 15" 1024x768 $239

So how much is a bare LCD screen that is less than 1/3rd the size of this and has 1/6th the resolution liable to cost Sony to purchase in bulk from Sharp?

I dunno, can you find us an amorphous silicon screen for a better comparison?

 

[kaching]

darienA: Proves nothing, just figured it might be a starting point to delve into just how much the screen contributes to the cost of the PSP.

jarrod: I was under the impression that there was nothing special about amorphous Silicon use in LCDs...I believe that's part and parcel to making a TFT LCD...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenated_amorphous_silicon

Unless there's more than one type of a-Si that we're talking about here.

 

[DCharlie]

"They should be able to manufacture about 200-250k units a month with this number probably doubling in a year or less (if not going even higher, but I am trying conservative estimates here)."

yet, amazingly, with the launch about 6 weeks away, they still haven't been able to give all developers actual hardware... :}

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Yeah right. How long you been gaming for? I remember Gameboys being out a lont longer than that.

Pokemon Red and Blue came out in 1996. The Gameboy came out when, in 1989?

Yeah. So what Pokémon did in 1996 for GB in Japan would be somewhat analogous to some new game making PS1 sales shoot up from 2001-2003.

 

[soundwave05]

Yeah. So what Pokémon did in 1996 for GB in Japan would be somewhat analogous to some new game making PS1 sales shoot up from 2001-2003.

Uh... no. Pokemon brought in hordes of new players to the Game Boy brand, many of them who were too young to play games when the Game Boy launched in 1989. It was Tickle Me Elmo x10.

Pokemon did for the Game Boy what Michael Jordan did for the Chicago Bulls.

 

[Elios83]

"They should be able to manufacture about 200-250k units a month with this number probably doubling in a year or less (if not going even higher, but I am trying conservative estimates here)."

yet, amazingly, with the launch about 6 weeks away, they still haven't been able to give all developers actual hardware... :}

I don't know if this is the case since we're not exactly talking about public domain details but we know that since September titles do run on actual hardware and people played them too at TGS,so I can't see the reason to be concerned.

 

[ypo]

"so I can't see the reason to be concerned"

Heh, obviously you don't know his schtick.

 

[bionic77]

I still don't see how a significant number of people are going to be buying the PSP. I just don't think there are enough people out there with that kind of cash to support both a PSP and a Sony home console. Something has to lose sales here, either the PS2 or the GBA. Maybe I am totally off though and there are 20 million Americans who are willing to drop that kind of cash on both their handheld and console gaming habits.

 

[Rummy Bunnz]

If you could get a better-looking Pokemon on the GC, would you really need to buy a GB? I sure as hell wouldn't since I never traded Pokemon once in the weeks I played the first game. The game is more about collecting to me. I'm curious to know how many people actually link up and trade. Is it even substantial.

Have you ever been around little kids who are into Pokemon? They trade like crazy. My nephews go up to kids they've never met before, whip out their Game Boys, and swap and battle Pokemon all the time. It's the key to the game's success. It's just easily ignored if you're past puberty, cuz who the hell admits they play Pokemon once they sprout pubes?

Jarrod: I think you would agree the whole social element would have been easily solved on the console side if you could have traded and fought online. What a novel concept. Maybe someone should tell Nintendo this.

Pokemon Online would so be child molestor heaven. The main fanbase is kids. Kids shouldn't be playing online. It would be hell for everyone.

 

[DCharlie]

"Heh, obviously you don't know his schtick."

Pray tell, what is my schtick seen as your the big expert?

 

[Spiritreaver]

Pokemon Online would so be child molestor heaven. The main fanbase is kids. Kids shouldn't be playing online. It would be hell for everyone.

Also, they're trying to encourage making actual friends offline. School friends, church friends, what have you. A child is going to have a much easier time, and much more rewarding experience through making friends in real life. Honestly, there are very few areas for children to go online anyways, and you expect them or their parents to walk through how to set up Pokemon Online? Then they're going to run into hardcore players, grievers, and what have you, ruining the experience.

 

[DCharlie]

"I don't know if this is the case since we're not exactly talking about public domain details but we know that since September titles do run on actual hardware and people played them too at TGS,so I can't see the reason to be concerned."

Yes, i know, i was at TGS.

It just seems odd that all testing would be done through an emulator.

I've already heard that some devs were wishing to test things on the hardware (like wireless play with large numbers) but simply can't get the unit to test this on.

Maybe this is standard practice/timelines and it's just we hear more about these things these days?

 

[soundwave05]

Those who think Pokemon on GC would work just as well as the Game Boy version just don't get it.

Kids love to socialize with each other and young boys especailly love to trade and collect things.

Chances are when you were a kid, you did the same, except it was baseball cards or comic books or bugs or whatever.

Part of the fun is grooming your collection and then making trades without other people.

That's why the series is such a huge hit.

For a kid there's no fun in having a baseball card or superhero card collection if you can't put it in your pocket or bag and trade/compare with your buddies at school.

 

[Panajev2001a]

"They should be able to manufacture about 200-250k units a month with this number probably doubling in a year or less (if not going even higher, but I am trying conservative estimates here)."

yet, amazingly, with the launch about 6 weeks away, they still haven't been able to give all developers actual hardware... :}

Well, if they deliver 200k by launch date and by the end of December they say that the total of units shipped since launch will be 500k that means about 250k units manufactured each month.

 

[MrSingh]

Are you seriously not exaggerating??

Nope. I couldn't find one in Akihabara anyway. (at least not without an advance pre-order)

 

[MrSingh]

Import it from the U.S., I cannot imagine the PSP being sold out for 2 years... not even for a full year.

are you going to get one for me?