I suppose that the responses contained here are about par for the course. Sigh.
I guess I don't get the whole waving the flag of a console company who doesn't really give a fuck about you except how and when they can get more money out of you. Nor do I get the idea that gaming would be better off without Nintendo or Sony. A monopoly is not what we want. Even now, where Sony just has a large percentage of the console market, things seem to be trending away from my points of interest. Sure, I'll buy GTA, and sure, we occasionally get something like Katamari Damacy thrown our way, but for the most part, the business focuses on Joe Gamer. Hey, it's a smart business decision, but I don't particularly like it.
The GBA has a virtual monopoly on the handheld market, and while I own a GBA and a large number of games, almost all of them I own are Nintendo's first-party offerings. A good chunk of the third party stuff thrown out there is licensed shovel-ware, quick-buck type games. There's obviously gems in there (Harvest Moon: FoMT, et. al.), but for the most part, it's drek. I mean, there's no point in optomizing it, or whatever, there's really no competition in the market. If someone wants a handheld version of NASCAR or whatever, they've pretty much got that one choice. That being said, I own two GBAs and love them to death.
Say what you will about the DS or the PSP. Or the GBA for all I care. Competition is good for this business. Very good. I'll buy a PSP & a DS, because I'm sure both will offer games that I want to play, which is far more important than hardware specs, perecentage of kiddiness, or sales charts. But I mean, without that, how would GAF exist?
Whatever, I said my piece. Queue 17 more pages of mindless bickering between system fanboys.