Support NeoGAF

[iapetus]

I was surprised in the PSP 2+ weeks later thread by the number of people claiming that a portable game should never cost as much as a game for a home console, not no way not no how.

Why?

As far as I'm concerned, if the portable game provides the same depth and play time as the game for the home console, with comparable graphics and sound then it merits the same price. The same amount of work goes into creating it, the same amount of manpower is required - why should I insist on paying less just because I have the added benefit of being able to play it on the train?

Come on, television whores. Justify your wildly incoherent beliefs!

 

[Willco]

It's far more comfortable to play on a television set and especially if you have the right home theatre equipment, nothing comes close to matching the experience on a handheld.

 

[Stinkles]

Sure, but I still find myself playing PSP in front of my TV, which I never did with my GBA.

 

[iapetus]

But even if you accept that the two formats have different advantages (comfortable seat and big screen versus portability) why is one game worth more than the other inherently? And why must it be the one with the big TV rather than the one you can play on the train? Handheld games can rival and surpass their bigger brothers, and I for one am happy to pay for that.

 

[dog$]

I think this issue more concerns being a Tradition Whore instead of a Television Whore.

Tradition Whores want PSP games cheaper because it's portable software and Nintendo Prices Their Portable Software This Way, therefore anyone that dares compete with the market leader cannot possibly do so in selling the product at a higher price.

Television Whores want PSP and all other portable games on their TV, regardless of price.
Television Whores already paid $300+ (and usually a lot more +) for a TV, and who knows what else for everything attached to or surrounding it (most importantly any stereo equipment).
Television Whores see no reason why they should have to ignore the hundreds of dollars of AV equipment they own just for the "privilege" of playing a game on some smaller, proprietary screen with smaller, proprietary speakers.

 

[TekunoRobby]

Speaking of which...

I hate how expensive Cellphone games can be. The real big titles are usually around $8 a piece and usually have little depth. Luckily more complex and involving games are coming out which can justify the price.

 

[human5892]

Because it's safer than being a more conventional whore.

 

[heavy liquid]

I have no problem with a portable system costing around the same as a home console, as long as the quality of games (graphics, sound and depth of games) is also comparable to the home system. It doesn't hurt that the PSP will also play video and music on the go, which is a big plus. No, it will never be as immersive as playing a game on a 65" HDTV with a nice surround system. But that's not portable.

 

[scissorfight]

I get cramped hands and eyestrain when playing portables...not much I can do about that.

If that makes me a TV whore...oh well.

 

[borghe]

It's far more comfortable to play on a television set and especially if you have the right home theatre equipment, nothing comes close to matching the experience on a handheld.

wow.. willco and I fighting in the minority on the same side.. go figure

everything he said.. there isn't one person here who can say playing a portable is as comfortable and effortless as playing on a nice tv. the unit isn't as comfortable as a console controller, the screen is nowhere near as easy on the eyes as a 32"+ TV, and you can sit back on a couch with the controller in your lap and look straight ahead... a handheld needs either your head tilted to see it, your arms raised in front of your face to see it, or both.

handhelds are fine, consoles are bliss. stop trying so hard to justify $250 fools.

 

[iapetus]

So now you're claiming that how much you pay for a game should be based on how good your TV is, and how comfortable the seat in front of it is? Do I get a discount for buying a game to play on a crappy little 15" screen, and if so, how much?

 

[borghe]

So now you're claiming that how much you pay for a game should be based on how good your TV is, and how comfortable the seat in front of it is? Do I get a discount for buying a game to play on a crappy little 15" screen, and if so, how much?

except for the fact that all of my points still hold above. a 15" screen is still easier to see than a 4" one (do you want me t opoint you to a page to calculate dviewing angles?), the controller is still more comfortable, you can still play more comfortably by looking ahead while your arms are rested down, etc etc etc...

portable gaming is fine, but a portable game system that costs more than consoles with games that cost as much as console games... outrageous.. it is a fine portable, but still just a portable and nowhere near as comfortable or practical as a console system. fine when taking a crap or on a long plane/road trip though.

I just laugh at all the people saying "it's worth every penny, it has replaced my home system" If it replaced their home system, they weren't too attached to it to begin with, and that's a fact. That however in no way shape or form objectively makes the PSP as good a value as the home consoles.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Actually ya, break out the chart because I dare say that the PSP would fill your field of vision more than a 15" tv would under normal conditions.

 

[Speevy]

Because a portable games machine isn't worth the price of a new console.

I have a 27 inch televison and an Xbox.

Better graphics, sound, library, music storage/format, movie format, and online play than any handheld on the market. No portability, but then again I don't really care. End of story.

On top of that, the PS2's graphics aren't worth a premium price at this point, nor are the Xbox's.

 

[lexi]

Indeed, it is wrong we should pay the same price for games that are cheaper to develop! I insist that Sony RAISE prices so that I can spend more!

 

[Speevy]

:lol Everytime I look at the title of this thread, I can't help but laugh. What's next? "Why be a controller whore? Open your mind to drums and cameras."

 

[lexi]

:lol Everytime I look at the title of this thread, I can't help but laugh. What's next? "Why be a controller whore? Open your mind to drums and cameras."

You're being a logic whore!

 

[Jonnyram]

Does this analogy work?
Going to the theater and paying $10 vs renting a video and paying $5

 

[Odnetnin]

Does this analogy work?
Going to the theater and paying $10 vs renting a video and paying $5

works. different but the same.

to answer the main question; I'll do so with a question...

why not?

but that's not what you're asking is it. If its GBA, it should be cheaper. I think if production values are high enough (like they seem/look to be) on PSP, then I think the higher price point in parts is justified.

different stroke for different folks

 

[dark10x]

I do prefer playing on a TV with a console, but I am perfectly satisfied with my PSP and would gladly pay $40 for software. I would pay $50, if need be, but I'd prefer not to. Luckily, I only purchase games via an EB discount (sibling works for EB).

 

[Attack You]

Do you have to own a PSP to be in this thread? I ask, because I haven't been keeping up with what PSP games are doing content-wise. I really only consider purchasing GBA games that publishers refuse to do for consoles because of "teh evil 2D." Portable versions of console games are generally ignored (unless they're not the exact same game and the portable version spanks the console version, i.e. Astro Boy and Mario Golf: Advance Tour). As it stands right now, Darkstalkers will be the only game I'll gladly own both console and portable versions of just because I like the series so damned much.

Are PSP games packing more content than the console versions?

 

[Dragmire]

Nintendo set certain standards with their handheld releases and pricing that keep the prices lower. They could have released NDS tech in 2001 instead of GBA, which would have raised hardware and software prices. But they released a $100 GBA in 2001 and a $150 NDS in 2004. If you bought both at launch, you paid $250, which sort of makes sense. PSP is $250 and instead of incrementally working towards that level of technology for cheaper prices (in the form of two systems), they throw it all out right now, but at the cost of raising prices.

Whether you like this or not depends on whether you want high tech vs. cheap prices. I prefer cheap prices, because I don't think you need PSP tech to have great games. I still play Wario Ware, Advance Wars and Fire Emblem for GBA (and until recently Minish Cap), and I'll be getting a DS when I have the money. Even if DS is still rather untapped compared to GBA, it can do anything that system can plus more, and it has some great games on the horizon. PSP's library doesn't interest me, however. So to me that says that the hardware payoff is not worth it. Obviously to people that like the typical Playstation franchises, that might be different.

 

[mrklaw]

Actually ya, break out the chart because I dare say that the PSP would fill your field of vision more than a 15" tv would under normal conditions.

yup, by my rough calculations, PSP at reasonable viewing distance is about the same as a 30" LCD/32" CRT TV.

 

[borghe]

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

4:3 15"
Maximum Recommended Viewing Distance: 5.2'
Maximum Recommended SMPTE Viewing Distance: 1.9' (30° viewing angle)
Maximum THX Viewing Distance: 2.2' (26° viewing angle)
Recommended THX Viewing Distance: 1.5' (36° viewing angle)

16:9 4"
Maximum Recommended Viewing Distance: 1.4'
Maximum Recommended SMPTE Viewing Distance: .5' (30° viewing angle)
Maximum THX Viewing Distance: .6' (26° viewing angle)
Recommended THX Viewing Distance: .4' (36° viewing angle)

sitting 2.2' back and looking straight ahead at a TV is WAY more comfortable than holding a PSP 7.2" in front of your face....... :\ can we stop with the crazy talk now?

I can't believe that I am actually forced to argue with you guys that a bigger screen is better.. next thing you know I'll be having to argue that the sky is blue. :\

 

[mrklaw]

that 30 degree viewing angle is to fill your vision like a cinema screen. Do the same with a 32" CRT and you are recommended to sit 5 feet away - which is a little close for my liking..

Using the electrohome numbers you get about 12 feet for the TV, and 1.6ft for the PSP, which is about right.

Just do a little experiment. Sit where you normally watch your TV from. Now hold your PSP at your normal viewing distance. Superimpose the two. How close are they?

All I know is that if I do that, PSP is about the same as my 30" widescreen LCD.

 

[heavy liquid]

When you buy a portable, you're obviously paying for portability. It's not cheap to get everything down to PSP/DS/SP size. And the screen(s) are also factored into the cost, which home consoles don't have to worry about.

 

[borghe]

that 30 degree viewing angle is to fill your vision like a cinema screen. Do the same with a 32" CRT and you are recommended to sit 5 feet away - which is a little close for my liking..

Using the electrohome numbers you get about 12 feet for the TV, and 1.6ft for the PSP, which is about right.

Just do a little experiment. Sit where you normally watch your TV from. Now hold your PSP at your normal viewing distance. Superimpose the two. How close are they?

All I know is that if I do that, PSP is about the same as my 30" widescreen LCD.

there is no way I am buying that you play your PSP 19" away from your face. typical human arm length is around 21". You are telling me that you play your PSP with your arms almost fully extended?

 

[Speevy]

When you buy a portable, you're obviously paying for portability. It's not cheap to get everything down to PSP/DS/SP size. And the screen(s) are also factored into the cost, which home consoles don't have to worry about.

Well of course. But that's from a production-oriented perspective. Consumer behavior functions around the perception of value.

 

[Speevy]

there is no way I am buying that you play your PSP 19" away from your face. typical human arm length is around 21". You are telling me that you play your PSP with your arms almost fully extended?

That's so you won't bump your head on the device when you're bangin' like Busta Rhymes.

 

[lachesis]

I have pretty good size 16:9 HDTV (60 inch, LCDP) - and I sit approx 8ft from it. I would sit further if I had room, but it makes the movie watching quite an experience. However, it does get somewhat more stressful to my eyes in long TV watching, but most of the time I'm only seeing 4:3 letterboxed ver, so it normally works out well.

And playing videogames on it - yes, its even more demanding for your eyes, but once I got used to this screen size, I just can't imagine myself going back to smaller screen. Bigger screen with better sound system does enhance your gaming experience significantly. I do like PSP's large (for portable) LCD screen, but it can't replace my gaming on big screen.

lachesis

 

[borghe]

heh... 8" is pretty close for a 60" 16:9 set.. nice to watch a movie on but yeah, I can see that giving you eye fatigue if you play games on it for long periods of time.

I have a 55" screen that is about 7' from the couch. I have a hard time going on long marathons on the TV.. will usually do those on the 32" HD set in the bedroom... but watching movies or HD shows on that.. woot indeed.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

The PSP is mainly worth it if you are mobile. That's the main selling feature, isn't it? I mean, the GBA has awesome 2D content, but if it wasn't mobile it would be worth less. I don't understand why that's always the crux of the arguments. Don't people take their handheld units out of the house?

 

[MomoPufflet]

It's because people don't want to pay full price for games that don't look as good or last as long as console games REGARDLESS OF PORTABILITY. PSP is getting there, but consoles will always be ahead graphically, at least in the forseeable future. There's also typically much less manpower needed to make a handheld game, and people don't want to pay the same price for that.

We can argue about this all day, but that's why.

 

[Marty Chinn]

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

4:3 15"
Maximum Recommended Viewing Distance: 5.2'
Maximum Recommended SMPTE Viewing Distance: 1.9' (30° viewing angle)
Maximum THX Viewing Distance: 2.2' (26° viewing angle)
Recommended THX Viewing Distance: 1.5' (36° viewing angle)

16:9 4"
Maximum Recommended Viewing Distance: 1.4'
Maximum Recommended SMPTE Viewing Distance: .5' (30° viewing angle)
Maximum THX Viewing Distance: .6' (26° viewing angle)
Recommended THX Viewing Distance: .4' (36° viewing angle)

sitting 2.2' back and looking straight ahead at a TV is WAY more comfortable than holding a PSP 7.2" in front of your face....... :\ can we stop with the crazy talk now?

I can't believe that I am actually forced to argue with you guys that a bigger screen is better.. next thing you know I'll be having to argue that the sky is blue. :\

You're telling me sitting 1.5' from a 15" tv is comfortable? That seems awfully close. There's no way I'd be sitting that close. On the otherhand, while holding a PSP, it's about 8" from my eyes. Thus what I'm saying is under normal conditions, the PSP is likely to fill your field of vision more than a 15" tv. There's no way I'm saying a 4" screen is better than a 50" screen. Bigger screens are nice, but what's more important to me is field of vision than size. For the record I use constantly a 50" high end HDTV and love it, but because of field of vision I can enjoy a PSP as well.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

This thread is stupid.

 

[borghe]

You're telling me sitting 1.5' from a 15" tv is comfortable? That seems awfully close. There's no way I'd be sitting that close. On the otherhand, while holding a PSP, it's about 8" from my eyes. Thus what I'm saying is under normal conditions, the PSP is likely to fill your field of vision more than a 15" tv. There's no way I'm saying a 4" screen is better than a 50" screen. Bigger screens are nice, but what's more important to me is field of vision than size. For the record I use constantly a 50" high end HDTV and love it, but because of field of vision I can enjoy a PSP as well.

ahh, but you are mixing viewing angles here. you say you hold the PSP 8" from your eyes. well, first that is pretty close.. measuring it, most users comfortably hold the PSP 11-14" away from their eyes. but we'll argue 8" for the heck of it. 8" gives you a 24.6° viewing angle of the PSP screen.. again I say that is actually very high for the portable.. I mean the thing is practically touching your nose. but anywho... so 24.6°. 24.6° viewing angle from a 15" set would be 2.5 feet, or 29 inches. Now as I said earlier, the typical human arm is around 21", and typical human reach (to fingertips) is around 25". So to hit the same viewing angle on your 15" set as you do from your PSP (which I still say is a short estimate on your part) you could sit over an arm's length away from your 15" TV. Now at work I have a 21" monitor (2 actually) and sit les than 22" away from them (less than 2 pieces of 8.5x11 copy paper). Now take into account that a 15" TV is actually probably bigger than a 15" computer monitor.. sitting under 25" from it is far from uncomfortable.

yeah, that was long and rambling, but I think it shows well the point that playing games on any monitor or TV is more comfortable than playing them on the PSP. It doesn't make the PSP suck, it doesn't make it a lesser system.. it just means that playing games on a tv and console will always be less strain on the eyes and posture..

 

[Warm Machine]

I'm sitting just under 2 feet away from my 17" monitor to type this. When I do work or play games on my PC I'm usually 1.5' away from it.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It's because people don't want to pay full price for games that don't look as good or last as long as console games REGARDLESS OF PORTABILITY. PSP is getting there, but consoles will always be ahead graphically, at least in the forseeable future. There's also typically much less manpower needed to make a handheld game, and people don't want to pay the same price for that.

We can argue about this all day, but that's why.

Well, yes... but his point is that for the PSP games don't look significantly worse and don't take significantly less manpower, so expecting for $35 an experience that you'd accept for $50 if it were printed on a different disc isn't being fair.

 

[Speevy]

Well, yes... but his point is that for the PSP games don't look significantly worse and don't take significantly less manpower, so expecting for $35 an experience that you'd accept for $50 if it were printed on a different disc isn't being fair.

Significantly worse than what exactly? Above average console games? Above average PC games? Because I'd beg to differ on both counts.

 

[Mrbob]

I have a problem paying $50 for PSP games because they aren't as fleshed out as PS2 games at the moment.

PSP games have more frame rate problems, more loading time problems, and don't have as many modes as the console versions (I.E. Axed franchise modes from MVP and MLB). Once PSP games offer the same type of functionality as the console games, then I may not mind dropping $50 on a PSP game. But for now none of the $50 PSP games justify their price.

I still find it hilarious EA is going to charger $49.99 for MVP PSP when the console versions are $29.99. NO COMPRIMISES EA says what a joke and a fluke of a comment. If there were no comprimises the PSP version would have the franchise mode included and be priced accordingly.

 

[kaching]

Significantly worse than what exactly? Above average console games? Above average PC games? Because I'd beg to differ on both counts.

Based on your extensive time with PSP games, right Speevy?

 

[Mrbob]

I'd also like to add that I can't wait for the PSP to take off and in the next year or so reach console level quality in all phases for games. The versitality of the PSP has made it my platform of choice to play games. Between sleep mode and the ability to lug it anywhere I go and continue it works great with my lifestyle. Most of the time I usually don't have multiple hours to game. Being able to put a game into sleep mode and continue when later on is a big bonus for me. I wouldn't be surprised if I end up using my PSP more than next gen consoles.

 

[Speevy]

Based on your extensive time with PSP games, right Speevy?

Not at all. I just don't think it looks comparable to top console or PC games. Do you?

 

[Kiriku]

I think it's hard to imagine a handheld game being developed with the same amount of funding and manpower as a regular console game. I mean, even if it is there's this mindset, at least for me personally, that handheld games traditionally have lower production values.

 

[kaching]

Not at all. I just don't think it looks comparable to top console or PC games. Do you?

What happened to the screenshots?

The argument you were responding to wasn't just about looks, Speevy. It was also a question of manpower and the overall content package that produces. Even if you do judge this on visuals alone, the answer is not straightforward because not everyone appreciates the same things. You could put pics of Wipeout Fusion and Wipeout Pure side by side and I'd guess that you'd be happier with WF simply because the ships and environment exhibit more polys, but I'd be a hell of a lot happier with the visuals in WP because I find the aesthetic much more appealing. It's not as simple as who has more polys, its how you use them