DS @ $200?
- Thread starter SevereTireDamage
- Start date
WildWop
CAGiversary!
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I still think portables should follow the KISS rule...
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
A portable should be simple and reasonble in cost. Thats part of the reason I think the GBA will still thrive and the DS will fail.[/quote]
And then there's the fact that the GBA was that expensive at one point while it was really cheap to buy a GBC. It's a cycle...
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
A portable should be simple and reasonble in cost. Thats part of the reason I think the GBA will still thrive and the DS will fail.[/quote]
And then there's the fact that the GBA was that expensive at one point while it was really cheap to buy a GBC. It's a cycle...
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
Another thing is this, the Gamecube is still way more powerful than the DS. It would be stupid to release the DS for twice the retail of the Gamecube ($99).
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='WildWop'][quote name='GuilewasNK']I still think portables should follow the KISS rule...
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
A portable should be simple and reasonble in cost. Thats part of the reason I think the GBA will still thrive and the DS will fail.[/quote]
And then there's the fact that the GBA was that expensive at one point while it was really cheap to buy a GBC. It's a cycle...[/quote]
I agree its a cycle, the only problem is that Nintendo is pushing the DS when the GBA still has a LONG life ahead of it. Nintendo says DS is not to replace the GBA but that is garbage, especially when the DS can play GBA cartridges. I just think Nintendo is pushing the DS too soon because they are afraid Sony will steal some of the 100% of the Portable market that Nintendo owns.
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
A portable should be simple and reasonble in cost. Thats part of the reason I think the GBA will still thrive and the DS will fail.[/quote]
And then there's the fact that the GBA was that expensive at one point while it was really cheap to buy a GBC. It's a cycle...[/quote]
I agree its a cycle, the only problem is that Nintendo is pushing the DS when the GBA still has a LONG life ahead of it. Nintendo says DS is not to replace the GBA but that is garbage, especially when the DS can play GBA cartridges. I just think Nintendo is pushing the DS too soon because they are afraid Sony will steal some of the 100% of the Portable market that Nintendo owns.
MadChedar0
CAGiversary!
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Another thing is this, the Gamecube is still way more powerful than the DS. It would be stupid to release the DS for twice the retail of the Gamecube ($99).[/quote]
? The gamecube came out in 2001, we're talking about separate markets. Back to topic though, I'm pretty sure the DS will be worth the $199 tag Nintendo places on it. If they do anyways... Remember how the n64 was supposed to be $299? Then $249? Then the price was actually 199... so all we can do is speculate
? The gamecube came out in 2001, we're talking about separate markets. Back to topic though, I'm pretty sure the DS will be worth the $199 tag Nintendo places on it. If they do anyways... Remember how the n64 was supposed to be $299? Then $249? Then the price was actually 199... so all we can do is speculate
Parathod
CAGiversary!
Wildwop, wasn't the original GBA released for $125? Anyway, I won't buy a DS for $200 or even $150. Portable systems are meant for when you have free time outside of your home. How many of you think you are going to be playing this thing over PS3, Revolution, or Xbox 2? Then we have the PSP which will take some share of the DS glory (even if it's only 10%), and make it so that you can't have every good portable game on just one system. I'm sure once in a while you'll get a game that you will devote some home time to, but for $200 plus the price of the game... is it really worth it? My GBA w/ Mario Kart was just worth the $80 I spent on it about 3 years ago. I'm not going to waste $200 to play Dynasty Warriors DS when I can play Dynasty Warriors 7 on a bigscreen. The biggest appeal of GBA was it's SNES type gameplay.. and now we are going into the N64 3-D era of portable gaming... and we have enough games on home consoles to fill that need.
[quote name='tdphillips']Also don't forget this thing has Wi-Fi and Bluetooth-like wireless communications and a microphone. Think of it similar to a a Pocket PC/PDA in terms of its hardware, but also includes an extra LCD screen. Thinking of it this way, $200 seems reasonable. That still doesn't change my price point.
What I don't buy is Nintendo saying this is NOT a GBA successor. Why include GBA backward compatibility and compete with yourself by introducing a "true" GBA successor later?[/quote]
Because the true successor to the GBA series will stick within the established formula. It'll have a $100 price point at launch, be within a certain set of dimensions, and have a inimum battery life akin to GBs' past. If necessary they could go back to expendable batteries for the initial model with rechargables as an accessory, as seen on the GBA. This would cut a good chunk of cost and allow for a better feature set until the cost drops enough to have a 'SP' version.
The essential idea is that a GameBoy must adhere to the formula that has made GameBoy a titan. This doesn't exclude other high-end products from being compatible in part or full. That makes it easier for prospective high-end shoppers to buy that unit but doesn't change the need to keep the formula in place for the mainstream unit.
To draw an example from another industry, imagine you're in the DVD player business. You've just introduced units that record to DVD as well as playback pre-recorded discs. Is this going to make you stop innovating on price and features in the market for units that play only if it is still where the bulk of sales lie?
What I don't buy is Nintendo saying this is NOT a GBA successor. Why include GBA backward compatibility and compete with yourself by introducing a "true" GBA successor later?[/quote]
Because the true successor to the GBA series will stick within the established formula. It'll have a $100 price point at launch, be within a certain set of dimensions, and have a inimum battery life akin to GBs' past. If necessary they could go back to expendable batteries for the initial model with rechargables as an accessory, as seen on the GBA. This would cut a good chunk of cost and allow for a better feature set until the cost drops enough to have a 'SP' version.
The essential idea is that a GameBoy must adhere to the formula that has made GameBoy a titan. This doesn't exclude other high-end products from being compatible in part or full. That makes it easier for prospective high-end shoppers to buy that unit but doesn't change the need to keep the formula in place for the mainstream unit.
To draw an example from another industry, imagine you're in the DVD player business. You've just introduced units that record to DVD as well as playback pre-recorded discs. Is this going to make you stop innovating on price and features in the market for units that play only if it is still where the bulk of sales lie?
CaptainObviousXl
CAGiversary!
thats good cause if pictochat wernt included no one would ever use it
.
WildWop
CAGiversary!
[quote name='GuilewasNK'][quote name='WildWop'][quote name='GuilewasNK']I still think portables should follow the KISS rule...
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
A portable should be simple and reasonble in cost. Thats part of the reason I think the GBA will still thrive and the DS will fail.[/quote]
And then there's the fact that the GBA was that expensive at one point while it was really cheap to buy a GBC. It's a cycle...[/quote]
I agree its a cycle, the only problem is that Nintendo is pushing the DS when the GBA still has a LONG life ahead of it. Nintendo says DS is not to replace the GBA but that is garbage, especially when the DS can play GBA cartridges. I just think Nintendo is pushing the DS too soon because they are afraid Sony will steal some of the 100% of the Portable market that Nintendo owns.[/quote]
Of course they have to release something to compete with the PSP. If they didn't, it would be the home console equivalent of competing against a Dreamcast with an SNES. The general public won't see the great games on the GBA as being in the same league as something that looks two generations better on a PSP, actual quality of the game be damned.
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid
A portable should be simple and reasonble in cost. Thats part of the reason I think the GBA will still thrive and the DS will fail.[/quote]
And then there's the fact that the GBA was that expensive at one point while it was really cheap to buy a GBC. It's a cycle...[/quote]
I agree its a cycle, the only problem is that Nintendo is pushing the DS when the GBA still has a LONG life ahead of it. Nintendo says DS is not to replace the GBA but that is garbage, especially when the DS can play GBA cartridges. I just think Nintendo is pushing the DS too soon because they are afraid Sony will steal some of the 100% of the Portable market that Nintendo owns.[/quote]
Of course they have to release something to compete with the PSP. If they didn't, it would be the home console equivalent of competing against a Dreamcast with an SNES. The general public won't see the great games on the GBA as being in the same league as something that looks two generations better on a PSP, actual quality of the game be damned.
CaptainObviousXl
CAGiversary!
hmmm, i still dont get why the fact that the ds plays gba games makes it the next gameboy, why cant it play gba games. They never said this isnt going to replace the sp they said it is not going to replace the gameboy and its a different system
. They are still gonna be making sp's and making gameboy games, just you can play them on the ds.
. They are still gonna be making sp's and making gameboy games, just you can play them on the ds.
-Never4ever-
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 107 (100%)
Simple:
DS = Innovative 3D gameplay
GBA (and it's successor) = Classic 2D gameplay
Personally I don't care how much the DS costs, just as long as it retains it's GBA BC, at least one good launch game (Metroid: Hunters?), and that it's at a price point that I could afford
DS = Innovative 3D gameplay
GBA (and it's successor) = Classic 2D gameplay
Personally I don't care how much the DS costs, just as long as it retains it's GBA BC, at least one good launch game (Metroid: Hunters?), and that it's at a price point that I could afford
I'm starting to understand Nintendo's logic on the DS not being the "next Gameboy".
Basically what they;re trying to say is that just because the DS game format is being introduced it dosent mean they have any intention of abandoning the GBA format of games. It;s like back when atari sold the 2600 and the 5200 at the same time, the stronger system wasnt designed to take the place of the older one, just give people more of a choice as to what they could play should they choose to have both formats.
But unfortunatly not being able to use the DS in all of the same ways as the GBA... (lost of system link and GBA game linking even between two DS playing GBA games is a very divisive problem) it's going to alienate some people so they'd better have some seriously kick ass ideas to back up the expectations that will soon crop up.
It's going to be a serious ballanceing act to keep from having one of the two's games from overshadowing the other.
Basically what they;re trying to say is that just because the DS game format is being introduced it dosent mean they have any intention of abandoning the GBA format of games. It;s like back when atari sold the 2600 and the 5200 at the same time, the stronger system wasnt designed to take the place of the older one, just give people more of a choice as to what they could play should they choose to have both formats.
But unfortunatly not being able to use the DS in all of the same ways as the GBA... (lost of system link and GBA game linking even between two DS playing GBA games is a very divisive problem) it's going to alienate some people so they'd better have some seriously kick ass ideas to back up the expectations that will soon crop up.
It's going to be a serious ballanceing act to keep from having one of the two's games from overshadowing the other.
bread's done