Sony: PSP piracy levels are "Sickening"

[Correction]

Yesterdays games and design retrogression aren't a property unique to portable gaming. You explain why portable gaming is a bad idea (and for whom) very poorly.

[Xavier]

Portable gaming in general is a poor idea.

Would that we could all be as lucky as you to carry around our next-gen systems and a tv while sitting for hours at the airport, in the car, before class, etc.

And, as Correction corrected you, the majority of "next-gen" games are "last-gen" gameplay with prettier graphics. True innovation in gameplay can be achieved irregardless of the platform.

@ Xavier, you should see how nintendo are making money off us PAL gamers on the Vconsole. Super Mario RPG and FF 1-6 were never released here in PAL regions due to my above point, but SMRPG is selling like hotcakes (and I hear rumours of FF1-6 coming to Vconsole but unsure / don't care about FF series anymore ).

The Virtual Console is a perfect example of offering a legitimate alternative to mass piracy for old-school games. Massive catalog of a wide variety of terrible, okay, good and triple A titles. I frankly, and this is a pretty sad commentary about the Wii in general, value the system more for the Virtual Console than the actual Wii games.

The PS1 Store in North America, for comparison, has like 20 games, of which maybe 3-5 are actually worth the price of admission, while the JP Store has quite a bit more, and quite a bit better selection.

So long as piracy is an option, there will always be people who do so. But, there are a lot of people driven to piracy out of necessity, because they have no alternatives to play the games they want to play. Given the option, a lot of people (not everyone) will pay to play.

Why are so many PSP games themselves being pirated? Well, I imagine that once you open Pandora's box, there is little reason for a person to play by the rules at all.

[BRP]

Yes it was a poor explanation, but I am all burned out on long rants. I rather stick with short bursts, at least for awhile. Can we pretend I am trolling?

Retrogression is certainly not unique to portables, but portables could be called the celebration of retrogression. Much like the Wii. Whenever a game I am looking forward to is going to be released on these platforms there is instantly a small amount of disappointment. I know the game will suffer at least a little bit(usually a lot) thanks to hardware limitations(which count for a lot more than graphics won't you know it.) It is even made worse by the matter that neither are compatible with a strong console or the PC so I might not even be able to play it on a screen or at a satisfying resolution. By comparison the disappointment of finding out a PC game will be simultaneously released on consoles(and therefor likely be simplified at least a little) is much smaller.

There is no reason to speak to me like I don't understand why they make portables. Just because they are sacrificing quality for convenience doesn't mean I am going to disregard the drop in quality. I still play portable games because often I have to.

Also you seem to think "innovation" is the answer to retrogression. I find it that people looking for this rare quality often lose sight on what makes a good game and make very simple games(not unlike the games of our past... hmm.) Innovation will come naturally with improving hardware.

[Correction]

Innovation will come naturally with improving hardware.

This has not really held true, so I wonder what examples/data you draw this conclusion from. I mean fuck it, Doom was designed and programmed to run on some pretty shitty hardware back in the day.

None of your argument explains why Portable Gaming in general is bad, or whom it hurts. Are you trying to suggest that the popularity of low-power portable hardware is holding back new gen-style innovation? Demand probably weighs 10 times more on a publisher's decision to invest in this nebulous concept of 'innovation' or just to throw out Madden GBA 2011, and when it comes to the portable market, the price point drives that demand. Portable gaming is cheap compared to consoles, and extraordinarily cheap compared to PC gaming. This is good for consumers. It's really good for gaming publishers. Especially now. Wagging your finger at tiny screens and simplified controls is letting the rest of the realities of the gaming market go sailing far above your head.

[Sol-Blackguy]

By 'new' final fantasy tactics, do you mean the port of the original?

Yea, War of the Lions, I had a brain fart earlier and couldn't remember the name to save my life.

[BRP]

This has not really held true, so I wonder what examples/data you draw this conclusion from. I mean fuck it, Doom was designed and programmed to run on some pretty shitty hardware back in the day.

Well thank goodness now we are able to play games like Quake, Half-life, and Doom 3 instead of just Doom.

None of your argument explains why Portable Gaming in general is bad

It doesn't? Then what did I just write? It is bad because it limits games from the start.

or whom it hurts.

Well I don't know if anyone is going to cry themselves to sleep over it, but it would hurt people who want their sequels or even just new games to be developed at their best or at least somewhere close to that. I mean you got complaints in this very thread about this... so it is bothering at least some others enough to talk about it.

Are you trying to suggest that the popularity of low-power portable hardware is holding back new gen-style innovation?

No, but it is a waste of time in terms of progress or even just maintaining the current limits. Whether these developers would use that time to do anything "innovative" is impossible for me to say. I am not actually talking about the long term effects.

Demand probably weighs 10 times more on a publisher's decision to invest in this nebulous concept of 'innovation' or just to throw out Madden GBA 2011, and when it comes to the portable market, the price point drives that demand. Portable gaming is cheap compared to consoles, and extraordinarily cheap compared to PC gaming. This is good for consumers. It's really good for gaming publishers. Especially now. Wagging your finger at tiny screens and simplified controls is letting the rest of the realities of the gaming market go sailing far above your head.

It probably serves as an easy answer to the rising costs of development.

There is no reason to speak to me like I don't understand why they make portables. Just because they are sacrificing quality for convenience doesn't mean I am going to disregard the drop in quality.

Videogames are a business?! I get it now! So the next time a game is worse than the best I should just ignore that little fact because of economics.

EDIT: When I bring up developers as evil little devils for not making me my precious deep games then we can talk about why they must make subpar games.

[Wintermute]

How is sony and nintendo doing in Europe?

To me the biggest change in gaming of this generation is the fact Europe(PAL) was finally taken as a serious market, a market of people who want to play games.

Last I checked the most PS3 sales were in Europe, making it Sony's biggest market. True to form they're largely ignoring us. Not checked the PS1 store in ages but it's likely a turd.

Edit:42 PS1 games on the PSN store.

Europe's always been a big gaming market, thing is Japanese based companies can't be fucked converting shit to a PAL standard considering when it did happen it would take an extra year after a US release.
Bet they were never to keen covnerting it for the dirty Americans either though.

Pretty sure the only people who've ever taken the PAL market seriously are PAL based developers.

As far as the PSP goes it's pretty much in the same boat as the PS3. Sony has their head so far up their ass no-one wants to deal with their shit any more.

Remember in E3 a while back when they said the PS3 wasn't a console but a media HUB? Provided your entire house was filled exclusively with Sony products.
Gamers don't want media devices that play games. They want consoles and hand-helds that do other stuff too if you feel like it.

Bet half the reason people pirate as much as they do is out of contempt for Sony. Irony being it helps their Hardware sales figures.

[Colenzo]

wtf theres nothing wrong with portable systems, they have been doing it for almost 2 decades now lol

[Apelila]

Portable gaming in general is a poor idea. It probably serves as an easy answer to the rising costs of development. Also wacky non-gamer cash in in the case of the DS, especially in Japan.

Yesterdays games on small screens and design retrogression!

This...where do I start.

Portable gaming is what it is; that is to say that its better enjoyed as a device to kill time rather than a replacement for console gaming.

A better argument is this:

Ive seen trailers for some seriously kick ass games only to see PSP onry. I used to think it was a test run for shaky titles that will get ported to a console later like Liberty City Stories. I bet if PSP wasn't around, the new Final Fantasy Tactics would have came out on PS3... and maybe 360 so I'd be even happier.

Developers are retarded. We all know this since we're on a forum devoted to what can arguably be called the epitome of that statement. (Don't troll me bro) So yes, I'll totally agree that there are a bunch of half assed games that are PSP/ DS only that would have been so much better as full console releases. FFT: WotL is a perfect example of a PSP game that is so much more fucked than if it was a XBLA or PSN download.

But there's also quite a few PSP / DS games that work well as what they are and would be less enjoyable as a console release. Crisis core works very well for a portable game. Its quick paced and fun, with encounters rarely lasting longer than a few minutes. Patapon would drive me mad on a console.

Calling portable games a waste is silly. Saying that portable games should be more casual would be a better approach, but I'd want to see the sales numbers of 'serious' portable games first to see if the market reflects the idea.

[BRP]

Crisis core works very well for a portable game. Its quick paced and fun, with encounters rarely lasting longer than a few minutes. Patapon would drive me mad on a console.

I don't see how either work best on a portables. Your reasons for Crisis Core sound like any Action game from any platform. Console games are not allowed to be quick paced and fun, with encounters rarely lasting longer than a few minutes? I am sure that's not what you meant.

Calling portable games a waste is silly. Saying that portable games should be more casual would be a better approach, but I'd want to see the sales numbers of 'serious' portable games first to see if the market reflects the idea.

Why is it silly*? What makes me even more curious: What makes a casual game free from being called a waste?

Your comments only makes sense if one holds portables at a different standard, which I would find ridiculous. They are all time killers and they are all videogames. (Well not in the case of some DS games I guess)


*: Do not forget the context of me calling them a waste.

[Colenzo]

games are meant to waste, they are not lifestyles >_>

[Apelila]

I don't see how either work best on a portables. Your reasons for Crisis Core sound like any Action game from any platform. Console games are not allowed to be quick paced and fun, with encounters rarely lasting longer than a few minutes? I am sure that's not what you meant.

Highlighted the important part. Crisis core's mission system makes it so you can easily start it up and kill 5-30 minutes and stop with the same ease. Try applying that to any of the console Zelda's. Or Tomb Raiders, or heck even Bioshock(not at adventure game I know).

I was giving an example for how when designed properly the pacing of a portable game can be just as important as gameplay, if not more so. I dont want to pull out my system while waiting in a doctors office and spend 10 minutes of running from where-ever the game starts me at to where I last stopped only to get called back by the Nurse just as I started 'playing'.

Why is it silly*? What makes me even more curious: What makes a casual game free from being called a waste?

Your comments only makes sense if one holds portables at a different standard, which I would find ridiculous. They are all time killers and they are all videogames. (Well not in the case of some DS games I guess)

*: Do not forget the context of me calling them a waste.

Calling all portable games a waste is silly because you're dismissing all of them for being in the same category. You're saying that they're a waste because some developers use the shovelware/brandname recognition and/or lazy development and/or recycling games from the past (Hi Nintendo). All of these arguments are valid, but never at one point can you apply all arguments to all games.

So what if for every "Zelda: Link's Awakening's" we get a thousand "Barbie Animal Trainers"? Its not like that doesn't already happen on the home consoles.

[BRP]

Man, none of your examples are what I would call fast-paced Action games. They all have puzzles and exploration and shit. Of course they are going to look slow. Now consider the beat-em-up genre. Or even fighters. I think its best if you just abandon this and your fascination with the pause button or quick saves.

You seem to think I am attacking portables because they have bad games on them. That's not it(though very true!) The reason I say they are inferior is because they are just that: inferior. No games come to mind when I say "Which games are better on a portable?" Your examples are really, really weak. Even when it comes to Wii's pointer or DS' touch screen, shit is much better with mouse(try it with DS emulation, not so clunky.)

Well I am thinking of maybe one game that works better as a portable: that really silly cellphone MGS where you create camo based on taking pictures. That is so goddamn gimmicky it makes the Wii look like the next step in gaming evolution by comparison.

[Correction]

Well thank goodness now we are able to play games like Quake, Half-life, and Doom 3 instead of just Doom.

It is bad because it limits games from the start.

Thank...god...each of those games is an innovative leap over the first? What are you saying here? You're painting very broad strokes with a word like 'innovation' and I hope you're not narrow-minded enough to think it only means graphics. I definitely hope you're not implying that portable systems have not also advanced themselves in technical capability, expending the canvas that developers themselves can use to more fully realize their vision for gaming. And while you love to attack the individual games that others bring up you're not exactly forthcoming with a lot of examples where a portable system got an exclusive that would have been so much better on a PS3 or PC. "Oh boy! Patapon runs so awesome thanks to my SLI Radeon HD 4870X2 system?"

Well I don't know if anyone is going to cry themselves to sleep over it, but it would hurt people who want their sequels or even just new games to be developed at their best or at least somewhere close to that. I mean you got complaints in this very thread about this... so it is bothering at least some others enough to talk about it.

Here's where I think you're still ignoring large chunks of the economic realities game developers face. Sure there are top-end consoles and PCs now to develop for but so what? To make full use of their capabilities requires a massive art budget. And what game developer is going to dump millions into their art budget when it does not necessarily mean increased sales? "Baww they stopped making PC games because there are just more gamers in possession of a DS!" This market only 'hurts' people who invested heavily in PC or high-end console gaming and find themselves without a steady stream of games to play. Which means you don't like multiplayer FPS or RTS games. I could have told you 5 years ago such an investment was swimming against the flow. The rest of the millions of gamers and the companies that sell games to them are otherwise perfectly happy the way things are. So again, none of this is bad for the overwhelming majority of gamers, and none of this is bad for game developers. History is littered with the corpses of games that kept trying to 'catch up' with the bleeding edge of gaming while ignoring the basics of developing within limited parameters.

[Apelila]

Oh I was getting trolled. Er, Got trolled. Shit.

Actually, now I'm not sure. I misjudged your use of the term "Action game" for certain. You seem to think I'm trying to defend all of portable gaming because I can. I'm not, in fact most of it can go down the toilet for all I care. Its annoying to see people lump all of any group together, which is what you're doing. If you have never enjoyed anything on a handheld then well, I dont know what to say.

[The Stig]

History is littered with the corpses of games that kept trying to 'catch up' with the bleeding edge of gaming while ignoring the basics of developing within limited parameters.

Sonic sprung to mind.

Sonic Rush briefly fixed it. Just a thought.

[fantasticdan]

I don't understand why people liked sonic rush so much, compared to the genesis sonic games it was pretty mediocre. Same thing with new super mario.

[BRP]

And while you love to attack the individual games that others bring up you're not exactly forthcoming with a lot of examples where a portable system got an exclusive that would have been so much better on a PS3 or PC.

Any recent game you'd like. So uh, just pick one. Oh, but it has to have at least one console/PC genre/subgenre counterpart to compare it to(shouldn't be a problem.)

You seem to be so obsessed with the image of me complaining that people like Nintendo should be making games for me(or that they shouldn't be making portable games at all or whatever.) Get over that because you are missing the point by a mile. I am only calling it out when they make bad games(or mediocre or merely "good" or maybe even great!) I don't give a shit what they use to justify it, because it shouldn't matter when I am making a judgment on the game and the game alone. So stop talking about economics because it doesn't matter here. I am not even going to read your paragraphs with that word because it is just you missing the point over and over again. How could I possibly make this clearer?

(To Apelila) The fact is that a portable will always suffer based on platform alone - before even a single design decision is made. We are talking about up to two to three generations behind here. It is a trade off, one that shouldn't be ignored just to be nice. So even the best DS game or PSP game is going to take a hit. They are still worth playing(assuming they are exclusive), but to ignore a fault like this would be bullshit.

You're painting very broad strokes with a word like 'innovation' and I hope you're not narrow-minded enough to think it only means graphics.

Innovation is a pretty bullshit word. What I am basically saying that if the game got better it got innovated for all intents and purposes. People obsessed with making new subgenres end up making their game mediocre because they reject foundation. It is a shortcut: "Oh I don't have to make a good game, I just need to make a new game!" Even then little is new and if it doesn't catch on then it was basically a one-time gimmick.

And it goes beyond graphics. Videogames live through the hardware, they basically are the hardware. You want to get a more advanced game and overcome last gen's limitations? You need new hardware. But hell, I'll humor you: Even if it was just graphics it would be better than making the same video game without better graphics. We haven't achieved photorealistic 3d models and drawn games are still showing room for improvement.

EDIT: Actually it is unfortunate because the rough HDTV push has limited what the PS3 and Xbox360 could do, at least for right now. This is the main reason why graphics are not THAT impressive on the consoles. They care too much about resolution.

[Xavier]

Hardware does not make the game.

The most powerful hardware in the world will not save a game that is fundamentally built on a terrible premise.

Likewise, even a 20 year old game can retain its entertainment if its design was inherently solid. Take, for instance, Tetris, which is 23 years old, and still remains an addictive, played, and enjoyable puzzle game.

Outdated hardware limits graphics, and design to the extent that you have less memory to work with. Outdated hardware, however, is not synonymous with a lack of innovation.

A good idea is a good idea regardless of the method of delivery. Its presentation may "look" better on your 50 inch HDTV, but its core remains unchanged. Your complaint is more in regards to developers intentionally dumbing down handheld ports to make them more accessible, to better serve the "pick up and play for 10 minutes" reality of portable gaming.

That is not, however, an inherent fault of the portable system, but of the market to which it caters.

Innovation is merely the implementation of good, solid game design, presented in a way that people haven't necessarily seen before. To blame portable systems for the death of innovation does a terrible disservice to the dozens of developers who design piss poor games exclusively on next-gen systems.

The rising cost of game development, if anything, is responsible for the lack of innovation in the market today. Developers are far less likely to take a chance on design, given that poor sales of a game could bankrupt the company, if they believe that rehashed gameplay with better graphics will suffice. Handheld games, ironically, have the highest actual potential for innovation, as their development costs are quite a bit lower, and the damage sustained from a failed idea will be far less devastating to the bottom line.

[BRP]

Hardware does not make the game.

Not alone, but good luck making the game without hardware. EDIT: VIDEOgame that is.

Likewise, even a 20 year old game can retain its entertainment if its design was inherently solid. Take, for instance, Tetris, which is 23 years old, and still remains an addictive, played, and enjoyable puzzle game.

And?

To blame portable systems for the death of innovation does a terrible disservice to the dozens of developers who design piss poor games exclusively on next-gen systems.

Holy crap, who said that?

Innovation is merely the implementation of good, solid game design, presented in a way that people haven't necessarily seen before.

I never saw Halo 2 before it came out.


EDIT:

Your complaint is more in regards to developers intentionally dumbing down handheld ports to make them more accessible, to better serve the "pick up and play for 10 minutes" reality of portable gaming.

That is not, however, an inherent fault of the portable system, but of the market to which it caters.

My complaint/criticism is of the games that are dumbed down, not the developers who want to make money. I guess you could say in the long run "Hey these guys don't make good games" is criticism directed at developers, but I haven't gone that far yet.

But other than that one mistake, what you said seems true. But it has nothing to do with me criticizing a platform or its games.