I don' t think you can compare Sega with Sony.
With Sony' s huge success with the PS brand and the Nintendo home consoles selling so bad, Sony entering the handheld bussiness was a big threat to Nintendo.
Just as Nintendo lost their dominance with home consoles, they could' ve easily lost their dominance in the handheld market. Nintendo' s competitors on the handheld market before Sony were... lame.
And Nintendo' s competitors on the home console market before Sega were... also lame.
The people saying Nintendo wasn' t threatened by Sony' s interest in the handheld market probably said the same thing when Sony decided to make the PS1.
" HAHA, Sony' s trying to compete with Nintendo, they don' t have a chance. Nintendo dominates blablabla" .
Just look at the Gamecube. If Nintendo would' ve done a GBA2 to compete against the PSP then it would' ve gone the same way the GCN went.
Anyway, if Nintendo has such a stranglehold on the market as you say, then Sony are the ones who took the biggest risk ever, simply by deciding to challenge Nintendo, don' t you think?
Nintendo has never wanted to push online.
Neither did I, I prefer good singleplayer games or playing games with friends in the same room.
What I think is dumb with Nintendo' s online strategy is that now when they do have one they should' ve made it great. Right now it' s not offering very much.
I think the only reason Xbox Live doesn' t have near 100% of users is because it costs. A little over 50% is a great amount of people concidering the hourly/daily/monthly/yearly/decadilly/centurially/milleniumally cost.
And Nintendo doesn' t have 100% because it doesn' t offer much.
I think Sony' s free online service will see lots of users.
< Message edited by ginjirou -- 23 Jan 07 12:44:50 >