Roundtable Discussion takes the intrepid 61FPS blogging team and pits it against itself in the search for deeper truth. The moderator for today is Joe Keiser.
Towards the end of the last roundtable, the topic swerved off-course into a discussion of the existence or nonexistence of handheld wars. I thought that the fact that question came up was interesting, because no matter how you parse it handheld fanboy battles seem to lack the vigor of their console cousins.
Which brings us to the question: do people have less of an emotional attachment to their portable systems compared to their TV-tethered ones? A different kind of emotional investment? Why do you think this could (or could not) be the case?
Joe: You can tell by the wording of the question that I do think people have less of an emotional investment in handhelds. The reason here is intentional marketing tactics perpetrated by Nintendo over decades, particularly at children. Handhelds are more populist—they're cheap and everyone has them, as proven by Game Boy and DS sales. But consoles, to kids, are a "prestige product"—they're more expensive, and the kid that has one is lucky as all hell. How could you possibly be more emotionally invested in your little Game Boy when everyone wants to come to your house to play Pokemon Stadium on your Nintendo 64? Which piece of hardware would you love more?
Since Nintendo has dominated handhelds for decades, this "little brother to console" marketing informs the whole culture.
Derrick: I totally agree with you, Joe, about the prestige issue. But personally it's all about what I play the most. In college, I loved the Gamecube more than the Gameboy Advance because I was at the dorm a lot and playing games socially in the living room was more exciting than private portable gaming. These days, I play my DS and iPod Touch a lot more than my Wii and PS3 because I spend several hours a day on trains. When I am home, I'm watching TV, eating and sleeping, so the consoles only get love when I make a vested effort to do so.
Cole: I've never owned a handheld, for several reasons. One is that I've always sort of felt that handhelds could only offer severely limited versions of what was available on consoles at the time (This has changed only recently). I think that because a lot of people have a general understanding that portables offer less than the cutting edge, they are not as committed to defending their preferred portable's capabilities.
Derrick: That tech lag is important, but there’s no denying that today’s portables are impressive little machines. Super Mario 64 DS looks much better than Super Mario 64—in fact, I’m surprised Nintendo hasn’t ported more N64 games. For that matter, Sega said the iPhone/Touch is as powerful as a Dreamcast. Handhelds these days are just as fast and pretty as consoles one or two generations ago with the benefit of portability. That’s a sort of cutting edge, isn’t it?
Cole: Yes, but with home consoles it's all about who's the fastest, prettiest, etc. We all know that portable systems are far behind, so in a way it's not worth bickering over when there are bigger windmills against which to charge.
Joe: Conceding for now that the technology might not be worth fighting for, it’s still interesting to keep in mind that other little gizmos, like cell phones, do have fan boy battles--at least if my teenage brother's endless quest for the smallest and flashiest new handset is any indication. Strange how the people who fight about this kind of stuff are avoiding that "small is the new big" fight to focus on the length and girth of their console's horizontal pixel resolution.
Brothers in Arms: Hour of Heroes for iPhone
Amber: I also think that in the case of "handheld wars" consumers take their cues from the companies. When Sega's marketing for its portable was attacking Gameboy, fans followed suit. However, when it became clear it was not a contest, Sega stopped pushing and fans stopped caring. The same thing came about when Sony was making its PSP push.
It's not too hard to buy multiple portable systems if you really want too. The cost isn't as prohibitive so there's less of a monetary reason to be protective of a singular purchase. Also, Nintendo's utter dominance takes some of the wind out of the sails of your handheld ship of war. Fan fights flare up when a contender steps onto the floor, but fade out when it becomes clear the title belt isn't going to change hands.
Bob: I fall mostly into Amber’s school of thought; when it comes to handhelds, Nintendo has been so absolutely dominant that portable console wars are entirely moot. The only time I really remember any kind of battle was back in Sega’s more aggressive marketing days, when they were touting the colorful graphics of the Game Gear over the pea soup-green aesthetic of the Game Boy. But we all know that the original Game Boy stuck around for a solid 10 years (the Pocket and Color models helped it hang on), pretty much erasing the history of any other competitor. For this reason, there’s really no precedent for a handheld console war, so I think the desire to start one never occurs.
Amber: But the fans are there. They may not be as volatile as they are for consoles, but bring up a subject like Apple challenging the DS with its iPhone line and you'll find fans jumping to attack and defend on both sides.
Previous Roundtable Discussions:
Roundtable Discussion: The Fandom Phenomenon Part 1
Roundtable Discussion: The Fandom Phenomenon Part 2
Roundtable Discussion: The Fandom Phenomenon Part 3