While discussing the possibility of 3rd parties abandoning the PSP over at the ESLS union, I finally articulated a theory I've had for quite some time. Please, tell me what you think, and be sure to shoot holes in it as needed.

--------

Bigger companies are one thing; Square Enix is a bad example because, quite frankly, their games sell systems. Its almost like saying "The DS has awesome games - look at everything Nintendo puts out."

There are some companies that aren't going to be bothered one way or the other. But they're far fewer in number compared to everyone else. They're the ones you need to be concerned with because, when you add all of those companies and their games together? That's pretty sizeable.

I've got this "shovelware" theory to gauging system success. You know you've got a really successful system when it can support companies that put out mostly mediocre to bad games. The NES, SNES, PS1 and PS2 are examples of this - there are square metric tons of mediocre and bad games on all those systems, yet the companies who published them still made money. The PSP isn't there. AAA-games doing well is not news or really any indicator of anything other than "damn, that's a good game." Don't go by that; every system ever made (including the 3DO and Jaguar) had at least one, must play, OMG game.

To me, a successful system will have:
A - A selection of top-notch, elite games. AAA-grade titles. Lets be honest - this is the smallest group.

B - A very good selection of "B" tier games. These are the mainstays of any systems - great games that nobody should be ashamed of owning or playing.

C - A very large selection of average games. Not the best, not the worst, playable. This is the largest selection of games.

D - A pretty big selection of mediocre or worse games. Maybe they're badly flawed. Maybe they're licensed crap. But there are so many people with the system in question that these titles can come out and still make money.

The Dreamcast and Neo Geo Pocket Color, for example, didn't follow this. Both had a lot of A and B titles, but not so many C titles, and couldn't support D titles.

The Jaguar had a smattering of A titles, precious few B and C titles, and more D titles than it could support.

It seems the PSP has got some good A and B titles, but how are the C and D titles faring compared to the DS? Given that C and D make up a LOT, if not most of what's out there?

Just a theory, and to be honest it really needs going through more on my part and revising. But that's my theory. I think the PSP is an awesome system, and would not call it a failure at all. But I think that right now, unless you're only doing A-titles, maybe a popular B-title? A company isn't going to do as well on the PSP as it should, and that's the major concern. I know the "easy answer" is to say, "Well, only make A-titles," but honestly? If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it AND that would establish the new "average," making "A" into the new "C" due to higher expectations and all that... Its a lot easier to compete at middle-school basketball during PE than it is the NBA.

-------

In short, average games and "shovelware" are to consoles what a canary was in a coal mine.