When I play games, with the exception of Warcraft, I want to kick back on my couch and relax, not be hunched over my computer. Plus, I rather enjoy buying games without having to worry if my video card is good enough or if I have enough RAM for the game or whatever else.
How about because the high-def versions are worth more? Or because, currently, I have to imagine that it costs the studios more to produce the HD versions in far more ways than just disc reproduction?
I've been somebody who, for many years, has loved web design from both the visual and technical sides of things. How well a website works is obviously important, but just as important is how it looks. There are many people out there who disagree, and say that usefulness is key and how "pretty" a page is isn't important, but they're completely wrong. (In my opinion, of course.)
The reason they're wrong is that web design isn't either/or, no matter what some may say. There are obvious examples of design over use - countless, countless examples - but that doesn't mean that making a website visually attractive kills the chance to also make it work like a charm.
For me personally, one of my favorite projects web design wise has been my personal forums, where I've put just as much important on how they look as well as how they work. Forum design is, to put it bluntly, god-awful across the internet. If message forums don't just stick with the defaul theme, they slightly modify it to make it look average AND ugly.
Message forums are about reading the posts presented there, but they're also about the community, so the design of the forums should reflect that. Here's a screenshot of the new theme I have in progress - it's far, far from done, but gives an idea of my kind of sense of forum style. First off, avatars are 600x150; a bit larger than the previous 600x120 avatars we were running. Some see that kind of thing as a waste, but our large avatars were one of the things that made our forums stand out, be remembered, and the way the board was coded, you could turn off avatars and still have the forum work perfectly and look very nice. Users will be able to select their own background color for their posts; it makes things more colorful, and personal, but it also then lets a user quickly scan a thread and find their own posts, due to knowing what color they're looking for. Items such as thread title, page navigation, and search box will be part of a bottom-of-the-window-pinned navigation bar, extending on the previous navigaion bar we had; this helps to reduce the clutter in layouts, and give the forum another unique visual aspect, but it also presents important navigation and UI items in one consistant, always available on-screen location, instead of scrolling up and down the page to hunt them down every time.
Not that I'm trying to toot my own horn here - my point is that with just a bit of thought, web design can be both visually appealing and enhance the user experience, but that idea seems to be lost on people far too often. And, obviously, the same design elements and planning I'm using for my new forum skin wouldn't work for other types of websites, but we need to better understand what each type of website needs and requires, and work from there. Nobody would make sense in saying that every type of website needs to be visually stunning, but those saying that sites don't need to be fancy or appealing are just as wrong. A website being visually unique, pleasing to look at, providing quality design at the same time it presents quality UI, those are all important factors that too often go overlooked.
Percentages mean nothing without the actual sales numbers behind them. While a 280% increase sounds great, that's just a number you say to sound big, because you don't know what the hard sales numbers were before and after this increase. For example, in the most recent sales numbers available for Japan, the DS Lite sold 128,621 units, versus the PSP selling 16,690 units. So, even a 280% sales boost wouldn't mean much against its rival handheld hardware.
Plus, Sony is notorious for talking "sold" when they actually mean "shipped," so. And when NPD numbers for November comes out, showing hardware sales in the U.S., I'm sure we'll see ALL pieces of video game hardware up by sizable amounts.
I was at a friend's house last night, and for whatever reason, that show seemed to be playing for hours. (I'm not sure if that's typical Sci-Fi, of if he had it on his DVR.) I'm going to be honest here... after watching what I did of it, you couldn't pay me to watch that show.
I know it's cool and hip to bash on Hollywood movies and network TV, but there IS quite a bit of worthwhile content out there if you actually take the time to look. I think the problem is some people just expect too much from EVERYTHING, and don't know when to just relax and have fun with something.
For mine (the first place winner), I was trying to show off a lot of different feature ideas, so yeah, my Finder ended up being a bit cluttered. We were limited to five screenshots, so once I factored in the Mail and Safari shots, plus Peek getting its own, I just decided to go all out with one main Finder shot. Obviously, in real-world usage, it wouldn't be so cluttered, and everything would have options for turning said features on or off.
It's funny how much I'm getting ragged on by a few people out there for the amount of Asian girls in my screenshots. One of the things I wanted to show off was the playing movies in the icon support, by far the most vidoe files I have are Asian music videos, so I chose to go with those. For the rest... hey, Asian girls are cute, I had some images onhand, so that's what I used.
Maybe you don't need it. As somebody who plans to get an HDTV in the near future, however, while I might not NEED it, I certainly WANT it. Why would I spend a decent chunk of change to get an HDTV only to watch non-HD resolution DVDs on it? I don't care what anybody says about upconvertors or whatnot, you can't take a 720x480 video, blow it up to 1280x720 or 1920x1080, and have it look good. If some people like to half-ass it and watch content that looks substandard on their HDTV, that's fine, but others of us don't want to do that.
Ah, Slashdot... always making it seem like the rest of the world outside of Slashdot actually cares about OGG. Seriously... can we stop bringing it up every time the iPod is mentioned? Most people don't care. I know what OGG is, and understand it, and I STILL don't care. If a great deal of iPod owners cared, Apple would have given the iPod support for it by now, trust me.
Some people on here like it - we all understand that. Just, you know... ease up a bit.
Games can be just as mentally stimulating as books can. Of course, the world still has the snobbish notion that books are far more worthwhile than the other more "trashier" forms of entertainment out there.
...as the typical Slashdot crowd says how unnecessary HD-DVD and Blu-ray are, and how only a small fringe group of people really care about it, and then go back to saying how OGG support should be in everything.
As a Blu-ray supporter, anything that helps HD-DVD stumble is okay in my book.
"I had to watch two 15-second commercials in order to see this video that was put up on the internet for free! WAAAAH!"
God, seriously, give it a rest. It's disgusting how much people nowdays think they are owed. Watching a quick commercial is a fair trade for being able to see the interview for free, and for the bandwidth it took to let me see that video for free.
If you want to level a serious complaint, do as a few on here have done - complain about the total lack of screen presence the host has, and how terribly awkward the interview came off.
My Genesis was backward compatible with my Master System games through an adapter. My SNES, to throw off your example, was backward compatible with my NES games through an adapter.
The main reason why I want backward compatibility on the 360 is that Xbox Live makes games not lose their shelf life. I'm a big fan of King of Fighters, and I can now play 2002 and 2003 online with other people who also like the game. For me, that game isn't the type where you beat it, you're done, and then it either sits there or you sell it. That game isn't going to be released on the 360, so it is quite likely that some would want to pick it up for their 360, even if it is an "old" Xbox game.
Sure, I have an Xbox. But I'm not like some people on here who are perfectly content with a bunch of hardware, cables, and whatnot being strewn all around my home. I don't want twenty different consoles under my television. When I get a 360, I want to have one console, not two, yet still be able to play the older games that still have value.
Uhm, no.
I'd consider myself a pretty big "tech" person. Yes I STILL use my PS2 as my main, and only, DVD player. Piss poor? How so? Does a great job for me, and with the Region-X disc, it'll play DVDs from any region.
If a person is cares about (a) video games, and (b) next-gen video discs, then the fact that the PS3 will play Blu-Ray will be a HUGE deal. I know I can bank on the PS3; I'm not so sure I can bank on Blu-Ray. However, as I have an interest in Blu-Ray (or, really, an HD replacement for DVD in general), the fact that the PS3 plays Blu-Ray suddenly gives me a free* change to also get a Blu-Ray player, and try it out. I don't have the fear of buying a stand alone Blu-Ray player, and then having Blu-Ray die, and having a machine with no future.
(* not free, but if I consider the price I paid for the PS3 as being for the gaming aspects, then technically it is free.)
Look at the PSP for another angle. People purchased the PSP for gaming, but many have then gone on to pick up a UMD or two. If somebody buys a PS3, they may then say, "Hey, I can also try out that Blu-Ray stuff." Again, a means to get into trying it without having to actually invest in a Blu-Ray player.
If the PS2 can do a decent job of playing DVDs, then why do I need a PS2 AND a separate DVD player? Thus, it is a useful addition. I had a stand alone DVD player when I purchased my PS2, and got rid of it, because one machine under my TV > two machines under my TV.
The PS3 is going to be just as important in bringing more people to the next generation of video discs as the PS2 was doing the same for DVD.
Originally, I was on the side of Blu-Ray. But now with talk that HD-DVD will support "conrolled copies" while Blu-Ray may or may not, and that HD-DVD may not include regional encoding, I'M SO CONFUSED!
I don't like MS getting their hands into everything, so I don't want to support HD-DVD. But if Blu-Ray has region encoding when HD-DVD doesn't, and if they don't allow for controlled copies, then I don't want to support Blu-Ray.
They have a perfect excuse - not wanting to have to take into account the hundreds of different possible hardware combinations the end user has. You make a game for a console, you know EXACTLY what hardware the end user has, what resolution they are running, the full power they can get from the hardware, etc.
If I were making games, I'd have no interest whatsoever in having to deal with making games for the PC. But, then again, I'm a console gamer anyhow, so I'd have no interest in making PC games before that point anyway.
Re:Are they STILL around?
on
Review: Nintendogs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Here's a crazy idea: if you don't like the idea, don't play the game. Everything then magically works out fine.
In Japan, this game is getting a LOT of casual and female gamers into the DS, which is good for Nintendo and good for the DS and good for gaming. These are people who never would have played games before, maybe because they didn't find them interesting or were intimidated by them. My girlfriend, for example, fell in love with Nintendogs the moment she saw it, and wants a DS now. Because of that interest, she's been paying a bit more attention to other DS games: she also wants Pac Pics, and she gets a kick out of Ouendan.
I'm not hoping for her to become a hardcore gamer or anything, but I like that she now has some interest in it, so that we have another thing we can share together.
Don't people usually bitch that the iPod is MISSING features? Which one is it?
Anyhow, I wasn't too keen on the headphone jack on the bottom either, until somebody pointed something out. I'm the type that usually puts their iPod in their back pocket or something. With the headphone jack on the bottom, reach into your pocket, pull out the iPod nano, and it is already right side up in your hand. So, hey.
I own both, and very much like both.
I wasn't clear enough in what I was saying; yes, the PSP does indeed support that feature. The problem is, as most PSP gamers are much more complex than your typical DS game, I'm not sure that most PSP games CAN do multi-player off of one copy. You're not going to be able to do things like PSP Need for Speed, Madden, and so on. Simpler stuff like puzzle games and whatnot should have no problem, but even though game so far have shown little support for the feature.
That's why I'm giving more credit to the DS in this regard - the option is here now, and because the DS is lower-tech, more games are going to be able to use this feature. I would LOVE it if the PSP could do game sharing on the level of the DS, but I just don't think it is technically possible with a lot of the big games.
The new PS2 is small, yet when you add the controllers, multi-player adapter, cables, and whatnot, it ends up taking a decent amount of room. That was my point - the unit is small AND for full use of the system, it doesn't eat up much room.
I have one, and three of my friends already have one. My girlfriend absolutely wants one. Once the online stuff like Mario Kart and Animal Crossing come out, more of my friends plan to get one.
I think that with the cost of the new consoles - $400 if you want a decent Xbox 360, possibly the same price for the PS3, games projected to be $60 or more - handhelds are going to be more and more attractive to people. They are small, don't take up much room, don't require a TV, and can be played anywhere. They are far cheaper, great games for the DS are usually $20 ~ $30, and with the ability to play multi-player off of one copy of the game, you don't have to buy a bunch of games in order to play them with friends.
The DS is really taking off in Japan (I just got back from there and saw the evidence myself), and with the great library of games coming out from now until Christmas, it will certainly pick up over here (though it already is doing pretty good). The PSP isn't doing bad itself, and if the choice of a new system comes down between the PSP and the PS3, I think more people than you might expect will turn to the PSP instead.
It would really have been nice had they given a bit more information about these games - some can be played with only one copy of the game, others require each person having their own copy.
That, however, is by far the biggest strength of the DS, and the feature that, to me, puts it far above the PSP when it comes to multi-player gaming: multiple players off of one copy of a game. There are many times when your friends would play a game, but don't like it enough to own it. Or, the other way around, where you don't want to buy a specific game, but still enjoy playing it multi-player.
One of my friends picked up Bomberman, and now we can all play together off of his copy, and it is great fun. Sure, the PSP has fancy "console-quality" graphics and whatnot, but when I have a copy of X game and nobody else does I'm still just sitting there playing it by myself.
As well, while I'm certainly not the type to say things like "games used to be better in the old days!" and whatnot, most of the games for the DS are fun yet simple games that can easily be understood and played, and can be enjoyed by almost anybody, gamer or not. My girlfriend, for example, isn't overly thrilled by my PSP, but nearly every one of my DS games she's played she has loved.
I'm almost glad the system isn't a 3D powerhouse, because instead companies seem to be concerning themselves with making a game that is fun instead of a game that pushes the graphics but forgets about the gameplay. I think the PSP and DS actually compliment each other, instead of directly compete, and that's the best possible scenario in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
When I play games, with the exception of Warcraft, I want to kick back on my couch and relax, not be hunched over my computer. Plus, I rather enjoy buying games without having to worry if my video card is good enough or if I have enough RAM for the game or whatever else.
How about because the high-def versions are worth more? Or because, currently, I have to imagine that it costs the studios more to produce the HD versions in far more ways than just disc reproduction?
I've been somebody who, for many years, has loved web design from both the visual and technical sides of things. How well a website works is obviously important, but just as important is how it looks. There are many people out there who disagree, and say that usefulness is key and how "pretty" a page is isn't important, but they're completely wrong. (In my opinion, of course.)
The reason they're wrong is that web design isn't either/or, no matter what some may say. There are obvious examples of design over use - countless, countless examples - but that doesn't mean that making a website visually attractive kills the chance to also make it work like a charm.
For me personally, one of my favorite projects web design wise has been my personal forums, where I've put just as much important on how they look as well as how they work. Forum design is, to put it bluntly, god-awful across the internet. If message forums don't just stick with the defaul theme, they slightly modify it to make it look average AND ugly.
Message forums are about reading the posts presented there, but they're also about the community, so the design of the forums should reflect that. Here's a screenshot of the new theme I have in progress - it's far, far from done, but gives an idea of my kind of sense of forum style. First off, avatars are 600x150; a bit larger than the previous 600x120 avatars we were running. Some see that kind of thing as a waste, but our large avatars were one of the things that made our forums stand out, be remembered, and the way the board was coded, you could turn off avatars and still have the forum work perfectly and look very nice. Users will be able to select their own background color for their posts; it makes things more colorful, and personal, but it also then lets a user quickly scan a thread and find their own posts, due to knowing what color they're looking for. Items such as thread title, page navigation, and search box will be part of a bottom-of-the-window-pinned navigation bar, extending on the previous navigaion bar we had; this helps to reduce the clutter in layouts, and give the forum another unique visual aspect, but it also presents important navigation and UI items in one consistant, always available on-screen location, instead of scrolling up and down the page to hunt them down every time.
Not that I'm trying to toot my own horn here - my point is that with just a bit of thought, web design can be both visually appealing and enhance the user experience, but that idea seems to be lost on people far too often. And, obviously, the same design elements and planning I'm using for my new forum skin wouldn't work for other types of websites, but we need to better understand what each type of website needs and requires, and work from there. Nobody would make sense in saying that every type of website needs to be visually stunning, but those saying that sites don't need to be fancy or appealing are just as wrong. A website being visually unique, pleasing to look at, providing quality design at the same time it presents quality UI, those are all important factors that too often go overlooked.
Percentages mean nothing without the actual sales numbers behind them. While a 280% increase sounds great, that's just a number you say to sound big, because you don't know what the hard sales numbers were before and after this increase. For example, in the most recent sales numbers available for Japan, the DS Lite sold 128,621 units, versus the PSP selling 16,690 units. So, even a 280% sales boost wouldn't mean much against its rival handheld hardware.
Plus, Sony is notorious for talking "sold" when they actually mean "shipped," so. And when NPD numbers for November comes out, showing hardware sales in the U.S., I'm sure we'll see ALL pieces of video game hardware up by sizable amounts.
I was at a friend's house last night, and for whatever reason, that show seemed to be playing for hours. (I'm not sure if that's typical Sci-Fi, of if he had it on his DVR.) I'm going to be honest here... after watching what I did of it, you couldn't pay me to watch that show.
I know it's cool and hip to bash on Hollywood movies and network TV, but there IS quite a bit of worthwhile content out there if you actually take the time to look. I think the problem is some people just expect too much from EVERYTHING, and don't know when to just relax and have fun with something.
For mine (the first place winner), I was trying to show off a lot of different feature ideas, so yeah, my Finder ended up being a bit cluttered. We were limited to five screenshots, so once I factored in the Mail and Safari shots, plus Peek getting its own, I just decided to go all out with one main Finder shot. Obviously, in real-world usage, it wouldn't be so cluttered, and everything would have options for turning said features on or off.
It's funny how much I'm getting ragged on by a few people out there for the amount of Asian girls in my screenshots. One of the things I wanted to show off was the playing movies in the icon support, by far the most vidoe files I have are Asian music videos, so I chose to go with those. For the rest... hey, Asian girls are cute, I had some images onhand, so that's what I used.
Maybe you don't need it. As somebody who plans to get an HDTV in the near future, however, while I might not NEED it, I certainly WANT it. Why would I spend a decent chunk of change to get an HDTV only to watch non-HD resolution DVDs on it? I don't care what anybody says about upconvertors or whatnot, you can't take a 720x480 video, blow it up to 1280x720 or 1920x1080, and have it look good. If some people like to half-ass it and watch content that looks substandard on their HDTV, that's fine, but others of us don't want to do that.
Ah, Slashdot... always making it seem like the rest of the world outside of Slashdot actually cares about OGG. Seriously... can we stop bringing it up every time the iPod is mentioned? Most people don't care. I know what OGG is, and understand it, and I STILL don't care. If a great deal of iPod owners cared, Apple would have given the iPod support for it by now, trust me.
Some people on here like it - we all understand that. Just, you know... ease up a bit.
Since when does nudity = porn? God of War has nudity in it - is it one of those "computer-porn games?"
Games can be just as mentally stimulating as books can. Of course, the world still has the snobbish notion that books are far more worthwhile than the other more "trashier" forms of entertainment out there.
...as the typical Slashdot crowd says how unnecessary HD-DVD and Blu-ray are, and how only a small fringe group of people really care about it, and then go back to saying how OGG support should be in everything.
As a Blu-ray supporter, anything that helps HD-DVD stumble is okay in my book.
"I had to watch two 15-second commercials in order to see this video that was put up on the internet for free! WAAAAH!"
God, seriously, give it a rest. It's disgusting how much people nowdays think they are owed. Watching a quick commercial is a fair trade for being able to see the interview for free, and for the bandwidth it took to let me see that video for free.
If you want to level a serious complaint, do as a few on here have done - complain about the total lack of screen presence the host has, and how terribly awkward the interview came off.
My Genesis was backward compatible with my Master System games through an adapter. My SNES, to throw off your example, was backward compatible with my NES games through an adapter.
The main reason why I want backward compatibility on the 360 is that Xbox Live makes games not lose their shelf life. I'm a big fan of King of Fighters, and I can now play 2002 and 2003 online with other people who also like the game. For me, that game isn't the type where you beat it, you're done, and then it either sits there or you sell it. That game isn't going to be released on the 360, so it is quite likely that some would want to pick it up for their 360, even if it is an "old" Xbox game.
Sure, I have an Xbox. But I'm not like some people on here who are perfectly content with a bunch of hardware, cables, and whatnot being strewn all around my home. I don't want twenty different consoles under my television. When I get a 360, I want to have one console, not two, yet still be able to play the older games that still have value.
Castlevania.... obscure?
Uhm, no. I'd consider myself a pretty big "tech" person. Yes I STILL use my PS2 as my main, and only, DVD player. Piss poor? How so? Does a great job for me, and with the Region-X disc, it'll play DVDs from any region. If a person is cares about (a) video games, and (b) next-gen video discs, then the fact that the PS3 will play Blu-Ray will be a HUGE deal. I know I can bank on the PS3; I'm not so sure I can bank on Blu-Ray. However, as I have an interest in Blu-Ray (or, really, an HD replacement for DVD in general), the fact that the PS3 plays Blu-Ray suddenly gives me a free* change to also get a Blu-Ray player, and try it out. I don't have the fear of buying a stand alone Blu-Ray player, and then having Blu-Ray die, and having a machine with no future. (* not free, but if I consider the price I paid for the PS3 as being for the gaming aspects, then technically it is free.) Look at the PSP for another angle. People purchased the PSP for gaming, but many have then gone on to pick up a UMD or two. If somebody buys a PS3, they may then say, "Hey, I can also try out that Blu-Ray stuff." Again, a means to get into trying it without having to actually invest in a Blu-Ray player. If the PS2 can do a decent job of playing DVDs, then why do I need a PS2 AND a separate DVD player? Thus, it is a useful addition. I had a stand alone DVD player when I purchased my PS2, and got rid of it, because one machine under my TV > two machines under my TV. The PS3 is going to be just as important in bringing more people to the next generation of video discs as the PS2 was doing the same for DVD.
Originally, I was on the side of Blu-Ray. But now with talk that HD-DVD will support "conrolled copies" while Blu-Ray may or may not, and that HD-DVD may not include regional encoding, I'M SO CONFUSED!
I don't like MS getting their hands into everything, so I don't want to support HD-DVD. But if Blu-Ray has region encoding when HD-DVD doesn't, and if they don't allow for controlled copies, then I don't want to support Blu-Ray.
But I want an HD video media format of SOME sort.
*sigh*
They have a perfect excuse - not wanting to have to take into account the hundreds of different possible hardware combinations the end user has. You make a game for a console, you know EXACTLY what hardware the end user has, what resolution they are running, the full power they can get from the hardware, etc.
If I were making games, I'd have no interest whatsoever in having to deal with making games for the PC. But, then again, I'm a console gamer anyhow, so I'd have no interest in making PC games before that point anyway.
Here's a crazy idea: if you don't like the idea, don't play the game. Everything then magically works out fine.
In Japan, this game is getting a LOT of casual and female gamers into the DS, which is good for Nintendo and good for the DS and good for gaming. These are people who never would have played games before, maybe because they didn't find them interesting or were intimidated by them. My girlfriend, for example, fell in love with Nintendogs the moment she saw it, and wants a DS now. Because of that interest, she's been paying a bit more attention to other DS games: she also wants Pac Pics, and she gets a kick out of Ouendan.
I'm not hoping for her to become a hardcore gamer or anything, but I like that she now has some interest in it, so that we have another thing we can share together.
Don't people usually bitch that the iPod is MISSING features? Which one is it?
Anyhow, I wasn't too keen on the headphone jack on the bottom either, until somebody pointed something out. I'm the type that usually puts their iPod in their back pocket or something. With the headphone jack on the bottom, reach into your pocket, pull out the iPod nano, and it is already right side up in your hand. So, hey.
I own both, and very much like both. I wasn't clear enough in what I was saying; yes, the PSP does indeed support that feature. The problem is, as most PSP gamers are much more complex than your typical DS game, I'm not sure that most PSP games CAN do multi-player off of one copy. You're not going to be able to do things like PSP Need for Speed, Madden, and so on. Simpler stuff like puzzle games and whatnot should have no problem, but even though game so far have shown little support for the feature. That's why I'm giving more credit to the DS in this regard - the option is here now, and because the DS is lower-tech, more games are going to be able to use this feature. I would LOVE it if the PSP could do game sharing on the level of the DS, but I just don't think it is technically possible with a lot of the big games.
The new PS2 is small, yet when you add the controllers, multi-player adapter, cables, and whatnot, it ends up taking a decent amount of room. That was my point - the unit is small AND for full use of the system, it doesn't eat up much room.
I have one, and three of my friends already have one. My girlfriend absolutely wants one. Once the online stuff like Mario Kart and Animal Crossing come out, more of my friends plan to get one. I think that with the cost of the new consoles - $400 if you want a decent Xbox 360, possibly the same price for the PS3, games projected to be $60 or more - handhelds are going to be more and more attractive to people. They are small, don't take up much room, don't require a TV, and can be played anywhere. They are far cheaper, great games for the DS are usually $20 ~ $30, and with the ability to play multi-player off of one copy of the game, you don't have to buy a bunch of games in order to play them with friends. The DS is really taking off in Japan (I just got back from there and saw the evidence myself), and with the great library of games coming out from now until Christmas, it will certainly pick up over here (though it already is doing pretty good). The PSP isn't doing bad itself, and if the choice of a new system comes down between the PSP and the PS3, I think more people than you might expect will turn to the PSP instead.
It would really have been nice had they given a bit more information about these games - some can be played with only one copy of the game, others require each person having their own copy.
That, however, is by far the biggest strength of the DS, and the feature that, to me, puts it far above the PSP when it comes to multi-player gaming: multiple players off of one copy of a game. There are many times when your friends would play a game, but don't like it enough to own it. Or, the other way around, where you don't want to buy a specific game, but still enjoy playing it multi-player.
One of my friends picked up Bomberman, and now we can all play together off of his copy, and it is great fun. Sure, the PSP has fancy "console-quality" graphics and whatnot, but when I have a copy of X game and nobody else does I'm still just sitting there playing it by myself.
As well, while I'm certainly not the type to say things like "games used to be better in the old days!" and whatnot, most of the games for the DS are fun yet simple games that can easily be understood and played, and can be enjoyed by almost anybody, gamer or not. My girlfriend, for example, isn't overly thrilled by my PSP, but nearly every one of my DS games she's played she has loved.
I'm almost glad the system isn't a 3D powerhouse, because instead companies seem to be concerning themselves with making a game that is fun instead of a game that pushes the graphics but forgets about the gameplay. I think the PSP and DS actually compliment each other, instead of directly compete, and that's the best possible scenario in my opinion.
What exactly does "more easily" mean? DVD compatibility will be in every Blu Ray player, and the end user - you - won't see any difference.