• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Could Vita still be alive today if it launched with a game as successful as BotW?

Z

ZombiePlatypus

Member
Switch and Vita fascinate me together as they feel similar yet so different. Despite their level of power, I feel like I wanted very different things from them. (Console level games in handheld mode felt redundant to me on Vita cause Sony already had a PS3 out, whereas it feels just fine on the Switch since Switch IS the console, and the handheld.) But, I suspect I'm in the minority here. Maybe it didn't resonate with others due to other issues.

It certainly feels like Sony just put it out there to fend for itself and die out. Even with the stupid memory cards or lack of continuous, strong marketing, I feel like if it had launched with a game that excited people the way BotW does, things might be different now.

Then again, as awesome as BotW is, maybe it wouldn't be as massive if it didn't have Switch's hybrid features offered. Thoughts?
 
6

60EffPeeEss

Member
Gravity Rush was excellent on release. I definitely feel that console-like games can definitely exist on it. Just not many actually were developed for it, or were good.
 
C

Chalupa Batman

Member
Gravity Rush and Uncharted: Golden Abyss were awesome but it didn't matter because that was almost literally all the support Sony gave it. The Vita's failure is entirely on Sony not caring about it.
 
P

paulogy

Member
The difference is Switch launched as the most powerful Nintendo console available. Vita never was for PlayStation, but it did launch with the following games:
  • Escape Plan (PSN Only)
  • Hot Shots Golf: World Invitational.
  • Hustle Kings (PSN Only)
  • Little Deviants.
  • ModNation Racers: Road Trip.
  • Super StarDust Delta (PSN only)
  • UNCHARTED: Golden Abyss.
  • wipEout 2048

    (and others)
That said, the Vita is still alive now, 5 years later. It's too early to tell how well Switch will do after this great start. Ask again 5 years from now :)
 
K

keidashxd

Member
A console without first party support it's a dead console, I love the machine for indies but all of Vita happy owners are a minority.

It's by far my most played machine last year (100 + hours in Nuclear Throne).
 
C

commish

Jason Kidd murdered my dog in cold blood!
Switch and Vita are pretty different. I don't know why people are acting like the native ability to play on a TV is not a big deal. You can't really compare the systems just because you can take them with you if you want. There are some pretty big differences.
 
N

night814

Member
Vita needed lots of games both big and small, instead we got a bunch of games of varying quality the first year and not much aside from indie games that were available everywhere. I'd love to get one for P4G but it's not worth it for me.
 
Danny Dudekisser

Danny Dudekisser

I paid good money for this Dynex!
No, I don't think so. The problem was that there was no buzz around the hardware itself. Nobody really asked for the Vita, and I don't think consumers really knew who it was for once it launched. It did have some big name games and, despite the lackluster quality of most of Sony's bigger budget efforts, they probably would've moved the needle a lot more than they did if there was any excitement around the system itself.
 
IlGialloMondadori

IlGialloMondadori

Member
Chalupa Batman said:
Gravity Rush and Uncharted: Golden Abyss were awesome but it didn't matter because that was almost literally all the support Sony gave it. The Vita's failure is entirely on Sony not caring about it.
Click to expand...
Gravity Rush and Golden Abyss were good, but nowhere near Breath of the Wild. I loved these games and my Vita, but nothing came close to Zelda.

That being said, the Vita's death is all on Sony's shoulders. It should still be alive today and doing great, but Sony didn't give it a chance.
 
A

Alienous

Member
Nah. Sony's divided attention would have killed it anyway - no killer app would have been enough, or too far from a PS3/PS4 port.
 
PAULINK

PAULINK

I microwave steaks.
It had golden abyss, which was not only the best uncharted behind uncharted 1, but a way more rounded game than breath of the wild.
 
S

Sumio Mondo

Member
Chalupa Batman said:
Gravity Rush and Uncharted: Golden Abyss were awesome but it didn't matter because that was almost literally all the support Sony gave it.
Click to expand...

Eh, off the top of my head, there was also Tearaway, LittleBigPlanet Vita, Freedom Wars, Soul Sacrifice (and Delta), Destiny of Spirits and Killzone: Mercenary. Wasn't really a fan of any of those series but the support was kinda there, not as much as there should have been (like with Nintendo who go all out with their handhelds) but it wasn't as non-existent as some would lead to think.
 
F

Finale Fireworker

Member
I love my Vitas and will continue to play them for many years. I have a backlog on the system almost a hundred games deep and it's still my preferred system to play lots of kinds of games on.

But the technology just wasn't there. Without the full button range and the extra power, the Vita could never truly accomplish what the Switch will.

Vita's accomplishments are wonderful in their own right, but the Switch delivers what the Vita promised. Likewise, the Switch currently doesn't satisfy me as a handheld enthusiast because it lacks the smaller, solid form factor. If a Switch Mini comes out, I'll say the Vita has been officially succeeded. Until then, both give me different things right now, even if their intentions were the same.
 
T

Tapejara

Member
I think the Vita launch/launch-window line up was pretty strong as is, but even if it there had been a BoTW-tier game I doubt it would have made much difference in the long run. The high price of the the system itself (compared to the 3DS), as well as the high price of memory cards would have still turned away buyers.
 
N

Ninja Scooter

Member
No because realistically if Sony had their own "Breath of them wild" it would have been on PS3/ps4. The distinction that the Vita was a secondary product for Sony while the Switch is Nintendo's primary product is not something you can just handwave away for the sake of trying to force some narrative about similarities between the two.
 
Kilau

Kilau

Gold Member
I still wonder if things would have turned out differently if they had called it the PSP2 and not Vita.
 
Flying Toaster

Flying Toaster

Member
I love the vita. The Switch knocked one out because people were ready for new Nintendo hardware. BoTW helped but a lot of people are ready for something past the WiiU.
 
T

True Fire

Member
BotW was a two prong approach. It was a part of a popular series, and it was the de facto, technologically advanced sequel. It wasn't a spin-off or a cheap sequel.

What game does Sony have in its arsenal that could have saved the Vita? Uncharted 3? The Last of Us?
 
I

Imbarkus

As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
Reasonably priced removable storage would have made the difference if you ask me.
 
D

Doctor_Thomas

Member
You need to remember that Switch is all Nintendo has. Zelda is on it because there's nowhere else it can go. For Sony, if it comes down to their handheld or the home console, the home console wins every time. That's why the Vita is gone and it's why Nintendo has a hybrid. It's just no effective to support two platforms anymore for anyone.
 
K

Kill3r7

Member
Principate said:
Yeah vita never stood a chance. Loss of MH ended up an relatively unexpected significant blow.
Click to expand...

Partially this. I don't know if it would have made a difference in the US but I would imagine in Japan launching with MH would have been a huge deal. Portable consoles in the US are a strange market to predict. Let's not forget that the SWITCH doubles up as a console.
 
V

Ventara

Member
It's hard to say, as if there was a game like BotW, maybe it would have been more successful early on and Sony would have marketed it more (which imo, the lack of is what put the final nail in the coffin). But in the end, I don't think so. One of the things that the Switch has that Vita doesn't is that it's being marketed as a home console that can go portable, while Vita is a straight up portable. I feel that as a handheld-only console, people have this perception that the games are lower quality and not worth the full $60 price, something the Switch doesn't have to deal with. There's also the fact that it uses proprietary memory cards, which a lot of the core gaming audience hated, and thus failing to really take off with that crowd.

So what I think is that negative public perception of portable games with the casual market and core gaming market, as well as proprietary memory cards, and Sony abandoning it like a Lizard ditching it's tail, is what killed the Vita. A great game like BotW would have just been ported to PS4 eventually, like how Gravity Rush did.
 
Yautja_Warrior

Yautja_Warrior

Member
If only Sony would have priced the memory cards at a reasonable price and done more to support it (1st party) then it would still probably be more alive still now.

Thankfully indie games and Henkaku has given a bit of new life to the Vita.
 
C

ChronotriggerJM

Member
Ninja Scooter said:
No because realistically if Sony had their own "Breath of them wild" it would have been on PS3/ps4. The distinction that the Vita was a secondary product for Sony while the Switch is Nintendo's primary product is not something you can just handwave away for the sake of trying to force some narrative about similarities between the two.
Click to expand...

This. I love the Vita to pieces, but when it's the side project you'll never throw your might behind it.

It's a great indie device, and easy to port to. It can stay that way. Maybe soon we'll get a Ps4 portable when the dies shrink.
 
J

JimJamJones

Member
PAULINK said:
It had golden abyss, which was not only the best uncharted behind uncharted 1, but a way more rounded game than breath of the wild.
Click to expand...

LaJ9Kmo.gif
 
P

Principate

Saint Titanfall
Kill3r7 said:
Partially this. I don't know if it would have made a difference in the US but I would imagine in Japan launching with MH would have been a huge deal. Portable consoles in the US are a strange market to predict. Let's not forget that the SWITCH doubles up as a console.
Click to expand...

Yeah the US clearly doesn't particular like handhelds since the switch sold almost the 5 months worth of the 3DS in it's first month while costing $50 more.
 
BigTnaples

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Maybe.


Side bar note I left my launch Vita, case, 64 MB card,like 4 game carts, and like 5 3DS games all in a hotel over the weekend.


Fuck. Me.
 
C

commish

Jason Kidd murdered my dog in cold blood!
TS-08 said:
But that isn't enough when discussing success of a system. Most of those games never had a chance of registering with the market in a significant way.
Click to expand...

Principate said:
And didn't sell particularly well in the west. The most important part (hell you could throw in worldwide for most of them).
Click to expand...

Didn't sell well because the system had a host of issues.
 
L

Lord of Ostia

Member
Principate said:
And didn't sell particularly well in the west. The most important part (hell you could throw in worldwide for most of them).
Click to expand...
Not because of their quality. Most of those games released after Sony had basically given up on the handheld, so games like Killzone and Tearaway never received the marketing push they deserved. Oreshika was even digital only, despite being a Sony published title.
 
N

Ninja Scooter

Member
Kilau said:
I still wonder if things would have turned out differently if they had called it the PSP2 and not Vita.
Click to expand...

You honestly think a name change would have mattered? Like honestly? People who loved PSP somehow didn't know what the Vita was because it was called Vita?
 
N

night814

Member
Nintendo cornered the market on devs interested in handheld development, if someone like squarenix or Bamco had put a well made original game on the thing it would have definitely moved more units.

While the games on the Vita were praised for what they did, they missed big franchises that weren't Sony owned. No final fantasy/dragon quest anything, no tales, no monster hunter. The generation before Vita was all about Japanese devs pushing the PSP/ds hardware to the max and trying new things, the Vita was full of old ideas and empty promises. Anyone remember the e3 they announced major support for the Vita but announced no games?
 
K

Kill3r7

Member
Memento said:
Vita launch line up was better than Switch's, so... no.
Click to expand...

BernardoOne said:
Vita had a better launch line-up than the Switch did. It didn't help much.
Click to expand...

Based on what quantity? I mean Zelda single handily outsold the entire launch lineup of the Vita.

Principate said:
Yeah the US clearly doesn't particular like handhelds since the switch sold almost the 5 months worth of the 3DS in it's first month while costing $50 more.
Click to expand...

The Switch is a console. It hooks up the TV. The fact that it is portable is wonderful but you cannot deny the appeal of it as home console.
 
P

Principate

Saint Titanfall
commish said:
Didn't sell well because the system had a host of issues.
Click to expand...

Many of which being the popularity of the software itself. Even in terrible scenarios if the interest is there software can sell. Splatoon sold over 4 million on the Wii U of all things.
 
G

ghibli99

Member
I still blame the memory cards, especially since they still cost an arm and a leg compared to all other forms of flash storage. It's like they looked at what airports were charging for the same things you can get outside an airport and added a percentage on top of that. Mobile's dominance in the handheld space at the time was also a factor, but yeah, mainly the cost of entry storage-wise. Good point above about it being treated as a second tier system vs. Nintendo who approaches their console and handheld products rather discretely. That being said, I still think the Vita is a great piece of hardware that has provided many hours of enjoyment for me.
 
S

Steve Youngblood

Member
Ninja Scooter said:
No because realistically if Sony had their own "Breath of them wild" it would have been on PS3/ps4. The distinction that the Vita was a secondary product for Sony while the Switch is Nintendo's primary product is not something you can just handwave away for the sake of trying to force some narrative about similarities between the two.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I mean if there was a direct handheld successor to the 3DS that launched now instead of the Switch, I don't think Nintendo would have launched Breath of the Wild on that device either. I think people that think that Sony or MS could easily thrive with a Switch-like device are ignoring that Nintendo is kind of in a unique position to take one last stand in this sort of in-between sector of the marketplace. Sony's Breath of the Wild-type game is something like Horizon which benefits greatly from targeting high-end graphics. It doesn't work as a Vita/PS4 cross platform title.
 
S

Soph

Member
Senran Kagura Estival is a title which the Switch can't compete with, BOTW is just not deep and lewd enough. Although that
crossdressing
bit... hmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A handheld Xbox? Microsoft’s gaming chief can’t stop thinking about it
2 3
113
6K
Reallink replied
Should I, as someone who started zelda with botw, play the older games? will I still like them?
2
63
4K
Mozzarella replied
If Xbox goes third party, how this is affecting you?
Opinion Drama Rumor 2 3 4 5
226
9K
RGB'D replied
Switch 2 will "likely be an iteration rather than a revolution" and launch at $400, according to a Tokyo-based game industry consultancy firm
Business Analysis 2 3 4 5 6
280
20K
thatJohann replied
Nintendo Switch 2 Discussion Thread
2 3
146
11K
Celcius replied
Top Bottom