[Bukana]

UPDATE:
Sony registers Vita domain:
http://whois.domaintools.com/battleroyalthegamevita.com

If the LinkedIn C.V of Sony employee Robert Krekel is anything to go by then SuperBot Entertainment’s PlayStation All-Stars: Battle Royale is also in development for PlayStation Vita. Robert, a sound designer with SCEA, lists PlayStation All-Stars: Battle Royale for PS3 and Vita under “Current Project”. Robert’s previous projects include Starhawk and Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception.

Source

[Mileena]

MORE PORTS?

[dragonflys545]

BOSS! Oh man cross-play would be crazy!

[we.are.the.armada]

Cross play online between PS3/Vita would be cool.

[Kaako]

Cross play should be a must for this.

[DMeisterJ]

Smart idea.

[chris.trejo]

Hell yes!

[Bukana]

MORE PORTS?

And what's wrong with that!?

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Been called this.

[PSFan]

Fuck yeah :D

[Kusagari]

Meh.

I bought a Vita for new games, not downgraded PS3 ports.

[Thoraxes]

"Shocking News"

[Carl]

A local multiplayer party fighting game on a portable...

...okay.

[disco]

I guess they err beat Nintendo to cross-play Smash Bros...

[Chesskid1]

so many fighting games on vita. sadly for me i dislike them, but yay vita support.

[Foffy]

I guess they err beat Nintendo to cross-play Smash Bros...

Wasn't Sakurai intending for them to be separate games with some cross functionality, though? Not the same game on two systems.

[Misterhbk]

Will buy right alongside my copy for PS3. Cross play or not, having a game like this on the go will be awesome!

[BD1]

I guess they err beat Nintendo to cross-play Smash Bros...

I don't think they ever said cross play, only that they would communicate together somehow.

EDIT: I actually think PSASBR would be better suited for a handheld. Well, maybe not better per we, but the gameplay suits the quick, pick up, play and go nature of a handheld.

[Penguin]

Makes sense, and if I was Sony would have exclusive characters in both to force people to buy bother versions.

[SteeloDMZ]

If it turns out to be a good game, then I'll definitely get it for the Vita.

[PhantomOfTheKnight]

MORE PORTS?

Meh. I bought a Vita for new games, not downgraded PS3 ports.

How are they ports if they are completely new games that haven't been released yet?

[Thoraxes]

Obviously they're developing the game with one platform being the lead platform.

[Callibretto]

Wasn't Sakurai intending for them to be separate games with some cross functionality, though? Not the same game on two systems.

from what I hear, it's seems like a ploy to force you buy both version of the game to get the complete experience. Wii U version for multiplayer playing against other people, 3DS version to build and level up your character. I don't know if it will stay that way though, it'll be stupid if 3DS version don't feature multiplayer or if the Wii U version don't feature building up your character.

[Byronic Hero]

Unless Vita gets some better exclusives then Sony isnt really selling this to people like me who have no money, but already have a ps3.

[Luigiv]

As it should be.

[Kusagari]

How are they ports if they are completely new games that haven't been released yet?

Because most people who have a PS3 and a Vita are not going to buy the game on Vita over PS3. It's pointless.

[Adr1an]

Would love a vita version hope it's true

[DMeisterJ]

ITT: people lack understanding of the definition of the word 'port'.

[TheMissingLink]

Instant purchase if true.

[Carl]

Because most people who have a PS3 and a Vita are not going to buy the game on Vita over PS3. It's pointless.

[MuseManMike]

its*

Would not hire!

[Mileena]

How are they ports if they are completely new games that haven't been released yet?

port does not equal late port


unless you're implying that PS3 isn't the lead platform... lol

[chris.trejo]

Because most people who have a PS3 and a Vita are not going to buy the game on Vita over PS3. It's pointless.

I'm getting it on Vita same with Sly 4.

[Callibretto]

Because most people who have a PS3 and a Vita are not going to buy the game on Vita over PS3. It's pointless.

what's wrong with options, some people actually like portable more than console, and it's cheaper than PS3 price to. personally, I don't have plan to buy Battle Royale on Vita because I don't know anyone who have Vita and online fighting game is a hit or miss for me. but for other game like Sly 4, I'll totally pick the Vita version over PS3 version. more options is good.

[neptunes]

I'd Imagine this was probably going to be revealed at e3, just make it cross-platform Sony

Because most people who have a PS3 and a Vita are not going to buy the game on Vita over PS3. It's pointless.

Not Everyone

[MasterSheen]

from what I hear, it's seems like a ploy to force you buy both version of the game to get the complete experience. Wii U version for multiplayer playing against other people, 3DS version to build and level up your character. I don't know if it will stay that way though, it'll be stupid if 3DS version don't feature multiplayer or if the Wii U version don't feature building up your character.

I thinks its more that the 3DS version will be more single player oriented and the Wii U version more multiplayer focus, not that they will be lacking these features.

[Kusagari]

what's wrong with options, some people actually like portable more than console, and it's cheaper than PS3 price to. personally, I don't have plan to buy Battle Royale on Vita because I don't know anyone who have Vita and online fighting game is a hit or miss for me. but for other game like Sly 4, I'll totally pick the Vita version over PS3 version. more options is good.

I somewhat agree with you. I can see the appeal of something like Sly on Vita over PS3. But this, no I can't. It's a multiplayer game designed for playing with others. I have no idea why anyone would rather buy it on Vita.

It's the exact same reason anyone hoping CoD Vita will blowup is fooling themselves, unless it's a unique game.

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Wait...was the Vita version not already confirmed?

I thought I remember reading somewhere that it was coming to both...

[GopherD]

Man cross-play on this would be brilliant!

Edit: dammit smith, don't show up my incompetence! ;p

[SmithnCo]

Man cross-plat on this would be brilliant!

Cross-play and cross-plat would be great. (Two platinum trophies, lol)

A perfect way for them to show off how you can play online with both Vita and PS3 users.

Because most people who have a PS3 and a Vita are not going to buy the game on Vita over PS3. It's pointless.

Still, the idea of playing a game on a console then picking it back up of the portable is pretty appealing for a lot of people. Plus Vita needs all the support it can get.

[KevinCow]

The title of this thread annoys me. I don't understand why it says "Coming to (Vita/PS3)" instead of just "Coming to Vita/PS3". That's not what parentheses are for. They are entirely unnecessary. Hell, it could really just be "Coming to Vita" because we all already know it's coming to PS3.

Complaints about the awkward thread title aside, this is cool but not surprising.

[Zoibie]

More games for the Vita is always good. I just hope Sony doesn't waste too much time at E3 on the inevitable cross-platform stage demo (seriously Sony, we get it.)

[GopherD]

I somewhat agree with you. I can see the appeal of something like Sly on Vita over PS3. But this, no I can't. It's a multiplayer game designed for playing with others. I have no idea why anyone would rather buy it on Vita. It's the exact same reason anyone hoping CoD Vita will blowup is fooling themselves, unless it's a unique game.

Gotta love armchair analysts. Here's a tip: what applies to you may not apply to me. In this case especially.

There are a number of gamers with families who spend more time on handheld than stuck on a couch.

[Bukana]

The title of this thread annoys me. I don't understand why it says "Coming to (Vita/PS3)" instead of just "Coming to Vita/PS3". That's not what parentheses are for. They are entirely unnecessary. Hell, it could really just be "Coming to Vita" because we all already know it's coming to PS3. Complaints about the awkward thread title aside, this is cool but not surprising.

Hhahahha, true, I wrote an another title and forgot to change this, though it supposed to catch your attention.

[ShockingAlberto]

This was a no-duh and I am flabbergasted it wasn't announced with the game.

[Ninja Scooter]

MORE PORTS?

Sony's answer to the $0.99 iGames is $100 PS games. It's no wonder this company is going under.

[kuroshiki]

Some people here don't understand what port is.

Really. What a shame.

[Kusagari]

Gotta love armchair analysts. Here's a tip: what applies to you may not apply to me. In this case especially. There are a number of gamers with families who spend more time on handheld than stuck on a couch.

You're being just as much of an armchair analyst by assuming there's 'a number of gamers with families who spend more time on handheld than stuck on a couch'. When all of these Vita games with PS3 versions sell bad we'll see who's right.

And I really doubt there are a lot of families who own Vita's.

[Dark_AnNiaLatOr]

I think there are just too many variables to analyze sales of the Vita/PS3 ecosystem.

[enzo_gt]

Vita could really use this to buff up it's catalog.