[Mario007]

They need to treat the Vita no different than they do the PS3 with developer support and marketing money. Nintendo has always treated their consoles and handhelds with equal respect and sales reflect this.

I agree with this. Things like Nihlistic doing a debut FPS game for the platform simply cannot happen again.

[yellowjacket25]

I'll give Sony some credit, there are plenty of Sony-published games on Vita already: Uncharted, Hot Shots Golf, Wipeout, Resistance, Unit 13, Gravity Rush; plus LittleBigPlanet and PSASBR on the way. But it's still not enough. Bottom line is: For the Vita to be successful, I think Sony will need to push the Vita like they pushed the PS3.

I agree with this. Sony does need to keep bringing quality software to the system at a fairly consistent rate. If they keep doing that, and then they have a price drop and/or hardware refresh then you will probably see the system start to build some momentum. I really don't think Sony is just going to let it die like most here seem to think.

[jman2050]

Were third parties completely 100% on board with the PSP? Was/is the PSP a failure?

To start, yes. To the second question, I guess it depends on your point of view, but in my view Sony got a lot of systems out there, which is positive, but sold almost no software on the thing, which isn't. Not to mention the whole piracy thing which I think a lot of people just sort of shrug off.

I agree with this. Sony does need to keep bringing quality software to the system at a fairly consistent rate. If they keep doing that, and then they have a price drop and/or hardware refresh then you will probably see the system start to build some momentum. I really don't think Sony is just going to let it die like most here seem to think.

I don't think Sony can really do anything about it without hoping for outside help. It's not like they WANT it to fail.

[Dynopia]

So all this talk about sony being fine with Vita sales .. and they adjust down 4m. Right.

Any word on the splits? Amazed they're allowed to do that in the first place.

[Mario007]

So all this talk about sony being fine with Vita sales .. and they adjust down 4m. Right. Any word on the splits? Amazed they're allowed to do that in the first place.

There's a difference between adjusting the predictions on a number of sales and adjusting the predictions on profits. Profits influence the bottom line of the company, number of sales doesn't.

[Dynopia]

There's a difference between adjusting the predictions on a number of sales and adjusting the predictions on profits. Profits influence the bottom line of the company, number of sales doesn't.

Yeah? Why are you telling me this.

[Father_Brain]

Also Vita is designed for quick cost-cutting, as stated by Sony so that will help too.

They can't cut costs quickly unless the system is selling in sufficient quantities for the economy of scale to kick in, which is probably not the case at the moment.

I really don't think Sony is just going to let it die like most here seem to think.

The problem with the wording "let it die" is that it assumes there's some action or actions Sony could plausibly take that would get hardware to move at a healthy rate, and that skeptics like me believe that Sony would absurdly choose not to take said actions.

In fact, the existence of such actions is what most of us doubt.

[Dalthien]

They are a two team studio and until last year we could live with one ND team making one game at the time. How did we do that? Yes, I'd rather see what one of the two teams can do on the Vita because PS4 isn't even announced yet and there will be time for U4. We just got 2 Uncharted games.

That's the really bizarre and confounding part of this.

What's the purpose of Last of Us? From a company standpoint - there really isn't one. There's no need for a big title to release on PS3 half-a-year before the system is replaced by the PS4. The PS3 has tons of 3rd-party stuff coming right through the launch of the PS4, so there's no need to fill in software gaps. And nobody's trying to build momentum for a system that is being replaced in a few months.

But Sony absolutely has a very strong interest in getting strong software support for its brand new system during the first year or two. It really doesn't make any sense that Sony didn't put its premiere studio at work on a Vita game in the early part of Vita's life instead of working on a new IP that won't come out until the end of the PS3's life.

Put the ND team to work on a Vita project - and as soon as that Vita project is finished, let them start work on Last of Us as an early PS4 title. It's such a ridiculously obvious use of their resources that you can't help but realize Vita is just far, far less important to Sony than either the PS3 or PS4.

[iammeiam]

I agree with this. Things like Nihlistic doing a debut FPS game for the platform simply cannot happen again.

Which is what is making the Nihilistic CoD rumors extra scary (have they been confirmed yet? Or still just random Internet people 'confirming'?)--Nihilistic may be the best Vita can get, even with AAA IP. It isn't as big a thing for Japan, but it sort if cements Vita as fucked in the west.

[FoneBone]

That's the really bizarre and confounding part of this. What's the purpose of Last of Us? From a company standpoint - there really isn't one. There's no need for a big title to release on PS3 half-a-year before the system is replaced by the PS4. The PS3 has tons of 3rd-party stuff coming right through the launch of the PS4, so there's no need to fill in software gaps. And nobody's trying to build momentum for a system that is being replaced in a few months. But Sony absolutely has a very strong interest in getting strong software support for its brand new system during the first year or two. It really doesn't make any sense that Sony didn't put its premiere studio at work on a Vita game in the early part of Vita's life instead of working on a new IP that won't come out until the end of the PS3's life. Put the ND team to work on a Vita project - and as soon as that Vita project is finished, let them start work on Last of Us as an early PS4 title. It's such a ridiculously obvious use of their resources that you can't help but realize Vita is just far, far less important to Sony than either the PS3 or PS4.

What this guy said:

There are going to be people who are going to latch on to any Vita E3 news - from Trophy tweets to PS1 emulation getting turned on - as a turning point for the system. I'll go ahead and say, as a Vita owner, what would actually qualify as Sony getting their head in the game is an understanding that they can't draw a line between console developers and handheld developers anymore. That's going to cause people who only like consoles to grit their teeth at the thought that Sony is wasting huge talent on a small screen, but if they want to save the Vita, it has to be done. This is going to make me hugely unpopular, but Last of Us should not exist. Sony was launching new hardware, their premiere developer was assembling a new team, a Sony executive should have immediately drawn a straight line between the two. Instead, they're putting a new IP on what is soon to be a legacy system in a year or two. It wasn't smart and it may tighten the pants of gamers (I'm definitely going to play it despite being disappointed in UC3), but it hung their hardware out to dry. Maybe the reason Sony first party is so critically acclaimed is because they don't watch over their developers' shoulders, though they did change what eventually became Uncharted from a fantasy game to a shooter to compete with Gears so that may not be strictly true. But if they want to make their handheld succeed, they need to start giving orders. Consumers see "Feels like a made for TV movie" on reviews for a non-Naughty Dog Uncharted and it confirms their fears. For all the shit they get for it, reviewers saying "It's another Mario Kart" is exactly what most people want to hear. tl;dr For me to say Sony is making things competitive, they need to do more than lip service about bringing the console experience to handhelds. The console experience is about more than just nice graphics on a nice screen.

[Dalthien]

What this guy said:

Oh wow - it's kind of eerie just how similar his comments are to what I was thinking with respect to Last of Us!

Well - full props to ShockingAlberto - he beat me to it. :)

[test_account]

So all this talk about sony being fine with Vita sales .. and they adjust down 4m. Right. Any word on the splits? Amazed they're allowed to do that in the first place.

Allowed by who? What matters the much is the income/losses.

Which is what is making the Nihilistic CoD rumors extra scary (have they been confirmed yet? Or still just random Internet people 'confirming'?)--Nihilistic may be the best Vita can get, even with AAA IP. It isn't as big a thing for Japan, but it sort if cements Vita as fucked in the west.

The Nihilistic rumor is just speculation based on nothing. Well, there was one guy who claimed he knew someone i think, but from what i saw, he never followed up with any reply when people asked him more about it.

[-Pyromaniac-]

I don't understand. What's the point of the Last of Us you ask? Maybe the point is to milk the big audience one last time before next-gen begins.

[jman2050]

I don't understand. What's the point of the Last of Us you ask? Maybe the point is to milk the big audience one last time before next-gen begins.

They could have just made another quick Uncharted game if they were going for that.

[Dalthien]

I don't understand. What's the point of the Last of Us you ask? Maybe the point is to milk the big audience one last time before next-gen begins.

Not with a new IP. If the purpose was milking - then you stick with a proven brand at the end of a generation.

[test_account]

The developement of The Last of Us started after Uncharted 2 shipped in late 2009. The Vita was first announced in January 2011, and released nearly a year later. When the developement for The Last Of Us started, the Vita was probably still in the idea phase.

[Dalthien]

The developement of The Last of Us started after Uncharted 2 shipped in late 2009. The Vita was first announced in January 2011, and released nearly a year later. When the developement for The Last Of Us started, the Vita was probably still in the idea phase.

So then once you get to late 2010 and you know pretty much what your plans are with Vita, you put Last of Us on hold (knowing full-well that the game isn't even remotely close to being finished at that point) and start them on the Vita project. Then they jump back into Last of Us afterwards and get it ready for an early PS4 title - which just also happens to be the ideal time to launch a new IP.

[gundamkyoukai]

The developement of The Last of Us started after Uncharted 2 shipped in late 2009. The Vita was first announced in January 2011, and released nearly a year later. When the developement for The Last Of Us started, the Vita was probably still in the idea phase.

Plus the guys at ND want to make a new IP , the whole point of ND second team was to keep the guys there happy and stop them from leaving .
The last thing your going to do is force them to make a handheld game if they don't want to .

[-Pyromaniac-]

They could have just made another quick Uncharted game if they were going for that.

that risks over-saturating the brand, why not try a new IP, and possibly a new series in the long run. Build a fan-base on the big PS3 audience and then make a sequel to last of us for the PS4 and reap the benefits.

Not with a new IP. If the purpose was milking - then you stick with a proven brand at the end of a generation.

like I said, not everything is call of duty, over-saturation could happen. And the best way to try to create a new series is by using a big audience and well established developer. Naughty Dog speaks for itself these days. With proper marketing I would think this is far from a gamble. More like a calculated move. Milk the base now, establish the IP, then do it again on the next-gen console. Much less risk/gambling.

[yurinka]

Its a problem if you think that every device should have one or two pieces of software that completely drive the platform. I'm not sure Sony thinks that way. If they did then the PSP, Vita and maybe the PS3 would have never existed.

In Sony consoles the SW sales have been spreaded between a lot of games, they have been less polarized in some few series.
They never needed certain particular game to drive the console sales.
If something, I'd they had to wait for pricecuts and a more extensive library consisting in a ton of not that bigseller important IPs that cover a lot of markets.

[Loghorn150]

I'm not the one who has to fix Sony's problems, I'm just trying to acknowledge what the problems are. They live and die by third party support. This isn't news, and this likely won't change in the near future.

This. The PS1 & the PS2 were hugely successful because of the huge 3rd party support along with a ton of 3rd party exclusives for them, as well as the DVD player being inside PS2's.

Now, with all of the big named 3rd party games being multiplatformed with Xbox 360, & soon to be multiplatform with Wii U as well, what does Sony have left? Nothing.

[allan-bh]

Uncharted is Gears level ip.

Of course not.

[-Pyromaniac-]

This. The PS1 & the PS2 were hugely successful because of the huge 3rd party support along with a ton of 3rd party exclusives for them, as well as the DVD player being inside PS2's. Now, with all of the big named 3rd party games being multiplatformed with Xbox 360, & soon to be multiplatform with Wii U as well, what does Sony have left? Nothing.

it's ridiculous to think Sony's large stable of first/second party exclusives doesn't help them a lot. That's what they have. That and free online, and whatever other differentiators they can think of. "nothing" is a big an overstatement if I ever heard one.

[Sean]

That's the really bizarre and confounding part of this. What's the purpose of Last of Us? From a company standpoint - there really isn't one. There's no need for a big title to release on PS3 half-a-year before the system is replaced by the PS4. The PS3 has tons of 3rd-party stuff coming right through the launch of the PS4, so there's no need to fill in software gaps. And nobody's trying to build momentum for a system that is being replaced in a few months. But Sony absolutely has a very strong interest in getting strong software support for its brand new system during the first year or two. It really doesn't make any sense that Sony didn't put its premiere studio at work on a Vita game in the early part of Vita's life instead of working on a new IP that won't come out until the end of the PS3's life. Put the ND team to work on a Vita project - and as soon as that Vita project is finished, let them start work on Last of Us as an early PS4 title. It's such a ridiculously obvious use of their resources that you can't help but realize Vita is just far, far less important to Sony than either the PS3 or PS4.

I imagine this was Sony's plan for Naughty Dog:

1) Release Last of Us as their big holiday 2012 game. Sell it to a PS3 userbase of ~65 million rather than starting from scratch.
2) Put Last of Us team to work on a sequel for 2014 (PS4's one year anniversary)
3) Uncharted 4 would be the PS3's launch (2013) game, then the two ND teams would alternate releases each year. Last of Us 2 in 2014, Uncharted 5 in 2015, etc.

Obviously things didn't pan out that way though.

[Dalthien]

With proper marketing I would think this is far from a gamble. More like a calculated move.

I never said it was a gamble. But it's a poor use of resources - unless the Vita is only viewed as a secondary system. In that case, why use up precious resources on Vita? But if Sony is serious about making Vita every bit as important as PS3/PS4 - then there is no justification for working on a new IP at the end of the PS3 life instead of working on an early title to help build up your important new platform.

If Vita really isn't nearly as important to Sony as PS3/PS4, then Last of Us makes more sense.

I imagine this was Sony's plan for Naughty Dog: 1) Release Last of Us as their big holiday 2012 game. Sell it to a PS3 userbase of ~65 million rather than starting from scratch. 2) Put Last of Us team to work on a sequel for 2014 (PS4's one year anniversary) 3) Uncharted 4 would be the PS3's launch (2013) game, then the two ND teams would alternate releases each year. Last of Us 2 in 2014, Uncharted 5 in 2015, etc. Obviously things didn't pan out that way though.

Yeah, that doesn't seem unreasonable. But it also again shows a pretty clear pecking order about which systems are more/less important to Sony.

[lunchwithyuzo]

So then once you get to late 2010 and you know pretty much what your plans are with Vita, you put Last of Us on hold (knowing full-well that the game isn't even remotely close to being finished at that point) and start them on the Vita project. Then they jump back into Last of Us afterwards and get it ready for an early PS4 title - which just also happens to be the ideal time to launch a new IP.

Or you just shift Last of Us from PS3 to Vita, like Japan Studio did with Gravity Daze.

[Canis lupus]

^Huh? I believe they said from the beginning TLOU would either be Q4 12 or early next year. I dont think we'll see UC4 from the other team. I imagine they would start with something new on the next console.

[gundamkyoukai]

Or you just shift Last of Us from PS3 to Vita, like Japan Studio did with Gravity Daze.

Then you won't make back your budget and the game would have to be rework from the ground up .
I will say this sometimes you can't force devs to do what they don't want to if you want to keep the talent .

[test_account]

So then once you get to late 2010 and you know pretty much what your plans are with Vita, you put Last of Us on hold (knowing full-well that the game isn't even remotely close to being finished at that point) and start them on the Vita project. Then they jump back into Last of Us afterwards and get it ready for an early PS4 title - which just also happens to be the ideal time to launch a new IP.

It sounds good, but i'm not sure if it is that easy, to just put a project that big on ice for a year and resume it later on. I'm glad that Sony continues to make new PS3 games.

Plus the guys at ND want to make a new IP , the whole point of ND second team was to keep the guys there happy and stop them from leaving . The last thing your going to do is force them to make a handheld game if they don't want to .

Sounds reasonable. I can imagine that working on the same franchise only for many years in a row can get somewhat tiring.

[OldJadedGamer]

it's ridiculous to think Sony's large stable of first/second party exclusives doesn't help them a lot. That's what they have. That and free online, and whatever other differentiators they can think of. "nothing" is a big an overstatement if I ever heard one.

Ask people what their top 10 all time favorite PS1 and PS2 games were and you'll get list after list after list of third party game names. Only this gen did Sony make a huge push for first party titles.

Sony first party games are the middle ground, not poor but nothing mind blowing either. Then there are titles that used to be big like Gran Turismo that has had its sales go down with each mainline release. The last game that really pushed hardware was MGS4 and that's not even first party. I can't remember the last time there was a obvious hardware bump on the release of a first party game.

They are good quality but it is a steady stream and nothing really stands out. Had something like inFamous never been released I don't think a lot of PS3 owners would have noticed. Same with a few other games like Resistance.

[-Pyromaniac-]

I never said it was gamble. But it's a poor use of resources - unless the Vita is only viewed as a secondary system. In that case, why use up precious resources on Vita? But if Sony is serious about making Vita every bit as important as PS3/PS4 - then there is no justification for working on a new IP at the end of the PS3 life instead of working on an early title to help build up your important new platform.

how is creating a new IP that has low risk potential to become another big IP for one of Sony's best developers a poor use of resources? It seems like an excellent use of resources. I sympathize for the lack of Vita games, but to question the existence of certain titles because the lack of titles for the Vita is pushing in my opinion. It carries too many assumptions. We don't know the true timing of anything, we don't know what the Naughty Dog team wants to do, we don't know what Sony wants to do for the PS4, etc etc...

Sony cracking heads might give a vita game or two, but it increases the chance of losing key talent. Better they find Vita games elsewhere, unless Naughty Dog wants to make a vita game.

[yurinka]

Vita will die a slow and painful dead. It's over. Vita will be Sony's last attempt at handheld market. Just accept it and move on.

No. Sony made,makes and will make money with portables. And this quarter their gap with Nintendo portables isn't that big. Just accept it and move on.

Had something like inFamous never been released I don't think a lot of PS3 owners would have noticed. Same with a few other games like Resistance.

True, and this happens because PS3 users have an extensive library with a mix of both 1st and 3rd party games to appeal with several titles a lot of tastes, even if individually these games don't have huge sales.

how is creating a new IP that has low risk potential to become another big IP for one of Sony's best developers a poor use of resources? It seems like an excellent use of resources. I sympathize for the lack of Vita games, but to question the existence of certain titles because the lack of titles for the Vita is pushing in my opinion. It carries too many assumptions. We don't know the true timing of anything, we don't know what the Naughty Dog team wants to do, we don't know what Sony wants to do for the PS4, etc etc... Sony cracking heads might give a vita game or two, but it increases the chance of losing key talent. Better they find Vita games elsewhere, unless Naughty Dog wants to make a vita game.

They invested too much in PS3, so now that is profitable they should milk it before they shift the home console focus to PS4. To put these resources in Vita now would generate less money for them. Vita can wait for them because it will make money the first years without these big devs and, and unlike PS3 won't have a successor next year.

[test_account]

Sony first party games are the middle ground, not poor but nothing mind blowing either. Then there are titles that used to be big like Gran Turismo that has had its sales go down with each mainline release. The last game that really pushed hardware was MGS4 and that's not even first party. I can't remember the last time there was a obvious hardware bump on the release of a first party game.

Uncharted, God of War and Gran Turismo are all games i concider mind blowing. But this is subjective. The biggest hardware pushers for every system is always the total package. A few games alone can cause big sales bump, but it is the total package that matters the most in the long run.

[-Pyromaniac-]

Ask people what their top 10 all time favorite PS1 and PS2 games were and you'll get list after list of third party game names. Only this gen did Sony make a huge push for first party titles. Sony first party games are the middle ground, not poor but nothing mind blowing either. Then there are titles that used to be big like Gran Turismo that has had its sales go down with each mainline release. The last game that really pushed hardwaare was MGS4 and that's not even first party. I can't remember the last time there was a obvious hardware bump on the release of a first party game. They are good quality but it is a steady stream and nothing really stands out. Had something like inFamous been released I don't think a lot of PS3 owners would have noticed. Same with a few other games like Resistance.

meh. We have different opinions on what stands out. Uncharted has built a hefty audience, and God of War retains quite a large one. Gran Turismo retains quite the large audience as well. Didn't prologue alone sell almost 5 million and GT5 sell 7+ million. That seems like a stand-out title to me.

I think you're giving things too little credit. Yes they don't have that 1 OBVIOUS title that people clamor for and absolutely must have and sells tons of consoles, but they have a stable of consistent high quality games that have pretty large audiences. That is far from nothing. I was just stating how it's ridiculous to word it like that when it's hard to deny that Sony has rebounded the PS3 because of a combination of adjusted pricing and consistently high quality games. Its now become a differentiator for them. It's a feather in their hat, something that sets them apart.

[lunchwithyuzo]

Then you won't make back your budget and the game would have to be rework from the ground up .

So Gravity Daze won't make back it's budget?

Work on Vita software started in early 2010, at that point work on TLOU (which would've been mostly pre-production anyway) would've been transferable to a Vita product without too much wasted cost. More important though would've been the message this sends, that SCE would put their top team on a new Vita IP.

[Zen]

Sadly part of the problem is that it's harder to justify launching a new IP on Vita because the potential for the IP is that much greater on PS3.

[Mario007]

They can't cut costs quickly unless the system is selling in sufficient quantities for the economy of scale to kick in, which is probably not the case at the moment. The problem with the wording "let it die" is that it assumes there's some action or actions Sony could plausibly take that would get hardware to move at a healthy rate, and that skeptics like me believe that Sony would absurdly choose not to take said actions. In fact, the existence of such actions is what most of us doubt.

Re cost cutting, isn't Vita using off-the-shelf smartphone materials that would help the economy of scale?

Which is what is making the Nihilistic CoD rumors extra scary (have they been confirmed yet? Or still just random Internet people 'confirming'?)--Nihilistic may be the best Vita can get, even with AAA IP. It isn't as big a thing for Japan, but it sort if cements Vita as fucked in the west.

It's just a rumor and I doubt Activision would put their brand name to a nobody developer and I would also think that if Acti didn't want to put shitload of money into COD Vita then Sony would get their first party studio to do it and fund it.

Still confounds me how did Sony think Nihlistic was good enough for PS Move Heros and THEN they thought they could put them on Resistance.

Of course not.

They are about the same. Gears is bigger in the US and you might be basing your view off the NDP but Uncharted is much bigger than Gears in Europe.

[Dalthien]

how is creating a new IP that has low risk potential to become another big IP for one of Sony's best developers a poor use of resources?

Because there were more pressing and more important uses for resources (Vita). Again - this is going on the assumption that handhelds are every bit as important to Sony as their home consoles. If that is the case - then having strong support in the early part of your new handheld is a much more important use of resources than launching a new IP on your home console that is being replaced as soon as the game releases.

Of course, it seems crystal clear to me that handhelds are not anywhere near as important to Sony as their home consoles. In which case - I agree with you, The Last of Us makes a lot more sense as it is currently configured.

[OldJadedGamer]

Uncharted, God of War and Gran Turismo are all games i concider mind blowing. But this is subjective. The biggest hardware pushers for every system is always the total package. A few games alone can cause big sales bump, but it is the total package that matters the most in the long run.

Opinions on quality don't have much wiggle room in sales threads so I'll leave that alone. But look at the first party game like Halo 3. Look at the month of hardware sales that went with it and it has an obvious bump. It is an example of first party software selling hardware.

meh. We have different opinions on what stands out. Uncharted has built a hefty audience, and God of War retains quite a large one. Gran Turismo retains quite the large audience as well. Didn't prologue alone sell almost 5 million and GT5 sell 7+ million. That seems like a stand-out title to me..

Again, none of these games pushed hardware at all. They are just selling to the guys who already owned the system but wasn't bringing in any new customers. Also, with GT5 I believe it was the lowest selling mainline GT game and didn't even pass 1 million in Japan. Pretty much the vast majority of sales for GT5 came from Europe. Again, with each main GT game released the sales have decreased from the last. Sales of a game like Halo or Gears for example sell more with each new version, not less.

[-Pyromaniac-]

Because there were more pressing and more important uses for resources (Vita). Again - this is going on the assumption that handhelds are every bit as important to Sony as their home consoles. If that is the case - then having strong support in the early part of your new handheld is a much more important use of resources than launching a new IP on your home console that is being replaced as soon as the game releases. Of course, it seems crystal clear to me that handhelds are not anywhere near as important to Sony as their home consoles. In which case - I agree with you, The Last of Us makes a lot more sense as it is currently configured.

lets face it, Sony will profit much more from naughty dog releasing a ps3 game and establishing a new series then they would using that one team to create a vita game. Yes it sucks for the Vita and yes it would be great to have ND make a game for it. But I can't pretend like Last of Us shouldn't exist because it shuns the Vita, because it will do plenty of good for Sony. It's not their only dev.

[OldJadedGamer]

lets face it, Sony will profit much more from naughty dog releasing a ps3 game and establishing a new series then they would using that one team to create a vita game. Yes it sucks for the Vita and yes it would be great to have ND make a game for it. But I can't pretend like Last of Us shouldn't exist because it shuns the Vita, because it will do plenty of good for Sony. It's not their only dev.

But the main problem is that Sony doesn't put any of their AAA devs on the Vita so that shows they don't have the confidence in the system. Like I said, they should treat the Vita no different than the PS3. Nintendo does this and the quality... and sales show it works.

[gundamkyoukai]

Because there were more pressing and more important uses for resources (Vita). Again - this is going on the assumption that handhelds are every bit as important to Sony as their home consoles. If that is the case - then having strong support in the early part of your new handheld is a much more important use of resources than launching a new IP on your home console that is being replaced as soon as the game releases. Of course, it seems crystal clear to me that handhelds are not anywhere near as important to Sony as their home consoles. In which case - I agree with you, The Last of Us makes a lot more sense as it is currently configured.

What you seem to be missing is if ND does not want to do a handheld title Sony is not going to force them to make one.
Yeah Sony could say they have no choice but they risk the chance of losing the talent they have and ND new IP is going to make more money anyway on consoles .

But the main problem is that Sony doesn't put any of their AAA devs on the Vita so that shows they don't have the confidence in the system. Like I said, they should treat the Vita no different than the PS3. Nintendo does this and the quality... and sales show it works.

Nintendo IP are also much stronger than Sony , I bet Nintendo could get anyone to make a Mario game for there handheld and chances are it would sell more than any of Sony IPs not matter who makes them .
Nintendo is the only company in the world that can supports a system by there self , they did for N64 , GC and the first part of DS life there Ip just so much better.

[-Pyromaniac-]

Again, none of these games pushed hardware at all. They are just selling to the guys who already owned the system but wasn't bringing in any new customers. Also, with GT5 I believe it was the lowest selling mainline GT game and didn't even pass 1 million in Japan. Pretty much the vast majority of sales for GT5 came from Europe.

I'm arguing that none of those titles pushed a ton of hardware, but the existence of the entire stable has pushed people to the PS3 at a steadier pace, rather than a steep ascent.

[Sean]

Yeah, that seems reasonable. But it also again shows a pretty clear pecking order about which systems are more/less important to Sony.

Yeah, Sony clearly treats their consoles with more importance. Even on the PSP they outsourced most of their stuff to Ready at Dawn and High Impact Games while their in-house developers worked on console titles. And a crucial game like Gran Turismo PSP took six years to release probably cause Polyphony was busy with console development.

Although I'm sure they'd want the Vita to sell well, I think the PS4 is more important to Sony.

[test_account]

Opinions on quality don't have much wiggle room in sales threads so I'll leave that alone. But look at the first party game like Halo 3. Look at the month of hardware sales that went with it and it has an obvious bump. It is an example of first party software selling hardware. Again, none of these games pushed hardware at all. They are just selling to the guys who already owned the system but wasn't bringing in any new customers. Also, with GT5 I believe it was the lowest selling mainline GT game and didn't even pass 1 million in Japan. Pretty much the vast majority of sales for GT5 came from Europe. Again, with each main GT game released the sales have decreased from the last. Sales of a game like Halo or Gears for example sell more with each new version, not less.

I'm pretty confident that the PS3 would have sold a lot less if it wasnt for these games. Even if there isnt a big bump for a specific game, it doesnt mean that these games havnt moved consoles over time.

Didnt Halo ODST and Reach sold less than Halo 3?

[lunchwithyuzo]

What you seem to be missing is if ND does not want to do a handheld title Sony is not going to force them to make one. Yeah Sony could say they have no choice but they risk the chance of losing the talent they have and ND new IP is going to make more money anyway on consoles .

Then this tells me ND and SCE have different priorities, possibly at odds with each other, which isn't an encouraging sign. I wonder how long until ND pulls a Bungie?

Nintendo went through something similar with Retro Studios, instead letting the talent walk. Nintendo opted to attract and breed new talent for Retro, and they're still putting out some of the best games in the industry anyway.

[test_account]

Then this tells me ND and SCE have different priorities, possibly at odds with each other, which isn't an encouraging sign. I wonder how long until ND pulls a Bungie? Nintendo went through something similar with Retro Studios, instead letting the talent walk. Nintendo opted to attract and breed new talent for Retro, and they're still putting out some of the best games in the industry anyway.

Why would ND pull a Bungie if Sony let them do what they want?

Why did someone quit at Retro because of Nintendo by the way?

[gundamkyoukai]

Then this tells me ND and SCE have different priorities, possibly at odds with each other, which isn't an encouraging sign. I wonder how long until ND pulls a Bungie? Nintendo went through something similar with Retro Studios, instead letting the talent walk. Nintendo opted to attract and breed new talent for Retro, and they're still putting out some of the best games in the industry anyway.

Truth is i don't see that happening since Sony keep there devs happy .
People should know by now that if Sony hand to throw there handheld business under bus for there console to be number 1 they would.
I think a big part of the reason that they bring out Vita is because they know that consoles not selling as much in Japan as before .
They don't want Nintendo to have that market all for there self but 3DS now has Nintendo IPs plus most of the major 3rd party games .

[Dalthien]

Although I'm sure they'd want the Vita to sell well, I think the PS4 is more important to Sony.

Yeah - you pretty much just summed up my entire point for me. :)

To me, that's the biggest distinction between the PS3's struggles early on and Vita's struggles now. PS3 was of vital importance to Sony, and they were willing and determined to do everything they possibly could to save it. Vita just isn't in the same category. It's just not as important to Sony as the PS3 was, or as the PS4 will be coming up.

[yn-neko hates a cat]

So when you're bleeding less, is it because you're running out of blood or because your wonds are closing?

...or because your heart is stopping? :(