[Teletraan1]

What I have learned from this thread is that the use of SHOCKING is getting nauseating.

[Opiate]

Typical overreaction. The same thing happened when the PS3 launched. You would see these arguments ad nauseam: - the PS3 is too expensive - the PS3 has no games - no third party support will kill it - if sales don't pick up so is going to pull the plug It would take a LOT for Sony to pull the plug on the Vita. I'm talking some sort of catastrophe. If you recall, many people on GAF thought that the 3DS was in serious trouble as well. It's knee jerk overreaction at its finest.

While several of the others were indeed listed, I don't think the bolded was ever a scenario posited by reasonable people.

Specifically, the PS3 already had Final Fantasy XIII (at the time an exclusive), Metal Gear Solid 4, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Call of Duty 4 all announced for the system and on the way. Vita has nowhere near that level of support announced, and the PS3 never got to sales levels as low as the Vita is now.

Further, the PS3 had the Xbox 360 to bail it out; that is, the 360 was already reasonably healthy in the PS3's early days, and so games which were coming to the 360 were unlikely to skip the PS3 in the process (although a few flirted with the idea). The Vita really doesn't have a similar brother it can poach a library from.

Lastly, the PS3 was the final moment, the final point, where it became clear to everyone that Sony was not the inherent, automatic winner, and that their platforms are not destined to rule. They recieved overwhelming third party support for the PS2 and PS3 before those systems were even released; in the early days, the PSP's Western support was much better than the DS'. That assumption of Sony's invulnerability has long since passed now, and third parties no longer assume that Sony's platforms will work out or that they will be the true victors in the end. In other words, the Vita will not get third party support just because, the way the PS2, PS3 and (in its early days) the PSP did.

All of this means that third party support is in a very significantly different position than the PS3's support was. I can assure you that if mainline Final Fantasy and mainline Metal Gear solid were announced for the PSVita as exclusives, people would not be viewing Vita's long term prospects in the same way.

[Saint Gregory]

I read through most of the thread but maybe I missed it.

Did no one bring up the lack of out of the box backwards compatability as a major issue for the Vita or do people generally think it hasn't had much to do with its troubles so far.

It was a major reason I didn't pick up one at launch and although I did buy one a couple months ago I'm still pretty bitter about my dusty UMD collection.

[Father_Brain]

While several of the others were indeed listed, I don't think the bolded was ever a scenario posited by reasonable people. Specifically, the PS3 already had Final Fantasy XIII (at the time an exclusive), Metal Gear Solid 4, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Call of Duty 4 all announced for the system and on the way. Vita has nowhere near that level of support announced, and the PS3 never got to sales levels as low as the Vita is now. Further, the PS3 had the Xbox 360 to bail it out; that is, the 360 was already reasonably healthy in the PS3's early days, and so games which were coming to the 360 were unlikely to skip the PS3 in the process (although a few flirted with the idea). The Vita really doesn't have a similar brother it can poach a library from. Lastly, the PS3 was the final moment, the final point, where it became clear to everyone that Sony was not the inherent, automatic winner, and that their platforms are not destined to rule. They recieved overwhelming third party support for the PS2 and PS3 before those systems were even released; in the early days, the PSP's Western support was much better than the DS'. That assumption of Sony's invulnerability has long since passed now, and third parties no longer assume that Sony's platforms will work out or that they will be the true victors in the end. In other words, the Vita will not get third party support just because, the way the PS2, PS3 and (in its early days) the PSP did. All of this means that third party support is in a very significantly different position than the PS3's support was. I can assure you that if mainline Final Fantasy and mainline Metal Gear solid were announced for the PSVita as exclusives, people would not be viewing Vita's long term prospects in the same way.

And conversely, it's fair to say that if PS3 had been in the same position third-party-wise in mid-2007 that Vita is now, there probably wouldn't be either a Vita or a PS4.

[CinnabonJovii]

I read through most of the thread but maybe I missed it. Did no one bring up the lack of out of the box backwards compatability as a major issue for the Vita or do people generally think it hasn't had much to do with its troubles so far. It was a major reason I didn't pick up one at launch and although I did buy one a couple months ago I'm still pretty bitter about my dusty UMD collection.

While that may be an issue for some adopters, I doubt that the caveat with backwards compatibility hinders a large amount of consumers from purchasing the Vita, not to mention that the inclusion of backwards compatibility would have no real guarantee of a healthy ecosystem for the Vita in contrast to, say, a slew of relevant exclusives.

[Saint Gregory]

While that may be an issue for some adopters, I doubt that the caveat with backwards compatibility hinders a large amount of consumers from purchasing the Vita, not to mention that the inclusion of backwards compatibility would have no real guarantee of a healthy ecosystem for the Vita in contrast to, say, a slew of relevant exclusives.

Aside from my general bitterness about it one thing I will say about BC or the lack of BC is that it can really help systems early on that have support or game delay issues like the Vita.

I've been happy with my Vita catalog but I imagine that full access to UMD games would have coaxed a few people to upgrade from their PSPs.

[CinnabonJovii]

Aside from my general bitterness about it one thing I will say about BC or the lack of BC is that it can really help systems early on that have support or game delay issues like the Vita. I've been happy with my Vita catalog but I imagine that full access to UMD games would have coaxed a few people to upgrade from their PSPs.

Absolutely, but the issue of longevity still remains for the Vita.

[Roto13]

Having a shitty UMD drive in the Vita would only make me less likely to buy one. :P Terrible format.

[Saint Gregory]

Having a shitty UMD drive in the Vita would only make me less likely to buy one. :P Terrible format.

There could have been other ways around the issue aside from having a UMD drive in the system but they would have all cost Sony money and would have required 3rd party publishers to be on board for support.

I'm sure that Sony considered all of the options before releasing the Vita without BC (it's the only followup handheld I can think of that doesn't have it) but anything, even if it was just a 1st party trade-in program, would have been better than nothing.

[Zen]

I feel like they should have waited for PS mobile to be ready and then pushed it as more of a leveled up casual 'everyone' device. It would still have the power, and content to attract the hardcore, and they wouldn't be content starved. There also should have been some measure of internal storage, even if it meant knocking down the specs slightly to get to 249.99.

There was an interview where Sony boasted that most of the Vita's being sold are selling to existing PS3 owners. Isn't that the problem? It's selling to a very small demographic of enthusiasts yet things like Near and the Welcome Park points towards aspirations of casting a larger net.

So right now the Vita is selling predominantly to a very small niche, with mainly 'hardcore teen+ software. It's actually much more expensive than 249.99 when you factor in storage requirements. It's absurd that some games don't come with the ability to install saves/patches onto the cart, this should at minimum be standard.

What the Vita needs is broad support, and it's baffling why it isn't getting it. It should be an easy dumping ground for current 360 projects, 3DS projects, and especially mobile (taken care of through PS certification I assume), yet companies don't seem to be biting.

I could understand third parties leaving Nintendo high and dry during the Gamecube era, traditionally third party software hasn't sold as well, after-all. The same doesn't hold true for Sony branded machines even when they were being outsold by Nintendo. Sony should easily be able to go to mobile developers and say 'for virtually no extra work you can get your game in a more focused market place, seen by X million dedicated gamers'.

You'd figure that third parties would view the Vita as an easy source of small profits and want to ensure it succeeds (It is also a bridging device more so than the 3DS being traditional games and what we're seeing in the mobile space), because it benefits everyone to have another healthy platform.

[Game Guru]

And conversely, it's fair to say that if PS3 had been in the same position third-party-wise in mid-2007 that Vita is now, there probably wouldn't be either a Vita or a PS4.

Indeed, the PS3 was in a much better position than the Vita because of it and 360 sharing most of their library and because of it being the successor to the PS2. The worst thing that can happen to the PS4 is if it loses having multiplatform releases shared with 360's successor.

[Solid warrior]

Vita sales is far from "slow but steady". it's TERRIBLE. I doubt their effort to attract 3rd party support has any positive impact in the long run.

I believe that bringing indie studios to publish their games on the PSV/PS Mobile platform is the right thing to do to be a good competitor against iOS/Android.

[saichi]

There was an interview where Sony boasted that most of the Vita's being sold are selling to existing PS3 owners. Isn't that the problem? It's selling to a very small demographic of enthusiasts yet things like Near and the Welcome Park points towards aspirations of casting a larger net.

That IS the problem if that's indeed the strategy Sony planned for VITA.

[Drek]

That IS the problem if that's indeed the strategy Sony planned for VITA.

It is very troubling, and it seems like that really was their viewpoint on who the early adopters would be.

Their strategy with the Vita lacks depth and there is no clear strategy on how they:

1. really lock up PS3 owners as Vita owners.

2. Get non-PS3 owners to want a Vita.

3. Use #2 to help move more PS3s (as the ultimate end game of synergy).

I personally think there is a big market who would be very receptive to the Vita that Sony is currently missing. PC gamers.

Bring Steam onto the platform in a partnership with Valve. Leverage that partnership and significant bits of the Sony pub fund to get a host of the best indie games on the system with a "own it on Steam, own it on Vita" crossover.

This would foster a significant wave of indie developers having greater interest in the system while at the same time enticing the massive Steam user base to consider migrating over to a piece of hardware that costs less than a new graphics card.

Open up the patching system to be something a developer can use with regularity.

Outright moneyhat Notch to have the ultimate version of Minecraft available on Vita.

Do those simple steps and you tap a massive new user base with relatively little out of pocket cost.

If you do that while simultaneously announcing these games as Vita exclusives:
Gran Turismo Vita with save migration from GT5
Jak and Daxter 4
PaRappa/Lammy crossover game
Demon's Souls 2, contracted with From Software

Do that and the Vita will be looking much better by the end of 2013.

[Loghorn150]

Indeed, the PS3 was in a much better position than the Vita because of it and 360 sharing most of their library and because of it being the successor to the PS2. The worst thing that can happen to the PS4 is if it loses having multiplatform releases shared with 360's successor.

I agree. I think that Sony can no longer rely on 3rd parties to bail them out of trouble for Vita & PS4 like in the past with PS1, PS2, PS3, & PSP. They have their work cut out for them this time around.

[Captain Tuttle]

That IS the problem if that's indeed the strategy Sony planned for VITA.

'Tis true

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ets-ps3-owners

[Game Guru]

I agree. I think that Sony can no longer rely on 3rd parties to bail them out of trouble for Vita & PS4 like in the past with PS1, PS2, PS3, & PSP. They have their work cut out for them this time around.

That, in general, is why Sony is smart to try to focus on their first-party library, though they should've done it from the start with the PS1 like Nintendo did with the NES. The Vita suffers from being in a Nintendo-like position with third-parties, but without a first-party library as popular as Nintendo's. It should be noted that even Nintendo has trouble supporting both a handheld and console at the same time, and they are the experts at this.

[see5harp]

I do think that is the one thing they are doing alright at. Bundling Vita/PS3 software together for a single price is really the only thing going for it. The wide net sorta features like Near are a little half baked at the moment.

[bud23]

This console is one amazing piece of hardware but unexploited and underperformed on sales because the lack of AAA.For me it´s so simple as that.

[Oersted]

While several of the others were indeed listed, I don't think the bolded was ever a scenario posited by reasonable people. Specifically, the PS3 already had Final Fantasy XIII (at the time an exclusive), Metal Gear Solid 4, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Call of Duty 4 all announced for the system and on the way. Vita has nowhere near that level of support announced, and the PS3 never got to sales levels as low as the Vita is now. Further, the PS3 had the Xbox 360 to bail it out; that is, the 360 was already reasonably healthy in the PS3's early days, and so games which were coming to the 360 were unlikely to skip the PS3 in the process (although a few flirted with the idea). The Vita really doesn't have a similar brother it can poach a library from. Lastly, the PS3 was the final moment, the final point, where it became clear to everyone that Sony was not the inherent, automatic winner, and that their platforms are not destined to rule. They recieved overwhelming third party support for the PS2 and PS3 before those systems were even released; in the early days, the PSP's Western support was much better than the DS'. That assumption of Sony's invulnerability has long since passed now, and third parties no longer assume that Sony's platforms will work out or that they will be the true victors in the end. In other words, the Vita will not get third party support just because, the way the PS2, PS3 and (in its early days) the PSP did. All of this means that third party support is in a very significantly different position than the PS3's support was. I can assure you that if mainline Final Fantasy and mainline Metal Gear solid were announced for the PSVita as exclusives, people would not be viewing Vita's long term prospects in the same way.

This pretty much.
I have to add:
The problem with the Vita is not really the price. Its the lack of a concept and closed infrastructure.
Multimedia machine? Easily beaten by almost every android phone on the market. And of course by all Apple devices.
A powerful device? Sure, but still behind the PS3 and XBOX360. And power never sold a mobile-console. Just look at GameBoy and Tetris. Or DS with Kawashima and Layton.These unique IPs are completly missing on the PS Vita. What will happen instead? Assasins Creed, Call of Duty, Need for Speed. Nothing unique and complete lack of the home cinema-feeling. And yes, its nice to have them on the go, but thats not a selling point for the masses.
Unique controls? The touchscreen at the back is somehow unique, but never brought to a relevant use.
And thats the problem. They tried to dance on to many parties, but forgot to led in atleast one point. And targeting PS3 owners with adcampaigns wont help. They bought PS3 because of the BluRay and some jawdropping games. Ps Vita will never have that.
The other problem is: You have to buy memory cards for one single plattform. You cant even use them with other sony devices.

Sony lost their leadership and like this year´s E3 foreshadowed it, they will give it a last try with AC and CoD, and then, they will let it die in favor of the PS4.

[8sanders]

No shit. Where are the moneyhats?

I got you bro.

[Vitacat]

Having a shitty UMD drive in the Vita would only make me less likely to buy one. :P Terrible format.

Agreed.

But I really, really wish they'd somehow implemented a program where I could trade my UMD's in for digital versions of the same games. Even if there was a small charge involved.

Love my Vita nevertheless.

TO ME, the biggest problem with the Vita is the pricing of games on PSN. They are just so incredibly unresponsive to the games marketplace, it's painful. Even games that now officially sell for $20 in their own SonyStyle stores still cost nearly twice that on PSN. They could make so much more money through volume if they'd actually run PSN like a store (mostly talking about NA PSN). Plus so many more people would buy those overpriced memory cards IF digital versions of games were cheaper and had sales. I want so much to go all digital on Vita, but it's very hard to swallow when retail carts cost so much less (in many cases 25% - 50% less).

[MrMephistoX]

You know I've had enough fun with PSone classics and the cool remote play stuff to say that Id be perfectly happy if Sony just made cross play and retro the focus going forward. It would be fantastic if they get some traction with Gaikai.

[dallow_bg]

I got you bro. [img]http://www.nothingbutcostumes.com/images/rascos/7772.jpg[img]

This why you bumped?

[Hero_of_the_Day]

This why you bumped?

Seriously. What a lame ass bump.