Support NeoGAF

[JonnyDBrit]

Why.
On paper psp more powerful than DS.

Vita shat all over the 3DS in terms of specs

What happened. Not understanding how handheld gaming works.
Nintendo Magic won out.
Nintendo made gaming fun, all about the games. SONY went for a home console experience in your hands graphics graphics.

In this regard, it's what makes the idea of competing with Switch with a Vita revision even worse. Nintendo hold both the advantage of their library and the more powerful system; that's not a lot of incentive for devs - hence Indivisible is getting a Switch version, but not a Vita version.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

It would be pretty easy for Nintendo to counter that tho
Virtual Boy 2.

 

[Twilight Princess]

I'm so happy I didnt buy a vita. I learned my lessen with the psp.

 

[BiggNife]

An updated Vita would not be able to compete against the Switch. As you said yourself, the Vita brand is dead everywhere except Japan, so trying to get people invested in what is generally considered a failure would not be easy.

There's also the fact that an Overclocked SoC still wouldn't be able to compete with a Tegra X1, AND the fact that selling a console/portable hybrid while also selling the PS4 would be confusing.

Honestly, I don't think there's any chance anything Vita related could compete with Switch. If Sony wanted to make a real Switch competitor (which they don't really have any reason to?) they would need to make a brand new system with brand new branding. Trying to revive the Vita would backfire immensely.

 

[10k]

Yeah here's the thing though:

People who own a vita look at these watered down console ports and just want to play these games on the PS4 with more buttons and better visuals. Not every PS4 game would come to vita. By default every game is on switch whether it's docked or portable.

With switch, that is the home console. It's the most powerful Nintendo hardware out there. So what you see on switch doesn't bet much better when docked. It's a true hybrid.

 

[FairFriend]

I'll answer to some other posts and then I'll leave this thread for a while, but I'll be back later in the evening, I promise!

Vitas dead. And you forgot one main point. Sony doesn't have Nintendo's ip's. Sony rules the stay at home console market. No one company can succeed at everything.

Regarding the IPs, while I admit I was wrong about Spyro, I believe that Sony undervalues them and should do more with them. I elaborate on the concept in the OP.

Eh, it doesn't sound much like a Switch-class device to me, but a device that's a faff to use in the ways people are enjoying the Switch.

It's not exactly like the Switch because it would not house the same games that are released on PS4, but several Japanese titles are currently released on both platforms. How long is that going to be the case now that the Switch is here? Hence the idea of a new Vita revision, something of a mix between the Switch itself and the new Nintendo 3DS.

Op I think you're missing the part where there's a 10x odd power gap and a 6 year architecture difference between the Vita and Switch undocked. It's not really in a position to compete with the switch barring some miracle flood of must have software that target the Vita's specs first.

Just overclocking it wouldn't do much to get all games at 720p (given the incredibly high number of sub native res games) while still using the same chip unless you got to the point where it would have to be plugged into a wall to power.

Thank you for the very well articulated post. Yes, the aim would not be to compete with the Switch, but to guarantee that newer games that can run on the old Vita will run on the new Vita too at native 720p, so that they won't look like a blurry mess on the tv. But I will admit that the increase in clock speeds is not necessarily linear with the increase in FLOPS, so perhaps you're right in questioning the feasibility of the idea.

The Nintendo Switch is a portable powerful enough to play full scale console games, even if a generation behind graphically. In portable mode, the most direct comparison for functionality, it runs Breath of the Wild at 720p with a near locked 30 fps. It runs Mario Kart 8D at a locked 60 fps. The Vita chugged in trying to play a pared down Borderlands 2, I honestly don't believe a binned overclock would be enough to solve that - certainly not while upping the screen resolution to 720p, which is like a 70% increase in pixel count over the Vita's original qHD screen. If anything, the games would have to get worse graphically to counterbalance that.

Meanwhile, a revised Vita wouldn't have the same chance of third party ports that the Switch does (itself behind PS4 and XBO in that regard), so it would be the one relying on a value proposition of its exclusives, vs the Switch. The DS won that battle between it and the PSP, and the 3DS won against the Vita. Now, it's Switch that has the exclusives and tech advantage, so no, I do not think a Vita revision would hold up with that stratagem.

If Sony want to contest in the handheld market, they would need to create new hardware, which is its own mess.

Yeah, I do agree with your analysis. When thinking about a PSVita revision I was mainly thinking about the Japanese market, from which multiplatform games like Valkyria Revolution are still coming.

 

[Mister Wolf]

I'm so happy I didnt buy a vita. I learned my lessen with the psp.

The psp had a decent library.

 

[Bazry]

Just like they could easily counter the success of the iPhone, just release a phone with a D pad and buttons that allow you to play Playstation games...

 

[Weltall Zero]

No, of course. I think the two main reasons are: Nintendo IPs, Hybrid model. Regarding the latter Sony could offer the ability to output Vita games to the TV screen, but they'd look pretty blurry, hence the need for an overclocked SoC which should be able to render Vita quality games at 720p.

You don't just need "more power" to render console games at a higher resolution, that would break so many games it's not even funny. Even emulators with years upon years of development and game-by-game patching can't completely get rid of issues for many games. And that's not even taking into account 2D elements and interface that will always look blurry when upscaled.

Even leaving that aside, Vita games simply can't compete on a technical level with Switch games. And I say this as someone absolutely in love with my Vita that keeps buying games for it to this day, and plays it more than any other console including non-portables.

 

[jstripes]

So OP wants this thing to compete with the PS4 and Switch?

The Switch has no Nintendo home console to compete against, which is the key to its success.

 

[Gurish]

They don't need to counter the Switch, Sony are doing amazingly well, like they just took NPD last month, it's others who needs to figure out a way to counter Sony

 

[Toadthemushroom]

Its simple

It has to be a Ps4

Thats all there is to it. But thats a huge mountain to climb with both technology, battery and price point

It could happen in the far future maybe?

Im not hedging bets on it. Seems ridiculously challenging for them to chase and they have enough on their plate as it is


It probably does sting a bit for them to exit a market completely but they really have no choice

It's literally impossible, AMD doesn't, and wouldn't, design parts that have a low power footprint that are also a match for binary compatibility with PS4 games, unless Sony puts in a tremendous amount of investment into making it happen.

The best bet is with PS5, maybe Sony will ensure that the hardware architecture and dev tools are set up in a way that developers can make scalable, forwards-compatible games which work across a wide range of hardware. But to pursue that route (Nvidia would be best to fulfill it) would likely mean dropping BC with PS4 games.

 

[sinonobu]

Yeah, I do agree with your analysis. When thinking about a PSVita revision I was mainly thinking about the Japanese market, from which multiplatform games like Valkyria Revolution are still coming.

It's not worth it to make new console for these kinds of games tho.

 

[theindieboy]

I think that it would be imperative for Sony to offer the ability to hook up the new PSVita to the TV without having to buy a dock station. Simply connect it using the HDMI cable

There is a HDMI port on Dev kits (on of best kept secrets and how devs and outlets get vita gameplay videos before pstv) and from what Greg Miller has said they bascially removed this from the final version for some reason, you can send you vita off and have it added by some mod shops etc. really stupid to not include this on final version and all ds4 sync.

 

[DrROBschiz]

It's literally impossible, AMD doesn't, and wouldn't, design parts that have a low power footprint that are also a match for binary compatibility with PS4 games, unless Sony puts in a tremendous amount of investment into making it happen.

The best bet is with PS5, maybe Sony will ensure that the hardware architecture and dev tools are set up in a way that developers can make scalable, forwards-compatible games which work across a wide range of hardware. But to pursue that route (Nvidia would be best to fulfill it) would likely mean dropping BC with PS4 games.

Exactly

agree and its pretty much the bottom line in this topic

 

[Twilight Princess]

The psp had a decent library.

Not enough AAA/memorable games. My most played was lumines, which looks like a cheap $2-5 ios game, in fact the majority of psp games just feel cheaply made.

 

[BigEmil]

Just put some games on mobile Sony that's all I want

 

[Toadthemushroom]

It's not exactly like the Switch because it would not house the same games that are released on PS4, but several Japanese titles are currently released on both platforms. How long is that going to be the case now that the Switch is here? Hence the idea of a new Vita revision, something of a mix between the Switch itself and the new Nintendo 3DS. .

I don't disagree with this idea, but I don't think it's something that would "counter the Switch's success". A "New PS Vita" is actually something I've been requesting on the forum every now and then, since the PS Vita itself is being stretched thinly by PS4 ports. It was OK handling the PS3 games it got.

Still. judging from the PS TV, the Vita's software and hardware aren't particular scalable. Even the Apple TV had boosted GPU clocks over the iPhone 6 and its own rendering resolution and interface - Vita TV.

I don't think a better Vita would really do much to change things given Sony's existing business, Sony would be better off starting again from zero with a new PS Platform designed for scalable, forwards-compatible games.

 

[FairFriend]

You don't just need "more power" to render console games at a higher resolution, that would break so many games it's not even funny. Even emulators with years upon years of development and game-by-game patching can't completely get rid of issues for many games. And that's not even taking into account 2D elements and interface that will always look blurry when upscaled.

Even leaving that aside, Vita games simply can't compete on a technical level with Switch games. And I say this as someone absolutely in love with my Vita that keeps buying games for it to this day, and plays it more than any other console including non-portables.

Guys, I appreciate your interest in the topic but perhaps you should read the OP.

Older games would take advantage of the increased specs though something akin to PS4 Pro's boost mode. Of course only selected titles would see benefits.
On the other hand newer titles would be developed to take advantage of the new specs, and developers could decide whether to make those games exclusive to the new PSVita or whether to offer them on the old model too, lacking some graphical feature. The main objective would still be for newer PSVita games (and those only) to be rendered at 720p.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

It's not exactly like the Switch because it would not house the same games that are released on PS4, but several Japanese titles are currently released on both platforms. How long is that going to be the case now that the Switch is here? Hence the idea of a new Vita revision, something of a mix between the Switch itself and the new Nintendo 3DS.

Thank you for the very well articulated post. Yes, the aim would not be to compete with the Switch, but to guarantee that newer games that can run on the old Vita will run on the new Vita too at native 720p, so that they won't look like a blurry mess on the tv. But I will admit that the increase in clock speeds is not necessarily linear with the increase in FLOPS, so perhaps you're right in questioning the feasibility of the idea.

Yeah, I do agree with your analysis. When thinking about a PSVita revision I was mainly thinking about the Japanese market, from which multiplatform games like Valkyria Revolution are still coming.

I guess the question is why is that a market worth creating a whole new piece of expensive hardware for? How do you possibly parlay that in to something worth rolling out to the rest of the world where it's actually "countering" the Switch? Is it really worth it to hold on to that niche?

 

[Blam]

Haha no.

Yeah lmao overclocked vita wouldn't even be able to play rocket league at a good speed. There's no way you'll be getting a portable UC4 which doesn't look like shit. Aka UC Vita.

This entire thread is a pipe dream. It's not gonna happen any time soon. Maybe in 2025.

 

[Platy]

Nintendo just had better games, plain and simple. VITAs price and memory card was a big issue too.

It wasn't all "Nintendo Magic"' because that sure didn't save the N64 or the Wii U.

To win the market you need the right games, the right price point, the right marketing. 3DS was flopping until Nintendo dropped the price point with in its first year (I believe first 6 months?).

And like people already said, it was not like Sony was even trying... The first party offering is laughably bad compared to the ps4. They didn't even made a patapon sequel to the Vita !
That game must cost less than the tip that Sony gave naughty dog for uncharted 4 =P

 

[Drencrom]

Sony doesn't need to counter Switch in the first place, the PS4 is already clearly dominating this generation.

 

[Leafhopper]

You don't need a Switch "counter".

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

Eh... perhaps due to shortages but the Switch, while doing pretty well, Isn't killing the competition to the point at which Sony would need to counter anything.

But if they want to go ahead and hook us up with a PS4 Portable, I'm game.

 

[1st Course]

"I think it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume a similar improvement in CPU speeds (444 Mhz -> 888 Mhz)"

You think they can just double the clocks like that? On a portable device with limited cooling setup no less?

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Isn't the better takeaway to focus on one platform only, release a ton of software and drive interest thru the roof? And make a 'best of all time' candidate game? Or, potentially, two and release them within 7 months of each other?

 

[FairFriend]

I don't disagree with this idea, but I don't think it's something that would "counter the Switch's success". A "New PS Vita" is actually something I've been requesting on the forum every now and then, since the PS Vita itself is being stretched thinly by PS4 ports. It was OK handling the PS3 games it got.

Still. judging from the PS TV, the Vita's software and hardware aren't particular scalable. Even the Apple TV had boosted GPU clocks over the iPhone 6 and its own rendering resolution and interface - Vita TV.

I don't think a better Vita would really do much to change things given Sony's existing business, Sony would be better off starting again from zero with a new PS Platform designed for scalable, forwards-compatible games.

I guess the question is why is that a market worth creating a whole new piece of expensive hardware for? How do you possibly parlay that in to something worth rolling out to the rest of the world where it's actually "countering" the Switch? Is it really worth it to hold on to that niche?

I'm answering to both of you because you basically bring up the same point.
Yes, this is the crux of the problem, is the PSVita market one worth saving? As I say in the OP, Sony Japan has expressed interest in supporting the platform moving forward, and some titles like Minecraft have proved to be a discrete success there.

Now, of course this is not enough to say that Sony would be countering the Switch success. My opinion is that Sony could steer the Vita, and consequently it's future in the dedicate mobile market, in the right direction by acknowledging some of the main faults of the hardware and by aping what Nintendo is doing with the Switch. Basically, I feel like this would be their last chance to save whatever is left of their reputation as platform holder, in the mobile segment of course. So perhaps "to counter" was not the exact verb to use.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Except the vita isn't and has never been a failure. A failure was the Virtual Boy, which ended production with only 22 games ever released. Vita was at the very least a modest success, not a blockbuster, and not enough for them to risk another go, probably.

The Vita was a massive failure by nearly any metric. Sony's handheld market share cratered. It's like saying the Wii U wasn't a failure coming off the success of the Wii.

As to the OP, a large part of the Switch's success is that everything comes in a singular, clean, easy for consumers to digest package. Once you start selling things separately as addons you lose a lot of that. Look at Wii vs Move. I don't think Sony has to counter the Switch at all. There isn't a whole lot of intersection in the kinds of software support they are getting and The PS4 is monumental success. They just need to keep doing what they've been doing.

 

[Eria]

What about ps4 success? Sony doesn't need to do anything, just bring more good exclusives.

 

[NintendosBooger]

Sony's third party partners in the West, a crucial ingredient to their dominance, don't want to develop for handhelds. Sony's own developers, like Naughty Dog, don't want to develop for handhelds. If none of their friends or developers are willing to make software for the thing, what's the point? It's a losing proposition for them.

 

[STEaMkb]

nm

 

[jroc74]

Yeah here's the thing though:

People who own a vita look at these watered down console ports and just want to play these games on the PS4 with more buttons and better visuals. Not every PS4 game would come to vita. By default every game is on switch whether it's docked or portable.

With switch, that is the home console. It's the most powerful Nintendo hardware out there. So what you see on switch doesn't bet much better when docked. It's a true hybrid.

.

I thought about this and some of the stuff the OP wanted. Cross buy negates some of the HDMI and connecting a dual shock to the Vita wants.

Really if Sony had more games cross buy enabled between Vita and PS4...there is really no need to compete with the Switch.

Although most of those cross buy games IIRC targets Vita first. Games targeting PS4 first...that would be interesting.

 

[takriel]

A strange proposal, OP. You mad at Nintendo's success or something?

 

[jacobeid]

It's just as much about IP as it is hardware. Sony could make a Vita 2 (I'd buy it) but it wouldn't have Super Mario Odyssey, for example.

It's not as easy as your posts makes it out to be.

 

[10k]

.

I thought about this and some of the stuff the OP wanted. Cross buy negates some of the HDMI and connecting a dual shock to the Vita wants.

Really if Sony had more games cross buy enabled between Vita and PS4...there is really no need to compete with the Switch.

Although most of those cross buy games IIRC targets Vita first. Games targeting PS4 first...that would be interesting.

Is this hypothetical vita getting cross buy of every PS4 game? Uncharted 4, Horizon, Persona, etc? That's my point. It's a stop gap measure.

The only way to counteract the switch is making a vita 2 that has the PS4 APU in it so it natively runs every PS4 game so you can truly take them anywhere and any PS4 game that releases is also on vita 2 by default with no extra work.

Call me when you can get an x86 APU like the base PS4 in a switch form factor for $299.

 

[qko]

The difference between Sony's and Nintendo's approach to portables and consoles is too drastic for Sony to succeed in that space. First off, you have Sony putting B-Teams on their portables, then you have Nintendo who isn't afraid to put a mainline version of their franchise on a portable and leave it there. The minute any portable exclusive developed by a B-Team became popular on the PSP or Vita it would get ported to the console within a year or a year and a half.

Sony sees portables as complementary to their console space. This kinda does mean that a Switch-like approach would work with future Sony products, but then you start analyzing the price of a PS5 with portability, or a potential PS5 that is severely underpowered in order to keep cost low.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

The experiences Sony and Nintendo are trying to provide are different to each other. Sony are geared towards selling a console that chases performance and power, and is able to offer the best gaming experience in your home. Whereas Nintendo are selling a console which compromises a little on power, to allow for the flexibility to play it on the go, whilst also being more affordable. Both companies at the moment have their respective market cornered, and the moment either of them try to launch a product that attempts to push out, they fail.

PS exclusives are typically geared towards the experience the platform provides, likewise Nintendo exclusives are the same for the Switch. Part of the reason I felt the Vita didn't work was because it was trying to provide the same sort of games the PS3 and PS4 were offering, but on hardware that wasn't really suited to it. Why play a pared down version of Uncharted and Killzone, when they play better on a massive TV with better graphics.

Sony would just be repeating past mistakes to revisit the handheld market from the same approach. They would be better off focusing on supporting the PSVR, since that feels like an extension of the type of experiences are already pushing.

 

[Liliana Eileen]

Haha no.

lol

.

 

[Resident_UA]

I would love it as much as I love Vita and Switch, but no one will buy it... So sadly this will never happen.

 

[GoldenCrow]

Switches success is due to Zelda and being something Nintendo fans have wanted for a long time.

Sony could make one but they don't have the franchises like Nintendo to sell the thing and the system would be significantly weaker than the PS4 which has had a mid gen upgrade as people wanted better performance. Sure as shit not getting AAA PS4 quality games on the go.

Nintendo is pretty much the only company that can successfully pull that sort of product off as their IP's suit it and they had a weaker system the gen before. It also fills a gap in the market.

 

[jts]

Is this hypothetical vita getting cross buy of every PS4 game? Uncharted 4, Horizon, Persona, etc? That's my point. It's a stop gap measure.

The only way to counteract the switch is making a vita 2 that has the PS4 APU in it so it natively runs every PS4 game so you can truly take them anywhere and any PS4 game that releases is also on vita 2 by default with no extra work.

Call me when you can get an x86 APU like the base PS4 in a switch form factor for $299.

Even then, the game sizes would come into play big time. 64GB game cards? If download only, 256-512GB onboard flash memory? That's gonna cost ya.

I mean, even the convenience of sharing physical media with the PS4 is lost from the get-go.

 

[mindsale]

Let's wait until Switch sales stabilize before discussing market counters. They're at what, 4 million units globally right now with a significantly hampered production because of industry-wide NAND memory shortage?

Though I'd love to see a Vita 2.0 (running with original PS4 parity) and HDMI out.

 

[James Scott]

Let's wait until Switch sales stabilize before discussing market counters. They're at what, 4 million units globally right now with a significantly hampered production because of industry-wide NAND memory shortage?

Though I'd love to see a Vita 2.0 (running with original PS4 parity) and HDMI out.

I don't think it'll be possible to stuff a PS4 into a handheld battery powered device any time soon which is likely what Sony would have to do for this scenario to work

 

[10k]

Even then, the game sizes would come into play big time. 64GB game cards? If download only, 256-512GB onboard flash memory? That's gonna cost ya.

I mean, even the convenience of sharing physical media with the PS4 is lost from the get-go.

Yup. If Sony wants to do a vita 2 the OP's idea won't work. They would have to make a portable PS4 to make it viable from a software standpoint. Problem is some of those game sizes are ridiculous and carts would be expensive.

Sony and Nintendo are going after two different things. Portables aren't the place for cinematic AAA games that push graphics and tech. So either Sony would have to change their games scopes to aim for PS4 or they make a Vita 2 with a whole different architecture and you end up getting a vita 1 with no first party support and some cross buy but at least it would output to a TV.

 

[Servbot24]

This is a very good example and I do agree with your take, but the idea here is firstly to serve the already existing market of Vita adopters before they jump ship and then to try to expand it by doing what the Switch is currently doing without investing in R&D.

Sony isn't going to create new hardware specifically targeted at the dwindling fraction of the vita audience, their worst selling console...

 

[Astral Dog]

Establishing a market doesn't work like that. Microsoft "countered" the iPod with the competent Zune, but the market very reasonably didn't arbitrarily jump over to something that achieved the same as an existing product. The Vita did a poor job of targeting the market that apparently Nintendo is finding with the Switch (though we're still at a point where we need to see how it plays out longer-term). I think in terms of mindshare, compounding the Vita's market failure with a "me too" product chasing the Switch would be unwise.

Not to mention a 'new' system would need years of development, not just an easy release but months of planning

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

 

[DrROBschiz]

I don't think it'll be possible to stuff a PS4 into a handheld battery powered device any time soon which is likely what Sony would have to do for this scenario to work

I mean Switch is just below the peak of whats available right?

I suppose Surface pro tablets go beyond but those push 1000 dollars soooo

Yeah man

 

[Stop It]

Wow no.

If you just overclock a Vita like you describe it'll be nowhere near the power of the Switch.

Also nobody is going to care about running Vita games at a higher resolution if the console wasn't powerful enough to do anything else.

That leaves Sony having to match the power of the Switch. As it'll have to be ARM powered and Nvidia likely won't touch them you'll have to go for Qualcomm or Mediatek or their own design. One would be expensive, Mediatek cheaper but may not have the best of tech and the R&D to design your own chip isn't free.

So you have Vita 2.0, and considering Sony has a record of abandoning their handhelds, it's not really viable.

Sony are better keeping to what they excel at, which is their main console business.