Support NeoGAF

[mujun]

Vita is already plenty cheap for what it appears to be offering.
A price cut at this stage will just mean they will cut corners elsewhere, so god please no....

I don't think anyone is debating this. The machine looks amazing, a lot of the games look great in terms of quality and the price is very good.

The point is, is whether the machine will be a strong financial success with the current state of the economy and the handheld market.

Not to mention that all the speculation (be it doom and gloom or the opposite) is based on the premise that Sony's goal is a large profit margin. Who knows, they may just be aiming for keeping their share and moderate profits.

 

[MikeE21286]

Mostly rehashes of previous things said I'm sure:

Vita at $250 is only expensive because the games cost $40. Sony needs to know what kind of identity it wants to give Vita and stick to it. Obviously the pricing structure will not change, therefore they are locked into the "core" demographics. However, if the touchscreen can allow them to co-op most iOS games/experiences, then it might have a chance of being more mainstream.

 

[Nora Kisaragi]

What I find funny, is that I heard Sony cut the specs down so it could be priced at $250 to compete with the 3DS, and now that the 3DS got a price drop, Sony is saying "we don't feel a need to slash just cause they are", feeling a little regret sony?

 

[Takao]

What I find funny, is that I heard Sony cut the specs down so it could be priced at $250 to compete with the 3DS, and now that the 3DS got a price drop, Sony is saying "we don't feel a need to slash just cause they are", feeling a little regret sony?

They didn't say this at all. They've been developing Vita since 2008, and have said they always had a target price in mind with the platform. That target price was $249.

 

[Auto_aim1]

What I find funny, is that I heard Sony cut the specs down so it could be priced at $250 to compete with the 3DS, and now that the 3DS got a price drop, Sony is saying "we don't feel a need to slash just cause they are", feeling a little regret sony?

To cut the specs down, they need to announce the official specs first.

 

[Agent X]

For those who insist that increased system power and graphical prowess must result in increased development costs, here's a question to ponder: What is the difference in development costs between the PSP version of BlazBlue Continuum Shift II, the 3DS version of BlazBlue Continuum Shift II, and the PS Vita version of the BlazBlue Continuum Shift II Plus?

What I find funny, is that I heard Sony cut the specs down so it could be priced at $250 to compete with the 3DS, and now that the 3DS got a price drop, Sony is saying "we don't feel a need to slash just cause they are", feeling a little regret sony?

I heard the screen on the PS Vita is supposed to be 960p, downgraded from its original spec of 1440p. Can you confirm for me?

 

[galian beast]

For those who insist that increased system power and graphical prowess must result in increased development costs, here's a question to ponder: What is the difference in development costs between the PSP version of BlazBlue Continuum Shift II, the 3DS version of BlazBlue Continuum Shift II, and the PS Vita version of the BlazBlue Continuum Shift II Plus?



I heard the screen on the PS Vita is supposed to be 960p, downgraded from its original spec of 1440p. Can you confirm for me?

I thought it was 5K

 

[NateDrake]

I heard the screen on the PS Vita is supposed to be 960p, downgraded from its original spec of 1440p. Can you confirm for me?

It's 960 x 544

 

[Gravijah]

What I find funny, is that I heard Sony cut the specs down so it could be priced at $250 to compete with the 3DS, and now that the 3DS got a price drop, Sony is saying "we don't feel a need to slash just cause they are", feeling a little regret sony?

Sony knew Nintendo would drop their price. They aren't that stupid.

 

[To Far Away Times]

For those who insist that increased system power and graphical prowess must result in increased development costs, here's a question to ponder: What is the difference in development costs between the PSP version of BlazBlue Continuum Shift II, the 3DS version of BlazBlue Continuum Shift II, and the PS Vita version of the BlazBlue Continuum Shift II Plus?

Well, of course for games that are ported across multiple consoles you won't see much of an increase in development costs. Most people on this forum are referring to budgets for PSP2 exclusives and gamer's expectations for the system once the "AAA" titles come out.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

What I find funny, is that I heard Sony cut the specs down so it could be priced at $250 to compete with the 3DS, and now that the 3DS got a price drop, Sony is saying "we don't feel a need to slash just cause they are", feeling a little regret sony?

Sony never downgraded anything it was pure speculation, and Sony will be stupid not to foresee that Nintendo were going to reduce 3DS price.

 

[Unregistered007]

SONY would be stupid to even think about a price drop.

They are not recycling a modified N64 in PS Vita.

I say 250 is decent, The 3DS shouldn't have been 250 to begin with.

 

[Gravijah]

SONY would be stupid to even think about a price drop.

They are not recycling a modified N64 in PS Vita.

I say 250 is decent, The 3DS shouldn't have been 250 to begin with.

No no, DS was the modified N64. 3DS is just a modified Saturn.

 

[Boney]

SONY would be stupid to even think about a price drop.

They are not recycling a modified N64 in PS Vita.

I say 250 is decent, The 3DS shouldn't have been 250 to begin with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DVAsmrwdtQ

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

To cut the specs down, they need to announce the official specs first.

They'll probably move over to PowerVR Series 6 chips and keep it at $249.

 

[charlequin]

What does that say for the PSP and PSVita will nowhere near as large of an increase for development costs.

Which is bullshit. Which gets us back to where we started!

So it's alright to state something that has absolutely nothing to back it up as fact and to completely dismiss something that suggests otherwise and has plenty of evidence to back it up.

When it's nonsense, sure. Development costs these days are influenced primarily by asset cost and density, then by project scope, content volume, use of unusual technology, etc. We've seen a consistent pattern of development costs for similar titles on similarly powerful hardware falling into similar ranges; there's nothing magical about the Vita that's going to change that. If people develop games of similar scope to PS3 games, they're going to have very similar budgets.

Maybe if you're going to retail and aren't NIS

It's absurd to talk about "PSV games" and exclude the totality of full-price retail games when those titles will make up the vast majority of the system's library and when Sony are leading on the platform in part with what are clearly sizeable, high-budget showcase titles like Uncharted.

Budgets are driven by market expectations which in turn are driven by marketing/dev promises which in turn... But ultimately costs will only go as high as devs/pubs believe can be sustained, and if that turns out to be PSP levels, it'll be PSP levels.

Sure. We're going to see a lot of that next console generation, I'm sure. But if that happens, it'll be because people are developing, essentially, PSP games and just releasing them on the Vita. I'd be completely happy with that, but given the degree of discussion about relative PSV/3DS power levels in this thread (and a history of consoles actually using their power) I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about what games that actually push the system will cost.

 

[Father_Brain]

No no, DS was the modified N64. 3DS is just a modified Saturn.

ahem, I believe Virtual Boy Color would be more accurate

 

[Jin34]

I heard the screen on the PS Vita is supposed to be 960p, downgraded from its original spec of 1440p. Can you confirm for me?

Cold blooded killer, don't think anyone else is going to get it though.

 

[jetjevons]

I can either buy a $60 Gears of War game this holiday or 60 $1 iPhone apps plus unlimited free iOS games. And instead of buying the $250 Vita, I can buy an additional 250 iOS games.

I just bought 7 iOS games with my Taco Bell money I had set aside. Not even their Double Beef Chalupa can give you that kind of value.

And this, my friends, is how the revolution gets real.

 

[T-Matt]

Mostly rehashes of previous things said I'm sure:

Vita at $250 is only expensive because the games cost $40. Sony needs to know what kind of identity it wants to give Vita and stick to it. Obviously the pricing structure will not change, therefore they are locked into the "core" demographics. However, if the touchscreen can allow them to co-op most iOS games/experiences, then it might have a chance of being more mainstream.

If they have a combination of the cheapy cheap cheap iOS type games, 10-20$ PSN type games then the full retail blockbusters I think that would help sell the system.

 

[plufim]

Mostly rehashes of previous things said I'm sure:

Vita at $250 is only expensive because the games cost $40. Sony needs to know what kind of identity it wants to give Vita and stick to it. Obviously the pricing structure will not change, therefore they are locked into the "core" demographics. However, if the touchscreen can allow them to co-op most iOS games/experiences, then it might have a chance of being more mainstream.

Have gaming prices been announced yet? I personally expect Vita game prices to be $50. Can't see something like Uncharted being $40.

Vita is marketed as a luxury item for those who want the best tech, like the PSP was before it. They can afford to come out at $250, the launch audience will snap it up at that price without thinking twice.

As for $250 being expensive... well yeah, it's $250! It's a fair chunk of change, no matter what you're buying with it.

 

[renitou]

Match the new 3DS price point and you have me. Though to be fair, you'll also be deep in the red. But hey, it's a thought.

 

[Zoramon089]

SONY would be stupid to even think about a price drop.

They are not recycling a modified N64 in PS Vita.

I say 250 is decent, The 3DS shouldn't have been 250 to begin with.

Geez, how many stupid posts is this whole Vita/3DS thing going to bring?! Are you implying the 3DS is a recycled N64?!

 

[TunaLover]

They can't price handheld games at $50, that's overshooting the market.

 

[Key2001]

Which is bullshit. Which gets us back to where we started!

When it's nonsense, sure. Development costs these days are influenced primarily by asset cost and density, then by project scope, content volume, use of unusual technology, etc. We've seen a consistent pattern of development costs for similar titles on similarly powerful hardware falling into similar ranges; there's nothing magical about the Vita that's going to change that. If people develop games of similar scope to PS3 games, they're going to have very similar budgets.

The PSVita doesn't have the asset cost and density of PS3 games. Yoshida even makes mention of this in the article.

"I wouldn't say it's the same costs as a PS3 game but when you compare to what our teams spent on Blu-ray based PS3 games it's much, much less. Part of that is that because the screen is smaller and the media is much smaller in terms of a card, so developers have to be smarter to create the asset. So that helps to reduce the development costs of Vita games."

The PSVita does not have unusaly technology(unlike every other PS platform), it also does not have near as large project scopes, content volume, etc. as PS3 games do. Of course there will always be exceptions, just as there has always been(even with the PSOne). The exceptions don't make up the rule though.

The PSVita can use some of the same assets as the PS3, but not to the same degree that PS3 does. It can use tricks to make games appear as good as PS3 games at time, but technically they are not on the same level as PS3 games.

 

[Thoraxes]

I think we will see the Square Enix tax on Vita games, when they end up making them.

 

[Key2001]

I think we will see the Square Enix tax on Vita games, when they end up making them.

I agree with that, at least for in Japan. I am not sure if SE usually charges more in other regions or not. Although, with how things have been going for SE lately they may not be able to get away with it for much longer(at least for titles not named FF or DQ).

 

[Thoraxes]

I agree with that, at least for in Japan. I am not sure if SE usually charges more in other regions or not. Although, with how things have been going for SE lately they may not be able to get away with it for much longer(at least for titles not named FF or DQ).

They did with the DS. Where most games were $30 or $35, theirs were always $40.

 

[Agent X]

Geez, how many stupid posts is this whole Vita/3DS thing going to bring?! Are you implying the 3DS is a recycled N64?!

I don't know if he's being entirely serious, as it's obviously not N64-level hardware. On the other hand, a system is only as good as its games. Choosing to emphasize some enhanced N64 ports as the linchpins of the library doesn't give the impression of being a "leading edge" system.

 

[AdventureRacing]

The PSVita does not have unusaly technology(unlike every other PS platform), it also does not have near as large project scopes, content volume, etc. as PS3 games do. Of course there will always be exceptions, just as there has always been(even with the PSOne). The exceptions don't make up the rule though.

The PSVita can use some of the same assets as the PS3, but not to the same degree that PS3 does. It can use tricks to make games appear as good as PS3 games at time, but technically they are not on the same level as PS3 games.

Just because it isn't as hard to develop for doesn't magically make the games cheaper. The 360 as a platform is much easier to develop games on than the PS3 and yet as far as i know it costs pretty much the same to make a game of similar quality on either HW.

The games won't cost as much as a PS3 game but if they are games of a similar standard to a PS3 game there is just no way that their budgets will be as low as a PSP game. You simply can't jump a whole generation of HW without increasing the budget of games.

It's not like we're suggesting game prices are going to double. PSP games were $40 weren't they (it's different in Australia) and i'm suggesting vita games will cost between $40 and $50. It's not that big of an increase.

Sure. We're going to see a lot of that next console generation, I'm sure. But if that happens, it'll be because people are developing, essentially, PSP games and just releasing them on the Vita. I'd be completely happy with that, but given the degree of discussion about relative PSV/3DS power levels in this thread (and a history of consoles actually using their power) I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about what games that actually push the system will cost.

It will be the same situation that we saw on the HD consoles. It's easy to say if you don't have the budget just make a game that looks like a PSP game. The problem is that when sonys first party and some of the bigger 3rd parties makes games that look like incredible that won't fly anymore.

Yeah you can make a game on the 360/PS3 that looks like a PS2 game and massively reduce your budget but there is a reason you don't see many developers doing this.

 

[Jinfash]

They did with the DS. Where most games were $30 or $35, theirs were always $40.

They also do that on iOS. FFT:WotL is $15.99, and the rest of their portfolio is mostly above $9.99

I don't think they really get it.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

It's not like we're suggesting game prices are going to double. PSP games were $40 weren't they (it's different in Australia) and i'm suggesting vita games will cost between $40 and $50. It's not that big of an increase.

PSP games from third parties were $50 then after a few years, they moved down to $40.

 

[Key2001]

Just because it isn't as hard to develop for doesn't magically make the games cheaper. The 360 as a platform is much easier to develop games on than the PS3 and yet as far as i know it costs pretty much the same to make a game of similar quality on either HW.

The games won't cost as much as a PS3 game but if they are games of a similar standard to a PS3 game there is just no way that their budgets will be as low as a PSP game. You simply can't jump a whole generation of HW without increasing the budget of games.

It's not like we're suggesting game prices are going to double. PSP games were $40 weren't they (it's different in Australia) and i'm suggesting vita games will cost between $40 and $50. It's not that big of an increase.

The ease of development can and does have an effect on development costs. Time equals money, the easier it is the develop the less time that has to be spend on working on the game and a quicker turn around in profit. There is also less errors during the development process and less time spent doing things overs or on trial and error.

As stated in a previous post, the PSVita also does not have near as many assets as PS3/Xbox 360 games do and are not near as big in scope. This alone will drop development cost drastically and isn't all there is to the lower development costs for the PSVita.

The games have to fit on a 2 to 4 GB game card with part of that saved for games saves and dlc. There will eventually be larger game card sizes, but Sony went with a smaller size to start with to keep game prices down.

This results in a lot less assets including unique textures, sounds, etc. Worlds can seem just as large and games can be made to appear to look similar to PS3/Xbox 360 games by using some tricks. However, this doesn't mean that the process to do so was anywhere near as involved or costly.

Sony tried the higher game prices with the PSP, it did not work and they quickly lowered the price of the games. Some third-parties like to test the waters early to see what consumers will except, so there may be some $50 games. However, I don't believe for a second based on what we have this will be the norm and that just as with the PSP the $50 games will quickly disappear.

 

[zoukka]

This results in a lot less assets including unique textures, sounds, etc. Worlds can seem just as large and games can be made to appear to look similar to PS3/Xbox 360 games by using some tricks. However, this doesn't mean that the process to do so was anywhere near as involved or costly.

Hey guys, making a game look as good as PS3 games, just without all the manpower and unique assets is easy and cheap!

 

[(._.)]

LOL HANDHELDS ARE DEAD GUYS

ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS
ANGRY BIRDS

I blame angry birds also man

 

[Key2001]

Hey guys, making a game look as good as PS3 games, just without all the manpower and unique assets is easy and cheap!

I never said it would be cheap or easy, unless you count developing PSP games as being cheap and easy.

Development costs for the PS3 are a lot higher than they are for the PSP. All I am saying is that the PSVita does not have near the same development costs as the PS3. That based on this and other evidence that PSvita games does not need to be priced $50.

Do you believe 3DS games cost anywhere near as much as Xbox 360 and PS3 games just because 'Resident Evil: Mercenaries 3D' used some of the same assets as the home console game?

This is what people are basing the PSVita development costs on, that because it uses some assets from PS3 games it must cost near as much as PS3 games to develop.

I am not saying development costs haven't increased at all(for both the 3DS and PSVita). However, there is no reason to dismiss Sony's statement that development costs is "much, much" less than the PS3 and closer to that of the PSP.

 

[zoukka]

I never said it would be cheap or easy, unless you count making PSP games as being below cheap and easy. Development costs for the PS3 are a lot higher than they are for the PSP.

Do you believe 3DS games cost anywhere near as much as Xbox 360 and PS3 games just because 'Resident Evil: Mercenaries 3D' used some of the same assets as the home console game?

This is what people are basing the PSVita development costs on, that because it uses some assets from PS3 games it must cost near as much as PS3 games to develop.

If a game uses already made assets, then it's cheaper to make.
If you need to make PS3 quality assets from ground up, then the costs are similar than they are when creating a PS3 game. Quite simple.

 

[Key2001]

If a game uses already made assets, then it's cheaper to make.
If you need to make PS3 quality assets from ground up, then the costs are similar than they are when creating a PS3 game. Quite simple.

Except when creating assets for a PS3 game you are using a lot more assets and higher quality assets.

The PSVita does not and cannot use as many assets at the same quality as the PS3. It can perhaps sacrifice one or the other to some degree to match the PS3 assets in either quality or quantity, but it cannot do both. This is a fact and because of this and more it doesn't have the development costs PS3 games do.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Except when creating assets for a PS3 game you are using a lot more assets and higher quality assets.

The PSVita does not and cannot use as many assets at the same quality as the PS3. It can perhaps sacrifice one or the other to some degree to match the PS3 assets in either quality or quantity, but it cannot do both. This is a fact and because of this and more it doesn't have the development costs PS3 games do.

Even if it doesn't actually use PS3 quality assets it's still using assets far greater than what we saw on the PSP. There is simply no way that budgets won't increase by a reasonable amount when compared to the PSP.

 

[Key2001]

Even if it doesn't actually use PS3 quality assets it's still using assets far greater than what we saw on the PSP. There is simply no way that budgets won't increase by a reasonable amount when compared to the PSP.

Not saying it is not going to increase at all, but it would have to be one hell of an increase to be anywhere near PS3 levels.

If I were to guess, I would guess the development costs will be slightly higher than Wii games; which is still a lot cheaper than PS3 games(is actually closer to PSP still and a substantial increase) and could actually be priced lower than they are.

 

[Zen]

A lot of people seem to blame the 3DS's problems on software not pricing, and say that a $250 handheld can work. If so, where are all the amazing games that are going to make mainstream gamers pay such a high price for a portable gaming system?

Part of the problem with the 3DS was also because the graphical capabilities of the machine didn't really make the device seem like it was worth $250. You may not like that answer, but it also didn't help matters that Nintendo admitted to jacking up the price of the device by 50 dollars following positive E3 buzz.

It's the same reason why a Wii at 400 dollars would have sold less than a 360 at 400. One of the things that will make the software have that extra power punch is because it will have such high graphical fidelity on a handheld, and on a fantastic looking screen.

We saw something similar (but not to such a degree) with the PSP, but the problems with the PSP were largely the cumbersome nature of UMDs/loadtimes and the PSP itself lacking control functionality to such a degree that the experience felt limited, clunky, and like a watered down version of the PS2 with the exact same experiences and gameplay mechanics.

None of those things will be a problem with the Vita and it goes above and beyond the interface capabilities of a home console to ensure that the Vita can offer a broad range of experiences to the consumer.

You don't need something with the brand power of Mario to succeed (as the PS1/N64 era showed), you just need that wow factor and a diverse lineup of content.

 

[Daschysta]

SONY would be stupid to even think about a price drop.

They are not recycling a modified N64 in PS Vita.

I say 250 is decent, The 3DS shouldn't have been 250 to begin with.

I take it you have no idea what N64 games look like at all...

Just because sony is under the impression that the masses want to pay 250 dollars to play the exact same types of games available on the current home console on a tiny screen doesn't mean that the 3DS is anything less than a generational leap from its predecessor. The 3DS is massively more powerful than the DSL, about the same leap above the DS as the vita is above the PSP.

People aren't going to pay simply for the tech, without the games sony will have no easier a time selling vita for 250 than nintendo did with the 3DS. The average consumer doesn't think like the average gaffer. Unfortunately for sony they can't drop the price as easily or as massively as nintendo did. 250 is still damn expensive for a dedicated handheld, no matter what it is, alot of the satisfaction about that price point surely was because the 3DS is overpriced, not because 250 is a good pricepoint to sell such a device to the mass market.

Part of the problem with the 3DS was also because the graphical capabilities of the machine didn't really make the device seem like it was worth $250. You may not like that answer, but it's very true. It's the same reason why a Wii at 400 dollars would have sold less than a 360 at 400. One of the things that will make the software have that extra power punch is because it will have such high graphical fidelity on a handheld, and on a fantastic looking screen.

We saw something similar (but not to such a degree) with the PSP, but the problems with the PSP were largely the cumbersome nature of UMDs/loadtimes and the PSP itself lacking control functionality to such a degree that the experience felt limited.

None of those things will be a problem with the Vita and it goes above and beyond the interface capabilities of a home console to ensure that the Vita can offer a broad range of experiences to the consumer.

You don't need something with the brand power of Mario to succeed (as the PS1/N64 era showed), you just need that wow factor and a diverse lineup of content.

Tell that to the legions of people buying wii consoles for well over 400 on ebay or amazon, or the fact that wii was the hottest item imaginable for a full two years, while the 360 floundered. Wii could have easily been the same price as the 360 and still destroyed it in sales for a very long time, and that is consoles, graphics on handhelds? They matter much, much less. It was lack of software, not graphics that had the 3ds where it was, wellt hat and the fact that consumers simply aren't willing to adopt a 250 handheld that can only really play games in mass, no matter how pretty the graphics are. and also ps1/n64 proved none of that. They were built on the backs of huge gigantic mega franchises such as mario/zelda and final fantasy. Not that the leap from 2D environments to 3D environments is in anyway comparable to slightly sub ps3 graphics, which we've obviously seen before, just not on handhelds.

 

[Zen]

I take it you have no idea what N64 games look like at all...

Just because sony is under the impression that the masses want to pay 250 dollars to play the exact same types of games available on the current home console on a tiny screen doesn't mean that the 3DS is anything less than a generational leap from its predecessor. The 3DS is massively more powerful than the DSL, about the same leap above the DS as the vita is above the PSP.

People aren't going to pay simply for the tech, without the games sony will have no easier a time selling vita for 250 than nintendo did with the 3DS. The average consumer doesn't think like the average gaffer. Unfortunately for sony they can't drop the price as easily or as massively as nintendo did. 250 is still damn expensive for a dedicated handheld, no matter what it is, alot of the satisfaction about that price point surely was because the 3DS is overpriced, not because 250 is a good pricepoint to sell such a device to the mass market.

Sony isn't under the impression that the masses want to pay 250 dollars for the exact same types of games on home consoles, that's why the Vita has such an abundance of control options, just as much and maybe even more than the 3DS itself, which we're seeing recycle N64 ports going hard after the 'console like' experience.

The 3DS hasn't shown off games that show the power difference between it and the DS. While there is a power jump, it's dwarfed by everything else on the market to a degree that said jump looks and feels much smaller than it really is.

As for price, it's all about perceived value. The PSP sold well when it came out at $249 (299 in Canada) and 250 dollars now is worth relatively less than it was 6 years ago. Sony will probably have an easier time selling the Vita at that price than Nintendo did because right out of the gate Sony is releasing the types of games that appeal to the demographic they are trying to sell to, and the system will look like it's worth that price on a display kiosk more than a 3DS.

 

[plufim]

which we're seeing recycle N64 ports going hard after the 'console like' experience.

Yep. All two of them. What an abundance!

The 3DS hasn't shown off games that show the power difference between it and the DS.

.....have you even seen a 3DS?

 

[NateDrake]

Sony isn't under the impression that the masses want to pay 250 dollars for the exact same types of games on home consoles, that's why the Vita has such an abundance of control options, just as much and maybe even more than the 3DS itself, which we're seeing recycle N64 ports going hard after the 'console like' experience.

The 3DS hasn't shown off games that show the power difference between it and the DS. While there is a power jump, it's dwarfed by everything else on the market to a degree that said jump looks and feels much smaller than it really is.

As for price, it's all about perceived value. The PSP sold well when it came out at $249 (299 in Canada) and 250 dollars now is worth relatively less than it was 6 years ago. Sony will probably have an easier time selling the Vita at that price than Nintendo did because right out of the gate Sony is releasing the types of games that appeal to the demographic they are trying to sell to, and the system will look like it's worth that price on a display kiosk more than a 3DS.

Um.......what? Sony is trying to offer console games on the go with Vita. Vita's biggest problem right now is a number of titles are PS3/Vita titles or PS3 ports with extra content. Not a bad thing for some but those looking for something other than a pint sized PS3 game on the go will just get the PS3 version to enjoy on a massive TV screen.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

As for price, it's all about perceived value. The PSP sold well when it came out at $249

Jebus, not again. Do people just ignore regions they don't live in? The PSP was launched first in Japan at around $185 using then conversions rates. No offense to you personally but getting really tired of the constant thinking that the PSP launch price was $65 more than it really was. So again as mentioned in the thread many times... the PSP was the most successful in the region where it was the cheapest.

 

[Zen]

Tell that to the legions of people buying wii consoles for well over 400 on ebay or amazon, or the fact that wii was the hottest item imaginable for a full two years, while the 360 floundered. Wii could have easily been the same price as the 360 and still destroyed it in sales for a very long time, and that is consoles, graphics on handhelds? They matter much, much less. It was lack of software, not graphics that had the 3ds where it was, wellt hat and the fact that consumers simply aren't willing to adopt a 250 handheld that can only really play games in mass, no matter how pretty the graphics are. and also ps1/n64 proved none of that. They were built on the backs of huge gigantic mega franchises such as mario/zelda and final fantasy. Not that the leap from 2D environments to 3D environments is in anyway comparable to slightly sub ps3 graphics, which we've obviously seen before, just not on handhelds.

The low price of the Wii was what really allowed it to gain such critical mass in the marketplace. It would have faced a very unfavorable PR situation if it had launched at the same price as the 360 due to the system power making it, rightly, appear like Nintendo was pumping up the price for absurd profit margins. A fun low cost easy to use console was a major appeal of the Wii, and putting a mass market prohibitive price on an impulse purchase tailored item would have hampered its performance in the market period.

It's weird that you're trying to say in one breath that price wouldn't have changed how the Wii performed against the 360 whilst in another breath you say that, essentially, you just can't sell a handheld at $250.

You're acting like my argument is trying to say that the only reason the 3DS didn't sell well is because of system power, which couldn't be further from the truth. System power was a contributing factor.

250 dollars is not some magical barrier that consumer are unwilling to fork out for regardless of the device. The 3DS and Vita have different attributes and as such have different perceived value at different prices.

Oh graphics on handhelds matter less than they use to absolutely, and the success of angry birds says how little that can matter, but part of the reason that the Wii sold predominantly to casual gamers and non gamers was because the Wii wasn't capable of resonating with the segment of the market that wants high fidelity graphics. HELPED IN NO SMALL PART TO THE COMPLETE REFUSAL OF THIRD PARTIES TO GIVE A DAMN. But the wider the systems range to satisfy consumer wants, the better off it is. That's why Infinity Blade and Angry Birds can both be a success on the same device.

People adopted the PSP just fine for a while in spite of the software and experience being underwhelming. Sure the Vita won't be exactly console quality, but on an OLED screen? Frankly the difference will never have been so small, and it will enjoy technological superiority over the IOS market for some years to come. That's an ecosystem that the Vita can actively co-opt, where as the 3DS is already fairly technologically ancient in raw power with the IOS/Android market and the Vita, not that Nintendo's philosophy will probably mean that we'd see them attempting to co-opt smart phone gaming to any degree.

 

[AdventureRacing]

The problem for the 3DS is that it simply doesn't have enough quality software. I'm a huge nintendo fan and the only 2 games out right now that i'm interested in are remakes of games i already own on multiple platforms.

I think graphics has nothing to do with the position the 3DS is in.

 

[Zen]

Jebus, not again. Do people just ignore regions they don't live in? The PSP was launched first in Japan at around $185 using then conversions rates. No offense to you personally but getting really tired of the constant thinking that the PSP launch price was $65 more than it really was. So again as mentioned in the thread many times... the PSP was the most successful in the region where it was the cheapest.

...

I clearly used $ and not the symbol for Yen ... and the PSP sold well in America at 250 for a while despite not initially hitting the opening goal.


Arguing that 'the PSP sold the best in the region where it was the cheapest" is a no brainier of course it did. There's essentially no reason that it shouldn't, unless they marked down the price and packed it with AIDS.

 

[Zen]

dp