Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

Dunno - it seems to be working very well for Apple.

Not much concrete evidence that people actually upgrade their iStuff every year as people are wont to accuse them of. Every two years people are going to get upgrade pricing from their carrier; for iPads/iPTs I suspect a hand-me-down strategy (where one person replaces their device so someone else in the family can get the older one as their first device) is much more common, the same way it was for pre-phone iPods (and, for that matter, DSes.)

Regardless, the PSP did performed very well its first year or so; any system would be considered doing good if it received the same sales.

Nowadays, certainly, given how shitty the hardware market has been this year.

I certainly wouldn't deny that the PSP did very solidly in its first year, but that's in a far more positive sales environment.

The PSVita has more in its favor at $250 than the 3DS and PSP did.

That's nuts.

The high-end game titles are being offered at the same price as the competitors games and is far from the only gaming experience the PSVita is offering.

This is just Sony's unfiltered pitch, without any consideration of how it actually fits into the context of reality. People don't go shopping for lists of bullet points, they go shopping for specific devices that serve some specific need or desire they want to satisfy (and for gaming systems, that has always, for 100% of all systems over the medium's entire history, primarily fallen down to software selection.)

The Vita is a poor iPhone replacement in exactly the same way that PSP was a poor iPod replacement. It is not going to get traction based on a smattering of tablet-lite features or because you can play Angry Birds on it. Without top-line software that is both desirable and appealingly priced, and an entry price people are willing to pay to get access to that software, the system has nothing to offer.

Now, I'm not saying Vita doesn't have good software on offer. I intend to get one. But frankly, the fact that I'm interested in a system bodes very poorly for its market success at the moment. A lot of us identified the "trapped in the middle" challenge that phones (better at ultra-casual, no-investment mindless timewasting than handhelds) and consoles (better at visually and auditorily spectacular "experiences" than handhelds) had put handhelds in back when 3DS and Vita were still entirely speculative, and Vita by virtue of chasing more aggressively after the COD end of the pool is presenting an overall selling point that will be hard if not impossible to stick in the West.

I don't know what makes you think I am angry.

Sharp, aggressive requests for "proof" of clearly speculative, non-factual discussion points tend to come off as angry!

 

[patsu]

My word, I'm surprised at this in this day and age. I bought my phone for £355, and the iPhone is nearer £500.

At the time the PSP came out, there was no way a phone would cost that much.

I know the Vita is not a phone, but the technology is superior. Selling it for £200 is insanely good value.

Where have you been deepbrown my friend ?
I seldom see you these days.

 

[Jomjom]

Now that we have news that the 3DS got a huge boost in Japan after the price drop, Sony is even under more pressure to drop the price, or at the very least have a VERY compelling launch lineup.

Here's to hoping my 2 PSV preorders drop to $249 instead of $299 each sometime before release!

 

[Cruzader]

Now that we have news that the 3DS got a huge boost in Japan after the price drop, Sony is even under more pressure to drop the price, or at the very least have a VERY compelling launch lineup.

Here's to hoping my 2 PSV preorders drop to $249 instead of $299 each sometime before release!

Why would Sony drop the price before launch if they dont know WTF will happen nor any of us??? Cmon.

Im sure if Vita lacks software after a few months and sales <100k a month, im sure you can yell BOMBA/price drop and go from there.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Why would Sony drop the price before launch if they dont know WTF will happen nor any of us??? Cmon.

They dropped the price of the PS3 in Japan right before launch and they didn't know WTF would happen. You act as though it would be something they never would consider but they have previously considered and acted on it.

 

[charlequin]

Why would Sony drop the price before launch if they dont know WTF will happen nor any of us???

Because dropping the price shortly before launch tends to be received much more positively (from consumers, the press, and investors) than launching, seeing a few months of poor sales, and dropping the price in a panic. Nintendo definitely would have been much better off launching at $170 (even with the loss of revenue on those early-adopted units) than doing what they did.

 

[DangerousDave]

Because dropping the price shortly before launch tends to be received much more positively (from consumers, the press, and investors) than launching, seeing a few months of poor sales, and dropping the price in a panic. Nintendo definitely would have been much better off launching at $170 (even with the loss of revenue on those early-adopted units) than doing what they did.

Well, and if Vita is sold at $50, is sure that it will sell more than 3DS, DS, or any other console, and it will be contrained supply during 3 years.

But Sony don't need to sell as much Vita as possible. They need to sell enough Vita with a price that allow them to get benefits for each unit sold, in average. That doesn't mean to sell the hardware with benefits, that means that the hardware + the license of the games bough by the average player is bigger than the cost of the device.

Nintendo, even with the price drop, is in that line. Even if they're selling now the console at loss, they will have benefits if the player buy one, or maybe two games, only with the licenses.

But we already saw how much technology Vita has, and we were here when the people expected a $400 price for the lower model. Probably now Sony is already in the line of losing money by console sold, and getting benefits only it when the player buy two or even three games. Lowering even more the price, before the manufacture costs get lower, will make each Vita sold a real money loss, even counting the revenues of game licenses of the average consumer.

Sony don't need to break any sale benchmark. They need to sell enough Vita to keep the thirds on board, and if the $250 is too expensive for some people, they will buy the console when it will cost $170 (and probably, because of the lowering of manufacture cost, giving benefits to Sony from the day 1).

 

[Burai]

Well, and if Vita is sold at $50, is sure that it will sell more than 3DS, DS, or any other console, and it will be contrained supply during 3 years.

But Sony don't need to sell as much Vita as possible. They need to sell enough Vita with a price that allow them to get benefits for each unit sold, in average. That doesn't mean to sell the hardware with benefits, that means that the hardware + the license of the games bough by the average player is bigger than the cost of the device.

Nintendo, even with the price drop, is in that line. Even if they're selling now the console at loss, they will have benefits if the player buy one, or maybe two games, only with the licenses.

But we already saw how much technology Vita has, and we were here when the people expected a $400 price for the lower model. Probably now Sony is already in the line of losing money by console sold, and getting benefits only it when the player buy two or even three games. Lowering even more the price, before the manufacture costs get lower, will make each Vita sold a real money loss, even counting the revenues of game licenses of the average consumer.

Sony don't need to break any sale benchmark. They need to sell enough Vita to keep the thirds on board, and if the $250 is too expensive for some people, they will buy the console when it will cost $170 (and probably, because of the lowering of manufacture cost, giving benefits to Sony from the day 1).

Vita sales don't exist in a Sony vacuum though. Third parties are going to want as big an install base as possible so they can sell as many games as possible. Sony's ability to balance the books holds very little interest to them.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I'm a little confused. $250 was reasonable, but then now is not reasonable because something else adjusted it's price (to a price point where it loses money)?

I must just be subject to consumer inflation because $250 never sounded crazy to me, didn't PSP launch at something like that?

 

[DangerousDave]

Vita sales don't exist in a Sony vacuum though. Third parties are going to want as big an install base as possible so they can sell as many games as possible. Sony's ability to balance the books holds very little interest to them.

As I said:

Sony don't need to break any sale benchmark. They need to sell enough Vita to keep the thirds on board

And this don't depend only of sales of the device, it depend of software sales, of licenses fee, of easiness of program, of piracy adoption, of the target that buy the console, of bussiness model, etc, etc. Look Wii, bigger sales didn't helped to get too much third party support.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I'm a little confused. $250 was reasonable, but then now is not reasonable because something else adjusted it's price (to a price point where it loses money)?

I must just be subject to consumer inflation because $250 never sounded crazy to me, didn't PSP launch at something like that?

A product will always be compared to its competition amd also, there is the the thinking that a $250 dedicated portable game machine may not be able to survive in the current maket.

In Japan where both the PSP and the Vita are launching first, the PSP launched for around $185 using then conversion rates.

 

[Curufinwe]

And it cost $250 in 2005 American dollars.

 

[DangerousDave]

In Japan were both the PSP and the Vita are launching first, the PSP launched for around $185 using then conversion rates.

But the important is the amount that cost in the money of each country.

The workers in Japan get their salary in yens. So if PSP was 25.000 yens and now PSV is 25.000 yens, is the same price. The dolar-yen ratio don't affect the price in yens for japanese people, because they don't get their salaries in dollars. If a japanese worker get 200.000 yens of monthly salary, the next month he will get another 200.000 yens, even if dollar gets cheaper or more expensive.

But, in Japan, PSP launched a "core" model that costed 20.000 yens, so technically the price is more expensive now.

The only that the low dollar will affect is Sony, because he will get much less yens in revenue for each console sold in US than they got in 2005, even if the price tag in dollars is the same.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

And it cost $250 in 2005 American dollars.

Not sure what this means but first off, the PSP was first on retail shelves in 2004, not 2005. And the current conversion rate at the time made the 19,800 yen PSP come out to $185 in 2004 American dollars.

But the important is the amount that cost in the money of each country.

The workers in Japan get their salary in yens. So if PSP was 25.000 yens and now PSV is 25.000 yens, is the same price. The dolar-yen ratio don't affect the price in yens for japanese people, because they don't get their salaries in dollars

Fine, the PSP launched for 19,800 yen and the Vita is launching at 24,980 yen.

 

[DangerousDave]

Fine, the PSP launched for 19,800 yen and the Vita is launching at 24,980 yen.

As I said in the line that you didn't copypasted. But the 20k yen version didn't had a memory card, so you needed, maybe not 25k, but more than 20k to be able to play and save.

 

[HAL_Laboratory]

Wat the hell is Sony Vita?

edit: *googles

oh yeah. That thing lol.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

As I said in the line that you didn't copypasted. But the 20k yen version didn't had a memory card, so you needed, maybe not 25k, but more than 20k to be able to play and save.

Every game played just fine without a memory card. And remember the memory cards were universal so if you had a Sony camera you already had one. You were not required to buy a PSP memory card as any Memory Stick Duo would work.

That's like saying the PS2 price isn't $99 because you need to buy a memory card. The price is what you can walk into the store and buy it for. Period.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Although i can see the point, thats not how it works. The memorycard is something you don't need right away. You can opt to buy it months later if you feel you need it. The PSP could be purchased and being used for 19,800 yen. Thats why those pack ins were always so stupid, such as the Saturn launch unit with VF (which was the only SKU i think). Not everyone liked VF. Better go for less and cheaper.

 

[Lesiroth]

Wat the hell is Sony Vita?

edit: *googles

oh yeah. That thing lol.

So am I supposed to laugh or what?

 

[Jomjom]

Why would Sony drop the price before launch if they dont know WTF will happen nor any of us??? Cmon.

Im sure if Vita lacks software after a few months and sales <100k a month, im sure you can yell BOMBA/price drop and go from there.

First of all where did I even act like I was yelling bomba? I have 2 PSV 3Gs on preorder. However, as a soon-to-be early adopter of the system, I want the system to have every chance to thrive. Being successful will depend on a great game library which will hopefully result in a large userbase, but if the launch lineup is not great (as launch lineups tend to be for nearly every system ever released), other incentives must be there for people to jump in.

Had the 3DS not plummeted in price, I think it would be more than safe for Sony to stay at the current pricing. While people like us may know that the PSV's tech is better than the 3DS's and therefore deserves a higher price, I'm afraid people outside of GAF will only see two things: $169.99 & $249.99-$299.99.

Also by definition, isn't it always the case where no one knows what will happen ever for anything in the future? That is, unless you are a time traveler.

 

[Nonoriri]

So am I supposed to laugh or what?

You can laugh at him, I guess.

 

[DangerousDave]

Every game played just fine without a memory card. And remember the memory cards were universal so if you had a Sony camera you already had one. You were not required to buy a PSP memory card as any Memory Stick Duo would work.

That's like saying the PS2 price isn't $99 because you need to buy a memory card. The price is what you can walk into the store and buy it for. Period.

What I'm saying is that 99% of the people that went in a store to buy a PSP, ended paying at least 23k yens without any game (32 Mb Memory stick pro duo was 3k yens). I don't see that the difference of money is enough to consider now 25k a too expensive price.

Yes, the entry point was cheaper, but I don't see that the difference is big enough.

 

[Jomjom]

I'm a little confused. $250 was reasonable, but then now is not reasonable because something else adjusted it's price (to a price point where it loses money)?

I must just be subject to consumer inflation because $250 never sounded crazy to me, didn't PSP launch at something like that?

The reason for the disconnect is because people here (well at least me, can't really speak for others) are speaking about "reasonableness" from two perspectives.

For me, $249 and even $299 is still reasonable because I know what Sony is throwing into the PSV and it's incredible. On the other hand, to the average consumer, who is not in the know about all the features, $249 will not sound as reasonable now because the competitor is almost a full $100 less.

It is very difficult to get the average consumer to understand all the benefits and why they would want to pay more. Look at other electronics for instance. There's a reason Vizio is killing Sony when it comes to TV sales. For the most part, Sony TV's contain much higher quality parts and features compared to a Vizio, but to the average consumer, they're just giant TV's except one costs hundreds less and still lets them see a picture that is comparable.

No product that has competitors and is sold in the market, is sold in a vacuum, with perhaps one exception. If we are talking about ultra-high end products, where the consumer knows exactly what he wants and nothing else will do, he doesn't need to compare products. However, we all know the last thing Sony wants to do is present the PSV in that way. They want to get right in there and compete with Nintendo, with Apple and go for the mass market. To do anything else in the gaming handheld market, which is already not a huge market and is constantly dwindling with the emergence of smartphones, is simply suicide.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Yes, the entry point was cheaper

That's all you needed to say. We can assume all day what consumers did and did not do when they got their system. Can we then add the price of a game into the launch price? Can we add a second battery? No, we go by what the systems price was at launch. I really can't see why you want to spin this.

The guy asked what the launch price of the PSP was. No need to try to spin it, the launch prices are what they were. There really is no arguing with facts. The Vita is launching at 5,180 yen more than the PSP was.

 

[neptunes]

Screw the mass market, their buying habits are unpredictable and it's hard for developers to plan and finance games around them because they're so fickle.

Publishers and developers might jizz over a large install-base, but they'll jizz even more over a more focused and dedicated install-base that will actually buy more than 2 games throughout a console's lifetime.

 

[Fafalada]

Not much concrete evidence that people actually upgrade their iStuff every year as people are wont to accuse them of.

The retailers that deal with trade-ins reporting record sales and massive spikes everytime a new iStuff is announced, as well as the fact resale prices for new units spike way beyond MSRP around launches even though carriers offer them at a tiny fraction of the price - all that says to me there's a group that definitely does it.
There's also a simple reality that subscribing to multiple contracts is not something many sane people will do - so if you are one that has to have one of each devices that do the same exact thing, you will buy in retail too.

And it's a free world to do so - there's people out there that buy a dozen phones a year too, from different makers. We're talking about devices that have become fashion accessory as much as a status item, and those trump function/utility-driven purchasing any day.

 

[SkylineRKR]

What I'm saying is that 99% of the people that went in a store to buy a PSP, ended paying at least 23k yens without any game (32 Mb Memory stick pro duo was 3k yens). I don't see that the difference of money is enough to consider now 25k a too expensive price.

Yes, the entry point was cheaper, but I don't see that the difference is big enough.

Its psychological. Device is being advertised for 19k and that sounds better than 25k. People might be lured to the store thanks to the price, and end up doing what you said. Which is buy the system and buy an extra memorycard and possibly a game. Mission succeeded.

Who knows they would've stayed at home if there was only a 25k sticker in the ad.

Its about choices and low entry. MS was smart by releasing a Core 360. Bad thing however was that only their overpriced HDD worked making the upgrade a pain. But still, you could get the console for cheap.

 

[Jomjom]

Screw the mass market, their buying habits are unpredictable and it's hard for developers to plan and finance games around them because they're so fickle.

Publishers and developers might jizz over a large install-base, but they'll jizz even more over a more focused and dedicated install-base that will actually buy more than 2 games throughout a console's lifetime.

Publishers and devs (EDIT: that make hardcore games) may want that, but console makers want the mass market. If they didn't, the Kinect would never have been released. The 360 already had the most focused and dedicated install base based on its software attach rate. The same goes for PS Move.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Its Psychologic. Its being advertised for 19k and that sounds better than 25k. People might be lured to the store thanks to the price, and end up doing what you said. Buying an extra memorycard and possibly a game. Mission succeeded.

Who knows they would've stayed at home if there was only a 25k sticker in the ad.

Well, again you add to the fact that the memory cards were universal. For instance, I had a Memory Card Duo for my camera 6 months before the PSP was even available in my country. So people either had one or could get one used for dirt cheap anywhere. The memory cards were not unique to just the PSP. I was pretty pissed when Sony forced me to buy the "value" pack for my PSP since I didn't need anything in there including the memory card as I already had one.

But if you start tacking on stuff like this to the launch price... where does it stop? The launch price is what it is.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Sure. That makes it even better. I had a Duo in my Ericsson phone back then as well. Only 64mb but more than enough for saving games.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Sure. That makes it even better. I had a Duo in my Ericsson phone back then as well. Only 64mb but more than enough for saving games.

The "Value Pack" for the PSP only shipped with 32mb but you could save games with a 16mb or even an 8mb.

 

[neptunes]

Publishers and devs (EDIT: that make hardcore games) may want that, but console makers want the mass market. If they didn't, the Kinect would never have been released. The 360 already had the most focused and dedicated install base based on its software attach rate. The same goes for PS Move.

If thats the case then why is Nintendo trying to better relations with their party publishers & developers. The Wii is the perfect example that illustrates my point.

I would any enthusiast would prefer the console that has the games that appeal to him the most, and not just for the masses.

 

[Jomjom]

If thats the case then why is Nintendo trying to better relations with their party publishers & developers. The Wii is the perfect example that illustrates my point.

I would any enthusiast would prefer the console that has the games that appeal to him the most, and not just for the masses.

I never said they didn't also want the enthusiasts, but you said in your earlier post "screw the mass market". No console maker from here on out is ever going to have that mentality unless they want to keep selling to the same people that have already always been there to support gaming. Stockholders want to see companies expand their market, not stay pat.

Also even with Nintendo's inability to attract the "hardcore" focused install base, they've made more money than both Sony and Microsoft in this console generation. That's even taking into account the fact that MS is doing great with XBL and subscription fees, while Nintendo has essentially no online service in comparison. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Nintendo going after better relations with third parties is natural. Companies always try to make more money and do better, no matter what the circumstances. Lack of third party support and the hardcore userbase was a weakness that needed to be addressed.

 

[Lesiroth]

You can laugh at him, I guess.

You're right, that's the only thing I can think of :/

 

[Jokeropia]

Publishers and developers might jizz over a large install-base, but they'll jizz even more over a more focused and dedicated install-base that will actually buy more than 2 games throughout a console's lifetime.

What systems are you thinking of here? The only one with a tie-ratio even remotely that low is the PSP.

 

[neptunes]

I never said they didn't also want the enthusiasts, but you said in your earlier post "screw the mass market". No console maker from here on out is ever going to have that mentality unless they want to keep selling to the same people that have already always been there to support gaming. Stockholders want to see companies expand their market, not stay pat.

Also even with Nintendo's inability to attract the "hardcore" focused install base, they've made more money than both Sony and Microsoft in this console generation. That's even taking into account the fact that MS is doing great with XBL and subscription fees, while Nintendo has essentially no online service in comparison. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Nintendo going after better relations with third parties is natural. Companies always try to make more money and do better, no matter what the circumstances. Lack of third party support and the hardcore userbase was a weakness that needed to be addressed.

Yes Nintendo and a few other 3rd parties (including ubisoft) have managed to find success on the Wii, meanwhile Activision, Take-Two etc... have reached record sales on other platforms, and are on track to do so throughout this year and the next. How is that possible despite selling games on platforms with a lower install base

What systems are you thinking of here? The only one with a tie-ratio even remotely that low is the PSP.

It was a figure a speech meant to reflect "casual consumers" who might be satisfied buying 1 or 2 games throughout a console's life. P.S. The PSP's software Tie ratio wasn't always that low. I remember software sales being quite healthy for the first 2.5 years, then piracy happened. Then hardware sales remained constant while software sales dropped significantly

 

[The Faceless Master]

As I said in the line that you didn't copypasted. But the 20k yen version didn't had a memory card, so you needed, maybe not 25k, but more than 20k to be able to play and save.

do we know yet if the PS Vita comes with some sort of memory onboard or how much their memory cards will cost?

 

[Jin34]

Yes Nintendo and a few other 3rd parties (including ubisoft) have managed to find success on the Wii, meanwhile Activision, Take-Two etc... have reached record sales on other platforms, and are on track to do so throughout this year and the next. How is that possible despite selling games on platforms with a lower install base


It was a figure a speech meant to reflect "casual consumers" who might be satisfied buying 1 or 2 games throughout a console's life. P.S. The PSP's software Tie ratio wasn't always that low. I remember software sales being quite healthy for the first 2.5 years, then piracy happened. Then hardware sales remained constant while software sales dropped significantly

Just so you know, 3rd parties have done much worse this gen compared to last gen.

 

[Jokeropia]

Yes Nintendo and a few other 3rd parties (including ubisoft) have managed to find success on the Wii, meanwhile Activision, Take-Two etc... have reached record sales on other platforms, and are on track to do so throughout this year and the next. How is that possible despite selling games on platforms with a lower install base

It's possible because of multiplatform games. Wii does not have a larger installed base than 360 and PS3 put together.

The PSP's software Tie ratio wasn't always that low. I remember software sales being quite healthy for the first 2.5 years, then piracy happened. Then hardware sales remained constant while software sales dropped significantly

SW shipments:

2004: 1.30m
2005: 32.8m
2006: 56.4m
2007: 51.8m
2008: 53.9m
2009: 47.5m
2010: 44.8m
2011: 16.5m (January - June)

HW shipments:

2004: 0.51m
2005: 14.79m
2006: 9.67m
2007: 11.8m
2008: 15.5m
2009: 10.6m
2010: 7.7m
2011: 3.5m (January - June)

Tie ratio after 2006: ~3.6
Tie ratio now: ~4.1

Numbers are for calendar years and there's a split around 2006/2007 when Sony went from production shipments to regular shipments so the real totals are likely a few millions lower than listed for both HW and SW.

 

[Slime]

After that Gamescom conference...jeez. They could give this thing away and I doubt people would buy it.

Where's the third-party support?

 

[Nirolak]

After that Gamescom conference...jeez. They could give this thing away and I doubt people would buy it.

Where's the third-party support?

At this point I'm willing to predict that there's no real third party Western support.

 

[Curufinwe]

Not sure what this means but first off, the PSP was first on retail shelves in 2004, not 2005. And the current conversion rate at the time made the 19,800 yen PSP come out to $185 in 2004 American dollars.

It means when it launched in America in 2005, it cost $250, which is less in real dollars than the Vita will cost when it launches in America.

Every game played just fine without a memory card.

Except you couldn't save any progress.

 

[Father_Brain]

After that Gamescom conference...jeez. They could give this thing away and I doubt people would buy it.

Where's the third-party support?

How can you criticize the awesomeness of a new Assassin's Creed*, a new Bioshock**, and Call of Duty***?






*That doesn't formally exist yet as anything other than a bullet point
**That doesn't formally exist yet as anything other than a bullet point
***That doesn't formally exist yet as anything other than a bullet point, and may not even be a new game

 

[Mr_Brit]

After that Gamescom conference...jeez. They could give this thing away and I doubt people would buy it.

Where's the third-party support?

The graphics seem to have taken a downgrade, that Resistance game looked like a straight up Xbox port.

 

[Jin34]

At this point I'm willing to predict that there's no real third party Western support.

It's a handheld console, lack of western support was a safe guess from the get go.

 

[Sennorin]

If it wasn´t before, PSV is in trouble now. I honestly see now chance for success in a world where the PSV costs the same as a PS3. THIS is the most direct competition Sony will face now. People will see this, see that the PS3 gets them a BluRay-player, better graphics, etc. and buy it instead of that handheld.

Will be extremely surprised if the PSV has any kind of continued high sales-numbers beyond its launch-period.

 

[Luckyman]

The graphics seem to have taken a downgrade, that Resistance game looked like a straight up Xbox port.

How the fuck can it be downgraded when it has never been shown

If someone thinks 40€ western 3rd party games are sustainable on any handheld.. lulz

 

[Thoraxes]

At this point I'm willing to predict that there's no real third party Western support.

But uh, Assassin's Creed?!?!
I've got nothing. Wonder when they'll actually show any other support or any system unique titles.

 

[Father_Brain]

It's a handheld console, lack of western support was a safe guess from the get go.

Correct, but there are certain persons who maintained that it would get better Western support than any previous dedicated handheld, largely by virtue of shared console middleware.

 

[Jomjom]

At this point I'm willing to predict that there's no real third party Western support.

The conference was definitely not a good sign for a healthy launch lineup and western support.

I think TGS will be the last chance to show what the PSV's support will be like. With what we've seen as far as the games that will release here in the west, I feel certain now that the PSV will do pretty poor numbers in the US. Hopefully something exciting (MoHun) will be announced at TGS that will make the PSV the dominant handheld in Japan so that at least it will survive until we see the localizations in the US.