Support NeoGAF

[Not Spaceghost]

The true magic of the vita is that it taught me how to enjoy JRPGS again. Being able to take them on the go was a huge game changer for me. There is no way I would have ever finished something like Persona 2, 3, and 4 on a home console. Being able to just suspend and resume them whenever made going through them more like reading a book than playing a game.

 

[dracula_x]

Isn't that "new kids IP" story kinda old for Sony? I remember them saying that last year and we know nothing yet.

yeah, I think I heard that too somewhere. Only don't remember if it was related to smartphones or Vita.

 

[qko]

Recall when late in its lifecycle the PSP outsold the NDS?

Like after the 3DS came out? Yeah I remember that.

 

[dragonyeuw]

it would actually be really smart for Sony to release another handheld while Nintendo is distracted w/ Switch, imo.

No it wouldn't. The handheld market has shrunk to a degree that 2 dedicated gaming handhelds is no longer viable, one was left standing bruised and bloodied. Nintendo themselves realized this and responded with a hybrid console while dipping their toe in mobile gaming. Sony has a firm grip on the home console market and getting VR off the ground, personally I'd rather they focused on those markets solely. I see the Switch as the spiritual successor to the Vita( and Wii U) and asides from PS staples( many of which didn't show up on the Vita), I think you'll see alot of the same Japanese/indie content that has defined the Vita's library. I'd rather they not release a handheld 'just because', and treat it as they did the Vita from 2014 onwards.

 

[Elixist]

"You know, for kids!"

if that was a hudsucker proxy reference, it was very fucking clever haha

 

[DrROBschiz]

The idea that you can play console games on the Go was one of the main thing about the Vita. And the Switch is taking cues from it.

Even Nintendo admit it.

Funnily enough it was also a major complaint regarding Vita games.

"I don't want to play console games on an handheld" etc.

yeah its so weird how the attitude flipped when Nintendo put out their "own Vita"

to be fair they are mostly doing it the right way in 2017

Vita should have had Tv out and sd cards.

 

[Stormblessed]

I wonder how hard they pushed Dragon Quest Builders on the platform? Seems like an obvious call, if what they're saying is true.

 

[DR2K]

Is that why they're not developing any games for it?

 

[Enter The 36 Chambers]

Minecraft?

Microsoft kept the Vita alive in Japan.

Wild.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

The idea that you can play console games on the Go was one of the main thing about the Vita. And the Switch is taking cues from it.

Console games on the go isn't new for Nintendo. I bought Super Mario 64 for my DS. The Switch is simply the final evolution of this concept for them. Nintendo didn't take cues from Vita. If anything, it took cues from Wii U. The Switch is simply the right device for the company during this time in its history.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Console games on the go isn't new for Nintendo. I bought Super Mario 64 for my DS. The Switch is simply the final evolution of this concept for them. Nintendo didn't take cues from Vita. If anything, it took cues from Wii U. The Switch is simply the right device for the company during this time in its history.

its ok man

we moved on from that

 

[MoonFrog]

I mean, Switch is Nintendo switching lanes a bit, no?

It seems spec'd more in line with the PSP line than the DS line. It is a 'luxury' handheld. I'd imagine a PSP3 would come in with similar hardware to Switch, unless Sony also switched up their approach in this strategy.

Now, the thing is, this is an artifact of their decision rather than the driving force of their decision. Hybrid, shared library, one Nintendo, etc. that's the driving force behind Switch having the hardware it has.

This switch does position the Switch as a successor to Vita. But that in no way makes it as if Nintendo looked at Vita and said "that idea was better than ours, let's do it next time."

Moreover, 'luxury' specs is not at all the only thing going on with the hardware. You have a hybrid that clocks up at the TV. You have the Joycons and motion control. You have the Joycons and portable one console local multiplayer.

...

As to console games on the go....that has always been happening. The thing is the genres it is happening with. JRPG has long been viable on handheld. Platformer has long been viable on handheld. Puzzler has long been viable on handheld. Isometric adventure/exploration/simulation has long been viable on handheld. Etc.

The market also accepted 3D action games in the PSP/DS generations, with Monster Hunter being the core example, but with Nintendo also putting out N64 ports.

The console games that have not successfully transferred so far have been those that are bread and butter of post-PS2 coreboxes, i.e. graphically intense shooters. Handhelds still skew more Japanese and more PS2 and backwards (as well as DS and forwards) in terms of core genres.

This is true even of Vita.

Personally, I think Zelda was also a test case for open-world. I think it passed playing it in a hybrid fashion.

I think Splatoon will be another test case, because as much as I expect it to push local multiplayer and try and duplicate MH in Japan, it is also going to be an online shooter. Not a graphically intense one and it has its peculiar quirks for the genre which may make it more viable, but still.

...

Edit: I guess my point is a) I'm happy when Vita consumers see something in Switch, and I think they will get their indies but maybe not all their Sony ecosystem Japanese titles, which may track Sony rather than form factor, b) I'm happy when Switch is acknowledged as sexy hardware instead of "It's Nintendo so it's shit" knee jerk reactions that are out of touch with reality, c) I don't think the console games on portable is as clear cut as the fanboy arguments of the PSP/DS make it out to be and don't see Switch as the revenge of the PSP fan, and d) Switch makes internal sense to Nintendo, if you've been following them.

 

[Kresnik258]

I wonder how hard they pushed Dragon Quest Builders on the platform? Seems like an obvious call, if what they're saying is true.

It's the most I've seen them advertise a Vita game since Minecraft came out.

 

[CamHostage]

I'd love for them to give it another shot, but I don't see them bothering at this point. Maybe a vita pro? Sadly, I think that's wishful thinking.

I pitched that for fun last year and got laughed off GAF, but I still stand by it. We can ask the question of whether making more Vitas makes sense or not at all, but according to this article, Sony seems to think so, so then the question in my mind becomes: Why continue to make an underpowered PlayStation Vita when you can make the games it current run a little peppier and prettier by upping the specs?

(Granted, I do not have any insight into the tech and whether a stronger GPU or more RAM could be beneficial given this architecture the way it does on PS4 Pro. Also, there would be cost in adjusting the manufacturing, so it would have to be a successful new product, and Vita means life, not success...)

A new handheld would be an extreme challenge to market in these conditions, so until there's a PS4 Portable, there's nothing new on the horizon.
In the meantime, Vita Pro -- sell the system you're already selling with more power to run the games it's already running. Sony is at this point probably paying nearly as much for 512 MB RAM, 128 MB of VRAM, and an iPad 2 chip that they'd pay for something less ancient. A PS Vita Pro could conceivably better run games like DQ World Builder, Ys, Akiba's Beat, Nights of Azure 2, the next Ateliers, whatever Neptunia ... uh, I guess Gun Gun Pixies, all of that stuff that'll be made one way or another, give them a version of the platform that makes these games easier to talk about and share. It's an aging platform, but it's not an obsolete or unsupportable platform, so I'd be super happy if they found a way to give it a boost.

...And, uh, ditch those Vita Memory Cards while you're at it?

Is that why they're not developing any games for it?

Sony's Third Party relationship mining has continued to pay off, as has making sure Unity supports the platform. So while I would love to be playing a Horizon companion game on Vita right about now, there has been strategy that has worked (to a certain degree) that continued investment in new software development or porting to Vita would have been virtually hopeless for.

It is a bad sign to consumers that Sony isn't producing titles for its own platform, that'd be the key reason to back it still. The software itself was a sinkhole for Sony. (I'm bummed that the porting efforts pretty much trailed off, we got some pretty good Flower and Dead Nation and other Vita games out of it (but I'm guessing it was mostly previous PS buyers who got them and that new Vita buyers didn't see those old games new to Vita as attractive anyway, plus cross-porting even small-scale PS4 titles will be more and more challenging as new technologies take over.) On the Vita 1st Party front, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

"You know, for kids!"

if that was a hudsucker proxy reference, it was very fucking clever haha

"Sure, sure -- even a blind man could tell you that there'll be an enormous demand for this, uh ... this ..... Congratulations, kid, you've outdone yourself. You've reinvented the wheel!"

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Console games on the go isn't new for Nintendo. I bought Super Mario 64 for my DS. The Switch is simply the final evolution of this concept for them. Nintendo didn't take cues from Vita. If anything, it took cues from Wii U. The Switch is simply the right device for the company during this time in its history.

You're being weirdly obtuse right now.

The DS was never advertised as being a handheld platform where you could play console games. Furthermore there's a pretty big difference between a port of a game several generations behind and having current console games available on handheld which is what I was talking about with "console games on the go".

The amount of multiplatform games as well as the big push for remote play and the PSTV initiative shows that both the Vita and the Switch are embracing a similar philosophy.

 

[daxgame]

Vita may crawl, but it still means life.

 

[sublimit]

As someone who loves niche Japanese games (and some indies) Vita still has a great value.Even in 2017.

 

[hongcha]

Man we can't have a positive Vita thread? They literally say it's doing well and people are all LALALA DEAD DEAD.

That's almost every Vita thread here for the past 4 years.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I pitched that for fun last year and got laughed off GAF, but I still stand by it. We can ask the question of whether making more Vitas makes sense or not at all, but according to this article, Sony seems to think so, so then the question in my mind becomes: Why continue to make an underpowered PlayStation Vita when you can make the games it current run a little peppier and prettier by upping the specs?

I think they should go the opposite route. Drop the camera and rear touch - release a patch for Uncharted that just moves that functionality to the front touchscreen. Support SD cards. Add R2/L2. And release it for $99 - this system will be 6 years old this year, there's no reason that shouldn't be possible. Now you're in impulse buy territory, with a workable remote play solution. If you're really feeling ambitious, give it an HDMI out and let it receive signal from PS4 controllers. Relaunch it with a couple of first party PS4 downports. That would be a system that has a fighting chance, if only because of the price point.

 

[jimmypython]

No reason not to. It still sells.


What Vita has accomplished there without games like MH is truly amazing. .

 

[i-Jest]

I still play mine and there are still games releasing on the console in the west. It's not 3DS, in terms of sheer number of games, but its got an incredible library if people took the time to explore. This is especially true for its Japanese library.

 

[Manac0r]

First off - miss VitaGAF <3

Second I have two Vitas and despite owning a Switch - I can't help but compare it to my time on the Vita. At the moment it has long way to go.

Plus dat OLED.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Vita games still get shelf space so it's not dead in the water or anything here but I've seen no real indication that Sony believes in it and I don't think it's selling particularly well. But sure!

This weird push to tie the Vita to the Switch is a bit surprising. It's good Vita gamers are interested but I'm not sure why this spiritual successor narrative needs to exist. Handhelds have similarities, more at 11. Playing handheld games on consoles and putting console games on portables powerful enough to play them has been the mo basically forever. Vita was the closest to close that power gap before the switch. That's about it. Remote play was a neat idea for the portable to play console games without the games being compromised and where almost every ps4 game ought to be possible. But the experience itself is hugely compromised and requires fantastic unbroken internet connections on both ends, ill-suiting it to travel and frankly not working well anywhere. Switch performs excellently and can be used anywhere without internet but compromises the games possible to play. If anything they are approaching the age-old goal of portables in completely opposite ways.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Vita games still get shelf space so it's not dead in the water or anything here but I've seen no real indication that Sony believes in it and I don't think it's selling particularly well. But sure!

This weird push to tie the Vita to the Switch is a bit surprising. It's good Vita gamers are interested but I'm not sure why this spiritual successor narrative needs to exist. Handhelds have similarities, more at 11. Playing handheld games on consoles and putting console games on portables powerful enough to play them has been the mo basically forever. Vita was the closest to close that power gap before the switch. That's about it. Remote play was a neat idea for the portable to play console games without the games being compromised and where almost every ps4 game ought to be possible. But the experience itself is hugely compromised and requires fantastic unbroken internet connections on both ends, ill-suiting it to travel and frankly not working well anywhere. Switch performs excellently and can be used anywhere without internet but compromises the games possible to play. If anything they are approaching the age-old goal of portables in completely opposite ways.

That would be true if the cross-save/cross-buy initiative didn't exist. The will to combine your console purchase with your handheld purchase (when possible) as well as allowing you to start with one and continuing your playthrough on the other is most definitely sharing the same philosophy as the Switch's.

Add to that the previous point I posted and you can plainly see that the Switch and the Vita have a lot in common in terms of console gaming on the go and handheld gaming on the big screen.

 

[CamHostage]

I think they should go the opposite route. Drop the camera and rear touch - release a patch for Uncharted that just moves that functionality to the front touchscreen. Support SD cards. Add R2/L2. And release it for $99 - this system will be 6 years old this year, there's no reason that shouldn't be possible. Now you're in impulse buy territory, with a workable remote play solution. If you're really feeling ambitious, give it an HDMI out and let it receive signal from PS4 controllers. Relaunch it with a couple of first party PS4 downports. That would be a system that has a fighting chance, if only because of the price point.

I mean, selfishly, I like my imaginary reality better because I'd get to get myself a super-charged Vita to enjoy, but your reality of a budget re-introduction (with or without controller/hardware enhancements, ideally with) makes more sense and I'm down for it as well.

 

[MikeyKlump]

Could never get into my Vita. There isn't a single compelling experience on there that I have spent more than an hour on.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

You're being weirdly obtuse right now.

The DS was never advertised as being a handheld platform where you could play console games. Furthermore there's a pretty big difference between a port of a game several generations behind and having current console games available on handheld which is what I was talking about with "console games on the go".

The amount of multiplatform games as well as the big push for remote play and the PSTV initiative shows that both the Vita and the Switch are embracing a similar philosophy.

Outside of a handful of gimped titles, the Vita never had modern console-level games on its platform, regardless of how it was marketed. Uncharted: Golden Abyss is not a console-quality Uncharted experience. Ditto for Resistance: Burning Skies, Call of Duty, and Killzone. So, again, I don't know what you're getting at. Switch did not look to Vita for inspiration. It is the natural evolution of Wii U. When I played on Vita, I was getting the "direct to DVD" versions of console games. When I play BotW, I'm playing an actual console game on the go.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Outside of a handful of gimped titles, the Vita never had console games on its platform. So, again, I don't know what you're getting at. Switch did not look to Vita for inspiration.

What are you talking about, to this day the Vita is getting day and date releases of multiplatform games with the PS4 and oftentimes PC.

There's a huge amount of games and they aren't gimped. I suggest that you take a look at the Vita library because it looks like you're misinformed.

 

[Oersted]

“From henceforth as well, we’re going to continuing concentrating on the PS Vita and increase the number of younger [PS Vita] users,” Morita said. “This year, we also plan on developing an IP that’s aimed at children.”

Developing one new IP for the segment of one market for a console at the end of its lifecircle is... weird. No matter which console. Feels like a deadend with no successor-plattform in sight.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

What are you talking about, to this day the Vita is getting day and date releases of multiplatform games with the PS4 and oftentimes PC.

There's a huge amount of games and they aren't gimped. I suggest that you take a look at the Vita library because it looks like you're misinformed.

I love indies to death, but they were not what I or others envisioned as the main reason to buy the platform when Sony announced the Vita as a "console quality" device. But you are right that the system does occasionally receive titles like Dragon Quest Builders and World of Final Fantasy.

 

[paulogy]

How about bringing the 64GB memory card to the US at a lower price? (or an even bigger one?

 

[RichiRamjag]

How about bringing the 64GB memory card to the US at a lower price? (or an even bigger one?

That's true. That fucking memory card. I wanted to buy another vita like 6-7 months back, but I saw the price of the memory was even higher and forgot about it. I should have kept the 64gb I had for my older one.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

I love indies to death, but they were not what I or others envisioned as the main reason to buy the platform when Sony announced the Vita as a "console quality" device. But you are right that the system does occasionally receive titles like Dragon Quest Builders and World of Final Fantasy.

But indies are far from being the only multiplatform games available on Vita though.

 

[SinCityAssassin]

Would've been all about the Vita if not for that memory card.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

But indies are far from being the only multiplatform games available on Vita though.

Hell, even if I'm horribly wrong and Vita is full of console-quality multiplatform titles that I've completely missed, it still doesn't change my main point. The Switch is Nintendo's Wii U concept fully realized, in addition to being the integration of their portable and home console lines into one. It is the logical next step for the company and it certainly didn't take the PlayStation Vita for it to happen.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Hell, even if I'm horribly wrong and Vita is full of console-quality multiplatform titles that I've completely missed, it still doesn't change my main point. The Switch is Nintendo's Wii U concept fully realized, in addition to being the integration of their portable and home console lines into one. It is the logical next step for the company and it certainly didn't take the PlayStation Vita for it to happen.

No one said that the Vita is the reason the Switch exist. Just that the Switch is a proper evolution of the Vita's philosophy.

Playing handheld game on the big screen (PSTV), playing console games on the go (remote play and multiplatform games), bridging console and handheld library (cross buy) and starting a game on one platform and being able to continue on the other (cross save).

You really don't think that all those points are close to the Switch? Closer then what the WiiU did?

 

[MoonFrog]

No one said that the Vita is the reason the Switch exist. Just that the Switch is a proper evolution of the Vita's philosophy.

Playing handheld game on the big screen (PSTV), playing console games on the go (remote play and multiplatform games), bridging console and handheld library (cross buy) and starting a game on one platform and being able to continue on the other (cross save).

You really don't think that all those points are close to the Switch? Closer then what the WiiU did?

Curious if you take issue with my post above, as I think I expressed a similar issue with this narrative to Orbital Beard.

And it was being discussed as if Vita paved the way or Switch took cues from Vita, when, as I said, I think the Switch's similarity to Vita are mostly artifacts, happy for that audience if the software also comes/they're happy with the Nintendo side and indies.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

No one said that the Vita is the reason the Switch exist. Just that the Switch is a proper evolution of the Vita's philosophy.

Playing handheld game on the big screen (PSTV), playing console games on the go (remote play and multiplatform games), bridging console and handheld library (cross buy) and starting a game on one platform and being able to continue on the other (cross save).

You really don't think that all those points are close to the Switch? Closer then what the WiiU did?

Switch doesn't utilize cross-save or remote play. It's not two different platforms. You're able to play the same game at home or on the go, because it's the same system.

Nintendo released the Super Gameboy in 1994, so I'm not sure the PSTV was something they ever looked at. The Switch is the culmination of many different ideas Nintendo has been experimenting with for many, many years.

MoonFrog, I essentially agree with what you're saying. The Switch is the natural next step for Nintendo. Just because it's more "premium" than previous Nintendo handhelds doesn't mean it took cues from Vita. It's a more premium device, because it has to be. It's Nintendo's replacement for both home console and handheld lines.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Curious if you take issue with my post above, as I think I expressed a similar issue with this narrative to Orbital Beard.

And it was being discussed as if Vita paved the way or Switch took cues from Vita, when, as I said, I think the Switch's similarity to Vita are mostly artifacts, happy for that audience if the software also comes/they're happy with the Nintendo side and indies.

I mostly agree with you with about everything from your post actually. Though regarding console games on the go, I was more talking about the mindset that specific handheld games were preferable to multiplatform games on a handheld. It was an argument that I often saw around here. Your point about genre being more accepted as time goes by is something that I believe as well. The idea that "console games on the go is bad" was always was weird to me since the GBA was so port focused.

Switch doesn't utilize cross-save or remote play. It's not two different platforms. You're able to play the same game at home or on the go, because it's the same system.

Nintendo released the Super Gameboy in 1994, so I'm not sure the PSTV was something they ever looked at. The Switch is the culmination of many different ideas Nintendo has been experimenting with for many, many years.

MoonFrog, I essentially agree with what you're saying. The Switch is the natural next step for Nintendo. Just because it's more "premium" than previous Nintendo handhelds doesn't mean it took cues from Vita. It's a more premium device, because it has to be. It's Nintendo's replacement for both home console and handheld lines.

It really seems like we won't be agreeing on it so let's agree to disagree.

 

[Skyzard]

Over here in the UK, I do too. I always did though. Ever since the breakthrough of the PSP, I wanted more fun, impressive, quality handheld titles.

I have a lot of great games for it (like a lot, I've bought a tonne), most are the replayable type, some are ageless and absolute gems that haven't made their way to other portables. I have all the retro emulators, ps1 and psp games I want on it. And I just sorted out PC library streaming to the vita today and it works really well with my setup.

I'm still planning on picking up Salt and Sanctuary and something I've been looking forward to for a while now - Drift Stage (when it finally gets finished).

The compact form factor, style, functionality etc means I'll never get rid of it and will be playing it for a while to come.

 

[daman824]

What are you talking about, to this day the Vita is getting day and date releases of multiplatform games with the PS4 and oftentimes PC.

There's a huge amount of games and they aren't gimped. I suggest that you take a look at the Vita library because it looks like you're misinformed.

No he's not. Sony promised western audiences PS3 quality games. And they consistently dropped the ball. Sony wasn't focused on niche Japanese or indie games when they announced and launched the vita. They were focused on uncharted, resistance, call of duty, killzone, and bioshock. The only game Sony delivered on was killzone. Uncharted pales in comparison the the console games, resistance and cod were broken garbage, and bioshock was silently canceled

 

[Skyzard]

No he's not. Sony promised western audiences PS3 quality games. And they consistently dropped the ball. Sony wasn't focused on niche Japanese or indie games when they announced and launched the vita. They were focused on uncharted, resistance, call of duty, killzone, and bioshock. The only game Sony delivered on was killzone. Uncharted pales in comparison the the console games, resistance and cod were broken garbage, and bioshock was silently canceled

Compared to the alternative handheld at the time, the Vita was a generation ahead of the 3DS. Big titles like Killzone Mercenary, Uncharted, LBP, Fifa, Wipeout etc were great on it. No one bought it so they stopped trying to push big games after a while and instead helped indies flourish, which suited the platform really well.

But if the PSP couldn't do PS2 level graphics, why would the Vita do PS3.

It's like comparing a Switch to a PS4.

 

[daman824]

Compared to the alternative handheld at the time, the Vita was a generation ahead of the 3DS. Titles like Killzone Mercenary, Uncharted, LBP, Wipeout were great on it.

But if the PSP couldn't do PS2 level graphics, why would the Vita do PS3.

It's like comparing a Switch to a PS4.

Sony made the comparison themselves when they showed the system off.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Compared to the alternative handheld at the time, the Vita was a generation ahead of the 3DS. Titles like Killzone Mercenary, Uncharted, LBP, Wipeout were great on it.

But if the PSP couldn't do PS2 level graphics, why would the Vita do PS3.

It's like comparing a Switch to a PS4.

It's less about visuals and more about overall quality.

Maybe I have rose-tinted glasses for the PSP, but I was incredibly satisfied with many of the games on that system and felt it delivered on its "console quality" promise far more than Vita did. Its main failing was the lack of a second analog stick, but so much of its software was ace.

 

[Skyzard]

^Uncharted (the one title being complained about that I liked) was good, despite you having to scrub the screen sometimes. I like my PSP and I like my Vita more. Vita > PSP > DS >>> 3DS for me. I still don't know what people saw in the 3DS. After having a PSP, the Vita was the only reasonable option and it delivered pretty well.

PSP definitely had a more third-party support for longer. But it didn't have the quality indies the vita does and the bigger games don't really hold up, whereas a lot of the indies on Vita are timeless. Ok, some people only want big games for their handhelds. That's fair. But it's not the only correct opinion and it ignores a lot of quality non-indie titles that did come out tbh. A substantial amount of good bigger titles that get forgotten (often by people who didn't really have a big interest in the Vita anyway).

Sony made the comparison themselves when they showed the system off.

You'd have to be pretty simple to think something the size of a PSP and 3DS would be exactly like a home console, no matter what. The message they were giving with the Vita was that it was a much more capable dedicated handheld than the alternatives, and it was.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

No he's not. Sony promised western audiences PS3 quality games. And they consistently dropped the ball. Sony wasn't focused on niche Japanese or indie games when they announced and launched the vita. They were focused on uncharted, resistance, call of duty, killzone, and bioshock. The only game Sony delivered on was killzone. Uncharted pales in comparison the the console games, resistance and cod were broken garbage, and bioshock was silently canceled

No Sony promised console gaming on the go. They delivered with the amount of multi platform games the Vita was and still is getting.

Uncharted was fine, Bioshock didn't happen and Resistance and COD sucked. Doesn't mean that they didn't deliver what was promised until it was obvious the system wouldn't sell.

LBP, Ninja Gaiden, Rayman, Injustice, UMvC and dozens more were PS3 quality games. They released and when that happened the mindset was "The Vita doesn't have any exclusives".

 

[Arzehn]

New IP? For the Vita? For kids?

Anime + game, chasing that (temporary) Yokai Watch success.

Wonder when they'll announce this Splatoon killer.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

^Uncharted (the one title being complained about that I liked) was good, despite you having to scrub the screen sometimes. I like my PSP and I like my Vita more. Vita > PSP > DS >>> 3DS for me.

PSP definitely had a more third-party support for longer. But it didn't have the quality indies the vita does and the bigger games don't really hold up, whereas a lot of the indies on Vita are timeless. Ok, some people only want big games for their handhelds. That's fair. But it's not the only correct opinion and it ignores a lot of quality non-indie titles that did come out tbh.



You'd have to be pretty simple to think something the size of a PSP and 3DS would be exactly like a home console, no matter what. The message they were giving with the Vita was that it was a much more capable dedicated handheld than the alternatives, and it was.

PSP had a much better library of exclusive games. Sony benefitted from the incredible credibility of the PS2 with developers. The Vita was released just a couple years after Sony righted the ship with PS3. And it coincided with the rise of mobile gaming.

IMO the Vita is a way better handheld than any incarnation of PSP. The screen is stunning, the analog sticks are way more functional, yet still pocketable. The system software was a huge leap over PS3. Going with carts over UMDs is an obvious win.

It's hard to say if more investment from Sony 1st party could've saved the Vita, but the designers and engineers did a hell of job.

 

[jroc74]

Vita keeps getting games... but not thanks to Sony, also Minecraft is owned by MS, just saying.

Exactly.

For every post I see saying Vita is dead I see a thread about a new game coming to Vita.

 

[Powwa]

Outside of a handful of gimped titles, the Vita never had modern console-level games on its platform, regardless of how it was marketed. Uncharted: Golden Abyss is not a console-quality Uncharted experience. Ditto for Resistance: Burning Skies, Call of Duty, and Killzone. So, again, I don't know what you're getting at. Switch did not look to Vita for inspiration. It is the natural evolution of Wii U. When I played on Vita, I was getting the "direct to DVD" versions of console games. When I play BotW, I'm playing an actual console game on the go.

What the hell is an actual console game? And how do you even put Killzone in the same category with trash like CoD?

I mean I don't get this console fanboy stance when it comes to companies. They all take cues from each other. When Nintendo achieved a great success with Wii, Sony and MS followed with PS Move and Kinect. This happens in every industry where there isn't a monopoly. It is normal, when you are competing with someone, one of the most important things to do is to analyze your opponent; you can learn the weak spots and implement the stronger parts for yourself. That's what they did with Switch, a modern handheld that can finally play games that doesn't look like 2 generation behind. They also want to eat into the small market that's left in Japan for Vita with that power so they can get multiplatform games running on the device. That's how Vita survived all these years, no thanks to Sony. I have a Switch and in some ways it reminds me of the Vita, like the game boxes and cartridges or small stuff like holding the home button bringing a little menu to change brightness and stuff.

And lastly Vita has amazing games like; Freedom Wars, Soul Sacrifice Delta, Oreshika, Tearaway, Gravity Rush, Digimon: Cyber Sleuth, Wipeout 2048, Severed, and these are just from the top of my head. All of these games are top quality for me and they are in no way inferior experiences, some of them has issues but so does BoTW.