-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
KOTAKU: Mobile Gaming Didn't Kill The Vita--Sony Did
- Thread starter bud23
- Start date
You actually believe all of this. Lol
It's like you and I are the same person.
dragonyeuw
Member
outunderthestars
Banned
In 2011 Sony needed retail support and full game digital downloads were not as big of a deal. I recall articles discussing the higher priced memory cards as an olive branch towards retail partners. The thought at the time was that it would allow retailers to profit from consumers going digital only.
Obviously the market shifted towards downloadable games, and Sony was caught in a tough spot. That said, I still don't know why they have not moved from that position in the last few years.
Obviously the market shifted towards downloadable games, and Sony was caught in a tough spot. That said, I still don't know why they have not moved from that position in the last few years.
CamHostage
Member
Well, besides it being one of the pillars Schreier complained about in the post that started this thread was that Sony sold us on "console-quality" gaming and didn't deliver in his opinion on that quality...
It's easy to say that there's an answer to how to succeed at portable business, but I disagree that Sony never did anything right.
A) The premise sold 80 million PSPs (are we going to call Monster Hunter a "bite-sized" game? for that matter, are we going to say Fire Emblem or Bravely Default are mistakes against the premise?) Part of its attraction was console-quality games of all scales, from the very biggest open-world action games the very smallest (but still professionally produced) puzzle games, with online experiences and multiplayer and other features people expect from games today. It was a gaming system in your hands, there was nothing that needed to be defined (as opposed to Nintendo's portables, where people think of them as 'where to get Pokemon and other Nintendo games') as it had the potential to be everything.
B) Sony is not incapable of bite-sized games. Look at the PSP and Vita library, there are plenty of puzzlers and platformers racers and fighters and golf games and whatever else could be enjoyed in 5-25 minute increments. Sony was never able to build a library of new titles like LocoRoco and Patapon, but if you look at the launch library, games like Little Deviants and Smart As and ModNation played into that concept. (And going back to Schreier's original post, he mentions that Sony had a cache of PS2 games to port and PS1 games to put for download... that's not bite-sized gaming, but he thought that it was going to help.) Add in the ability to put any game in sleep mode with PSP/DS/Vita and everything of any scale can be taken in small bites whenever you want. Bite-sized is not Sony's strong suit, and it's not what the PlayStation audience says it wants in gaming, so it makes sense that Sony would try to translate the PlayStation experience from console to handheld (is Nintendo really not doing the same?), but they certainly don't approach that market with only one thing to eat.
Filter through all the Marios and Pokemons off the list of DS best-sellers (which I guess are bite-sized?) and you'll see plenty of big-bite games on the seller list; look at the PSP best-seller list and you see relatively few bite-sized games. And look at Apple's iPhone and iPad advertisements that are game-oriented, there's hardly any concern as far as whether a game is bite-sized (in fact, every time Apple trots out a new spec bump, it's a big console-quality experience that they try to sell.) It's certainly a good formula for making million-sellers, but it's hard to say today or even for the past generation that people think about that when they're buying an iPhone game or familiar Nintendo franchise portable product; ultimately that 'bite-sized experience' may help hook them into the platform, and ultimately that hook may carry the platform to success, but Sony never even had the opportunity with Vita to prove it could set a hook.
The MH deal was made in 2010 before 3DS released and it turns out it was actually Capcom who approached Nintendo with it. In retrospect it really makes sense why they would (bigger userbase, western potential, PS2 level production values, etc) even if it was a Shocking Betrayalaton at the time. There was no bidding war and no salvaging attempt at all though.
Also, there's never been any indication Yokai Watch was a Vita game. The initial reveal had people guessing PS3 or Wii U (indeed it looks like the Ni No Kuni engine) but never really Vita. Even the video you posted would rule out Vita by resolution alone.
Sony were also coming off 2010's PSP Go disaster so it makes some sense they'd have to make assurances with retail. I can can see why the propietary solution made sense in 2011, but as you say for the later cost cutting model revisions (2000, PSTV) Sony very obviously should've switched to microSD/USB storage.
What i'm finding interesting is that this time Jason didn't dropped by the thread to discuss with us.
Normally he likes to post at least some thoughts and elaborate more on his points.
Now, to everyone saying that Sony didn't try enough, what would you do if you were the boss?
Here's the situation, your company is on a difficult moment, bleeding money every quarter, and you to focus your support on some products.
You are fighting against a market that have lots of advantages (cheaper games, multiple functions, better account support, better upgrade support, bigger ) and this market is eating your lunch more and more every day. A market that had impacted not only your segment but others as well (cameras, mp3 players, gps).
One of the products is clearly rejected by the market (Vita) and 2 others have a chance to succeed (PS3/4), but you have to concentrate your efforts almost exclusively in one of them (money, developers, marketing).
The rejected one need some deeply changes, in hardware (removing or completely changing essential parts) in software (refocusing your strongest developers, changing the mentality) and perceived image. The promising ones need some better software focus and marketing (Ps3) and the other will start from 0, but need to be correct support to guarantee success (Ps4).
In addiction to your internal efforts your products need the support from external partners to help you conquer more market. This partners at majority forgot about the reject product, but still are willing to support the others.
So you have to choose, you double down on your strongest products or you try a hail mary to save something that shows almost 0 change of success?
I, as a company CEO know what my decision would be.
Sony is not Microsoft. They don't have billions to throw at a product until it can at least be remembered (Surface).
Normally he likes to post at least some thoughts and elaborate more on his points.
Now, to everyone saying that Sony didn't try enough, what would you do if you were the boss?
Here's the situation, your company is on a difficult moment, bleeding money every quarter, and you to focus your support on some products.
You are fighting against a market that have lots of advantages (cheaper games, multiple functions, better account support, better upgrade support, bigger ) and this market is eating your lunch more and more every day. A market that had impacted not only your segment but others as well (cameras, mp3 players, gps).
One of the products is clearly rejected by the market (Vita) and 2 others have a chance to succeed (PS3/4), but you have to concentrate your efforts almost exclusively in one of them (money, developers, marketing).
The rejected one need some deeply changes, in hardware (removing or completely changing essential parts) in software (refocusing your strongest developers, changing the mentality) and perceived image. The promising ones need some better software focus and marketing (Ps3) and the other will start from 0, but need to be correct support to guarantee success (Ps4).
In addiction to your internal efforts your products need the support from external partners to help you conquer more market. This partners at majority forgot about the reject product, but still are willing to support the others.
So you have to choose, you double down on your strongest products or you try a hail mary to save something that shows almost 0 change of success?
I, as a company CEO know what my decision would be.
Sony is not Microsoft. They don't have billions to throw at a product until it can at least be remembered (Surface).
autoduelist
Member
You're not wrong, but at the time Sony most likely thought it absolutely needed to -give- people a reason to buy a Vita and not just use their phone. You could already get bite sized mobile games, and that market was clearly growing -- Sony knew damn well they couldn't compete with that.
Their only option was to position the Vita as something different from your phone -- which meant 'console-like experiences'. But obviously that didn't work out. But had Sony marketed the Vita as providing "bite-sized fun", we'd be sitting here criticizing Sony for not aiming at the console market instead of the mobile market. Sony couldn't win.
Pretty much this.
If the Vita had sold well, we'd have seen
1) more first party games
2) more 3rd party aaa development
3) economies of scale in mem cards and an easier path to price drops
but instead sales didn't take off. This locked them into the path you outlined... they couldn't easily drop prices of the cards because that's how they made profit while keeping the vita's cost low, and when nobody bought the AAA games they developed (Uncharted, KZ Mercs, Tearaway, etc) they had to step back from development.
thankfully they noticed, then nurtured and encouraged what did sell -- indies and localizations, and ended up creating an absolutely incredible, albeit niche, machine.
That's what one person on one forum said. Not what "fans tell themselves". C'mon.
Why do people keep mentioning Resistance and Call of Duty? As if those were the only two games released on the system, and because of their mediocrity, that is the sole reason why the Vita failed.
Here's another scenario. One that I've witnessed time and time again on this very forum even:
"Wow, I just saw that new game, Gravity Rush. Looks amazing."
"What platform is it on?"
"Vita exclusive."
"Oh, never mind. Not worth buying a Vita over."
"Wow, I just saw that new game, Tearaway. Looks amazing."
"What platform is it on?"
"Vita exclusive."
"Oh, never mind. Not worth buying a Vita over."
"I just saw that new game Killzone: Mercenary. Looks awesome."
"What platform is it on?"
"Vita exclusive."
"Oh, never mind. Not worth buying a Vita over."
Rinse and repeat with every awesome Vita exclusive released. Apathy is what killed the Vita. The downplaying of every single one of its quality exclusives, and the incredible library of indie titles and Japanese titles is what killed the Vita. Hardcore gamers killed the Vita by being impressed with the games it had, but not enough to buy one.
Uncharted Golden Abyss was awesome. Wipeout 2048 was awesome. Gravity Rush, Tearaway, Dangan Ronpa, Unit 13, Ys, Soul Sacrifice, Senran Kagura, Freedom Wars, La Mulana, Rogue Legacy, Assassins Creed: Liberation, Persona 4, and too many to list were good to great games, but it just wasn't enough for people.
Sure, the system lives due I awesome indie and Japanese support, but there was a time when quality western games were also gracing the system. As someone who has a lengthy commute to work on the bus each day, I can't tell you how awesome it was to play MvC3, or Unit 13, or Persona, or Uncharted and wipeout on the way to work.
I used to have people gawking and asking questions about what I was playing, and what system that was.
The thing is, hardcore gamers are the biggest marketing tool console manufacturers have. Software is key, but word of mouth is easily as powerful. The word of mouth about the Vita outside of a vocal minority of people who actually own the console was that of indifference.
When a casual gamer asks their trusted hardcore gamer friend if they should buy a Vita, and that hardcore gamer friend shrugs his shoulders and says "meh," no amount of in your face marketing is going to sell that person a console.
So many casual friends that asked me about the system spouted off the same "no games, 3DS is better," rhetoric that I saw on forums including this one during the early stages of the Vita's life. They were always shocked when I'd show them the latest game I was playing on it. I love my 3DS, but that doesn't mean I have to hate my Vita. Why can't I love them both, when they both offer me so many awesome games and are different enough functionality wise to offer a unique gaming experience of their own?
I know, the hardcore doesn't like to hear that they failed to support a fantastic gaming platform, but like the Dreamcast, that's exactly what happened with the Vita. The main difference being that the Vita has a massive library of games compared to the Dreamcast, and is still supported, even when large scale developers have dropped support.
What killed the Vita was a cumulative effect. The combination of changing market trends, highly priced memory cards, uncertain messaging from Sony, and an indifferent hardcore enthusiast reaction to the platform is what did it in. Software support was never really the problem. Publishers like Activision, who produce mediocre content on a good day can't be expected to produce GOTY material on a handheld. Sony's first party studios did right by Vira for as long as they could. Uncharted, Unit 13, Gravity Rush, Tearaway, etc, held it down pretty damn well, even if some people have swallowed the rhetoric that those games weren't buying a Vita over.
At the end of the day, the people that love them, love them, and many that finally get one for themselves realize how amazing it was, no wonder why they never picked one up before "how do I hold all these games?" Etc, etc. the system did the best it could, and software attach rates are high, despite the low hardware numbers. I think that's why it still gets such strong support from indie devs and Japanese developers.
Here's another scenario. One that I've witnessed time and time again on this very forum even:
"Wow, I just saw that new game, Gravity Rush. Looks amazing."
"What platform is it on?"
"Vita exclusive."
"Oh, never mind. Not worth buying a Vita over."
"Wow, I just saw that new game, Tearaway. Looks amazing."
"What platform is it on?"
"Vita exclusive."
"Oh, never mind. Not worth buying a Vita over."
"I just saw that new game Killzone: Mercenary. Looks awesome."
"What platform is it on?"
"Vita exclusive."
"Oh, never mind. Not worth buying a Vita over."
Rinse and repeat with every awesome Vita exclusive released. Apathy is what killed the Vita. The downplaying of every single one of its quality exclusives, and the incredible library of indie titles and Japanese titles is what killed the Vita. Hardcore gamers killed the Vita by being impressed with the games it had, but not enough to buy one.
Uncharted Golden Abyss was awesome. Wipeout 2048 was awesome. Gravity Rush, Tearaway, Dangan Ronpa, Unit 13, Ys, Soul Sacrifice, Senran Kagura, Freedom Wars, La Mulana, Rogue Legacy, Assassins Creed: Liberation, Persona 4, and too many to list were good to great games, but it just wasn't enough for people.
Sure, the system lives due I awesome indie and Japanese support, but there was a time when quality western games were also gracing the system. As someone who has a lengthy commute to work on the bus each day, I can't tell you how awesome it was to play MvC3, or Unit 13, or Persona, or Uncharted and wipeout on the way to work.
I used to have people gawking and asking questions about what I was playing, and what system that was.
The thing is, hardcore gamers are the biggest marketing tool console manufacturers have. Software is key, but word of mouth is easily as powerful. The word of mouth about the Vita outside of a vocal minority of people who actually own the console was that of indifference.
When a casual gamer asks their trusted hardcore gamer friend if they should buy a Vita, and that hardcore gamer friend shrugs his shoulders and says "meh," no amount of in your face marketing is going to sell that person a console.
So many casual friends that asked me about the system spouted off the same "no games, 3DS is better," rhetoric that I saw on forums including this one during the early stages of the Vita's life. They were always shocked when I'd show them the latest game I was playing on it. I love my 3DS, but that doesn't mean I have to hate my Vita. Why can't I love them both, when they both offer me so many awesome games and are different enough functionality wise to offer a unique gaming experience of their own?
I know, the hardcore doesn't like to hear that they failed to support a fantastic gaming platform, but like the Dreamcast, that's exactly what happened with the Vita. The main difference being that the Vita has a massive library of games compared to the Dreamcast, and is still supported, even when large scale developers have dropped support.
What killed the Vita was a cumulative effect. The combination of changing market trends, highly priced memory cards, uncertain messaging from Sony, and an indifferent hardcore enthusiast reaction to the platform is what did it in. Software support was never really the problem. Publishers like Activision, who produce mediocre content on a good day can't be expected to produce GOTY material on a handheld. Sony's first party studios did right by Vira for as long as they could. Uncharted, Unit 13, Gravity Rush, Tearaway, etc, held it down pretty damn well, even if some people have swallowed the rhetoric that those games weren't buying a Vita over.
At the end of the day, the people that love them, love them, and many that finally get one for themselves realize how amazing it was, no wonder why they never picked one up before "how do I hold all these games?" Etc, etc. the system did the best it could, and software attach rates are high, despite the low hardware numbers. I think that's why it still gets such strong support from indie devs and Japanese developers.
I didn't make a statement on the quality, I made a statement on the development resources. Point in case your list.
Guerilla Cambridge: made TV Stars for PS3, has a PS4 game in development
Sony Bend: No PS3 game, one PS4 game in development
Media Molecule: 2 PS3 games, a Vita remake for PS4, one further PS4 game
Studio Liverpool: 3 PS3 games, one being a HD remake and another being DLC. Went defunct in 2012.
Zipper Interactive: 2 PS3 games, went defunct in 2012.
Sony Japan: 21 PS3 games, 10 of them developed with outside cooperation, 8 PS4 games (incl upcoming), 6 of them developed with outside cooperation, 6 Vita games, 6 of them developed with outside cooperation.
All of them, except Sony Japan, developed one Vita game. Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog, Santa Monica did zero. Point in case Vita, barely taking resources away or alot of refocusing on PS4. Sony Japan, yes, but thats pretty much it.
And none of them, except Molecule and Japan, are major players.
There is no despite. That comes with the niche. Nintendo games have insane attachment rates on WiiU.
Gipsy Danger
Member
People hate on the OLED display, but it's still the best thing about the handheld (and the only reason I own one)
Why would people hate on the OLED? It's beautiful.
This thread really went some places. Moneyhatting Monster Hunter conspiracy theories make for a good laugh though. Thanks guys.
It's a trash article being gobbled up by idiots on kotaku and here.
I wouldn't want to try and defend it to someone either
autoduelist
Member
Well, you don't need to dominate a market to profit in it, and yes, to some degree you don't want to entirely leave a market. Part of the overall Sony strategy (as with Nintendo and MS) is to build an all encompassing gaming ecosystem. The more locked into an ecosystem you are, the more unlikely you are to leave it. Trophies, purchased library, and ps+ are key examples of their ecosystem.
Abandoning the portable gaming market would leave a hole in the ecosystem [especially at the time of the Vita's release, where the shrinking market was evident but not fully realized]. For example, if in a few years i pick up a competitor's device (nintendo, say, or some sort of portable steam machine) it delinks me from the ecosystem. I might start playing my [vast, unplayed] Steam library instead too, and then decide against a PS5. Or whatever. The point is, there is value in ecosystem infrastructure, and portable gaming plays some part in that.
Not to mention, leaving a market tends to be a very 'final' decision - whereas keeping a low-profit presence provides future options [though obviously they'd prefer high profit].
Unfortunately this put, and puts, Sony in an uncomfortable position in the portable gaming market because there's no obvious, clean cut, sensible position to be in.
Maybe if they'd shed many features [touch, back touch, gyro, cameras] and focused on just building a pure dual analog gaming system it would have reduced the price enough to be more competitive.. but who knows? Maybe the cost savings wouldn't have changed a thing, and with 'wii' still recent, perhaps they hoped one of those features (or all in conjunction) would make it a must-have gadget.
I'm most curious about how they proceed. I know many think it's obvious they'll leave the market, and yes, from the market perspective that makes the most sense... but there's still an ecosystem they may want to protect more than they want to abandon. thankfully, the vita is at that critical point where I think it's 'good enough' graphically and powerwise for the indies and localizations currently selling on it, so Sony has some time to sit tight and let it ride.
Poor Sony... Sony pockets so empty their own A teams couldn't afford to work on the system.... is that selfparody?
It really does read like he was lurking here and got the material for the article lol.
GhostTrick
Banned
Nothing shows Youkai Watch was a Vita title lol. The first trailer shown graphics beyond Vita's reach, more likely because it was just placeholder. Also, the moneyhat argument is pretty tiring when its clear Capcom just wanted to support the handheld coming after the most successful one. Monster Hunter wasn't money hatted, Capcom just banked on 3DS hence why they had so much games announced for the platform and why they even took time to make 3DS compatible with MT Framework.
Also, I don't buy the "Sony pockets were empty" argument. Then again, would it cost them that much of money to just show the damn thing at E3 ? It's also easy to see how "Poor Sony" lost MH after MHP3rd HD fiasco in west.
What makes it always so amazing to me is that they keep forgetting that 3 and Ultimate happened. The shift was done years and games ago.
Another Vita topic, another slew of "handheld game!" and "console game!" bickering. One side says no one wanted console games on a handheld, the other side comes back with "bu-bu-bu- Ocarina! Xenoblade!"
Here's an idea: these terms are dumb, stop using them. The majority of games that come out could be suitable to be played on either a handheld or a console. Is it true that some games might only work well on one type of system? Sure. I bet MGS4 wouldn't fit well on a handheld, and Picross 3D wouldn't be that great on a console. But most games don't have any issues performing on one or the other.
Animal Crossing started as a console series. It sells much better on handhelds. What type of game is Animal Crossing?
Monster Hunter started as a console series, and revolves around fighting huge monsters with friends for 30+ minutes at a time over a long, long period. Yet is sells best on handhelds. What type of game is Monster Hunter?
Mario games got their start on consoles, but sell well everywhere! What type of games are Mario games?
The real answer is both. Uncharted: Golden Abyss didn't under perform because its a "console game" that no one wants to play on a handheld, it under performed because it was developed by a B Team and given a fraction of a fraction of the marketing and PR attention that big brother Uncharted 3 got.
Another thing Sony kept screwing up with their handheld output is the release timing. Let's look at some of Sony's more notable handheld output: Uncharted: Golden Abyss came out three months after Uncharted 3. Killzone Mercenary came out two months before Killzone Shadow Fall. God of War: Ghost of Sparta came out six months after God of War 3. In all of these situations the console game received far more attention from Sony, either in the form of advertising or just visibility at events like E3. Were any of the people who played Uncharted 3 hankering for a watered down Uncharted game three months later? Were Killzone fans chomping at the bit to play the Vita title rather than waiting two months to play next gen Killzone? And outisde of Sony, the Assassins Creed/Call of Duty Vita releases suffered similar fates.
You'll realize that Nintendo almost never stacks their handheld/console releases for a single series like this. The only Nintendo example I can even think of is NSMB2 and NSMBU, and both of those titles under performed.
Here's an idea: these terms are dumb, stop using them. The majority of games that come out could be suitable to be played on either a handheld or a console. Is it true that some games might only work well on one type of system? Sure. I bet MGS4 wouldn't fit well on a handheld, and Picross 3D wouldn't be that great on a console. But most games don't have any issues performing on one or the other.
Animal Crossing started as a console series. It sells much better on handhelds. What type of game is Animal Crossing?
Monster Hunter started as a console series, and revolves around fighting huge monsters with friends for 30+ minutes at a time over a long, long period. Yet is sells best on handhelds. What type of game is Monster Hunter?
Mario games got their start on consoles, but sell well everywhere! What type of games are Mario games?
The real answer is both. Uncharted: Golden Abyss didn't under perform because its a "console game" that no one wants to play on a handheld, it under performed because it was developed by a B Team and given a fraction of a fraction of the marketing and PR attention that big brother Uncharted 3 got.
Another thing Sony kept screwing up with their handheld output is the release timing. Let's look at some of Sony's more notable handheld output: Uncharted: Golden Abyss came out three months after Uncharted 3. Killzone Mercenary came out two months before Killzone Shadow Fall. God of War: Ghost of Sparta came out six months after God of War 3. In all of these situations the console game received far more attention from Sony, either in the form of advertising or just visibility at events like E3. Were any of the people who played Uncharted 3 hankering for a watered down Uncharted game three months later? Were Killzone fans chomping at the bit to play the Vita title rather than waiting two months to play next gen Killzone? And outisde of Sony, the Assassins Creed/Call of Duty Vita releases suffered similar fates.
You'll realize that Nintendo almost never stacks their handheld/console releases for a single series like this. The only Nintendo example I can even think of is NSMB2 and NSMBU, and both of those titles under performed.
RoninChaos
Member
The craziest part of this whole thing are vita fans who are like "The system isn't doing poorly because I enjoy it!" That's been the call of the vita fanboy since it started going down hill.
The vita felt like it was designed by the people who designed the PS3. It's a great piece of hardware but it doesn't fit the realities of the market now and the hidden price of the memory card pushed the system into $300 plus territory.
Bottom line, price matters for the total package. Price is what fucked Microsoft, fucked Sony (when you add the price of a memory card), fucked Nintendo with the 3ds launch and the Wii U. Couple the price point with the handheld market moving towards phones and this was bound to happen. Sony just expected people would make games for this because they were Sony and didn't factor in anything else.
The vita felt like it was designed by the people who designed the PS3. It's a great piece of hardware but it doesn't fit the realities of the market now and the hidden price of the memory card pushed the system into $300 plus territory.
Bottom line, price matters for the total package. Price is what fucked Microsoft, fucked Sony (when you add the price of a memory card), fucked Nintendo with the 3ds launch and the Wii U. Couple the price point with the handheld market moving towards phones and this was bound to happen. Sony just expected people would make games for this because they were Sony and didn't factor in anything else.
TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY NINE US DOLLARS
Well, he's not wrong... completely.
While it's easy to assume Sony could have gotten their shit together and pulled a 3DS on their handheld, lots of people bought the PSP for mature handheld games and the multimedia features. The Vita does both, but mobiles do it, and due to the open app market better than the Vita ever would have managed even in best case scenario.
Sure their backwards ass crap on restricting PSP and PS1 games, their lack of confidence in the platform after initial lukewarm sales and the memory card prices (which especially disheartens anyone who wanted to pick up a Vita for multimedia purposes) didn't do the platform any favors, but due to mobile market alone, even if Sony pushed as hard as they could, I feel like they never would have managed to make the Vita truly suceed because mobiles got their demographic covered so much better.
While it's easy to assume Sony could have gotten their shit together and pulled a 3DS on their handheld, lots of people bought the PSP for mature handheld games and the multimedia features. The Vita does both, but mobiles do it, and due to the open app market better than the Vita ever would have managed even in best case scenario.
Sure their backwards ass crap on restricting PSP and PS1 games, their lack of confidence in the platform after initial lukewarm sales and the memory card prices (which especially disheartens anyone who wanted to pick up a Vita for multimedia purposes) didn't do the platform any favors, but due to mobile market alone, even if Sony pushed as hard as they could, I feel like they never would have managed to make the Vita truly suceed because mobiles got their demographic covered so much better.
yeah it is selling more and nintendo is still publishing games for it
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I am guessing the moneyhat conspiracy with those exclusive contract is really their attempt to revise the history.
You know the saying "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." perhaps that is what they are trying to do here.
You know the saying "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." perhaps that is what they are trying to do here.
test_account
XP-39C²
It was first with Ultimate that the shift happened though, in late 2011. Tri was out as early as 2009, and Portable 3rd was out in late 2010.
I dont think we can really call it a lie. In the end, its all specutlation from both parts (unless i've missed something). Whats people think is most likely is another matter though.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
I am not exactly calling it a lie. I am saying that the way they have been repeating it for years despite having no evidence seems like an attempt to paint it as a fact.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Wow you just made up a bunch of junk here no?
People still think that Nintendo moneyhatted MH out of PSVita?
It's like DQ, Nintendo happens to have a good relationship with Capcom and the reason MH wasn't on DS was because the people at Capcom didn't want to make the game without at least 1 analog stick, 3DS got one so MH moved.
On top of that, Sony did jackshit to push MH outside of Japan while Nintendo pretty put their all behind MH3.
Capcom moved MH to 3DS probably due to the prospect of Nintendo growing MH in the West and since the upgrade path from PSP to Vita wasn't ideal anyway (after all they sold a fuckton of useless (for Vita) UMDs on Psp so moving MH to 3DS was painless.
Capcom didn't need to be moneyhatted to move on 3DS.
It's like DQ, Nintendo happens to have a good relationship with Capcom and the reason MH wasn't on DS was because the people at Capcom didn't want to make the game without at least 1 analog stick, 3DS got one so MH moved.
On top of that, Sony did jackshit to push MH outside of Japan while Nintendo pretty put their all behind MH3.
Capcom moved MH to 3DS probably due to the prospect of Nintendo growing MH in the West and since the upgrade path from PSP to Vita wasn't ideal anyway (after all they sold a fuckton of useless (for Vita) UMDs on Psp so moving MH to 3DS was painless.
Capcom didn't need to be moneyhatted to move on 3DS.
Sony put all its eggs in one basket and assumed Vita would be next gen portable Monster Hunter machine.
Even the early tech demos had MH (PSP) running on the machine; that's how confidant they were that Capcom would deliver the next version of the franchise on a silver platter.
Shame on Sony for their cockiness.
Double shame on Sony for giving up on Vita as soon as Capcom dropped the MH bomb.
Even the early tech demos had MH (PSP) running on the machine; that's how confidant they were that Capcom would deliver the next version of the franchise on a silver platter.
Shame on Sony for their cockiness.
Double shame on Sony for giving up on Vita as soon as Capcom dropped the MH bomb.
SinCityAssassin
Member
What an active imagination you got.
test_account
XP-39C²
I see, thats fair enough =)
GhostTrick
Banned
How could they not see this coming after MH3 skipped ps3 to go on Wii?
Did they see the very public developing relationship between Capcom's MH team and Nintendo as something that wouldn't affect MH on their platform?
I agree with you. For me Nintendo is trying with the 3DS and just coasting the Wii U until the NX launch.
But the poster i replied to believed that Nintendo is not only trying, it is even getting some sales from the effort.
Inspector Jones
Member
I've loved the Vita since the start, and was a pretty big fan of the PSP. I saw the warning signs when Vita barely got any coverage at all. What's really sad now is that I would gladly take the 10 minutes of stage time compared to a complete lack of any presence at all.
The saddest part is there won't be a successor either.
But I've more than gotten my worth out of my awesome little machine. I have over 400 hours in P4G alone.
The saddest part is there won't be a successor either.
But I've more than gotten my worth out of my awesome little machine. I have over 400 hours in P4G alone.
StoppedInTracks
Member
The fire still burns...
You're goddamn right. Double so when Sony's own firmware site checking uses that as the internal name.
Such a shame the PSP2 wasn't actually a PSP2. More like a PSP -1000 :/ No Grand Theft Auto. No Isometric Shooters a la Killzone Liberation. No creepy moe pantsu JRPGs like Persona 3...
Such potential in a PSP2 but nooooooo. Gotta lock the system down, make creepy as fuck games and jack the memory card prices.
Clearly Sony had their heads up their asses and had little clue of what was to come.
Here's an old NGP video showing just how transparent Sony was in their confidence that Capcom would deliver:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ayGWF1piE
dragonyeuw
Member
Fair points all-around, though it's pretty clear the Vita is the end of the line as far maintaining a handheld presence within that ecosystem you mention. The market is not going to 're-shift' to a place that would make a Vita follow-up viable. Hell, I'm curious to see how Nintendo tackles the challenge with the NX( or whatever the 3ds followup is).
I always about Nintendo having their heads up their asses but clearly they're not the only ones.
I think there was an interview where they said they didn't really moneyhat stuffs anyway and kind of provided the best environment possible and that devs like them enough to provide exclusive content anyway.
There's some truth to that I guess, Capcom was clearly pissed that they couldn't grow outside of Japan on psp on their own and decided to find other ways to grow.