It was originally on ps3 before they ported to vita. And I doubt that would 'kill' vita because it didn't sell in the first place.

1) Except developers arw NOT developing for both, you avoided my point entirely, and your, "evidence" is at best optimistic and at worst grasping for footing.

2) You neglected my point entirely.

3) People knew that when the 3DS was $250 and yet, it did not do anything for sales. There is still no mainline Pokemon game on 3DS but sales are much better since... you guessed it, a price cut.

4) I agree it will become more prominent as time goes on, but when Nintendo was getting hammered in the market people tried to say the same things as you about mobile games cutting into their market and now Nintendo have clearly put on display that price was the main cause of concern. When they cut the price... lets put it this way, nobody taken seriously say those things about Nintendo vs mobile gaming/cellphone market anymore. It has become a target for fans and trolls of Sony because it makes a great excuse. I am sorry but again, the sales figure completely disprove your stance. This you must understand.

No, it hasn't.

You will be seing PlayStation°Mobile on every android phone the second it looks like vita is headed down a one way slope. Great piece of hardware, but people want low quality on the go.

I'm a native english speaker and have no idea what you're talking about.

But its aimed at gamers who want deep handeld experience and that doesn't necessarily mean "on the go". To date I could count on both hands the amount of times I've seen someone in london playing a DS,PSP,3DS or PSVITA on a bus or train. Yet the systems have a combine userbase of 250m. Adding to that my own preferences I would conclude most people who buy handhelds don't actual intend to play them on the go. 

This is why I pointed out that things are relative. My point is, people DID buy Vitas for those games. A "lot" of people bought Vitas for those games, in that those games sold the console to a large group of customers that seems to have been uninterested in it until their releases. No game is going to push millions of sales like Mario, Pokémon, or Monster Hunter, but these games pushed a decent number of units, and likely would have pushed a LOT more if the console weren't so danged expensive.

Basically, you can sell a console for $1000 and only be selling 1k a week, and if a single game comes out that pushes that up to 4k for one week, that is VERY significant. With one game you just convinced four times as many people as usual that this console was worth that price. There isn't any one game that's going to convince twenty thousand people to immediately go out and buy a thousand-dollar console, and there isn't any one game that's going to convince a hundred thousand to immediately buy a Vita. It needs a lot of games that push 20-40k at a time, not one single mythical "big game."

I'm not sure what your point is really, as you said something then someone quoted you, then you basically argued against your own post. I see what you're saying but the important part of your post is what I disagree with personally. Take the $1000 dollar console that increases to 4k for one week up from 1k a week...That sounds great if you just skim over it, but the important part here is a single word "one"....one week.

So not significant at all, if it increased to 4k then went back to 1k the next week.

The original discussion arose when someone said the Vita just needs one big game. I argued that there is no single game big enough to instantly turn the Vita around, and instead it needs many "big" games -- not as "big" as the one game some people think it needs, but about as big as Miku and Persona, which ARE big despite not looking big to people waiting for that ONE "big" game.

Sales increased for one week and then dropped back down. So the next week or the week afterwards, it needs another big game, or two smaller games. Every major release stacks upon previous releases, so that each major release pushes the console slightly higher than the one before. Between releases it doesn't fall quite as low. And so on. Vita needs many of these major releases, not one super-duper release.

Look at how the 3DS got where it is today in Japan. It had a trifecta of unfathomably big releases last Holiday (Mario and Monster Hunter I marked as exceptions). But it wouldn't be selling well at all right now if it hadn't had any major releases in the past 10 months. It needed Dragon Quest, Kingdom Hearts, Fire Emblem, Kid Icarus, Resident Evil, Mario & Sonic, Harvest Moon, Theatrhythm, Mario Tennis, not to mention New Super 2 and a hardware revision, and all of the smaller games in between, to stay afloat. Take away two-thirds of those games and 3DS sales would be pretty dead right now, too.

It wasn't a single game, or even three games, that made the 3DS a success. They marked the turning point. But there are no games big enough to mark an absolute turning point in that way for the Vita. The Holiday season can do it if it has enough Miku-sized games scheduled to release in that window, but it will not be ONE game.

Yeah see what you're saying :) agreed.