Quantcast
Vita’s fight for life: After almost a year, has Sony’s handheld managed to distinguish itself?

Forums - Sony Discussion - Vita’s fight for life: After almost a year, has Sony’s handheld managed to distinguish itself?

GhaudePhaede010 said:
What in the world is going on with this thread. Look, it is very simple and pretty much black and white.

The problem with Vita has been and will always be the pricing model. It is simple, you charge 300 for a console and then jack up the price of memory units and what you have is a recipe for sales failure.

Sales of phones and tables have absolutely no impact on hand held gaming. Well, not enough impact to be considered substancial. You guys are drastically overthinking this situation.

Games are games, we know both Vita and 3DS are going to have some games of interests and games that span almost every genre (from console type games to arcade type games to pick-up-and-play type games to unique to their platform type games) but what caused 3DS to struggle in the beginning (yes, MORE than a lack of games) was the 250 US price tag. Bottom line, that is too much for anyone not a hardcore Nintendo fan to pay. The same is said of Vita. The difference is, Nintendo dropped the price (and sales picked up athough phones/tablets are still, "in the same market") and Sony has decided to ignorantly maintain their pricing model.

That is your key difference, and now it may be too late for Sony to do anything (including dropping the price) to regain any momentum they once had going with Vita. 3DS is better established and dominating this generation, and even PSP has a better library of titles and a cheaper price making it a competitor.

You guys are killing me with this talk of phones/tablets hurting the hand held market. What hurts the hand held market is thee inflated entry price on new hardware and accessories. Jeesh!

I disagree with you on that part, imo the 3DS would have just fine with at least 2 big games. Imagine if the 3DS had Super Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7 at launch, I think that would have been a hole different story.

What killed the 3DS at the beginning was the lack of big games, not saying the price wasn't a factor (because it was) but imo the games were more important than the price.  

I agree with the rest.



Nintendo and PC gamer

Around the Network
S.Peelman said:
CCFanboy said:
S.Peelman said:

Because that's the clue.

When Nintendo makes a console like game like Mario 3D and Zelda, they use their main teams for them. The same team that made Twilight Princess made Spirit Tracks. Instead of them being watered down and developed by B-teams, the console-like games on Nintendo handhelds are always full-on entries in their respective series. They are their 'own' games. It has been so since GameBoy.

People notice this, it pays off.


Isn't there a vita game in development by media molecule though? Are they not a a-team at sony or something?

My knowledge about the upcoming Vita games isn't very good. I know that up until now, the games that are supposed to be the system sellers were made by secondary teams (or at least a different developer than their console counterparts). This nearly always shows in the quality of the game, and thus their subsequent sales.

Media Molecule is making TearAway, which actually looks like it's fun and should bring in some sales. Media Molecule also made the LittleBigPlanet games in PS3 and PSP* which were all three successful. The Vita version was apparently outsourced to a different developer (didn't know this last part, just checked on Wikipedia ). Made by another developer, LittleBigPlanet Vita now appears to be flopping, is it a coincidence? Too early to tell, but it should raise some eyebrows.

Wipeout 2048 was made by the console dev team yet it didn't set the sales books on fire. It is much more complicated than just who made what.

For example LBP Vita was made by Tarsier and Double 11 with help from Media Molecule. Almost every single review clearly states it is the best in the series and the optimal way to play (yet somehow they rate it lower?). Uncharted Golden Abyss was made by Sony Bend with a ton of help from Naughty Dog and is better than the first Uncharted. Both these games were outsourced to incredible teams resulting in great products yet they are doing just as good as Wipeout (or just as bad depending on how you look at it).

In the future we have Killzone: Mercenery coming and it is developed by the console team using the console engine. If this game doesn't outsell Uncharted and LBP then I think it will be safe to say the developer doesn't matter as long as the game is good.

 

*LBP PSP was outsourced.



fillet said:
JoeTheBro said:

Thank you for proving my point: you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Uncharted Golden Abyss is not as grand as Uncharted 3 but it never tries to be. If we compared Uncharted GA to Uncharted 1 the Vita version (in my opinion as an Uncharted fan) is better in almost every way. Uncharted 2 and 3 continued the series by becoming more epic and large scale while Uncharted GA expanded other aspects. It's a different beast.

 

Wipeout 2048 IS the console games HD and Fury (if you have them on PS3) plus its own campaign and extras. Not a stripped down console game.

 

LBP Vita has everything from LBP 1 and 2 except their levels. The Vita version expands on this with even more content and tools as well as a highly improved create mode. Again I have no idea how you could consider this a stripped down console game.

 

I do Understand people calling Uncharted stripped down since it is different (even though I disagree), but how can you say Wipeout 2048 and LBP Vita are?


You've totally misinterpreted what I'm saying.

I'm agreeing with you, "a stripped down console game", is exactly what Uncharted on the Vita is. It's basically Uncharted - but portable. This is not what people want in a portable imo. If people wanted to play Uncharted, they'd play it on a PS3. This is the same trap the PSP fell into, I just don't think people want the same exeperience a PS3 provides, only on a more cut down level. Just like with the PSP I don't think people wanted a cut down PS2 experience.

Most people actually play portables at home anyway when it comes down to it and want to play something a little different without dragging out the PS3 or Xbox or whatever and play something quirky and unique that you don't get on a console.

Maybe I'm talking too much from what I personally want, but I saw it was a running theme on the PSP, you with games near the end like Resistance....who the hell wants to play Resistance on a PSP?

I very much enjoyed the RPGs on the PSP, they were a bit different to anything available on the PS2 at the time, have character too.

Stuff like Patapon was good, but that novelty factor is wearing a bit thin and there's only so much of that "new" type of game people can take in the vein of Echochrome and stardust hd and whatnot. The Vita needs new IPs that aren't on a console, no silly spin offs, you games that are actually FOR the Vita, but who's going to risk making them?

Ok now I understand you better with Uncharted.

But what about Wipeout 2048 and LBP Vita? 2048 is a longer game than on PS3 while LBP VIta is a better game than on PS3. Sitting on my couch infront of my turned on PS3 with LBP already loaded I'd prefer to play the Vita version instead. Think of it as if Locoroco first came out on PS3 and then a sequal was made on the PSP. That's kinda how I feel LBP is, it belongs on a portable.

I fully agree with everything else you are saying. Games like Escape Plan and Gravity Rush are exactly those kind of games but of course we need more. Tearaway is coming next year which should be great plus a sequal to gravity rush has been announced. I believe it is healthy to have a mix of these "Patapon" type games as well as console games. The problem with PSP console games was they were inferior ports. Sony has outright said it doesn't want direct ports on Vita but instead exclusive games within a console IP. Uncharted and Assassin's Creed (and sadly BLOPs declassified) are prime examples.

*But right now I'm up at college without my PS3 so I'm very happy games like PSASBR are multiplat.



the_dengle said:

Except that the week of Persona's release saw a 150% increase in hardware sales in Japan. Miku's release was even bigger, blowing hardware sales up by almost 400%. All things are relative. Just because they didn't move millions of consoles doesn't mean they weren't huge releases.

Here's the fun part about percentages: when you have a small number, it becomes really easy to increase by a large percentage. A 150% increase becomes less impressive when you're improving on a sub-8k figure, for example.

And then said minor bumps proved to be just that: minor bumps on the road to sub-10k.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.



osed125 said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:
What in the world is going on with this thread. Look, it is very simple and pretty much black and white.

The problem with Vita has been and will always be the pricing model. It is simple, you charge 300 for a console and then jack up the price of memory units and what you have is a recipe for sales failure.

Sales of phones and tables have absolutely no impact on hand held gaming. Well, not enough impact to be considered substancial. You guys are drastically overthinking this situation.

Games are games, we know both Vita and 3DS are going to have some games of interests and games that span almost every genre (from console type games to arcade type games to pick-up-and-play type games to unique to their platform type games) but what caused 3DS to struggle in the beginning (yes, MORE than a lack of games) was the 250 US price tag. Bottom line, that is too much for anyone not a hardcore Nintendo fan to pay. The same is said of Vita. The difference is, Nintendo dropped the price (and sales picked up athough phones/tablets are still, "in the same market") and Sony has decided to ignorantly maintain their pricing model.

That is your key difference, and now it may be too late for Sony to do anything (including dropping the price) to regain any momentum they once had going with Vita. 3DS is better established and dominating this generation, and even PSP has a better library of titles and a cheaper price making it a competitor.

You guys are killing me with this talk of phones/tablets hurting the hand held market. What hurts the hand held market is thee inflated entry price on new hardware and accessories. Jeesh!

I disagree with you on that part, imo the 3DS would have just fine with at least 2 big games. Imagine if the 3DS had Super Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7 at launch, I think that would have been a hole different story.

What killed the 3DS at the beginning was the lack of big games, not saying the price wasn't a factor (because it was) but imo the games were more important than the price.  

I agree with the rest.


I have said this before and will probably say it again: if the price remained the same but say Mario 3dLand came out at launch, what you would have seen (most likely) was the same buy rate of the console but a better attach rate for the games as well as a million selling game much sooner than we got one (kind of like Smash Bros. on Gamecube where sales were not very high but the games attach rate was amazingly high). It would not necessarily mean better sales, in my opinion, it would not have impacted as much as... say... the console was to launch at $199 USD.

However, if my main point is one you agree with, I can agree to disagree with you on the rest as it is purely speculation what would have happened. Besides, I do agree a lack of games was a big deal... I believe more that the price was a bigger deal in this case. This hand held (as well as Vita currently) was priced just above the mass market limit.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

Around the Network

GhaudePhaede010 said:

You guys are killing me with this talk of phones/tablets hurting the hand held market. What hurts the hand held market is thee inflated entry price on new hardware and accessories. Jeesh!

So then why did Sony feel compelled to give the Vita such phone-like control features? Why are they making such a big deal out of Playstation Mobile/Suite having Android support? Why, when the PSP sold at the same damn launch price and equally stupid memory prices, had it sold so much more at this point when it didn't come out in Europe until the fall? 

The market has changed. Back in '04, the notion that phones would be able to offer a gaming experience on par with the PSP or DS was laughable at best. Now, casual players have plenty of gaming options on devices they already have, and the Vita is using similar hardware--hardware that will be outmoded compared to other handheld devices within a year or two. Thus, without any bonafied system sellers like Monster Hunter or Pokemon, the Vita would've been a much harder sell than it's predecessor at ANY price.

Yes, price has been the main killer for the PS Vita. But it's hurting it more than the PSP because it's competing with FAR more than Nintendo this time. The notion that the rest of the mobile market isn't having an impact is ridiculous.



Have some time to kill? Read my shitty games blog. http://www.pixlbit.com/blogs/586/gigantor21

:D

I guess I'm the only person who thinks Sony should have launched the system at $299/£269 with each system containing 16GB flash memory. They should have kept propriety cards but exclusively sold the 32GB cards for $70/£50.

Obviously the above price of the system isn't a Mass Market price but that shouldn't matter at launch if you manage to secure your core market. Here is where the Vita failed, I'm not a phychologist but heres my theory and its based on how I initially reacted, as I was planning to get one at launch but didn't. Before E3 2011 people were speculating $349-400, and $300 was considered a price we'd be lucky to get and one which Sony should aim for.
once everyone found out the price was £250, everyone was like "OMG thats such a bargain, its the same price as the 3DS!" (prior pricer cut).

Then people found out they had to spend an extra $60 (current price of 16GB card) to realise the systems full potential and suddenly it was like their candy had been taken away. Not only that but the way you perceived price varies according to the product in question and paying over $50 for a mere 16GB memory card and $100 for 32GB creates the perception of "Holy shit, thats extortion, theres no way I'm paying that much for a memory card!". However had that memory been bundled with every system and partially included in the price (flash memory is cheap!) then it would have been easier to digest because you were spending $300 for complete experience, the best Handheld experience ever!

Games have obviously been a factor too but the Vita launch months were better then most in my opinion (especially the 3DS's). The mistake they made was not securing games for the japanese Market, as it is the japanese developers who will put their A team onto handheld titles, as opposed to outsourcing them to Niilstic games or ignoring handhelds completely as many western devs have. Its also the japanese titles which have a history of selling on handheld consoles in the west. Final Fantasy Type 0 should have been a Vita launch title in japan and released over here in the systems launch window, That one title would have created created a snowball effect and I don't believe the Vita would be in the position it is today. Sony has missed another opportunity to get a killer PSP title onto the Vita in the form of the upcoming One Piece: Romance dawn, the last title in the franchise sold 600k in one week for those unfamiliar with its popularity. The game arrives in fall but if there was any chance of it coming to Vita on time, it would have been announced by now.

However I think the system has potential to be a long term success and I think it will. Lets see how well Soul Sacrifice and PSO2 help the system early 2013 in Japan.



gigantor21 said:

GhaudePhaede010 said:

 You guys are killing me with this talk of phones/tablets hurting the hand held market. What hurts the hand held market is thee inflated entry price on new hardware and accessories. Jeesh!

So then why did Sony feel compelled to give the Vita such phone-like control features? Why are they making such a big deal out of Playstation Mobile/Suite having Android support? Why, when the PSP sold at the same damn launch price and equally stupid memory prices, had it sold so much more at this point when it didn't come out in Europe until the fall? 

The market has changed. Back in '04, the notion that phones would be able to offer a gaming experience on par with the PSP or DS was laughable at best. Now, casual players have plenty of gaming options on devices they already have, and the Vita is using similar hardware--hardware that will be outmoded compared to other handheld devices within a year or two. Thus, without any bonafied system sellers like Monster Hunter or Pokemon, the Vita would've been a much harder sell than it's predecessor at ANY price.

Yes, price has been the main killer for the PS Vita. But it's hurting it more than the PSP because it's competing with FAR more than Nintendo this time. The notion that the rest of the mobile market isn't having an impact is ridiculous.

The market is different, but mainly for Nintendo (they can't sell their handheld systems to non-gamers anymore-brain training) and they've already overcome that problem. Generally speaking the market is bit smaller, no one will buy a handheld system for light entertainment when their phone can easily fufil that function, this leaves a market of only dedicated gamers and children. The reason why Vita has phone like features is because they are not "phone-like" they are modern features, all technology is moving in that direction including your home consoles. When you buy a device, you expect it to be utilise the internet, social networking and be diverse in software (both cheap and expensive)



teigaga said:
gigantor21 said:

GhaudePhaede010 said:

 You guys are killing me with this talk of phones/tablets hurting the hand held market. What hurts the hand held market is thee inflated entry price on new hardware and accessories. Jeesh!

So then why did Sony feel compelled to give the Vita such phone-like control features? Why are they making such a big deal out of Playstation Mobile/Suite having Android support? Why, when the PSP sold at the same damn launch price and equally stupid memory prices, had it sold so much more at this point when it didn't come out in Europe until the fall? 

The market has changed. Back in '04, the notion that phones would be able to offer a gaming experience on par with the PSP or DS was laughable at best. Now, casual players have plenty of gaming options on devices they already have, and the Vita is using similar hardware--hardware that will be outmoded compared to other handheld devices within a year or two. Thus, without any bonafied system sellers like Monster Hunter or Pokemon, the Vita would've been a much harder sell than it's predecessor at ANY price.

Yes, price has been the main killer for the PS Vita. But it's hurting it more than the PSP because it's competing with FAR more than Nintendo this time. The notion that the rest of the mobile market isn't having an impact is ridiculous.

The market is different, but mainly for Nintendo (they can't sell their handheld systems to non-gamers anymore-brain training) and they've already overcome that problem. Generally speaking the market is bit smaller, no one will buy a handheld system for light entertainment when their phone can easily fufil that function, this leaves a market of only dedicated gamers and children. The reason why Vita has phone like features is because they are not "phone-like" they are modern features, all technology is moving in that direction including your home consoles. When you buy a device, you expect it to be utilise the internet, social networking and be diverse in software (both cheap and expensive)

I was mainly talking about the touch functionality, though. Something like Playstation Suite wouldn't be worth much without that--why would people bother making a Vita compatible version when so many more people have Galaxy phones otherwise? Clearly, that functionality was added with the smartphone and tablet market in mind.

But yeah, the narrowing of the potential customer base was my main point. I absolutely agree that kids and core gamers will have to be the main focus, and Nintendo's offerings give it a huge advantage with the former group. Thus the Vita needed to hit the ground running,  with a strong slate of hardcore games across a broad range of genres, in order to justify the purchase. It hasn't worked out that way, though.



Have some time to kill? Read my shitty games blog. http://www.pixlbit.com/blogs/586/gigantor21

:D

I hope they port Gravity Rush to the PS3. It's playable with only the analogs.