I must sadly concur with the original poster. When push comes to shove both groups reacted identically, and I really didn't think that would be the case. It isn't that I thought one was better then the other, but I most definitely thought that one would learn from the mistakes of the other. I am not saying they wouldn't make mistakes all their own, but just not the same ones all over again. Especially seeing that while the results are the same the root causes most certainly aren't the same. What ails the Vita is not the same thing that is ailing the Wii U.
The Vita was, and is overpriced for its particular market. That isn't actually the case with the Wii U. History has shown that this market can sustain consoles at that price. The Vita didn't enjoy particularly good software support. While the Wii U launched with thirty games. Which is actually quite impressive as console launches are concerned. Further more a number of those games are highly rated titles. A lot of ports certainly, but they were highly acclaimed games so it should still help the console.
The Wii U is probably suffering from poor design choices. While the Vita is suffering from poor placement. Those problems by their nature require entirely different solutions, and proactive arguments about these platforms turning themselves around should focus on what their respective companies can reasonably do to redress the core problems. They most certainly shouldn't revolve around arguments that history has taught us are just plain flawed.
For instance the single game theory. There is a bunch of hoopla that a particular game can suddenly reversed the fortunes for a platform, and people will usually point out that it was right at the beginning of a spike in sales. The problem is that the logic treats the situation like it took place in a vacuum. All a certain game can really do is nudge consumers off the fence. For that to happen they have to have been on the fence before that game arrived. Basically there were a lot of people that needed just one more little excuse to do what they intended to anyway.
The logic is not only bad, but in the case of both platforms it probably doesn't even remotely apply. If the problem calls for a sledge hammer a tap from a feather just will not do. Anymore then a logic that says a player can simply overkill the problem. Sony cannot afford to slash the price of their portable. Anymore then Nintendo can afford to money hat third parties into bringing butt loads of games to their platforms.
I suppose the funniest thing about these arguments is that most of them were proffered up by Microsoft fans in the first place. Not in regards to their console, but in regards to other platforms, but what has gotten lost was the context. A price cuts can be really possible at some times, and be fearfully effective at those times. A particular game that redresses a real vacancy in a consoles library can do the same thing. These ideas were right only in regards to a particular situation. They aren't any kind of a panacea.
A lot of the time a price cut isn't the right solution, and a particular game will have no discernible impact on long term sales. They aren't a fundamental truth, and they were never offered up as such. I suppose I am a little saddened that we are still where we were years ago. A lot of people so busy defending with bad logic. That they don't bother to really understand what is actually the problem.
