By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
greenmedic88 on 27 February 2012
Edit Thread
superchunk said:
greenmedic88 said:
I don't agree for the some of the same reasons already mentioned.

Unless Sony makes a phone that is over 50% battery in volume and weight, people can't play graphics intensive games on it for hours on the go and still expect to be able to have power for phone calls network access and all the other things people use their smartphones for.

Two, and is a major one: I'm not tying myself to a two year contract for a Sony phone so I can play the latest PSV games. I'm not paying a second cellular/data plan bill for that, and I'm not switching phones and services just to play games, even if they are better than the ones typically found on iOS.

If I just want to play the games and use the PSN gaming services, I want one that's unfettered to a 2 year subscription service. No contracts.

1) Vita's battery is 2200mAh and there are phones that already have that same battery or larger.

2) If it was a high-end smartphone, like most people already buy anyways, AND offered the same experience as the Vita currently offers for games, you would buy it as your phone. Additionally, if it was priced similar to phones/tablets now, you could probably also have a wifi only model for the same $300 you're paying for PSV now. Only difference is you actually have a cheap alternative with the contracted model, especially when considering that most phones are really cheap or free a few months after launch on contract.

I know the charge capacity of the PSV and that's good for 3-5 hours of gaming. Naturally they'd have to go with a high capacity cell if it was repurposed as a cell phone.

I still wouldn't buy it as my smartphone. I'd get another iPhone or buy an Android phone. Most would do the same and there isn't any reasonable argument to suggest otherwise. 

Lastly, even if the phone was free, I'd still be paying for two years of cellular/data service. The price of the phone is pretty insignificant compared to a 24 month bill unless it's replacing another phone/service plan.

As for replacing iOS or Android, see point 2. People have already worked these OSs into their daily workflow, with apps that give their phones the functionality they want. The PSV OS is not a fertile breeding ground for free or $.99 apps and in all likelihood, it never will be. Development costs are higher, there's no existing environment as with iOS and Android, and frankly, games are about the only key apps the PSV OS is likely to see. 

And even if Sony wanted to carve out a small niche of game centric smartphone users, most would just as soon buy the PSV as is to play the same games as the phone without paying for a cell plan. 

The only advantages anyone is looking at is carrying one phone as opposed to a phone and a PSV.

Maybe you should have added a poll to see who would actually be game for a PSV Phone before stating any reasons why Sony should release on instead of the PSV. 

My guess is that the number who would buy one would be less than the number who would buy a PSV, making the whole argument one of "Here's why Sony should reduce the size of their potential market for PSV games."