Khuutra said:
Dodece said:
Khuutra said:
Sounds like a good strategy for a console game killer app.
Sounds like a terrible strategy for a portable game killer app.
The Vita needs portable-specific games that appeal to huge segments of the market, not experiences which are demonstrably better in every way that counts on consoles. Positioning the Vita as a console stand-in will only lead to ruin.
|
The problem is that everyone does exactly what you suggest. You have Nintendo, Laptops, Smart Phones, and Tablets all offering the same experience. What we have now is a glutted market that also happens to be a buyers market. Since everyone is giving about the same experience the one with the better priceing, or the one that serves as multiple devices will have the decided advantage. Unless the Vita can distinguish itself by pushing some envelope the others are not able to do, or cannot do effectively.
The way I see things is Sony can have a particular game, but the competition can sometimes have three or four answers to that game. What Sony needs are games the competition cannot answer, and have a long enough play life to offset the costs. What Sony needs is games that equal out to three or four games on any of the other platforms. I am not saying they dump the candy, but they need to offer up more of a main course.
For the price Sony is charging the Vita does need to be more like a console then your typical portable. If someone on the go is going to fork out that kind of hard cash. They are going to expect a premiere experience to be available. One typical game is not going to offset the price differential. Unless that game is so huge in its approach that it can offer up a solid hundred hours. Hell Sony needs games that big to offset the library size differential.
|
This is a sound idea except that portable games must be portable. The most successful portable games are always games where significant progress can be made in the space of minutes, even if they're many, many hours long (Pokemon being the best example of this). The only portable phenomenon I can think of off-hand that didn't meet this criteria was Monster Hunter, and it benefited from ad hoc local multiplayer functionality, which is still an intrinsically portable feature in this day and age.
The PSP was positioned as a console replacement at the start of its life in the West. It didn't help then, and I have trouble believing it will help now. |
When you say the most successful portable games are those that you can enjoy in short bursts, you have to remember that you're talking about Nintendo games. And Nintendo Games are almost always playable in short bursts, regardless of platform. So I don't think the short-bursts trait is a result of portable games, but rather it's just a general trait of all Nintendo games.
The PSPs best selling game was Grand Theft Auto, which I don't think was designed for short bursts. Other big games for the PSP were God of War, Monster Hunter, Gran Turismo, ect. All of which I'd say are designed for longer playthroughs.
I would not be surprised if a large number of portable gamers play gamers for long stretches of time. Sure, traditionally speaking, the biggest portable games have been playable in short bursts, but that doesn't mean games are required to have that trait to be successful. It could simply meant that no company has came along and changed the industry. The non-Nintendo portable industry is still new & it's quite possible that there are non-traditional methods for games to sell big.
The PSP sold great on games suited for long stetches of time. Most of the top tier quality games sold great, even if they were meant for long gaming sessions (GoW, GT, ect). I'd very much like to see how well a game like The Elder Scrolls or Fallout does.
