By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
VicViper on 24 October 2012
Edit Thread
theprof00 said:
VicViper said:

Too big posts :D

Well, let's say this

Post 1: DS was a disruptor and had first party games that changed the game in ways even the best Monster hunter game couldn't. Stop playing semantics here - you know pretty well I said third party games in this thread because Vita would benefit more from a, let's say, exclusive Final Fantasy, than a Killzone. So unless you can prove me Sly Cooper can be a 23 million seller like Nintendogs was, I'll stick naming the games Vita needs the most "third party", ok? Either way, it's pretty obvious it's "big games".

Post 2: Ok, Vita is okey dokey. That explains how it's selling astonishingly low. Lowest week in japan. Incredibly low in US. Rumors/evidence (still undecided) of being overtracked. Missing forecasts like a maniac - november 1st will be third time - and I don't think it'll be the charm! Well, I gave a personal theory, at least. And not just that, as that theory is not to explain past sales, but to try to predict what's next, and that is, continuation of the status quo.

More spin and strawmen.

1. So you said third party simply because third parties have bigger name games?!? Wow. I am very surprised you just said that. But it's just as interesting to note that in this very paragraph, you are now shifting along your OP. It's not third party games, guys. He just meant BIG games.

2. Okey dokey? Who said that? Not I. What I am saying is that your specific timeframe and metrics don't qualify as anything I'd call scientific. The truth is I've been waiting SPECIFICALLY for that time, because there are 4 or 5 games I want to get and need to decide between. This is why I'm saying your metric is wrong, because I know there are some potentially big games in there...it's just that none of them fit your prescribed metric. I don't think you CAN predict the future with a metric like that.

What you CAN say, and what I WILL agree with, is that Vita needs more games. It has SOME games coming out, but it's going to need a lot more, a truckload more, and it's going to need big games, and a pricecut.

The difference between my assessment and yours? Mine doesn't warrant a thread to get myself attention.


You just can't lose. Amazing.

Really, everybody knows it's "big games". BTW, the OP doesn't say what games it needs. It merely states that it doesn't have exclusive third party games, and that that's pretty important to have. And that's a fact, except for you, of course, but I think the whole world would agree PSP would be way less than it is without Crisis Core or, especially, Monster Hunter.

Vita does not need a truckload of games (Hey, I'll do a TheProf00 here! "See, guys he's saying here Vita HAS NO GAEMZ! GET HIM, BURN HIM" - [see how dumb this is?]). It needs to keep the pace, sure, but also needs hand picked games that really shake the market, having legs, prefererably.  I'm not saying a hundred games more is bad, I'm saying that since its selling like that won't get a truckload of games anyway - like it's not getting now! But right business strategies can put strategically important games for it, with that managing to get that truckload of support later.