phenom08 said:
Exactly you are right, 3rd party exclusives aren't the only thing needed but if you have nothing else then you are probably screwed. What about the Xbox, PS3 or Wii? The Wii didn't need them because of Ninty, the Wii did have it though (MH3, Just Dance, and many other games the 360/PS3 didn't have). The Xbox had first party along side 3rd party games the Wii never got and the PS3 got but because of a smaller userbase and more expensive price tag, alot of the fanbase of those games would purchase a 360. The PS3 had Sony's first party and the 3rd party support only the it and the 360 had. So yes that is correct, they technically didn't need 3rd party exclusives but the Vita can't get what they received. There aren't many big 3rd party games for handhelds, so relying on multiplats wouldn't work like it did for 360 and PS3. The biggest 3rd party games for handhelds are usually exclusive (MH, DQ). The Wii had major first party support, the Vita definitely can't copy that. A year isn't a brief period, 3rd parties don't want to just throw their money away and release games for the Vita that may not be successful thanks to a small userbase. So what happens now could decide its fate. The PS3 had the benefit of receiving major 3rd party multiplats and also had a rich Sony that was willing to pay anything to get it to sell. The Vita has a not so rich Sony and virtually no major 3rd party multiplats coming. When it comes to handhelds 3rd party exclusives are pretty important if you aren't Ninty. What he is saying about handhelds is pretty accurate unless you are Ninty. You are right if you are talking about home consoles. Home consoles don't need 3rd party exclusives because 3rd party games are big enough to sell platforms for both. The PSP had major 3rd party exclusives, the DS had major 1st party exclusives, the 3DS has both, and the Vita has neither. |
Hmm, I think the only thing you are missing here (while still making an accurate post) is that I'm not arguing that vita needs more games, but that this specific context, where games are rarely announced for the whole year, much less three months in (look at ps3 for example in this year and next) specifically third party, boxed, announced with a date (not simply announced), and compeltely console exclusive (not exclusive to sony consoles) is a bad metric for saying, much less predicting, that vita will do poorly.
If you want to say vita will do poorly, just say it. Everyone knows it will, because it doesn't have neough games yet, and costs nearly double what the 3ds does. All those metrics are in the OP.
Only third party (no first party or second party)
Only retail (no downloadable titles)
Only console exclusive (not counting that Sony wants crossplay to be a thing, which would emphasize that devs make the game on both systems)
Only for 2012 (not counting holiday, nor the fact that games are rarely announced so far ahead during slow months like those)
Only with detailed dates (not counting titles that have been announced for 2012, like bioshock, a "phantom annoucnement")
I have no problem with the idea that vita is in trouble, but these things have all been said before. This is not new, this is not revealing, and it certainly isn't backed with evidence. It's just another way to write a vita is doomed thread while circumventing the rule that threads need to be unique.
Next 12 months, there are nearly 30 interesting games coming out. Each one of those metrics removes 4 or 5. That's why you can't use metrics. They become goalposts, and it becomes biased very very quickly, whether intentional or not.
