| Dodece said: @Wlakiz Well at least you tried which is more then I can say for some. You didn't do well, but I acknowledge the effort. As for your first comment. Your example isn't universal, and that is all that really matters. If you want me to take you seriously you should use some device that is relevant to this particular market. You have dozens of main brand devices to choose from. I am sure that at least a few of them share parallels with the Vita. Find one and then you will have my attention on this. As for your second comment. Firstly market share and install base aren't the same thing. A install base is basically the number of consumers who own a product, and thus can purchase software for that product. Basically a product with a small market share can still gain support from third parties as long as it has a large enough install base to fund software development, and offer up the real possibility of profit. Further more a smaller install base can multiply its attractiveness to prospective third party developers by having a high attach ratio. Which refers to the average number of games each user will buy for that platform. Are you with me so far. This is why the 360/PS3 were able to get titles in spite of not having the biggest market share. They had enough users to create a critical mass of consumers to sell to, and their users bought more games on average. That is aside from the point though, but I wanted you to understand that. Since your seemed to have been confused. In the case of the Vita. While developers might take the risk on a new platform which doesn't have a critical mass yet at launch. They can bet that it will obtain it in short order, and in the mean time early adopters skew sales in their favor. With fewer titles to compete against, and consumers with a need to build a library. There is a time frame in which developers can expect dramatically higher then average sales, and in arriving early they even enjoy longer sales windows. Launch titles get to have long legs. A term that means they will sell well for a longer period of time. That period of time for the Vita is drawing to a close. Now we are well into the period of time where sales should reflect the accepted norms. If that all was a bit much for you. We are basically out of the grace period. The portable should no longer get the benefit of the doubt. Developers have to cover the costs of development, and that means they are reliant on a certain number of sales. That aren't going to benefit from a recent launch. If a developer wants to make a AAA game for the platform, and they need to sell a million copies of that game to break even. Then at its current install base that game would need to sell through to twenty five percent of current owners, and keeping in mind what I said earlier it is extremely rare for any game to sell above twenty percent. That means the developer would most likely lose money on the venture. Even a higher platform software attach ratio wouldn't help in this situation. Not that the Vita even has that high of a attach ratio to begin with, and if my memory serves me right. The platforms current attach ratio is two and a half titles per user, and that is benefiting from the platforms launch. Bundling and digital downloads might even hurt it more moving forward. Anyway back on point. Right now the platform isn't a beacon for AAA game development unless it is subsidized by Sony. Something which Sony has sneered about their competition doing with their products, but beyond that the low install base and the low attach ratio. Actually conspire to make the platform less profitable for even less ambitious games. Which might only reasonable expect to have a sell through in the single digits, but never the less may need to sell a few hundred thousand units. Which brings me to your last comment. It isn't about satisfying me, satisfying the third party developers, or even Sony for that matter. The whole point of this thread is that there is a logic that a price cut will save the platform. This isn't about levels of success. It is about whether the Vita can actually survive. Retailers don't carry gaming platforms that don't have games, and if they stop carrying the device. Then Sony can't keep making the Vita. There might be some unknown way for Sony to move the Vita without losing money on the enterprise, but that isn't the point. There is a accepted logic on these forums that says when the price of the Vita gets cut by Sony. The sales are going to shoot up in a serious way, and as I said it my original post. There are a lot of reason why it shouldn't happen like that. Namely that there will be more high quality desirable things that are coming to the market this year. That are going to far outshine a portable that has been on the market for over the year with a poor reputation, but just got a price cut. You tell me which way you would swing if you could only have one. Would you pick up a Vita, or would you pick up a PS4. Would you pick up a Vita, or buy four of the AAA titles coming out in the first half of this year. It really doesn't matter if the price of the Vita goes down if your wallet is going to be committed elsewhere, and if you had the money to splurge. Why would you have sat on the fence for so long waiting for a price cut. |
Thanks for the acknowledgment but really there wasn't really much effort on my part. Whether or not you take me seriously is irrelevent, tablet/phone platforms share near exact parallelism with game console. They are both high-end durables that sales are content and feature driven. The fact that you claim that my example is irrelevent without proof of irrelevence or counter-example, just shows that you're bias. Can you give me an example of a consumer durable that did not increase in sales when the price got reduced?
Market share and support is is a chicken-and-egg problem. If we think for a second. If all the developers ditched the Xbox -PS3 and went for the wii. What would be the attached-rate/marketshare for PS360? The answer is ziltch. The developers create games and console grow in installbase/marketshare, higher marketshare result in more development, which result in further growth of console's market (As seen with P4G, where the sales of VIta increased as game launched). So initally why are there even developers developing for a console with low marketshares to begin with? The answer is capturing the entire market. Even if the marketshare is one sided 80/20. Any smart developer would still develop for the 20 because they would no doubt beat out the developers developing only for the 80. WIth Vita's marketshare still growing, I am not concerned that developers would ditch Vita.
In regards to your question to me, I would pick the Vita. I don't know what games the PS4 will have, and I have no time or interest in buying the 4 AAA games that'll never get to.
