| JWeinCom said: So, clearly, with Nintendo, bringing console games coming to the 3DS is the exception. |
Not really. Just because something isn't cross platform (or just because it is) doesn't say anything about whether or not it's particularly geared towards longer or shorter play sessions. PSABR or Smash, for instance, are aimed at home consoles first and foremost but also make suitable handheld games. Similarly, there's nothing really about Fire Emblem or Soul Sacrifice that would make them poor home console games, and the same can be said for the most of the rest of the libraries. Kid Icarus, Gravity Rush, Mario Kart, and so on.
Sony has always pushed the idea of "console quality gaming on the go" in their ads because, well, what else do you say when you have the more powerful handheld but not the more powerful IPs? But Sony's actual software efforts, such as they are, are really no less suited to handhelds than Nintendo's. They're not trying to hamfistedly squeeze the cinematic style of gaming that is their trademark into a handheld device. Quite the opposite. They've made new IPs like LocoRoco and Patapon and Gravity Rush that fit perfectly, and their handheld adaptations of established IPs like LittleBigPlanet and Killzone and Resistance have typically been exceptionally well tailored to gaming on the go. At least, this was previously the case. The recent spate of PS3/Vita titles isn't the result of any belief that this is what people really want out of a system but rather a desperate attempt at stopgaps to fill the Vita's barren retail release schedule.
That's where Moffitt is wrong. The real fundamental difference between Nintendo's strategy and Sony's is that Nintendo's handhelds are always its first concern because it's where they make most of their money, so they are typically better executed than Nintendo's home consoles, while Sony really has no strategy beyond the vague notion that they should be in the handheld business for some reason.
Essay Pro