By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 29 August 2013
Edit Thread
badgenome said:
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.

If Sony is providing the same games for the PS3 and the Vita, then they are clearly viewing them as the same kind of experience.  Naturally, some experiences work for either, but the fact is that again out of the last year, 75% of the Sony published Vita library is available on the PS3.  Clearly Sony sees the two as providing a similar experience.

As for Nintendo's games, Kid Icarus Uprising wouldn't work too well on a console.  For one thing, the controls are not there, and contrary to popular belief from people who aren't good at the game, a dual stick scheme would not work.  The percision isn't there, and the camera would be really hard to work.  Even the Wii U might not work.  Pikmin Adventure on Nintendo Land used the same controls, and it didn't work well with the size of the Gamepad.  Furthermore, Typically, console games are designed around the idea of longer play sessions.  They don't necessarily have to be that way, but that's the style that is prevalant on consoles.  It might have something to do with breaking the experience by hopping in and out of levels.  

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?

So... Sony says, play like you do at home, but they just don't mean it? Not buying it.  This is how they're choosing to market their system, and pretty much all of the Vita ads I've seen have all focused on this factor.  That's how Sony is presenting it, that's what THEY see as their biggest selling point, so obviously that's how people are going to perceive it.

But Sony's actual software efforts, such as they are, are really no less suited to handhelds than Nintendo's. 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. The recent spate of PS3/Vita titles weren't out 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.

Papaton and LocoRoco are nice, but just because Sony has some experiences that are original on the PSP does not mean that is their focus, anymore than the fact that Donkey Kong Country Returns is on the 3DS means that Nintendo's focus is on porting Wii games to the DS.  You had Locoroco and Papaton, but you also had God of War Chains of Olympus, Ghost of Sparta, Gran Turismo, Little Big Planet, Socom, a couple of Ratchet and Clank games, and so on.  I honestly can't say how well the games have tailored to the PSP or Vita because I haven't played any of them (except Gravity Rush). 

As for the idea that PS3/Vita titles are only because of a lack of software, I don't know about that.  From the very beginning Sony was pushing the idea of cross platform compatability.  The first ad I saw for the Vita was based on the idea of cross platform play for MLB the Show.  If Sony truly thought they'd sell the Vita on the strentgh of its exclusive games, I'd imagine they'd have some more exclusive games by now.  I think that Sony expected these cross platform games to be a bigger deal than they were. 

But, if they're producing mostly console games for the Vita, they're going out of their way to bring console games to the Vita (seriously, why publish Epic Mickey?), and they're advertising the Vita by saying "play like you do at home", any rational person is going to assume that they're trying to provide a console experience on the go.  Otherwise, Sony is too incompetent to make software for their console, and so confused that even they don't know what the selling point for their console is.

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.

That's definitely true, but it doesn't change things.  Nintendo cares more about their handheld division.  This is true.  Sony's strategy to market the Vita is to show how it could provide console experiences on the go.  This is also true.  These two facts are not mutually exclusive.