| JWeinCom said: Their marketing message and their big releases make their strategy pretty clear. |
But he's not talking about marketing strategy or messaging. He's saying that the nature of the games themselves should be different. Just because something is called Call of Duty or LittleBigPlanet (and yes, of course a portable COD is going to be marketed as OMG!!!! U CAN PLAYZ COLLARDUTY ON TEH BUS!!!!) doesn't mean the games aren't made with the handheld experience in mind. It's like assuming that MGS: Peace Walker isn't fit to be a handheld game just because MGS 4 wasn't fit to be called a video game.
The other thing is, Moffitt is a PR mouthpiece for Nintendo of America - which makes no games and no decisions. Everything they do is dictated on high from Japan. When you say, "Nintendo's strategy is this", you mean Nintendo of Japan's strategy is this. And that's a valid statement.
But when you say "Sony's strategy is this"... which Sony do you mean? I get the distinct impression that the PSP only existed because Sony thought, "Hey! This PS2 thing is pretty huge! We should make a Gameboy!" And then the success of the PSP in Japan (and nowhere else, really) meant that the Sony Japan was always going to commission a successor. That means that SCEA gets stuck with a system they're not really enthused about. So SCEJ's strategy is to push Vita as the successor of the PSP: a place for hunting action games (sans the hunting action game). SCEE's is to push footy, sign indies like crazy, and make the occasional Tearaway or Invizimals (both pretty handheld oriented things). And SCEA's is to pretty much forget that the thing exists. Lazy ports and PS4 remote play are pretty minimal efforts, a way to do something with something they want nothing to do with.
I don't know why the marketing of SCEA - the branch that is the least involved with the Vita - somehow takes precedence over that of SCEJ, which presides over the region where the Vita is doing most of its business.
Essay Pro