Vita owners are to blame for the Vita's current situation

[orniletter]

Kresnik said:

orniletter said:
See Vita guys, this is how the WiiU guys are treated.


Well, you want something from EA ? You should have bought the 8month old , full price port of Mass Effect 3 when the other systems got the entire trilogy for less.

I never understand this argument (since it does seem to be a serious point you're making).  Vita owners did go out and buy 8+ month old, full price ports of games.  At least at and around launch:

FIFA (430k); Rayman (350k); Mortal Kombat (350k); Metal Gear Solid HD (210k).

In reality, there's plenty of examples of similar treatment between Vita & Wii-U at the hands of third parties, except Vita owners actually went out and bought the games anyway.  And if these sales figures led nowhere (+ reportedly strong digital), then no wonder the ~ 70 - 80k sales of late ports on Wii-U wasn't enough.

Except Batman.  That was a late port which sold well; and therefore got the sequel.

edit: Actually, I suppose FIFA led to more reskins released every year and Rayman/Mortal Kombat led to a gimped port and a so-late-they-might-as-well-not-have-bothered port respectively, but it's still something.

My/Rol´s argument wasn´t that one device deserves the support it gets over the other, It was more along the lines of gamers blaming other gamers,saying that they don´t deserve better third party support because they wouldn´t buy the games on principle.

On the WiiU for example:

Almost all third party games were late, ran worse, missed features (online), had no DLC and were more expensive.

And there really weren´t many ports that were ,enhanced and or at the very least, the same across the bord. (With the single exception beeing Resident Evil: Revelations,)

 

I think he wanted to reverse the situation, it isn´t the Vita owner´s fault that they aren´t getting a new CoD and Ass Creed, those games were pretty bad and didn´t deserve to sell many units....the same is true for almost all third party WiiU games.