By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 23 February 2014
Edit Thread
MikeRox said:
kupomogli said:
MikeRox said:


The scariest thing is, it turns out the PS3 and Xbox 360 both barely managed 20 games each in 7+ years on the market. How on earth did we cope with such a low output of software?

Because the PS3 and 360 were the most powerful consoles available.  They're not a slight upgrade above Wii graphics getting the same games as a system 4-5 times more powerful.


However, you missed the rule. If a game is available on any other system, it is not a game for that system. ;)

This suddenly makes the lineup on all systems look much smaller, unless it's a Nintendo system. Remember, in this world, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Assassin's Creed, FIFA, Madden, etc do not exist.

If a game is available on a console that I already own, why exactly should I spend $200 for another system that could play it?  You bring up Call of Duty and GTA, but those are both on console that came out 5+ years before the Vita, and are better suited for that kind of gaming.  The fact that Vita doesn't have a TV output doesn't help matters.

So why should a PS3 or 360 owner want to buy a Vita?  Unless they are really interested in portability, it would have to be for exclusives.  That's why people aren't counting multiplatform games.  If you don't own a PS3 or a 360 or a Vita, why would you choose a Vita over those consoles?  Again, the exclusives would have to be the reason (if you're not travelling alot), and the Vita is lacking in exclusives compared to pretty much any other system.

That's why people say the Vita has no gaemz.  Because multiplatform games do just about nothing to inspire someone to buy a console unless they happen to fall into a specific niche.  It's important to have multiplatform games (see Wii U), but exclusives are far more important.