bouzane said:
pokoko said:
People who think the Vita died because Sony didn't support it really, really need to take a look at what really happened. Sony supported the Vita. Sony STOPPED supporting the Vita because the Vita failed, not the other way around. It just simply was not working.
The author of the article isn't being logical or even very intelligent. PS1 games would have had no impact. PS2 games would have had no impact. Marketing niche games? Seriously? No impact. Indies? There are a million indies on smart-phones. Bio-shock? I don't think this guy understands that Sony does not control third-parties.
I don't really understand the refusal of some to accept that the handheld market has changed greatly and that Sony is not in a position to fight the tide. The Vita had no shot in the west in the current climate. Nintendo's handheld division is still alive because they have the legacy IP and a high level of brand recognition in the west. Sony does not. It's as simple as that. |
You keep dismissing opposing viewpoints as if they have no merit while pushing this notion that Sony is not at fault for the magnitude of the Vita's failure because it is entirely the result of mobile gaming. You are wrong for several reasons.
As a huge PSP fan I can honestly say that Sony never supported the Vita as well as the PSP and that was a huge part of the problem. I own over 50 PSP games and I would struggle to name 20 Vita games that I have any interest in. The first party support the Vita received was always inadequate and Sony dropped support far too soon. Also, it launched too late to capitalize on the PSP's success and at far too great of a price. The proprietary memory cards were a huge disaster and probably the biggest contributing factor to the Vita's failure outside of the rise of mobile gaming. I admit that smartphones are possibly the largest contributing factor but to dismiss the impact that the Vita's own shortcomings had is asinine.
If Sony had launched a more modest piece of hardware a full year earlier at a reasonable price with standard memory cards; if they had supported it with their enormous stable of first party studious, allowed homebrew development and advertised it properly they could have moved double or even triple the number of units. I don't understand why you can not accept that Sony's decisions have been a major contributing factor in the Vita's staggering failure.
Also, I have to point out to people that the 3DS's decline in popularity is not entirely the mobile market's fault either as Nintendo totally blew the launch and that system has also failed to live up to its predecessor. I'm a DS fan who still doesn't own a 3DS and smartphones are not a factor in that decision whatsoever.
|
Not at fault? What are you talking about? I said the Vita was a failure from the start and you're saying that I said Sony has no fault? Does that even make sense to you?
Seriously, your "triple the units" theory is nothing but head-in-the-sand bullshit from someone who clearly does not understand that the market has changed to a massive degree. THE AVERAGE ADULT IS NOT GOING TO BUY A DEDICATED HANDHELD GAMING SYSTEM. The interest is NOT THERE. It is no longer a necessary device. Most adults can play games on a device THEY ALREADY OWN. Nintendo is getting around that ONLY because they have legacy software what was PREVIOUSLY a massive hit, giving it instant brand recognition with millions of people. What does Sony have to counter that in the handheld space? New IPs will do nothing. The failure of the Vita is directly linked to the failures of the PSP.
The Vita was never going to be a hit.
Tell me what these games are that would have made the system triple its sales? What does Sony have that would have pushed those kinds of numbers? I'd love to know and I bet Sony would, as well.
