By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
zorg1000 said:
Soundwave said:

Vita just didn't have enough hardware grunt, it still got bite size versions of Playstation franchises. People want something bigger than that, Switch delivers that with a far superior chip. If Breath of the Wild on Switch was a slashed down/mini version with like PS2++ graphics it wouldn't be selling nearly as well. 

Idk, PSP in 2005 & Vita in 2011 are probably close to the equivalent of Switch in 2017 in terms of hardware grunt. PSP was like right in between PS1 & PS2, Vita between PS2 & PS3 and Switch between PS3 & PS4.

The main difference is the split in software support. Switch will be the sole Nintendo platform going forward (once 3DS sales & support dries up in the next year or so) and will see the support of 3DS & Wii U (and likely Vita) consolidated into a single unified ecosystem.

The thing is when you get to that PS3/360 territory of processing power, you get into an area of shaders/geometry/textures/resolution clairty etc. that while maybe not exactly bleeding edge are to a point where people can plausibly deem them even home experiences. You can have a scope/scale/look of games that are still reasonably modern looking. 

The COD and Assassin's Creed on the Vita plainly looked like PS2 games on steroids, and then two years later PS4 comes out so it's basically two full generations behind. This is the thing with mobile, you want to pick one side of the road to stand on (either extremely low end and cheap, or high end and premium ... walk in the middle of the road and you are going to get run over). 

The leap from the PS2 to PS3 gen is really huge, and Vita did not quite make it there. Other factors too, like IMO I think the teeny tiny portable concept has had it's day and that day is past. Nintendo was smart to embrace a more tablet-like form factor with a larger display, larger buttons, more robust analog sticks, etc. This lends itself better to the concept of a portable console.