Shiken said:
The VITA can be used anywhere wifi is available. I played Horizon Zero Dawn over remote play from my mobile hotspot during my break at work just the other day. Therefore it does not need to be close to the base station at all.
The reason the VITA failed is because it lacked 1st party support outside of the first year or so of its life and remote play itself, while working great in practice, was viewed as a side feature. The system was mainly viewed as a stand alone handheld so the content it had in that department is what people looked to. If you only wanted remote play, the price of all the extra stuff that the handheld included may have been too much. It never had to be close to the base station so your point is irrelevant in that regard.
What people like about the Switch is the ease of Switching between the two modes and the fact that, unlike the VITA, being able to play at home and on the go is its primary advertising point. I would say how it is advertised has more to do with it than anything else. |
I don't think remote play would have been that appealing, even if it was better marketed. If you had just the Vita, would you really go for a PS4 or a PSTV just for remote play? Or would you buy a PS4 just because it has a great catalog of games?
And even then, the Vita was limited because, as you said, remote play's effectiveness depended on the Wifi. At least with the Switch, you can still play Mario Odyssey, BotW, or most other games while at the park because the Switch doesn't require wifi to work undocked.
