HollyGamer said:
potato_hamster said:
They're not equal. That's my point. Just because a more expensive version exists doesn't mean that the cheaper versions cease existing. No one is claiming the PS4 Pro costs $499, and and no one should be claiming the Vita cost $299 on release. Because it never. The vita was targeting smartphone users and not the 70+ million PSP owners? What makes you think that? Was it the fact that the Vita played PSP games and not smartphone games? Was it the fact that the vita never ran Android or iOS? Was it the fact that there was only a handful of apps that were ever made for the Vita, like twitch and neflix, and not things like facebook, twitter, instagram etc? There's no reason to think it was targeting towards iOS/android users. The 3G model was for playing vita games in online multiplayer on the go, and little more. This is clearly obvious. Just ask KBG, he actually tried to use that thing as a phone.
I'm a PC gamer also. I've never run a benchmark. Stop stereotyping people. Your comments about them might actually be something the mods would moderate you on.
|
That's not how the stereo typing work, i am said " not all but most of them " because it's a fact . And it's not just a bench mark but their habis is different from consoles and ghandled gamer.
Just read this https://gadgets.ndtv.com/games/news/ps-vita-2-smartphones-sony-nintendo-switch-1755504
|
Most PC gamers don't even know what a benchmark is. Most PC gamers couldn't even tell you what the specs of their system is off the top of their head. You're confusing PC Gamers with PC Gaming enthusiasts.
I know why there is no Vita 2. Handheld consoles have more or less fallen out of favor as people would rather play games on their phones rather than carry around a dedicated handheld gaming device. How does that mean that the PS Vita was supposed to compete with smartphones? And if it was, how then are Nintendo handhelds also not competing with smart phones?
