the negativity will pass when Soul Sacrifice comes out. Like some people have said, it's January, quit whining, guys! seriously!

I mean, don't get me wrong, Sony hasn't been doing all that well with handling it, but I give it till 2015. If by then it's not amazing, THEN I'll be worried. I just remember that the PS3 took a long time to gain steam, and now it's one of the best overall consoles of all time. The Vita has immense power AND a tonne of support from indies, it'll continue to have support, and as we get better sales and it breaches 20-25 million hardware units sold, then we'll see a lot of support.

No denying it needs a pricecut on hardware and memory cards, though. 3DS couldn't sell at 250, Sony needs to learn that no matter how advanced their hardware, people have limits on what they'll spend on a single purchase.

Give it time.

Ha ha! I know. His ban was ridiculous though. Who watches the watchmen on VGChartz?

---

As for the Vita situation, I think that Sony screwed it up even before the Japanese launch. We all know that (except for Gran Turismo ) their first party games do not sell very well, and their systems always rely on other companies hits.

Still, instead of securing some key franchises like Monster Hunter by paying what it was necessary, or helping to develop a proper Call of Duty, they spent their money making a lot of first party games, believing they would recover the investment as fast as possible. But they are not Nintendo...

The quantity of Sony-developed games on Vita has no precedents for a one-year-old system in the PlayStation family. But who are you gonna sell those games if nobody has your console? Before releasing so many, you need a decent user base and to achieve that, you need popular games! Of course, funding other companies games won't return you benefits immediatly, but it's an investment for the future! Once you've sold enough consoles, your own games will sell too!

Now it's too late for this, and I have no idea how they could reverse this situation. Securing Monster Hunter was trascendental in Japan this generation, and I still can't believe Sony didn't see that. No matter how much Nintendo paid Capcom (assuming there is an exclusivity deal), Sony should have paid more because they are not Nintendo; they need 3rd parties to survive!

---

How the heck was that a bannable post? Baffling. He's from the UK like me though. Maybe it translates differently in American? But here we do answer questions with questions in that manner. It's kind of our sense of humour.

Yup, got banned defending the VIta, yet Sales gets off scott free for derailing in the first place.

@scisca, uncharted :golden abyss's crushing difficulty setting isnt that bad, the only tough part is the final boss because of the touch aspect. either way i still think its the best game on the vita, besides ragnarok odyssey. :)
btw i suggest u paying for the downloadable treasure map for uncharted, because it truly does help u out. if u like to complete stuff like i do.

Yeah he shouldn't have been banned for that. Barozi misinterpreted what he said. He was discrediting the statement he quoted by using examples of games that were selling well on a system that is selling well that had bundles. I'm guessing he took it as a jab against Microsoft bundling their games as a "means to inflate sales".

Barozi also seemed to have banned him for other reasons as well reading his comment on the moderation. Barozi, if you read this take some more time evaluating posts. Unless you had other reasons for that ban, but you should try to moderate the relevant post. Also, I didn't read other posts he made so maybe you were spot on about his reasoning behind his post, then you know, whatever.

A misinterpreted comment like that will attract reporters who didn't understand the post as well, so maybe Barozi went into that thread thinking lines were crossed because other posters are sensitive about the bundling debate and didn't understand him.

I wrote this as the most likely reason RE:R HD isn't coming to Vita.

"Capcom didn't want to spend the money. Not because porting is too expensive, because Vita has been found relatively inexpensive and easy to port to, but because of the possibility of limited return on investment. Vita does have a small install base, but still more than the Wii U so that doesn't might sense right? Well not exactly, considering Vita owners are far more likely to own a PS3 a number of potential Vita sales might equate to lost PS3 sales. Now notice that the port is going to MSRP at $50. If they made a Vita version would they keep it at $50 or would they have to lower down to $40. Either way means less money for them because at $50 if could have just sold on PS3 and at $40 Capcom could be out $10. There just aren't enough Vita owners that aren't PS3 owners and therefore wouldn't reach enough additional customers to justify development. This situation is very similiar to other Japanese publishers who decided on releasing game on PSP for Vita's first year."

While decent reasoning for them this is really upsetting for Vita owners who really want and frankly need companies like Capcom to have a little faith and provide a helping hand to maintain this console. Now I usually find boycotts to be rather silly and ineffective, but if we could make a splash it might be worth considering raising a stink about this.

Essentially I'd like to see a Vita port and we could refuse to buy the game on PS3.

It's kind of ironic, but I understand. I find myself defending Nintendo on less Nintendo friendly boards and in real life. Just happens when one side if being underrepresented.

Wait till E3 guys, surely Sony will have some surprises

Sounds reasonable... So now we have to hope for the PS3 version to tank? I know I'm not going to buy it. It's Vita or nothing, hope more people follow suit.

If this is the real problem, they could release the port a few months after the multiplat, when they already sell what they want to sell at $50 and put a $30-40 tag on Vita version.