1. When you meet someon on the street, the hello is implyed, yet people still use it. That's why.

2. IMHO, the bolded is completely false for all smartphones, including top of the line: smartphones don't do gaming better in any concievable way, and most are more expensive. Yes, with a data plan they seam cheaper, but customers know that. (And there's the infamous 3G Vita model that can do the same trick).

The fact that PSV can support third party games excelently will add to it's value. One does not get the same-ish experience when playing a platformer on a smart phone than when playing one on a gaming handheld. There is a reason that the most successfull smartphone games are the ones that fit perfectly with touch screen controlls. But the same controlls are unsuited for a huge and important chunk of game types.

Just for curiosity, let's wait to see how many people will want to play propper COD (among many other things) on the move before we anounce, yet again, the death of the gaming handhelds.

Smartphones need to be smaller and sleeker than a PSP Vita.

1) I take it you don't read the internet much?

2) I guess you missed not only the phrase "almost every case" immediately prior and the sentence directly after what you bolded where I specifically state the gaming controls/experience is PSVs advantage (sole advantage btw)?

What I'm focusing on in this thread is not the gaming to gaming comparison. Of course PSV has far better controls as well as offers more in depth and, at least initially and on average, more advanced games. However, like the PS3, the PSV is not trying to be solely a games console. Its trying to saddle both markets and be a full portable media device. Ignoreing very recent history that showed the DS mop the floor over PSP, which also had the prime differentiator of full media capabilities.

My point is that with the PSP, that market was relatively new for smartphones as that's when they really took off. Now they are the established portable media devices that pretty much anyone will already have when considering the PSV.

Additionally, I am NOT nor have I ever said portable gaming consoles are dead. What I've said is that Sony's approach is not smart. Nintendo put out a low priced, media enabled, console that when it is at the right price with solid content, proves that market is not dead and it will end up being highly successful.

Sony on the other hand, is at the same price or more than any contracted smartphone and not too far off from off contract models, especially when you consider having to purchase a memory card and games. This combined with the fact that ALL of their game experiences (at least looking at launch and historically, the PSP) are nothing unique. They are nearly the exact same games on the home consoles and in terms of 3rd parties, straight ports that will also, in many cases, on those smartphones (regardless of controls or overall experience).

As for your Call of Duty statement... lol... they will not buy it on Vita when they can get a FAR better experience at home and since the only place they can actually play online multiplayer is where the wifi is located... that too is already at home. At least smartphones with multiplayer allow you to use your data connection from anywhere. PSVs gimped to only social stuff. (this is where I'm making my comparison that smartphones exceed PSV in almost every case).

PSV is a good device on its own. However, its not on its own, its now a direct competitor to the 3DS, the tons of non-phone enabled iOS/Android devices, and almost a full direct competitor to smartphones themselves. This is just bad business and will result in the shrinkage of Sony's portable marketshare and potentially even hurt their own smartphone/tablet lines. Whereas if they chose a either a lower priced manufacture point and unique gaming experiences (deviants is a path good approach to this) OR simply created a slightly more compact device that included phone capabilites, I argue they would have a higher potential to do far better.

As someone who never buys portable gaming for myself, I know I won't buy a $300 portable console for my kids and I won't carry this device alongside my smartphone. However, had it been a smartphone, I probably would have gotten it for myself. My more mass market position is where Sony should have aimed. 

1. In the little internet that I read, I have seen oppinion pieces labeled as such. Anyway, I whish you would state it as an oppinion and not fact, even if the internet does not require you to, that's all.

2. Your statements seem contradictory to me: average smartphones do better than the PVS at almost everything, except gamers but that is not important for a gaming hendlheld?. My statement still stands, that not even top end smartphones do things better, and on the games side don't do it better except at prices for small games.

Your complaint is that the device does the things smartphones do. Well ofcourse it does, since it's more than capable of doing it, and as an evolution on the PSP, ofcource it will have these features. That doesn't mean it's pitched as an multimedia device. As far as I have seen, Sony strongly push the gaming and social aspects that go well together with gaming, not the multimedia aspect. That it can play videos and music, surf the web and run non gaming applications as a natural thing that comes with these mini PCs.

The price, well, remember that when the 250 price point was anounced, everyone was pleased. Now the enthusiasm lowered with the cheaper 3DS and the expensive memory cards out there. But, Except in the case that the PSV will be hot like the wii and be sold out contantly, itself and it's memory cards will get cheaper. The price is great and will work for Sony.

Ther  are many who did not own a PSP, probably most of those who would play games, did not own a PSP, so for them everything would be new on the PSV. The uniqueness of the dual analog sticks on a handheld makes for unique games on the handheld, whether they are ports or not.

Let's not forget that an ad hoc wireless network can cover the multyplayer side of a game like COD on the move perfectly, as Monster Hunter showed with the PSP in Japan. 3G is not required. Playing at home is great and playing on the move or out is even better, since it's like a small lan party, with the girls and guys you want to taunt being next to you. It's a funner experience potentially. It can work brilliantly, let's wait and see. The fact that wireless access points are everywhere and spreading constantly, and the wireless ad hoc network capability, means that the conectivity issue is largely a non issue.

The PSVita is not on it's own yes. There are far more people that played handheld games now that there were 7 years ago, and more and more get to play and enjoy these, thanks to the smartphones. Some will want more and the PSV is one of the better devices to offer them more.

I can't fathom how any serious gamer would consider a smartphone, even the most powerful out there, to be even remotely the same experience gaming as either the PSV or the 3DS. Sure you can play games on the smartphone, but you would almost never play any game that involves doing more than flicking birds across the screen or playing games like scrabble.

A gamer does not play smartphone games when they can play on a dedicated handheld. Other people who aren't anything more than casual gamers who are trying to eat up time in between doing stuff in the real world do not really matter.

That said, the iphone other smart phones will significantly outpace 3DS and PSV sales. And games that appeal specifically to that crowd will have the potential to make lots and lots of money. They will still never really have the depth that actual gamers require, thus will not replace dedicated systems in the near and significant future.

The day when we get modular handheld devices where we can morph a primary computation unit into a phone or a gaming device will be the day both smartphones and dedicated gaming devices die, and probably not a day before.

well see that is possible that vita only sells 20 million , depends on what it does not month one but in the long run , it can have a solid first month on the market then do exactly what it did in japan - slip and fall the next and continue down that path. and beleive me without getting games out the door will do that to ya
and right now i would not wanna be in sony's shoes i don't see any 3rd party jumping to the boat instead their jumping to the ship

if you look at upcoming release list at the 3ds in the same time frame it had upcoming big franchises -nascar need for speed wwe all stars resident evil , etc
what does vita have down the road?

call of duty
mortal kombat 8 !

Your missing the point of the OP and at the same time proving why it would be a success.

There are different types of gamers out there and if this generation didn't prove which one is the bigger market of consumers, they you have to be blind. The Wii didn't skyrocket to domination due to its killer graphics, advanced AI, and super-computer like processing. It dominated due to a unique interface and a steady delivery of mass market games also frequently called 'casual'. Guess what, so is Angry Birds, Words with Friends, Farmville, and many other games not on dedicated consoles that have outsold ANY game that is by a ton. Sure they were free, but their revenues earned was still many times more as was their steady installed base and continuous played hours. They are games and people playing them are gamers. Those people could also buy a machine also capable of putting out games VGCers would rather play as well, given the right circumstance. Nintendo also demonstrate this fact this gen.

Sony could also demonstrate that fact if they'd get their head out of there asses and see their potential. Why focus on the small fish when you can potentially take the whole pond? Sony owns a massive library of other mass market IPs, from music to movies. Sony has a massive brand image in electronics and gaming. 

They could build a device very easily that would not only give you the exact same feel and gameplay as a dedicated console, but would also give you a high end smartphone. Samsung and other Android OEMs have already proven that a very large segment of consumers like phones over 4". Given a slider design and you could easily pack in a normal set of controls. In fact, the only feature on the PSV I would see not in that design, *might* be the back touch sensor and frankly, I see that as being a feature not really doing much of anything over the life of the PSV. So the design would realistically be no different and provide not only the touch experience for many casual titles, but also the normal gamepad experience for your vision of 'gamers'.

Nearly every phone comeing out now already has dual core cpus and decent gpus. Android (and likely iphone) coming out this year will have quad-core chips and gpus greater than 3DS and by next year greater than PSV.... and this is with products where they don't really care as much for the GPU. There is no reason Sony couldn't have put out a device that was still more powerful than 3DS and in the form factor I'm suggesting. The tech is there already.

The price would have been even more flexible as well considering they could have utilized the smartphone / tablet strategy. $200 on contract or $400+ off. This would have enabled Sony to make a profit day one and still meet all the other objectives the PSV is currently intended to do. All the while actually hitting a mass market potential on day one.

3DS and PSV I won't buy for myself. I don't have the time to make them worth it and I don't want to carry anything more than my Galaxy Nexus as it is. PSV I won't buy for my kids as its too expensive and they'd prefer Pokemon and other staple Nintendo IPs anyways. However, if the Xperia Play wasn't a gimped product, even compared to phones it lauched with, as well as had full playstation support, I would have purchased one. That's what the PSV should have been. There are plenty of other gamers who would have followed that same logic, far more than will buy PSV now. Additionally, there are plenty of casualz who might have bought it based on its overall power and capabilities combined with the better gaming experience for the few games they do play on their commute. Btw, those people probably have FAR more games than the three I have on my phone. (I have angry birds, words, and a blocks game) I know my dad also has a couple games that would definitely be better with real controls.

I would have one if it were a smartphone.

Just sayin'

:)

No see, I didn't miss your point at all. You are missing my point. I would not buy such a device for gaming. It would destroy serious gaming for me. I would never spend 5 hours playing a game on a mobile phone.

Apparently you would jump at the chance though. So there you have it. 1 less buyer, 1 more buyer. As I said before, perhaps it would make them lots of money.

But in the end it would strand many core gamers with no where to turn to play the games they love.

What you are saying doesn't make sense. You'd spend 5hrs playing on the vita, but if the Vita had cellular features, you wouldn't? That makes no sense what-so-ever.