very much agree. Vita is kinda a half hearted attempt and if they continue this.....i wil be very sad./

The DS wasn't disruptive (so the Vita can't be a counterattack to disruption), and the 3DS isn't upstreaming.

Vita is, in the end, business as usual for Sony. Sony doesn't generally "innovate", they take innovations introduces by others, and attempt to tweak it (usually resulting in just a "doubling" of the innovative thing). The only exception I can think of is Eyetoy.

So what is the Vita? A PSP with a boost in power, addition of touch controls x2 (touchscreen on front, touchpad on back), console-handheld connectivity (first seen on Gamecube/GBA, then Wii/DS), etc. It's entirely business-as-usual. And this is why it's a risky move for Sony - because there is no attempt to expand their market. What Sony needed to do was release something disruptive, because there hasn't been a real disruption in the handheld market - this would have forced Nintendo to respond.

Notice that Nintendo has pretty much paid no attention to the Vita?

The Vita is without a doubt a life-or-death kind of release for Sony - if it succeeds, Sony remains in the handheld space; if it fails, Sony will likely withdraw from it. But that's the only way in which the Vita resembles the Wii. And even in that respect, the contrast is great, as the Wii released to massive fanfare, disrupted the market, targetted the blue ocean, and has had clear and extensive impact on the industry. Vita, on the other hand, released with a whimper, and does anyone really believe that it'll do any of the other things the Wii did?

There was mention of social networking, etc. This is a dead end for the Vita, as it's something that is already done much more efficiently with smartphones, and since the primary target for Vita is technophiles, who almost certainly already have smartphones, they're setting themselves up for a fall.

This doesn't mean that Vita is doomed to failure. At the end of the day, the same rule applies as it did to every other system in history: it's all about the games. If Sony can get the right games onto the system, they'll do fine.

I think the Vita is more than well capable of being a phone.  They've talked about a Skype app coming to it and that alone opens up phone capabilities.  Skype over incoming calls, voice mail, etc. through its own pay plan.  You wouldn't even need 3g, unless you weren't satisfied with a wifi only phone, you can pay fo r the At&t data plan on top of Skype.  There might be some programing difficulites, such as allowing your Vita to accept incoming calls without having to launch the skype app in the background, but if I'm not mistaken Near can function periodically without being launched.  I'm sure a firmware update could fully patch through phone capabilities.  A Vita phone might not be the "traditional" phone but who the #*%& cares.  It would cater to a market who would choose to do so. By simply offering it Sony's not going to lose out on anything.  Should they advertise it as being a phone...probably not, they should just market it as a games console that has phone capabilities if you are willing to take a step off that ledge.  Personally I would, my phone is crap and I'm content with that.  I really don't like using phones, I prefer texting.  If I could have everything awesome as the Vita and be my phone, I'd sign up, given it wasn't that much more expensive.

or the virtual boy

1 "No this isn't a thread about how the Vita will surely be successful by comparing it to the Wii. I mean, for one, nobody likes the Wii really.
No, this thread is about how the Vita is the most important console in Sony's history. Success will keep Sony on the same path, an expanding one. And failure will probably result in it being the final portable handheld for the company.
Like the Vita, Nintendo planned for Wii to be their final console. One last attempt to capture the market share they had been desperately trying to break into the previous two generations. Nintendo was seeing less and less return, and ultimately, saw its biggest rival smack it down like a fly. All franchise sales were down two generations in a row."

This paragraph is specifically stating that the vita is like the wii in that it was a make or break deal. Rol has since corrected me by pointing out that the quote was actually about the ds, not the wii, so perhaps the thread should have been called "vita is the ds", because as he pointed out, the quote was referring to the fact that failure would put nintendo in a very bad position. This is where I was calling them similar. In no other place in the OP did I liken the vita to wii. Whether it was wii or ds, it makes no difference to the point here that you said Vita isn't anything like the wii, because had you read the OP, you surely would've seen that in no way did I call them similar at all. I didn't say that vita has the cool gimmicky features that wii or ds have, no, I even say that one of the major faults is that it does NOT have these interesting features that sells to the expanded market. Quote:
"Thankfully, the Vita is a brilliant console. On the downside, it's not a phone. It has no weapon for breaking into the extended market. A casual will walk by a store sign and say, "oh look a vidya game", not, "hey I like to touch things on the back too, this is perfect" (well, maybe in japan they say that, likely on a crowded bus)."

I also did not call the Vita disruptive once in the entire OP.

2. Yep, I basically said that in the OP. I said:

"The counterattack is the point where the competitor can no longer afford to move upstream and must make a stand. An unsuccessful counterattack can and will end up obliterating the counterattacking company if it fails. The 3DS has pushed so far upstream that Sony can no longer afford to retreat without minimalizing itself into nonexistence.

The Vita is Sony's counterattack. The Vita offers more social integration. It offers apps. It offers minis. It has both cheap games and critically acclaimed ones, and even has a new way to control games with the rear touchpad. It also features headtracking, and remote play.It's giving gamers what gamers want, and hopefully, bringing that brand down to the lower levels."

The key point here to notice is  "it's giving gamers what gamers want". Later I will say that despite all these features that are meant to attract the expanded market "apps, social integration, etc", it doesn't actually have a means of getting these features into the hands of the expanded market, hence why not being a phone is a major setback. I could requote myself about the guy walking by the sign, but I'm hoping you're reading this and not skimming it again. So I'll trust you remember reading it 4 paragraphs up. So, there's another 3 sentences that you wrote as being arguments, when the OP clearly agrees with you.

3. This is probably your only real counterargument. PSP did have minis. You're correct. The difference though, is that they were primarily released for the pspgo. They became synonymous. While I will concede that PSP minis is not enough to draw on the expanded market. Surely by this point I don't need to quote the guy walking by the sign again. My entire point was that while Sony looked at the market and was thinking "we are getting dirsupted by apps, free games, and cheap software, so let's just put those on our system". Combined with the entire point of the OP, you can clearly see that I am disapproving of that decision because again, there's no real weapon to break into the expanded market. It's sitting there thinking to itself, "the expanded market will buy me for my apps", when in reality, it's the opposite. Apps are popular because they come WITH something people already want and need, ie, a phone.

And you're right, PSP it did have critically acclaimed games. It's too bad that was not by any stretch one of my points in the OP.

So, your whole first post is you thinking yourself to be arguing with me, when in fact, you're agreeing, and simultaneously saying that I've said things that I have not. This is overwhelming evidence to my case that you did not read the OP.

I will follow that up by taking your defensive "im a prof00 and I talk a lot but don't say anything", as a half-hearted admition that you at best, skimmed the OP, wanted to retort, and ultimately were off the mark. Same goes for "taking off the kids gloves". This is a good example of another defensive rebuttal. A political pivot, if you will.

I'm sorry, but I think that even if you are to worm your way around the words and try and provide more instances in which you can possibly come off as having actually addressed a point in the OP (which is what you did in your responses), I'm just not going to believe you. And I won't do that because, I know for a fact that, at best, you read a few sentences, skipped to other sections, got bored and skimmed again.

I'll concede that the OP isn't anythign Oscar Wilde would be proud of, but the point still remains that you didn't read it.

Good day, sir.

I should've stopped reading after your first sentence but I willr ead the rest. Keep in mind that this sentence is utterly false. DS is incredibly disruptive.

The second and third paragraph I agree to. Sony made a half hearted counterattack.

Your next sentence about paying no attention to vita? Well it's been out ww for one week now. Surely you should give it more time before you write something like that as if it's fact.

The next paragraph is very interesting, in just how much I can possibly disagree with it.
"The Vita is without a doubt a life-or-death kind of release for Sony - if it succeeds, Sony remains in the handheld space; if it fails, Sony will likely withdraw from it. But that's the only way in which the Vita resembles the Wii. And even in that respect, the contrast is great, as the Wii released to massive fanfare, disrupted the market, targetted the blue ocean, and has had clear and extensive impact on the industry. Vita, on the other hand, released with a whimper, and does anyone really believe that it'll do any of the other things the Wii did?"

Yes it is a life-or-death for Sony. That's what I wrote in the OP. I also wrote that it is the only way it's similar to the Wii. So, what?
Now, Wii did NOT release to massive fanfare. I hate to burst your bubble but the Wii was hated. Even I hated it (though I've grown to love it now for the gold it gets here and there). So, I don't think "fanfare" would actually be appropriate, because it wasn't gamers who lauded the system. THe success of the wii rests solely on the backs of the expanded market, to which I agree in the OP. Again, I did not liken vita to wii in anyway related to being successful or having similar "gimmicks".

The next paragraph, well, I agree with that too in the OP. It's a half hearted attempt, but SOny's thinking is all backwards. They think people will buy a vita for apps, when it's supposed ot be the otherway around. People buy smartphones because they need a phone, first and foremost. The apps just help guide them to which phone they should buy. In this way, vita is incapable of using the features that I've acknowledged to any real success.

Oh and 3ds IS upstreaming, and so is wii U. Sony's bastion of hope with the PSP was it's strong "gamer's lineup". Nintendo made a concious effort to not only make sure they got a system capable of monster hunter, but they also snatched up a lot of devs. These are really things Nintendo has never cared to pursue, but now they are. Don't you wonder why? The answer is because they are upstreaming, trying to push Sony into more and more hardcore games, and it's working.

As I said in the OP, Sony has some ways out of this mess, but it's going to take a lot of work and new thinking that I don't think Sony is capable, or willing, for the matter.

while my brain says a massive.. NO
my wishful heart says Yes Please.

but only in sales, NOT in games. although the games Nin put out from first party was good

The DS wasn't disruptive. It was simply the next generation of handheld. Just as Nintendo wasn't disruptive when they introduced the analog stick on the N64, adding a touchscreen to a handheld doesn't make it disruptive. The DS followed in the footsteps of the GBA. To be disruptive, it has to change the rules. On the other hand, the DS was a blue ocean product, in that it targetted the expanded audience. Part of the demonstration of this takes the form of this simple question: "what was the DS meant to be disrupting?" - it's not the GBA. The PSP hadn't established itself yet. If it were consoles, they wouldn't have then released the Wii.

My comment about Nintendo ignoring the Vita is valid. It has only been out for a week in america. It's been out for longer in Japan. More importantly, it has been in the news, etc, for longer than that. And Nintendo's response? Nothing. I'm not sure they've even commented on it, except perhaps to say things that group the 3DS and Vita together against smartphones, etc. For contrast, when Nintendo unveiled the Wii, Sony and MS couldn't shut up about their opinions of it (mostly negative).

And yes, the Wii released to massive fanfare. It may not have been amongst the internet "gamer circles", but that's entirely irrelevant. Guess what? Most gamers don't spend much time on the internet talking about it. Meanwhile, the press was huge for it, launch night queues were massive, the system was pretty much kept out of stock for something like two years, despite a fairly strong flow. The Wii broke records left, right, and centre. That's what I call "massive fanfare". And I said nothing about gimmicks. Also, the Wii was not successful solely due to the "expanded market". Why do you think that Brawl, Metroid Prime 3, and Zelda sold so well? Why do you think that Resident Evil 4 managed to sell more than 2 million copies, despite being a previous-gen game? In the end, it was third parties holding the Wii back from selling more to the "core market", by refusing to release quality titles. In the rare cases where they did, those titles performed quite well.

And no, the 3DS isn't upstreaming. It is bringing in more third-party support earlier on, but I think that's mostly because of the cookie that Nintendo included to entice them: 3D. The 3DS doesn't need to upstream - most gamers already own DSes. And the 3DS doesn't have anything that would be described as encroaching on Sony's turf. Note that I said nothing about WiiU, which is most definitely upstreaming. And Nintendo is strongly pursuing third-party support for 3DS because more support for 3DS with "core" games will mean more support for WiiU. Nintendo has had a very hard time getting third parties to support their consoles in meaningful ways, but their handhelds haven't been quite so troubled in that way.

I should now point out that not all of my previous post was meant to be criticising your OP. Generally, it was intended as me passing comment on the issue, with some criticism of certain points along the way. I just didn't see a need to specify when I was just talking about the topic.

Now you're talking.

I think Rol was talking about form factor, of which the NGage was already a good test. People didn't like looking dumb with it on their ears.

The only way you could counter that fundamental argument is if sony included some kind of nifty bluetooth earpiece gadget that was very small and could be snug into the Vita, with telescopic properties, much like a stylus for the DS line. Yep, that would definitely work. You could keep the vita in your pocket, and talk with the earpiece.