By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - What system sellers could PS Vita possibly have?

IIIIITHE1IIIII on 26 May 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Yeah, they all have potential. Question is though if people are willing to spend money on both a home console version and a portable version with less content. Because that's a lot of money.

I guess we'll see soon enough.

They will if they want to play it on the road and if it's not available on consoles, like Golden Abyss and Bioshock Vita. And who says it has to have less content? LBPV is going to have more features than it's console counterparts. People clearly want Uncharted on PSV, it's sold 600k on a system that's only sold 2 million, Uncharted is probably near on around 800k if you count digital sales


Even if they want it that doesn't mean they have the money for it.

There is no rule that says all Vita games has to have less content than PS3 games, but the size of blue-ray discs are way greater than the available size for Vita games. So, obviously they have more room for content in the PS3 versions.



Around the Network
Runa216 on 26 May 2012
Deoz said:
Runa216 said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Runa216 said:

If what you see is a very narrow scope compared to what's actually out there, then yes, you are closeminded.  If what you want is immersion and depth, go outside.  Stop playing halo and go climb a tree.  go pick up a paintball gun and go to the local paintball place.  Go ride a bike or go for a walk.  do some sports, swim, explore.  Much more out there IRL than there is in any game.  I mean, if you're the kind who's all into immersion and stuff, why not go for the real thing? After actually killing someone for real, I can't imagine there's any reason to do it in a videogame! 


I...

I'm not sure how to respond to this xD

Do you see how ignorant my statement seems to you?  that's how you look to people who like Handheld gaming devices.  Perspective is nice, eh? 

Strawman and ad hominem

exactly my point.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Chark on 26 May 2012

1. I'm not playing stupid, if anything choose your own words more carefully. Especially on a forum where we need to read your thoughts and back and forth conversation is limited. My point that such an opinion can not be crafted in such manner still stands. That and I doubt you actually put effort towards conducting much research and you simply suggested it as a means to justify.

2. Though I do not disagree that the Vita has a more core market currently, casuals also use handheld gaming consoles. The DS is testimony to the success of hanheld casual titles. Hardcore gamers also can purchase casual titles. There is opportunity for either audience to pick up the Vita if the proper software/wow effect presents itself.

3. Yes, my iPod touch. I've considered selling it but my wife still uses it, while I kind of hog the Vita. As I've said I am interested in replacing my phone but I currently pay minimum for phone service and my job isn't a good one to plug my vita in a leave it. (Not an office job)

4. I understand that the 3DS is a cheaper option but the decision to purchase can be influenced by tastes. That and there is no reason that the mid range priced option is the worse choice. The Vita is more capable as a multi tool device than the 3DS and has a more diverse demographic when it comes to games. A tablet is the best multi tool but it's game options are slim and narrow.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

IIIIITHE1IIIII on 26 May 2012

Chark said:
1. I'm not playing stupid, if anything choose your own words more carefully. Especially on a forum where we need to read your thoughts and back and forth conversation is limited. My point that such an opinion can not be crafted in such manner still stands. That and I doubt you actually put effort towards conducting much research and you simply suggested it as a means to justify.

Hmm... Why you put so much weight into making the imaginary research flawlessly fair is beyond me. This thread is all about speculation. If it wasn't, we would already have all the answers, making discussions pointless. (Also, I apologize if the 'playing stupid' part was offending.)

2. Though I do not disagree that the Vita has a more core market currently, casuals also use handheld gaming consoles. The DS is testimony to the success of hanheld casual titles. Hardcore gamers also can purchase casual titles. There is opportunity for either audience to pick up the Vita if the proper software/wow effect presents itself.

The thing is though that many casuals seemingly are moving to smartphone gaming. (Keeping 3DS sales and Nintendogs in mind. Hopefully that title is just an exception, but I doubt it.) Hardcore gamers can purchase casual titles, but they can't replace casual gamers (unless they skyrocket in numbers).

3. Yes, my iPod touch. I've considered selling it but my wife still uses it, while I kind of hog the Vita. As I've said I am interested in replacing my phone but I currently pay minimum for phone service and my job isn't a good one to plug my vita in a leave it. (Not an office job)

Hmm... I'm not sure how that compares to anything. Is iPod gaming comparable to iPad/smartphone gaming (sales wise)?

4. I understand that the 3DS is a cheaper option but the decision to purchase can be influenced by tastes. That and there is no reason that the mid range priced option is the worse choice. The Vita is more capable as a multi tool device than the 3DS and has a more diverse demographic when it comes to games. A tablet is the best multi tool but it's game options are slim and narrow.

True. But mostly the casual gamers are the ones who cares the most about prices (and less about button controls). If Sony change their marketing strategy (which is currently aimed at hardcores, judging by the adds that I've seen) I guess it could appeal to certain casuals. My doubt are up mainy due to the tough competition.





IIIIITHE1IIIII on 26 May 2012
BasilZero said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


Even if they want it that doesn't mean they have the money for it.

There is no rule that says all Vita games has to have less content than PS3 games, but the size of blue-ray discs are way greater than the available size for Vita games. So, obviously they have more room for content in the PS3 versions.


Which is why they have this thing called Compression, yes the PS3 versions may look superior, but graphics should never be the main point in the selling point of a game system, like the 3D for the 3DS, its just something to increase the appeal of the system but not its major driving force for selling.

I know that I don't care about graphics, but games like Gran Turismo and Uncharted are dependent on them. And there should also be improved physics on the PS3 versions.

Like it or not, the Vita versions are inferior.



Around the Network
Runa216 on 26 May 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
BasilZero said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


Even if they want it that doesn't mean they have the money for it.

There is no rule that says all Vita games has to have less content than PS3 games, but the size of blue-ray discs are way greater than the available size for Vita games. So, obviously they have more room for content in the PS3 versions.


Which is why they have this thing called Compression, yes the PS3 versions may look superior, but graphics should never be the main point in the selling point of a game system, like the 3D for the 3DS, its just something to increase the appeal of the system but not its major driving force for selling.

I know that I don't care about graphics, but games like Gran Turismo and Uncharted are dependent on them. And there should also be improved physics on the PS3 versions.

Like it or not, the Vita versions are inferior.

what they lack in visual fidelity, they make up for in portability.  they are not inherently inferior, just not catering to your personal values. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

IIIIITHE1IIIII on 26 May 2012
Runa216 said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

I know that I don't care about graphics, but games like Gran Turismo and Uncharted are dependent on them. And there should also be improved physics on the PS3 versions.

Like it or not, the Vita versions are inferior.

what they lack in visual fidelity, they make up for in portability.  they are not inherently inferior, just not catering to your personal values. 


And that's just your personal view. Make one portable version of Gran Turismo and one home console version, then guess which one sells more.



Deoz on 26 May 2012
BasilZero said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
BasilZero said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


Even if they want it that doesn't mean they have the money for it.

There is no rule that says all Vita games has to have less content than PS3 games, but the size of blue-ray discs are way greater than the available size for Vita games. So, obviously they have more room for content in the PS3 versions.


Which is why they have this thing called Compression, yes the PS3 versions may look superior, but graphics should never be the main point in the selling point of a game system, like the 3D for the 3DS, its just something to increase the appeal of the system but not its major driving force for selling.

I know that I don't care about graphics, but games like Gran Turismo and Uncharted are dependent on them. And there should also be improved physics on the PS3 versions.

Like it or not, the Vita versions are inferior.

Gran Turismo never came out for the Vita.

Uncharted Vita is a prequel to the PS3 versions, it isnt a port so it really doesnt matter, if graphics mattered for those games, I guess the PSP God Of war games were irreleveant right?

The psp GoW games were as good as the ps2 on graphics, it showed it limits tough and were shorter.

Anyway i agree with the1 in this part. GT and UC are series that are praised for their good looking visuals. Tough not the only one it forms part of what makes the IP so popular this gen in my opinion.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 26 May 2012
BasilZero said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

I know that I don't care about graphics, but games like Gran Turismo and Uncharted are dependent on them. And there should also be improved physics on the PS3 versions.

Like it or not, the Vita versions are inferior.

Gran Turismo never came out for the Vita.

Uncharted Vita is a prequel to the PS3 versions, it isnt a port so it really doesnt matter, if graphics mattered for those games, I guess the PSP God Of war games were irreleveant right?


Gran Turismo will probably be released sooner or later.

God of War was obviously relevant if it pushed PSP sales. This thread though is about questioning the potential sales of upcoming casual and hardcore Vita titles (and their effect on hardware sales). If Golden Abyss was a system seller then so be it.



Kresnik on 26 May 2012
AndrewWK said:
Kresnik said:
AndrewWK said:
VGKing said:
AndrewWK said:
SunofKratos said:
I would say they must going both ways.Create new IPs which will become big by the time and offer big old IPS to sell the system.

For future system sellers i easily see a new God of War or Gran Turismo on the Horizon.
Also what is Sony Bend doing right now. maybe working on Uncharted Golden Abyss 2.
Then there will be the Killzone vita game and maybe a new IP from Insomniak games?


Isn´t Insomniac done with Sony? They are Multiplatform now for what I know.

No. They will continue making games for Sony systems. They just won't be exclusive.

Thats what I meant, they wont do exclusives for Sony. They will make multiplatform games from now on. There next game will be Overstrike and EA will publish it.


I have a niggling feeling we'll be seeing more Ratchet & Clank games from Insomniac.  Ted Price made a point of saying that they were "done with Resistance games" but made no mention of R&C, which would have been easy to do at the same point.

EA have the publishing duties for Overstrike, but Insomniac managed to get 2 franchises fully fleshed out during this generation (Resistance & Ratchet) so they have the manpower to run two at once.  They seem pretty invested in R&C as well, it's probably their flagship game at this point.

Idk, all speculation on my part, but I can't see them completely ditching Sony (much like Bungie didn't completely ditch Microsoft).

But will Sony be willed to publish more R&C games? Because for what I know All 4 one didn´t sell that good and the critics where solid but not great. I think it didnt even reach 1mill yet.


You're right of course, but the sales are probably about average for what type of game it is - it's a multiplayer spin-off rather than a main series title.  It's more like 'Ratchet: Deadlocked' than 'Tools of Destruction' and the sales reflect that.

It'll reach a million as well, it's got an online pass which is incentive enough for people to buy the game new if need be.

Anyway, Sony might not want to hang on to the franchise - you could be correct - but I think it will do them some good.  I think Sony like their trio of 3D platformers (Ratchet, Sly & Jak) and of them, Ratchet is the biggest franchise.


Also, to the fellow who quoted me - Ratchet & Clank IP is owned by Sony, Insomniac have exclusively developed the main-series titles up until this point though.  Sony could just ask them to make a new trilogy for the PS4 and if Insomniac wanted to, they could.  They're only tied into the EA publishing deal with Overstrike.



Find my website here