Pretty much this, you have to realize something NintendoPie, Nintendo doesn't distinguish the two either.  They've never done it for the past 20 years of their handheld devices.  Game and Watch was probably the only time they did, and that came before the NES or Gameboy.

Edit: I was just looking at Game and Watch's wiki and I saw an interesting poster "Now take your favourite Nintendo titles with you anywhere!!!!!!" Sure looks like they were focusing on "handheld" titles with their Game and Watch.

Depends what you wanna play, by that reasoning I shouldn't buy Gravity Rush.  Gravity Rush is one of my favourite games, whether I can get Sly 4 or Ratchet and Clank ain't gonna stop me from getting Gravity Rush.  More options is never a bad thing.  I can get my Gravity Rush, Ragnarok Odyssey, Sly, Ratchet, Playstation All-Stars, Soul Sacrifice, etc.  Me being able to buy one copy of Playstation All-Stars is Sony doing me a favour.  Back to my Italy example, I can take my saves from Ratchet and Sly from my PS3 and carry on while I'm in Italy for 3 weeks.  Come home, synch up my saves, and go back to playing on my PS3.  On the flip end, imagine being able to take, let's say, Skyward Sword.  Suppose they made a 3DS port that shares saves, I'd rather just buy that one copy for my Wii and bring the game with me anywhere on my 3DS at no extra cost.  Not necessarily knocking on anyone here, but why do people play portable games?  I've, for the majority, played portable games while I'm away from home and have time to play.  I played FInal Fantasy 4-6 on bus/subway rides home from school.  I finished Chrono Cross on my PSP while I was in University playing during my 5 hour spares.  I finshed A Link to the Past for the first time while I was in Italy for 3 weeks away from any form of technology or internet.  Why wouldn't I wanna play the best games I can play when I'm away from my consoles?

Your logic is full of fail, First off there isn't a Exclusive Vita game and a port of a console version at the same time.  So you incentive to buy an exclusive is because it's in fact exclusive. Your picking pepper out of fly shit.  What's your incentive to pay for the same exact game twice? That's the point not many will, plus it's like a Trojan horse. Ps3 owner are going to own vita games before they get one, it might push some people to go buy the system knowing they already have games they can play. 

I never got the handheld-games-should-be-different-from-console-games thing. All handhelds have been replicas of home consoles.

GB and GBC were basically an NES. GBA was a SNES. PSP failed at being a PS2 clone because of no second stick, and it still did well as a bad PS2 copy.

The only exception throughout gaming history is NDS. Yes, that did great, but it doesn't change the fact that the "console clone" portables did well. Even 3DS is more of a home console experience, some the best selling games are basically home console games.

OK let me explain what I am getting at.

For example, if I can get COD on ps3 and a free version for VITA, what is the point of me purchasing the one that is coming out when essentally it is the same game?Activition, EA, THQ all rely on milking their core franchises to earn a profit.

Therefore the publishers who are curently able to milk some extra money from me by offering a vita version will not be able to do that as I will see no point buying the spinoff. This will ultimately result in less software sales on VITA. There are people already on these forums complaining that $30 is too much for a game. So if they get a chance to play free games they will most liekly purchase far less then they would have before this annoucement.

From a gamers point of view yes it is fantastic as free game. From a Sony point of view yes it is fantastic as it will move hardware. But is it fantastic from an industry point of view when all we currently see is majority of companies posting QTR losses? Remember if these companies go bust who will make games for you?

Need to look at the bigger picture and not just yourself.

Um.. they are exclusive? Unless you think every vita owner is going to be content with a few dual system games and have no interest in games like Soul sacrifice, gravity rush, tear away and virtues last reward. 

Your not getting it, your situation isn't going to happen. Activision isn't going to port Blop 2 and make declassified which is a vita exclusive. Your also forgetting this isn't forced. So if Activison  wants to make a port there's nothing that says they have to give it out for free. That fog cant really be that thick can it?

the way "Buy a PS3 game and get Vita version for free." is written would indicated there will be a free version. It is not my fault the OP did not expand on that. I only commented on what I see.

It is also funny how people in the VITA thread assume I hate sony. I probably got more PS3 games then most of those making that assumptions.

Did anyone call you out by name? I don't think so, we are just talking about people reactions in general. 

No, but considering happydolphin and I are the only people who commented on this it is not hard to connect the dots.

Aslo we both know if anyone claled anyone out by name the way the mods are on here that person be banned before they get a chance to make their next post.

Cross Buy is a great idea. Instead of buying a game locked into one console, it is like you are buying the game itself straight from PSN. Akin to PS Mobile buy once play on any PS certified device. You wouldn't chastise Steam for allowing you to play a PC game you bought on your desktop on your laptop instead, would you? Or disprove of backwards compatibility in a next gen console? It is very similar.

1. It does not cut into profits as some might have suggested because the amount of people who will buy both versions of a game are almost non existent. Sony released surveys to verify this if anyone remembers. Cross Buy is needed if Cross Play is going to work. It costs very little to port a PS3 game to Vita and there is little to no chance that a developer will sell more games by having it on both PS3 and Vita to any gamer who has both, they will buy only one copy, so giving one for free is not doing any harm.

2. It creates an incentive for PS3 owners who do not own a Vita to buy one since they will start to build up a collection of games that they could be playing without having to be next to their PS3. This will increase the install base with gamers who have played Cross Buy games, stacking the console with potential future purchasers of new games made exclusively for Vita in the same series.

3. It is awesome for those who own both to be able to play wherever they want. With things like Cross Play I can use the same save file. With Cross Platform I can play against Vita owners or play against PS3 owners. All of the sudden games with online multiplayer that don't support local split-screen can be played together by myself and a friend using my Vita. All at no additional charge.

Would you rather have Sony charge Vita owners for PSone classics instead of being able to use the ones they bought already? That's the exact same thing. Anyone saying Cross Buy is not a good idea needs to stop and think about what they are saying.