I'm sorry, but I think you may be asking a little much in that department. Those who discuss numbers work with what is given and what is available through standard news channels and the like. Comparisons are made to other consoles and the like naturally, because they are consoles as well. To simply start getting irritated because people are discussing the very numbers that are available publically would make these forums awfully quiet. No one can see the future, thus people discuss exactly what is given to them. Debate ensues, predictions are made and life goes on. There are those who want to see it fail, but very few people here seem interested in outright seeing it fail.

It's also a little much to simply assume no fault at all on the part of Sony (their marketing, the memory card pricing, etc.) and to just lay the blame at the feet of anyone else who fingers can be pointed at. But simply saying that it's all the people's fault for 'public hatred' seems a bit debatable in it's reasoning. There are a lot of factors here, but don't get irritated because people are discussing tangible numerics that could actually affect the near and future gaming area.

EDIT: I type horribly sometimes.

While it is fair to say that some people are being overly pessimistic, I think you're being overly optimistic ...

If the PS-Vita only has sold 5.5 Million units after Christmas what will its third party line-up look like in year 3? If year 3 has a week third party line-up what is the likelihood that the PS-Vita will have good hardware sales?

The PS3 retained third party support because third party publishers needed the PS3, XBox 360 and PC to justify the development costs of these games and had over-committed to the HD consoles; and, between the three platforms, sales justified the cost of the games for developers who didn't go bankrupt so development continued.

There is no XBox 360 and PC to port Vita games to, so the Vita needs to stand on its own ...

Third party publishers follow success and if Sony can not demonstrate success with the PS-Vita third party publishers will move elsewhere.

Edit: Using movies as an example, the PS-Vita is a big budget blockbuster that had an opening weekend of $5 Million and you're expecting it to make $300 Million from its theater run.

Well for starters, they are two completely different products for two different markets. The success of the PSP clearly didn't eat into the success of the DS, and the same is true of the Vita and 3DS -- both can be successful without stepping on each others' toes.

In that context, when people start to paint a picture of the 3DS overpowering the Vita, stealing its potential marketshare, the perceived state of the industry becomes very negative very fast. Last generation, the dedicated handheld market shattered the sales ceiling. On top of the best-selling handheld of all time, there was a new competitor that sold nicely as well. If the Vita fades and dies and the 3DS doesn't top the DS, well... you won't be able to repel DOOM of that magnitude.

Competition keeps the industry healthy. It's good for Nintendo, it's good for the 3DS, and it's very good for consumers. A single product can only appeal to so many demographics. Look at it this way -- the GameBoy and all of its variants sold almost 120 million units. The GBA sold about 80 million. The DS sold about 150 million. Yeah, it was a huge boost. But the DS + the PSP sold over 225 million units. The two of them together sold more consoles in a 7-year span than Nintendo sold in more than double that time with the entire GameBoy line.

If 3DS + Vita combine for less than 150 million unit sales, an outrageous 33%+ drop from the previous generation, it will basically be considered proof that the market is shrinking quickly and dramatically. And it will be. (And that's bad.) If you thought the console-doom-sayers were annoying last year, just wait till they've got THIS ammunition.

After all, a smaller market means fewer people gaming on-the-go (or more resigned to Angry Birds), which is a hit to the industry at large. It's bad for Sony, which is bad for third parties, which is bad for everyone.

I'm not very good at articulating things. If Vita goes down, it won't help Nintendo's business, but it will hurt the perception of their success.

On a more OT-related note, what ever happened to the Vita Predicted Sales thread? Did it get too depressing for Chark to maintain?

LMFAO!!!  That made my day!

Some of your post is a bit confusing. The first and third paragraph seem to contradict each other, for one. You say that they're hitting different markets, therefore not competing, and yet their competition is good?

Anyway, I'm not sure how the perceived success of the dedicated handheld gaming industry matters. As a Nintendo fanboy, I really only care about Nintendo's success and not so much about the industry in general.

Besides, even if Vita is rejuvanated somehow and legs out 50m or so, short of a Tetris/Wii Sports/Nintendogs level breakthrough new game on the 3DS, the industry is gonna decline hugely anyway, meaning that the console doomsayers are gonna have a hell of a lot of ammo regardless.

I'm also a bit confused about why this would be bad for third parties. In general, third parties have done better financially when there is a single dominating console so that they can focus on it alone. We're all aware of how so many gaming companies have been struggling this generation, in spite of the three main home consoles being far closer to each other in sales than usual.

I'm sorry if I'm not understanding your point properly, but I really don't get how the Vita's possible death would in any real way be bad for me if I'm a Nintendo fanboy.

In forums like this, Usenet back in the day, there was delighting by Sony console partisans that they won, and somehow it would mean Sega fans MUST buy their console.  All, there was the spin of how it was good news, because it meant they could play Sega's stuff.  At the time that happened, I was saying Sega would fall into a minor role in the videogame industry, as a result of not having a console, and their titles wouldn't be as good elsewhere.  All this came to pass.

I do have concerns if platforms leave, because that means contraction in the industry.  Vita leaving means that there isn't a demand for trying to make a PS3 portable, or push for the most top of the line graphics in a handheld.  As for myself, economy says NO new hardware for me.

Systems and companies and brands come and go in the videogame business.  If the Vita is going to end up not doing well, be dwarfed by the 3DS, and the PS3 maybe barely break into second, would have to wonder about the strength of "Playstation" as a brand.  I know some go "Playstation FOREVER!" and that is their brand, but the history of the videogame business shows a lot of instability in it.  

Yeah, you've got me there in a few places. Like I said, I'm not very good at articulating my thoughts... Either way, although I have no interest in buying a Vita and haven't owned a non-Nintendo console since the Genesis, I'm rooting for the Vita. I'm having a hard time explaining why.

I'm sort of arguing against myself here, but Playstation just seems to be too big to fail, so to speak. I mean, the history of video games isn't particularly long, is it? The industry as we know it only really began with the NES. And, since then, Nintendo, Sega, Playstation and Xbox have been pretty much the only major competition. While there were some small fry in the early generations, I don't think they were ever in the same league as these four. Now, if we take these as the four major brands to ever have been in the industry, then only one of them to leave has been Sega. While Sony's financial situation is definitely as bad as anything has ever been, the Playstation brand is still much stronger than Sega was at its worst, in both raw numbers and proportion of the market. As such, I can understand the notion of the PlayStation brand dying off feeling unrealistic.