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

Forums - Gaming - Why the PS Vita/PS3 combination can’t compete with the Wii U

Mmmfishtacos on 08 October 2012
Pokemonbrawlvg said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
d21lewis said:
JoeTheBro said:
lilbroex said:
JoeTheBro said:
lilbroex said:
JoeTheBro said:
I agree with the point of the article.

The PS3/VITA combo can do everything the Wii U can and much more. I've had to debate this tons of times to people that just don't have the facts. But as we all know from Move superior hardware does not mean superior support. LBP2 with cross-controller DLC is the only game announced that will do Wii U like gameplay. Heck I can count every PS3/VITA game on two hands (yes I have 21 fingers) while thousands of games will support it on the Wii U.

No it can't.


Uh not this again. Which specific features can the Wii U do that the PS3/VITA can't besides NFC, TV control, and L2 R2?


LOL, dismiss the features that contradict your argument straight. Also, panoramic view, native support in all games, built in infrared sensor(for the Wii-mote), larger, faster screen, and coordinated screen coordination(throwing ninja stars by swiping them from the Upad to the Wii U as well as using it as a placement on the floor to display a golf ball that you can accurately hit with the Wii mote thanks to the buil in sensor bar).


NFC, TV control, and L2 R2 are hardware differences that have nothing to do with the "wii u" experience but are worth a mention.

Panoramic view-that is a software demo showing off looking around an enviroment using motion sensors. The Vita can easily do this with the PS3 displaying the forward view. This isn't anything new.

Native support in all games-so? That is a very important pro for the Wii U but not a feature.

Built in infrared sensor-not needed or useful, but Vita has a camera.

Larger, faster screen-larger yes, faster; we don't know. Either way that again isn't a feature but an improvement.

Coordinated screen coordination-Vita does it.

How about using the Vita as a second screen instead of split screen for Call of Duty (with rumble)?  I'm sure the PS3/ Vita can do it but can it do it right?

Sure it could do it, It wont do rumble with out an add on, or a work around like sticking a dual shock in your pocket, or just playing the game direct from the dual shock. I don't even see why this is important. I mean I'd never want to be the person that has to play on the game pad, Not call of duty anyway. The person on the big screen is going to have a huge advantage on you. At least when your playing call of duty: declassified  Everyone has a small screen, So no unfair disadvantage.  

 

Rumble

1. Why in the world would I put a controller in my pocket? For what purpose? To get a boner? Why not my hands?

2. Directing to the playing directly from the dualshock, doesn't that get rid of the purpose of the Vita/PS3 combo?

3. How wants to put an add on on a handheld, just to use rumble? How is that even possible? You mean like the Rumble Pak for DS? That's buying  accessory to something a controller does already.

4. It is important for some people to get into the game. Adds intensity into the game. Not required, but people like it.

Screen

1. How is playing on the Gamepad a disvantage? It's just the game on the screen. It's not stuffed together on the screen.

2. So having a small screen is an advantage (Gamepad's screen is bigger than Vita's)? I thought you said having the bigger screen was the advantage? You just contradicted yourself.

Black Ops Declassified

1. Why are you using this game as your example? That's possiblity the wrose example you could use. At least Black Ops 2 has something people want.

2. Declassified has 30 fps, gimped multiplayer, small maps, no zombies, and is being made by a developer with a bad track record. I'm not a Call of Duty fan, but I would rather play Black Ops 2 than this game.

 

I'm using Declassified my my example to show that having the same size screen would yield no advantage to any player. Playing split screen where one is using the game pad and one using the big TV will gain the big screen user an advantage. I was spit balling ideas on how you could have Rumble on the vita, nothing more. it's seemed like plain English to me. Don't understand what's not to understand.

 

@D21lewis, Maybe it wasn't quite clear enough. I wasn't asking why split screen was important, but why it's important to split the users between the game pad and TV. It's only logical that the TV user would have an advantage over the game pad user. I'd never want to play split screen like that. It would be down right horrible for the pad user. This can't even be argued. You're talking to a guy who played call of duty for years. I started out on a small 19 inch computer monitor. I felt then it was fine, most of the time i did okay. But after I bought my first 32 inch I started kicking it into high gear, like that very night. I'm always in the top 3 and have gone as high as 50-0 and when i stopped playing Black ops my kill to death ratio was 10-1 I wouldn't have been able to achieve those scores on that 19 inch. Screen size is a huge advantage plan and simple.



Around the Network
Pokemonbrawlvg on 09 October 2012
Mmmfishtacos said:

Pokemonbrawlvg said:
 

Rumble

1. Why in the world would I put a controller in my pocket? For what purpose? To get a boner? Why not my hands?

2. Directing to the playing directly from the dualshock, doesn't that get rid of the purpose of the Vita/PS3 combo?

3. How wants to put an add on on a handheld, just to use rumble? How is that even possible? You mean like the Rumble Pak for DS? That's buying  accessory to something a controller does already.

4. It is important for some people to get into the game. Adds intensity into the game. Not required, but people like it.

Screen

1. How is playing on the Gamepad a disvantage? It's just the game on the screen. It's not stuffed together on the screen.

2. So having a small screen is an advantage (Gamepad's screen is bigger than Vita's)? I thought you said having the bigger screen was the advantage? You just contradicted yourself.

Black Ops Declassified

1. Why are you using this game as your example? That's possiblity the wrose example you could use. At least Black Ops 2 has something people want.

2. Declassified has 30 fps, gimped multiplayer, small maps, no zombies, and is being made by a developer with a bad track record. I'm not a Call of Duty fan, but I would rather play Black Ops 2 than this game.

 

I'm using Declassified my my example to show that having the same size screen would yield no advantage to any player. Playing split screen where one is using the game pad and one using the big TV will gain the big screen user an advantage. I was spit balling ideas on how you could have Rumble on the vita, nothing more. it's seemed like plain English to me. Don't understand what's not to understand.

 

@D21lewis, Maybe it wasn't quite clear enough. I wasn't asking why split screen was important, but why it's important to split the users between the game pad and TV. It's only logical that the TV user would have an advantage over the game pad user. I'd never want to play split screen like that. It would be down right horrible for the pad user. This can't even be argued. You're talking to a guy who played call of duty for years. I started out on a small 19 inch computer monitor. I felt then it was fine, most of the time i did okay. But after I bought my first 32 inch I started kicking it into high gear, like that very night. I'm always in the top 3 and have gone as high as 50-0 and when i stopped playing Black ops my kill to death ratio was 10-1 I wouldn't have been able to achieve those scores on that 19 inch. Screen size is a huge advantage plan and simple.

Sorry, I didn't understand it very well and I still don't see how the Vita's screen is an advantage when you said the Gamepad's screen wasn't. Wouldn't that be the other way around simply because the Gamepad's screen is bigger? Or am I still missing something here?



Read my original story on Fictionpress (Shinigami Twin): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/2996503/1/Shinigami-Twin 

As well as my other one (Hell's Punishment): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/3085054/1/Hell-s-Punishment

Nintendo Network ID: kingofe3

Mmmfishtacos on 09 October 2012
Pokemonbrawlvg said:
Mmmfishtacos said:

Pokemonbrawlvg said:
 

Rumble

1. Why in the world would I put a controller in my pocket? For what purpose? To get a boner? Why not my hands?

2. Directing to the playing directly from the dualshock, doesn't that get rid of the purpose of the Vita/PS3 combo?

3. How wants to put an add on on a handheld, just to use rumble? How is that even possible? You mean like the Rumble Pak for DS? That's buying  accessory to something a controller does already.

4. It is important for some people to get into the game. Adds intensity into the game. Not required, but people like it.

Screen

1. How is playing on the Gamepad a disvantage? It's just the game on the screen. It's not stuffed together on the screen.

2. So having a small screen is an advantage (Gamepad's screen is bigger than Vita's)? I thought you said having the bigger screen was the advantage? You just contradicted yourself.

Black Ops Declassified

1. Why are you using this game as your example? That's possiblity the wrose example you could use. At least Black Ops 2 has something people want.

2. Declassified has 30 fps, gimped multiplayer, small maps, no zombies, and is being made by a developer with a bad track record. I'm not a Call of Duty fan, but I would rather play Black Ops 2 than this game.

 

I'm using Declassified my my example to show that having the same size screen would yield no advantage to any player. Playing split screen where one is using the game pad and one using the big TV will gain the big screen user an advantage. I was spit balling ideas on how you could have Rumble on the vita, nothing more. it's seemed like plain English to me. Don't understand what's not to understand.

 

@D21lewis, Maybe it wasn't quite clear enough. I wasn't asking why split screen was important, but why it's important to split the users between the game pad and TV. It's only logical that the TV user would have an advantage over the game pad user. I'd never want to play split screen like that. It would be down right horrible for the pad user. This can't even be argued. You're talking to a guy who played call of duty for years. I started out on a small 19 inch computer monitor. I felt then it was fine, most of the time i did okay. But after I bought my first 32 inch I started kicking it into high gear, like that very night. I'm always in the top 3 and have gone as high as 50-0 and when i stopped playing Black ops my kill to death ratio was 10-1 I wouldn't have been able to achieve those scores on that 19 inch. Screen size is a huge advantage plan and simple.

Sorry, I didn't understand it very well and I still don't see how the Vita's screen is an advantage when you said the Gamepad's screen wasn't. Wouldn't that be the other way around simply because the Gamepad's screen is bigger? Or am I still missing something here?

No, it's not that the vita screen is better against the Game pads screen. It makes no difference between the two. 2 inch's is hardly anything to scoff about. That's what i was trying to say in my earlier post in this discussion. Same size screen equals fair, 42 inch VS 7inch unfair. Does that help?

P.S I'd love to be able to stick a dual shock in each pocket for call of duty, You could instantly tell on which side your being shot from. Have you played Child of Eden? it allows you do to that. and its pretty cool.



Pokemonbrawlvg on 09 October 2012
Mmmfishtacos said:
Pokemonbrawlvg said:
Mmmfishtacos said:

Pokemonbrawlvg said:
 

Rumble

1. Why in the world would I put a controller in my pocket? For what purpose? To get a boner? Why not my hands?

2. Directing to the playing directly from the dualshock, doesn't that get rid of the purpose of the Vita/PS3 combo?

3. How wants to put an add on on a handheld, just to use rumble? How is that even possible? You mean like the Rumble Pak for DS? That's buying  accessory to something a controller does already.

4. It is important for some people to get into the game. Adds intensity into the game. Not required, but people like it.

Screen

1. How is playing on the Gamepad a disvantage? It's just the game on the screen. It's not stuffed together on the screen.

2. So having a small screen is an advantage (Gamepad's screen is bigger than Vita's)? I thought you said having the bigger screen was the advantage? You just contradicted yourself.

Black Ops Declassified

1. Why are you using this game as your example? That's possiblity the wrose example you could use. At least Black Ops 2 has something people want.

2. Declassified has 30 fps, gimped multiplayer, small maps, no zombies, and is being made by a developer with a bad track record. I'm not a Call of Duty fan, but I would rather play Black Ops 2 than this game.

 

I'm using Declassified my my example to show that having the same size screen would yield no advantage to any player. Playing split screen where one is using the game pad and one using the big TV will gain the big screen user an advantage. I was spit balling ideas on how you could have Rumble on the vita, nothing more. it's seemed like plain English to me. Don't understand what's not to understand.

 

@D21lewis, Maybe it wasn't quite clear enough. I wasn't asking why split screen was important, but why it's important to split the users between the game pad and TV. It's only logical that the TV user would have an advantage over the game pad user. I'd never want to play split screen like that. It would be down right horrible for the pad user. This can't even be argued. You're talking to a guy who played call of duty for years. I started out on a small 19 inch computer monitor. I felt then it was fine, most of the time i did okay. But after I bought my first 32 inch I started kicking it into high gear, like that very night. I'm always in the top 3 and have gone as high as 50-0 and when i stopped playing Black ops my kill to death ratio was 10-1 I wouldn't have been able to achieve those scores on that 19 inch. Screen size is a huge advantage plan and simple.

Sorry, I didn't understand it very well and I still don't see how the Vita's screen is an advantage when you said the Gamepad's screen wasn't. Wouldn't that be the other way around simply because the Gamepad's screen is bigger? Or am I still missing something here?

No, it's not that the vita screen is better against the Game pads screen. It makes no difference between the two. 2 inch's is hardly anything to scoff about. That's what i was trying to say in my earlier post in this discussion. Same size screen equals fair, 42 inch VS 7inch unfair. Does that help?

Ok, fine, but that's something for eyes to judge. I'm sure on either screen is just fine IMO otherwise we'll hear reports about people complaining about playing console games on the Gamepad and Vita (which I haven't heard yet).



Read my original story on Fictionpress (Shinigami Twin): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/2996503/1/Shinigami-Twin 

As well as my other one (Hell's Punishment): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/3085054/1/Hell-s-Punishment

Nintendo Network ID: kingofe3

Chark on 09 October 2012
Kenology said:
Chark said:

That Wii U userbase is overshadowing that Vita user base. And new consumers are more able to pay $300/$350 than the 66 million are to pay $250/$300.

I understand that having it all in box is important, but would it kill for them or any other third party to release a port? Atleast they would have a larger install base than a launching console. Isn't multiplatforming considered a good thing most of the time?

People are really gonna buy a Vita and Rayman just to replicate the experience you get with the Wii U right out of the box?  And you don't see why having the system ready out of the box isn't a good idea?

I don't think your idea is really practical at all.  Not too many people own a Vita, so that limts their market tremendously already.  The 66 million PS3 users doesn't mean anything really, that just means they have half of the hardware they need to play the game.  And are a signficant amount of people going to buy another handheld too just to play the game? 

No.

Ok you should have read what I said twice, see underlined.

3 million Vitas is still more than zero Wii Us so the market limitation is actually less, predictive future sales aside. So if you are using that arguement, shoot for that.

The 66 million does mean something, don't write that off because you want to. Essentially there is a large consumer base that is able to play asynchronous games for the $250 introductory price of a Vita, compared to the $300 price of the Wii U. Those PS3 owners already have those consoles and they can save $50 to play asynchronous titles while having a newly released handheld system. Not a bad deal considering they already have a home console, plus they can reap the benefits of both being PlayStation consoles, trophies, crossbuy/play/platform, same account, same friends, etc.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Around the Network
Mmmfishtacos on 09 October 2012
Pokemonbrawlvg said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Pokemonbrawlvg said:
Mmmfishtacos said:

Pokemonbrawlvg said:
 

Rumble

1. Why in the world would I put a controller in my pocket? For what purpose? To get a boner? Why not my hands?

2. Directing to the playing directly from the dualshock, doesn't that get rid of the purpose of the Vita/PS3 combo?

3. How wants to put an add on on a handheld, just to use rumble? How is that even possible? You mean like the Rumble Pak for DS? That's buying  accessory to something a controller does already.

4. It is important for some people to get into the game. Adds intensity into the game. Not required, but people like it.

Screen

1. How is playing on the Gamepad a disvantage? It's just the game on the screen. It's not stuffed together on the screen.

2. So having a small screen is an advantage (Gamepad's screen is bigger than Vita's)? I thought you said having the bigger screen was the advantage? You just contradicted yourself.

Black Ops Declassified

1. Why are you using this game as your example? That's possiblity the wrose example you could use. At least Black Ops 2 has something people want.

2. Declassified has 30 fps, gimped multiplayer, small maps, no zombies, and is being made by a developer with a bad track record. I'm not a Call of Duty fan, but I would rather play Black Ops 2 than this game.

 

I'm using Declassified my my example to show that having the same size screen would yield no advantage to any player. Playing split screen where one is using the game pad and one using the big TV will gain the big screen user an advantage. I was spit balling ideas on how you could have Rumble on the vita, nothing more. it's seemed like plain English to me. Don't understand what's not to understand.

 

@D21lewis, Maybe it wasn't quite clear enough. I wasn't asking why split screen was important, but why it's important to split the users between the game pad and TV. It's only logical that the TV user would have an advantage over the game pad user. I'd never want to play split screen like that. It would be down right horrible for the pad user. This can't even be argued. You're talking to a guy who played call of duty for years. I started out on a small 19 inch computer monitor. I felt then it was fine, most of the time i did okay. But after I bought my first 32 inch I started kicking it into high gear, like that very night. I'm always in the top 3 and have gone as high as 50-0 and when i stopped playing Black ops my kill to death ratio was 10-1 I wouldn't have been able to achieve those scores on that 19 inch. Screen size is a huge advantage plan and simple.

Sorry, I didn't understand it very well and I still don't see how the Vita's screen is an advantage when you said the Gamepad's screen wasn't. Wouldn't that be the other way around simply because the Gamepad's screen is bigger? Or am I still missing something here?

No, it's not that the vita screen is better against the Game pads screen. It makes no difference between the two. 2 inch's is hardly anything to scoff about. That's what i was trying to say in my earlier post in this discussion. Same size screen equals fair, 42 inch VS 7inch unfair. Does that help?

Ok, fine, but that's something for eyes to judge. I'm sure on either screen is just fine IMO otherwise we'll hear reports about people complaining about playing console games on the Gamepad and Vita (which I haven't heard yet).


It's because you haven't had a situation where it matters yet. Having to spot a sniper half a map away on a 7 inch screen while they basically have a magnifying glass on to see you is going to matter.

Well just have to wait and see, I'll have my WiiU day one. So don't think I'm hating on it. Just being real.



Chark on 09 October 2012

I'm excited for the LBP2 Cross Controller DLC. I enjoyed the demos I played on the Wii U, asynchronous is pretty cool. I am concerned over the PS3's ability to handle it to the full extent and feel that the PS4 will provide higher quality compatibility with the Vita. That doesn't mean it can't do a lot with it already. Starting now to warm up for next gen and establish a ecosystem of multiplatforms with the Wii U is a good move.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Kenology on 09 October 2012
Chark said:

Ok you should have read what I said twice, see underlined.

3 million Vitas is still more than zero Wii Us so the market limitation is actually less, predictive future sales aside. So if you are using that arguement, shoot for that.

The 66 million does mean something, don't write that off because you want to. Essentially there is a large consumer base that is able to play asynchronous games for the $250 introductory price of a Vita, compared to the $300 price of the Wii U. Those PS3 owners already have those consoles and they can save $50 to play asynchronous titles while having a newly released handheld system. Not a bad deal considering they already have a home console, plus they can reap the benefits of both being PlayStation consoles, trophies, crossbuy/play/platform, same account, same friends, etc.

My bad about the underlined.

Anyways, I don't think any publisher would wanna risk what you describe because I doubt enough of those 66 million would bite and make the purchase just to play a game in that way.  As much as people like Rayman, it won't be the game to make that type of endeavor worthwhile.  I don't think any of Sony's IPs would either.  So in theory, it would work similar to the Wii U but it's just jumping through too many hoops and taking a huge gamble for not much a payoff.



Mmmfishtacos on 09 October 2012
Chark said:
I'm excited for the LBP2 Cross Controller DLC. I enjoyed the demos I played on the Wii U, asynchronous is pretty cool. I am concerned over the PS3's ability to handle it to the full extent and feel that the PS4 will provide higher quality compatibility with the Vita. That doesn't mean it can't do a lot with it already. Starting now to warm up for next gen and establish a ecosystem of multiplatforms with the Wii U is a good move.


Yeah, Ps4 will be the ticket. I don't expect a lot of cross controller support for ps3 all though well see some. There's already 4 or so i think. A redesign of the vita for ps4 would be sweet too. Basically the same insides but with detachable control boards that you can switch out between on the go vita and Dualshock vita. And I can't wait for LBP2 DLC, I'm a sucker for anything LBP.



Chark on 09 October 2012
Kenology said:
Chark said:

Ok you should have read what I said twice, see underlined.

3 million Vitas is still more than zero Wii Us so the market limitation is actually less, predictive future sales aside. So if you are using that arguement, shoot for that.

The 66 million does mean something, don't write that off because you want to. Essentially there is a large consumer base that is able to play asynchronous games for the $250 introductory price of a Vita, compared to the $300 price of the Wii U. Those PS3 owners already have those consoles and they can save $50 to play asynchronous titles while having a newly released handheld system. Not a bad deal considering they already have a home console, plus they can reap the benefits of both being PlayStation consoles, trophies, crossbuy/play/platform, same account, same friends, etc.

My bad about the underlined.

Anyways, I don't think any publisher would wanna risk what you describe because I doubt enough of those 66 million would bite and make the purchase just to play a game in that way.  As much as people like Rayman, it won't be the game to make that type of endeavor worthwhile.  I don't think any of Sony's IPs would either.  So in theory, it would work similar to the Wii U but it's just jumping through too many hoops and taking a huge gamble for not much a payoff.

Well that all depends on the cost of porting, the Wii U will probably be the priority but they could increase their reach by going for both. The PS3 portion is probably the issue considering it is difficult to code for, still if it isn't that much money the potential sales could offset the risk. Neither of us know the costs of doing such a port, so don't jump to conclusions. I'd like to see a developer go for it. Ubisoft seemed like a likely candidate for it, but whatever. Maybe they didn't plan out the possibility or are using mechanics in the Wii U Gamepad that aren't in the Vita (RFID/Infared). I think it would be that over cost to port, since no one has done that yet, though I suppose the typical cost of making a PS3 game with a little on the top to work with Vita as well would be a decent guess.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(