phenom08 said: theprof00 said: Yes, that is funny, because if your original point is still intact, that consoles need third party support to be successful, then PSP is really the WORST supporting evidence you can use as it was still creamed by the DS. You now say "You think a system doesn't need big exclusive games. Let me think the opposite". I'm glad that you've now reversed your position on the exclusive games to now include first party sales. Maintainance: Again, this is a very time-sensitive thread commenting on a lack of announcements bar the next six months during which many of the games have been pushed to pre-Christmas, and the next 3 months have some very nice first party, and despite your opinion on them, ports with expanded content. Ports? Look at persona 4 the golden in Japan, a port. Increased vita sales from 14k to 33k, and has nearly 100k preorders in the USA while still a month out. 12 Persona 4: The Golden (PSV) Atlus, Role-Playing 2 3,045 88,604         Your metrics are baseless in this whole point. Most of your point rests on this idea: PSP had 3pexclusives, ds did not, sales were 30 v 70% Now, vita doesn't have 3pexclusives announced for the next 6 months, 3ds does, sales will deteriorate. That is absolutely the wrong way to look at it because the most important thing to a console is THE GAMES. Not specifically who makes them. PSP just so happened to have some VERY GOOD 3pexclusive games, but 3ds still really doesn't, even though it has more 3pexclusives. Again, you are taking a random metric of what you consider to be a defining necessity, and basing all your assumptions of that incorrect assessment. To make it simple for you yet again, your metric is wrong because we haev historical evidence showing that consoles do not rely or require 3rd party exclusives to be successful. What is most important is the game library and the value of the system. Both of these requirements show in the 3ds, all of them show in the 360, ps3, and wii, and the psp, the one console that actually supports your viewpoint gameswise (needing 3rd party support) is not supported by it's own sales. Yes psp would have failed without good third party support, but it doesn't prove that a console needs 3rd party support to be successful. Period. When you include stuff like this, its easy to just ignore what you have to say. Everything else I agree with.

I get caught up in exaggeration sometimes. Oop, it seems I didn't clarify something else though. Let me do that now.

psp had some very good 3pexclusives that helped them stay in the game. 3DS still doesn't really have the quality of third party exclusive games that PSP had, but they still have more third party exclusive games than VITA does currently. My point here was that third party exclusives aren't what keeps a system competitive, citing that psp is an exception because its third party was strikingly good, while supporting my statement by saying that 3ds has more 3pexclusives than vita, though it's not those games that are selling the systems.

theprof00 said: phenom08 said: theprof00 said: Yes, that is funny, because if your original point is still intact, that consoles need third party support to be successful, then PSP is really the WORST supporting evidence you can use as it was still creamed by the DS. You now say "You think a system doesn't need big exclusive games. Let me think the opposite". I'm glad that you've now reversed your position on the exclusive games to now include first party sales. Maintainance: Again, this is a very time-sensitive thread commenting on a lack of announcements bar the next six months during which many of the games have been pushed to pre-Christmas, and the next 3 months have some very nice first party, and despite your opinion on them, ports with expanded content. Ports? Look at persona 4 the golden in Japan, a port. Increased vita sales from 14k to 33k, and has nearly 100k preorders in the USA while still a month out. 12 Persona 4: The Golden (PSV) Atlus, Role-Playing 2 3,045 88,604         Your metrics are baseless in this whole point. Most of your point rests on this idea: PSP had 3pexclusives, ds did not, sales were 30 v 70% Now, vita doesn't have 3pexclusives announced for the next 6 months, 3ds does, sales will deteriorate. That is absolutely the wrong way to look at it because the most important thing to a console is THE GAMES. Not specifically who makes them. PSP just so happened to have some VERY GOOD 3pexclusive games, but 3ds still really doesn't, even though it has more 3pexclusives. Again, you are taking a random metric of what you consider to be a defining necessity, and basing all your assumptions of that incorrect assessment. To make it simple for you yet again, your metric is wrong because we haev historical evidence showing that consoles do not rely or require 3rd party exclusives to be successful. What is most important is the game library and the value of the system. Both of these requirements show in the 3ds, all of them show in the 360, ps3, and wii, and the psp, the one console that actually supports your viewpoint gameswise (needing 3rd party support) is not supported by it's own sales. Yes psp would have failed without good third party support, but it doesn't prove that a console needs 3rd party support to be successful. Period. When you include stuff like this, its easy to just ignore what you have to say. Everything else I agree with. I get caught up in exaggeration sometimes. Oop, it seems I didn't clarify something else though. Let me do that now. psp had some very good 3pexclusives that helped them stay in the game. 3DS still doesn't really have the quality of third party exclusive games that PSP had, but they still have more third party exclusive games than VITA does currently. My point here was that third party exclusives aren't what keeps a system competitive, citing that psp is an exception because its third party was strikingly good, while supporting my statement by saying that 3ds has more 3pexclusives than vita, though it's not those games that are selling the systems.

I agree with some of what you are saying but there are things you are ignoring. PS1, PS2, and PSP all benefited greatly from 3rd party exclusives. Timed exclusives count as well because not many people are going to wait a year for one game when they can already pick it up on another platform. We have seen what happens when Sony doesn't have many 3rd party exclusives (PS3, Vita). PS3 worked thanks to Sony supporting it with 1st party titles, it still sold far less than PS1 and PS2 though. Vita, well Vita is the Vita. The point is, you support a company that's been relying on 3rd party support for a while, and now we see what happens to Sony platforms without much 3rd party support like the Wii.

Edit: P.S. You are both right, platforms don't need 3rd party exclusives as long as they have enough first party exclusives. When it comes to Sony though, they usually used 3rd party exclusives to dominate. I don't know if Sony's first party is enough to support both though. One of them (PS3 and Vita) can survive with Sony's attention while the other may need 3rd parties. Sony focusing more on PS3 is definitely a better decision than focusing on Vita if one of them has to go.

Too big posts :D

Well, let's say this

Post 1: DS was a disruptor and had first party games that changed the game in ways even the best Monster hunter game couldn't. Stop playing semantics here - you know pretty well I said third party games in this thread because Vita would benefit more from a, let's say, exclusive Final Fantasy, than a Killzone. So unless you can prove me Sly Cooper can be a 23 million seller like Nintendogs was, I'll stick naming the games Vita needs the most "third party", ok? Either way, it's pretty obvious it's "big games".

Post 2: Ok, Vita is okey dokey. That explains how it's selling astonishingly low. Lowest week in japan. Incredibly low in US. Rumors/evidence (still undecided) of being overtracked. Missing forecasts like a maniac - november 1st will be third time - and I don't think it'll be the charm! Well, I gave a personal theory, at least. And not just that, as that theory is not to explain past sales, but to try to predict what's next, and that is, continuation of the status quo.

Why are you trying to read the tone when you're said you can't read tone?

Well, at the end of the day, the OT doesn't say anything that's not true... Vita has no 3rd party support for the next year (that we know, obviously), is it important? Obviously, what's a system w/o exclusives? Now, funny how ppl say that Vic is wrong just because he doesn't like Vita support but I don't think he is alone, Vita sales pretty much prove that he actually has a point and all those dedicated gamers out there can't be wrong and a bunch of Sony fans (all Vita defensors have Sony related signature) are right... I mean, c'mon ppl, isn't it hard to admit he is actually right? Yes, Vita is getting 1st party support (very weak, in my opinion), but that doesn't change the fact that Vita, right now, is way far from being a reliable system...

In other words Sony is now getting the same test Ninty got with the Wii.

Oh, I'm not missing anything that isn't directly important to mention. While ps1,2, and psp are good counter-examples, they don't make ps3,wii, or xbox disappear. What it does prove is that 'some consoles need 3rd party exclusives, others do not'. But again, this is not me saying that vita will be fine without 3pexclusives, but that in this short timeframe (factoring in announcement time periods, title shifting, etc) of jan-april 2013, there not being any BIG titles (the 4-5 smaller games that he refuses to acknowledge because of being downloadable titles or not big enough) is not a problem that warrants such scrutiny.

The problem, not to deride your own point, is that we aren't "seeing what happens when sony doesn't have many 3rd party exclusives", we are looking at really just a few months in a brief period of time and using ONLY exclusives to support it. PS3 did not rely on third party exclusives, but it did get quite a bit of help from third party multiplats like, gta4, ff13, which again, is only more counter-evidence to the OP. Third party EXCLUSIVES are not the whole case.

In the end, I could just rewrite this same sentence over and over without giving as much clarity, but it boils down to "It's all about the library". It's not all about the 3rd party exclusives, or the first party exclusives, or the 1st party g

It's all about the library.

Wheres your source? Gravity Rush 2 would be totaly awesome :)

To prove it isn't possible.

I disagree mainly because when PSP launched, phones lacked features that the PSP had.

Now smart phones are capable of playing 1080p videos, running game emulators, etc.. it has kind of stolen that crowd who baught the PSP for these types of features rather than games.

back on topic, i don't think we cna expect many exclusives these days. Look what happeend with many of the PS3 exclusives. They ended up on Xbox. Business models have changed and in order to make a profit on HD games these days, multi platform releases is a must for 3rd parties.