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

Forums - Sony - VITA has virtually ZERO Exclusive Third Party games announced for next year!

VicViper on 24 October 2012
Tridrakious said:


This is one of the problems of moving the goal posts to many times Vic. You've moved the goal to so many different areas that it isn't possible to ever have a solution that both sides can cleanly walk away from. Because no company has really announced how they view 2013 as far as releases passed the first 3 months of the year. And that is where Sony has most of their bigger releases.

And throwing personal attacks on someone to distract from the debate isn't helping either. So I don't know what you are now trying to accomplish. I really hope the goal doesn't get moved again, because this is just dragging on and on.

I don't even know what moving the goal is, sorry. Basically my point is the same.

I didn't thrown any personal attacks, either - him on the other side - basically called me attention whore several times and is, like always, very impolite in his anwers. In the words of a mod here, his ego is limitless.

 



Around the Network
phenom08 on 24 October 2012
Tridrakious said:
 

I don't have the energy to argue this point. Nintendo's history shows they have placed their characters on a multitude of mediums.

Victory - Me

Victory - You

There this is now over. Because there is no reason to argue this point. We agree on Mario being a whore for Nintendo.

Sony would do the same if people actually knew their characters.



Tridrakious on 24 October 2012
phenom08 said:
Tridrakious said:
carlos3189 said:
@Phenom08

Yeah, but the only diff is that Sony can't handle a system w/o 3rd party support... Unlike Nintendo, Sony doesn't have franchises to fill the holes left by 3rd parties...


Although Sony does have strong franchises like Gran Turismo, Uncharted, God of War and LittleBigPlanet. 4 very strong franchises, but I do agree that Nintendo has more recognizable characters.

But that comes from slapping their characters on absolutely everything that possibly was going to be seen. Mario has been the biggest whore in gaming. Been everywhere.

4 very strong franchises is a stretch, more like 1 strong(GT), 2 moderate(Uncharted, GoW) and the rest are mediocre. Ninty definitely doesn't have more recognizable characters because of that. Animal Crossing, Wii series, Nintendogs, etc.. say hello and weren't slapped on everything possible lol. Sony is getting a real test hear, can their platforms survive on their franchises only, the answer is clearly no.

1) Uncharted and God of War are strong franchises. Looking at the numbers show they are comfortable in the 5 million and up category.

2) The Wii series has been everything and anything for Nintendo. From exercise to minigame collections to rhythm games and more.

3) Sony's games would be selling even better. If Sony wasn't completely incompetent in advertising.



Tridrakious on 24 October 2012
phenom08 said:
Tridrakious said:
 

I don't have the energy to argue this point. Nintendo's history shows they have placed their characters on a multitude of mediums.

Victory - Me

Victory - You

There this is now over. Because there is no reason to argue this point. We agree on Mario being a whore for Nintendo.

Sony would do the same if people actually knew their characters.


If you read my posts you would have read that I said Sony wouldn't be at fault for doing this and that niether is Nintendo. Because it has developed the most recognizable characters in the industry.

And millions of people do know Sony's characters.



osed125 on 24 October 2012
Tridrakious said:

I don't have the energy to argue this point. Nintendo's history shows they have placed their characters on a multitude of mediums.

Victory - Me

Victory - You

There this is now over. Because there is no reason to argue this point. We agree on Mario being a whore for Nintendo.

I think this will be an interesting topic so I'm going to make a thread about it ;)



Nintendo and PC gamer

Around the Network
VicViper on 24 October 2012
theprof00 said:

VITA has virtually ZERO Exclusive Third Party games announced for next year!

"Just boxed games announced."

A nice, coy, simple "exclusive, boxed, announced third party games". It's laughable to look at a metric like this! Maybe you think it makes sense, but it really doesn't! If anyone were to use such a small niche, I couldn't count how many people would disagree.

"I personally think this is what a real problem is"

You even emphasized 'this'!

@second paragraph
except that's not what I do. I do not demonize people by skewing what they are saying. You said this, are now changing your meaning after I confronted your initial point, and are just NOW saying that I caused the spin!

Business strategy is supporting the console by building the library further, convincing devs to further support the system, and continuing to increase the console's value. In time, as proven historically by nearly every console, the library sells consoles, which in turn makes devs want to take advantage, which creates more support, which further builds the library, etc etc etc.

All you have for evidence backing your "prediction" is the lack of this specific niche, much less the OBVIOUS that it will not sell as much without a pricecut.

Again, and I don't know how more clear cut it gets than this. vita is in a bad spot. It needs more games, more than is currently announced. It has nothing to do specifically with third party exclusive boxed retail games. You would also know that most games for next autumn wouldn't be announced at this point, and not a lot of games are released during the summer, so you're time-period really is only the first 6 months of the next year, skipping over the next 2 months before christmas.

There are a lot of problems, but this is not a real problem.

I disagree, but in the end it's just like that since the beggining - why argue. This real problem part is jesting at so many "first world problems" that appear on the site - like 20 characters for PASBR (ok number, way beyond acceptable) or today's Origin ID to play EA games on Wii U (who cares!) . You, as a professional liguist, always finding meanings in my text that even I don't know, surely could figure that one!

Like I said, I don't think it will get those games selling like that - my proof is now, as it's not getting them, even on a tgs practically reserved for it. It needs a bang or several, that's my opinion. I suggest you hunt posts in this thread with the same opinion (I remember andrepetmonkey saying here and in the Vita OT that Vita needs a GTA and 2 games of that level) to reply too. Maybe you can persecute their opinions too. Jeesh, I'm done, this is endless as always.

I said I was done before, sent you a personal msg, you kept quoting me, it started ok peacefully, but now no, seriously last letters written here.



theprof00 on 24 October 2012
phenom08 said:
theprof00 said:
 

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.

Exactly you are right, 3rd party exclusives aren't the only thing needed but if you have nothing else then you are probably screwed. What about the Xbox, PS3 or Wii? The Wii didn't need them because of Ninty, the Wii did have it though (MH3, Just Dance, and many other games the 360/PS3 didn't have). The Xbox had first party along side 3rd party games the Wii never got and the PS3 got but because of a smaller userbase and more expensive price tag, alot of the fanbase of those games would purchase a 360. The PS3 had Sony's first party and the 3rd party support only the it and the 360 had. So yes that is correct, they technically didn't need 3rd party exclusives but the Vita can't get what they received. There aren't many big 3rd party games for handhelds, so relying on multiplats wouldn't work like it did for 360 and PS3. The biggest 3rd party games for handhelds are usually exclusive (MH, DQ). The Wii had major first party support, the Vita definitely can't copy that. A year isn't a brief period, 3rd parties don't want to just throw their money away and release games for the Vita that may not be successful thanks to a small userbase. So what happens now could decide its fate. The PS3 had the benefit of receiving major 3rd party multiplats and also had a rich Sony that was willing to pay anything to get it to sell. The Vita has a not so rich Sony and virtually no major 3rd party multiplats coming. When it comes to handhelds 3rd party exclusives are pretty important if you aren't Ninty. What he is saying about handhelds is pretty accurate unless you are Ninty. You are right if you are talking about home consoles. Home consoles don't need 3rd party exclusives because 3rd party games are big enough to sell platforms for both. The PSP had major 3rd party exclusives, the DS had major 1st party exclusives, the 3DS has both, and the Vita has neither.

Hmm, I think the only thing you are missing here (while still making an accurate post) is that I'm not arguing that vita needs more games, but that this specific context, where games are rarely announced for the whole year, much less three months in (look at ps3 for example in this year and next) specifically third party, boxed, announced with a date (not simply announced), and compeltely console exclusive (not exclusive to sony consoles) is a bad metric for saying, much less predicting, that vita will do poorly.

If you want to say vita will do poorly, just say it. Everyone knows it will, because it doesn't have neough games yet, and costs nearly double what the 3ds does. All those metrics are in the OP.

Only third party (no first party or second party)
Only retail (no downloadable titles)
Only console exclusive (not counting that Sony wants crossplay to be a thing, which would emphasize that devs make the game on both systems)
Only for 2012 (not counting holiday, nor the fact that games are rarely announced so far ahead during slow months like those)
Only with detailed dates (not counting titles that have been announced for 2012, like bioshock, a "phantom annoucnement")

I have no problem with the idea that vita is in trouble, but these things have all been said before. This is not new, this is not revealing, and it certainly isn't backed with evidence. It's just another way to write a vita is doomed thread while circumventing the rule that threads need to be unique.

Next 12 months, there are nearly 30 interesting games coming out. Each one of those metrics removes 4 or 5. That's why you can't use metrics. They become goalposts, and it becomes biased very very quickly, whether intentional or not.



phenom08 on 24 October 2012
Tridrakious said:
phenom08 said:
Tridrakious said:
 

I don't have the energy to argue this point. Nintendo's history shows they have placed their characters on a multitude of mediums.

Victory - Me

Victory - You

There this is now over. Because there is no reason to argue this point. We agree on Mario being a whore for Nintendo.

Sony would do the same if people actually knew their characters.


If you read my posts you would have read that I said Sony wouldn't be at fault for doing this and that niether is Nintendo. Because it has developed the most recognizable characters in the industry.

And millions of people do know Sony's characters.

I did read your post and it sounded like you were angry. I'm pretty sure Sony's characters aren't very recognizable by the way.



theprof00 on 24 October 2012
VicViper said:
theprof00 said:

VITA has virtually ZERO Exclusive Third Party games announced for next year!

"Just boxed games announced."

A nice, coy, simple "exclusive, boxed, announced third party games". It's laughable to look at a metric like this! Maybe you think it makes sense, but it really doesn't! If anyone were to use such a small niche, I couldn't count how many people would disagree.

"I personally think this is what a real problem is"

You even emphasized 'this'!

@second paragraph
except that's not what I do. I do not demonize people by skewing what they are saying. You said this, are now changing your meaning after I confronted your initial point, and are just NOW saying that I caused the spin!

Business strategy is supporting the console by building the library further, convincing devs to further support the system, and continuing to increase the console's value. In time, as proven historically by nearly every console, the library sells consoles, which in turn makes devs want to take advantage, which creates more support, which further builds the library, etc etc etc.

All you have for evidence backing your "prediction" is the lack of this specific niche, much less the OBVIOUS that it will not sell as much without a pricecut.

Again, and I don't know how more clear cut it gets than this. vita is in a bad spot. It needs more games, more than is currently announced. It has nothing to do specifically with third party exclusive boxed retail games. You would also know that most games for next autumn wouldn't be announced at this point, and not a lot of games are released during the summer, so you're time-period really is only the first 6 months of the next year, skipping over the next 2 months before christmas.

There are a lot of problems, but this is not a real problem.

I disagree, but in the end it's just like that since the beggining - why argue. This real problem part is jesting at so many "first world problems" that appear on the site - like 20 characters for PASBR (ok number, way acceptable) or today Origin ID to play EA games on Wii U (who cares!) . You, as a professional liguist, always finding meanings in my text that even I don't know, surely could figure that one!

Like I said, I don't think it will get those games selling like that - my proof is now, as it's not getting them, even on a tgs practically reserved for it. It needs a bang or several, that's my opinion. I suggest you hunt posts in this thread with the same opinion (I remember andrepetmonkey saying here and in the Vita OT Vita needs a GTA and 2 more games) to reply too. Maybe you can persecute their opinion too. Jeesh, I'm done, this is endless as always.

I said I was done before, sent you a personal msg, you kept quoting me, it started ok peacefully, but now no, seriously last letters written here.

If you want to start a thread that is more controversial in the future, make damn sure all your language is right, so that we don't have to argue what you wrote in English means.

Why should I argue with a hundred people. That is a folly. You're a contributor here, you should be more careful and fair about what you say. This was a cheap shot, and don't pretend it wasn't. I'm not mad at you or calling you an asshole or anything, but you knew that your metric was a little unfair, but you relished the HEADLINE of this thread too much to pass up.



Tridrakious on 24 October 2012
phenom08 said:
Tridrakious said:
phenom08 said:
Tridrakious said:
 

I don't have the energy to argue this point. Nintendo's history shows they have placed their characters on a multitude of mediums.

Victory - Me

Victory - You

There this is now over. Because there is no reason to argue this point. We agree on Mario being a whore for Nintendo.

Sony would do the same if people actually knew their characters.


If you read my posts you would have read that I said Sony wouldn't be at fault for doing this and that niether is Nintendo. Because it has developed the most recognizable characters in the industry.

And millions of people do know Sony's characters.

I did read your post and it sounded like you were angry. I'm pretty sure Sony's characters aren't very recognizable by the way.

*shakes my head and walks away*