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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo fans are hypocrites when it comes to PS3 ports on Vita

 

Do you like transfering games from console to handheld?

Yes 42 57.53%
 
No 31 42.47%
 
Total:73
JWeinCom on 24 November 2012
JoeTheBro said:
JWeinCom said:
JoeTheBro said:

So many people claim they don't want a Vita because it has nothing but ports* of PS3 games. That is a fine opinion, until that same person talks about how great it is playing Wii U games on the gamepad without using a TV.

PlayStation All Stars Battle Royale I spent all day playing and all of a sudden my family wanted to watch a movie (using the PS3 of course). Almost instantly I had the game playing on my Vita without losing any progress. Of course the Wii U does this transfer better, but that is a different thread. My point is if you like this feature on the Wii U, you are a hypocrite to find these PS3 ports on Vita a waste.

I can't wait to enjoy this on Ratchet and Clank, Sly, and Guacamelee as well as on my future Wii U.

*Actual ports, not console IPs like Uncharted, COD, Assassin's Creed, etc.


If Sony threw in a free Vita with a PS3 and enabled cross buy on 90% of their games, it's be a cool feature.  As it stands, it costs me an extra 300  dollars to play Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 on a second screen. 

Edit:  Wait, UMvC3 doesn't support that does it?  Madden then.  Wait that doesn't either does it?  Ummmm... Fifa? No.  Mortal Kombat?  Don't think so.  Uhhh... MLB the Show?  Oh yeah, let's go with that one.


Those are all reasons why the feature is worse on Vita. They have nothing to do with saying "Why would I want a game on Vita that I already have on my PS3?" People in this thread are jumping to post without understanding a thing.


No, we understand.  The question isn't "why would I want a game on Vita that I already have on my PS3".  The question is "why would I want to pay for a game on my Vita that I already have on my PS3" and "why would I want to pay for a PSVita to play the same games I play on my PS3." 

It's not a question of crossplay being inherently bad, it's a question of it being a shitty value and it's about the Vita not having a great deal of original content of its own. 



Around the Network
JoeTheBro on 24 November 2012
RolStoppable said:
With the Wii U, you only need one system and one copy of the game to do it. With the Vita, you need two systems and two copies of the game.

Notice the difference? With the Wii U, this functionality is a bonus. With the Vita, it's not.
JimmyDanger said:
When a PS3 + a Vita is the same cost as a Wii U - and every PS3 game is also available on Vita with this feature, AND every Vita copy comes free with a PS3 copy - then you can fairly call them hypocrites.

Is PSABR the only (non downloadable/full) game that supports this feature?
richardhutnik said:

You do realize that there is a difference between the content of a system's library, and features a system has, right?  I see these as two separate issues, even if there may be some overlap.
JayWood2010 said:
PS3+Vita Cost $600, WiiU+Gamepad cost $300
Jumpin said:
Well, on the Wii U, you get all of this free, including the handheld; and the games on the Wii U Gamepad aren't bad ports with missing features and content, they're the same game with 100% the features and content, and 0 extra price.

On top of that, on Wii U, you can play local co-op multiplayer with one person playing on the Gamepad, and others using the TV at 0 latency.

Thank you for talking about how the Wii U is better. I'm sure you took the time to read my OP so why did you post this? Do you not understand cross-save?

PS3 ports on PSV can simulate the same experience as playing off screen with the Wii U. If you like this feature on Wii U, you are a hypocrite to think ports such as all stars are "stupid." This has nothing to do with price, amount of games, or amount of systems.

 

@JimmyDanger

PSASBR, Blazblue, and MLB12 are the ones that I know of.



Links

gigaSheik on 24 November 2012

Vita? Whats that?



ninetailschris on 24 November 2012
gigaSheik said:
Vita? Whats that?


Sounds disappointing.

 

On topic:wiiu version looks better than vita and most vita games aren't cross buy



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

gigaSheik on 24 November 2012
ninetailschris said:
gigaSheik said:
Vita? Whats that?


Sounds disappointing.

 

On topic:wiiu version looks better than vita and most vita games aren't cross buy

 

Again:

Vita? Whats that?



Around the Network
Veknoid_Outcast on 24 November 2012

Joe, I think there must be a misunderstanding here. I believe most people who criticized the Vita did so because they felt its library was filled mostly with ports. They weren't criticizing the fact that you could transfer save data from one fixed screen to another, more portable screen.



JoeTheBro on 24 November 2012
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Joe, I think there must be a misunderstanding here. I believe most people who criticized the Vita did so because they felt its library was filled mostly with ports. They weren't criticizing the fact that you could transfer save data from one fixed screen to another, more portable screen.


Of course there are a lot of those people. I know the main thing being spammed right now is "watered down ports" but even when one to one ports with cross-save are brought up lots of people say they don't matter/aren't important/stupid. I've dealt with this scenario a lot.



Links

Vinniegambini on 24 November 2012

Calling Nintendo fans hypocrites and putting all of them in the same bag only personifies your ignorance towards them. I understand that you are a Sony fan but still, the title is offensive. Atleast, that's how I feel when I read it and that is coming from a person who owns both hardware from Sony, PS3 and Vita.



babuks on 24 November 2012
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Joe, I think there must be a misunderstanding here. I believe most people who criticized the Vita did so because they felt its library was filled mostly with ports. They weren't criticizing the fact that you could transfer save data from one fixed screen to another, more portable screen.


I think Vita has more original games than ports, and these Nintendo 'fans' are not talking about ports either. They are trying to move the stream to different direction.



JoeTheBro on 24 November 2012
Vinniegambini said:

Calling Nintendo fans hypocrites and putting all of them in the same bag only personifies your ignorance towards them. I understand that you are a Sony fan but still, the title is offensive. Atleast, that's how I feel when I read it and that is coming from a person who owns both hardware from Sony, PS3 and Vita.


Of course you can't lump everyone together but in a short thread title you have to. In the OP I don't even mention "Nintendo" because I have enough room to correctly describe the situation.



Links