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

Forums - Gaming - Quality Ignored: Why Hardcore Gamers Should Embrace PS Vita

Ucell on 13 May 2013
TheLastStarFighter said:
Ucell said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

I hate it when people say a product "deserves" better. Vita doesn't "deserve" anything. It was built as a high-end portable game device. This is a product that, it seems, not a lot of people are interested in, and it has nothing to do with poor marketing. A poor product concept = poor sales = what the product "deserves". There is no reason why core gamers should be supporting it, other than those that actually enjoy it. I'm a core gamer and I don't like handelds. I stopped using my PSP once I got a smartphone. If I were to buy a handheld it would be a 3DS because it's cheaper and has ALttP 2 coming. I don't want to play gimped COD or AC on a handheld. I don't care about other Vita features because I get them already on my Sony XPeria phone.

If Vita gets a slashed price and some cool new games then it may be a more valuable purchase proposition. As it stands most view it as an unecessary product not worth its cost. Portable gamers seem to like NSMB, Pokemon and Monster Hunter, and those are only available elsewhere on a cheaper competitor. Products are purchased not because they deserve it, but becase they are worth it.  Right now the market is saying Vita's not worth it.


Soul Sacrifice is better than any 3DS game I've played so far...and anyways PSP's GTA's, God of War's and Final Fantasy's annhilate NSMB, Pokemon and Monster Hunter in terms of quality while also selling very well.

The problem with your viewpoint - and hence, your opinion on this matter - is that your idea of quality is purely subjective.  Quality is, in most uses, a fundamentally subjective term.  Saying X game annhilates Y game in terms of quality is silly.  What you mean is you like those games better.  I do too...well, I've never played Pokemon or MH and I do really like NSMB, but I have GTA and FF on my PSP and really like them.  But the point is, all that matters is what you like and enjoy.  If you enjoy Pokemon and get lots of play out of it, then it is a quality game.  If we are objective about this, many, many more people enjoy NSMB, Pokemon and MH than portable GTA, GoW and FF, so those titles must have more value - or dare I say quality - to most people even if it's not you or I.  That's why it's silly to say Vita "deserves" better.  It doesn't, because it's a product that doesn't offer people what they want at a price they will pay.


Well Nintendo fans religiously follow everything which is right or wrong with them, and you can't say they deserve success even for their wrong anti-consumer decisions like milking their franchises, not introducing new IPs, using cheap age-old hardware etc for both their console and handheld. Just because people buy your product doesn't make it good or deserving and vice versa.



Around the Network
Ucell on 13 May 2013
TheLastStarFighter said:
Ucell said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

I hate it when people say a product "deserves" better. Vita doesn't "deserve" anything. It was built as a high-end portable game device. This is a product that, it seems, not a lot of people are interested in, and it has nothing to do with poor marketing. A poor product concept = poor sales = what the product "deserves". There is no reason why core gamers should be supporting it, other than those that actually enjoy it. I'm a core gamer and I don't like handelds. I stopped using my PSP once I got a smartphone. If I were to buy a handheld it would be a 3DS because it's cheaper and has ALttP 2 coming. I don't want to play gimped COD or AC on a handheld. I don't care about other Vita features because I get them already on my Sony XPeria phone.

If Vita gets a slashed price and some cool new games then it may be a more valuable purchase proposition. As it stands most view it as an unecessary product not worth its cost. Portable gamers seem to like NSMB, Pokemon and Monster Hunter, and those are only available elsewhere on a cheaper competitor. Products are purchased not because they deserve it, but becase they are worth it.  Right now the market is saying Vita's not worth it.


Soul Sacrifice is better than any 3DS game I've played so far...and anyways PSP's GTA's, God of War's and Final Fantasy's annhilate NSMB, Pokemon and Monster Hunter in terms of quality while also selling very well.

The problem with your viewpoint - and hence, your opinion on this matter - is that your idea of quality is purely subjective.  Quality is, in most uses, a fundamentally subjective term.  Saying X game annhilates Y game in terms of quality is silly.  What you mean is you like those games better.  I do too...well, I've never played Pokemon or MH and I do really like NSMB, but I have GTA and FF on my PSP and really like them.  But the point is, all that matters is what you like and enjoy.  If you enjoy Pokemon and get lots of play out of it, then it is a quality game.  If we are objective about this, many, many more people enjoy NSMB, Pokemon and MH than portable GTA, GoW and FF, so those titles must have more value - or dare I say quality - to most people even if it's not you or I.  That's why it's silly to say Vita "deserves" better.  It doesn't, because it's a product that doesn't offer people what they want at a price they will pay.


Well Nintendo fans religiously follow everything which is right or wrong with them, and you can't say they deserve success even for their wrong anti-consumer decisions like milking their franchises, not introducing new IPs, using cheap age-old hardware etc for both their console and handheld. Just because people buy your product doesn't make it good or deserving and vice versa.



brendude13 on 13 May 2013
Akvod said:
Conina said:
Akvod said:
I just don't see the value of it. Even if you're on the go, you can easily play games on a laptop at an airport or hotel. You really only need a PSP Vita if you have no access to an outlet and you're not at table. And since I don't live in Japan, I don't spend those really long commutes on a train (and even then I could just use a laptop).

And laptops are cheaper than a handheld? Not everyone already has a laptop or needs one. And a handheld is much more mobile.


20-30 year olds do. The only people I don't see having one are maybe lower income people (their profession doesn't need a laptop) or people who haven't gone to college. 

A handheld may be more mobile, but I just don't see a need for a mobile device dedicated to gaming outside of long distance travel, unless you use public transportation. Those <30 min's of free time you might have throughout the day can be satisfied with a smartphone. If you have >30 min of free time, you probably are traveling and have a laptop with you.

3 problems with laptops:

1. Most of them aren't built for gaming, any that are are ridiculously expensive.
2. They're not very portable.
3. I don't own one, and neither do a lot of other people (especially gamers). Not because we're poor, but because we get far better value for money from a desktop PC.

I don't own a smartphone, and even if I did, it just wouldn't cut it.



Akvod on 13 May 2013
brendude13 said:
Akvod said:
Conina said:
Akvod said:
I just don't see the value of it. Even if you're on the go, you can easily play games on a laptop at an airport or hotel. You really only need a PSP Vita if you have no access to an outlet and you're not at table. And since I don't live in Japan, I don't spend those really long commutes on a train (and even then I could just use a laptop).

And laptops are cheaper than a handheld? Not everyone already has a laptop or needs one. And a handheld is much more mobile.


20-30 year olds do. The only people I don't see having one are maybe lower income people (their profession doesn't need a laptop) or people who haven't gone to college. 

A handheld may be more mobile, but I just don't see a need for a mobile device dedicated to gaming outside of long distance travel, unless you use public transportation. Those <30 min's of free time you might have throughout the day can be satisfied with a smartphone. If you have >30 min of free time, you probably are traveling and have a laptop with you.

3 problems with laptops:

1. Most of them aren't built for gaming, any that are are ridiculously expensive.
2. They're not very portable.
3. I don't own one, and neither do a lot of other people (especially gamers). Not because we're poor, but because we get far better value for money from a desktop PC.

I don't even own a smartphone, and even if I did, it just wouldn't cut it.

1. Mine isn't meant for gaming, but it can run Civ and R: TW just fine. I'm assuming we're talking about "hardcore" gamers. If so, they should be able to play plenty of slightly older school games, but that have a lot of depth to them.

2. They're portable enough if you're doing long distance traveling as opposed to everyday commuting.

3. Did you go to college?



brendude13 on 13 May 2013
Akvod said:
brendude13 said:
Akvod said:
Conina said:
Akvod said:
I just don't see the value of it. Even if you're on the go, you can easily play games on a laptop at an airport or hotel. You really only need a PSP Vita if you have no access to an outlet and you're not at table. And since I don't live in Japan, I don't spend those really long commutes on a train (and even then I could just use a laptop).

And laptops are cheaper than a handheld? Not everyone already has a laptop or needs one. And a handheld is much more mobile.


20-30 year olds do. The only people I don't see having one are maybe lower income people (their profession doesn't need a laptop) or people who haven't gone to college. 

A handheld may be more mobile, but I just don't see a need for a mobile device dedicated to gaming outside of long distance travel, unless you use public transportation. Those <30 min's of free time you might have throughout the day can be satisfied with a smartphone. If you have >30 min of free time, you probably are traveling and have a laptop with you.

3 problems with laptops:

1. Most of them aren't built for gaming, any that are are ridiculously expensive.
2. They're not very portable.
3. I don't own one, and neither do a lot of other people (especially gamers). Not because we're poor, but because we get far better value for money from a desktop PC.

I don't even own a smartphone, and even if I did, it just wouldn't cut it.

1. Mine isn't meant for gaming, but it can run Civ and R: TW just fine. I'm assuming we're talking about "hardcore" gamers. If so, they should be able to play plenty of slightly older school games, but that have a lot of depth to them.

2. They're portable enough if you're doing long distance traveling as opposed to everyday commuting.

3. Did you go to college?

1. I guess you could settle for old school games or emulation.

2. I have to disagree, buses, coaches and planes are far too cramped to use a laptop (at least for me).

3. I'll (probably) be going to university in a little over a year.



Around the Network
Akvod on 13 May 2013
brendude13 said:
Akvod said:
brendude13 said:
Akvod said:
Conina said:
Akvod said:
I just don't see the value of it. Even if you're on the go, you can easily play games on a laptop at an airport or hotel. You really only need a PSP Vita if you have no access to an outlet and you're not at table. And since I don't live in Japan, I don't spend those really long commutes on a train (and even then I could just use a laptop).

And laptops are cheaper than a handheld? Not everyone already has a laptop or needs one. And a handheld is much more mobile.


20-30 year olds do. The only people I don't see having one are maybe lower income people (their profession doesn't need a laptop) or people who haven't gone to college. 

A handheld may be more mobile, but I just don't see a need for a mobile device dedicated to gaming outside of long distance travel, unless you use public transportation. Those <30 min's of free time you might have throughout the day can be satisfied with a smartphone. If you have >30 min of free time, you probably are traveling and have a laptop with you.

3 problems with laptops:

1. Most of them aren't built for gaming, any that are are ridiculously expensive.
2. They're not very portable.
3. I don't own one, and neither do a lot of other people (especially gamers). Not because we're poor, but because we get far better value for money from a desktop PC.

I don't even own a smartphone, and even if I did, it just wouldn't cut it.

1. Mine isn't meant for gaming, but it can run Civ and R: TW just fine. I'm assuming we're talking about "hardcore" gamers. If so, they should be able to play plenty of slightly older school games, but that have a lot of depth to them.

2. They're portable enough if you're doing long distance traveling as opposed to everyday commuting.

3. Did you go to college?

1. I guess you could settle for old school games or emulation.

2. I have to disagree, buses, coaches and planes are far too cramped to use a laptop (at least for me).

3. I'll (probably) be going to university in a little over a year.


2. Buses are everyday commuting. I use my laptop on the plane, and with note books becomming slimmer and slimmer, this should be less of a problem.

3. You're going to get a laptop then.



brendude13 on 13 May 2013
Akvod said:
brendude13 said:

1. I guess you could settle for old school games or emulation.

2. I have to disagree, buses, coaches and planes are far too cramped to use a laptop (at least for me).

3. I'll (probably) be going to university in a little over a year.


2. Buses are everyday commuting. I use my laptop on the plane, and with note books becomming slimmer and slimmer, this should be less of a problem.

3. You're going to get a laptop then.

2. I guess my height doesn't help, but with the way I have to have my legs positioned on a plane, I wouldn't be able to use a laptop. Even if I could sit with my legs level, storing the laptop by my feet when I'm done using it would be a pain.

3. Never thought about that, I probably will.



Play4Fun on 13 May 2013
Ucell said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
Ucell said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

I hate it when people say a product "deserves" better. Vita doesn't "deserve" anything. It was built as a high-end portable game device. This is a product that, it seems, not a lot of people are interested in, and it has nothing to do with poor marketing. A poor product concept = poor sales = what the product "deserves". There is no reason why core gamers should be supporting it, other than those that actually enjoy it. I'm a core gamer and I don't like handelds. I stopped using my PSP once I got a smartphone. If I were to buy a handheld it would be a 3DS because it's cheaper and has ALttP 2 coming. I don't want to play gimped COD or AC on a handheld. I don't care about other Vita features because I get them already on my Sony XPeria phone.

If Vita gets a slashed price and some cool new games then it may be a more valuable purchase proposition. As it stands most view it as an unecessary product not worth its cost. Portable gamers seem to like NSMB, Pokemon and Monster Hunter, and those are only available elsewhere on a cheaper competitor. Products are purchased not because they deserve it, but becase they are worth it.  Right now the market is saying Vita's not worth it.


Soul Sacrifice is better than any 3DS game I've played so far...and anyways PSP's GTA's, God of War's and Final Fantasy's annhilate NSMB, Pokemon and Monster Hunter in terms of quality while also selling very well.

The problem with your viewpoint - and hence, your opinion on this matter - is that your idea of quality is purely subjective.  Quality is, in most uses, a fundamentally subjective term.  Saying X game annhilates Y game in terms of quality is silly.  What you mean is you like those games better.  I do too...well, I've never played Pokemon or MH and I do really like NSMB, but I have GTA and FF on my PSP and really like them.  But the point is, all that matters is what you like and enjoy.  If you enjoy Pokemon and get lots of play out of it, then it is a quality game.  If we are objective about this, many, many more people enjoy NSMB, Pokemon and MH than portable GTA, GoW and FF, so those titles must have more value - or dare I say quality - to most people even if it's not you or I.  That's why it's silly to say Vita "deserves" better.  It doesn't, because it's a product that doesn't offer people what they want at a price they will pay.


Well Nintendo fans religiously follow everything which is right or wrong with them, and you can't say they deserve success even for their wrong anti-consumer decisions like milking their franchises, not introducing new IPs, using cheap age-old hardware etc for both their console and handheld. Just because people buy your product doesn't make it good or deserving and vice versa.

What stupid bullshit.

Spoken like a true Sony fanatic.

Any other fanatic from "the other sides" could say similar things about Sony or MS.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan



TheLastStarFighter on 13 May 2013
Ucell said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
Ucell said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

I hate it when people say a product "deserves" better. Vita doesn't "deserve" anything. It was built as a high-end portable game device. This is a product that, it seems, not a lot of people are interested in, and it has nothing to do with poor marketing. A poor product concept = poor sales = what the product "deserves". There is no reason why core gamers should be supporting it, other than those that actually enjoy it. I'm a core gamer and I don't like handelds. I stopped using my PSP once I got a smartphone. If I were to buy a handheld it would be a 3DS because it's cheaper and has ALttP 2 coming. I don't want to play gimped COD or AC on a handheld. I don't care about other Vita features because I get them already on my Sony XPeria phone.

If Vita gets a slashed price and some cool new games then it may be a more valuable purchase proposition. As it stands most view it as an unecessary product not worth its cost. Portable gamers seem to like NSMB, Pokemon and Monster Hunter, and those are only available elsewhere on a cheaper competitor. Products are purchased not because they deserve it, but becase they are worth it.  Right now the market is saying Vita's not worth it.


Soul Sacrifice is better than any 3DS game I've played so far...and anyways PSP's GTA's, God of War's and Final Fantasy's annhilate NSMB, Pokemon and Monster Hunter in terms of quality while also selling very well.

The problem with your viewpoint - and hence, your opinion on this matter - is that your idea of quality is purely subjective.  Quality is, in most uses, a fundamentally subjective term.  Saying X game annhilates Y game in terms of quality is silly.  What you mean is you like those games better.  I do too...well, I've never played Pokemon or MH and I do really like NSMB, but I have GTA and FF on my PSP and really like them.  But the point is, all that matters is what you like and enjoy.  If you enjoy Pokemon and get lots of play out of it, then it is a quality game.  If we are objective about this, many, many more people enjoy NSMB, Pokemon and MH than portable GTA, GoW and FF, so those titles must have more value - or dare I say quality - to most people even if it's not you or I.  That's why it's silly to say Vita "deserves" better.  It doesn't, because it's a product that doesn't offer people what they want at a price they will pay.


Well Nintendo fans religiously follow everything which is right or wrong with them, and you can't say they deserve success even for their wrong anti-consumer decisions like milking their franchises, not introducing new IPs, using cheap age-old hardware etc for both their console and handheld. Just because people buy your product doesn't make it good or deserving and vice versa.


At this stage you're just sounding like a hateful zealot.  You're also stating that you know what is better for people than they do themselves, which is condescending.  You passionately love Sony products more than Nintendo, but that doesn't make you better or wiser than those that enjoy Nintendo products.