I'm still waiting to see how good remote play will be before I cast final judgement on the Vita--I expect that's why Sony was so willing to competitively price the PS4: they wanted the Vita to be a complimentary good--but I will say Sony has definitely been going directions with their portables I wouldn't have picked, and I think it's because they spent too much time watching Nintendo.
Nintendo makes portables which are their own consoles with their own titles. Sony has always said that their portables have been about "recreating" a home console experience, but in practice it feels like they didn't have a plan except "get into the handheld space." Recreating a console is just dandy, but why didn't they hold off on the PSP for another year, then release it as a portable PS2, possibly with no BC to PSOne, possibly with a slightly redesigned chipset that would have needed developers to do some porting, but basically a PS2 with a screen and a battery. That way you take your wildly successful PS2 brand and extend it's life--both for gamers and developers--for at least five years and increase your sales by about a third.
And the Vita? I know there's no hope of recreating a PS3 in a portable like that, but if you're really going to pimp Remote Play like this...isn't it hardware overkill? Just make it a 3G box with a screen for $149 (or something like that) and make it perfectly clear it's not a console, and that it requires a PS3 or a PS4 with internet to work.
I don't know. Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but if the Vita's biggest redeeming feature is going to be remote play, it's like the XBox One: if all you're going to be doing is bouncing an image from somewhere else onto a screen, this console is massive hardware overkill.












