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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - New Nintendo Patent For Portable NX (?)

Soundwave on 30 September 2015
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
JEMC said:
Soundwave said:
JEMC said:

So you're covering all your bases...

Nintendo will launch the usual two hardwares, maybe *maybe* three, but that's it. Too many hardwares will confuse the audience, and we are used to see two.

We'll see. Iwata said part of the whole point of a unified platform is it would give them the freedom to break from the "rule of 2" hardware and let them support 3 or 4 if they wanted to. 

Which may be smart. 

People are not that stupid either, Apple, Samsung, etc. have multiple model lines as well and people like it. Imagine there was just ONE Mac model ... that would be really stupid. I think Nintendo fans are in denial that the Wii U is this incredibly appealling system and people just don't understand it/know about it. 

It's just not that appealling. It's a Nintendo XBox 360 six years too late with a tablet controller that doesn't change the game play really at all. 

It's a dud concept, you could market it all you want, it'd just be putting lipstick on a pig. 

Why are you bringing the Wii U to this discussion?

Anyway, yes, Iwata said that a unified platform would allow them to launch more devices than before, but to be able to do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Why launch more models when one or two are enough?

I grant you that Apple different models made sense (at least their iwhatever devices), but Samsung? With them people go for the top of the line or the cheap models because it's almost impossible to figure out the differences in their middle range models.

And lastly, people may not be stupid, but that doesn't mean that they are smart either.

First of all two models I don't think is enough. Especially when they have to play the same games. That means either the console is going to be gimped or the handheld is going to have to be very expensive because it's going to need some really horsepower to be able to run console quality games even at a lower resolution. 

Who cares which model people buy? As long as they buy one, it's better than them not buying any of your models which is the situation Nintendo is increasingly finding themselves in. If I'm Samsung I don't give a shit which one you choose as long you choose one. 

Look at the supposed "requirements" for a Nintendo console ... they're ridiculous

- Has to appeal to kids and family, so it has to be cheap.

- But we want to appeal to hardcore gamers, so it needs to be powerful. 

- But Nintendo likes the console to be small and quiet because Japanese housewives apparently disapprove of big fat consoles. 

- But Americans don't give a crap about a small console. 

- But needs to have new ways to play and appeal to casuals. 

- But needs to be able to play traditional games too because turns out traditional gamers buy a lot of games (go figure). 

- But needs to appeal to third parties some how. 

- But again can't be expensive. But third parties want high end hardware. 

Is it any wonder that they've ended up with a console division that makes no one happy? How the hell are you supposed to make a successful product with like 50 different design "check boxes" half of which are completely at odds with the other one? 

Yet it continues to be lost on people that having multiple specifications within a system adds costs to develop on that platform, that goes up almost linearly per specification. So on top of your check list, you can add

- Expect third parties to spend more to put games on our platform than they do to put games on other platforms, and hope they forget they can expect less sales on our platform than the ones that are cheaper to develop for.

- Wonder why third parties aren't putting games on our platform.

This is kind of like saying though to the guy who hasn't gotten laid in five years, that he might not attract every supermodel by having a more brash persona. So what? At least it might get him some play and that's a lot better than where he's at now.  

Third party multiplats are not going to save Nintendo anyway. Nintendo has almost always had the lowest selling multiplats even in the GameCube era. 

Besides they already ARE two different specifications to support Nintendo today. It's called the Wii U and 3DS, and the Wii and DS before it. The main difference would be finally developers would be able to access the *entire* Nintendo userbase with a few modifications rather than the situation where it is today, where you have the 3DS that actually has a large userbase, but can't run basically any modern engine, and the Wii U which has no userbase so devs don't even both with it. 

If the 3DS could actually run/share Wii U level engines even if it meant more work, I gauruntee right now it would have probably double or triple the third party support. 50 million is still 50 freaking million, Microsoft might not even get to 50 million with the XBox One lifetime. And those games would also then play on the Wii U, even if the developer just opted to not change anything for the console version (which would be incredibly lazy to not even up the resolution, but that's their choice). 



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 30 September 2015
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
JEMC said:
Soundwave said:
JEMC said:

So you're covering all your bases...

Nintendo will launch the usual two hardwares, maybe *maybe* three, but that's it. Too many hardwares will confuse the audience, and we are used to see two.

We'll see. Iwata said part of the whole point of a unified platform is it would give them the freedom to break from the "rule of 2" hardware and let them support 3 or 4 if they wanted to. 

Which may be smart. 

People are not that stupid either, Apple, Samsung, etc. have multiple model lines as well and people like it. Imagine there was just ONE Mac model ... that would be really stupid. I think Nintendo fans are in denial that the Wii U is this incredibly appealling system and people just don't understand it/know about it. 

It's just not that appealling. It's a Nintendo XBox 360 six years too late with a tablet controller that doesn't change the game play really at all. 

It's a dud concept, you could market it all you want, it'd just be putting lipstick on a pig. 

Why are you bringing the Wii U to this discussion?

Anyway, yes, Iwata said that a unified platform would allow them to launch more devices than before, but to be able to do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Why launch more models when one or two are enough?

I grant you that Apple different models made sense (at least their iwhatever devices), but Samsung? With them people go for the top of the line or the cheap models because it's almost impossible to figure out the differences in their middle range models.

And lastly, people may not be stupid, but that doesn't mean that they are smart either.

First of all two models I don't think is enough. Especially when they have to play the same games. That means either the console is going to be gimped or the handheld is going to have to be very expensive because it's going to need some really horsepower to be able to run console quality games even at a lower resolution. 

Who cares which model people buy? As long as they buy one, it's better than them not buying any of your models which is the situation Nintendo is increasingly finding themselves in. If I'm Samsung I don't give a shit which one you choose as long you choose one. 

Look at the supposed "requirements" for a Nintendo console ... they're ridiculous

- Has to appeal to kids and family, so it has to be cheap.

- But we want to appeal to hardcore gamers, so it needs to be powerful. 

- But Nintendo likes the console to be small and quiet because Japanese housewives apparently disapprove of big fat consoles. 

- But Americans don't give a crap about a small console. 

- But needs to have new ways to play and appeal to casuals. 

- But needs to be able to play traditional games too because turns out traditional gamers buy a lot of games (go figure). 

- But needs to appeal to third parties some how. 

- But again can't be expensive. But third parties want high end hardware. 

Is it any wonder that they've ended up with a console division that makes no one happy? How the hell are you supposed to make a successful product with like 50 different design "check boxes" half of which are completely at odds with the other one? 

Yet it continues to be lost on people that having multiple specifications within a system adds costs to develop on that platform, that goes up almost linearly per specification. So on top of your check list, you can add

- Expect third parties to spend more to put games on our platform than they do to put games on other platforms, and hope they forget they can expect less sales on our platform than the ones that are cheaper to develop for.

- Wonder why third parties aren't putting games on our platform.

This is kind of like saying though to the guy who hasn't gotten laid in five years, that he might not attract every supermodel by having a more brash persona. So what? At least it might get him some play and that's a lot better than where he's at now.  

Third party multiplats are not going to save Nintendo anyway. Nintendo has almost always had the lowest selling multiplats even in the GameCube era. 

Besides they already ARE two different specifications to support Nintendo today. It's called the Wii U and 3DS, and the Wii and DS before it. The main difference would be finally developers would be able to access the *entire* Nintendo userbase with a few modifications rather than the situation where it is today, where you have the 3DS that actually has a large userbase, but can't run basically any modern engine, and the Wii U which has no userbase so devs don't even both with it. 

If the 3DS could actually run/share Wii U level engines even if it meant more work, I gauruntee right now it would have probably double or triple the third party support. 50 million is still 50 freaking million, Microsoft might not even get to 50 million with the XBox One lifetime.

If the 3DS could run/share Wii U level engines, it would have to have higher performing, more complex hardware.  Therefore,  it would cost more to make, cost more to buy, and cost more to put games on it.

What would that would do to its sales? They wouldn't be nearly as high as they are.
What would higher development costs would mean for developers? They would expect higher sales to justify the higher expense.

Yet another example of why a unified NX platform will more than likely lead to less sales than the Wii and 3DS combined.



Soundwave on 30 September 2015
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
JEMC said:
Soundwave said:
JEMC said:

So you're covering all your bases...

Nintendo will launch the usual two hardwares, maybe *maybe* three, but that's it. Too many hardwares will confuse the audience, and we are used to see two.

We'll see. Iwata said part of the whole point of a unified platform is it would give them the freedom to break from the "rule of 2" hardware and let them support 3 or 4 if they wanted to. 

Which may be smart. 

People are not that stupid either, Apple, Samsung, etc. have multiple model lines as well and people like it. Imagine there was just ONE Mac model ... that would be really stupid. I think Nintendo fans are in denial that the Wii U is this incredibly appealling system and people just don't understand it/know about it. 

It's just not that appealling. It's a Nintendo XBox 360 six years too late with a tablet controller that doesn't change the game play really at all. 

It's a dud concept, you could market it all you want, it'd just be putting lipstick on a pig. 

Why are you bringing the Wii U to this discussion?

Anyway, yes, Iwata said that a unified platform would allow them to launch more devices than before, but to be able to do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Why launch more models when one or two are enough?

I grant you that Apple different models made sense (at least their iwhatever devices), but Samsung? With them people go for the top of the line or the cheap models because it's almost impossible to figure out the differences in their middle range models.

And lastly, people may not be stupid, but that doesn't mean that they are smart either.

First of all two models I don't think is enough. Especially when they have to play the same games. That means either the console is going to be gimped or the handheld is going to have to be very expensive because it's going to need some really horsepower to be able to run console quality games even at a lower resolution. 

Who cares which model people buy? As long as they buy one, it's better than them not buying any of your models which is the situation Nintendo is increasingly finding themselves in. If I'm Samsung I don't give a shit which one you choose as long you choose one. 

Look at the supposed "requirements" for a Nintendo console ... they're ridiculous

- Has to appeal to kids and family, so it has to be cheap.

- But we want to appeal to hardcore gamers, so it needs to be powerful. 

- But Nintendo likes the console to be small and quiet because Japanese housewives apparently disapprove of big fat consoles. 

- But Americans don't give a crap about a small console. 

- But needs to have new ways to play and appeal to casuals. 

- But needs to be able to play traditional games too because turns out traditional gamers buy a lot of games (go figure). 

- But needs to appeal to third parties some how. 

- But again can't be expensive. But third parties want high end hardware. 

Is it any wonder that they've ended up with a console division that makes no one happy? How the hell are you supposed to make a successful product with like 50 different design "check boxes" half of which are completely at odds with the other one? 

Yet it continues to be lost on people that having multiple specifications within a system adds costs to develop on that platform, that goes up almost linearly per specification. So on top of your check list, you can add

- Expect third parties to spend more to put games on our platform than they do to put games on other platforms, and hope they forget they can expect less sales on our platform than the ones that are cheaper to develop for.

- Wonder why third parties aren't putting games on our platform.

This is kind of like saying though to the guy who hasn't gotten laid in five years, that he might not attract every supermodel by having a more brash persona. So what? At least it might get him some play and that's a lot better than where he's at now.  

Third party multiplats are not going to save Nintendo anyway. Nintendo has almost always had the lowest selling multiplats even in the GameCube era. 

Besides they already ARE two different specifications to support Nintendo today. It's called the Wii U and 3DS, and the Wii and DS before it. The main difference would be finally developers would be able to access the *entire* Nintendo userbase with a few modifications rather than the situation where it is today, where you have the 3DS that actually has a large userbase, but can't run basically any modern engine, and the Wii U which has no userbase so devs don't even both with it. 

If the 3DS could actually run/share Wii U level engines even if it meant more work, I gauruntee right now it would have probably double or triple the third party support. 50 million is still 50 freaking million, Microsoft might not even get to 50 million with the XBox One lifetime.

If the 3DS could run/share Wii U level engines, it would have to have higher performing, more complex hardware.  Therefore,  it would cost more to make, cost more to buy, and cost more to put games on it.

What would that would do to its sales? They wouldn't be nearly as high as they are.
What would higher development costs would mean for developers? They would expect higher sales to justify the higher expense.

Yet another example of why a unified NX platform will more than likely lead to less sales than the Wii and 3DS combined.


I think its sales would largely be the same. People are not buying the 3DS as a budget device, given the choice the most expensive 3DS model sells way more than the cheaper models. Why is that? 

Because if people want cheap gaming on the go guess what ... there's a thing called smartphones/tablets that have taken over. 

Nintendo's only play now as far as I see it on the portable side is to show WHY anyone should bother paying $40 for a handheld game. And that means being a more upmarket experience. 

Also I'm not sure if Nintendo is aware of this, but you don't need to sell 50 million systems overnight. You can start at a slightly higher price point and then there are these things called (oh yeah) price cuts when you use sensible technology (because it scales down in cost over time). Just a wild, fucking theory though. Maybe next time try to have some games people would actually want to play in the first 6 months of launch too. That might help too. I always thought dropping the 3DS allllll the way down to $169.99 was a stupid overreaction, when its been proven people are willing to pay $199.99 for the 3DS (the XL is the best selling model by far) ... you just needed some actual games to play. 

A cheap handheld is not the answer. The 2DS should be the best selling 3DS model in that case, and it's not even close. 

Downmarket is a no-win situation. When I can buy a decent 1280x800 8-inch tablet for $99 with free games, Nintendo's handhelds need to do MORE, not less. And no I'm not exaggerating on that cost either, I could walk into a Best Buy today and get this:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/acer-iconia-tab-8-8-intel-atom-16gb-silver/3261023.p?id=1219575793840&skuId=3261023



potato_hamster on 30 September 2015
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
JEMC said:
Soundwave said:
JEMC said:

So you're covering all your bases...

Nintendo will launch the usual two hardwares, maybe *maybe* three, but that's it. Too many hardwares will confuse the audience, and we are used to see two.

We'll see. Iwata said part of the whole point of a unified platform is it would give them the freedom to break from the "rule of 2" hardware and let them support 3 or 4 if they wanted to. 

Which may be smart. 

People are not that stupid either, Apple, Samsung, etc. have multiple model lines as well and people like it. Imagine there was just ONE Mac model ... that would be really stupid. I think Nintendo fans are in denial that the Wii U is this incredibly appealling system and people just don't understand it/know about it. 

It's just not that appealling. It's a Nintendo XBox 360 six years too late with a tablet controller that doesn't change the game play really at all. 

It's a dud concept, you could market it all you want, it'd just be putting lipstick on a pig. 

Why are you bringing the Wii U to this discussion?

Anyway, yes, Iwata said that a unified platform would allow them to launch more devices than before, but to be able to do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Why launch more models when one or two are enough?

I grant you that Apple different models made sense (at least their iwhatever devices), but Samsung? With them people go for the top of the line or the cheap models because it's almost impossible to figure out the differences in their middle range models.

And lastly, people may not be stupid, but that doesn't mean that they are smart either.

First of all two models I don't think is enough. Especially when they have to play the same games. That means either the console is going to be gimped or the handheld is going to have to be very expensive because it's going to need some really horsepower to be able to run console quality games even at a lower resolution. 

Who cares which model people buy? As long as they buy one, it's better than them not buying any of your models which is the situation Nintendo is increasingly finding themselves in. If I'm Samsung I don't give a shit which one you choose as long you choose one. 

Look at the supposed "requirements" for a Nintendo console ... they're ridiculous

- Has to appeal to kids and family, so it has to be cheap.

- But we want to appeal to hardcore gamers, so it needs to be powerful. 

- But Nintendo likes the console to be small and quiet because Japanese housewives apparently disapprove of big fat consoles. 

- But Americans don't give a crap about a small console. 

- But needs to have new ways to play and appeal to casuals. 

- But needs to be able to play traditional games too because turns out traditional gamers buy a lot of games (go figure). 

- But needs to appeal to third parties some how. 

- But again can't be expensive. But third parties want high end hardware. 

Is it any wonder that they've ended up with a console division that makes no one happy? How the hell are you supposed to make a successful product with like 50 different design "check boxes" half of which are completely at odds with the other one? 

Yet it continues to be lost on people that having multiple specifications within a system adds costs to develop on that platform, that goes up almost linearly per specification. So on top of your check list, you can add

- Expect third parties to spend more to put games on our platform than they do to put games on other platforms, and hope they forget they can expect less sales on our platform than the ones that are cheaper to develop for.

- Wonder why third parties aren't putting games on our platform.

This is kind of like saying though to the guy who hasn't gotten laid in five years, that he might not attract every supermodel by having a more brash persona. So what? At least it might get him some play and that's a lot better than where he's at now.  

Third party multiplats are not going to save Nintendo anyway. Nintendo has almost always had the lowest selling multiplats even in the GameCube era. 

Besides they already ARE two different specifications to support Nintendo today. It's called the Wii U and 3DS, and the Wii and DS before it. The main difference would be finally developers would be able to access the *entire* Nintendo userbase with a few modifications rather than the situation where it is today, where you have the 3DS that actually has a large userbase, but can't run basically any modern engine, and the Wii U which has no userbase so devs don't even both with it. 

If the 3DS could actually run/share Wii U level engines even if it meant more work, I gauruntee right now it would have probably double or triple the third party support. 50 million is still 50 freaking million, Microsoft might not even get to 50 million with the XBox One lifetime.

If the 3DS could run/share Wii U level engines, it would have to have higher performing, more complex hardware.  Therefore,  it would cost more to make, cost more to buy, and cost more to put games on it.

What would that would do to its sales? They wouldn't be nearly as high as they are.
What would higher development costs would mean for developers? They would expect higher sales to justify the higher expense.

Yet another example of why a unified NX platform will more than likely lead to less sales than the Wii and 3DS combined.


I think its sales would largely be the same. People are not buying the 3DS as a budget device, given the choice the most expensive 3DS model sells way more than the cheaper models. Why is that? 

Because if people want cheap gaming on the go guess what ... there's a thing called smartphones/tablets that have taken over. 

Nintendo's only play now as far as I see it on the portable side is to show WHY anyone should bother paying $40 for a handheld game. And that means being a more upmarket experience. 

Also I'm not sure if Nintendo is aware of this, but you don't need to sell 50 million systems overnight. You can start at a slightly higher price point and then there are these things called (oh yeah) price cuts when you use sensible technology (because it scales down in cost over time). Just a wild, fucking theory though. Maybe next time try to have some games people would actually want to play in the first 6 months of launch too. That might help too. I always thought dropping the 3DS allllll the way down to $169.99 was a stupid overreaction, when its been proven people are willing to pay $199.99 for the 3DS (the XL is the best selling model by far) ... you just needed some actual games to play. 

A cheap handheld is not the answer. The 2DS should be the best selling 3DS model in that case, and it's not even close. 

Downmarket is a no-win situation. When I can buy a decent 1280x800 8-inch tablet for $99 with free games, Nintendo's handhelds need to do MORE, not less. And no I'm not exaggerating on that cost either, I could walk into a Best Buy today and get this:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/acer-iconia-tab-8-8-intel-atom-16gb-silver/3261023.p?id=1219575793840&skuId=3261023


Yeah. That's a hard sell. You think they should push a premium handheld, like say... the PS Vita? How's that working out for Sony?






Soundwave on 30 September 2015
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:


I think its sales would largely be the same. People are not buying the 3DS as a budget device, given the choice the most expensive 3DS model sells way more than the cheaper models. Why is that? 

Because if people want cheap gaming on the go guess what ... there's a thing called smartphones/tablets that have taken over. 

Nintendo's only play now as far as I see it on the portable side is to show WHY anyone should bother paying $40 for a handheld game. And that means being a more upmarket experience. 

Also I'm not sure if Nintendo is aware of this, but you don't need to sell 50 million systems overnight. You can start at a slightly higher price point and then there are these things called (oh yeah) price cuts when you use sensible technology (because it scales down in cost over time). Just a wild, fucking theory though. Maybe next time try to have some games people would actually want to play in the first 6 months of launch too. That might help too. I always thought dropping the 3DS allllll the way down to $169.99 was a stupid overreaction, when its been proven people are willing to pay $199.99 for the 3DS (the XL is the best selling model by far) ... you just needed some actual games to play. 

A cheap handheld is not the answer. The 2DS should be the best selling 3DS model in that case, and it's not even close. 

Downmarket is a no-win situation. When I can buy a decent 1280x800 8-inch tablet for $99 with free games, Nintendo's handhelds need to do MORE, not less. And no I'm not exaggerating on that cost either, I could walk into a Best Buy today and get this:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/acer-iconia-tab-8-8-intel-atom-16gb-silver/3261023.p?id=1219575793840&skuId=3261023


Yeah. That's a hard sell. You think they should push a premium handheld, like say... the PS Vita? How's that working out for Sony?





And if the Vita had Monster Hunter, and Mario Kart, and Pokemon, and Animal Crossing, and Mario 3D Land, and Zelda ... might be a different story. Just maybe. 

By this logic Nintendo shouldn't even make a home console again ever, since the Wii U is actually selling the same as the Vita is worldwide. 



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 30 September 2015
Soundwave said:
potato_hamster said:


Yeah. That's a hard sell. You think they should push a premium handheld, like say... the PS Vita? How's that working out for Sony?





And if the Vita had Monster Hunter, and Mario Kart, and Pokemon, and Animal Crossing, and Mario 3D Land, and Zelda ... might be a different story. Just maybe. 

By this logic Nintendo shouldn't even make a home console again ever, since the Wii U is actually selling the same as the Vita is worldwide. 


Ohh right! Because Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, LittleBigPlanet, Persona, Final Fantasy, Minecraft, or Need For Speed definitely aren't system sellers! Those games sell like gangbusters on every platform they've been on, but not the Vita. Why is that? Maybe because people don't want console-like extended play sessions when they only have 15-30 minutes at a time to get their game on. The problem with the Vita wasn't the games. It was the experience. It was the fact that it launched for $299, and still costs $199. People simply do not want to spend that much on portable game consoles.



Soundwave on 30 September 2015
potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:


And if the Vita had Monster Hunter, and Mario Kart, and Pokemon, and Animal Crossing, and Mario 3D Land, and Zelda ... might be a different story. Just maybe. 

By this logic Nintendo shouldn't even make a home console again ever, since the Wii U is actually selling the same as the Vita is worldwide. 


Ohh right! Because Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, LittleBigPlanet, Persona, Final Fantasy, Minecraft, or Need For Speed definitely aren't system sellers! Those games sell like gangbusters on every platform they've been on, but not the Vita. Why is that? Maybe because people don't want console-like extended play sessions when they only have 15-30 minutes at a time to get their game on. The problem with the Vita wasn't the games. It was the experience. It was the fact that it launched for $299, and still costs $199. People simply do not want to spend that much on portable game consoles.


It launched at $250. The same price as the PSP that sold very well (better than the DS actually) out of the gates just a few year prior. 

The problem with the Vita concept is this ... they "promise" console quality experiences, but for 2011, those games are not console quality. Assassin's Creed is a very obvious (2-3 steps) below, Call of Duty is nothing like the console versions, Final Fantasy is a remake of the PS2 game, etc. 

A 30 GFLOP system is not going to be able to run engines made for a 240 GFLOP system. 

Today though mobile tech has improved to the point where that promise could actually have some real merit behind it. 

Lets be honest too Sony has always treated their handheld line like a "kid brother" to the "real" Playstation consoles. Nintendo shifted focus away from that with the DS, today they put as much care/effort into their 3DS games as they do with Wii U. The 3DS is a console for Nintendo. Vita is a little side-project for Sony that they don't take seriously. 

Mario Kart 7, Animal Crossing, Kid Icarus, etc. are not "spin-offs" or bite size experiences, they are the full new installments of those franchises, Sony would not make Uncharted 4 a Vita game, Nintendo probably would. 



TheLastStarFighter on 30 September 2015

Holy quote trees!

But yes, Nintendo's next handheld will need to be viewed as a premium product to be desired, even by the kids who have traditionally bought them - seeing as they all have iPads.



Soundwave on 01 October 2015
twintail said:
Miyamotoo said:

Depends on what you mean when you say poor. Vita hardware today is not strong but it's more than enuf for great looking games.


Vita ia bare minimum. Even then i think it needs to be stronger. Phones are already stronger than the Vita. 


Phones have been stronger than the Vita for ages. ACER's $99 tablets use the same GPU as the Vita, and those have a larger true HD resolution display with a bigger battery and more RAM to boot. 



potato_hamster on 01 October 2015
Soundwave said:
twintail said:


Vita ia bare minimum. Even then i think it needs to be stronger. Phones are already stronger than the Vita. 


Phones have been stronger than the Vita for ages. ACER's $99 tablets use the same GPU as the Vita, and those have a larger true HD resolution display with a bigger battery and more RAM to boot. 


The Vita should really be much cheaper than it is. It could have been far more successful had Sony consistently dropped the price so it sitting at $129 right now. Things could have been a lot different.