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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Why did the PS Vita fail?

Leynos said:
RolStoppable said:

Bad hardware.

No. The hardware was great. Vita was seriously impressive. It wasn't hard to work on. Vita power-wise was as impressive in 2012 as PSP was in 2004. Playing it even 8 years later Vita feels like a premium device. The Oled screen is a treat to look at.

That's exactly what the hardware was meant to convey. But it's bad hardware, because it had significant problems. Processing power and screen raised the production costs, so the console had to be sold at a loss to hit a competitive price and in turn forced the decision to implement proprietary memory cards in order to be able to charge a premium and mitigate the losses. Those cards are also hardware and I don't think anyone would argue that they were not bad.

Furthermore, the hardware was not in line with Sony's sales pitch of "console quality on the go" because it lacked L2, R2, L3 and R3 buttons. Games that needed those buttons had to rely on the back touchpad of the console and that wasn't a good solution.

If you limit yourself to only certain parts of the hardware, then it may seem like the hardware was good. But taken as a whole, it clearly wasn't.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Around the Network

People who say it had a bad library must not be Switch owners. The switch is getting a lot of the same games and same kind of game Vita got from 3rd parties. A number of them are direct ports. Others are remakes of Vita games. Vita had a good library, it just didn't have that 1st party support Switch has. It did lack those killer 1st party games. Still a good system for RPGs. Some action games. Shooters. Shmups and indies and yes also Visual Novels



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

RolStoppable said:
Leynos said:

No. The hardware was great. Vita was seriously impressive. It wasn't hard to work on. Vita power-wise was as impressive in 2012 as PSP was in 2004. Playing it even 8 years later Vita feels like a premium device. The Oled screen is a treat to look at.

That's exactly what the hardware was meant to convey. But it's bad hardware, because it had significant problems. Processing power and screen raised the production costs, so the console had to be sold at a loss to hit a competitive price and in turn forced the decision to implement proprietary memory cards in order to be able to charge a premium and mitigate the losses. Those cards are also hardware and I don't think anyone would argue that they were not bad.

Furthermore, the hardware was not in line with Sony's sales pitch of "console quality on the go" because it lacked L2, R2, L3 and R3 buttons. Games that needed those buttons had to rely on the back touchpad of the console and that wasn't a good solution.

If you limit yourself to only certain parts of the hardware, then it may seem like the hardware was good. But taken as a whole, it clearly wasn't.

Then I guess every Nintendo handheld ever is bad hardware by your skewed definition.

Last edited by Leynos - on 25 August 2020

Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Leynos said:

Then I guess every Nintendo handheld ever is bad hardware by your skewed definition.

Most of the time Nintendo handhelds hit the right balance between processing power, price and battery life.

The 3DS was bad hardware. Out of its six versions, only the New 2DS XL qualifies as good.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Leynos said:

Bad marketing. At&T (they got booed on stage) more expensive than 3DS. Sony lack of support for it. Memory cards too costly. Sony gave up early.

However, I like my Vita games that I own over the 3DS. I will take Vita over 3DS any day of the week. The Vita didn't fail. Sony failed the Vita.

I really think that the bolded is The Answer.

I too thought the hardware was great. And, anyone who's played Killzone Mercenary knows that the Vita was more than capable of creating a 'console experience on the go'. When the Vita followed the successful methods of the PSP*, it often (but not always) excelled. I would argue, it also excelled when it put offered solid experiences that were tailored to the Vita itself. Toukiden: Age of Demons and Kiwami come to mind (I know the latter was on the PS4, but it very much feels like a Vita game still), Freedom Wars, Soul Sacrifice & SS:Delta, Gravity Rush, & Tearaway (again, yes, there's a PS4 version, but I very much prefer it on the Vita).

I would agree with Rolstoppable that the hardware was ill-suited to a lot of multi-platform games, but that is one of my qualms with multi-plats - they generally are not built around a specific platform's abilities and limitations. So, if a piece of hardware has fewer buttons than the others? Yeah, its port is likely going to suffer. E.g. I did not miss the lack of an L2/R2 button on any of the games listed above. But Bloodborne on the Vita via remote play? Yes, I very much miss my 2s & 3s and the touchpad is not a sufficient surrogate for me.

All of that said, there are two additional factors I haven't seen brought up here (one of which I'm curious about and the other I'm fairly confident contributed to the Vita's poor performance).

  1. I wonder, given how many PSPs were out there (regardless of all of the hackery and pirating), if Sony had implemented an easy/free UMD-digital conversion system (like they did in Japan but without the fee) whether it would have led to a significant increase in PSP owner migrations to the Vita. I know that there would have been a tremendous amount of logistical hurdles, including validation of purchase, memory card space, etc., but, if said kinks could have been resolved, I still wonder if it would have had a worthwhile impact (certainly would have been a point in favor of Sony using micro-SDs...sigh).
  2. I knew right from its reveal that calling it the PS Vita was a mistake. Sony had established a trend of numbering relatively utilitarian names for their gaming systems. Having worked far too long in video game retail, all customers understood that the PS2 was 'better' (or at least newer, more powerful, etc.) than the PS1 because it was a higher number. They understood that the PS3 was 'better' than the PS1 and PS2. They even understood that the PSP was just a PlayStation that was portable. That didn't mean that there weren't questions about what was different, etc., but, intuitively, people got it. Going from the Xbox to the Xbox 360 wasn't as clean, but we got there. Going from the 360 to the Xbox One was...less so. Still, at least numbers were involved, regardless of how counter-intuitive many found the naming schemes to be. Going from the PSP to PS Vita created a tremendous amount of customer confusion. "Is it an add on?" "Is this like an offshoot until the PSP2?" "Okay, so it's the new one? So it doesn't play PSP games right?" "Why would they pick Vita?" etc. I realize all of this sounds pedantic, and I know that I'm pulling from anecdotal evidence, but, in my experience, the name was a tremendous source of confusion for the first couple of years (you know, right up to the point when Sony, more or less, pulled 1st party support). And I can confirm that, in speaking with others working in video game retail, this confusion was geographically widespread and consistent.

*This was the trend Sony noted during the PSP in which unique, PSP-specific entries into established franchises proved to be highly successful (commercially, if nothing else). Examples would include GoWs: Chains of Olympus & Ghost of Sparta, FF7:CC, Resistance: Retribution, Metal Gear Solids Portable Ops & Peacewalker, GTA: Liberty & Vice City Stories, etc.

TLDR: Sony failed the Vita - Leynos

Last edited by GrahfsLament - on 25 August 2020

Currently Playing (So the world might be mended):

PlayStation 4: PlayStation 3: PlayStation Portable: PlayStation Vita:
Resident Evil: Revelations 2 (Raid Mode) Tokyo Jungle Valkyria Chronicles III

Soul Sacrifice: Delta

Transistor (Platinum run) Doom 3: BFG Edition PC:

Natural Doctrine

Salt & Sanctuary Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker HD Death's Gambit
Deadly Premonition: DC Deus Ex: The Fall
Around the Network

“No” games. Or in any case, no games of note, there were no system sellers. I only have it because I wanted to play Uncharted, which was an okay game, but I have no idea what else I’d want to play. On top of that it was expensive, required equally expensive memory cards and was barely marketed.



The Vita was fantastic. I picked up the Assassin's Creed bundle for $188 in 2012 I believe. I didn't even mind paying extra for menory cards. Probably didn't offer much for those not interested in Japanese games though.

I never expected it to be current gen quality on the go but it was close enough.



Cause the curse of the non Nintendo portable killed it.



             

                               Anime: Haruhi                                                                                                           Nsfw Anime Thread                                     

Because it didn't succeed.



The mistakes with the price point, memory cards, and game line-up have all been mentioned already, but I think what really made them fatal errors was the system coming out right around the time the 3DS was really hitting its stride. Had the 3DS had the same situation as the Wii U where it took a year before the system had any games worth buying, then it might have given Sony the time they needed to turn things around with the Vita. Instead, well, they pretty much ended up in the same situation that Microsoft did with the Xbox One the following year.