Q&A: How Sony simultaneously develops the same game for PS3 and Vita

Arstechnica- Shuhei Yoshida is the president of Sony's worldwide PlayStation software development and oversees all Sony's game studios, from Japan to the US. He has worked at Sony for over 25 years and was a lead executive on the original PlayStation project. I travelled to Tokyo to meet him at his office to find out the processes and challenges of developing games that appear on the PlayStation 3 console and the portable PS Vita system.

[GreenRanger]

I think this is a bad idea.
People who want to play these games won't need to buy the Vita if they already have a PS3.
Sony need to get more exclusives on the Vita, and not games that can, quite easily, be found elsewhere.
All they're doing is giving the Vita another competitor--their own PS3.

[Axecution]

Obviously Vita exclusive IPs are necessary.

But since there's a shocking lack of those, it makes sense to get some ports releasing until the new IPs actually start rolling out on a regular basis. Nobody is gonna complain about this. "NOOO NOW I CAN PLAY PSALL STARS WHENEVER I WANT! THIS SUCKS VITA IS DOOMED" Haha it's obviously a positive thing to have Cross-play. Look at how many people want Borderlands 2 on Vita lol

Some games also just 'work better' on a handheld. This is totally a personal opinion, but i personally played the heck out of WipEout 2048, but for some reason not WipEout HD. I think the same could happen with PSAll Stars, for me at least.

Im kind of off topic haha whatever. I think my point is that ports are a good idea, not a bad idea, and people will buy a Vita if it means playing their favorite PS3 games on the bus. >.>

[darthv72]

Not only that but sony is potentially sitting on a great marketing position where by a game purchased for the ps3 would include the vita version as well.

Granted, exclusive IP's are important but so is expanding the user base. If more games came out with cross play or even if they werent directly cross play compatible. The addition of a vita version would serve to sell not only ps3 systems and the particular game but it would spur sales of the vita as well.

Yeah it sounds like the typical entitled POV of we want more for less but just think about the convenience it would propose. They can make ps3 only editions and vita only editions but a ps3/vita edition wouldnt be that much more difficult to offer.

It would be akin to the current trend of dvd/bluray combo for movies. You have a copy for whatever system you want to use. Pricing is something to consider but I am (just spitballing here) thinking a price difference of $10 maybe $15 per combo game set.

This was something Sony had toyed with in regards to PSP releases of both movies (packed on the same bluray as the feature film) and games. Although, I dont know if they ever released a ps3/psp combo game to retail (maybe in JP).

Regardless of the games being ports or new I for one certainly wouldnt complain about the potential increase in library for the vita.

[josephps3]

Exactly what Axecution said, its not about one or the either, its about both-original IP and PS3 ports. There are some games like Borderlands2 and Xcom Enemy Unknown where I'd love to be able to play it on the bus, during breaks, at the gym on the bike etc.

If you can get a discount by purchasing a game for the PS3 then the Vita version I'd be willing to do that for some favorite titles.

For me, if they can have Crossbuy & Play for Xcom alone I would buy the Vita. Xcom is a system seller for me right there. There must be other system sellers for different people.

So ports will definitely add value for some people and maybe be enough just on ports alone to buy the Vita. For me its Xcom.

[topekomsi]

I would give my left nad if they would port borderlands 2 to the vita, i am loving this games. It would be especially nice if i could save on my ps3 and then pick right up on my vita at the same spot.

[forevercloud3000]

I think people tend to always see Cross-Compatibility as "Well PS3 version will be better so why get Vita vers?"

This can be true...but rarely so. They seem to be coming out just fine. The only one that didn't fare so well once ported is Mortal Kombat, and that was just cuz it was rush job.

Maybe most don't want massive experiences on the go, but what about the smaller ones? Sly 4 and LBP, like most platformers, merges very well with handheld. I personally prefer them on the go. I love LBP but always wished I could get it on the go and now it is. Sly 4 I thought I would skip over entirely, but now that it is on Vita I am all for it. Not every PS3 game is massive and many of them such as PSN titles would be better suited on a handheld. Superstardust, Fat Princess, Tokyo Jungle, Journey, Scott Pilgrim, etc are all bite sized games that could benefit from being on handheld. I can't be the only person who looks past these games on PS3 but would definitely want them for Vita...

[Grenade]

@ GreenRanger
Wow, look at all those disagrees you got.
You should have know that any criticism against Sony is seen as a sin on N4G, no matter how valid your argument is.
Members of the SDF probably flailed back off their chairs when they saw the first sentence in your comment, spitting out their milk that they wish was Sony branded.
Oh wait, they are getting Sony milk, it's called "Uncharted".
Sony are too busy designing a tablet controller for the PS4, so they are not going to bother with the Vita anymore.
They saw how much the 3DS destroys the Vita weekly in sales, so they just gave up.

[GreenRanger]

@ Grenade
I honestly don't give a shit about agrees/disagrees on N4G, they mean nothing.
If people don't like what i have to say, then that's their problem, not mine.
I sure as hell won't change my opinion because other people don't like it. They'll just have to live with it.

[Axecution]

LOL implying im a Sony fanboy. I'm PC all the way man. Haven't touched my PS3 or 360 in a pretty long time actually.

What I said is a fact about why people would want cross-platform games AND new IPs on a handheld.

lmao i love being called a fanboy. xD

[DarkHeroZX]

@greenranger_

It may be your opinion but your opinion is wrong lol. It's like if you think the smell of a pig's anus smells great. It's your opinion but your opinion is wrong! Opinions can be wrong dude. I could believe that shooting innocents in the face is okay but that's my opinion and guess what? IT'S WRONG!!!

[Hicken]

Ah, the old standby. "If you disagree, that just proves you're a fanboy."

... no, it proves you disagree.

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with having the same games available on Vita as on PS3. In fact, given Sony's current push to make the experience seamless between the two systems- cross platform play, cross play, and cross buy- that's a huge BONUS. Who HASN'T wanted to take their favorite console game wherever?

Has everybody forgotten being a kid and wanting to get home as quickly as possible to keep playing that game you just got? Cuz I remember those days quite clearly. And, to be honest, that feeling hasn't changed.

There are STILL games I'd love to be able to play wherever, and Sony making the PS3 library available on the Vita through multiple means fulfills that.

... and what is all that nonsense you're spouting? Oh, wait. Just another troll...

[Apocalypso]

Of course the Vita needs its own exclusives, but think of it this way. People with PS3's buy these games anyway, then they're told that they have the Vita version for free? Sounds like a good idea to pick up a Vita since I have all these games for it already that I wouldn't mind playing on the toilet. And hey! It does have some pretty cool exclusives I want to check out.
A Vita a competitor to the ps3? Please. Try to think of it as an accessory to the ps3. Have a bunch of ps1 games you got with Plus haven't played yet? Put em on your Vita. The Vita is getting Plus soon so something you may be already getting you'll also get on another console at no extra charge.
Linking the consoles together seems to only be beneficial in my mind.

[fei-hung]

You forget that it also makes the Vita more cost effective and lucrative. You are essentially getting a console and handheld port for same price.

I know 2 friends who were not interested in the Vita due to the cost of having to pay for games twice. Now both of them are looking at getting one this xmas.

There is also another angle which hasnt been covered. What happens if Sony make a great new Vita IP that doesnt sell enough on the Vita to break even or make a profit?! I rather the game is released as a cross purchase option as it doubles the chances of making a profit and getting a sequel.

I think it's a very clever strategy and fits perfectly into the "One Sony" ideology and in the end, it will work out best for us gamers as we will be able to experience more games on multiple devices for little or no extra cost.

[abzdine]

Yoshida is a cool guy and very modest. I like him!

[Raoh]

I like my ps3 ports. especially when you consider single player/multiplayer aspects.

I could play online with my ps3 at home and play the single player at work or on the train.

I could beat you up in playstation all stars at home or at work or practice solo on the train.

I could have company over and play a game on my ps3 and hand the ps vita to my friend and have him play the same game with me in co op or vs mode.

What's not to like?

[Pillsbury1]

I'm all for cross play but a separate device needs separate games.

[SAE]

if you don't want ports in vita then you shouldn't want it on ps3/xbox360/pc/wii u ...

without port then we only gonna play few games in each year , ports are important ..

[CShadow]

Is the New Super Mario cross buyable? Is Smash bros cross buyable?
MS and Nintendo never do this or plus because their uniqueness(money hungry).