Top
440°

After the Vita's Failure, Why Do People Now Want Console Games on the Go?

Push Square: "The first console launch I ever covered for Push Square was the PlayStation Vita, so I remember those heady February winter days well. It was 2012 and message boards were aflame with complaints about the infamous Online Pass (remember that?), while the PlayStation 3 was struggling to step outside of the Xbox 360’s considerable shadow in English-speaking territories. Elsewhere, smartphone apps were in vogue, and the media was telling us how they’d eventually crush console games for good."

Read Full Story >>
pushsquare.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Xerneas310d ago

Having console games on the go wasn't a problem. 3DS had that, and a huge abundance of high quality games, also had great marketing. PSVita with how sony handled everything never had a chance.

-Foxtrot308d ago

Also it came down to stretching great developers to do games on the PSV...and honestly if there's a choice of a Sony developer like NaughtyDog, Sucker Punch, Guerrilla Games, Media Molecule or Sony Japan to make either a PSV game or a PS4 one then people would pick a PS4 game every time. Why waste the talent.

Imalwaysright308d ago

Wasting talent?! Its their platform and if there is a publisher that has the obligation to support it, its Sony.

bouzebbal308d ago

people want to play games on the go.. not take a console with no games on the go. here is the difference

bouzebbal308d ago

didnt expect a gamer to give such a low level answer.
Nintendo does it with all THEIR consoles, why not Sony???
Vita is made with no clear strategy. Yes it is a powerful handheld, yes it is well built but marketing and support was laughable all the way.
It is a missed opportunity for Sony and many fans won't buy their next handheld and i dont hope there is one in the pipeline.
Vita should have followed PSP's footsteps and give external studios the possibility to develop their biggest franchises for handheld.

fiveby9307d ago

Sony didn't help the PS Vita by using proprietary storage cards which cost way more than SD cards.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 307d ago
308d ago Replies(1)
telekineticmantis308d ago

I never knew you could play 3DS games on your T.V. can you?

RememberThe357308d ago

Nail. Head. Switch allows you to very easily go from on the couch to on the go. If the Vita had a feature where you could take any game on your console on the go it would have been a far different story. But the Switch happened now because the tech got to the right place, so maybe Sony will have a similar approach if they decide to go after handhelds again.

_-EDMIX-_308d ago (Edited 308d ago )

Yes.

https://youtu.be/ifJL3UAZ4R...

I have an older setup of this I also have an adapter for the DS.

@Remember-for somebody called remember I'm actually quite surprised you didn't realize for a very long time now you could out almost any portable to a television Sony did with the PSP all the way back in 2008....

Scatpants308d ago

3DS games are trash compared to consoles.

RosweeSon308d ago

Play a couple you might be surprised sure they won’t have the graphics and resolutions of home consoles but he’ll id take a 3DS over an X any day of the week bought my 3ds day one and still got more than enough top quality games to get through.

SurgicalMenace308d ago

As much as I love my Vita(favorite system), I cannot say that 3DS games are trash. E.g. Shin Megami, Kingdom Hearts, Metroid, Braverly, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, Monster Hunter, etc I am a hardcore though, so it is very hard to not support a system with games.

I did wonder the same thing though, the Switch even has several games on it that are on the Vita too. What it seem to be is a double standard that has always been. The PSP was dogged for having only one analog stick, but the 3DS did not get hammered for it. The Vita was bashed for no internal memory but the New 3DS only took the most expensive micros at first. The Vita was dogged for it price, but the 3DS launched at the same price while giving less. I will admit Sony dropped the ball, for America exspecially, on not supporting something that should surpassed the PSP, which also supported expensive memory options with a higher price tag at launch. It bewilders me, but the Vita has plenty to play if you're a hardcore, so I am more than satisfied with it.

Scatpants308d ago

I have one. There's maybe 10 or 15 good games on it and the rest are shovelware of the highest order or crappy thrown together kids games. I'd say the Vita had a better ratio of good games to shovelware.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 307d ago
Automatic79310d ago

The Vita wasn't a failure I owned it and thought the system was fantastic. The reason I got rid of it was due to the support the system got after a year and a half. If Sony would have invested the same effort it did into PS4 launch into PS Vita launch and Post launch. I would have kept it. Notable great games Uncharted, Resistance and Killzone.

DJK1NG_Gaming310d ago (Edited 310d ago )

No it's a failure. Just because you owned doesn't make it not a failure you know. Both the Wii U and Vita are failure.
And you said it yourself. Because Sony didn't support it like the PS4. And the reason they didn't well because it was failure.

81BX308d ago

True. I owned 2 but I thought it was a failure overall.

cactus1230308d ago

depends on what you consider failure. didn't deliver those AAA games or sell well, but is a great handheld with a great library. I own one, I love it. until more games come to the switch I still prefer it

vergilxx3308d ago

DJK1NG You're a troll and a Nintendo fanboy

Ps vita still doing great in japan and there are more than 200 upcoming games for it , how ulcoming games for wii u ? oh wait..

system is dead when it does not have any games coming to it

vergilxx3308d ago

Vegamyster

Here http://m.neogaf.com/showthr...

so don't troll that link , some of these games already have ben released but only a small number

JunMei308d ago (Edited 308d ago )

The reason they didn't support wasn't because it was a failure. Sony arrogantly assumed 3rd party developers would just automatically make tons of games for it. Sony not supporting their own system discouraged other developers from supporting, and because of that, it failed. So the system failed because Sony wouldn't support it; not the other way around.

Edit:
Also, Vergil, number of games doesn't mean squat when they're mostly poorly made shovelware. Look at the Wii. TONS of games released; but mostly shovelware. There were a lot of great games on Wii, too; however, using the number of titles released as a measure of quality is foolhardy. Sure, there are some good titles yet to come, but it's hardly a successful system.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 308d ago
Neonridr310d ago (Edited 310d ago )

notable great games that existed in the first year of its lifespan.

Servbot41308d ago

"I enjoyed X so it must be good and successful"

cactus1230308d ago

if somebody enjoys something they bought, to them its a success. I think the wii sucked but I cant tell that to somebody that loves just dance or wii sports

wonderfulmonkeyman308d ago (Edited 308d ago )

The Vita floated by on a small selection of really good games, but it was never the success Sony wanted it to be, for multiple reasons.
I'd be willing to bet that a very large portion of owners bought it either for JRPG's in general, or for Monster Hunter specifically.

Seraphim308d ago

I think that with the introduction of PS4 perhaps Sony hoped people would see the value in remote play. A big problem with the PS3 was that some great games that should have supported remote play didn't. There was a work around where games like Ni No Kuni were shown running on remote play but to the mass market this wasn't possible. Granted you still need WiFi access to use remote play which limits it's use. So from a handheld, on the road, w/o WiFi access system it is limited. We've continued to see some great releases of RPGs but outside that, yeah, after the first two or so years support wasn't there from both Sony and 3rd party. Games like Gravity Rush, Assassins Creed, Uncharted were all phenomenal original games. Ninja Gaiden Sigma 1 and 2 were good as were some other titles. But likely due to sales development ceased to continue and w/o software it's hard to move hardware. Especially so when we're talking about a handheld. I think if people had need or a reason for a handheld and already own a PS4 that remote play alone would be enticing enough to pick up a Vita. The problem is, it's likely few in the PS4 user base see a need or reason to own a handheld regardless. And I bet a good majority don't even know what remote play is and just how many PS4 titles support it.

The Vita certainly wasn't a success but I'd be hard pressed to call it a failure. Though it's easy to do considering the grip Nintendo has on the handheld market.

As I've said since before the PSP launched. The handheld market is a different breed. While I've personally bought a Gameboy Advanced, PSP, PS Vita and now the Switch I just don't have a use for a handheld. The Switch, though technically a hybrid is something I bought as a console. It's likely to see no play time as a handheld. If it does I'd bet that it will be maxed out at 10-20 hours of play time over it's lifetime. Unless I'm hospitalized or something. I think one reason Nintendo handhelds succeed is that they offer a system in which games can be made cheap. They don't require the budget a system like the Vita or PSP do. Or even the Game Gear, Lynx and other handhelds in the past that have failed.

hulk_bash1987308d ago

It was a great system with lots of potential, that failed to capture a significant enough share of the portable market. Such a shame because it did have some great games. Sony should have invested more to support more quality games being developed for the system.

Istolla308d ago

What kind of logic is this? Things aren't failures because you own/owned them?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 308d ago
DJK1NG_Gaming310d ago

Because the Switch is getting games from all platform release before it. Whether it's new, old or sequels it's getting games from platform that can before it.
It's getting more and more of the franchises and games that made the 3DS successful. It's getting the next manline
Shin Megami Tensei, Fire Emblem, Pokemon and more.
Getting a little bit of the best Wii U games.
Getting older games from before the 8th generation.
Getting the games that are usually PS4 Vita only games from Japan due to it being the newest hottest best handheld for Japanese consumers for games in Japan.

And two big factor is. Nintendo didn't opt to do what Sony did by only allowing the Vita to be compatible with their SD Cards for memory at high prices. And the Switch will have better quality games by default, Because it's courting majority of the 3DS developers and Nintendo own developers who are moving over to Switch aside from the smallest Nintendo dev team who work on small games or indie games for 3DS.

Servbot41308d ago

People always wanted console games on the go, it's just that the Switch ACTUALLY has console games on the go; the Vita has PS2/3 ports, a few lackluster first-party titles and a bunch of otaku-bait games.

FinalFantasyFanatic308d ago

I really wanted to play some playstation classics on it but the cost of memory cards was too much to justify it.

Teflon02308d ago

Wait... So let's get this straight. Vita came out during ps3s run.
It was getting ps3 games, getting high quality games that sometimes has slight downgrades, games like Little big planet Vita which was the best version until lbp3, ps all star in full effect, and so on. It did technically what the switch is doing now. Making games slightly lower graphics while than the current consoles, getting current Gen ports slightly downgraded like sfxt MvC Borderlands and more. Switch maybe getting higher rated games but it's technically the exact same thing on the games side of things. Lower graphics and quality than the other current Gen's, gets lower quality ports, and getting ports from Wii U. Memory cards are an issue yes, but the games weren't until people didn't support it for 2 years. Sony pushed hard for games on it for quite a while.

_-EDMIX-_308d ago

@Teflon - watch out you're not allowed to speak logic and facts here. 😎

crazyCoconuts310d ago

Time will tell, but I think after the novelty wears off, Switch will have a problem with AAA 3rd party like Vita did. But the big difference is that Nintendo has a huge following of people that will buy whatever to play their great 1st party games.

Sgt_Slaughter308d ago

The Switch is going nowhere but up. It's a must have for this holiday season, and 3rd parties are coming in droves to put their games on the system. Not going anywhere anytime soon. The Vita was abandoned by it's own manufacturer, so that's the main reason it failed.

SurgicalMenace308d ago

Put their old games on it, I have a Switch with no games because I own them elsewhere.

kneon308d ago

I don't think it's novelty, it's just that Nintendo fans are going to buy it because they have no other choice. Plus they will pick up some of what remains of the DS market. So overall it should outperform the Wii U, but it's certainly not another Wii.

308d ago
kneon308d ago

Sorry, it seems you have reading comprehension issues. What Nintendo games will Nintendo fans find on a ps4?

If you want to play the new Nintendo games you're getting a switch, simple as that.

Istolla308d ago

Kneon, it's still a dumb comment. How different is that from saying Sony fans can't play Sony games anywhere else other than a Sony platform. What does that have to do with anything?

kneon308d ago

@Istolla

It's exactly the same, and the same used to go for Xbox fans before their "exclusives" started moving to PC.

Because there is a core base of fans on a platform you can almost guarantee a certain amount of sales of a new console. The trick is getting people outside that core to buy as well. Sony has managed it well with the PS4, Xbox hasn't done very well, and it's too early to tell if the switch is getting significant traction outside of their core fan base.

Nintendo did it with the Wii, but the problem there was that those new customers were casual gamers that have since moved on to phones and tablets.

crazyCoconuts307d ago

And I think you guys might agree that Mario and Zelda have a fan following that probably eclipses any IP Sony and MS have. I mean, it's kinda unreal...

crazyCoconuts307d ago

Nintendo IPs are kinda like Disney Land and Sony's IPs are like Universal Studios...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 307d ago
PhoenixUp310d ago

Because PSP successfully proved the concept could work

Team_Litt310d ago

You misspelled Nintendo DS and Gameboy

PhoenixUp310d ago

Those handhelds didn’t have hardware parity with the current consoles on the market when they released. They didn’t provide console on the go hardware like PSP

wonderfulmonkeyman308d ago

I don't remember much of the PSP; are you really certain that it had hardware parity with the PS1, buttons, functions, and all?
Because if that's the case, then the PSP should have been capable of having all of the same games, but for some reason I can't recall it having the same line-up...

Profchaos308d ago

Neither does the switch off argue the PSP was producing games much closer to the fidelity of the PS2 than the switch does the ps4 although it's very close

Razzer308d ago

PSP can play PS One classics from the PS store. It actually got a number of
PS2 ports as well.

septemberindecember308d ago (Edited 308d ago )

The NES was still the hottest console by the time the Gameboy released, which it had relative parity with.

I think the Gameboy and the PSP has similar situations. Both released four to five years after the consoles which they had relative parity with, while a new generation was just coming in.

PhoenixUp308d ago

@ Wonder

Of course PSP had parity with PS2. Didn’t you see the deluge of PS2 ports that arrived on the system. If not I don’t see why you even bothered replying.

@ sept

Game Boy has no where near parity with NES. The Game Boy Color however did, and that handheld released more than a decade after NES.

septemberindecember308d ago

They are actually quite comparable. Just as comparable as a PSP vs a PS2. The NES has the benefit of more sprites, but the Gameboy could update and manipulate tiles much faster and easier. The Gameboy also had much more RAM than the NES did and had the benefit of a more enhanced instruction set.

It wasn't as powerful, but it did achieve relative parity. With a big hindrance simply being it's cheap LCD screen. Just take a look at some of the franchises like Super Mario Land 2 vs Super Mario Bros 3 an Links Awakening vs. Zelda 1. Honestly, if you don't think that the Gameboy had relative parity with the NES then I don't know why you think the PSP had relative parity with the PS2.

wonderfulmonkeyman308d ago

"Of course PSP had parity with PS2. Didn’t you see the deluge of PS2 ports that arrived on the system. If not I don’t see why you even bothered replying. "

I "bothered replying" precisely because, as I said in an earlier post, "I don't remember much of the PSP."
I asked because I genuinely didn't know, not because I was trying to take pot-shots at it.-_-;;

308d ago
Teflon02308d ago

Psp came the ps2 era. It had alot of ports perfectly in tact. You can still get alot of them on Vita even now. Like crash titan, mind over mutant, crash tag team racing, the warriors, both GTA games, Pacman world 3, midnight club 3 and more. These games were all on par with the ps2 versions with just longer load screens and some having slightly downgraded graphics

Teflon02308d ago

Balance
Alot of Vita games are ports from ps3.
Literally alot. Some games ports were such straight ported. The system couldn't run some games properly because it weren't converted properly.
Borderlands, MvC, Sfxt, Sonic and all star racing transformed Rayman origin and Legend's, ps all stars and all the ps3 Japanese games that came to it

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 308d ago
Profchaos308d ago

PSP was leagues ahead of it's time.