Why Aren’t These PSN Games On The Vita Yet?

DualShockers' Masoud House writes:

"So some people hate the idea of porting games from the PlayStation Network to the Vita. There’s even been some fantastic debates over the idea of sharing or porting games to handhelds being the detriment of handheld growth, and a significant roadblock to establishing its identity as a viable platform. But with Sony’s insistence that the PlayStation brand will be something that can be played anywhere you go, there’s some games I think not only deserve to be ported over to the Vita, but perhaps could even excel better on the handheld than on home consoles."

Read Full Story >>
Megaton3519d ago

Sony doesn't care about Vita people.

WeAreLegion3519d ago ShowReplies(2)
Cajun Chicken3519d ago

I often wonder why Shatter hasn't been ported either.


Warp with W.A.R.P. on Xbox

Neil writes: "W.A.R.P. is the latest little shooter to arrive on the Xbox Store, downloadable and playable on Xbox One and Xbox Series X|S"

Read Full Story >>

The Most Famous Video Games Made By Only One Person

BLG writes: "Do you know any famous games made by one person? Well, we’re here to educate you on some of the best one-man projects out there."

Read Full Story >>
franwex490d ago (Edited 490d ago )

Nice list.

I’ll add 9th Dawn III to that list. Great game made by one person.

Always Sometimes Monster is made by two people technically, but let’s do an honorable mention.

NecrumOddBoy490d ago

I’d add HABROXIA 1 & 2 on here as well. Berry does pixel wonders with the Game Maker engine.

490d ago Replies(1)
ABizzel1490d ago

Technically speaking Minecraft should have been on the list. But it's nice to see these single devs thrive.

Rebel_Scum490d ago

Some of these arent exactly “made by one man”

Looking at you Braid and Fez.

AmUnRa489d ago

Theyr is no game made by one man. Theyr is always a team of developers behind them.
However there is always someone who comes up with the idea of a game.
When i would give an example of one man with that idea for me its Hideo Kojima....

LabRat489d ago (Edited 489d ago )

No there are certainly games made by 1 person, start to finish. Maybe after it launches and becomes a big enough success the 1 person will reach out for help maintaining it or updating, but games have been made by 1 person.

Unless of course you are being insanely nit-picky and trying to claim "the engine they used was made by Unity" or "the assets they put in were made by someone else"

Show all comments (10)

Xbox Live Gold Subscribers Can Claim These Three Additional Free Games

Microsoft is offering three additional free games for all Xbox Live Gold subscribers in addition to the regular lineup of games this month.

Read Full Story >>
darthv72517d ago

Joe Danger is hella fun. Nice bonus from GwG.

deleted517d ago

I enjoyed Joe Danger back in the day, it's pretty fun. What's amazing is how Hello Games went from a few of these rather simple games to the ultra-ambitious No Man's Sky!

517d ago Replies(1)
Orchard516d ago

I would love a sequel to JD - although I do realize that Hello Games have kinda grown beyond that scope of game.

Godmars290517d ago

And still the contradiction of getting something for "free" from a service you pay for continues.

CrimsonWing69517d ago

But isn’t the service for online multiplayer? So, technically it’s “free games” included with your online subscription? I mean, what was the point of Xbox Live? To get free games?

Godmars290517d ago

Only, after they tried doubling the price of another online service, some similar nonsense, isn't Xbox online multiplayer suppose to be free?

darthv72517d ago

"isn't Xbox online multiplayer suppose to be free?" No, it was always been a paid premium on console. The free games was not related to the rumored price hike. They were giving them away long before that.

If there was a service for free online multiplayer on console, it was PSN. Until the PS4 came out.

Jericho1337517d ago

How would you have worded it then? I’d say ‘subscribers claiming free games’ is about as clear as it gets.

Godmars290516d ago

"As part of", "In addition to", "As an extra bonus". Anything better than, "Get this with no strings attached or requirements" which is what "free" implies.

Jericho1337516d ago

That’s like saying ‘buy one get one free’ doesn’t apply because it’s not technically ‘free’. Stop trying to find a problem with something when there isn’t one.

gangsta_red516d ago

** "Get this with no strings attached or requirements" which is what "free" implies.**

No, it actually doesn't, it's just like when you get a free refill of soda after you purchased your first cup.

I think we are well enough into these console gens to stop bringing up this tired argument

CrimsonWing69516d ago

You always had to pay for Xbox Live to
play online multiplayer… this was the case way back during the original Xbox when it was released.

I don’t understand what you’re hung up about when plenty of subscription services give free things as a perk or benefit to a user who subscribes to a service.

Hell, Nintendo Power gave me a “Free” Strategy Guide of my choosing for paying for their magazine subscription way back in the day.

You’re getting the games that you’d need to pay for regardless of the subscription for free, bottom-line. The service you’re paying for is the online multiplayer service Xbox Live. You aren’t paying for Xbox Live and paying for the game you were handed out for free, you’re still just paying for the online service and nothing more. Hence, why the game in itself is free for Xbox Live subscribers.

sinspirit516d ago

It was originally just for online access. It had updated and began monthly game releases to compete with PS Plus. Monthly games have been a part of Live for many years. It is more recently that the releases are getting worse and worse.

Godmars290516d ago

Its been a majoritively dismissed point as DLC, MTs and now subscriptions became things. Failed protest against policies meant ultimately to strip consumers of ownership rights over media in general.

Still, may as well keep pointing it out.

sinspirit516d ago (Edited 516d ago )


I guess people are just missing the point. And, now we got people thinking Live is still just an online sub and games are a generous inclusion like it's not a feature of the paid service lol.

Live officially on Microsofts site lists, "Free games every month. Now that’s Gold.
Get 2 free games a month, including backward compatible Xbox 360 games".

But, many are starting to say that Live payment is still just for the online access. Which, if that's what they're believing then I'm worried about why they'd pay just for online access. Paying for it back in the day was already a ripoff since they didn't even host dedicated servers to ensure the best quality connection. You'd pay for it just to host it on the internet provider that you also pay for lol.

I do think it's great to offer extra games on top of the existing ones. However, Live has repeatedly offered very lacking games, has listed the same games more than once, and even listed the same game two months in a row one time. They need to have a solid consistent history of delivering quality monthly releases.

traumadisaster516d ago

And still the contradiction of bringing up a decade old tired complaint knowing we’ve all moved in but you. We all agree it would better if the author was accurate but this argument is so old now, move on.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 516d ago
Elda517d ago

A pass.