I knew I'd enjoy Switch because I loved Sony's failed PSTV

"Sony had lightning in a bottle with the fantastic duo of the PS Vita and PSTV but failed to recognize it." -- Nintendo Enthusiast

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
PhoenixUp36d ago

Sony implemented the idea earlier with the PSP models that could plug into the TV

Shame that not every Vita had that feature as a standard

DJK1NG_Gaming35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

Nintendo did too. With the GBA player on GC.

Segata35d ago

And SEGA did it in 1995 with the SEGA Nomad which was literally the Switch concept. The portable console also docks with TV and allows for multiplayer. Before anyone says it, no Turboexpress was not the same thing.

rainslacker35d ago

Yeah. I think Sony could have the switch happen before Nintendo did by simply coming with a dock, or merely a TV out and ability to connect to a controller. It wouldn't likely have the detachable controllers, but otherwise, it'd essentially be the same thing.

DJK1NG_Gaming35d ago

Nah. Sony couldn't because the tech wasn't there yet. Nintendo wouldn't had been able to do hit either if they released 5-7 years ago.
Tech wasnt ready for hybrid concept

PhoenixUp35d ago

Sony could’ve just allowed you to connect your DualShock 4 as an option to play it on tv since they were all about synergy back then

rainslacker34d ago

What tech wasn't there yet? A dock? I'm unsure what kind of exotic tech exists within the Switch that wasn't available back when designing the switch. The dock only adds a bit of boost to the power of the Switch, because it runs the processors at full speed, but those processors are held in the system itself. Throttling a CPU/GPU while on battery power has been around since the first Pentium released, and some versions of the 486 processor supported it. That tech is about 25 years old now. Docking stations have been around on laptops for over 30 years now.

The hardware itself was more than capable of the games it had for its time. Switch is more powerful, but it came out later, and is about on par power wise to this generation, as Vita was to this gen, and actually only slightly behind in power to the PS3.

The Vita has motion controls, so outside the detachable controllers, and a way to connect it to a TV, what was was the Vita missing in terms of hardware? About the only real unique thing to the Switch otherwise is the ability to turn it into a machine with 2 player capability out of the box.

Even if there is some tech within the switch that wasn't available to Sony at the time of the Vita's design, it wouldn't change the core principals surrounding what makes the Switch unique. And that one thing really is just it being a hybrid console, where portable and home console are one.

Which is why I said it'd essentially be the same thing. Wasn't speaking about the power of the system itself....rather the concept of designs.


Yeah, a TV out on the Vita itself and connecting a DS3/4(which is possible on PSTV) would have gone a long way. The dev models had this feature, and its a shame that Sony never included it on any VIta SKU.

FallenAngel198436d ago

Vita came out at as good a time as any for a PSP successor, but the smartphone market plus its expensive memory cards really turned off consumers.

“If you look at early Vita titles, they weren’t console quality. They looked like PS3 games.”

Well no shit. When Vita released in 2011, the PS3 & 360 were the premiere consoles and Vita offered games that were comparable with them. It’s no different to how PSP offered games that were on parity with PS2, GameCube & Xbox games and thus was accurately marketed as offering console on the go experiences.

How can you say that’s not console quality but then say Switch is? If Sony and Microsoft were to release their next consoles next year or the year after, would that mean that Switch no longer offered console quality games on the go?

ptownjbo36d ago

I think you misunderstood that quote

"If you look a lot of early Vita titles, they weren’t console quality. There were a handful of games like Killzone, Uncharted, and a few others that looked like PS3 games."

He's saying there were a handful of console quality games like uncharted and killzone but not many others.

PhoenixUp36d ago

Lolwut? Just a glance at the Vita’s launch lineup alone shows that most of them are the type of games you’d play on PS3.

Livingthedream35d ago

Yeah but even those games didn't hold a candle to the console versions the graphical difference was pretty significant

PhoenixUp35d ago

And you think Switch games hold a candle to their PS4 & XO counterparts?

FallenAngel198436d ago

Except most games on Vita were the kind of titles you’d see on PS3 just like most titles on PSP were the kind of titles you’d see on PS2.

Theknightofnights36d ago


There were definitely some impressive titles for the Vita, but most games weren't really comparable visually for the console.

FallenAngel198436d ago

Most Switch titles aren’t comparable visually with games on PS4 & XO, yet people still say it offers console on the go experiences.

Same principle with PSP & Vita.

Theknightofnights36d ago


I'm not sure why you are bringing up the Switch. I'd consider the PSP to be comparable with the PS2, but the Vita isn't comparable with the PS3.

FallenAngel198436d ago

Because while the Switch isn’t as powerful as PS4 & XO, it can still play a considerable amount of the games you’d see on those consoles.

Conversely while PSP & Vita weren’t as powerful as PS2 and PS3 respectively, they still offered plenty of the type of games you’d see on those consoles.

Vita also had Cross-Play with plenty of PS3 games, so idk why you’d think they weren’t comparable. Gravity Rush for example even started out as a PS3 title but got moved to the Vita without much hassle.

Theknightofnights35d ago (Edited 35d ago )


Okay, well if you want my opinion on the Switch I'd say it's more comparable than the Vita is to the PS3, but much less than the PSP was to the PS2. The PSP was incredibly close to the PS2 visually, and was really impressive at the time.

Anyway, the Vita offering some experiences similar to it's console brethren is great, but that doesn't mean that it was overall comparable. The Vita was a pretty powerful portable device for it's time, but there was an absolutely noticeable difference between PS3 and Vita. Take a look at games like XCom, Amazing Spiderman, Sly Cooper, etc where things like character models and framerate suffer incredibly greatly.

As for iPhone now has crossplay with the PS4, but that doesn't mean they are comparable. For your Gravity Rush example, the PS3 was harder to develop for than the Vita. It'd make sense that there wasn't much hassle swapping to a console that was easier to develop for. Gravity Rush is a good looking Vita title though, that's for sure.

FallenAngel198435d ago

Except Switch can clearly play games that PS3 can’t, so it’s really absurd to say the two are comparable. Unreal Engine 4 can run on Switch while it can’t on PS3. Games like Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3, Rayman Legends, & Gravity Rush wouldn’t look out of place on PS3, yet run on Vita.

And many PSP games didn’t look as good as its PS2 counterparts just like various Switch games don’t look as good as PS4 & XO games. This isn’t an issue that’s only happened with Vita. Even GBA, DS, & 3DS which were known as portable SNES, N64, & GameCube systems didn’t run games as well as the systems they were emulating. Not having 1-1 performance didn’t mean people weren’t saying they offered portable respective console experiences since the games ran as well as they could on a handheld system.

Bringing up iPhone is pointless since those are simple basic games with assymetrical multiplayer. Vita games with complex mechanics could crossplay with PS3 with nary a difference.

Japan Studio were well experienced with the architecture of PS3 when they began developing Gravity Rush in 2008. The game got moved to Vita in 2009 when the director was impressed by the handheld’s gyroscopic capabilities and how that could be applied to the gravity based gameplay, not because he found PS3 too difficult to develop for.

Theknightofnights35d ago (Edited 35d ago )


Okay, I think you are grossly misinterpreting most of what I've said. YOU wanted my opinion on the Switch (rather, you assumed my position and I clarified). I DON'T believe that the Switch is as comparable to the X1/PS4 as others might, but I would say it's more comparable than the Vita was to the PS3, but less than the PSP to the PS2. Also, to use your own response, the PS3 can run games that the Vita cannot, so it's really absurd to say they are comparable, and many engines that aren't supported (4A, Id Tech 5, Gamebryo, Creation, CryEngine etc)

When you are talking about something comparable you are talking about how similar they are. The PSP was very similar in graphical capabilities to the PS2. It wasn't quite as powerful, but it was very close. The PSV on the other hand wasn't nearly as comparable to the PS3. I'm not looking for 1:1 performance, I'm considering their capacity for similarity.

"Bringing up iPhone is pointless since those are simple basic games with assymetrical multiplayer. Vita games with complex mechanics could crossplay with PS3 with nary a difference."

Fortnite is basic with asymmetrical multiplayer?

'not because he found PS3 too difficult to develop for.'
I didn't say it was because it was too difficult to develop for. I said it WAS difficult to develop for, which is well documented. The Vita was relatively easy to develop for, so this could be the reason why they didn't experience too much hassle. This was an educated guess, however...I've now looked at the Wikipedia page.

Here is a quote: "Initially the Vita was expected to have similar capacities with the PS3, allowing the team to carry over their previous development experience. When they realized that the Vita had far less power than the PS3, they needed to reassess the entire project, leading to all their previous work being scrapped."

FallenAngel198435d ago (Edited 35d ago )

Of course the PS3 can run some games that Vita can’t. When NGP was first unveiled,Sony themselves stated that they couldn’t make Vita as exactly powerful as a PS3 because the battery would drain that much faster. When Sony said that Vita was aiming for PS3 quality visuals, they didn’t mean literally as stated by the platform research manager himself.

We also didn’t see plenty AAA games release on Vita after its first two years so we don’t know every engine that couldn’t exactly run on it. Killzone: Mercenary for example ran on a modified version of the same engine that powered Killzone 3, so the handheld still had great potential to produce 7th gen level games.

Fortnite on mobile is a very stripped down version of the game running on the absolutely lowest graphics settings in sure they turn down a lot of other CPU/GPU intensive mechanics in the game as well. That’s not a good example.

In contrast games like PlayStation All-Stars, Ratchet & Clank: Full Frontal Assault, & Dragon’s Crown run on basically the same settings on both platforms.

Yeah PS3 was difficult to develop for at first, but there’s no point in bringing it up with Gravity Rush specifically since that concept didn’t affect that title in any way. Not to mention that Sony first party developers were well accustomed with PS3 architecture and Gravité started development when everyone was more familiar with the dev tools.

Japan Studio didn’t have the finalized specs of Vita when they decided in 2009 to port Gravity Rush over to it, so of course some things would get scrapped. However the end result is still a kind of game you’d see on PS3. Not 1-1 obviously as I stated earlier, but comparable.

Here’s a quote from that same Wikipedia article you quoted: “The result enabled graphical quality comparable to the PS3, as the culling and shader technology worked around the Vita's hardware limitations”

Theknightofnights35d ago (Edited 35d ago )


YOU were the one that said that it's ridiculous to say the Switch is comparable to the PS3 because, and I quote, "Except Switch can clearly play games that PS3 can’t, so it’s really absurd to say the two are comparable". IF you think THIS is true, and the PS3 can run games the PSV can't, then...?

"Fortnite on mobile is a very stripped down version of the game running on the absolutely lowest graphics settings in sure they turn down a lot of other CPU/GPU intensive mechanics in the game as well. That’s not a good example."

Many games on the Vita were stripped down versions running on the absolute lowest graphics settings. Look up the Amazing Spider-man as an example.

"Yeah PS3 was difficult to develop for at first, but there’s no point in bringing it up with Gravity Rush specifically since that concept didn’t affect that title in any way."

Except it DID affect development because the Vita wasn't nearly as powerful as the PS3. They thought the console would be much more powerful than it was, but it's capabilities aren't even close to the PS3's.

You took that quote out of context. They had to develop a special shading system for the Vita to try and preserve much of it's graphical effects. They had to significantly decrease polygon counts, put massive culling implementations, and mapped reflections. Again, Gravity Rush is one of the best looking titles on the PSV. It looks great, especially remastered on PS4. That doesn't mean the console OVERALL was comparable to the PS3. It simply wasn't, end of discussion.

Edit: For your convenience

FallenAngel198435d ago (Edited 35d ago )

The difference being that while Vita can PS3 games that are scaled to its limitations, there are Switch games that don’t have a chance of running on PS3. Vita can play games like the ones you’d play on PS3 while Switch can play games that far exceed what’s capable on PS3.

The cross platform Vita games weren’t so scaled down from their PS3 counterparts as Fortnite clearly is.

You brought up PS3 being a difficult console to develop for as if Japan Studio were having trouble making the game when it was known as Gravité when it was still a PS3 game. If you’re now saying that it was actually the porting process, then that makes bringing up PS3’s initial difficulty with developing titles for it even more pointless as Japan Studio never brought up such a claim with the title. Vita not being as powerful as PS3 had nothing to do with the early years of devs being being inexperienced with PS3’s architecture.

Games often get downscaled in certain areas when they are ported to handhelds that try to emulate them. That’s nothing new. It doesn’t mean that a title like Gravity Rush wouldn’t be the kind of game you’d see on PS3 even if it had to work around Vita’s limitations. Gravity Rush is not a kind of game you’d see on PS2.

For direct comparison a title like Doom was obviously downscaled to run on Switch, but it’s essentially still the same kind of game you’d play on PS4 & XO.

That example you posted is just one example. I could easily show an example of a Vita game running well right next to a PS3 counterpart. I could also show an example like Dragon Quest Heroes 1&2 running horribly on Switch compared to PS4 and then an example of how a title like Doom & Wolfenstein 2 runs comparatively well on Switch compared to its PS4 & XO counterparts.

This article best explains how Vita and PS3 compare

Theknightofnights35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

"The difference being that while Vita can PS3 games that are scaled to its limitations"

Unverified assumption. I've already pointed out the many engines that don't run on Vita. There is no guarantee that something like Frostbite 2 for Battlefield 3 or CryEngine for Crysis 3.

"The cross platform Vita games weren’t so scaled down from their PS3 counterparts as Fortnite clearly is."
Full Frontal Assault's framerate is cut in quarters, removed many graphical effects, cut the resolution in half, and reduced polygonal models.

Again, you are misunderstanding. I suggested that changing development to the Vita may not have been an issue as it's easier to develop for. I suggested this because I didn't bother with the research as I ASSUMED you were correct in what you said. But you were incorrect about the development of the game anyway as they DID run into issues switching from PS3 to PS Vita BECAUSE of it's lack of power. It's explicitly stated in the article.

No, Gravity Rush isn't the type of game you'd see on the PS2. Vita is a step above the PS2, but it's no where near in the same league as the PS3.

You couldn't put Red Dead Redemption 2 on the Switch. Again, not very comparable graphically. Doom and Wolfenstein are impressive though. Just like Uncharted and Killzone were for the Vita.

Theknightofnights35d ago

There are many other examples of games that look significantly worse on Vita. XCom, Mortal Kombat, Borderlands 2, even remasters like God of War. I'm not just pulling from one example. I've provided many in my previous replies.

FallenAngel198435d ago

We didn’t even see any game devs say with absolution that they couldn’t get those engines to run on Vita. After the handheld flopped in its first year many developers didn’t even putting their AAA games on it.

Yes FFA is scaled down on Vita, but it’s not as drastic as the mobile version of Fortnite to console counterparts

Many Vita games come closer to PS3 versions than that, as is detailed by Digital Foundry.

Gravity Rush is too powerful of a game to run on PS2. That Wikipedia article itself outright states its above what PS2 could handle.

Vita is capable of giving the kind of game experiences you’d find on a 7th gen console in portable form. This article doesn’t exist for no reason.

Again like I said it won’t have the same exact performance, but it’s still a general approximation of what to expect. I could give you a list of games that show the true potential of Vita like Gravity Rush, Virtua Tennis 4, Uncharted: Golden Abyss, Oddworld: Stranger’s Wrath HD, Soul Sacrifice, LittleBigPlanet Vita, PSASBR, Metal Gear Solid HD Collection to show you how Vita can perform when pushed to its limits.

Before I’d argue that you couldn’t put Doom on the Switch, yet somehow they were able to do it. I have no doubt that games like RDR2 and FFXV could never come to NS, but I’ve been surprised by what games they have ported to it. Not to mention the games specifically built for it.

There are also many ports of games on GBC, GBA, DS, PSP, & 3DS that don’t technologically perform as well as the systems they try to emulate, but that doesn’t stop them from having the moniker of being portable NES, SNES, PS2 & GameCube. It’s because just like with Vita, they provide similar experiences to the systems they’re emulating. And the original games for those handhelds really take advantage of their hardware.

Theknightofnights35d ago

At this point in time we know what engines support the Vita and which ones don't. Your argument is an unverified assumption. That isn't a good argument.

I NEVER said that Gravity Rush could have been done on the PS2. Why continue trying to bring that up? Stop.

Yes, Fortnite decreases rendering resolution, polygonal models, texture resolution, framerate, graphical effects, and rendering distance on mobile. Full Frontal Assault decreases rendering resolution, polygonal models, texture resolution, framerate, and graphical effects. Rendering distance is still up to par, from my knowledge. Again, crossplay doesn't inherently mean that a console is on par graphically. The 3DS has crossplay with the PS4, as does the Wii U. As does the Vita! That doesn't mean that any of those consoles are near the power of the PS4. It just means that a few isolated experiences can be found on all of those consoles to play together.

Again, when speaking about overall comparability you consider many aspects of a consoles overall graphical capabilities and how close they are overall. I'm not saying that any device that isn't as powerful as the other are not comparable. The PS4 and Xbox One are comparable, for example, despite the base Xbox One being overall weaker. What I'm saying is that, at a certain point, a console is no longer graphically comparable to another. The Vita hit that threshold.

PhoenixUp35d ago

@ knight

Ima cut through all that mountain and replied and ask this basic question

Why is it okay to say Switch offers a console on the go experience but not for Vita?

Sounds like a double standard to me when you consider both systems have downgraded of the titles that they’re emulating.

Theknightofnights34d ago


I've never said it was okay. I never said that the Switch offered the exact same experiences as PS4 and Xbox One on the go. I've stated this repeatedly throughout my discussion with FallenAngel, and I'm getting the impression none of you guys are actually reading what I'm telling you.

PhoenixUp34d ago

So basically you don’t think any handheld has provided a console on the go experience

Theknightofnights34d ago


That depends on what type of console they are aiming for. The PSP aimed for PS2 quality visuals and mostly succeeded. The GBA aimed for SNES quality visuals and mostly succeeded (and in some ways exceeded).

The Vita aimed for PS3 quality visuals and didn't succeed in providing what was promised. It's capabilities fit rather snugly right between PS2 and PS3

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 34d ago
Eidolon35d ago

Sorry, the smartphone market wasn't what killed it, not really even competition if Vita had more major exclusives. 3DS did fine, in fact it did very well, and you know why? Support, exclusives. Hate when people mention smartphone market as a excuse for Vita's failure.

PhoenixUp35d ago

If that’s what you really think I’d really like to hear what your excuse is for why 3DS with all its exclusives and support still has yet to outsell the PSP.

rainslacker35d ago

I'd agree about the more major exclusives thing, except that when it got some major exclusives, no one gave the Vita, or those publishers credit for it. It was always that Vita had no games. Often on the day that a big game dropped for it.

However, you are right, it isn't the smart phone market that killed Vita. Sony being too uptight about prevening piracy after it ran rampant on PSP, which made some developers not want to make games on the PSP, is what killed the Vita. The expensive memory cards. The ridiculously over complex content manager. The vague region and account locking to the system. Not including in the box everything that was needed to run(basic memory backup format) which required extra purchases. So on, and so forth. I'm sure we all know the criticisms, and many of them were valid.

FallenAngel198435d ago

@ Eid

I know you’re really not suggesting that the rise of smartphones & tablets played no role in the current state of dedicated handheld devices.

As well as 3DS sold its still the least successful Nintendo handheld. You really think that happened for no reason? Don’t live in a bubble.

Eidolon35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

I didn't say NO role, just not as major a role to thwart its success or kill handhelds. Vita was a complete failure in excecution, and you can't blame smartphones for it, because it couldn't hold a candle to the 3DS. It was hardware(gimmicks, memory cards, or otherwise) and lack of support(developers, apps, etc). if it even did half as well as the 3DS, we'd see a successor.

PhoenixUp35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

@ Eidol

“Sorry, the smartphone market wasn't what killed it“

That sounds like you’re saying no role to me. Now you’re saying it’s not a major role, which is entirely different since you’re basically still admitting smartphones and tablets played some role in the decline of dedicated handhelds.

You seem so keen on bringing up the 3DS, yet you seem to sidestepping the glaring fact that 3DS itself has sold less than Nintendo’s all of Nintendo’s previous handhelds. What’s your reasoning for that?

“if it even did half as well as the 3DS, we'd see a successor.”

Speaking about the 3DS, where’s its successor? That handheld released before Vita, so Nintendo would logically be the one to reveal a successor for it earlier just like they announced the 3DS earlier than Sony announced the Vita.

Plus speaking about doing half as well, the 3DS has sold less than half of DS which is the second best selling system of all time. Care to explain how a system can sell 154 million and then have a successor that’s sold 73.5 million? Care to explain why 3DS is struggling just to pass the 80 million mark and easily outsell GBA & PSP? I’m dying to know your answer.

FallenAngel198435d ago (Edited 35d ago )

@ Eidol

“I didn't say NO role, just not as major a role to thwart its success or kill handhelds. you can't blame smartphones“

Wow you’re being serious with this. Let me bring you basic statistics to correct this line of thinking.

DS sold 154 million
PSP sold 81 million

3DS sold 73 million
Vita sold 16 million

7th gen handhelds sold 235 million combined
8th gen handhelds sold 89 million combined

I know at this point you’re not going to still try and argue that the smartphone & tablet market played no major role in the decline of dedicated handhelds this generation. If you don’t think that then explain to me the dramatic decline on Nintendo’s end. Explain how more than 100 million people didn’t upgrade at the same time that mobile gaming grew to be the behemoth it is today. You do know that Nintendo decided to put some games on mobile devices for a reason right?

I’m not even going to deny that expensive memory cards really damaged Vita’s chance at success since that’s what I said in my first post. That’s not even up for debate.

However it’s pretty ignorant to say that the massive success of mobile gaming had no major consequences on dedicated handhelds. According to Nintendo’s own website, not only has 3DS not sold more hardware than GBA, it hasn’t sold more software either despite the DS dramatically increasing the demographic for handheld gaming. That’s not even speaking about how 3DS’ hardware and software sales compare to DS’.

Btw 3DS offered just as many gimmicks as Vita, so idk why you even brought that point up.

Also if you want to talk about successors talk about how Nintendo itself hasn’t announced a successor for the 3DS itself yet either.

Eidolon35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

3DS did nearly as well as PSP, where PSP was considered successful in a time without smartphones. Wii was successful because of the gimmick, same as DS. People barely moving on from DS and 3DS was not much new besides 3D, and 3D was a dying gimmick. But it still was very successful, due to its wide support. Vita did not fail because of smartphones, 3DS did just fine, it failed due to lack of support. How is this hard to understand? Why blaming it on smartphones. Sony is to blame. Vita could have done as well as 3DS and had a successor if it had the support that Nintendo gave 3DS.. if smartphones killed Vita, then it killed handhelds, and 3DS would have failed too, but it didn't, it sold it out 5 times over. 3DS did have at least a hardware refresh called the New 3DS, which is all I'd ask from Vita, but Sony won't even do that due to the Vitas failure. Switch might considered A successor to the 3DS by some, and it is also doing quite well, and it being handheld has A LOT to do with its success, already outsold Vita in 1 2/3 years, which has been out 7 years. So you can say it's because Nintendo and their games have a bigger following. But you can't say that Smartphones are KILLING handled consoles, results are right there.

PhoenixUp35d ago

@ Eidol

Oh this wall of text oughta be good.

3DS having Pokemon and not easily PSP doesn’t ring any bells for you? In fact as I pointed out earlier, 3DS is selling worse than PSP despite having more system selling titles

Of course you’ll most likely ignore the evidence that’s standing right in front of you.

You say DS sold well because of a gimmick and 3DS didn’t because of 3D not being a selling gimmick? Didn’t you just earlier criticize Vita for having gimmicks? Plus that doesn’t even explain why 3DS has yet to outsell GBA & PSP.

3DS sold well but it’s still the least successful Nintendo handheld. I can’t believe you’re still so ignorant to why that is.

The OP already mentioned Sony’s failings, that’s not the issue. The point of contention here is that you’re actually acting like the mobile market had no role in the all around decline of the dedicated handheld market.

There was no way Vita would succeed as well as 3DS. Arguing how it could’ve done better is a pretty moot topic at this point.

You once again mention a Vita successor not getting announced and once again you neglect to acknowledge the fact Nintendo itself hasn’t even announced for the much older 3DS.

The mobile market didn’t outright kill the dedicated handheld market, but it did cause a huge decline. How is that obvious by now? 3DS is Nintendo’s least successful major handheld and they even decided to put some of their games on mobile devices.

Vita did have a refresh, it’s called the Vita Slim. Vita didn’t need a New 3DS equivalent because it was already powerful enough as a handheld whereas 3DS actually had games later on that ran terribly on the base hardware or in Xenoblade Chronicles’ 3D’s case, couldn’t run on the base hardware at all.

It’s plainly obvious that you’re beating a dead horse and keep bringing up Vita to deflect from comparing 3DS to all of Nintendo’s previous handhelds and how it’s performing worse than all of them for a very specific reason.

Switch is not a 3DS successor, it’s the Wii U’s successor. If NS were 3DS’s successor then they wouldn’t still be releasing exclusives for that dedicated handheld. Plus Switch is a hybrid system so it has the benefit of being labeled as a console and do things dedicated handhelds could never do. I’m talking specifically about dedicated handhelds, which can only be used exclusively as handhelds and not multitask between handheld and console like Switch.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 35d ago
Segata35d ago

Vitas 3rd party games were pretty good overall but lack of 1st party support,AT&T deal which they were booed for,bad marketing and the real killer the memory cards. A 16GB Vita card is still $40. A 200GB micro SD card is also $40 as of this posting on Amazon.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 34d ago
Apocalypse Shadow36d ago (Edited 36d ago )

Sony DID market the PSTV and in multiple markets across the world. It's not like they didn't try.

And it had multiple features. I mean, what else could they have done? It played most Vita games, licensed PSP games, streamed PS4 games, for a time, streamed PS Now games. But instead, everyone bought a PS4. And are still buying PS4. You win some, you lose some.

He's talking about how great he loves the Switch. But, Nintendo FAILED with the WiiU. And even though Labo is amazing, it's not selling gangbusters. These things happen for a variety of reasons. Something sells. Something else doesn't sell.

We'll see next Gen when Microsoft releases their streaming box and if it sells. Which will copy what Vita TV did but will have some added features from xbox. If it succeeds, great. If it fails, "thems the breaks."

Ask any company if they wished all their products sold like their best product does.

DarkZane35d ago

I hope they remake Soul Sacrifice Delta and Freedom Wars for PS4. It's the only 2 games on Vita that I am missing that haven't been ported yet.

RizBiz35d ago

PS TV was an amazing idea, but Sony totally f*cked up with awful compatibility issues. If it could play every single PSP and PSV game it would be fantastic.

jmtstan35d ago

yeah if only they just let all the games be compatible... some games only minimally use touch or gyro. Uncharted can be played strictly control only, with exception to just rubbing the screen for clues/

rainslacker35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

I don't even think the regular Vita plays every PSP game. Its set up like MS BC is now, where the publisher has to approve it....which is odd, because what's required for hardware BC is included in the system. Might have something to do with digital download licensing though.

In the case of compatibility, I don't think its right to fully blame Sony, just like we wouldn't blame MS now for games that aren't on their BC list.

RizBiz35d ago (Edited 35d ago )

Yeah, lack of full BC with PSP was and is still the main reason why I have never bought a PSV. I like the handheld, but if it can't play Valkyria Chronicles 2 and 3 then I don't want it.

rainslacker34d ago

Personally, I've only come across a couple games that I couldn't play. I don't believe VC2 is available though. Most of my PSP collection is physical though, so it was never that much of an issue for me. PS+ gave me a lot of PSP titles over the years though....including quite a few of my favorite PSP titles. I played most of them on the Vita, but I do have a PSTV where I have played some of them if I wanted to play them at home.

Show all comments (53)