New Vita out today but already sold out at amazon

[mmntech]

Cause for all the rest of the stuff they did right, No DRM, no used game blocking etc etc and slapping Microsoft in the face multiple times at E3...people got over having to subscribe to PSN+ for online play. In the grand scheme of things that fact is so minor and unimportant, people just ignored it. A lot of people assumed that this also meant that Sony would be maintaining the PSN service better and fixing the lingering issues since they are now asking for money to use it for online gaming.

Plus you have to consider the fact that PSN+ subscribers get games to play every month for PS3/PS4/Vita so it has value beyond "I can now play online and use netflix".

I think most gamers accepted that PSN would become a pay service eventually. With the free games every month, it does pay for itself pretty quickly.

The fact that Microsoft charges to access services like Netflix and even the web browser is frankly stupid. I can't think of any other hardware vendor with this policy.

 

[Sonikku]

I have been wondering about that. How DID Sony get away with that one?

Combination of biased gaming media, consumers distracted with the Microsoft meltdown and Sony's crafty marketing selling shpeal. And I get that they offered new things with the paid service, but free online gaming without all the gimmicks and bells and whistles held a lot of appeal for the fans that just liked to log in to play every once and a while without making a full blow commitment like you did With Microsoft.

It was good having two options. You had Xbox Live for those willing to pay a premium for a premium service with hardcore players in mind, demanding the pinnacle of server stability. And you had free PSN for casuals that didn't need all the extra perks and flawless latency servers. It was like having two different products serving two different niches. Now there's not really any choice. You either commit, or never take it online. Ever.

 

[ViRGE]

Count me in among those surprised to see the Vita 2000 bundle sold out. I like my Vita, but I'll be the first person to tell you that it's not the most compelling system in 2014. The Borderlands bundle being a good example of that, as the hardware is solid but the game is a scaled down version of a game that most gamers would have played a year and a half ago. So I'm not sure who's dying to pay $200 to play Borderlands 2, but uh, thank you?

It's not that the system sucks.

It's not the games or lack of games.

It's ripping people off with the stupid memory cards and people saying FU.

Memory card pricing is a huge problem, and a number of posters have already done a good job of explaining why. However I'm not sure I would excuse the lack of games as a contributing factor. Unless you like JPRGs and ports - either of PS2/PS3 games or of PC indie games - there's not much development going on right now, especially from third parties. Even the first party titles haven't been especially strong. There's a distinct lack of "western" games on the system right now, including the usual genres of racing, sports, and third person action.

We're still waiting to see what E3 brings, but so far it doesn't look like there are very many AAA games that are or will be going into the production pipeline.

 

[gorcorps]

Count me in among those surprised to see the Vita 2000 bundle sold out. I like my Vita, but I'll be the first person to tell you that it's not the most compelling system in 2014. The Borderlands bundle being a good example of that, as the hardware is solid but the game is a scaled down version of a game that most gamers would have played a year and a half ago. So I'm not sure who's dying to pay $200 to play Borderlands 2, but uh, thank you?

Memory card pricing is a huge problem, and a number of posters have already done a good job of explaining why. However I'm not sure I would excuse the lack of games as a contributing factor. Unless you like JPRGs and ports - either of PS2/PS3 games or of PC indie games - there's not much development going on right now, especially from third parties. Even the first party titles haven't been especially strong. There's a distinct lack of "western" games on the system right now, including the usual genres of racing, sports, and third person action.

We're still waiting to see what E3 brings, but so far it doesn't look like there are very many AAA games that are or will be going into the production pipeline.

Agreed

I only play pinball on mine anymore, and other than Tearaway there's been little original games for it. Some cross platform games like Guacamelee play well on it, but even those are rare.

 

[Aikouka]

One interesting problem with the Vita is that it's fighting a losing battle in regard to performance. The console entered the market with a focus on graphics, but the problem is, that you could argue that its greatest contenders aren't from a video game manufacturer, but rather from smartphone manufacturers. While a phone may not be as good to play on (the severe lack of dedicated controls being a huge problem), it does have the benefit of being with us at almost all times.

The big problem is that the Vita represents a snapshot in technology, and just like other consoles, the processing hardware most likely won't change. To give you an idea, the Vita uses pretty much the same CPU and GPU as the iPad 3. The iPad 3 has already seen two successors, and is probably about 5-6 months away from the third. Each of these successors has provided a good increase in performance over its immediate predecessor, which means that the Vita just isn't that powerful in comparison. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't have good games, but in regard to graphical fidelity, you're going to lose.

That might be one area where Nintendo's "we're different" aspect works out for them.

 

[cmdrdredd]

One interesting problem with the Vita is that it's fighting a losing battle in regard to performance. The console entered the market with a focus on graphics, but the problem is, that you could argue that its greatest contenders aren't from a video game manufacturer, but rather from smartphone manufacturers. While a phone may not be as good to play on (the severe lack of dedicated controls being a huge problem), it does have the benefit of being with us at almost all times.

The big problem is that the Vita represents a snapshot in technology, and just like other consoles, the processing hardware most likely won't change. To give you an idea, the Vita uses pretty much the same CPU and GPU as the iPad 3. The iPad 3 has already seen two successors, and is probably about 5-6 months away from the third. Each of these successors has provided a good increase in performance over its immediate predecessor, which means that the Vita just isn't that powerful in comparison. Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't have good games, but in regard to graphical fidelity, you're going to lose.

That might be one area where Nintendo's "we're different" aspect works out for them.

Or maybe it's the fact that the shelf has about 200 DS and 3DS games that work on a 2DS or 3DS but the Vita has like 30 in it's section. Plus you don't have any recognizable names that most people would consider playing on the go. Stuff like Mario lends itself better to playing on the go vs Uncharted. IMO anyway

I prefer the Vita to the 3DS but it just doesn't have the library for people to choose from.

 

[mmntech]

I don't see the hardware and graphics really being as big a deal as I once thought. The smartphone and handheld market really do cater to two different types of gamer. There aren't many games on iOS or Android that have really pushed the envelope.

Aside from the memory cards, I think it all boils down to games. Curiously, the 3DS only has a slightly better tie ratio (average number of games bought per system). Though I would argue that the 3DS has higher quality titles than the Vita does. I think Nintendo's big strength is their top tier, handheld only franchises. They put effort into the games they release on the platform.

The Vita's problem isn't so much a lack of games, but it has the wrong kind of games. Sony takes a more laissez faire approach to things than Nintendo does. They haven't put a lot of focus on their first party franchises. Nor has there been much of an attempt to create unique, handheld only experiences that draw players to the system.

Borderlands is a good example of this issue. It's the first major Vita release in some time. It's also a port of a console game we all played on much better systems. It's the kind of game best played on the couch in front of a big screen TV. There's nothing on the Vita, that's good, that you can't get elsewhere. That's what Sony needs to change. The PSP had much the same problem though, so I don't see it getting fixed any time soon.

 

[cmdrdredd]

What's real bad is I bet more people get use of their Vita as a remote play device with their PS4 than they do with actual Vita games.

 

[Maverickbcp]

What's real bad is I bet more people get use of their Vita as a remote play device with their PS4 than they do with actual Vita games.

+1