demosthenes
Member
Why are you assuming this is completely on Sony? What about the publishing deals signed that have no mention of a digital copy and all the red tape bullshit?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Sony in big trouble with PS Vita, Portable market in perm decline, rotting - Forbes
- Thread starter marc^o^
- Start date
Why are you assuming this is completely on Sony? What about the publishing deals signed that have no mention of a digital copy and all the red tape bullshit?
Opus Angelorum
Member
That sounds official at least.
One poster I saw at GAME was handwritten, looked terrible.
CadetMahoney
Member
I don't. I think they did overestimate demand for Uncharted franchise on a portable. That's not the most significant factor though, a combination of things. Recession and releasing after xmas in the west when every store has deals going on other stuff. Price and a mindshare the public has that Sony is notorious for propriety and expensive memory.
Ppl would prefer to spend money on an expensive phone, combine that with the lack of demand for Uncharted makes it very hard for a Vita purchase.
To me hand held gaming is ridiculous. Why would I spend $250 or even $170 on a hand held system when I could spend a little more, and get a Wii, PS3 or 360? Sony being arrogant? Shocker. Both the systems and games are overpriced, and neither the 3DS or Vita stand any chance to regain momentum from Android/iOS.
If I want to play games, I'll play on either my home console, phone or iPad. Who needs another device that does half as much worse?
If I want to play games, I'll play on either my home console, phone or iPad. Who needs another device that does half as much worse?
GhostWriter24
Member
You're saying the Vita does gaming worse than an iphone? Yikes.
The reason why you would choose a 3DS or a PSV is because of its exclusive software. Is that so hard to grasp?
The entire notion of handheld gaming being inferior to its console counterpart is easily one of the biggest fallacies in the gaming industry.
Oh lawdy.
So you'll play games on your $500 iPad but spending $170 to play Mario/Pokemon is just asking for too much. Makes sense.
Exterminieren
Banned
This would make sense if home consoles and handhelds offered the same experiences.
They don't though. DS has the finest lineup of games for any recent console, and ignoring them simply because they're on a handheld makes no sense.
Reading comprehension is important.
My point is you're paying for a device that only plays games on a 4 inch screen. An iPhone is also a phone! Neat! If you honestly think hand held gaming is equivalent to home consoles or pc gaming, good for you. Whatever it takes to justify your purchase. For me though, gaming on a 360/iPad/Phone is more then enough.
It is also why handheld games persistently scored lower amongst critics than did console games for an extremely long period, even when the games were clearly of extremely high quality.
Here, I can give you a way in which portable games are better than console games: they're portable. This is a highly utilitarian value, as it actually allows me to play in places and at times I would otherwise be completely unable to play. That is a real use with empirical value.
Now, I ask anyone here: in what way are consoles better than handhelds?
Larger screen, better sound.
pieatorium
Member
Better screen, better sound setup, more ergonomic controls.
If you'd care to broaden your horizons a little bit you'd notice not everyone is you. Shocker I know, but different folks have different preferences and live and play in ways that you don't.
Case in point: My big Plasma TV and consoles are in my AV/Game room. My wife enjoys watching her shows or reading in other rooms in the house like the living room or the library. I like being with her so I often take my PSP or my DS into those rooms to do some gaming while she's doing her thing. Is that so hard to grasp? I would be willing to bet that I am not the only one who wants to have a deep, robust gaming experience in places where my consoles are not.
That's what I'm trying to argue. I'm saying that such devices can't live on through smartphones and tablets, and that the maket as we know it will cease to exist and be replaced with a casual market with a few poorly controlled core games (which will now be ultra-niche). All of the big studios will collapse due to $15 being the absolute limit for games, and gaming will no longer be an industry of its own. This is what will happen if consoles and handhelds die.
I mean that a device designed for gaming can't compete with smartphones and tablets. It doesn't matter what you're using your iPad for; gaming is a secondary focus in its design. If it were the focus, then it wouldn't be well suited for the things you'd normally buy a tablet for, so it wouldn't be able to compete with other tablets. Would you replace your iPad with a Vita running Android?
That's nice. Now, about the billions of people with slower internet and bandwidth caps?
So, you can only play your games at home while connected to Wi-Fi? THIS IS A GLORIOUS FUTURE! After all, everyone loved Ubisoft's DRM, didn't they?
I KNEW that you would compare it to music. I just knew it. This isn't the music market, because cell phones are not inferior to portable music players. They won't affect the quality of the music or limit what kinds of music you can listen to. The same can't be said for gaming for obvious reasons. Android and iOS take over, the industry as we know it dies in favor of a tiny section of the entertainment industry. Smartphones and tablets can't assimilate core gaming.
That's why I said, "to me"
I had assumed those would be your answers -- and that's fine.
You personally value superficial things like "bigger screen" more. Some others might be less superficial, and value utilitarian concerns like portability more.
So this is your answer. People value different things. Consoles aren't superior in all ways -- they just embrace different values, which you happen to personally care more about. Portables have other strengths, and if someone happens to care more about those strengths than they do the strengths of consoles, then portables are superior for them.
I'm not trying to be pedantic here -- you just seemed genuinely confused why anyone would prefer portable gaming, and I'm trying to explain in fundamental terms why some people might value portables more. They have their own strengths, and if those strengths matter to you a lot, then portables are better, even before we discuss game libraries.
Better screen? I'm willing to bet the Vita's OLED is better than a large percentage of the gaming public's home televisions. Better sound? Perhaps. But not always. Good headphones and well produced sound design (see Corpse Party for an excellent example) make them more comparable than you might think. More ergonomic controls? Usually, yes, but having played the Vita I can tell you that it's light and comfortable and miles better than both the 3DS and the PSP-3000 and Go for ergonomics.
Except they can and will. WTF is a console? It's a means to an end. As tablets get more and more powerful, why would the world need this dedicated mass sitting under the TV. Bluetooth allows wireless controllers. And wireless HDMI allows connectivity to the TV. That's all a console is. Convergence is coming and those who relegate themselves to dedicated machinery have their days numbered. That doesn't mean it's the end of the world for core gaming.
Bigger screen is a better argument than better screen. Of course, even there, you have two important arguments:
1) A 5'' screen that is 10'' from your face may actually consume more of your FoV than some large, 50'' TVs if you sit far away on a couch. In many cases, people seem to simply prefer bigger screens because they "feel" bigger, even if you are sitting 100' away and they consume far less of your field of vision. Which is irrational.
2) Unlike portables, consoles don't have their screen included. So "bigger screen" is dependent on going out and spending hundreds of dollars and actually buying that screen.
But this also opens up another question: how does one define a "better screen?" As you point out, the OLED availalbe on the Vita is likely better than any television anyone in this thread owns in terms of image quality. But it's also a smaller screen.
So which is more important (screen quality or screen size) to determine what is "better?" The answer is up to the individual. Which returns to the original point: different people value different things, and there is no objectively correct answer here.
It does. Nobody is going to buy those games, especially since they have to spend $500+ a year just to get the hardware. Core gaming will become a tiny niche market.
I don't appreciate the fact that you insinuate, based on my opinion, I am superficial and confused. I have to remember though you are the one who is right here. Sorry about that.
DD is going to radically alter gaming in the next decade regardless on the dominant platform. So things are changing no matter what.
As to your main point, Nintendo is correct (although wrong about the baseline for it) about diminishing returns. In 3 or 4 years, the baseline level of a tablet is going to be more than sufficient to develop for. They'll be no need to make the decision of killing your userbase or maximizing the latest hardware. At that point it'll be about the commoditization and price wars.
Is it that difficult to see that the business models for gaming on smartphones and dedicated videogame hardwares are worlds apart? Maybe it would help if you'd look at the gaming consoles as toys, not gadgets.
Part of screen issue is size, as some smaller handheld screens like those on the DS Lite feel like they give me eye strain in many games. Of course the XL solved that problem.
I don't find the sound quality of current handhelds to be anywhere near as clean sounding as console game sound, even over headphones. I haven't had a PSP for a long time so I couldn't comment on Corpse Party.
I don't really have a problem with ergonomics on handhelds personally, but I still find them very lacking compared to controllers.
Is that really much of an issue when people are going to be using those screens for more than just console gaming?
I'm not necessarily correct (if the implication is that I am automatically correct because I'm a moderator). If you have rational and logical arguments to refute my position, I'm very eager to hear them. I'm more interested in the opinions of people who disagree with me than those who do, because there is more to learn.
I'm sorry if you felt insulted by the suggestion that you were confused -- I apologized for that immediately in the above post, in fact -- but you genuinely seemed amazed that anyone would find portables superior:
D6AMIA6N said:
I tried to explain why someone would, in fact, spend $250 or even $170 on a handheld system instead of spending the same money on a console.
You don't have to jump through as many hoops to get a local multiplayer game going on a console: one console, one game, multiple controllers vs. multiple handhelds, multiple games, can't use the TV. Not having the screen attached to the controller also gives people other ways to play games. Can you play Just Dance on a handheld? What about Wii Fit or Wii Sports? Having Bluetooth support doesn't solve many of the limitations of a portable device.
I'm not sure. Some people seem to make a big deal out of having to buy a PC to game when you will obviously use that PC for more than just gaming. If you happen to watch a lot of movies, then it's probably an effectively amortized cost; if you do not watch much film or TV, then it isn't. The same basic principle applies to PC purchases.
I think this, too, is up to the individual.
I really don't think iOS mobile gaming will take over unless Apple takes active steps to ensure the gaming experience can be improved. If that means adding a joystick slide-out / add-on then so be it, otherwise it seems like apple sees the gaming functionality of its devices as an afterthought. That type of approach can't be good for gaming, especially when Sony said The Vita was developed entirely by game developers. (not the other way around)
Regardless of your argument it is a matter of preference and opinion.
Who is going to make a blockbuster game that's less than $15 and has a limited audience due to the need to have a large amount of storage to download it? You're completely delusional if you think that the medium is the only thing that will be affected.
It doesn't matter anyway. The two markets WILL find a way to co-exist. This isn't the music player market. Right now, it seems like mobile gaming is taking over because it's growing faster. That's an illusion. The market is being expanded, not shifting.
Absolutely. These are real, utilitarian benefits to consoles. Another benefit to portables, in the same vein; each person gets their own screen, so that local multiplayer "screen spying" is much more difficult.
My goal here is not to suggest that consoles are objectively inferior. It is to suggest that both consoles and handhelds have their own strengths, and people aren't stupid dumb dumb ugly heads if they happen to prefer handhelds. They just value different things than you do. If you happen to care more about screen spying than you do ease of local multiplayer connectivity, then portables are better for you. If not, consoles are. And so forth.
In some ways (Wii U) it is the future. In others, a dedicated box can still provide better power because it plugs in and doesn't have a size, power consumption limit. In others the sensors and means of interaction dictate the console. Wii was not about the box but about the function, Kinect is the same way. A tablet cannot converge on on that, in fact in some ways Wii U is convergence in the opposite direction. The tablet is an input mechanism, the box that houses the CPU is increasingly irrelevant it just might be the Onlive server half a country away.
Either I'm misunderstanding your point or the lack of "software" in that set of criteria seems to be a glaring omission.
I do not prefer portables. I prefer the PCs, then consoles, then portables, in that order, due to a variety of reasons that really haven't been touched on in this thread (for example, I do not care at all that PCs have objectively better graphics, but care greatly about the benefits provided by an open platform).
Instead, I was trying to explain why someone would have a "preference and opinion" in favor of portables over consoles. Again, because you said this, exactly:
you said:
Followed quickly by this:
you said:
My goal is not to convince you that your personal values are wrong, only to explain how other people could possibly value other things than you do.
If you understand all this, then I'm not quite sure why you asked those questions in the first place, but the conversation is complete and we agree.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Online multiplayer.
Any you're delusional if you think the 60 dollar retail game is going to exist in 10 years. It's not.
Even the last bastion of that, consoles, has severe rot at the periphery already. Bombas may be cute, but it's been escalating at an ever increasing rate. The devaluation of console games gets worse with each passing year. Look at the prices on new releases this fall. 50 percent off was common after 2 months. And as more and more people wise up, it gets worse and worse. We're in the final days of this model.
Maybe Nintendo will somehow still eek out a niche in this world, but the 60 dollar boxed game is dying. It's a barrier to entry and a real impediment to the big dollars... which is subscriptions and FTP models.
The point of that was: In 4 years, tablets won't be a tech war anymore. They'll have matured from a technical POV and it'll be about price wars. They won't be 500 dollars and you won't need a new one every 12 months to stay relevant with the latest software.
AZ Greg
Member
Console gaming is to big budget Michael Bay style theatrical releases as portable gaming is to made for TV Lifetime movies.
Personally, I'll take my Sudance Film Festival-like iOS games!
Seriously though, I wish someone would do one of those huge compilations gathering all these "expert" analyst predictions/thoughts over the last 10-20 years. The amount of wrong would be staggering. And while they can always hide behind "predictions" maybe the sheer volume would get them to keep quiet. Doubt it, though.
Personally, I'll take my Sudance Film Festival-like iOS games!
Seriously though, I wish someone would do one of those huge compilations gathering all these "expert" analyst predictions/thoughts over the last 10-20 years. The amount of wrong would be staggering. And while they can always hide behind "predictions" maybe the sheer volume would get them to keep quiet. Doubt it, though.
MrBelmontvedere
Member
I wont contradict you. thats why I began my post with
Id rather wait and see who is correct in reality than debate my ass off on a forum.
It's a function of price vs value.
You forgot free-to-play, subscription models. The addicted will spend more there.
I wouldn't write off expensive apps/games on iOS or Android or Vita or the web.
I will certainly buy Vita running Android 4 to complement iPad. I will most likely carry Vita around instead of the iPad if web browsing experience is comparable. Will have to buy a battery pack though.
They will consume the games via other means. Just like we have NetFlix, YouTube, Blu-ray today. You choose your own poison.
So, you can only play your games at home while connected to Wi-Fi? THIS IS A GLORIOUS FUTURE! After all, everyone loved Ubisoft's DRM, didn't they?
For a low monthly fee, it is indeed glorious for some consumers !
Then you can spend extras on something else.
Huh ? Compared to music ? I said there were skeptics when Apple entered cellphone and music space but Apple triumphed because they innovated in the right way. The same can be said for gaming ! Whoever can provide the best entertainment experience at a fair price will continue to thrive, iOS/Android/WebOS/W8/eCOS doesn't really dictate the winner.
The difference between a console and a handheld aren't just in form factor but usage. I'm inclined to sit on my "big, comfy couch" and enjoy a cinematic or competitive gaming experience at home for an hour or two. The primary usage and selling point of portable gaming is usage on the go, when you're on the bus or waiting at a bar for a friend or spending 15 minutes before class etc. It doesn't lend itself to shrinking Halo or Uncharted or GTA because none of those games work in the increment size that people play.
This is why titles like Brain Training and NSMB stomped on everything. The app system is perfect for these small bite-size diversions that the overall market hungers for. The Vita will likely lock up the majority of people looking for a full gaming experience on portables, but that market isn't exactly huge as any attempt at a cinematic gaming experience on handhelds could be done better on consoles or PC.
Why companies continue to push large gaming experiences on tiny screens when these same titles don't even fit the fucking point of mobile gaming annoys me and I'm glad they're dying a slow, horrible death.
This is why titles like Brain Training and NSMB stomped on everything. The app system is perfect for these small bite-size diversions that the overall market hungers for. The Vita will likely lock up the majority of people looking for a full gaming experience on portables, but that market isn't exactly huge as any attempt at a cinematic gaming experience on handhelds could be done better on consoles or PC.
Why companies continue to push large gaming experiences on tiny screens when these same titles don't even fit the fucking point of mobile gaming annoys me and I'm glad they're dying a slow, horrible death.
Yeah, there are some people who say that, well with a tablet it has Bluetooth so you can connect to wireless controllers and HDMI-out to connect to a TV, therefore they will eventually replace home consoles. From a glance it sounds doable, but it is very difficult to make a portable device also be a home system and do everything of both. I think people want to believe in the magic of all-in-one products, but there are some areas that run into fundamental forks in design decisions.
I did't say anything about games staying $60 forever. I'm saying that, if games have to be <$5 in order to succeed, budgets will drop to the point that it'll affect the games and completely change the industry. $30 is the lowest I believe gaming can go before the industry is forced to abandon core gamers and focus on shallow casual games.
Just for argument's sake, to play devil's advocate...that might not be a straight win for everyone.
e.g.
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/12/sony-ps-vita-review-sony-does-not-disappoint/
It's a sentiment I've seen expressed more than once in different ways. E.g. onlookers saying they preferred how Wipeout looked on Vita when side-by-side with a TV in cross play mode.
Of course, it's very much YMMV depending on your own setup etc. etc. Personally I could potentially see myself preferring Vita's setup to my home setup...until a new console gen arrives, anyway. A dedicated handheld can also do novel things with display tech that most people can't enjoy at home - I'll cite 3D here, even if 3DS's screen is otherwise not all that great.
It's because of how people frame handheld gaming. For a busy adult, I have to make special arrangement to game on a fixed console now. My family sometimes hog the TV too. If they loosen the DRM and let me take the game with me. I would be able to consume more games. I am not likely to buy the same game on Vita and PS3 though.
Remember many people still play home consoles on Lousy TV. The fine screen on handhelds may be attractive to them.
Byte size games like Brain Training should soar on cellphones.
Whether we want them to change their focus or not, it's happening. The model is already broken. You have the CoDs which rake in obscene amounts and almost everything else which is a sales failure and accelerates the closing of development houses.
You can argue this path is bad (maybe it is), but it's the path we're on. And the fact of the matter is the free-to-play model has consistently proven to be much more successful for the non-Infinity Ward/Blizzards of the world. This is where the money is and in 10 years, subscriptions and Free-to-Play will be the dominant delivery mechanism.
I'm not saying this excites me, just that it's written on the wall and this is the direction the industry is headed. And in that world, the more barriers there are (be it dedicated hardware or price tags on installation of software code), the more developers limit their profit potential.
It seems to me that people are actually missing Vita's issue, at least, depending on what your expectations are. See, part of the problem is people see Vita as directly competing with the 3DS - and it is, there's no doubt about that, but it also has narrowed itself in the way it was built, with it's price, and the technology in the system into a higher end, niche market. There is nothing wrong with being a higher end system, the problem is Sony is still stuck with the same mentality gamers had during the Genesis/SNES days, where the thing that matters is competing with the other guy, with finding your nemesis and whipping out a ruler.
The reality though is it's not that clear cut. Sony is trying to appease their userbase and the media by appearing to compete with Nintendo while targeting wholly different markets. The Vita will never catch the 3DS for the same reason the PSP was never going to beat the DS. High end sounds great, and it will be popular with the hardcore high end consumers, the specialists, the tech oriented hardcores who want the "coolest" thing out there. But it can't compete with a competitively priced mainstream system with Nintendo's moniker and without the baggage a Nintendo console often attracts.
There is another point though, even aside from the demographic challenge. Yes the PSV is a nice hardware upgrade from the PSP but what does it do so much substantially different from the PSP that it is going to attract the audience it would need to "catch" the 3DS or even significantly take a bite out of it's sales? The PSV is a "Safe" system. It's sleek, it's beautiful, it's familiar... but if that's all it is it's not really a "game changer." Powerful system merely because they are more powerful have never been decisive in a battle between system. Of course content matters, but so does having a unique "hook" that draws consumers in by in some way showing you're being innovative. The Wii was perceived that way with consumers because motion gaming hadn't really been done on that scale before. The PSV if it was to seriously compete with the 3DS would have needed some sort of hook that differentiated it from the 3DS. I mean, heck, the DS itself was a different approach to gaming than GameBoy with a wholly revamped design meant to refresh the brand. I think that "newness" contributed to the system's success.
The reality though is it's not that clear cut. Sony is trying to appease their userbase and the media by appearing to compete with Nintendo while targeting wholly different markets. The Vita will never catch the 3DS for the same reason the PSP was never going to beat the DS. High end sounds great, and it will be popular with the hardcore high end consumers, the specialists, the tech oriented hardcores who want the "coolest" thing out there. But it can't compete with a competitively priced mainstream system with Nintendo's moniker and without the baggage a Nintendo console often attracts.
There is another point though, even aside from the demographic challenge. Yes the PSV is a nice hardware upgrade from the PSP but what does it do so much substantially different from the PSP that it is going to attract the audience it would need to "catch" the 3DS or even significantly take a bite out of it's sales? The PSV is a "Safe" system. It's sleek, it's beautiful, it's familiar... but if that's all it is it's not really a "game changer." Powerful system merely because they are more powerful have never been decisive in a battle between system. Of course content matters, but so does having a unique "hook" that draws consumers in by in some way showing you're being innovative. The Wii was perceived that way with consumers because motion gaming hadn't really been done on that scale before. The PSV if it was to seriously compete with the 3DS would have needed some sort of hook that differentiated it from the 3DS. I mean, heck, the DS itself was a different approach to gaming than GameBoy with a wholly revamped design meant to refresh the brand. I think that "newness" contributed to the system's success.
You just said that you wouldn't buy a Vita because your iPad is good enough. However, you'd change your mind if it ran Android so you could surf the web, despite the fact that it already can surf the web. Huh?
"Other means?" What the hell does that even mean? Also, would you mind showing the statistic that proves that Netflix is as big as the gaming industry, and that streaming a movie is the same as streaming a game? By the way, Blu-Ray counters your own point, since you should be arguing that physical media isn't necessary, no?
Let's see, I can pay a monthly fee on top of having to upgrade to a more expensive internet package so that I'm limited to playing games that I don't own in certain places, or I can play when I want and where I want? Hm...