Support NeoGAF

[grimshawish]

I never thought Sony would show less interest in the Vita than the world has. The difference between this and the PS3 was I felt completely ripped off a year later by what I paid for the PS3, but I don't with the Vita. I actually own more games for it than I do my 3DS (MK, Lumines, Hot Shots, Stardust and Rayman vs Mario Land and Kart, and Tetris). When I play Rayman on both handhelds, I get why the Vita should be more successful, but for whatever reason Sony can't make the world see it. Is the problem purely marketing? Or does it basically come down to Sony doesn't have anything that approaches the reach of Mario/Zelda/Pokemon?

Rayman tbf is a pretty bad port from what I've seen/played.
Games like Revelations/Kid Icarus make me excited about the future of the 3DS.

I think with Vita the problem is no one wants to develop for it.
3DS is cheaper and more popular. It also offers the chance to launch a side range of products/brands/spin offs - as oppose to the main thing.

Marketing is an issue. Their launch marketing was pretty dreadful and if what they promised had been offered then it'd be fine. Instead it showed a WW2 shooter; boxing; all sorts - none of this was on the Vita.

Plus it looks like a PSP. Such a mistake brand wise.


Funny thing is that following the WiiU stuff - the 3DS was the best bit of that conference. (Paper Mario looks day 1 to me) Nintendo are at home on the handheld market, Sony seem more at home on consoles.

 

[Father_Brain]

I think the real reason the Vita wasn't shown at E3 was because of the backlash from the shoulder cams. I suspect there will be some Vita-only event this summer.

And I don't think it needs a price cut, at least an honest one. We all freaked the fuck out when it was announced foor $250. If anything Sony should learn from this to price things higher than needed upon launch so you can bullshit a price cut. As that's the only reason people are asking for a price cut; they're trying to be frugal consumers. The actual value of the device is totally worth the asking price.

Basic economics: If a product is selling very poorly, as Vita currently is, then by definition, it isn't worth the asking price as far as the market is concerned. What you subjectively think of its value and what it "deserves" to be selling doesn't matter.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The actual value of the device is totally worth the asking price.

Nobody cares what the device costs Sony. Nobody cares how much Sony makes on each vita. The fact is the market has spoken and they've said the Vita is not worth 250 dollars. The Vita is not worth 250. It's as simple as that.

If the price of the Vita was what it was worth, it would be selling.

 

[kafiend]

And I don't think it needs a price cut, at least an honest one. We all freaked the fuck out when it was announced foor $250. If anything Sony should learn from this to price things higher than needed upon launch so you can bullshit a price cut. As that's the only reason people are asking for a price cut; they're trying to be frugal consumers. The actual value of the device is totally worth the asking price.

There may be $250 worth of parts and tech in there but unless it has a bright and rosy future, something that Sony appear to be doing their best to fuck up, it certainly holds nowhere near a $250 value.

 

[Baconsammy]

why not do a second conference for Vita like what Nintendo is doing....

I don't get this at all. E3 is 4 days long. Have as many conferences as you want. Shit, hold them in tiny conference rooms and stream the video. No one cares how big your stage is, they care about what you're showing. Just more proof that E3 isn't for us. It's for CNN and and FOX News.

 

[PrinceOfApathy]

I don't see the Vita as a platform that has been thrown to the Wolves with wasted potential, I see a platform that has no reason to exist. Sony should have canned this system, but that would invoke gamers ire, but between making gamers angry or having the company survive instead of dumping scare resources supporting a necrotic handheld...I'd always chose survival.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

i find it to be quite humorous that anyone honestly expected Sony to say yes when asked if they will cut the price of any of their products.

 

[LevelNth]

I find it hilarious that these idiotic companies haven't yet realized the purpose of the Press Conferences, because in reality they are completely worthless showpieces that will ALWAYS pale in comparison to the 3 day long show floor.

The purpose is simply HEADLINE GRABBING. That's it, that's all. Tailor your ENTIRE conference to this, reap the benefits.

Idiots.

 

[mj1108]

Another gaffer said this E3 was the premiere of Sony's new internal marketing team. It really showed.

Maybe they didn't get the memo that Vita exists?

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I think if Sony did announce a price cut they might do it during the holidays.

 

[Takuan]

i find it to be quite humorous that anyone honestly expected Sony to say yes when asked if they will cut the price of any of their products.

Let alone cut when the software library is so weak. All that's coming is B-grade spin-offs and ports of old games.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

I've posted a lot about Sony's lack of strategy in sales threads; but its obvious they never launched this thing with anything really in mind.

Its the wrong product. I just don't see how they can make money out of it.



Can't say I agree. Products have seen price drops since the beginning of time.
The issue is that you have to launch at the right price. 3DS/Vita didn't - although I think Vita is the right price for that product, its just the wrong product.

Thats what I think the main issue is, Vita is just wrong - its got too many additional features and is just that bit too powerful. It costs too much to produce and thus to buy.

We know now that £150 is pretty much the maximum for a handheld and I'd expect Nintendo to take on losses with new systems for the first year in the future.

How many consoles has seen a price drop withing the first 4 months, the problem is not the price drop itself but rather the time frame in which the price drop is taking place. Releasing a console and then dropping the price 4 months after release will affect every other console that will be released after it, Sony will drop the price eventually but not in the first year. Also we all thought the Vita was going to be above $300 but when it was revealed that the price was $249 a majority of us rejoiced, weeks later people started complaining about the same price that they rejoiced over. It's quite pathetic, many of the people complaining about the Vita price can afford it but they complain just for the heck of it.

 

[Baconsammy]

Funny thing is that following the WiiU stuff - the 3DS was the best bit of that conference. (Paper Mario looks day 1 to me) Nintendo are at home on the handheld market, Sony seem more at home on consoles.

Agreed. After seeing everything, the only one that generated real interest for me was the 3DS. Nintendo solidified I won't be buying a Wii U, and Sony and Microsoft bored me. But at the end of the year, I'm positive most of my gaming for the year will have been done on the PS3/360. The third party support is just incredibly strong and compelling.

 

[BFIB]

Why should the conference be shortened? There's only a few times a year that video games get mainstream spotlight, E3 being the biggest. With game sales down, revenue down, and a handheld that is not performing up to expectations, a 2 hour conference should be mandatory.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

1. That is a really lame excuse. The software drought is real.
2. If Sony says no, I think I'm just going to wait for some retailers to say yes.

According to Tretton the Vita will have over a 100 games out by the end of this year, i don't know where you all get this software drought thing from.

 

[fluffydelusions]

According to Tretton the Vita will have over a 100 games out by the end of this year, i don't know where you all get this software drought thing from.

That is counting all the compatible PS1 games and PSN games I think?

 

[Mondriaan]

Basic economics: If a product is selling very poorly, as Vita currently is, then by definition, it isn't worth the asking price as far as the market is concerned. What you subjectively think of its value and what it "deserves" to be selling doesn't matter.

In general, building up market share makes sense when there is a huge aftermarket (like for used parts in the case of cars or other services).

Basic economics also says that if it costs Sony k dollars per Vita to put it in the hands of a customer at a price point of $250-k and the number of games that an average customer will buy over the life of the device is x and the money made per game is y, then x*y has to be greater than k to justify that price cut.

Otherwise it makes more sense to cut prices only when the cost of making the product goes down.

 

[flyinpiranha]

GAF one year earlier on the Vita $249.99 Price:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=432772

Going back and reading that thread after reading this thread is kind of hilarious.

I had no issues with the $249.99 price at launch and I've gotten hours of gaming out of it. The only reason they need a price drop now is to compete with Nintendo. I think the price itself, for the hardware, is fine.

Price for the hardware does not matter. Nobody gives a shit if it can play 1080p HD games at $250 if Sony doesn't seem to want to support it. Is it a 'vibe'? Is it the E3 conference? Is it me visiting GAF? Maybe. But I don't feel that Sony gives a shit about this thing much like they didn't give a shit about Move. The fact they pushed Wonderbook instead of a 5 minute montage (we've come full circle when now we're begging Sony for a montage instead of something else haven't we?) of upcoming Vita games baffles me.

25 games on the show floor? What are they? Why should I go buy one? I'm not 'as' hardcore as some of the Sony fans around here but I do want a reason to buy one. I just can't when that awesome $249.99 price doesn't even get me in the door because I have to buy a memory card, now I'm looking at $300 if I don't want to have to buy another one down the road after 1 or 2 game DL.

Sure, the price was fine when the competitor was $249, but that's not the case. And that price was fine when we saw logos for TONS of games and companies, but that's not the case. And that price was fine when it was the entry point to a system, but with no internal memory that's not the case.

And is there a list of this 100 games it should have out in total in 6 months? I can't seem to find a comprehensive list. If there is a good list of upcoming games I might try and weasel a cheap deal on Craigslist from somebody trying to ditch theirs. IF it has a few games that I want.

 

[Father_Brain]

In general, building up market share makes sense when there is a huge aftermarket (like for used parts in the case of cars or other services).

Basic economics also says that if it costs Sony k dollars per Vita to put it in the hands of a customer at a price point of $250-k and the number of games that an average customer will buy over the life of the device is x and the money made per game is y, then x*y has to be greater than k to justify that price cut.

Otherwise it makes more sense to cut prices only when the cost of making the product goes down.

Note that I said nothing about a price cut, though that inference is understanable considering the thread title. With Vita's software lineup being what it is, I don't think it'd be worth $200 to the mass market, either.

 

[Duffyside]

Basic economics: If a product is selling very poorly, as Vita currently is, then by definition, it isn't worth the asking price as far as the market is concerned. What you subjectively think of its value and what it "deserves" to be selling doesn't matter.

So basic, it's wrong, in fact.

Learn your lesson, Sony. Next time you release a new piece of hardware, price it too high, in the Vita's case at $300. Then you can announce a $50 price cut a few months later and try not to chuckle at all the people who finally buy your device, smiling as they think they got one over on you.

This is also called the Nintendo-strategy.

 

[Baconsammy]

Why should the conference be shortened? There's only a few times a year that video games get mainstream spotlight, E3 being the biggest. With game sales down, revenue down, and a handheld that is not performing up to expectations, a 2 hour conference should be mandatory.

2 hours is a long time to hold a crowd's interest. I support the idea of multiple short (and focused) presentations.

So basic, it's wrong, in fact.

Learn your lesson, Sony. Next time you release a new piece of hardware, price it too high, in the Vita's case at $300. Then you can announce a $50 price cut a few months later and try not to chuckle at all the people who finally buy your device, smiling as they think they got one over on you.

This is also called the Nintendo-strategy.

But don't forget the key step of then mocking your early consumers by giving them a sarcastic tag. Like "Ambassador".

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Considering current sales (around 200K worldwide in April, probably the same or less last month) and the lack of genuine system-selling software announcements, they may not even reach a third of that by the end of next March.

I was only aware of the Japan sales numbers. Yikes.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

That is counting all the compatible PS1 games and PSN games I think?

PSN games possibly, PS1 classics i don't think so.

So basic, it's wrong, in fact.

Learn your lesson, Sony. Next time you release a new piece of hardware, price it too high, in the Vita's case at $300. Then you can announce a $50 price cut a few months later and try not to chuckle at all the people who finally buy your device, smiling as they think they got one over on you.

This is also called the Nintendo-strategy.

Exactly, people are now making it seem like it's a crime for a manufacturer to price a system right. They should have just priced it at $400 and then at E3 announce a $100 price drop, that will not only win them E3 instantly but they will be selling Vita's by the container loads to all the moaners who are crying over the current price. People are so easily manipulated.

 

[diffusionx]

Or does it basically come down to Sony doesn't have anything that approaches the reach of Mario/Zelda/Pokemon?

I think this is it and I said it was a problem from day one. There's also the whole thing about the iPhone and how people don't want another handheld. But anyone who says that gets shouted down on NeoGAF.

The Vita is an amazing piece of hardware - it's a handheld any gamer interested in handhelds has dreamed of. But it's just not something 'the market' cares about anymore. Nintendo sells to people because they have Mario and Pokemon. Sony doesn't and they are selling to an audience that doesn't want another handheld machine.

 

[fluffydelusions]

I was only aware of the Japan sales numbers. Yikes.

Isn't PSP still outselling PSV ww?

 

[Baconsammy]

I think this is it and I said it was a problem from day one. There's also the whole thing about the iPhone and how people don't want another handheld. But anyone who says that gets shouted down on NeoGAF.

The Vita is an amazing piece of hardware - it's a handheld any gamer interested in handhelds has dreamed of. But it's just not something 'the market' cares about anymore. Nintendo sells to people because they have Mario and Pokemon. Sony doesn't and they are selling to an audience that doesn't want another handheld machine.

I think it's true too. If you gave Sony the 3DS and Nintendo the Vita and didn't alter the current prices of either, would Sony then be successful and Nintendo an abject failure? I personally doubt it. Nintendo's got the I-gotta-fucking-have-those-games advantage.

 

[vaelic]

what rubbish of a tweet.

 

[jett]

jett
Mr. Negativity

Sony won't drop support. That's for sure.

More like Mr. Reality. I call it as I see it. No price cut means Sony has no confidence on the thing for the long term. They're content with not selling it at a loss.

 

[Maedhros]

More like Mr. Reality. I call it as I see it. No price cut means Sony has no confidence on the thing for the long term. They're content with not selling it at a loss.

Quite the contrary. If they dropped the price right now, then they would be showing no confidence in their strategy.

If their strategy will be good, that's another story. I think it won't.

 

[turnbuckle]

Dumb.

I expect it to have a price drop this year (outside of holiday sales) and will be very surprised if they hold firm to this decision.

 

[Father_Brain]

So basic, it's wrong, in fact.

Learn your lesson, Sony. Next time you release a new piece of hardware, price it too high, in the Vita's case at $300. Then you can announce a $50 price cut a few months later and try not to chuckle at all the people who finally buy your device, smiling as they think they got one over on you.

This is also called the Nintendo-strategy.

Admittedly, making that post in a thread about Vita price cuts opened me up to misinterpretation and I should have thought better of it.

Vita simply does not have software that appeals to the mass market, and until/unless that's resolved, a price cut won't help.

Similarly, if 3DS didn't have massively popular Nintendo franchises (and MH in Japan) to drive hardware sales last year, the price cut wouldn't have done much to help it, either.

 

[grimshawish]

I don't get this at all. E3 is 4 days long. Have as many conferences as you want. Shit, hold them in tiny conference rooms and stream the video. No one cares how big your stage is, they care about what you're showing. Just more proof that E3 isn't for us. It's for CNN and and FOX News.

See...I think the Vita thing was this. They showed nothing but glimpses for those headlines. COD? In a year they've come up with a sub-title but nothing else it seems.

If Sony had a whole section on Vita...it would be barren. Instead people are talking about the 100 games they never showed and now were being told that this was all a 'mistake' and they never really thought about it.

They did think about it. I don't believe this was a big oversight or mistake. It was damage limitation.
"We love gamers" "We love our loyal customers" "Here bloggers, free PSN to give you something to do/talk about"

It was all about blindfolding people from the fact that Sony are in a really bad place at the moment. And Vita just isn't worth their time/money.

I don't see the Vita as a platform that has been thrown to the Wolves with wasted potential, I see a platform that has no reason to exist. Sony should have canned this system, but that would invoke gamers ire, but between making gamers angry or having the company survive instead of dumping scare resources supporting a necrotic handheld...I'd always chose survival.

They shouldn't have launched this piece of hardware. I honestly don't see it succeeding.
Sometimes companies need to downsize, unfortunately Sony have the buzz word right - investment - gamers invest in a system to get...games.

Canning the system would seriously hurt any loyalty Sony still has, and its taken a LONG time to regain some of their PS2 loyals after the PS3 shenanigans. Their playing for time. Nothing else.

It's quite pathetic, many of the people complaining about the Vita price can afford it but they complain just for the heck of it.

Most people complaining own the system. Their complaining cause for games they need a userbase. Vita owners are feeling lonely and anxious about the future of their investment.

 

[JORMBO]

I loved the PSP. Even owned two of them! I was ready to get Vita and was cool with the $250 price tag. Then they tossed in expensive memory cards and there weren't really any games I wanted to play, so I decided to wait. Glad I did. Someone like me should have been an easy sale, but they blew it.

 

[Ken Masters]

What's the point of a price cut? It could be $99 and it would still sell like shit because there are no games

 

[AdventureRacing]

So basic, it's wrong, in fact.

Learn your lesson, Sony. Next time you release a new piece of hardware, price it too high, in the Vita's case at $300. Then you can announce a $50 price cut a few months later and try not to chuckle at all the people who finally buy your device, smiling as they think they got one over on you.

This is also called the Nintendo-strategy.

How is it wrong? Price is determined by demand and if people aren't willing to pay the asking price that means it isn't worth the asking price.

I don't see how your post really refutes what he was saying at all.

 

[btkadams]

isn't it obvious that there is going to be a pricecut by the holidays, since they didn't announce a price for the game/system bundles at e3?

What's the point of a price cut? It could be $99 and it would still sell like shit because there are no games

a pricecut worked for 3ds and it had just as little games.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Yoshida blamed Vita's sparse showing on Sony's attempt to cut the length of its press conference compared to previous years. So let's show a 20 minute demo of fucking wonderbook.

This is exactly what I was thinking. They had so much time to throw at Wonderbook, yet completely skimped on Vita. It tells me Vita is NOT a priority to Sony.

 

[Ken Masters]

isn't it obvious that there is going to be a pricecut by the holidays, since they didn't announce a price for the game/system bundles at e3?


a pricecut worked for 3ds and it had just as little games.

But fans knew the next (insert nintendo franchise) was coming to the 3ds, thats not the case with the Vita, and ps3 ports or games like sly and PS battle royal don't matter. Most vita owners already have a ps3, they want original experiences

 

[SmokedMeat]

I loved the PSP. Even owned two of them! I was ready to get Vita and was cool with the $250 price tag. Then they tossed in expensive memory cards and there weren't really any games I wanted to play, so I decided to wait. Glad I did. Someone like me should have been an easy sale, but they blew it.

Boy I'll say. Even with the trainwreck in Japan, I would've been willing to get one this month had they shown me some true commitment at E3. Instead they showed me they don't care. It was released and they've washed their hands of it.

No biggie Sony, I already own a 3DS. I'll just keep buying games for that platform.

 

[Tobor]

This is exactly what I was thinking. They had so much time to throw at Wonderbook, yet completely skimped on Vita. It tells me Vita is NOT a priority to Sony.

Exactly.

 

[DBT85]

What's the point of a price cut? It could be $99 and it would still sell like shit because there are no games

The 7 I own certainly appear to be games.

 

[Polk]

Would they actually say a price cut is coming if there was one coming?

YEAH GUYS WE'LL BE DROPPING THE PRICE REAL SOON, HOLD OFF ON BUYING THEM FOR NOW!

Vita isn't exactly flying of shelves right now. 2-3 weeks wouldn't hurt that much.

I don't think they can afford to cut the price can they? They'd almost lose more money even while selling a few more units.

I think the Vita is easily worth what it's at, we just need more games.

I don't think they can afford to cut the price as well, but they can add value to the system. Add voucher for 1st party game and/or give smallest memory card with system.

 

[Jadedx]

I'm not a fan of Sony, but I'm starting to feel bad for them. If they die Ms will get lazy.

 

[shira]

So Sony didn't realize at all that they were sending their handheld out to die by not showing any games? Who's responsible for this clown show?

 

[diffusionx]

a pricecut worked for 3ds and it had just as little games.

3DS wasn't just a pricecut, it was a pricecut plus the imminent release of Super Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7.

 

[Ken Masters]

The 7 I own certainly appear to be games.

That's great for you, but the 2 I own from launch and the vita I've had since launch have been collecting dust and beside gravity rush it doesn't look like that's going to change much

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

$250 is fine, if they'd throw in the 4gig memory card with every Vita. That and a five minute trailer showing the 20 or so games they have on the floor would have made a world of difference I think.

That's great for you, but the 2 I own from launch and the vita I've had since launch have been collecting dust and beside gravity rush it doesn't look like that's going to change much

Yeah, I have two games as well. Torn on the Metal Gear collection next week, will for sure grab Gravity. After that, I have no clue when/what shit is coming even.

 

[kitch9]

Those aren't gaming friends. Those are friends that happen to play games.

IE most of Sonys target audience.

 

[btkadams]

But fans knew the next (insert nintendo franchise) was coming to the 3ds, thats not the case with the Vita, and ps3 ports or games like sly and PS battle royal don't matter. Most vita owners already have a ps3, they want original experiences

i'm not trying to compare nintendo's first party franchises to sony's, but sony fans DO know that sony's franchises are coming to vita. they've already released/announced resistance, uncharted, sly cooper, wipeout, hot shots, littlebigplanet, etc. obviously sony fans don't just want ports of the ps3 games, but some of these are completely original (wipeout, resistance, uncharted, hot shots). i don't think anyone should be worried about first party support. sony continued to release games for psp despite it having tanked.

 

[kitch9]

What's the point of a price cut? It could be $99 and it would still sell like shit because there are no games

Ugh, the bullshit hyperbole over this subject is getting tedious.