metalslimer
Member
Comarketing, publishing, etc. Nintendo certainly strikes deals to get games on their system. But yeah, a lot of the 3DS games would have been there anyway. (Nintendo stole our GAMEZZZ)
Gamasutra: PlayStation Vita's biggest challenge: Convincing developers
- Thread starter Vic
- Start date
Comarketing, publishing, etc. Nintendo certainly strikes deals to get games on their system. But yeah, a lot of the 3DS games would have been there anyway. (Nintendo stole our GAMEZZZ)
I wouldn't say they took them for granted, but I think they were banking on third parties being much, much more eager to port over PS3/360 games than they actually were.I doubt that they took Western third parties for granted to the same extent, since I imagine that titles like ACIII:L and COD:BO(lol) only came about due to aggressive dealmaking on Sony's part.
So you're saying that Nintendo is flat out lying about it and your evidence is...?
To be fair I'd imagine third parties would probably be more willing to port games over if SCEA didn't have their policy of ports must contain like 33% new content or whatever it was.
thehypocrite
Member
Completely misread the market. Only the most enthusiastic of gamers see value on the Vita, mainstream consumers don't see it, I don't blame then either. How can you make a successor in an even more competitive market more expensive than its struggling predecessor? Have less features? Some heads should roll at SCE.
Canis lupus
Member
In order to that, it needs sales, in order to need sales, it needs games.
Studio Big Big had done jack shit since the original PSP. They made Little Deviants and Motorstorm Artic Edge. Both of which were ho-hum.
Zipper's writing was on the wall since the beginning of this generation. MAG was a flop, Socom 4 was too little too late, and Unit 13 was nothing to write home about.
They probably needed to be put down.
I believe it. What can you show that will prove otherwise?
Iwata: Nintendo Willing To Invest To Get Third Party Support
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=436426
First party is the new "exclusive". Third parties are more than happy to port over shovelware (see COD by Nihlistic). The first party teams will have to put in some sort of effort to make the hardware attractive. Plus those game's aren't going any where else.
If anything, Sony is guilty of not pumping more dollars into First Party.
thehypocrite
Member
metalslimer
Member
And then like a few months later he said they weren't going to buy exclusivity. They aren't mutually exclusive either. To buy exclusivity requires a lot more money than buying support.
We really need to set a paramater for buying an exclusive is because at this point that's almost a first party game.
grimshawish
Banned
Yeah like paying for the development of a dead game, or matching launch marketing spend.
No where does he say he'll pay a company to make their game exclusive.
AranhaHunter
Banned
ND should use some of that Uncharted (and soon TLOU) money and buy the Crash license from Activision, it's pretty worthless nowadays. They can then set up a smaller, 3rd team and develop a new crash for PSN (PS3 exclusive).
3rd largest holder, 8.25% (9.25 million stocks). 2nd largest holder when you see that the 1st 2 are Fukushima and his company. Sony could severely hurt SE by selling all the stocks it owns. They could also invest Y50 billion yen (same amount they are investing in Olympus) and get anywhere from 24 to 36% of SE for a total of 32 to 44% ownership, they would become the main stock holder if they did that and could most likely get most games exclusively for their system at that point. Problem is, that's a risky, risky move since SE's games are not what they once were. IMO they would overpay and could use that money somewhere else. SE would also have to agree to such a purchase or the buy would be considered hostile.
I know you didn't ask all that, but I figure I would talk about it since I was thinking what Sony could do to put pressure on Nintendo in Japan.
You just don't quit...
I'm missing the part where that says anything about paying developers for exclusivity. You're really reaching here.
Let me put it this way: Nintendo has probably went their way and "invested" to help Activision develop Black Ops 2 for the Wii U.
Father_Brain
Banned
They're basically clinging to hope of a COD/AC-driven miracle in the West, and a Soul Sacrifice/GE2-driven one in Japan. They have nothing else left that has even a slight chance of making a more-than-marginal impact on hardware sales.
Barkley's Justice
Member
Has that ever been the case?
Has a game console ever come out, not been a success, and then rebound out of seemingly nowhere?
I suppose some might say as much about the PSP. But that wouldn't be true. There was always an excitement behind PSP. And that ran pretty steady up until Monster Hunter came out in Japan and then the console exploded in popularity (and in homebrew, as well).
So I'm talking just flat-out: a console with a whimper of a debut that rebounded. I can't recall any that picked up after languishing for a period.
Yep. At this point, 3rd parties are probably looking at the Wii U when it comes to ports (excepted for EA).
thehypocrite
Member
It was bought by Nintendo, that's not a bad thing though, users like that Nintendo is willing to play ball to get enticing content for their platforms. Don't see the reason why some need to shy away from this.
leatherhat
Member
Ps3, but it never did as bad as vita.
Father_Brain
Banned
It's worse if you look at the full history of MH on PSP: while it didn't explode until MHP2 and MHP2G, the series first came to PSP less than a year after the hardware launched in Japan, as part of Capcom's initially bullish (albeit port-heavy) support for the platform. No major Japanese third party has released or announced comparable support for Vita.
A Vita turnaround, were it to happen, would have to come literally out of nowhere. As in, nine months into its lifespan, there is literally no software announced that has more than a tiny chance of moving hardware in significant enough quantities to change anyone's mind about the platform's viability. That certainly wasn't the case with PSP, PS3, or 3DS.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Nintendo moneyhatted Monster Hunter 4 and Bayonetta 2 to be exclusives.
The Vita needs to be $150 with some sort of flash memory. There is no way around it. The greatest sofware line up in the world could be on the cards, but if they honestly think that this market of $99 Nexus 7 tablets / Mini IPads / and IPods is somehow different from the Vita's, than they have officially lost the plot.
Kaz and co. are probably aching to do an official price drop. Sony in 2012 has to be smart with pricing. The cogs and landmarks are probably set into motion and we'll probably see an official price drop once profits have wiped out investment dollars. The long wait is the kiss the death.
Kaz and co. are probably aching to do an official price drop. Sony in 2012 has to be smart with pricing. The cogs and landmarks are probably set into motion and we'll probably see an official price drop once profits have wiped out investment dollars. The long wait is the kiss the death.
Noone said that they go to a dev and give them a 10 milllion dollar check.
But paying for the whole marketing, publishing them or paying the server costs to get exclusives is basically the same.
not_so_special
Banned
thats right,still dont get the people who think sony going down is good
Yeah, they still own about 10% of Square Enix, means jack all though, lol.
As for your comment regarding the reliance on first party, maybe. I mean no offense to those who worked on these games, but one has to question if the money that went to titles like Reality Fighters, Little Deviants, and Smart As would've been better spent securing third party support for the platform. They're not the kind of games that are going to sell on a $250+ handheld and yet they were made in year 1.
MightyHedgehog
Member
A lot of people on GAF are the very much the target of Vita in the early days. When many or most don't think it's doing it right, Sony should be pretty fucking worried about Vita's chances. (Not that you couldn't guess at its chances well before launch, anyway.)
eighty(one)
Member
Sony should buy Crash Bandicoot, reboot the series and have it play (CB 1/2) like it originally did ^_^
I bet the CB brand would have a huge positive cache, if word spread that Sony acquired the IP - good for both. I fear Sony is/was too naive to see that.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Hahahhaha.
If I was in charge of Sony, I would quietly begin killing Vita, moving all my internal teams to PS4 (if there any making Vita games anyways), and try like hell to convince 3rd parties that Sony will not make the same mistakes with the PS4 it made with Vita.
thehypocrite
Member
It needs more than just price.
Revision with image rebranding.
169.99 for 16GB
Software needs a hard Cap of 29.99$
Sell adapters to use Micro SD Cards.
Apps.
Not horribad Marketing.
Apps and .99 cents games.
Needs software that shows why this device should exist
Supermanisdead
Member
I don't know if they straight up paid for exclusives, but they obviously gave crazy incentives, like dev support and marketing.
Heart of Black
Member
The 3DS is a good example. It took a severe price cut and 2 Mario games to get that system back on its feet, and it's still not very sturdy.
Those are coming, at least the downloadable apps. The whole Playstation Mobile incentive program is targeting that specifically.
Many saw what is currently happening here at GAF to the Vita years before the NGP was even announced. It isn't all blind hatred what's being discussed today.
I had one psvita, sold it after two months.
If sony makes a new Syphon Filter for it, I would buy another one and love it for months
not_so_special
Banned
its good that you are not sony
thats is asking too much,4gb for saving games and cut the cost of the 16 and 32 gb cards.
99$ mini ipads? nexus 7? ipods? man where you buy that cheap? last time i checked nexus 7 was 200 euros on europe,mini ipad will cost more and a ipod equivalent of the vita is 230 euros
As others have stated, this statement absolutely blows me away. If this is representative of Sony as a whole -- and not just Yoshida's analysis -- then I have given Sony far more credit than they deserve for a very long time.
To be specific, I thought Sony understood how tenuous and fragile third party support is; that support is built on trust, faith, and belief that a game starting development today will be profitable when released on a specific system 1, 2 or even 3 years down the road.
This is a big reason why Nintendo has struggled with support; entering in to this generation, developers did not expect or believe the Wii would be such a massive hit, and even once it was, nobody expected it to continue that way because the support was going to be so thin a few years down the line (and on that second count, they were right). And so despite the Wii's enormous success, the system never got developers believing in its long term potential -- a self fulfilling prophecy which ultimately proved fatal. By contrast, look at the PS2. Despite that system's shortcomings (without even considering the PS2 read disc errors, the PS2 was, unlike the PS1's famously cheap and easy development environment, considered difficult to develop for in its time), the PS2 already had MGS2, Devil May Cry, Onimusha, FFX, and GTAIII (Which in retrospect was the most important) all planned as exclusives games in development before the PS2 even launched. These titles made the PS2 a great system even if it was difficult to develop for and wasn't quite as powerful as the Gamecube or Xbox.
I assumed Sony understood this; that this support was built on faith and good will. I thought they understood long ago how important and difficult it was to earn this trust from third parties, and that this serious understanding was a significant part of what allowed them to outflank and outcompete Nintendo so thoroughly for over a decade.
But perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps Sony thought that this support was something they magically "deserved" because they are SONY and therefore everyone will always be loyal to them forever. Instead of viewing Sony's great successes as 1) The PS1's strategic outmaneuvering of Nintendo's N64 and 2) Sony's understanding of how important it was to keep the fragile but highly profitable third party alliances made in that time period alive across generations, I may now view Sony as a company that had one really good idea with the PS1, and who have been coasting on that success ever since, simply assuming they would get support and dominance because they deserve it.
ok dokie
Well considering the PS4 is supposedly using off the shelf PC parts, Sony would have to make some seriously stupid decision for developers to not support the PS4.
Yep. Sony should just continue ignoring the Vita and its zombie status and continue to be the laughing stock of the industry. It is working well so far!
(Not saying killing Vita is right, but the damn thing is pathetic and if you can't get your own studios on it like Nintendo does with the 3DS, you look like fools.)
I think the biggest disadvantge of the Vita is that it tries to sell super advanced graphics on a handheld system. Their main selling argument - as I have seen it - was its "power", along the lines of "look at how much power our portable system has! It's got almost the power of a our PS3...". And what did they show to underline this argument? Uncharted.
I think this selling argument doesn't work. People seem not to be interested in it. Seriously, who gives a fuck if it has PS3 level visuals? At the end of the day, it's just more of the same, just lesser than what you can have on a PS3.
If at least Monster Hunter was on it, or I don't know, any other compelling, unique games you cannot have on PS3.
I don't know, I really think it's over. Quite objectivly speaking, the handheld market is not a market anymore. It's almost a Nintendo monopoly. Since the DS, they've found a fomula (ideal mix of hardware power, fresh idea, innovation, unique games and games you can only have on the system + their own almost undestrucktable IPs) that you cannot compete with them anymore, unless you offer something completely different, or outperform them in ALL of their areas. Outperforming Nintendo in only hardware power on the handheld market seems to just not be nearly enough.
Really hard situation...
I think this selling argument doesn't work. People seem not to be interested in it. Seriously, who gives a fuck if it has PS3 level visuals? At the end of the day, it's just more of the same, just lesser than what you can have on a PS3.
If at least Monster Hunter was on it, or I don't know, any other compelling, unique games you cannot have on PS3.
I don't know, I really think it's over. Quite objectivly speaking, the handheld market is not a market anymore. It's almost a Nintendo monopoly. Since the DS, they've found a fomula (ideal mix of hardware power, fresh idea, innovation, unique games and games you can only have on the system + their own almost undestrucktable IPs) that you cannot compete with them anymore, unless you offer something completely different, or outperform them in ALL of their areas. Outperforming Nintendo in only hardware power on the handheld market seems to just not be nearly enough.
Really hard situation...
mm hmmm
I think that could be pretty detrimental in Japan. In the West, developers are so ingrained with XBOX that they will probably be fine.
It's a great game, and seeing it sell 5k in its opening week in Japan is pretty gutting. I hope it does better in NA.