Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

Selling at a loss does not mean the price is acceptable by general customers. A Porsche sports car with all latest technologies and polish does cost a lot. If they sell it to us at US$100000, they are selling at a loss. But if general customers cannot see its value (i.e. will not/unable to spend $100000 for a car), they still will not buy it.

That's because the product is bad, not because of the price. For the product, the price is great.

I don't agree with this. As a consumer. I don't care how much money (or not) Sony are making on the hardware. When I look at the base price and see that it's nearly £100 more then a 3DS and more expensive then a brand new PS3 bundle complete with a game then yeah, it's 100% a pricing issue.

Your problem, then, is with the product, not the pricing. Since this seems to be confusing people, I will use an extreme example to clarify further. If I make a Car that costs 10 Billion dollars to make, and then sell that Car for 1 Million dollars -- and nobody buys it -- is the problem the price, or is the problem the car?

The problem is the car. The price (a 9 Billion, 999 Million dollar loss per unit) is not the issue.

 

[FoneBone]

Is it the price? I don't think that's reasonable: we know the system is already being sold at a loss, and it seems unreasonable to ask that suggest that any system be sold at an even greater loss before we agree that the price is acceptable.

That's absurd (I'm tempted to use stronger language, but I'll restrain myself) to put it mildly. Your average consumer has no reason to care whether or not Sony is making a profit (hell, they probably don't even know). What Sony is able to charge has no direct relation to the threshhold at which people deem it too expensive, whatever that may be.

(I've also said time and again that I don't think hardware pricing and software lineup are as separable as they're made out to be. Games are arguably the single greatest determinant of "value" to buyers.)

 

[herod]

Because the system is already being sold at a loss? Let's say the system costs 300 dollars to manufacture and distribute, just for simplicity's sake. I would argue that any rational person would agree that 300 dollars is a reasonable price for that product; the manufacturer is making zero dollars on it! Very few manufacturers in any industry would sell a system for net 0 value.

But instead, the Vita is being sold for 250 dollars, which means Sony is losing money on every system sold. If that's not a good price, then what is? If a price isn't "good" until the manufacturer is losing 100-120 dollars per unit, then we have an extremely warped sense of what good pricing is.

This is very much like the PS3, were many people claimed the price of the PS3 at launch was the problem, when it clear wasn't. The system was sold at such a great price -- and Sony lost so much money selling it at that price -- that it very nearly broke Sony in the process, and Sony is not a small company. The price of the PS3 was not the problem, the problem was that the system cost too much to manufacture.

I think it's more like what people are willing to spend on a theoretical companion portable console, instead of this specific hardware. This ties in with my opinion that there really is not much of a market for premium portable gaming. Be it concerns over software support, being nervous over carrying something that valuable around, or just not wanting to spend that much money on a piece of 'complementary' hardware (with one eye on the cost of games like Uncharted).

 

[clemenx]

Okay, let's look at this from a different angle.

Is it the price? I don't think that's reasonable: we know the system is already being sold at a loss, and it seems unreasonable to ask that suggest that any system be sold at an even greater loss before we agree that the price is acceptable.

Are we talking about Neogaf or the general public? Because the vast majority of people doesn't know or care if the system is sold at a loss, they just care about their pocket as consumers they are. I do think the price will be the biggest problem even if it's unfair given the Vita's hardware.

 

[Mpl90]

Slime Mori 3 isnt a total bomba at all - the snd game didnt sell much more on the DS and i dont thing that SE expected +100K sales from it. I`ll agree with DoA Dimensions though.

Err...you don't remember well how the two prequels did...


[GBA] Dragon Quest: Slime Morimori (Square Enix) - 67.797 / 346.190 / 19,58% 14/11/03
[NDS] Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (Square Enix) - 43.995 / 293.970 / 14,97% 01/12/05

 

[Opiate]

That's absurd (I'm tempted to use stronger language, but I'll restrain myself) to put it mildly. Your average consumer has no reason to care whether or not Sony is making a profit (hell, they probably don't even know). What Sony is able to charge has no direct relation to the threshhold at which people deem it too expensive, whatever that may be.

Then the problem is the product, not the price. Sony should reduce costs by lowering technical specifications or find some way to make 250 dollars a more palatable price for the system, because the price cannot reasonably be lowered. I don't think you're in tune with reality here.

Again, this is like saying the price of the PS3 was bad when it launched, which is obviously silly. The price was so good that it nearly bankrupted Sony in the process. The problem was the PS3 hardware and its associated manufacturing costs.

 

[trw]

Because the system is already being sold at a loss? Let's say the system costs 300 dollars to manufacture and distribute, just for simplicity's sake. I would argue that any rational person would agree that 300 dollars is a reasonable price for that product; the manufacturer is making zero dollars on it! Very few manufacturers in any industry would sell a system for net 0 value.

But instead, the Vita is being sold for 250 dollars, which means Sony is losing money on every system sold. If that's not a good price, then what is? If a price isn't "good" until the manufacturer is losing 100-120 dollars per unit, then we have an extremely warped sense of what good pricing is.

This is very much like the PS3, were many people claimed the price of the PS3 at launch was the problem, when it clear wasn't. The system was sold at such a great price -- and Sony lost so much money selling it at that price -- that it very nearly broke Sony in the process, and Sony is not a small company. The price of the PS3 was not the problem, the problem was that the system cost too much to manufacture.

You can think that it's a good price for the system and still think that the price is the problem. Sure it's all semantics and I get what you mean but I think there's just not a big market for a 250$ handheld, even less so now than when psp launched due to the bad economy and smartphone gaming. I think the problem is that Sony has concentrated their efforts on a market that is smaller than they thought, although I do think they might be moderately successful in a few years when there's software and they can afford to drop the price.

 

[duckroll]

Are we talking about Neogaf or the general public? Because the vast majority of people doesn't know or care if the system is sold at a loss, they just care about their pocket as consumers they are. I do think the price will be the biggest problem even if it's unfair given the Vita's hardware.

You're missing his point. He's not saying that consumers will care that it is being sold at a loss. He is saying that the product based on how much it costs to make cannot be much cheaper at all. Hence pricing is not a variable which can be altered much. This is not an overpriced product that can be reduced in price to become more successful.

Instead of the problem is that the system was over-engineered to begin with, and there is no market for the price such a product commands. The product itself is not too expensive for what it is, but no one seems to what "what it is" anyway. Hence the problem is with the design that resulted in the pricing. Not the pricing itself.

 

[FoneBone]

This is very much like the PS3, were many people claimed the price of the PS3 at launch was the problem, when it clear wasn't. The system was sold at such a great price -- and Sony lost so much money selling it at that price -- that it very nearly broke Sony in the process, and Sony is not a small company. The price of the PS3 was not the problem, the problem was that the system cost too much to manufacture.

That's not a meaningful distinction the way you're phrasing it. A product can be overpriced in terms of what consumers are willing to pay without being overpriced relative to its manufactoring costs.

 

[electroplankton]

Err...you don't remember well how the two prequels did...


[GBA] Dragon Quest: Slime Morimori (Square Enix) - 67.797 / 346.190 / 19,58% 14/11/03
[NDS] Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (Square Enix) - 43.995 / 293.970 / 14,97% 01/12/05

This.
Surely a big decline for the brand (even though DQ will continue to do well with all the other games).

 

[Father_Brain]

Again, this is like saying the price of the PS3 was bad when it launched, which is obviously silly. The price was so good that it nearly bankrupted Sony in the process. The problem was the PS3 hardware.

It wasn't good as far as consumers were concerned, which was the problem. I don't think you're arguing otherwise, though...

 

[BorkBork]

This.
Surely a big decline for the brand (even though DQ will continue to do well with all the other games).

Maybe it will teach them not to be so lazy with an obvious DS port.

 

[cyberheater]

The problem is the car. The price (a 9 Billion, 999 Million dollar loss) is not the issue.

I understand what you're trying to say but the problem is still price. As a consumer, I look at a item and decide does it have the feature set that I want at a price I'm willing to pay. Yes, Vita has the feature set I want. No, it's too damn expensive. So I will wait for the inevitable price drop.

And I'm an early adopter. I've bought Xbox, PS2, 360, PS3, PSP, iPad etc... at launch, day one. Often importing, so in theory, I'm the sort of customer that Sony are interested it. But Vita is just too expensive.

 

[duckroll]

That's not a meaningful distinction the way you're phrasing it. A product can be overpriced in terms of what consumers are willing to pay without being overpriced relative to its manufactoring costs.

It's meaningful if we want to actually debate about what the Vita did wrongly. If the product is actually overpriced, like the 3DS was, the price becomes a factor which can be significantly altered on its own. If not, then it cannot, and we have to look at what other factors went "wrong". Like for example, the actual design of the product and the features included. Is it too much? If that resulted in the price being so high, and those extra features that increased the cost of production are not meaningful to the target audience of the product, then that might be the problem.

 

[herod]

I guess they could look at dropping the OLED perhaps?

 

[MeBecomingI]

Let's try and back up that hope with some reality. In the next 6 months, what games do you think could give the Vita a boost? Are there enough of such titles for a sustained boost? What announcements could we expect which would help lift it from an early watery grave?

I want the Vita to succeed, but I think it is fairly clear that there just isn't the software that can drive adoption right now, at least in Japan. Regardless of if they announce a big name title, it (likely) won't be out in that 6 month period anyway. There will be that typical weekly bump for a new game, especially in the life of an early platform, but nothing that can really hold it. I can still hold out "hope" to see the Vita just kind of rise out of the basin and start getting some life and sometimes just having a bit of hope can just make seeing the numbers a bit easier. Yes, it is early... very early, but the numbers at this point are not healthy and I don't see much that can help it enough to give a significant boost. I think it will need a price cut and a few large, popular role-playing and social games including some efficient bundling to bring some health to the platform. The Vita has a lot of good games, but the line-up just isn't there that can sustain the platform. I "hope" that changes soon and the next few months bring some good news for the Vita in terms of sustainable, market friendly games.

It is going to have a tough few months until the software can grow and the price can lower, that much is clear.

North America has the benefit of a stronger launch line-up, but even then I don't expect Uncharted and Wipeout to be able to drive a significant and sustained launch. Likewise with Europe, but I think that market might be a bit more healthy for the Vita than the other two.

 

[FoneBone]

It wasn't good as far as consumers were concerned, which was the problem. I don't think you're arguing otherwise, though...

Yeah, I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with Opiate, but I think the semantics he's relying on are silly.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

Sony should make some kind of change to the Vita hardware to cut down manufacturing costs, that way the Vita can have a proper price-cut and a proper retail price tag to match.

 

[Opiate]

That's not a meaningful distinction the way you're phrasing it. A product can be overpriced in terms of what consumers are willing to pay without being overpriced relative to its manufactoring costs.

Once again, then the problem is the product, not the price. People are willing to pay 250 dollars for things; people buy phones for that price all the time, people pay more for PCs, people buy cars for tens of thousands of dollars. If 250 dollars is too much for this system, then the problem is that the product is not attractive enough, because the price cannot reasonably be lowered.

Okay, let me phrase this a different way. Some products which cost 200 dollars to make can be sold for 600 dollars; Apple's iPad is an obvious example. The Vita is something like a 300 dollar product being sold for 250 dollars. If it can't sell at that already reduced price, then the product is not well made.

 

[cw_sasuke]

This.
Surely a big decline for the brand (even though DQ will continue to do well with all the other games).

It looks like a DS game, some would say even worse than the DS title and SE probably made enough profit with the sales till now already...i dont see how this would be a total bomba.

The last title is six years old, the market has changed - with publishers who are releasing more and more of their iconic titles also on other plattforms like smartphones, it`ll get harder to ask full price on such spin-off titles . Not that DQ is about the looks, but i can`t see why SE would have expected much more on 3DS. Especially with IE,MH, and those two Mario titles being released in the same period.

 

[kswiston]

I am pretty sure Opiate is saying that, tech-wise, what you get with the Vita for $250 is a good deal, because it is costing the manufacturer $300 to make that tech. However, people don't want to spend that much on a dedicated gaming handheld, regardless of the tech they get. There isn't a market for high performance gaming handhelds. At least not one large enough to warrant software development by third parties.

Basically, you could build a $1000 wonder handheld that outperforms HD consoles, sell it $300, and people still wouldn't want it. Tech doesn't matter to the majority of the handheld consumer base.

Unfortunately, having your handheld sell for a loss, even after pricing it outside of mass market pricing (which seems to be $150-200 based on DS/DSi/PSP/3DS), doesn't give you much maneuvering room for an immediate price drop. I doubt shareholders are going to approve of Sony taking a $100+ hit per unit sold on the Vita.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Pac-man? Is that you? You don't look so good buddy.

Spoiler

OMG ZOMBIE PAC-MAN

 

[electroplankton]

Maybe it will teach them not to be so lazy with an obvious DS port.

Wasn't the DS one an obvious GBA port?
I think Rocket Slime has always relied on other elements than graphic, btw. The 3DS one had good legs but it started pretty low, maybe launchin the same day of 3D Land wasn't a good idea.

 

[mclem]

If we can agree that PSVita sales so far are poor -- and I'm assuming we can agree on that -- then there has to be a reason for that. Why is it selling poorly?

Is it the price? I don't think that's reasonable: we know the system is already being sold at a loss, and it seems unreasonable to ask that suggest that any system be sold at an even greater loss before we agree that the price is acceptable.

So is it the hardware? Sony could have reduced hardware capabilities (and in doing so, reduced the price range). This works for Nintendo. However, there are two problems; the increased hardware power is one of Vita's unique capabilities to distinguish it from the 3DS, and most of Sony's major titles are "cinematic" or highly realistic in style (Uncharted, Gran Turismo, God of War), which are the types of games which benefit particularly from raw technical power. Lastly, even if those other hurdles were gone, I think most of GAF does not like this solution.

Is it the network functionality? From what I've seen, it has the best network functionality of a portable system ever. But even if it didn't, this doesn't matter a great deal in Japan.

So what do you blame? Because the most logical culprit, to me, are the games. If you've got another explanation, though, please elaborate.

I think you've encapsulated the heart of what *I* think Vita's problem is with the three bolded points, working in unison : It's expensive, but they couldn't bring themselves to make the sacrifices to manufacture it cheaper, and the game library available is not convincing enough to make a sale at the requested price.

The problem is: for the mass market, hardware is irrelevant. You're not buying a collection of chips and wires, you're buying, effectively, a device which entitles you to play Vita games. It's not "The Vita is too expensive", it's "The entry cost to play Vita games is too expensive" - which suggests that the mass market is not regarding the value of "the right to play Vita games" as high as Sony would have liked.

The hardware is what *defines* the pricetag, but the games are what *defines* how customers value it. And the hardware defined it too high while the games defined percieved value too low.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

If it can't sell at that already reduced price, then the product is not well made.

Phrasing issue. "The product is not attractive enough to it's target market."

Maybe?

 

[Opiate]

Okay, here's how these terms are measured.

Price: a function of manufacturing and distribution costs. High prices are those which are multiple times associated costs (iPad is sold at 3x cost, for example), low prices are those near net 0 value, very low prices are those below cost.

Product quality: a function of how many people are willing to buy at a given price. For example, if people were willing to buy many bananas at 3 dollars per bananas, those are likely to be very high quality bananas, because bananas only cost 25 cents or so to grow and distribute. If, instead, people will only buy these bananas when they cost 1 penny, then those must be terrible bananas (rotten, etc), because people are only willing to pay a tiny fraction of what it actually cost to grow the banana in the first place.

 

[BorkBork]

It's a scary thought for Sony if they have fundamentally misjudged the market demand for a product like the Vita. That's not really a fixable situation.

 

[Road]

Which ones weren't?

When I tried DS family it just stayed there waiting and waiting without any response.

Maybe I didn't wait long enough?

 

[FoneBone]

I think you've encapsulated the heart of what *I* think Vita's problem is with the three bolded points, working in unison : It's expensive, but they couldn't bring themselves to make the sacrifices to make it cheaper, and the game library available is not convincing enough to make a sale at the requested price.

The problem is: for the mass market, hardware is irrelevant. You're not buying a collection of chips and wires, you're buying, effectively, a device which entitles you to play Vita games. It's not "The Vita is too expensive", it's "The entry cost to play Vita games is too expensive" - which suggests that the mass market is not regarding the value of "the right to play Vita games" as high as Sony would have liked.

The hardware is what *defines* the pricetag, but the games are what *defines* how customers value it. And the hardware defined it too high while the games defined percieved value too low.

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Ah, I think I see what you're driving at, Opiate (hopefully!)

My position is that - outside of a dedicated core - there just isn't a sizeable market for a dedicated handheld console at the ~$250 level. If Sony have built a system that they can't sell for less than that then they've built the wrong system for the wider market and they'll have to be content with a niche.

 

[duckroll]

It's a scary thought for Sony if they have fundamentally misjudged the market demand for a product like the Vita. That's not really a fixable situation.

You can replace "Vita" with "PS3" and it would be similar. They found a way to fix that though.

 

[herod]

What I don't really understand is why the bulk of the launch software wasn't co-operative multiplayer titles. This was clearly PSPs niche.

 

[User Tron]

IMHO Opiate confuses price with value. Vita may be priced right for its value but still priced wrong for the market.

 

[matmanx1]

I'm wondering if people who are complaining about the price of the Vita have actually used the Vita. You know, actually put it into their hands and played with it. I'm not saying $250 is an impulse price range for the average person but it is a great price considering the hardware in question. And from my own very anecdotal findings of folks who went to the Mall events around my area and have had a chance to use it there hasn't been a single thing said about "it's too expensive".

I've heard "I don't do handhelds but this device is damned impressive" and "there's not any games I really want to play on it right now" and variations of that but not a single complaint about the price.

And just going from past results (which I understand in no way predict future returns) the PS3 started returning some good sales numbers while still "expensive" when some well known games started dropping. I would point to the release of Metal Gear Solid 4 as evidence of this.

In short, the Vita's sales problem is almost completely explained by it's games selection. As the library grows and if Sony can secure some sure fire hits for the system then the Vita will sell.

 

[Sammy Samusu]

Okay, here's how these terms are measured.

Price: a function of manufacturing and distribution costs. High prices are those which are multiple times associated costs (iPad is sold at 3x cost, for example), low prices are those near net 0 value, very low prices are those below cost.

Product quality: a function of how many people are willing to buy at a given price. For example, if people were willing to buy many bananas at 3 dollars per bananas, those are likely to be very high quality bananas.

You can't be serious, so I will just go ahead and say that you look like a vampire.

In case you are serious, then we can say the market isn't hungry enough.

 

[Sleepy Buddha]

I understand what you're trying to say but the problem is still price. As a consumer, I look at a item and decide does it have the feature set that I want at a price I'm willing to pay. Yes, Vita has the feature set I want. No, it's too damn expensive. So I will wait for the inevitable price drop.

And I'm an early adopter. I've bought Xbox, PS2, 360, PS3, PSP, iPad etc... at launch, day one. Often importing, so in theory, I'm the sort of customer that Sony are interested it. But Vita is just too expensive.

I don't get it. You say you're an early adopter and bought the PSP at launch which was the same price as the Vita is now, and the Vita is too expensive?

Unless your priorities have changed (which is perfectly understandable), your line of thought is not coherent.

I'm going to pay for a Vita at launch plus a 16GB mem card exactly the same as I paid for a PSP plus a 1GB mem stick. I do not see how the Vita is expensive compared to other consoles or even other products such as tablets (real price, not subsidized).

 

[duckroll]

What I don't really understand is why the bulk of the launch software wasn't co-operative multiplayer titles. This was clearly PSPs niche.

Because the majority of people who are good at making those titles and are smart with regards of reading the market, are either still making those games for the PSP, or starting to consider the 3DS as a successor with a similar tech-tier. Not many are going to support the Vita just because it is the successor to the PSP. There are too many other factors involved to assume they would want to.

 

[AniHawk]

You can't be serious, so I will just go ahead and say that you look like a vampire.

i found a strong resemblance to rider strong, myself.

 

[cyberheater]

The hardware is what *defines* the pricetag, but the games are what *defines* how customers value it. And the hardware defined it too high while the games defined percieved value too low.

Which may be right but if the barrier to entry is too high in the first place then looking at the secondary issue of games value doesn't even come into it.

I'm genuinely starting to think that Sony has a bomb on their hands.

 

[herod]

Because the majority of people who are good at making those titles and are smart with regards of reading the market, are either still making those games for the PSP, or starting to consider the 3DS as a successor with a similar tech-tier. Not many are going to support the Vita just because it is the successor to the PSP. There are too many other factors involved to assume they would want to.

Sure, but Sony should have read into it at least. They have capable developers in this area.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

Vita doesn't breath anymore.

 

[Opiate]

This is economics 101, guys.

The mark of a well made product is one where this happens: You take items worth (as an example) 10 dollars, reconfigure them in some way, and then sell it for 20 dollars. Whatever you did to those items is worth something to people.

But let's imagine, instead, that I take 300 dollars worth of parts (capacitors, a circuit board, transistors, etc.) and then reconfigure those basic parts in a way that nobody will buy them even for 250 dollars. That's bad, right?

Okay, I think that explanation makes sense. Do people see what I'm saying now? If you can take a bunch of electronic parts that are worth 300 dollars, and then you put them together in such a way that no one will buy them even for 250 dollars, then the configuration you've put together is probably not a good one. You literally would have been better off selling those capacitors and boards wholesale then putting your "product" together.

And just to be clear, this is not a Vita (or Sony) specific issue. Nintendo experienced the same problem with the 3DS, which is also being sold at a loss by their own admission.

 

[duckroll]

Sure, but Sony should have read into it at least. They have capable developers in this area.

They do?

 

[jman2050]

Because the majority of people who are good at making those titles and are smart with regards of reading the market, are either still making those games for the PSP, or starting to consider the 3DS as a successor with a similar tech-tier. Not many are going to support the Vita just because it is the successor to the PSP. There are too many other factors involved to assume they would want to.

The worst thing that can happen is if third parties see the 3DS as the PSP's actual succesor, assuming that hasn't happened already. Sony CAN'T fix the lineup on their own barring something unexpected coming up.

 

[cyberheater]

I don't get it. You say you're an early adopter and bought the PSP at launch which was the same price as the Vita is now, and the Vita is too expensive?

Unless your priorities have changed (which is perfectly understandable), your line of thought is not coherent.

I'm going to pay for a Vita at launch plus a 16GB mem card exactly the same as I paid for a PSP plus a 1GB mem stick. I do not see how the Vita is expensive compared to other consoles or even other products such as tablets (real price, not subsidized).

PSP was £179 in the UK when launched. Vita will be £229. That's quite a difference. And yes. My priorities have changed and I'm much more aware of being ripped off.

 

[Mariah Carey]

Then the problem is the product, not the price. Sony should reduce costs by lowering technical specifications or find some way to make 250 dollars a more palatable price for the system, because the price cannot reasonably be lowered. I don't think you're in tune with reality here.

Again, this is like saying the price of the PS3 was bad when it launched, which is obviously silly. The price was so good that it nearly bankrupted Sony in the process. The problem was the PS3 hardware and its associated manufacturing costs.

This is semantics. We all agree that the problem is that not enough people are willing to spend $250 on a Vita. It's pretty clear that saying "the price is the problem" is simply shorthand for that.

 

[herod]

This is economics 101, guys.

The mark of a well made product is one where this happens: You take items worth (as an example) 10 dollars, reconfigure them in some way, and then sell it for 20 dollars. Whatever you did to those items is worth something to people.

But let's imagine, instead, that I take 300 dollars worth of parts (capacitors, a circuit board, transistors, etc.) and then reconfigure those basic parts in a way that nobody will buy them even for 250 dollars.

There, I think that explanation makes sense. Do people see what I'm saying now? If you can take a bunch of electronic parts that are worth 300 dollars, and then you put them together in such a way that no one will buy them even for 250 dollars, then the configuration you've put together is probably not a good one.

I agree completely and I think the big contributing problem in perception is opportunity cost; Vita looks like a good proposition in isolation, but there are a lot more devices vying for free time these days, which may be a higher priority or have better value propositions for people.

 

[Mpl90]

Wasn't the DS one an obvious GBA port?
I think Rocket Slime has always relied on other elements than graphic, btw. The 3DS one had good legs but it started pretty low, maybe launchin the same day of 3D Land wasn't a good idea.

As a matter of fact, what's effecting the Rocket Slime 3 performance is not the launch. The 2 and the 3 started similarly (for Famitsu, the 3DS one started even some thousands better XD ), but the following weeks. Look at what DQRS2 has been capable of in the Holiday

Famitsu datas

Released in Week 49
Week 50: [NDS] Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (Square Enix) - 31.979 / 75.974
Week 51: [NDS] Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (Square Enix) - 31.509 / 107.483
Week 52: [NDS] Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (Square Enix) - 68.735 / 176.218

And then, two weeks at around 30k

The third game completely lacked of this HUGE boost, probably due to the other important releases ( MH3G, IEGo, Gundam ), but at least probably has continued selling just outside top 50, as its appearance last week demonstrated. Certainly it didn't do as much as the prequel, but probably SE has gained something from it, since it's a DS game XD

 

[Kenka]

Okay, let's look at this from a different angle.

If we can agree that PSVita sales so far are poor -- and I'm assuming we can agree on that -- then there has to be a reason for that. Why is it selling poorly?

Is it the price? I don't think that's reasonable: we know the system is already being sold at a loss, and it seems unreasonable to ask that suggest that any system be sold at an even greater loss before we agree that the price is acceptable.

So is it the hardware? Sony could have reduced hardware capabilities (and in doing so, reduced the price range). This works for Nintendo. However, there are two problems; the increased hardware power is one of Vita's unique capabilities to distinguish it from the 3DS, and most of Sony's major titles are "cinematic" or highly realistic in style (Uncharted, Gran Turismo, God of War), which are the types of games which benefit particularly from raw technical power. Lastly, even if those other hurdles were gone, I think most of GAF does not like this solution.

Is it the network functionality? From what I've seen, it has the best network functionality of a portable system ever. But even if it didn't, this doesn't matter a great deal in Japan.

So what do you blame? Because the most logical culprit, to me, are the games. If you've got another explanation, though, please elaborate.

With what is said in bold, vou are basically pointing at an inadequation between what the market wants and what Sony offers.

I think you are right. Sony didn't have the consumer in mind when they designed the Vita. It almost looks like they threw a competitor whose sole purpose is to sit on shelves next to the 3DS with "Sony" written on it.

It's a scary thought for Sony if they have fundamentally misjudged the market demand for a product like the Vita. That's not really a fixable situation.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE BURNTPORK. I should have read your comment before posting, we are saying the same.

 

[mclem]

Which may be right but if the barrier to entry is too high in the first place then looking at the secondary issue of games value doesn't even come into it.

I'm genuinely starting to think that Sony has a bomb on their hands.

It's important not to get *too* far ahead of ourselves; it's early days. There's two more major regions still to come, and one breakthrough game can change the whole perception of the marketplace. the PSP was struggling, then Monster Hunter appeared and changed *everything*.

..but that said, this does strike me as matching up with the first signs of a 'bomb' trajectory.



As three questions, as asides:

How is the Vita comparing with the 3DS's original launch (at full price) week-on-week?

Could this just be the nature of which week this is? New year's week does have a big boost in sales, is there traditionally a bit of a dropoff (post-Christmas austerity?) after that for a few weeks before things level out?

How was the PSP doing prior to Monster Hunter becoming a massive breakout hit? I recall it tanking massively, but that could well be my memory playing up.