We don't agree that's for sure.
-Again you look on the PSTV only what you want, I don't know how anyone could call elegant a solution that isn't compatible with everything it's supposed to be.
Because it is. You expect miracles, I expected about what we got.
My PSP had a big wire contraption locking it to my tv strung across the room. It was a pain, so i never used it. The pstv is a nice little tiny box that actually looks fine and lets me use my ds4.
-If Sony really wanted to be serious about PSTV then they would have done a modified DS4 with a back touchpad or another solution, but again, since it was a last minute cheap and dirty attempt to get more sales they didn't care and so did the people.
You're talking about designing and manufacturing a whole new specialty controller for a device that may not sell just to support a few extra games, one that would include all the functionality that was specifically cut from the pstv to save cost, completely undoing the entire point. Made worse because the majority of users will just use existing controllers they already own that will support the majority of games. That's high risk with low reward. It's feature creep and project bloat. You'd be designing and manufacturing a controller for a niche of a niche. That specialty controller is the kind of thing you build -after- the pstv catches fire and is successful, not before.
Your bias is in your words -- you can't see past thinking that this was some "last minute cheap and dirty attempt to get more sales".
Try thinking of it more from the perspective of whichever person came up with the idea, presenting it to a meeting: "Hey, I came up with a cheap and easy way to produce a device that will be capable of PSNow, remote play, and vita games! With one easy to develop machine, we can potentially extend the userbase of all three of our major projects (psnow, ps4, vita). If it's successful we can even position it to compete with the Fire and Apple TV. Oh, and we can sell it at a profit for under $100." The crowd cheers! Great idea!
And then the guy goes: "Oh, and even though the DS3/DS4 will support 90% of Vita games, we should also create a specialty controller that some users might buy even though they already have DS3/4s they can use for free so we can make sure all Vita games work. It's be even more complicated than the ds4!" And the crowd goes silent.
It's not that it isn't a good idea... it is, in a fantasy device sort of way. But it would be a terrible business decision. Making that controller would be a clear cut case of mismanagement and terrible prioritization, not the other way around. I know that you want a perfect device that can play every single Vita game, but that was never, ever going to be on the table. It isn't nearly as big of an issue as some make it out to be - the device wasn't planned to be a pure Vita replacement. In fact, one could even argue that it's good if it can't play some important Vita games like Uncharted, since that helps keep the Vita itself relevant.
-Do you really think that a Vita + hdmi(or another tv out) would have been more expensive than Vita + the propretary mystery port? You can surely find someone that makes an hdmi for cheap(or Sony could have made it themselves), for that mystery port Sony invested money and time for r&d, and spent money to realize a non-standard piece that no one else could do, with all the additional cost involved that it implied(and that in the end wasn't even used), all money and time that could have been spent in other things.
We have no idea what that port is for, so it's a meaningless debate. It might have been considered important or vital at the time. Obviously they thought it was worth investing money into and including. Maybe it would only have made sense to implement if the Vita had sold to expectations.
That in itself isn't bad management or bad decision making. Sony knows far more than we do about the demand for something like an HDMI out. I'm sure they do market research and such while designing their gadgets. They didn't view it as critical to the Vita, or determined the cost outweighed the advantages. They could be right or wrong, but I don't attribute that to 'bad management'... it's just how it goes, sometimes, we don't always get what we want.
We, as fans, have very different views than people working at Sony. We want everything, cheap. That's impossible. Things we want will be cut. I'm shocked that after leaving 2 analogs off the psp (how did that happen?) they left 4 triggers off the vita. But i know exactly how it happened -- it was over budget and features needed to be cut, and someone pointed out the front/back touch could be used instead of the extra triggers, and accounting probably said 'stick to budget, cut them'. And it sucks. But i get it.
-You can call conjecture, backseat driving or whatever you like, but it would have been really easy to for a Vita + hdmi to sell as much or even more than actual Vita + PSTV
Conjecture is conjecture. You're neglecting the massive benefit of being able to have a Vita/PSNow/Remote play device on the market for under $100. That trumps your idea in every way from a business standpoint.
Listen, I'm not saying I don't want a Vita with HDMI that can sync with a DS4. I do. I also want my vita to have a bigger screen and 4 triggers. But I can also understand why we got what we got, and don't attribute it to 'deception' and 'mismanagement'.
