The Playstation Vita

[Edge-]

The pricing matter, more than any other single issue, is probably what will come to bite dedicated gaming systems in the ass. Smartphone/tablet games probably wouldn't be half as popular as they are if they cost $30 a pop. But for .$99 or even free in a lot of cases, everyone can afford to play. And $50 for a handheld game? Simply outrageous, even if it is a AAA title.

The smartphone/tablet games are so cheap because for the most part, they aren't really games. That or they have a pretty poor overall quality. I'm not saying there aren't some amazing mobile games out there (Infinity Blade comes to mind), but the overwhelming majority of them that I've played/seen are pretty piss poor.

And if I remember correctly, Game Boy games cost the same as games for NES/SNES, or almost the same. Correct me if I'm wrong here. But why should a handheld title cost less if the same amount of time and effort was spent during the development of the game? The Vita is about as powerful as a PS3 (from what I've read), so I would assume that games would require a similar investment, meaning they would need to set a similar price point to maintain profitability.

[Duruka]

The pricing matter, more than any other single issue, is probably what will come to bite dedicated gaming systems in the ass. Smartphone/tablet games probably wouldn't be half as popular as they are if they cost $30 a pop. But for .$99 or even free in a lot of cases, everyone can afford to play. And $50 for a handheld game? Simply outrageous, even if it is a AAA title.

$.99 for a game like Angry birds is fine though. It's nowhere near the quality of a Pokemon or Zelda game. $50 might be a bit much, but $40 is reasonable (and seems to be the price for most 3DS games). I'm fine with paying $50 too, if it's going to be an amazing game - in some cases, like Pokemon, I end up playing handheld games a lot more than console games.

[Rennadrel]

I'd pay 50 dollars for a PS Vita game, since the graphics are just as damn good as the PS3 at almost 50% of the game cost. I think that is one area that Sony can do well in, they are giving a very visually pleasing experience for a portable and while the Vita has draw backs in other areas, especially battery life, the graphics are really good. I was checking out Uncharted at my friend's place since he got the first edition bundle and I'd argue that the game looks almost as good on the PS Vita as it does on the PS3. So I say piss on consoles with their astronomically high game prices, it's one of the reasons why I prefer PC games since they aren't costing me 80 bucks a pop, and also why I enjoy portable console gaming. I have a 3DS and the quality of the games is there, however it's still early in it's life cycle. I think both devices have their upsides and will do well, but right now the price is hurting the Vita badly, otherwise I think it's a quality system with potential to be better. If Sony upped the battery life and reduced the cost, I'd be all over it like flies on horse poop.

[Punks]

I'd pay 50 dollars for a PS Vita game, since the graphics are just as damn good as the PS3 at almost 50% of the game cost. I think that is one area that Sony can do well in, they are giving a very visually pleasing experience for a portable and while the Vita has draw backs in other areas, especially battery life, the graphics are really good. I was checking out Uncharted at my friend's place since he got the first edition bundle and I'd argue that the game looks almost as good on the PS Vita as it does on the PS3. So I say piss on consoles with their astronomically high game prices, it's one of the reasons why I prefer PC games since they aren't costing me 80 bucks a pop, and also why I enjoy portable console gaming. I have a 3DS and the quality of the games is there, however it's still early in it's life cycle. I think both devices have their upsides and will do well, but right now the price is hurting the Vita badly, otherwise I think it's a quality system with potential to be better. If Sony upped the battery life and reduced the cost, I'd be all over it like flies on horse poop.

50% of the cost???? really? Not trolling since I would never buy a console ever, just that seems WAYY too pricey for games.

[Rennadrel]

Fine, 30% less. Console games are around 80 CAD after taxes for PS3 and 360 games, 3DS games are about 45 dollars after taxes, and PS Vita games are 56 dollars after tax in Canada.

[Punks]

Fine, 30% less. Console games are around 80 CAD after taxes for PS3 and 360 games, 3DS games are about 45 dollars after taxes, and PS Vita games are 56 dollars after tax in Canada.

Wasnt trying to be a smartass...just was like wow. That still seems really expensive.

[Talorh]

The pricing matter, more than any other single issue, is probably what will come to bite dedicated gaming systems in the ass. Smartphone/tablet games probably wouldn't be half as popular as they are if they cost $30 a pop. But for .$99 or even free in a lot of cases, everyone can afford to play. And $50 for a handheld game? Simply outrageous, even if it is a AAA title.

On the other hand, with such low starting point and ceiling, not many developers want to put the effort in. Also consider this, having a product that cost very little or even free, devalues it in customer's view, more after than not. You only have to hear opinions of f2p MMOs to get a rough idea.

But in general, the whole entertainment industry is way over priced although I think £30 should be the games' price ceiling (about $45 me thinks). I think Vita games prices are generally fair and at least the price range is a lot more flexible, although even I had doubts after looking at Uncharted price tag.

My only three complaints about Vita are:

1) No in built memory. Really baffled here, they couldn't sqeeze in a single memory module on the board? I think the real reason was to cut down on piracy but I think it's a mistake. At least most bundles at the moment come with a free 4gb or 8gb card.

2)No PSOne classics not that there are many I would play but still seems very strange.

3)No 4g, could have been really, really nice.

[insmek]

The smartphone/tablet games are so cheap because for the most part, they aren't really games. That or they have a pretty poor overall quality. I'm not saying there aren't some amazing mobile games out there (Infinity Blade comes to mind), but the overwhelming majority of them that I've played/seen are pretty piss poor.

And if I remember correctly, Game Boy games cost the same as games for NES/SNES, or almost the same. Correct me if I'm wrong here. But why should a handheld title cost less if the same amount of time and effort was spent during the development of the game? The Vita is about as powerful as a PS3 (from what I've read), so I would assume that games would require a similar investment, meaning they would need to set a similar price point to maintain profitability.

I'd say the investment cost is something that game companies are going to need to look at for the long-term. I'm no huge fan of smartphone gaming by any means, but a lot of the smaller developers out there are doing amazing things on shoestring budgets, where on consoles we're getting rehashed versions of 'The Legend of Mario: Modern Battlefield 4' because the cost to make a single game is so sky-high that nobody can afford to take any chances. I'm not a game designer, producer, or any sort of financial wizard, but there's got to be a way to bring design costs down in an effort to empower developers to make bigger moves while passing some savings along to the consumer.

I would love to be able to walk into Gamestop and take a chance on a 3DS game--just buy something brand new I've never heard of that looks cool. But for $40 I can't do that. Instead, I play it safe and really only buy what I know. That isn't nearly as much of a requirement when I'm browsing the App Store on my iPod Touch. There, I can make a half-dozen bad game choices and still come in under the price of a single 3DS game.

[Rennadrel]

Wasnt trying to be a smartass...just was like wow. That still seems really expensive.

Then stop playing video games. Either you live on welfare or your job is so horrible that you can't afford a 50 dollar game if you think that's expensive. Try living in the 80's and early 90's when games were 50 bucks a pop and the dollar value with worth far less then it is now.

---------- Post added 2012-02-20 at 08:20 PM ----------

On the other hand, with such low starting point and ceiling, not many developers want to put the effort in. Also consider this, having a product that cost very little or even free, devalues it in customer's view, more after than not. You only have to hear opinions of f2p MMOs to get a rough idea.

But in general, the whole entertainment industry is way over priced although I think £30 should be the games' price ceiling (about $45 me thinks). I think Vita games prices are generally fair and at least the price range is a lot more flexible, although even I had doubts after looking at Uncharted price tag.

My only three complaints about Vita are:

1) No in built memory. Really baffled here, they couldn't sqeeze in a single memory module on the board? I think the real reason was to cut down on piracy but I think it's a mistake. At least most bundles at the moment come with a free 4gb or 8gb card.

2)No PSOne classics not that there are many I would play but still seems very strange.

3)No 4g, could have been really, really nice.

Have you ever seen the development costs for making a top end video game? Final Fantasy budgets over 100 million in development costs, movies are also very high budget for top box office films and the price for a ticket does rise. If you seriously think developers are going to make a profit with all that goes into making a game and the fact that they have to spend money on developer kits alone just to start working on console games (which cost a lot), no company will ever make console games again and PC games will have a limited budget just so the companies can make a profit. Do you know why PC games are cheaper? It's because hardware is universal and all they have to do is deal with driver support for graphics cards, there is no worrying about properly optimizing games to run the best because they have a wide array of hardware to work with.

[Geomatician]

On the other hand, with such low starting point and ceiling, not many developers want to put the effort in. Also consider this, having a product that cost very little or even free, devalues it in customer's view, more after than not. You only have to hear opinions of f2p MMOs to get a rough idea.

But in general, the whole entertainment industry is way over priced although I think £30 should be the games' price ceiling (about $45 me thinks). I think Vita games prices are generally fair and at least the price range is a lot more flexible, although even I had doubts after looking at Uncharted price tag.

My only three complaints about Vita are:

1) No in built memory. Really baffled here, they couldn't sqeeze in a single memory module on the board? I think the real reason was to cut down on piracy but I think it's a mistake. At least most bundles at the moment come with a free 4gb or 8gb card.

2)No PSOne classics not that there are many I would play but still seems very strange.

3)No 4g, could have been really, really nice.

1) Agree, but not a "i'm not buying this because of that reason". It's just an inconvenience.

2) It's coming, just not at launch.

3) There'll be a 4g PS Vita, just up to you if you want to wait.


My complaint is the internet on it,

It's ridiculously slow, atleast on the demo Vita's I've played. Here's hoping that it was just the demo vita's that were slow...

Anyway get mine on Thursday so will see for myself then.

[Punks]

Then stop playing video games. Either you live on welfare or your job is so horrible that you can't afford a 50 dollar game if you think that's expensive. Try living in the 80's and early 90's when games were 50 bucks a pop and the dollar value with worth far less then it is now.[COLOR="red"]

[

Really...thats what you got from my post? Wow... I'm not even going to respond to you because I will be banned, just know you missed the mark by about a mile. And BTw I'm 31 with a damn good job. again you completely pissed my point. I bought plenty of games in the 90's and there were 24.99 brand new.

Again you missed the mark.

[nixcookies]

I just don't think the demand for portable gaming machines is as big as it use to be, I suspect some of their business is being stolen by smartphone and tablets.

In my opinion, the likes of Sony and Nintendo really need to become a lot more aggressive in selling their hand-held gaming devices if they want to try and recapture some of the market they've lost and hopefully try and attract completely new customers to the product.
I think price is a big point, assuming I was a little ignorant about the whole technology scene, being told I could buy a smart phone for the same price which has greater functionality and is a lot more convenient to carry around I'd pick that. Second is promotion, I think a little more could be done to show a whole range of different games the console will accommodate and not select a very small genre of games, in addition to the actual usefulness of the initiative functionality they have included in the console.

[Deleted]

I would love to be able to walk into Gamestop and take a chance on a 3DS game--just buy something brand new I've never heard of that looks cool. But for $40 I can't do that. Instead, I play it safe and really only buy what I know. That isn't nearly as much of a requirement when I'm browsing the App Store on my iPod Touch. There, I can make a half-dozen bad game choices and still come in under the price of a single 3DS game.

to each his own.

i used an iphone for 4 years almost i played fieldrunners, plants vs zombies, angry birds and bejewelled. perfect smartphone games for on the go in short bursts. But c'mon if thats the future of gaming...

ill stick to mario / pokemon and handhelds with physical controls.

---------- Post added 2012-02-21 at 02:38 AM ----------

I just don't think the demand for portable gaming machines is as big as it use to be, I suspect some of their business is being stolen by smartphone and tablets.

In my opinion, the likes of Sony and Nintendo really need to become a lot more aggressive in selling their hand-held gaming devices if they want to try and recapture some of the market they've lost and hopefully try and attract completely new customers to the product.
I think price is a big point, assuming I was a little ignorant about the whole technology scene, being told I could buy a smart phone for the same price which has greater functionality and is a lot more convenient to carry around I'd pick that. Second is promotion, I think a little more could be done to show a whole range of different games the console will accommodate and not select a very small genre of games, in addition to the actual usefulness of the initiative functionality they have included in the console.

well the DS was the most popular handheld of all time.. the 3ds is already selling more and faster than the DS did at this point in its life cycle. I dont understand how people can think that.. if anything i think smartphones have got more people into the handheld market.

[Drekker17]

well the DS was the most popular handheld of all time.. the 3ds is already selling more and faster than the DS did at this point in its life cycle. I dont understand how people can think that.. if anything i think smartphones have got more people into the handheld market.

This is exactly how I think. Technically the 3ds takes a smaller portion of the mobile gaming market, but the market is much bigger than it used to be. 3ds has officially surpassed ds's first year sales.

I think the PS Vita will do better than the PSP, however I doubt it will dethrone the 3ds.

[Rennadrel]

I just don't think the demand for portable gaming machines is as big as it use to be, I suspect some of their business is being stolen by smartphone and tablets.

In my opinion, the likes of Sony and Nintendo really need to become a lot more aggressive in selling their hand-held gaming devices if they want to try and recapture some of the market they've lost and hopefully try and attract completely new customers to the product.
I think price is a big point, assuming I was a little ignorant about the whole technology scene, being told I could buy a smart phone for the same price which has greater functionality and is a lot more convenient to carry around I'd pick that. Second is promotion, I think a little more could be done to show a whole range of different games the console will accommodate and not select a very small genre of games, in addition to the actual usefulness of the initiative functionality they have included in the console.

I am sorry, but when you can sell 150+ million units between 2004 and 2012, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that says the demand for portable gaming devices is not as strong as it used to be. If anything, the Gameboy Advance was proof that given enough time, you can sell even more consoles. The GBA sold less then it's predecessors as well as it's successor, and by a considerable margin. 20 million units less then the original Gameboy, and 70 million units less then the DS, but considering it had a shorter life span then both those gaming systems, it's pretty evident that dedicated gaming devices are in no way on their way out. And Nintendo doesn't need to be more aggressive with selling their products, the name brand alone sell it for them. Their history of quality and continual innovation sell products, something Sony is incapable of doing. The PSP was a success as a competitor to Nintendo's DS system, and was the most successful portable competitor to date. The PSP sold a surprising 80+ million units world wide by the end of 2011, so that's a combined total of 230 million or more units between the DS and PSP, that's about how many iPhone's have been sold since it's inception if you want to have an idea of rough sales numbers between a real gaming device and a phone with touch screen gaming that sucks.

[Talorh]

Have you ever seen the development costs for making a top end video game? Final Fantasy budgets over 100 million in development costs, movies are also very high budget for top box office films and the price for a ticket does rise. If you seriously think developers are going to make a profit with all that goes into making a game and the fact that they have to spend money on developer kits alone just to start working on console games (which cost a lot), no company will ever make console games again and PC games will have a limited budget just so the companies can make a profit. Do you know why PC games are cheaper? It's because hardware is universal and all they have to do is deal with driver support for graphics cards, there is no worrying about properly optimizing games to run the best because they have a wide array of hardware to work with.

Strange but I would think that from developer's point of view it would be easier to make a game for something with a static hardware rather than one with unlimited amount of variables. Same going for optimisation. If fact the reason why games that come out today (on consoles) can still look good is because a much higher degree of optimisation is possible with a static hardware.

I'm not really complaining but you can't deny that much of the premium we pay is there to simply please the pockets of the shareholders.

[Mistral]

I'll most likely wait for the first or second revision of this console. Maybe than I'll buy it. Maybe.
It will take a year or even two until they release enough games I really like anyways, as I play RPGs mostly.
And they have to release something great to make me buy this console, because I already own a 3DS and don't have the urge to buy a second console+games yet.

[Rennadrel]

Strange but I would think that from developer's point of view it would be easier to make a game for something with a static hardware rather than one with unlimited amount of variables. Same going for optimisation. If fact the reason why games that come out today (on consoles) can still look good is because a much higher degree of optimisation is possible with a static hardware.

I'm not really complaining but you can't deny that much of the premium we pay is there to simply please the pockets of the shareholders.

No, static hardware requires more time to make a game run optimally. Games on consoles are running with the lowest texture settings possible in order to achieve a smooth frame rate, there is a considerable difference in visual quality between games on a PC with a mid to high end graphics card then there is on a console. I read somewhere that Skyrim on the PS3 and 360 is running at the equivalent of low settings on a PC just to get 30 frames per second. It's like a welfare version of the game that costs more then the PC version.

[Deleted]

No, static hardware requires more time to make a game run optimally. Games on consoles are running with the lowest texture settings possible in order to achieve a smooth frame rate, there is a considerable difference in visual quality between games on a PC with a mid to high end graphics card then there is on a console. I read somewhere that Skyrim on the PS3 and 360 is running at the equivalent of low settings on a PC just to get 30 frames per second. It's like a welfare version of the game that costs more then the PC version.

it costs more because its a console game ported to pc..

[insmek]

I read somewhere that Skyrim on the PS3 and 360 is running at the equivalent of low settings on a PC just to get 30 frames per second. It's like a welfare version of the game that costs more then the PC version.

It's really neither here nor there, but that's not really accurate at all.



It's clear that the game was made with consoles in mind--likely the Xbox 360--because the PC only makes it incrementally better.

But, back to the Vita: In person, how much are you actually noticing the extra graphical horsepower? Looking at screenshots of Uncharted: Golden Abyss and comparing it to the 3DS's best title, Resident Evil Revelations, the Vita is definitely pushing some extra polygons and higher resolution textures, but on that small of a screen is it even noticeable?