Should Sony drop out of handheld market and go 3rd party?

[Ashley]

I'll answer your question with another question:

 

Is Sony really in the handheld market?

 

 

And I mean that in a positive way. To me it feels like that they're not trying to dominate the handheld market, but rather it's something they're noodling around in. Kind of like how the DS was meant to be a "third pillar" to the Cube and GBA; it's just something else the company is doing that sits alongside their pre-existing product(s) but isn't their major focus.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Ashley

[S.C.G]

There's plenty of room for both portable consoles in the market - 3DS & Vita - but my 3DS gets used more to play games on it hands-down :p while I use my Vita more for its extra functionality - it has a usable camera on it that's good for taking quick pics of games - and every so often, when I actually feel like playing a game on it, my Vita will actually get played but currently that's a very rare occurrence.

 

I have a good few games that I could play on it as well but... it just doesn't happen because the 3DS quite simply is my main portable gaming system of choice. : peace:

[Jimbob]

Sony shouldn't give up the handheld, that is a similar debate as "Should Nintendo give up home consoles?". My answer is simple, no. The PS Vita is a great piece of kit (and one i plan on purchasing next year). Plus it is good competition for Nintendo's 3DS (well, i say that loosely).

 

But looking at both types of groups with Nintendo and Sony, Nintendo are established in the handheld market, whilst Sony are relative newcomers to the market. And then look at the types of players. Maybe it's the type of player that is responsible for the slow sales of Vita, Sony gamers tend to stick to the console over the Nintendo gamer who stick more to hand-held gaming. That's based on what i've seen.

[Blade]

For me I would love to have both protables and all the home consoles.

 

Unfortunately I just dont have the time and money to do that so I just generally stick with whatever Nintendo produce.

[flameboy]

No definitely not their handheld consoles have been premium quality experiences and whilst it could be argued there is a lack of developer support there have still been enough absolute gems between PSP and Vita to warrant them staying in. Plus I think a handheld machine is a huge part of their Gaikai streaming vision.

[Debug Mode]

I'm actually not a big fan of Sony exclusives so I don't care much heh. I haven't bought a Sony console since I bought a used PSP (SDF here, remember?! Haha), but I don't see the point of them going fully third party when only one console isn't going as expected. I said the same about Nintendo, but it's because I love their games I want them to go third party on the console front only but knew this wasnt realistic at all, just an ideal situation after the whole set up last gen of owning a Wii AND another console so I got access to the majority of games I wanted.

 

Nintendo has the handheld front down, Sony looks like it's going to have the console front down providing it doesn't slip up over a lack of games in the near future. No need for either of them to pack their bags just yet.

[Ashley]

I think the difference between Sony dropping the handheld and Nintendo dropping the home console is the latter would be of greater benefit to the industry as a whole as their games would reach a wider audience (it's what THQ guy was arguing), whereas the former would have less of an impact.

 

Not saying it's necessarily my view, but a key difference between the two hypothetical situations.

[drahkon]

Will sell my 3DS XL and the games soon (6 months after I've bought it) without ever completing any game I've bought for it, except Ocarina of Time.

 

For me Nintendo is completely uninteresting.

Unlike Sony.

 

I just bought Tearaway, which owns every portable game ever (in my opinion), played/completed Spelunky, Persona 4, Gravity Rush, Uncharted (which isn't that great), Soul Sacrifce, Virtue's Last Reward (yes, also available on 3DS) PSone games and more on my Vita and have no intention of selling it.

 

So...should Sony drop out of the handheld market? No, I would be sad.

 

When it comes to the big picture of business and economic decisions...no idea.

Maybe, maybe not.

[Daft]

Sony need to more IPs and franchises specific to the Vita. Tearaway is an easy contender for GOTY in my book. It's stunning. It feels more crafted than coded. If it weren't for The Last of Us, it probably would be my GOTY.

 

That's not to say I think games like Killzone Mercs aren't great, because I enjoyed that a lot too (srsly, best military FPS campaign in years). But less KZs and more Tearaways. In many ways I think LittleBIGPlanet should have been the PSP's great IP, not the PS3's. But Sony needed to keep the momentum building on their home console, so it wasn't the craziest decision.

[Happenstance]

One of my favourite things about the Vita is the cross buy feature. Being able to get a game on the PSN and be able to play it either on the home console or Vita for no extra cost is great. Its a shame more isnt done with that, even just advertising-wise.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Happenstance

[Lens of Truth]

I actually think the Vita was ahead of the curve when it launched and its time is now, or maybe in a year or so if they do promote it via cross-buy and off-tv play. Just how slow was the PSP's slow start?

[Blade]

One of my favourite things about the Vita is the cross buy feature. Being able to get a game on the PSN and be able to play it either on the home console or Vita for no extra cost is great. Its a shame more isnt done with that, even just advertising-wise.

 

Would be good if Nintendo did something similar. There is no reason why I shouldnt be able to buy SMW for instance on the Wii U then play it on the 3DS also.

[liger05]

I actually think the Vita was ahead of the curve when it launched and its time is now, or maybe in a year or so if they do promote it via cross-buy and off-tv play. Just how slow was the PSP's slow start?

 

PSP flew out of the gate. Wasnt a slow start at all. In Japan things died down and MH released on the platform changed things dramatically for the platform.

 

As I have said before its not about relying on another MH phenomenon but Sony actually doing something themselves.

 

Would be good if Nintendo did something similar. There is no reason why I shouldnt be able to buy SMW for instance on the Wii U then play it on the 3DS also.

 

Yes there is no excuse for this.

Edited December 9, 2013 by liger05

[bryanee]

If they were ever to drop handhelds I'd rather see their handheld teams work on home console games for the PS4 than other handheld titles for none PS platforms. Bend are supposed to be working on a PS4 game and the people behind The Order used to do PSP games.

[Blade]

I can think of a reason... money.

 

Its like buying buying a film on both DVD and Blu-Ray. Just because you bought the film on Blu-Ray it doesn't automatically entitle you to a copy of it on any other format.

 

Still, I understand what you're all saying and agree with you, I'd want it to be cross-platform too, but money is the simple reason it's not.

 

I agree but does Sony demand you pay extra to do it? I have nothing to do with Sony platforms so I have no idea whether they do or not.

 

Also re Blu Ray and DVD you can pay a little extra to have both in the same box. Maybe Nintendo could do something similar whereby you pay a little extra to download the game on both Wii U and 3DS (to avoid paying full price on both)

[Hero-of-Time]

I agree but does Sony demand you pay extra to do it? I have nothing to do with Sony platforms so I have no idea whether they do or not.

 

Nah, you just buy one version and the other is free. It's a pretty sweet deal.

[Jonnas]

What kind of approach should Sony bring to the table for their next handheld?

 

Right now, my biggest issue with the Vita's main selling point is the same issue I had with the GBA/GC connectivity: it's impractical. The Wii/DS connectivity worked a tad better because it was a bonus, not something that either console required to have a selling point in the first place.

 

Is the Vita having a slow start, but still growing? Hopefully, but it doesn't change the fact that Sony might just take the handheld market less seriously than Nintendo does their home console market, and if they feel they lost the battle, there might not be a Vita successor.

 

So back to my original question: what kind of approach should Sony bring to the table for their next handheld, in order to stay a relevant alternative? A library of exclusives goes without saying, but is something else is needed?

Edited December 11, 2013 by Retro_Link

[Rummy]

Tbh, I've probably had my hands on a Vita no more than 10 times, and not really seen what it can do/has to offer. I would say though, something about it did make me think 'hmm!' in a good way - before I'd not really considered it much. What's kinda strange is that fact, I know so little about the Vita, so I can't answer the question at hand here. For me, it wouldn't matter much either way what Sony did(though I do think it should be kept alive) - whereas with the Wii U I'm so much more vested in being a Nintendo fan(believe it or not!) and an owner that I 'see' the peril of them possibly failing completely more often - I'd be more likely to contemplate them packing up now and living to fight another day rather than going down in a terrible fiery death of non-glory.

 

I think, for me, that actually addresses both this thread's point and the other one hiding amongst it. For a long story short - I don't think either the Wii U or Vita should be dropped(at least not yet), because it feels incredibly wasteful to my mind. I care a lot more about one that the other though, and with that would see it 'saved' with an early demise if it would help.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Retro_Link

[Pestneb]

Just a couple of points that may already have been made... but...

 

Co operation doesn't make money. Basically this thread is lumping two commercial strugglers (Wii U and Vita) and it would be stupid for either company to ditch these "special" competitors!

 

As I understand it all 3 big manufacturers make money from developers producing games from their systems by taking a certain amount of money from said developers.

But when you pay yourself, you're not really losing any money, right...

so is it better to get 100% of £20m, or 80% of £22m arbitrary numbers there, but thats point 1.

Sony selling on Nintendo hardware, potentially is stupid.

 

point 2. The PS was the result of Nintendo screwing Sony over. In Nintendo's position, I think I would be wary of trusting Sony, you know, when you give someone a reason to have a grudge... And Sony wary of Nintendo screwing them again. How? goodness only knows, but all I am saying is they tried playing together before, it didn't work out.

Obviously Nintendo have the xbox group, but I think really the stereotypical Sony demographic are a little more likely to pick up Nintendo franchises.. personal opinion obviously.

 

point 3. I don't think their sales would increase. Nintendo owning a Home console if anything, at least gives them credibility and it maybe that the mere presence of a home console on the market, even of a failing one, could be seen as expensive brand awareness.

If they ditch home consoles I imagine they will compete more directly with other developers, that "premium" will seemingly be lost, and it may well be that software sales drop.

The Vita... I see as less of a loss to Sony to be honest. But I think it would be embarrassing for them to back away from it now, and there is potential for vita toxicity to leak back to the PS4?

 

Point 4 - the console war. I hate the phrase, but in the business world, all 3 are aiming to dominate. That is why I think Sony have gone into the handheld sphere (and to briefly go on topic) thats why Sony shouldn't ditch the vita.

They want to break Nintendo's stronghold in the handheld market, weakening them as a business, and ideally killing them off.

Nintendo want to regain dominance, and to do so must hold onto their home console. Its simple really.

 

People who want the Wii U dead just want to save themselves £200 buying a third/second console.

I can understand that, and its the same reason I wish the X1 and PS4 were dead they're not bad consoles, and I would love it if I got one for christmas.. but thats not happening, and I don't game enough to justify a Wii-U, let alone the other 2 consoles!

[dazzybee]

What Sony should do with their next handheld is understand what makes a handheld game and stop trying to be portable home console.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Retro_Link
Automerged Doublepost

[Happenstance]

On topic, what Sony should do with their next handheld is understand what makes a handheld game and stop trying to be portable home console.

 

To be fair to them, I have to wonder if they realised how people felt about that kind of stuff until it was too late. The PSP seems to have sold well during its lifetime (a lot better than I originally assumed) and maybe they thought people wanted more of the same.

 

Im not sure if they will make another handheld after the Vita and if they did, I have no idea what I would want it to be. While I like the 3DS it still feels underpowered to me so I dont think I would want it like that but on the other hand I dont just want the console experience on my handheld. I guess more effort put into proper handheld experiences like Tearaway is the way to go on a kind of pure gaming level but you need something to really bring people in along with that.

[Rummy]

Just a couple of points that may already have been made... but...

 

Co operation doesn't make money. Basically this thread is lumping two commercial strugglers (Wii U and Vita) and it would be stupid for either company to ditch these "special" competitors!

 

As I understand it all 3 big manufacturers make money from developers producing games from their systems by taking a certain amount of money from said developers.

But when you pay yourself, you're not really losing any money, right...

so is it better to get 100% of £20m, or 80% of £22m arbitrary numbers there, but thats point 1.

Sony selling on Nintendo hardware, potentially is stupid.

 

point 2. The PS was the result of Nintendo screwing Sony over. In Nintendo's position, I think I would be wary of trusting Sony, you know, when you give someone a reason to have a grudge... And Sony wary of Nintendo screwing them again. How? goodness only knows, but all I am saying is they tried playing together before, it didn't work out.

Obviously Nintendo have the xbox group, but I think really the stereotypical Sony demographic are a little more likely to pick up Nintendo franchises.. personal opinion obviously.

 

point 3. I don't think their sales would increase. Nintendo owning a Home console if anything, at least gives them credibility and it maybe that the mere presence of a home console on the market, even of a failing one, could be seen as expensive brand awareness.

If they ditch home consoles I imagine they will compete more directly with other developers, that "premium" will seemingly be lost, and it may well be that software sales drop.

The Vita... I see as less of a loss to Sony to be honest. But I think it would be embarrassing for them to back away from it now, and there is potential for vita toxicity to leak back to the PS4?

 

Point 4 - the console war. I hate the phrase, but in the business world, all 3 are aiming to dominate. That is why I think Sony have gone into the handheld sphere (and to briefly go on topic) thats why Sony shouldn't ditch the vita.

They want to break Nintendo's stronghold in the handheld market, weakening them as a business, and ideally killing them off.

Nintendo want to regain dominance, and to do so must hold onto their home console. Its simple really.

 

People who want the Wii U dead just want to save themselves £200 buying a third/second console.

I can understand that, and its the same reason I wish the X1 and PS4 were dead they're not bad consoles, and I would love it if I got one for christmas.. but thats not happening, and I don't game enough to justify a Wii-U, let alone the other 2 consoles!

 

Good point on the hardware take per game.

Though...how did Nintendo screw Sony? If anything I thought it was the other way with Kutaragi screwing Ninty!

Aiming to dominate? Can we say that for either Wii U or Vita? Can they still manage to, down the line?

[Happenstance]

Would anybody who knows more than myself actually be able to address this question for me?

 

PS4/Vita can connect for off tv play like the Wii U in two ways. First the PS4 turns into a wifi hub so you connect directly and it has a limited range. Second it connects to the wifi via your router so as long as you have a strong enough connection at both ends you could play them anywhere. In the adverts Sony made they showed it as a girl playing her PS4, leaving for college then carrying on with her game at college on her lunch break on the Vita.

 

As for cross play games, some will allow you to just buy it once then buy it for both systems. Games like Spelunky allow this but then will let you connect the PS3 to the Vita and play local multiplayer with both gamers having their own screen. I think Need for Speed on PS4 also allows this with the off screen play as well.

[Rummy]

You can play your PS4 games on your Vita when connected to WiFi. I think it works best when on the same Wireless Network, but as far as I'm aware you can do it from anywhere as long as your connection is good enough.

 

Then I think there might be second screen functionality like the GamePad and SmartGlass can do, but I'm not sure if that's been used at all yet?

 

See this is what I was under the impression of, but wondered if there was more. Being able to imitate/take the somewhat unique aspects of the Wii U and making good use of them? Well...that could definitely add a certain value to the Vita. When you say you can do it from 'anywhere' though, just quite how anywhere are you talking? Over tinternets?

 

EDIT: Scratch the last questions, Happenstance got me in the gap!

[Jonnas]

Though...how did Nintendo screw Sony? If anything I thought it was the other way with Kutaragi screwing Ninty!

 

Ninty and Sony had an agreement, then Ninty changed their minds and canned the project, so Sony just carried on with what they had already done.

 

Their sudden separation was a purely Nintendo decision.

 

(Also, I think Sony wasn't aware of Nintendo's agreement with Phillips (making Ninty a two-timer as well), but I might be wrong on that?)