PS Vita Deals & Discussions Thread

[lastemp3ror]

Since I thought the cheap 3DS games thread was a good idea. I thought I would start one for the PS Vita. I will maintain this site a few times a day going forward. Post links up to new deals and I will add them to the OP. Anyhow, here we go:

Updated 2/5/2014

Amazon:

Hot Shots Golf: World Invitational $15.50

Lumines- Electronic Symphony $18.49

MLB 12 The Show- $5.88

Silent Hill: Book of Memories- $11.68

Spy Hunter- $14.89

Gravity Rush- $18.53

Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time- $19.12

Need for Speed: Most Wanted- $15.99

Persona 4 Golden - $19.99


Best Buy:


GameStop:

Call of Duty Black Ops: Declassified $19..99 New/ $17.99 Used

 

[mr_top_hat]

The JPN Vita version of Darkest Dungeon has ENG on it.

Wait, really? I emailed Play-Asia a month ago and they said the JPN version would not have English. Do you have the game?

 

[Zilvik]

Wait, really? I emailed Play-Asia a month ago and they said the JPN version would not have English. Do you have the game?

Maybe it's like Airship Q and automatically downloads an English patch when you install it?

 

[flybrione]

The JPN Vita version of Darkest Dungeon has ENG on it.

I ordered a copy immediately when I heard about this. Whatever language your system is set to the game will auto detect and switch the text to that region. The game is in full English. The only disappointing thing for me is I think the Crimson Court is a DLC code and not on the cart so I will never be able to play it since DLC is region locked. It does have a separate trophy list which is another reason I ordered a copy. I love this game.

They have stated that they plan to release a physical version for the vita a few times but I haven't heard anything in a while concerning this release.

 

[nightc1]

This is why I've been backing up all my Vita games on my computer. It's slow as , but it's better than trying to do it all at once when they announce they're taking the Vita store down.

I don't think the vita store will come down anytime in the next few years. Last time I checked I could still take my PSP online and go in the store and download games. Sure, I can't purchase them from my psp but I can still buy psp games through the web app or on other sytems. This is completely different than the sony phone store thing as that wasn't the same servers or storefront to psn.

 

[Zilvik]

BTW, is there any chance that Dragon Quest Builders does the same thing?

 

[Olengie]

Wait, really? I emailed Play-Asia a month ago and they said the JPN version would not have English. Do you have the game?

It auto detects your region. No but someone else reported it and that person is trusted person in the thread

https://www.resetera.com/posts/11769872/

 

[Olengie]

BTW, is there any chance that Dragon Quest Builders does the same thing?

No it does not. You would have to buy the actual Asia Eng release

 

[Souffrir]

I don't think the vita store will come down anytime in the next few years. Last time I checked I could still take my PSP online and go in the store and download games. Sure, I can't purchase them from my psp but I can still buy psp games through the web app or on other sytems. This is completely different than the sony phone store thing as that wasn't the same servers or storefront to psn.

Remember that the Vita can download and play PSP games, which gives Sony at least some reason to keep the PSP games up on their servers. If there's no system that can do the same with Vita or PSP games in production in the future, they may eventually remove them.

 

[Richard Kain]

If there's no system that can do the same with Vita or PSP games in production in the future, they may eventually remove them.

I continue to be flummoxed as to why Sony still hasn't gotten their legacy portable titles playable on the PS4. Pretty much all of the PSP digital titles could run on the PS4 with zero alterations. The PS1 digital titles already did run on the PS3, and OUGHT to run on the PS4. And while there would be a few Vita titles that couldn't work properly with the PS4, there are a whole bunch that would, and should. The fact that this still isn't a thing is a real pain in the ass. Sony should either enable backwards compatibility for all of their legacy digital content on their current hardware platform, or they should come out with a new handheld. (or both, I would also be fine with both)

 

[Olengie]

It would be really great if Sony allowed easy Account Switching like they do on PS4/PS3. Just saying. :T

 

[Giant_Gamer]

Remember that the Vita can download and play PSP games, which gives Sony at least some reason to keep the PSP games up on their servers. If there's no system that can do the same with Vita or PSP games in production in the future, they may eventually remove them.

They have been slowly removing PSP items from PSN, and while they still sell and allow for download of PSP games, certain DLC's are not allowed for Vita Download. I missed backing up certain PSN only DLC that could only be Downloaded onto a PSP system, since that is no longer possible.

I continue to be flummoxed as to why Sony still hasn't gotten their legacy portable titles playable on the PS4. Pretty much all of the PSP digital titles could run on the PS4 with zero alterations. The PS1 digital titles already did run on the PS3, and OUGHT to run on the PS4. And while there would be a few Vita titles that couldn't work properly with the PS4, there are a whole bunch that would, and should. The fact that this still isn't a thing is a real pain in the ass. Sony should either enable backwards compatibility for all of their legacy digital content on their current hardware platform, or they should come out with a new handheld. (or both, I would also be fine with both)

I've been hoping since XBOX has been getting backwards compatibility that the PS4 would compete by doing the same. However, Sony has a bad habit of blocking content from previous systems if a "Free to Play" or Remastered version came out for that latter system. (eg. Fat Princess, Loco Roco)

Unfortunately whoever is a the top of the Video Game Triad tends to have the poorest support for legacy content. So here's hoping Sony flub the PS5 and we get PSP, Vita, PS1, Ps2, and Ps4 backwards digital compatibility.

 

[elessar123]

Pretty much all of the PSP digital titles could run on the PS4 with zero alterations.

The PS1 digital titles already did run on the PS3, and OUGHT to run on the PS4.

Source?

Do people forget they changed architectures from PS2 to PS3, and from PS3 to PS4?

PS1/PS2/PSP are somewhat compatible, and it pretty much ends there. It'd be easier to port 360 games to the PS4 than PSP games.

The PS5 -should- be backwards compatible with the PS4.

 

[Richard Kain]

Source?

Do people forget they changed architectures from PS2 to PS3, and from PS3 to PS4?

PS1 digital titles have been playable on the PSP, Vita, and PS3. None of those platforms have identical architectures. This is not a matter of squeezing PS1 hardware onto the motherboard, the way it was with the PS2. All of those platforms are emulating the PS1 in order to run the PS1 digital classics. If Sony can port their in-house PS1 emulator to those three platforms with solid performance, they can do it for PS4 without breaking a sweat. The PS4 has computer-comparable architecture, it's possibly the least-challenging Sony console platform for porting software like this.

And that entire argument can be copy-pasted for the PSP support. The Vita did not have identical architecture to the PSP. It is running emulation to get those PSP titles running. If you can run that software on the Vita, you can run it on the PS3 or the PS4. Both platforms would have performance to spare, and have more than enough compatibility with their controllers. It wouldn't be a matter of zero development, some effort would have to go into getting those emulators running on the PS4. But it would NOT be a back-breaking amount of work, especially given the power disparity. And as I've already pointed out, this wouldn't even be their first time doing this. They have plenty of experience enabling such features on their previous platforms.

There's a bit more of an excuse when it comes to Vita-native software. The Vita had such esoteric hardware features, that there are some titles for it that simply wouldn't translate well to the PS4's control scheme. The PS4 has a touch-pad, but not a touch-screen. And it certainly doesn't have a rear touch-pad, or a built in camera, or a built-in microphone. Some of the most out-there Vita titles just wouldn't translate. But the viability of the PSTV demonstrates that there are plenty that would. And I don't believe for a second that Sony CAN'T get something like that working.

 

[elessar123]

PS1 digital titles have been playable on the PSP, Vita, and PS3. None of those platforms have identical architectures. This is not a matter of squeezing PS1 hardware onto the motherboard, the way it was with the PS2. All of those platforms are emulating the PS1 in order to run the PS1 digital classics. If Sony can port their in-house PS1 emulator to those three platforms with solid performance, they can do it for PS4 without breaking a sweat. The PS4 has computer-comparable architecture, it's possibly the least-challenging Sony console platform for porting software like this.

And that entire argument can be copy-pasted for the PSP support. The Vita did not have identical architecture to the PSP. It is running emulation to get those PSP titles running. If you can run that software on the Vita, you can run it on the PS3 or the PS4. Both platforms would have performance to spare, and have more than enough compatibility with their controllers. It wouldn't be a matter of zero development, some effort would have to go into getting those emulators running on the PS4. But it would NOT be a back-breaking amount of work, especially given the power disparity. And as I've already pointed out, this wouldn't even be their first time doing this. They have plenty of experience enabling such features on their previous platforms.

There's a bit more of an excuse when it comes to Vita-native software. The Vita had such esoteric hardware features, that there are some titles for it that simply wouldn't translate well to the PS4's control scheme. The PS4 has a touch-pad, but not a touch-screen. And it certainly doesn't have a rear touch-pad, or a built in camera, or a built-in microphone. Some of the most out-there Vita titles just wouldn't translate. But the viability of the PSTV demonstrates that there are plenty that would. And I don't believe for a second that Sony CAN'T get something like that working.

I already said, PS1/PS2/PSP are somewhat compatible. So running PS1 on PS2 and PSP is a clear path. The Vita doesn't run a PSP emulator. It runs PSP games like the PS2 ran PS1 games. So again, no issues there.

So that leaves PS3 being able to play PS1 games using emulation. That's something extra Sony did.

But there's still no path getting a PS4 to play PS1/PSP/Vita unless they made THREE emulators.

 

[Richard Kain]

The Vita doesn't run a PSP emulator. It runs PSP games like the PS2 ran PS1 games.

But there's still no path getting a PS4 to play PS1/PSP/Vita unless they made THREE emulators.

Nope. Check your facts. The Vita runs a PSP emulator. It doesn't have PSP-comparable hardware in it. It runs software emulation in order to provide compatibility for digital PSP titles. The PSP itself does not contain comparable hardware to either the PS1 or PS2. It is also running a software emulator in order to play PS1 games. The only systems to include the older hardware in order to provide backwards compatibility were the PS2 and PS3. And the PS3 only did this for a limited time, later versions of the hardware had the PS2 support stripped out, in order to reduce production costs. Everything else on Sony platforms has been added using software emulation. Even the PS3 got temporary PS2 support through software emulation. (the 80-gig MGS-bundled model) The PS3's PS1 support was software emulation from day one. It's never had PS1 hardware embedded, and even the PS2-enabled models didn't use the PS2-related chips for the PS1 compatibility.

So Sony has been providing in-house PS1 software emulation for three separate platforms. And they've been doing this for more than a decade. They've implemented PS2 software emulation for one platform. And they've had PSP software emulation for one platform. They still have the basic programming work for all of those emulators. It's just a matter of porting them to the PS4 firmware, and wiring them up to insure compatibility with the PS4 interface. That's not a weekend project, but it's also a long way from impossible, or even particularly difficult.

Yes, they would have to incorporate three different emulators. But they have all of the code for those emulators, as well as experience porting them to multiple different platforms. And they own and fully understand the platform they would be porting them to. And they own and fully understand the platforms they're porting them from, and the platforms they are meant to emulate. It's all them. Microsoft is doing a better job at this, despite their job being much more difficult. Sony is being lazy.

 

[elessar123]

Nope. Check your facts. The Vita runs a PSP emulator. It doesn't have PSP-comparable hardware in it. It runs software emulation in order to provide compatibility for digital PSP titles. The PSP itself does not contain comparable hardware to either the PS1 or PS2. It is also running a software emulator in order to play PS1 games.

No it doesn't. It doesn't run a software emulator. It has hardware that can handle MIPS, which is why all the games just work.

The PSP itself does not contain comparable hardware to either the PS1 or PS2. It is also running a software emulator in order to play PS1 games.

Yes it does. PS1 has a MIPS I chip, PS2 has a MIPS 3 chip, and PSP has a MIPS 5 / 2 chip.

So Sony has been providing in-house PS1 software emulation for three separate platforms.

See above, no it doesn't. It has done PS1 emulator on PS3 only.

 

[unknownbrackets]

> Nope. Check your facts. The Vita runs a PSP emulator. It doesn't have PSP-comparable hardware in it.

This is incorrect, as noted by elessar123.

http://forums.ppsspp.org/showthread.php?tid=20085

It's all actually kinda interesting (at least to me, but then I contribute to a PSP emulator, so maybe my interests are weird.)

The Vita's emulation of PSP and PS1 games does leverage hardware.  This isn't like the PS2 though - the PSP CPU is used only for the main CPU emulation, and there's software to handle various other bits.  I'm not sure if the PSP GPU is in the Vita or not - but I strongly suspect it is, because the GPU on the Vita would struggle significantly to emulate the way PSP games draw things with any kind of decent performance.

That being said: there is a software PSP emulator, written for PowerPC, that was used on the PS3.  It plays PSP HD remasters (released in Japan), and also PSP minis.  This one isn't backed by hardware at all, AFAIK.

I should note that the PS3's PSP emulator is not perfect and has bugs.

But, it is actually true that Sony has software emulation for PS1 and PSP for PS3/PowerPC, and PS2 for PS4/Intel.  AFAIK, none of these are hardware-assisted.

IMHO the PSP is actually relatively easy to emulate (there are definitely pitfalls), at least easier than the PS2.  So I assume the only reason PSP games don't run on PS4 is either lack of motivation (no ROI on creating an emulator), or desire to eventually recapture the same sales (e.g. ports/remasters that are bought again.)

-[Unknown]

 

[Souffrir]

The main reason why the PS4 has no backwards compatibility is because backwards compatibility doesn't really make you any money. It's great for a system in its early life, as it makes the transition easier for those who trade in consoles to get the new hotness, leaving them a significant library of titles to play on a system that would otherwise have very little available, and allowing them to continue buying games for the previous system as new ones come out; but beyond those first few months, BC really offers very little in the way of profitability for console companies, since they want their install base to be buying new games to play, not replaying old ones they already own. PSOne and PS2 Classics was a great way to achieve both income and support for older systems, but now Sony's in a situation where most of the people who wanted to play those old games bought them already, so porting the functionality forward to their newest console doesn't really do anything for their bottom line. Adding PSP and PS3 games to their digital Classics lineup won't work very well, either, since those were already available digitally, and if they try to charge you again for the same games you already bought digitally less then ten years ago, there's going to be a lot of grumbling. HD remasters have been their main answer to this, but remasters take a lot more time and money than uploading ISOs and maintaining a decent emulator, and a lot of old games are going to look like shit unless you cross the line from remaster to remake, which again is even more time and money.

 

[flix1]

7'scarlet price drop at GameStop. Now $19.99 "NEW"

https://www.gamestop.com/ps-vita/games/7scarlet/159807

Thanks! Picked it up last night.

 

[chrislaustin]

The main reason why the PS4 has no backwards compatibility is because backwards compatibility doesn't really make you any money.

Yeah, this^

MS offers backwards compatibility as a thank you to fans, and because they are a software engineering company, and stuff like this is what they do. And even though this is all done in house, I can't imagine it's cheap, but the Xbox has never really been what MS wanted it to be(in regards to revenue), but just like "windows", they support their creations for longer than any company probably should.

For Sony, this is just a money pit, as any of those past games just isn't going to bring in the funds to make it worth it from a business stand point. Now "N" on the other hand is a different matter entirely, as any thing they could create to play past games would more than pay for itself within probably the first year. Sadly, as shown with the NES Mini, they really just have no clue in how popular their history is, or how to offer it properly on each new system.

 

[HaloGX]

Also, Microsoft has next to no games for the Xbox that aren't third party.

 

[Josef]

Bull Moose has a small amount of Muv-Luv (possibly only one copy) for $37.97 new shipped.  No taxes taken for most states too.

https://www.bullmoose.com/p/27561179/muv-luv-muv-luv

 

[Milera]

I still have not received an email from fangamer regarding bloodstained ks refund. Should I contact them or will I eventually get it?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[chrislaustin]

I still have not received an email from fangamer regarding bloodstained ks refund. Should I contact them or will I eventually get it?

Yeah, I would say for sure contact them, as I believe everyone should have gotten the email later that day when the cancellation was announced. Also double check that your order is actually for the Vita game, as if it's another system, that might be why you didn't receive the email. And of course check your junk mail folder as well, as it may have gone there.

 

[Tothoro]

Yeah, this^

MS offers backwards compatibility as a thank you to fans, and because they are a software engineering company, and stuff like this is what they do. And even though this is all done in house, I can't imagine it's cheap, but the Xbox has never really been what MS wanted it to be(in regards to revenue), but just like "windows", they support their creations for longer than any company probably should.

For Sony, this is just a money pit, as any of those past games just isn't going to bring in the funds to make it worth it from a business stand point. Now "N" on the other hand is a different matter entirely, as any thing they could create to play past games would more than pay for itself within probably the first year. Sadly, as shown with the NES Mini, they really just have no clue in how popular their history is, or how to offer it properly on each new system.

Also, Microsoft has next to no games for the Xbox that aren't third party.

My opinion is that they're doing it to distinguish their console. Sony's beating them pretty badly this console generation in terms of games and sales and Nintendo's kind of in their own race. GamePass and BC are the two things they've really got setting them apart at this point.

I still have not received an email from fangamer regarding bloodstained ks refund. Should I contact them or will I eventually get it?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I never got an email either, but the last page of their refund request said refunds should be issued in late October. I believe that if you click the link again it will tell you that you've already requested a refund.

 

[Nothing-]

I wonder if Microsoft might not just give up after this console cycle.   They make this awesome machine with the XB1X and no one is buying it.   They are probably throwing their hands up in confusion and disgust. 

 

[HaloGX]

I wonder if Microsoft might not just give up after this console cycle. They make this awesome machine with the XB1X and no one is buying it. They are probably throwing their hands up in confusion and disgust.

They confirmed on stage at E3 that they're working on a new console.

 

[WingsDJY]

I wonder if Microsoft might not just give up after this console cycle. They make this awesome machine with the XB1X and no one is buying it. They are probably throwing their hands up in confusion and disgust.

It's not that complicated. Gamers want games. And if your machine doesn't have great exclusives and the competitor does, people will buy the competitor's console.

I was MS/Nintendo for the last 2 generations, but switched to Sony with this gen. PS4 just has a much better selection. And MS IPs haven't been that great this gen.

 

[Nothing-]

It's not that complicated. Gamers want games. And if your machine doesn't have great exclusives and the competitor does, people will buy the competitor's console.

I was MS/Nintendo for the last 2 generations, but switched to Sony with this gen. PS4 just has a much better selection. And MS IPs haven't been that great this gen.

Oh I understand. Microsoft has never really cared about games though. Their sole intent has always been to come in and dominate your family living room with their box. It's like just now they figure out the games issue, but 1-2 years later we still haven't seen or heard much of anything materialize from them. It's crazy how one-sided the race has become.

 

[Tothoro]

It's not that complicated. Gamers want games. And if your machine doesn't have great exclusives and the competitor does, people will buy the competitor's console.

I was MS/Nintendo for the last 2 generations, but switched to Sony with this gen. PS4 just has a much better selection. And MS IPs haven't been that great this gen.

Yep. They made a ton of missteps with the X1, especially earlier in the lifecycle. I loved the 360, but my X1 has been collecting dust. They really did a phenomenal job of removing everything I liked about the ecosystem.

 

[josekortez]

It's not that complicated. Gamers want games. And if your machine doesn't have great exclusives and the competitor does, people will buy the competitor's console.

I was MS/Nintendo for the last 2 generations, but switched to Sony with this gen. PS4 just has a much better selection. And MS IPs haven't been that great this gen.

Or they just can't afford to upgrade to a more elaborate version of a console that they just purchased less than 5 years ago.

 

[chrislaustin]

Yeah, the only reason I see the XBOX still going at this point is because it can. MS has unlimited amounts of funds, and they do in fact keep chasing that "all-in-1" set top box, but it's to little, to late. There are just to many options, across to many brand names, and the one thing the OG Xbox & 360 had was actual games. So this jack of all trades is fine, but with out the key draw(games), it's just another overpriced item that doesn't do much past what the PS4 does, or other devices at a lesser price.

I wish them well, as competition is always great for consumers, so I hope they continue, and in the end, I think they will. If they do continue, they will need to make some major changes, and get back to basics of gaming 101. But at this point, it might just be to little, to late in the grand scheme of things. Especially with the NS doing as well as it is, so MS would really have to offer something crazy cool & unique that everyone would want to have, and I just don't see that happening.

 

[HaloGX]

Oh I understand. Microsoft has never really cared about games though. Their sole intent has always been to come in and dominate your family living room with their box. It's like just now they figure out the games issue, but 1-2 years later we still haven't seen or heard much of anything materialize from them. It's crazy how one-sided the race has become.

I disagree, at least with the original Xbox. They went hard with great exclusives both first party and with third parties like SEGA. The games were a huge reason why I got an Xbox before a Gamecube and totally passed on the PS2. There's still a good amount of early exclusives for the 360 too. Yes, it did trail off after that, unfortunately.

 

[Nothing-]

I disagree,

That's fine. It's not debatable really. You should read some of the executives comments surrounding the OG xbox and 360 launches. I'm talking about their Vision or their Mission Statement here, not the number of games. I'm sure many others here are familiar with it as well.

MS never entered the console race in order to make great games. They created Xbox in order to take over your living room. They invented the XBL Gold paid membership. That's basically the foundation for their design philosophy. MS wanted to monetize your gaming habits and have you go through them.

 

[elessar123]

They got me to buy an Xbox 360 because of all the JRPG support they had in the first year or two. Then they threw all that away. I feel like, at least for the regulars here, that caused most of us to go Sony.

 

[Richard Kain]

Microsoft's biggest mistake in recent years was its continuous shift away from first-party development. Microsoft pared down their in-house development, most likely to reduce costs/risk. At the exact same time, Sony went out of their way to design their new console (the PS4) with third-party development in mind, while also bolstering their own first-party offerings. This one-two punch crippled Microsoft's momentum, and they've been forced to play catch-up ever since.

Their current push for backwards compatibility is a stop-gap measure to try to appeal to more hard-core and older gaming fans. It's also a ploy to shift more hardware. Collectors with an existing library of classic XBox games can safely pick up an XBox One, knowing they already have content for the system. The ability to enjoy some of the XBox favorites on more powerful hardware that can actually improve the experience is a solid selling point.

But they are definitely operating from a position of weakness. Sony is currently leading the market, and there is much less short-term incentive for them to add that kind of functionality. They still should, though. For starters, such a move would be much better for game preservation. Historical records of games benefit from having support for older games added to existing digital distribution systems. And there are also the long-term benefits. Today's children are tomorrows teenagers. Today's teenagers are tomorrows adults. A solid digital library of legacy titles can continue to be sold indefinitely, at much less cost for upkeep. All you have to do is make sure that it can be effectively used on new hardware. Sony could still be selling copies of PS1 games thirty years from now, so long as they keep them compatible with their current consoles.

 

[62t]

It is funny because that box in the living room is now from Amazon/ Apple TV/ Roku/Google.

 

[Nothing-]

But they are definitely operating from a position of weakness.

Exactly. It's like trying to come from behind at the poker table while somebody else is heavily the chip leader. It's much more difficult.

It's good that we always have a two-horse race though. (I don't really see Nintendo as a direct competitor. They do their own thing, have different games) Microsoft is going to have to step it up now. Sony has already shown signs of making small blunders here and there: no inclusion of a 4K UHD disc reading drive, no Fortnite cross-system play that the other systems offer, price of PS+ goes up while quality of games received goes down, renewed determination to go digital, etc. The top dog starts to swing their clout around and it's up the underdog (MS) to correct the market.

I fully expect Sony to take a few steps back during the PS5 reveal. That's what these companies do. They get greedy and they overreach. It happens every time. Plus right now Sony is dominating harder than anyone could have ever imagined five years ago. They would love to take our disc drives away if it was feasibly possible. I also feel like MS threw in their cards on this console generation lonng ago. The smart play for them would be going all-in on the next cycle in 2020.

 

[Richard Kain]

It's good that we always have a two-horse race though. (I don't really see Nintendo as a direct competitor. They do their own thing, have different games) Microsoft is going to have to step it up now. Sony has already shown signs of making small blunders here and there: no inclusion of a 4K UHD disc reading drive, no Fortnite cross-system play that the other systems offer, price of PS+ goes up while quality of games received goes down, renewed determination to go digital, etc. The top dog starts to swing their clout around and it's up the underdog (MS) to correct the market.

Competition is usually good, especially for the consumer. This is especially true in a non-essential luxury industry like video games. Frankly, I would like to see even more competition in the market. The rise and continual expansion of mobile platforms will likely accelerate this trend. These days, you don't need a dedicated video-game platform to have reach and exposure.

Sony is making a few anti-consumer moves, but I don't think most of them are mistakes. And it is a bad idea to ever consider Microsoft of all people to be an underdog. They may be flagging in this current hardware cycle, but they are never an underdog. Far too much financial power and brand recognition for that. And the experimental Nintendo definitely deserves to be considered a competitor. Their more experimental approaches in the past decade have been hit-or-miss, but they have always pushed things forward, and forced the other platform holders to respond to their innovations. We're all better off thanks to their decisions.

I look forward to other companies trying even more approaches. I picked up a Super NT this year, and I think Analogue could do some really interesting things in the boutique space. Google and Amazon are already champing at the bit to put their own spin on game development. (and possibly hardware) The possibilities are endless.

 

[Nothing-]

And it is a bad idea to ever consider Microsoft of all people to be an underdog. They may be flagging in this current hardware cycle, but they are never an underdog. Far too much financial power and brand recognition for that.

Microsoft is absolutely an underdog in ALL arenas of video game development. Mobile/handheld, PC, and home television gaming. They've stuck their hands into every honeypot and spread themselves too thin in the process. People don't even know or care about Cross Play between Windows 10 and Xbox One. The Xbox and a PC are seen as redundant purchases to each other and very few people buy both. A Playstation or a Switch are always chosen a secondary machine because the gamer wants access to those exclusive titles. MS has little next to nothing that is not offered on other platforms, and often as a better service.

And the experimental Nintendo definitely deserves to be considered a competitor. Their more experimental approaches in the past decade have been hit-or-miss, but they have always pushed things forward, and forced the other platform holders to respond to their innovations. We're all better off thanks to their decisions.

This series of thoughts is a non-sequitur. Or a strawman, however you wish to perceive it. I never suggested that Nintendo doesn't push the industry forward. We were comparing Nintendo to MS and Sony.

I purposely chose my words the way I did. Nintendo is not a direct competitor with Sony. They don't operate under a paid internet service. They don't massively fund 3rd party studios to create the largest AAA adult gaming experiences. Nintendo doesn't have similar online infrastructure and social connectivity. They don't offer an updated games account library that is tied to you.

The decision to make a Nintendo purchase is made completely independent to what other systems you own. Wheras an additional PC, PS4, or Xbox are seen as redundancies by their own main supporters. Switch fanatics also buy games they already own on other systems because the games have different accessibility on Switch.

Nintendo and Sony/MS are "competitors" only in the same way that mobile games compete with Sony/MS, which is, not really at all.

 

[Richard Kain]

Nintendo and Sony/MS are "competitors" only in the same way that mobile games compete with Sony/MS, which is, not really at all.

This is far too limiting a view, and the real sticking point on how we define competition.

In this modern age, you can't view competition purely in terms of apples-to-apples. You can't look at a dedicated home console and claim that it doesn't compete with the Switch, or doesn't compete with mobile devices. What is beginning to count, more and more, especially in entertainment, is time. What are people spending their time doing? If a particular company can account for more of a person's time, they can get a leg up over other companies, even if they are not strictly speaking in the same business. If I'm playing more games, that means I'm watching fewer movies or TV shows. If I'm spending more time on Netflix, that means I'm not using my Kindle as much. (and presumably, not buying as many books)

In a digital-distribution world, tangible goods merely serve as a gateway. They are a foot in the door, not an end unto themselves. In this sense, Nintendo is not only competing with Microsoft and Sony, but several other major companies as well. And those major companies are also in competition with MS/Sony, and each other. Attention, mindshare, and advertising reach are becoming increasingly important aspects.

And as you pointed out, Nintendo's success in the indie space has been a big boon for the Switch, and has lured a lot of players away from Microsoft and Sony. The PS4/Vita used to be the place to be for those games, but a lack of support from Sony sank the Vita. And while the PS4 still does well, and provides good access to indie titles with PS+, the portable nature of the Switch is drawing away a lot of that audience. Xbox helped lead the modern indie gaming movement with XNA on the 360, but their lack of long-term support and direction sank that initiative, and now they're an also-ran in a market segment they helped to foster.

Microsoft and Sony may be leading in terms of big-budget titles, but they are also competing with PC development, which Valve owns a major stake in, and with up-and-comers like Google and Amazon. All of them are interested in streaming-focused gaming, and will likely launch their own competing On-Live equivalents in the near future. If you are holding out hope for a PS5 and an Xbox Two, don't hold your breath. They will make a stab at streaming gaming next, and try to have it run parallel to their current console platforms until they can wind those down.

 

[Nothing-]

This is far too limiting a view, and the real sticking point on how we define competition.

no idea why you are insistent on arguing over semantics.

both of our opinions can exist concurrently.

 

[vic_x51]

I couldn't care less about xbox.

 

[frankmackeyspam]

Little late to the party on the backward compatibility/emulation discussion but FYI Sony actually has a PSP emulator up and running on the PS4:

https://kotaku.com/ps4-parappa-is-running-on-a-psp-emulator-hackers-disco-1825958261

 

[Miker525]

I'm still convinced despite having the much inferior system this gen that MS is going to crush it next gen. With backwards compatibility now supporting OG and 360 (not entire catalogs but the list is steadily growing) and the cross buy between PC and Xbox, their openness regarding cross console play and their new friendship with Nintendo. I know all of these are moves to save face but they're all things Sony is fighting and if MS can get back into exclusives from both their new first and third party companies I think it'll be an easy win for MS. Obviously it's yet to be seen and Sony has a lot to think about and announce but I'm convinced Sony is back in their overconfident cocky "we can't lose" mentality and that's gonna get them crushed

 

[DoubleDam21]

I couldn't care less about xbox.

What do you expect in a Vita discussion thread.

 

[josekortez]

What do you expect in a Vita discussion thread.

Instead of David and Goliath, it's more like Davey and Goliath.

 

[Richard Kain]

both of our opinions can exist concurrently.

Yes they can, and hashing those opinions out, elaborating and analyzing them, makes for an intriguing conversation. I enjoy reading your opinions, and your reasoning behind them, even if I don't agree with them. I heartily encourage you to continue.

Obviously it's yet to be seen and Sony has a lot to think about and announce but I'm convinced Sony is back in their overconfident cocky "we can't lose" mentality and that's gonna get them crushed

This concerns me as well. I was very pleased with Sony's strategy going into the current console cycle. But that strategy was shaped by the humbling they endured over the mismanagement of the PS3's design. At that point they were in a comparable position to the one Microsoft finds themselves in now. And some of Sony's recent choices have indeed smacked of that old arrogance and complacency, once again rearing its head.

There's no need for Sony to include an UHD drive in any PS4 model. The format is a fringe outlier, and won't ever catch on as much as DVD or regular Blu-Ray have. Every day that on-line streaming becomes more common and accessible, the less significant that a legacy physical format becomes. Microsoft's inclusion of UHD in the Xbox One S was a fine gesture, but it didn't actually help dig themselves out of the hole they had made for themselves.

The recent Fortnite debacle is another matter, and quite indicative of a complacency that Sony should be avoiding. This is part of the reason why I think Sony should push for backwards compatibility on any and all of their hardware platforms. (but certainly most prominently on their current best-selling PS4) That would be a solid make-good for consumers, the historical legacy of video games, and wouldn't be much of a financial risk. It's a relatively easy way for them to improve their image and draw in more fans.

 

[jsb2642]

I'm still convinced despite having the much inferior system this gen that MS is going to crush it next gen. With backwards compatibility now supporting OG and 360 (not entire catalogs but the list is steadily growing) and the cross buy between PC and Xbox, their openness regarding cross console play and their new friendship with Nintendo. I know all of these are moves to save face but they're all things Sony is fighting and if MS can get back into exclusives from both their new first and third party companies I think it'll be an easy win for MS. Obviously it's yet to be seen and Sony has a lot to think about and announce but I'm convinced Sony is back in their overconfident cocky "we can't lose" mentality and that's gonna get them crushed

How exactly would you measure this win? As far as I'm concerned, with the gaming division pulling in over 10 billion in profits last year, Microsoft is already winning, just not quite at the same level as Sony. Do you compare hardware sales?. Microsoft dominated Sony with the 360 in the handful of markets they focus on but, by most accounts, the PS3 passed the 360 in hardware sales, helped by Sony's larger global reach. Sony should always lead in hardware sales unless they completely screw up for an entire generation or Microsoft invests millions to expand into these Sony dominated markets. As far as all these seemingly pro consumer moves made by Microsoft, people are naive if they think it's fan service or an attempt to save face, if it didn't fit into their plans to increase profitablity, we wouldn't have it.

 

[chrislaustin]

This concerns me as well. I was very pleased with Sony's strategy going into the current console cycle. But that strategy was shaped by the humbling they endured over the mismanagement of the PS3's design. At that point they were in a comparable position to the one Microsoft finds themselves in now. And some of Sony's recent choices have indeed smacked of that old arrogance and complacency, once again rearing its head.

Spoiler

Yeah, this has happened a few times over the years to a few different video game giants, and I always personally refer to it as "Big Head Syndrome". LOL

My first sight of it happened when Atari was manufacturing more game carts than there where systems to play said games on, which in turn led to the market crash of the early 80's. While they where enjoying massive success, they also didn't feel the need to properly compensate staff, which led to 3rd parties, which in turn made for game creators to work any place and for anyone, and get their own due credit for games they made(and compensation).

Next in line for BHS was my personal favorite, you guessed it, "N". This is also the only company to be on my list twice, with Sony possibly being the next in line for that this high honor. After 2 gens of massive success with the NES & SNES, "N" led by Yamaguchi really just thought they owned the industry and could do what they wanted, and all the successful 3 parties would follow...........wrong, WRONG! I'll keep this short, but CD was wanted by most, "N" didn't want to use it, and the rest, is well history.

Next of course was Sony, and after PS1 & PS2 they got BHS, and off we go. PS3 was a hot mess of we can charge anything, and consumers will pay........Wrong, WRONG! I will say Sony does get some credit for fighting back that gen, as they saw their own folly, and corrected the ship, to end in a pretty good space after having the 360 be so strong for so long. At the PS3 release, I did see the value, as Blu-Ray players where much more expensive and didn't offer gaming, so I understood the idea, but most consumers did not. No one really needed or wanted blu-Ray as it was new, and while they wanted a PS3, they didn't want the extra cost.

Then of course we have "N" part deux. The Wii while an amazing comeback story, was pretty much a last effort by a company who had lost all the good wills it once had in the industry(at least for it's consoles). The Wii cut R&D cost in half, maybe more, as it was the past gen console re-purposed, due to no longer having the cash flow of old. Why risk funds on a new system, when if it performs like the N64 & GC, it would have been disaster mode. Then of course we all know what happened next, the Wii was one of the most successful consoles of all time, which led again to BHS, and the Wii U. A beyond half baked idea that even "N" had no idea on what to do with, and just thought putting "Wii" on the box would lead to massive sales.......wrong, WRONG!

Then we have the PS4, I really haven't followed this system much, as I don't own one, but I can easily see how Sony has dominated this gen, and that alone tells me they are ripe & ready for their second round of BHS as well. I've been enjoying the conversations here as well, as both sides have made valid arguments. I personally see all 3 players as competition to one another, and I also don't think MS will leave gaming, as it just seems like something they "want" to do, and they have the resources to continue if it's money making or not.