It's a Bit Disappointing that Nintendo is Dominating the Handheld Market

I own both major handhelds (Vita&3DS). I recentley picked up the 3DS because there was a really great sale at Best Buy and I had some extra money to spend. I wanted one for a few exclusives. I'm not really into many Nintendo IPs anymore, but I do fancy me some 3D pokemon. 

It's a bit sad that it's not just Nintendo exclusives Nintendo has got going for them. They've got almost all of Capcom to themselves. Games like Resident Evil and Monster Hunter would be astronomically better on a system with a big OLED screen with a resolution from this century, and native dual-analog sticks. Now don't take this the wrong way, the 3DS is a pretty cool system (I purchased the original). And if I'm honest, I like the retro feel and build quality of the 3DS more than the Vita. But it just doesn't seem to have the infrastructure that the Vita does.

The Vita has an up-to-date digital distribution system that is easy to navigate. It now supports indie development, has a large back-catalog of PSP games on offer, and has many mini titles. This system is perfect for distribution of games, if only the memory weren't so expensive. The OS (while not being the greatest ui in the world) is fast and intuitive. It allows me to instantly minimize any app (even if it's something like a PSP game) and allow me use almost any other function, be it internet, group chat, skype, PS Store, etc. The Vita is also more capable despite having to power more taxing hardware, so a wider range of titles can be developed for it given the resources.

It's a vicious cycle with the Vita. No one buys them because there aren't that many attention grabbing titles for it, and no one develops for it because there aren't many people that own one.

This failure all goes back to SONY. If they had invested in more developers from the start, there would be a larger install base. Hopefully with the PS4 integration, more people purchase one, and more developers (both big name and indie) start developing for the system.

What's your take? Do you think it's a shame that the Vita isn't more developed for than it is? Or are you perfectly content with your 3DS hardware? There's obviously no opinion more correct than another.

I just can't stand how pretty much every 3ds game giantbomb does a quicklook of looks like it's running at like 15 fps.

When I play games on the vita, the games are so low res and blurry, it doesnt seems impressive at all for its specs. It is a bummer tho that Nintendo is so cheap with their hardware.Keva820

I feel like that's more of an issue with the some developers rather than hardware.

http://youtu.be/Xw4a0rKmp_8

Killzone: Mercenary appears to be looking quite sharp.

Atari, SEGA, SNK, Nokia, NEC/Hudson, and Bandai all tried and failed. So too has Sony, because Sony never bothered to look into WHY Nintendo machines keep obliterating the competition. Portability, battery life, and exclusive games. Vita just about matches 3DS in battery life but in terms of portability and exclusive games it's not even remotely close. I love my Vita but it's going to end up no different than the Neo Geo Pocket Color or Lynx.famicommander

It's still a portable system, and seeing as how well the 3DS XL sales are which I find even more uncomftorable to carry around than the Vita, I don't think thats what is really stopping the Vita from selling. I think it's as simple as development really :/.

It's a great system but yeah we just need more developers on board. But I do understand why they are not.

I don't really see the problem. The whole point of handheld development is that its suppose to be cheaper and therefore easier to release games and make money. Vita has good power and everything but when the option between making an expensive game vs a cheaper one comes up and the Vita can't even compete games wise or in buyer interest, well, it makes sense. This is basically just an argument of more power = better without recognizing everything that goes along with it.

From a hardware perspective, the Vita is much, much better than the 3DS. Not just graphics-wise but performance too. It's much easier with two analog sticks (which really helps the games), the online is better (thank God Nintendo ditched the "friend codes" with the Wii-U at least), and the touch-screen is better (very responsive).

From a games perspective though, there's no contest. 3DS >>>> PSVita. It's a shame though that there aren't many games on the Vita. Some are really good. I downloaded Uncharted: Golden Abyss, Gravity Rush, and even tried WipeOut 2440 for free. They're all solid titles. Aside from that and a few other titles, slim pickings. Either PS2/PS3 ports or indie titles. It's too bad that publishers are afraid to touch it (but makes sense).

I hope with the rumor of a PS4/Vita bundle, this means Sony is planning to drop the price significantly. Won't get my hopes too high though... 

I don't really see the problem. The whole point of handheld development is that its suppose to be cheaper and therefore easier to release games and make money. Vita has good power and everything but when the option between making an expensive game vs a cheaper one comes up and the Vita can't even compete games wise or in buyer interest, well, it makes sense. This is basically just an argument of more power = better without recognizing everything that goes along with it.

ActicEdge

The fact that Vita has more power doesn't mean that developers have to write games that are extremley taxing. It just means they have more resources to play with if they fancy making something a bit more taxing. There are plenty of 2d Sidescrollers and indies that do well enough on the system because they're styalized and enjoyable, but aren't a problem for the hardware.

I don't really see the problem. The whole point of handheld development is that its suppose to be cheaper and therefore easier to release games and make money. Vita has good power and everything but when the option between making an expensive game vs a cheaper one comes up and the Vita can't even compete games wise or in buyer interest, well, it makes sense. This is basically just an argument of more power = better without recognizing everything that goes along with it.

ActicEdge

Why is it cheaper to make games on 3DS than Vita? Nobody is forcing developers to make Uncharted or Killzone graphics. Look at what Atlus did, ported a PS2 game to it and raised the resolution, threw in some trophies and collected some easy profit, that game was super cheap for Atlus to make.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I don't really see the problem. The whole point of handheld development is that its suppose to be cheaper and therefore easier to release games and make money. Vita has good power and everything but when the option between making an expensive game vs a cheaper one comes up and the Vita can't even compete games wise or in buyer interest, well, it makes sense. This is basically just an argument of more power = better without recognizing everything that goes along with it.

Nickprovs

The fact that Vita has more power doesn't mean that developers have to write games that are extremley taxing. It just means they have more resources to play with if they fancy making something a bit more taxing. There are plenty of 2d Sidescrollers and indies that do well enough on the system because they're styalized and enjoyable, but aren't a problem for the hardware.

What's the point of having powerful hardware and not even attempting to use it? Do you just want to drive up the cost of the hardware for no reason because if I get a Vita its not to play 2D sidecrollers and indie games. You can play those games else where and for cheaper (like the 3DS, PS3, 360, WiiU, PC, Smartphones). I'm sorry but this is just a reality, if you have powerful hardware and no one is using it, then obviously you set the bar higher than what developers were willing to invest in and that's "bad" because you it makes your hardware more expensive. 

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I don't really see the problem. The whole point of handheld development is that its suppose to be cheaper and therefore easier to release games and make money. Vita has good power and everything but when the option between making an expensive game vs a cheaper one comes up and the Vita can't even compete games wise or in buyer interest, well, it makes sense. This is basically just an argument of more power = better without recognizing everything that goes along with it.

crimsonman1245

Why is it cheaper to make games on 3DS than Vita? Nobody is forcing developers to make Uncharted or Killzone graphics. Look at what Atlus did, ported a PS2 game to it and raised the resolution, threw in some trophies and collected some easy profit, that game was super cheap for Atlus to make.

If all you want to do is play ports than sure. If all you want to do is play low budget indie games that you can get on like every other system than sure. Otherwise, why are you guys all about the Vita's power? I would assume for new games because the market doesn't give a "shit" about paying $250 to play enhanced PS2 games and indie games. I'm just being realistic here, $250 for a dedicated game playing handheld is way too much for the current market. 3DS died at that price with way better games, why would Vita do better when the hardware forces the price as high as it is?

Playstation Vita is poop.PonchoTaco

[QUOTE="famicommander"]Atari, SEGA, SNK, Nokia, NEC/Hudson, and Bandai all tried and failed. So too has Sony, because Sony never bothered to look into WHY Nintendo machines keep obliterating the competition. Portability, battery life, and exclusive games. Vita just about matches 3DS in battery life but in terms of portability and exclusive games it's not even remotely close. I love my Vita but it's going to end up no different than the Neo Geo Pocket Color or Lynx.Nickprovs

It's still a portable system, and seeing as how well the 3DS XL sales are which I find even more uncomftorable to carry around than the Vita, I don't think thats what is really stopping the Vita from selling. I think it's as simple as development really :/.

It needs a price cut, and it needs games so more people will buy so devs will see the point of making games so the system will have more games so more people will buy so devs will make more games so.... Basically, easy thing to do first, price cut.rjdofu

You don't cut the price without games. It makes no sense to do so. What are people gonna play on the system even at a reduced price? Uncharted? Persona? It makes more sense for Sony to just be profittable on the whole venture and cut the price when they can garner some bigger releases. That's why Japan got a price cut while NA didn't.

The new method for handheld sales is not to have any good games, and the 3DS does this wonderfully.Blabadon

Its a shame vita price is too high, Memory Card is too High and lacking games.

I own a Vita and love it but, these are the reasons 3DS is whooping Dat Ass.

[QUOTE="Blabadon"]The new method for handheld sales is not to have any good games, and the 3DS does this wonderfully.YoshiYogurt

[QUOTE="rjdofu"]It needs a price cut, and it needs games so more people will buy so devs will see the point of making games so the system will have more games so more people will buy so devs will make more games so.... Basically, easy thing to do first, price cut.ActicEdge

You don't cut the price without games. It makes no sense to do so. What are people gonna play on the system even at a reduced price? Uncharted? Persona? It makes more sense for Sony to just be profittable on the whole venture and cut the price when they can garner some bigger releases. That's why Japan got a price cut while NA didn't.

[QUOTE="Blabadon"]The new method for handheld sales is not to have any good games, and the 3DS does this wonderfully.YoshiYogurt

A price cut's effect is short term and in the end meaningless if it doesn't come along with software to drive adoption. See: the history of Gamecube and Dreamcast versus the Nintendo 3DS. Multiple price drops in multiple regions were not enough for the Gamecube or Dreamcast to sustain long-term sales increases because the release schedules of those systems did not drive enough interest. The 3DS price drop would not have helped if it was not accompanied by Star Fox (just before) and SM3DL, MK7, and MH4 (in Japan).famicommander

This. You need more than price cuts to make your platform successful. You got to also have the games, & your product has to carry some sort of value in which consumers will enjoy.

The PS2 succeeded so well against the Dreamcast, Gamecube, & Xbox because not only do they have tons of games, but that the PS2 also has a lot of value to it, especially with having a DVD Player inside the console. 

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="rjdofu"]It needs a price cut, and it needs games so more people will buy so devs will see the point of making games so the system will have more games so more people will buy so devs will make more games so.... Basically, easy thing to do first, price cut.rjdofu

You don't cut the price without games. It makes no sense to do so. What are people gonna play on the system even at a reduced price? Uncharted? Persona? It makes more sense for Sony to just be profittable on the whole venture and cut the price when they can garner some bigger releases. That's why Japan got a price cut while NA didn't.

You cut price to help your install base increase yes. Price isn't the biggest reason why the Vita isn't selling however. Vita isn't selling because it has no market relevancy and it has no market relevancy because it hs no games or features to attract "new" buyers. A $50 Vita price cut is not going to do anything besides bolster sales for like 3 months. Frankly, there is nothing competitive about a $150 Vita because it severely is lacking in games. If Sony wants to make the Vita relevant again they can't just cut the price, at the very least they need to redesign the system and include internal memory big enough to save games. They also straight up need to move away from memory cards because consumers are not stupid. I also said that they should wait for bigger releases, a bunch of medium and small interesting releases is actually superior to one big game but they need games to sell hardware, not the other way around.

Handhelds are just an easy way for developers to overprice games. Anything released on a handheld could be released as an arcade game, but no vice versa. The issue is there's no way they'd get away with charging 40-60 dollars for those types.

Handhelds are just an easy way for developers to overprice games. Anything released on a handheld could be released as an arcade game, but no vice versa. The issue is there's no way they'd get away with charging 40-60 dollars for those types.

GD1551

Arcade games are only cheap because they don't have to have their price hiked due to being in a retail channel. Any arcade game that regularly cost say $15 is going to cost $30+ in retail. You can't actually think otherwise. Handheld games aren't overpriced more so than the avenue that they are delivered makes it appear so. 

Sony hasn't learned their lesson. People don't want a console experience on a hand held. They don't care about graphics on a hand held. Make it different and heck make the graphics LESS than the consoles so it also looks different. Otherwise having a VITA is like owning two PS3's but one has less games. Bread_or_Decide

The 3DS is pretty much a gamecube/SNEs, with watered down games. Handhelds have always been watered down console experiences (mostly because of the weak hardware), there is only a handful of games on the DS that was truly unique to a dual screen handheld system.

Not to say that the games are bad, but both 3DS and Vita are doing the same thing, just one targets a more modern system potentially allowing devs to do more. The only problem is that devs don't bother with the Vita so the better hardware is irrelevant.

It's a shame that the system with the best games is getting the bigger sales numbers? How does that line of logic even work?Shinobishyguy

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

Handhelds are just an easy way for developers to overprice games. Anything released on a handheld could be released as an arcade game, but no vice versa. The issue is there's no way they'd get away with charging 40-60 dollars for those types.

ActicEdge

Arcade games are only cheap because they don't have to have their price hiked due to being in a retail channel. Any arcade game that regularly cost say $15 is going to cost $30+ in retail. You can't actually think otherwise. Handheld games aren't overpriced more so than the avenue that they are delivered makes it appear so. 

Handheld games are 40-60 dollars now and cost a fraction of what it takes to make a normal console game. That's just ridiculous.

The 3DS is a terrific system so I'm not disappointed at all by it dominating.

As long as Sony thinks making something more powerful will be the only factor to winning over the handheld market they will lose. It's like the gamegear vs the Gameboy all over again. HarlockJC

it is a damn that the handheld market has to cowtow to the lowest common denominator, heck there are smartphones stronger than the 3ds

The only disappointment is the Vita. It'll be only relevant to Japan at this rate.

[QUOTE="HarlockJC"]As long as Sony thinks making something more powerful will be the only factor to winning over the handheld market they will lose. It's like the gamegear vs the Gameboy all over again. Yo-SUP

[QUOTE="Yo-SUP"][QUOTE="HarlockJC"]As long as Sony thinks making something more powerful will be the only factor to winning over the handheld market they will lose. It's like the gamegear vs the Gameboy all over again. HarlockJC