• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

laziboi

Alt-account
Banned
Oct 25, 2019
1,918
Your Anus
The PlayStation Vita is the odd-duck of the PlayStation line. It had impressive hardware, features, and specs for a device of its kind, was relatively affordable on paper, and was following up the very successful PlayStation Portable. Unfortunately, overpriced memory cards, non-existent marketing, and poor third party support resulted in the console not dying, but rather going into a sort of comatose state. Games are actually still releasing for it, and for a while, it became a good home for a variety of indie titles, and small Japanese games. But Sony has gradually de-emphasized the Vita in subsequent years, dismantling it piece by piece with the closure of services and discontinuation of physical games.

Perhaps the biggest crime, was the lack of software from Sony themselves. SCE Worldwide Studios gradually focused less and less on the Vita until abandoning it just 3 years into its life in favor of the PS4. Sony's final physical release for the system, Freedom Wars, came out just 3 years into its life. It didn't help that many of Sony's most popular teams didn't want to make games for it. Unlike Nintendo EPD, WWS is comprised of disparate teams scattered across the globe, so getting all of them to believe in a platform/feature and share information with each other is more difficult. So while the likes of Media Molecule and Sony Japan will experiment with something like the Vita, Don't expect Naughty Dog, Guerilla flagship, or Sucker Punch to do anything with it.

The lack of first party support with the Vita was a problem, because it made the system's lackluster third party support stand out like a sore thumb compared to other PS systems. With Nintendo, they could at least get their teams to prop up the console to disguise that fact, as was the case with the 3DS, GameCube, N64, and Wii U. But Sony couldn't even be bothered to ask many of their top studios to at least set-up secondary handheld teams to work on Vita games. So instead of trying to salvage the Vita and make it at least a more successful console than it ended up being, they just threw their hands up too early, and went all in on PS4.
 

Caiusto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,743
ullaqld.jpg
 

NinjaScooter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
54,124
I owned a Vita, but if the trade off to that is that we got better first party support for PS4 and PSVR, I'll take it.
 

fourfourfun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,680
England
When it supported them with said games, it needed to not be diet versions of the main line series. My favourite experience on Vita was Gravity Rush - which felt utterly uncompromised - and Final Fantasy X HD - a full fat and fondly remembered jRPG. Uncharted felt basic, Killzone felt basic, LBP felt basic. It would have been far better to create unique titles tailored for the platform. Unsurprising that the strengths of the machine were indie titles, which was unfortunately nowhere near what the machine was billed at.

There were other factors that weren't so hot. Glaring omissions like not having a TV out, the PSvitaTV which felt a bit half baked, the memory costs, the OS crammed full of bloat, the lack of two shoulder buttons. Very much an almost machine.
 

SeeingeyeDug

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,004
I mean this is the same argument that went against Nintendo when they had separate handheld and console. It splits the development resources. That's why consolidation under a singular console that performs both functions allowed Nintendo to push more resources towards it.

Sony "could" have supported Vita better in first party support, but it would have come at a cost to PS3 and PS4 first party development.
 

Terraforce

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
18,917
This is like someone making a "hot take" that was said by everyone and their mom ten year ago.
 

AfropunkNyc

Member
Nov 15, 2017
3,958
Some people just cant leg go. Though if sony did support the vita (like they did in the early years of the vita) would it still go on the decline like it was going?
 
OP
OP
laziboi

laziboi

Alt-account
Banned
Oct 25, 2019
1,918
Your Anus
When it supported them with said games, it needed to not be diet versions of the main line series. My favourite experience on Vita was Gravity Rush - which felt utterly uncompromised - and Final Fantasy X HD - a full fat and fondly remembered jRPG. Uncharted felt basic, Killzone felt basic, LBP felt basic. It would have been far better to create unique titles tailored for the platform. Unsurprising that the strengths of the machine were indie titles, which was unfortunately nowhere near what the machine was billed at.

This, Sony needed to focus more on games that were unique to the Vita, not watered down version of console games.
 

Alucrid

Chicken Photographer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,414
at least this isn't an argument about which vita version is better
 

Windrunner

Sly
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,487
Sony supported the Vita with quite a few games, the problem was their lack of quality, poor performance or shoehorning in of pointless control gimmicks.
 

T002 Tyrant

Member
Nov 8, 2018
8,948
The reason why the Wii U kept limping on was because it at least got some of the greatest (IMO) first party support in years.

So I agree Sony shouldn't have given up, if it had got support Vita may have had a better fate.
 

Deleted member 4532

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,936
Vita was that console I was so heavily invested in. Like, it was such a huge disappointment how it all went down and I don't even think more first party titles would have helped it. Sony's FP studios didn't want anything to do with it and people just weren't into it at the time. It wasn't a smartphone and it didn't have any of Nintendo's offerings behind it.

I was sad when the thing was basically abandoned around 2015 but I think in hindsight it was the right move to focus on the PS4.
 

smash_robot

Member
Oct 27, 2017
994
I disagree. That market is owned by nintendo and sony decided it could do better elsewhere rather than pointlessly sinking even more money into the mobile market.
 

Unkindled

Member
Nov 27, 2018
3,247
Wii u had plenty of First party support and it didn't survive.
Vita had too many other problems that made it die.
 

Shopolic

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
6,841
Agree with this, but I'm happy with what Sony did at the same time!
I mean you're completely right about supporting Vita with more first party titles, but I'm happy that PS studios took their time and energy for PS3 and PS4, not Vita.
 

Nolbertos

Member
Dec 9, 2017
3,310
10 years too late with this post. Love the Vita but saw the writing in the wall too. Switch is the spiritual successor that capitalized on the Vita's shortcomings.
 

Alek

Games User Researcher
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
8,467
We need a Oculus quest style standalone VR device from Playstation. That could suffice as a way of playing your Playstation games remotely. It could run older titles via emulation in a cinema style mode. I think that'd be really cool.
 

DeoGame

Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,077
To their credit, they did put some big stuff on there. Uncharted, Modnation, Battle Royale, Sly, Resistance and Killzone. But it could have used some more tlc and a price cut earlier on.
 

Qwark

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,021
It's launch was actually pretty good in terms of support, if they had continued that level the library could've been really impressive... But they didn't for obvious reasons :(

When it supported them with said games, it needed to not be diet versions of the main line series. My favourite experience on Vita was Gravity Rush - which felt utterly uncompromised - and Final Fantasy X HD - a full fat and fondly remembered jRPG. Uncharted felt basic, Killzone felt basic, LBP felt basic. It would have been far better to create unique titles tailored for the platform. Unsurprising that the strengths of the machine were indie titles, which was unfortunately nowhere near what the machine was billed at.

There were other factors that weren't so hot. Glaring omissions like not having a TV out, the PSvitaTV which felt a bit half baked, the memory costs, the OS crammed full of bloat, the lack of two shoulder buttons. Very much an almost machine.

LBP Vita was great though. It added a bunch of great features and overall was a really solid package.
 

Deleted member 12352

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,203
Wouldn't have made any difference if they did.

By the time the Vita even released, the market for it no longer existed, so they'd have been throwing good money after bad... and we'd already lost at least one great studio (Liverpool) to what first party support Sony did throw at Vita.

That said, from the perspective of a Vita owner, yes, it definitely would have been great if they had, sure, but "There are dozens of us" etc...

10 years too late with this post. Love the Vita but saw the writing in the wall too. Switch is the spiritual successor that capitalized on the Vita's shortcomings.

Spiritual successor that still lags way behind the Vita in terms of certain system features though.
 

Eeyore

User requested ban
Banned
Dec 13, 2019
9,029
I agree with you but I don't think it would have made a demonstrable difference in the success, or lack thereof, of the system. The only real genre that supported the Vita was indie games and once the Switch came around there was even less of a reason for it to be around.
 

random88

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,286
Not US
Three reasons:

1. Waay to expensive memory cards
2. Bad support after the launch
3. Should have been named PSP 2

Also, 250$ might have been too much for a portable at the time, but I don't know, I was all over it for that price.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2, 2017
6,804
Shibuya
Yeah, one thing that bummed me out about that is that hardly any Sony developers (or devs hired by Sony depending on the situation) got to make a second game for the machine. It's a shame the money just didn't materialize and they ultimately kind of knew the right course of action was to put all eggs in the PS4 basket.
I would have loved to see the timeline where every Sony studio that didn't make a game in our timeline had a twenty or so person team make a new game for the Vita (Tearaway was made with around that many afaik). Would love to have seen what Naughty Dog could have pulled off.
 

get2sammyb

Editor at Push Square
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
3,006
UK
It would have barely moved the needle. PS Vita was a great handheld, but it wasn't the right product for the time and Sony rightly turned its attention to the PS4, which looking at how things turned out proves it made the right decision.

I love the PS Vita a lot as well, but an inFAMOUS game from Sony Bend wasn't going to remotely reverse its fortunes.
 

Eoin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,103
Maybe if Sony had shovelled more money into the bottomless pit, it would have filled up.
 

Lobster Roll

signature-less, now and forever
Member
Sep 24, 2019
34,324
I think the 5 Vita owners in the world that don't have Era accounts agree with you, OP.
 

fiendcode

Member
Oct 26, 2017
24,911
I owned a Vita, but if the trade off to that is that we got better first party support for PS4 and PSVR, I'll take it.
PSVR feels almost like a direct continuation of the low investment, low priority "platform ghetto" approach Sony gave Vita post-launch window. And it's garnered an even weaker userbase as a result.
 
OP
OP
laziboi

laziboi

Alt-account
Banned
Oct 25, 2019
1,918
Your Anus
PSVR feels almost like a direct continuation of the low investment, low priority "platform ghetto" approach Sony gave Vita post-launch window. And it's garnered an even weaker userbase as a result.
PSVR is more of a peripheral, as opposed to its own distinct platform. In that context, it was pretty successful.
 

TechnicPuppet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
10,809
They're doing the same with VR. It's obviously really difficult to split dev efforts with Nintendo managing it half the time.