Sony Confused, Says 3DS Success a "Good Sign"

[stingray71]

We bought two lite versions for the kids, play them constantly. Still no games on mobile devices that compete against Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong, imho.

 

[shanky887614]

if they added phone functionallity to it

it would fly off the shelfs

 

[coldmast]

What they really should have done is make a Playstation controller attachment for a Playstation Tablet computer.

 

[Northwestern]

The 3DS could have been much more successful if Nintendo would have avoided releasing the DSi and DSi XL just under a year before. Families who bought the DSi prior to the 3DS either had no funds or did not find a need to buy another one just for 3D capability.

 

[Shin-san]

I think the 3DS's price definitely helped things. I went to get a DS for a gift for someone that had games and a dying DS, and the 3DS is only $10-20 more than a DS. Might as well get the 3DS

 

[Shin-san]

Sony also has a hard time launching platforms

 

[fulle]

The price is too high. I mean, when your absurdly expensive device is more expensive than Apple's competing absurdly expensive device, perhaps you've pressed too far. Especially when said device is a platform from which you'll glean lots of software sales.

Selling the Vita at $250 is idiotic.

Also idiotic, is selling what is essentially a 32GB MicroSD card for $100. Market price on a class 10 32GB MicroSD card is about 40 dollars, first of all. Selling what is essentially the same thing for $100 is robbery. Of course, it's also completely ridiculous as a strategy, since it'll force users into lower capacity SD cards, resulting in, lower software sales.

Does Sony want to sell games, apps, and other content on their Vita? Or just get a small amount of early adopter hardware sales before 3rd party software developers abandon ship, and leave Vita for dead?

Also, who decided 3 hours of battery life was sufficient? Cuz, I'd just like to take them for a nice scenic walk through this.... dark alley.

 

[jcb82]

Currently the prices are:
PSV: $250
Games: $50
MemoryCard 16gb :$70

Total costs just to play one game is waaay too high. Total costs should be in the sub $300 range.

And another thing, its not something i'll carry around just to have a game or two while i'm standing in line somewhere. For me to get a chance to play, I'd have to plan ahead or take the train or something.

 

[Guest]

if sony will not cut the psv price, then history will gonna repeat itself.

 

[psychotek71]

sony epic fail -1 still can't get my credit fixed fku

 

[wlachan]

What's wrong with PSP? The games are expensive. Many are overly complicated good looking boring games. A huge number of decent games are in Japanese only. And the analog stick sucks.

 

[dalauder]

[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]Is there a compelling reason for them to do so? The Wii *did* take a solidly first-place finish in the 7th generation: at this point, there is zero chance that either the PS3 or Xbox 360 will ever catch up to it; total sales are more than 56% greater than the Xbox 360, the closest competitor.If you're going to make a comment about "kids games," I honestly don't really see them any more than on the 360 or PS3. All of them have Call of Duty, all have their own exclusive shooters. And about graphics? The Wii's graphics are sufficient enough; no one complained about the weaker original Xbox... And both the PS3 and 360 are embarrassingly weak compared to a PC; by now netbooks surpass them readily. (pretty much any of AMD's Fusion APUs is a more powerful gaming setup than either the 360 or PS3)[/citation]Although you made some good points, you claims on hardware are flatout false. The PS3 has roughly a GeForce 7800GT, which is about 50% of an 8800GT. A 7800GT thoroughly stomps a Radeon 6380G, which is the best thing you'll find in an AMD netbook: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fastest-graphics-card-radeon-geforce,3085-7.html

Nevertheless, a 7800GT is ridiculously anemic for anything attempting to call itself a primary gaming platform.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]Although you made some good points, you claims on hardware are flatout false. The PS3 has roughly a GeForce 7800GT,[/citation]
The GPU happens to be roughly based on that of a 7900GT, as the RSX is a modified G71. (though often compared to the G70, it makes use of a 90nm fabrication process like the G71)

There are two main differences: half of the ROPs are disabled, bringing the count down to 8 from 16, and the memory interface is halved as well, from 256-bit to 128-bit. This brings the memory bandwidth way down, which tends to be the chief bottleneck of the system. (memory capacity and/or bandwidth has almost always been the chief bottleneck of gaming systems, rather than raw processing throughput) This reveals itself in the fact that no top-shelf PS3 games run at beyond 1280x720 @30 fps, without using AA. (excepting Final Fantasy XIII/FF XIII-2, which use AA but no HDR)

 

[Guest]

Sony is probably up to something and I don't like it...

 

[techy74]

I still get confused by all these pricing comments. Sure its more expensive, but you can see where the extra money is coming from. You dont mind paying extra, if get more features and more life from it. It's sounds like 'why does BMW both selling that car for 'x' when you can by a jap car for for half the price?'

Premium product.

I am sure many PS3 owners are keen to see how well Vita integrated with their Ps3.

 

[motheninja]

Apple OWNS the mobile gaming market. No doubt about it whatsoever. All the iPod Touches, iPhones, jailbroken iPod Nanos, iPad (might be able to chalk this one as mobile).