After the Vita's Failure, Why Do People Now Want Console Games on the Go?

Push Square: "The first console launch I ever covered for Push Square was the PlayStation Vita, so I remember those heady February winter days well. It was 2012 and message boards were aflame with complaints about the infamous Online Pass (remember that?), while the PlayStation 3 was struggling to step outside of the Xbox 360’s considerable shadow in English-speaking territories. Elsewhere, smartphone apps were in vogue, and the media was telling us how they’d eventually crush console games for good."

[Xerneas]

Having console games on the go wasn't a problem. 3DS had that, and a huge abundance of high quality games, also had great marketing. PSVita with how sony handled everything never had a chance.

[-Foxtrot]

Also it came down to stretching great developers to do games on the PSV...and honestly if there's a choice of a Sony developer like NaughtyDog, Sucker Punch, Guerrilla Games, Media Molecule or Sony Japan to make either a PSV game or a PS4 one then people would pick a PS4 game every time. Why waste the talent.

[Imalwaysright]

Wasting talent?! Its their platform and if there is a publisher that has the obligation to support it, its Sony.

[bouzebbal]

people want to play games on the go.. not take a console with no games on the go. here is the difference

[bouzebbal]

didnt expect a gamer to give such a low level answer.
Nintendo does it with all THEIR consoles, why not Sony???
Vita is made with no clear strategy. Yes it is a powerful handheld, yes it is well built but marketing and support was laughable all the way.
It is a missed opportunity for Sony and many fans won't buy their next handheld and i dont hope there is one in the pipeline.
Vita should have followed PSP's footsteps and give external studios the possibility to develop their biggest franchises for handheld.

[fiveby9]

Sony didn't help the PS Vita by using proprietary storage cards which cost way more than SD cards.

[telekineticmantis]

I never knew you could play 3DS games on your T.V. can you?

[RememberThe357]

Nail. Head. Switch allows you to very easily go from on the couch to on the go. If the Vita had a feature where you could take any game on your console on the go it would have been a far different story. But the Switch happened now because the tech got to the right place, so maybe Sony will have a similar approach if they decide to go after handhelds again.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Yes.

https://youtu.be/ifJL3UAZ4R...

I have an older setup of this I also have an adapter for the DS.

@Remember-for somebody called remember I'm actually quite surprised you didn't realize for a very long time now you could out almost any portable to a television Sony did with the PSP all the way back in 2008....

[Scatpants]

3DS games are trash compared to consoles.

[RosweeSon]

Play a couple you might be surprised sure they won’t have the graphics and resolutions of home consoles but he’ll id take a 3DS over an X any day of the week bought my 3ds day one and still got more than enough top quality games to get through.

[SurgicalMenace]

As much as I love my Vita(favorite system), I cannot say that 3DS games are trash. E.g. Shin Megami, Kingdom Hearts, Metroid, Braverly, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, Monster Hunter, etc I am a hardcore though, so it is very hard to not support a system with games.

I did wonder the same thing though, the Switch even has several games on it that are on the Vita too. What it seem to be is a double standard that has always been. The PSP was dogged for having only one analog stick, but the 3DS did not get hammered for it. The Vita was bashed for no internal memory but the New 3DS only took the most expensive micros at first. The Vita was dogged for it price, but the 3DS launched at the same price while giving less. I will admit Sony dropped the ball, for America exspecially, on not supporting something that should surpassed the PSP, which also supported expensive memory options with a higher price tag at launch. It bewilders me, but the Vita has plenty to play if you're a hardcore, so I am more than satisfied with it.

[Scatpants]

I have one. There's maybe 10 or 15 good games on it and the rest are shovelware of the highest order or crappy thrown together kids games. I'd say the Vita had a better ratio of good games to shovelware.

[Automatic79]

The Vita wasn't a failure I owned it and thought the system was fantastic. The reason I got rid of it was due to the support the system got after a year and a half. If Sony would have invested the same effort it did into PS4 launch into PS Vita launch and Post launch. I would have kept it. Notable great games Uncharted, Resistance and Killzone.

[Neonridr]

notable great games that existed in the first year of its lifespan.

[Servbot41]

"I enjoyed X so it must be good and successful"

[cactus1230]

if somebody enjoys something they bought, to them its a success. I think the wii sucked but I cant tell that to somebody that loves just dance or wii sports

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

The Vita floated by on a small selection of really good games, but it was never the success Sony wanted it to be, for multiple reasons.
I'd be willing to bet that a very large portion of owners bought it either for JRPG's in general, or for Monster Hunter specifically.

[Seraphim]

I think that with the introduction of PS4 perhaps Sony hoped people would see the value in remote play. A big problem with the PS3 was that some great games that should have supported remote play didn't. There was a work around where games like Ni No Kuni were shown running on remote play but to the mass market this wasn't possible. Granted you still need WiFi access to use remote play which limits it's use. So from a handheld, on the road, w/o WiFi access system it is limited. We've continued to see some great releases of RPGs but outside that, yeah, after the first two or so years support wasn't there from both Sony and 3rd party. Games like Gravity Rush, Assassins Creed, Uncharted were all phenomenal original games. Ninja Gaiden Sigma 1 and 2 were good as were some other titles. But likely due to sales development ceased to continue and w/o software it's hard to move hardware. Especially so when we're talking about a handheld. I think if people had need or a reason for a handheld and already own a PS4 that remote play alone would be enticing enough to pick up a Vita. The problem is, it's likely few in the PS4 user base see a need or reason to own a handheld regardless. And I bet a good majority don't even know what remote play is and just how many PS4 titles support it.

The Vita certainly wasn't a success but I'd be hard pressed to call it a failure. Though it's easy to do considering the grip Nintendo has on the handheld market.

As I've said since before the PSP launched. The handheld market is a different breed. While I've personally bought a Gameboy Advanced, PSP, PS Vita and now the Switch I just don't have a use for a handheld. The Switch, though technically a hybrid is something I bought as a console. It's likely to see no play time as a handheld. If it does I'd bet that it will be maxed out at 10-20 hours of play time over it's lifetime. Unless I'm hospitalized or something. I think one reason Nintendo handhelds succeed is that they offer a system in which games can be made cheap. They don't require the budget a system like the Vita or PSP do. Or even the Game Gear, Lynx and other handhelds in the past that have failed.

[hulk_bash1987]

It was a great system with lots of potential, that failed to capture a significant enough share of the portable market. Such a shame because it did have some great games. Sony should have invested more to support more quality games being developed for the system.

[Istolla]

What kind of logic is this? Things aren't failures because you own/owned them?

[crazyCoconuts]

Time will tell, but I think after the novelty wears off, Switch will have a problem with AAA 3rd party like Vita did. But the big difference is that Nintendo has a huge following of people that will buy whatever to play their great 1st party games.

[Sgt_Slaughter]

The Switch is going nowhere but up. It's a must have for this holiday season, and 3rd parties are coming in droves to put their games on the system. Not going anywhere anytime soon. The Vita was abandoned by it's own manufacturer, so that's the main reason it failed.

[SurgicalMenace]

Put their old games on it, I have a Switch with no games because I own them elsewhere.

[kneon]

I don't think it's novelty, it's just that Nintendo fans are going to buy it because they have no other choice. Plus they will pick up some of what remains of the DS market. So overall it should outperform the Wii U, but it's certainly not another Wii.

[kneon]

Sorry, it seems you have reading comprehension issues. What Nintendo games will Nintendo fans find on a ps4?

If you want to play the new Nintendo games you're getting a switch, simple as that.

[Istolla]

Kneon, it's still a dumb comment. How different is that from saying Sony fans can't play Sony games anywhere else other than a Sony platform. What does that have to do with anything?

[kneon]

@Istolla

It's exactly the same, and the same used to go for Xbox fans before their "exclusives" started moving to PC.

Because there is a core base of fans on a platform you can almost guarantee a certain amount of sales of a new console. The trick is getting people outside that core to buy as well. Sony has managed it well with the PS4, Xbox hasn't done very well, and it's too early to tell if the switch is getting significant traction outside of their core fan base.

Nintendo did it with the Wii, but the problem there was that those new customers were casual gamers that have since moved on to phones and tablets.

[crazyCoconuts]

And I think you guys might agree that Mario and Zelda have a fan following that probably eclipses any IP Sony and MS have. I mean, it's kinda unreal...

[crazyCoconuts]

Nintendo IPs are kinda like Disney Land and Sony's IPs are like Universal Studios...

[PhoenixUp]

Because PSP successfully proved the concept could work

[Team_Litt]

You misspelled Nintendo DS and Gameboy

[PhoenixUp]

Those handhelds didn’t have hardware parity with the current consoles on the market when they released. They didn’t provide console on the go hardware like PSP

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

I don't remember much of the PSP; are you really certain that it had hardware parity with the PS1, buttons, functions, and all?
Because if that's the case, then the PSP should have been capable of having all of the same games, but for some reason I can't recall it having the same line-up...

[Profchaos]

Neither does the switch off argue the PSP was producing games much closer to the fidelity of the PS2 than the switch does the ps4 although it's very close

[Razzer]

PSP can play PS One classics from the PS store. It actually got a number of
PS2 ports as well.

[septemberindecember]

The NES was still the hottest console by the time the Gameboy released, which it had relative parity with.

I think the Gameboy and the PSP has similar situations. Both released four to five years after the consoles which they had relative parity with, while a new generation was just coming in.

[PhoenixUp]

@ Wonder

Of course PSP had parity with PS2. Didn’t you see the deluge of PS2 ports that arrived on the system. If not I don’t see why you even bothered replying.

@ sept

Game Boy has no where near parity with NES. The Game Boy Color however did, and that handheld released more than a decade after NES.

[septemberindecember]

They are actually quite comparable. Just as comparable as a PSP vs a PS2. The NES has the benefit of more sprites, but the Gameboy could update and manipulate tiles much faster and easier. The Gameboy also had much more RAM than the NES did and had the benefit of a more enhanced instruction set.

It wasn't as powerful, but it did achieve relative parity. With a big hindrance simply being it's cheap LCD screen. Just take a look at some of the franchises like Super Mario Land 2 vs Super Mario Bros 3 an Links Awakening vs. Zelda 1. Honestly, if you don't think that the Gameboy had relative parity with the NES then I don't know why you think the PSP had relative parity with the PS2.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

"Of course PSP had parity with PS2. Didn’t you see the deluge of PS2 ports that arrived on the system. If not I don’t see why you even bothered replying. "

I "bothered replying" precisely because, as I said in an earlier post, "I don't remember much of the PSP."
I asked because I genuinely didn't know, not because I was trying to take pot-shots at it.-_-;;

[Teflon02]

Psp came the ps2 era. It had alot of ports perfectly in tact. You can still get alot of them on Vita even now. Like crash titan, mind over mutant, crash tag team racing, the warriors, both GTA games, Pacman world 3, midnight club 3 and more. These games were all on par with the ps2 versions with just longer load screens and some having slightly downgraded graphics

[Teflon02]

Balance
Alot of Vita games are ports from ps3.
Literally alot. Some games ports were such straight ported. The system couldn't run some games properly because it weren't converted properly.
Borderlands, MvC, Sfxt, Sonic and all star racing transformed Rayman origin and Legend's, ps all stars and all the ps3 Japanese games that came to it

[Profchaos]

PSP was leagues ahead of it's time.

[datriax]

lol Seriously. If you think the Vita failed because people didn't want "console games on the go", then you should really consider never writing another opinion piece again. Do some research.

[the_massive]

Vita was never a good value, ever. 100% why it failed

[RosweeSon]

Yeah the month I bought it and a memory card I got a free copy of Uncharted Gravity Rush Street Fighter X TEKKEN and Katamari for free (Ps+) all on the first day? Yeah what a rip off that they gave me games valued at the price of my memory card if not the entire console... what a rip off. My console paid for itself in free games memeory cards weren’t cheap but go large and shouldn’t need to bother again plus shop around got 32GB for £45ish didn’t need another jobs a goodun the fact they aren’t so expensive also means they hold their resell value so just sell it on, simple.

[the_massive]

So the first issue is competition. Phones and Nintendo. The price was just wrong, and they never lowered it.

2nd issue was using proprietary memory cards that were also too expensive.

This thing should have been $150, came with at least a 32Gb card, carrying case,and your choice of game download. But it was so rare to see it on sale and even when it was, it was still to pricey, and it wasnt about to get in my pocket over my phone.

And since SOny never wanted to cater to market forces and do like a fire sale on these things, now devs have pretty much abandoned it, and gamers.

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

That was Sony's fault though, they never gave it enough support. More games and cheaper memory cards may have made for a more successful hand-held. Between the Vita and the 3DS, I prefer the 3ds because of the game selection. I just wish the graphics were in a higher resolution.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

No.
Nooooo, no no no.
Just stop.

The Vita was NOT comparable to the Switch.

Switch is capable of playing everything, be it console or portable-built, in both forms natively, from pretty much every home and hand-held system in Nintendo's history, save maybe the Virtual Boy and certain GC-era games that require analog shoulder triggers. [...Actually, on second thought, thanks to the GC adaptor working on it, even those could be played if they arrived on the virtual console]

Vita could not do so with all of the PS4's games, and had to stream much of them unless it was a specifically-remade Vita port.
It was never even heavily advertised as anything other than a portable, unlike the Switch which is heavily advertised as a Hybrid of home and handheld.

With the Switch, outside of maybe a select few games like Starfox Zero, there's not a single game anywhere within Nintendo's lineup that would not fit onto the system.

It won't play literally every single third party multiplat in the future, but it will still get a great deal more games than the Vita did, let alone the Wii U.

[MisterManGuy]

It's not that people don't want console quality on the go. They just don't want bloated, overly demanding games on the go. Sony's problem with the Vita, aside from the obvious memory card bullshit, was two fold. One, they were focusing on games that were far too time consuming and demanding to be played in a mobile setting. I love Uncharted, but that's not really a game I'd want to play on a lunch break due to it's story-driven and cut-scene heavy nature.

Second, Sony's "console on the go" shtick in general for the PSP and PS Vita has honestly always been a load of marketing BS. By the time the PS3 and PS4 came out, the handhelds were already weak compared to their respective counterparts, and they weren't even as powerful as the console's they were based on to begin with. Because of this, most of the "Console" games for those systems were custom built entries in their series rather than straight ports. No disrespect to the PSP or PS Vita, they're fine systems and all, but they were really just traditional handhelds that happen to have games that kinda-sorta-maybe resemble what you'd find on a home console.

The Switch on the other hand isn't really a handheld with pseudo home console games. It's a literal home console you can take with you. Sure, it's no Xbox One, but it's powerful enough that it can run a competent version of Doom with only resolution and frame-rates taking a major hit. A feat, not even a Vita port of Borderlands 2 could match. Plus, most Switch games are a natural fit for on the go play, or were designed for it. Sure, you can binge Breath of the Wild for hours on a TV, but you can also have just as much enjoyment of the game in just 30 minnute chunks on a Lunch Break.

[DrJones]

The Vita had mostly small indie titles released for it, so cut the 'bloated games' argument

[MisterManGuy]

Yes, but Sony's marketing (the little there was) was focused on taking long, demanding games like Uncharted on the go. But it was quickly clear that wasn't working. Sony then fed the scraps of the Vita to the indies, and the Vita found a loyal, if small niche. Again, not to put down the Vita, it's a fine system and all, but Sony's entire strategy, execution, and pitch for the console was incredibly flawed.

[CBaoth]

agree with your assessment of the Vita. But the Switch is NOT a console. It's a handheld. Why?

A) It's portable. Consoles are a static platform. They can be moved but not when playing software.
B) It has the form factor of a 7" tablet.
C) Uses traditional SD cards as media format

What did Terrelle Owens say again? "If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat, and eats like one, then by golly it is a rat".

Don't fall for Nintendo's hyperbole and PR. The Switch is a fine system but a piece of plastic with a HDMI out doesn't make it a console. I give them credit for creating a solution for console gamers to enjoy a portable device, that's all they did though. They quietly shuttered their console division and merged it with their portable division moving forward. On the software side don't you find it strange they delayed Zelda for a year so it would debut on the Switch, but didn't follow up with the "hybrid strategy" on one of their biggest mobile IPs in Pokemon? I guess they had 15 million reasons for not. See Nintendo had a big problem: can't kill off that cash cow (3DS) but their console (WiiU) was DOA. In fact, 3 of the last 4 consoles were commercial failures. Their mobile division is rock solid. Nintendo can't have 2 portables on the market at the same time. So they devised an ingenious solution to their problem and let the PR do its thing.

EDIT: If the Switch's dock housed extra processors, 500 gig HDD, bluetooth adapter for online chat, etc... to facilitate a more robust console experience, I would agree with them. But they didn't, they offer a minimalistic experience at a maximum pricepoint

[Profchaos]

Because the Vita only had like 4 console quality games on the go trust me it's all I played and even then there was massive sacrifices compared to the PS3 at the time.

The gap between the PSP and PS2 was way smaller overall. The PSP was also just a nicer console to use save games didn't get tied into the games core files that was my major Vita complaint aswell I lost so many saves because backups just got easy to confusing and time consuming

[KillZallthebeast]

Vita always sucked I don't care how many disagree I had one for 5 years. The system is great, but it struggled hard with having games and sony abandoned it for the most part.

[DrJones]

So did it suck or was it great? Make up your mind

[KillZallthebeast]

The hardware was fantastic for its time, but with nothing to use it with or really play save a few titles it meant nothing in the end.

[FunAndGun]

The proprietary memory card prices killed the Vita. It was dead out the gate because of that single reason. I still own one, and it is a great system. The support would have been there, but the initial sales didn't convince Sony to continue supporting it.

EVERYONE said they would buy a PSP2 if it had dual analog sticks. Sony bet people would pay the price for Vita and the memory card prices, they were wrong...Vita died.

[DreadGara]

Vita's is one of the best hand helds I ever gotten. Imo the worst thing that killed it was the absence of internal storage and not supporting the SD card issue.
Sony could have easily made a gem out of it but they were greedy.

[3-4-5]

Go look at the rpg section of the Vita games. That tells you all you need to know. https://www.gamestop.com/br...

80% of the games consist of mostly women cast in short skirts with huge boobs and look really young with squeaky voices.

^ That + the price of memory cards is the reason the Vita failed. Most guys aren't trying to play barbie.....we just want normal rpgs and other games....we want variety and compared to the psp,ds,3ds it just isn't there.

Vita developers catered to the 5% hardcore super weabo fanbase and there are only so many of them, so = only so many sales = not enough to profit.

It was set up to fail from the beginning and the thing that sucks is that the Vita itself is a cool little handheld console but I've played my 3DS easily 500+ hours more than my Vita....probably more than that.

[Weeblordbad]

Bingo, the whole thing was Weeb kingdom. The software just didn't appeal and games like Borderlands 2 just looked horrific and played poorly. What was there for anyone who didnt have a hatsune miku body pillow?

[princejb134]

sony advertised PS vita as a portable while nintendo advertised the switch as a console on the go.
plus the ps vita had competition the ps3 and ps4

[leeeroythe3rd]

They do the... They want good Zelda and Mario games

[jairusmonillas]

Vita failed because it didn't even have games like nba 2k or wwe 2k, while PSP had nba and wwe and even gta and gran turismo. Switch already has nba 2k and wwe 2k so it's coming well for it.

Gamers want home console experience on the go, but only if it be supported by lots of games.

[Chaos_Order]

Sony had a chance, but made some massive errors:

- They dropped support like a hot potato the second the PS4 was released.
- Black Ops Declassified, the surefire hit, was utterly terrible, thanks in part to the developers only having 6 months to make the entire game.
- The marketing was almost nonexistent, (seriously, so many people haven't even heard of it) and what little there was, made the system look bad.
- They pushed for digital gaming... While at the same time forcing those damned expensive memory cards.

I love my Vita. Really, I do. I play it all the time and have a massive physical game collection. But Sony made some major errors that led to the system selling poorly, which in turn drove away many third party developers who genuinely wanted to make games for it. Now, it's mostly just small Japanese devs making low budget RPGs and indie devs who can easily make a port. Fine for some, but... The average consumer couldn't give two figs. Nintendo on the other hand are firing on all cylinders to make the Switch a success, and the results show it.

[cactus1230]

they actually DONT want console games on the go. as nba2k and fifa flop on the switch games like Mario kart and Mario odyssey thrive. vitas problem is that people want easy casual experiences on the go. by the time they figured out indies were perfect for it , it was too late . add the memory card fiasco and there you go. just look at all those fps games on 3ds...lol

[Fist4achin]

Aside from the memory cards and lack of first party support, i think the vita was way ahead of its time. I still enjoy mine.

[JamesBondage]

lol, we definitely wanted them before the vita failed, but no one made any games for it. i know there were some, but you know what i mean

[Elda]

When Sony turned it's back on the Vita by not supporting it with first party titles in 2015 my Vita started to collect dust.I finally got rid of it for the SNES mini & I haven't regret it at all. With the addition of a 100 more SNES games I play the SNES Mini more than when I had the Vita which was for 4 years.

[BlackPantherNation]

Vita failed because 1. The price for storage was insane and 2. Sony abandoned it.. the end

[Petebloodyonion]

Oh boy! where to start?

1st mistake: Confusing offering
Remember when Vita had 2 bundles and one with at&t but you couldn't play online except on Wifi?

2) Bad positioning of the device.
Who was the targeted audience?
Was it for new experience or crossplay?

3) Expensive as hell, Let's make our Vita more expensive compared to our home console and charge them extra for memory cards.

4) Charging double for crossplay
Buying a second time a game so I could play on the go isn't cool.

[XStation4pio_Pro]

They just want Nintendo games on the go. Kids have always had a 3ds in hand just about everywhere they go. Th Switch is better than a 3ds so now they’re gonna pack that around instead. I think most adult gamers care less about portability. I know I don’t regard it as a high priority and I own a Switch. I care more about fidelity and performance. Not a slight. Just my preference personally. Sony misses all the magic that makes Nintendo great in the portable space. Mainly Nintendo’s extremely plentiful franchises and characters that no other studio has come close to matching in popularity, individually. The Vita didn’t really have a ton of first party support, but it also didn’t have much 3rd party support either. So it didn’t have much of anything.

[dkrusen87]

All of this just overwhelms me. :(

[Foraoise]

Stupid article with a stupid writer. That wasn't its issue at all...

[BioDead]

Because people are idiots. Thats why.

[ruefrak]

Because it's "Nintendo." In the echo chamber he's talking about, in the gaming circles, Nintendo gets a pass at everything. Something that's a flaw on other systems is suddenly no big deal on a Nintendo console. So I think it is prudent to still wait and see how the actual world is reacting.

As he pointed out, DOOM apparently isn't selling well. Ubisoft had great success, but then they a Mario game. Nintendo is having success with their typical Nintendo games. And EA seems to not be very impressed with sales of FIFA as they have once again said they're holding off and waiting.

[vergilxx3]

With 200+ upcoming games it's hardly dead
http://m.neogaf.com/showthr...

few of these games have realesed already

[tehpees3]

The thing that gets on my nerves is that Sony threw away all that promising technology. I can understand Capcom, Ubisoft or Activision screwing it up because they treat all platforms they don't have interest in as a system to dump their cash grabs but Sony is the manufacturer and should be setting the example. Instead they put out some of the shoddiest HD ports I've ever seen them do.

Because of it we'll never really know what Vita was truly capable of. Obviously it couldn't do what Switch can (L.A. Noire and DOOM) but Vita would have had some truly remarkable handheld games. Isn't anybody else curious to see what a GTA Stories could have turned out like with Vita?

That is the ultimate problem Vita had. Third parties in particular think people who buy the system don't know it is capable of more then they give it. But they aren't stupid. They know what to expect from the technology even with the media exaggerating the system's power based on rumours they heard.

[irishyort]

The vita failed in as much as Sony didn't rally for support of it. I want console games on the go!!! My Vita didn't provide that. Borderlands seemed like the only real attempt. The Switch has seemingly fixed this problem with one of the best selling games of recent times already due for release with Skyrim. I believe the Vita could have run this and Fallout 3 and NV, and a host of other games, however Sony never pushed for it or bothered to support it themselves. I'm sure all Vita owners were expecting great AAAs even if a little dumbed down PS3 versions, we didnt get it :( In all probability, they could still go for these games now and have a resurgence, but I bet they wont

[uth11]

Vita released at the height of the mobile craze. Parents would wonder why they should pick up a portable game system when they could get a tablet that did more.

Maybe after awhile people realize touch screen only devices are no good for some types of games and portable game systems provide an experience you can't get in mobile.

Back in the 80s, people assumed consoles were dead because you could get a cheap home computer that could play games, but after a few years of that, consoles came roaring back. Same thing might be happening here

[drunkenspy007]

What failure? It sold plenty and still has new games that come out on it.

[iofhua]

Back when I would browse the Playstation Store on my Ps3, I saw Vita games I wanted to download and play. One of them was called something like "Holy Crap, Badman! What did I do to deserve this?" where you built up a dungeon full of monsters. It looked neat. But I didn't have a Vita. I couldn't understand why Sony would lose out on sales by not allowing the Ps3 to play Vita games. I don't play games on the go, and didn't want to drop $ on a Vita that I would never use outside of a handful of games, and never outside my house. So I never bought that cool-looking game. Sadface.

Now Nintendo comes along, and you can play all the games on the Switch platform in both console mode or portable. They aren't going to do stupid things like Sony did, dangling games in their store that you can't play. That's why it's a success.

[Eltortugagames]

Better games

[OoglyBoogly]

I think honestly, the lack of good controls is what killed it. The missing (not to mention analog) L2 and R2 buttons and the sticks L3 and R3 buttons hurts it with porting PS3 games to it as well as doing PS4 Remote Play.

I really think Sony just needs to update the Vita. Better controls, the hardware these days is beast for the size, (could easily be Switch+ level performance), and the games are there for a device like it.

[Claudinho69]

bad vita marketing

[Bleucrunch]

PS Vita failed because of SONY piss pour marketing because the Vita was an amazing portable console and I hope Sony can make a new with its own set of IP's and games and make it have its own flavor and compete with the Switch.

Its like right there for the taking and the competition would be SO ON.

[Tetsujin]

I never knew Vita was a failure to begin with. Just because Sony shifted focus doesn't mean it failed, especially with games still releasing for it.

[bluebenjamin]

Vita would have made it if Sony wouldnt have abandoned it