backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by SilthDraeth.. on Oct 20 at 8:24 PM

The Wi-Fi only Vita will hold a price tag of $250 while the 3G(AT&T)/Wi-Fi model will run $300

At the E3 Expo in June of this year, Sony announced its newest upcoming portable, PlayStation Vita. For those of you who have been waiting to get your hands on one, Vita will be available to purchase in February 2012.

PS Vita offers social networking apps called "Party" and "Near," which allow users organize friend lists, discuss what you're doing online, and reveal where you are (much like Facebook's "Check-in").

A total of 26 games will be available on launch day, and another 100 are currently in production. A few games that Sony announced at E3 were "LittleBigPlanet," "Uncharted: Golden Abyss," and "Street Fighter X Tekken."


In addition, a new feature on Vita allows gamers to save their game on the portable system using "cloud saving," which can then be resumed on the PS3.

The Wi-Fi only Vita will hold a price tag of $250 while the 3G(AT&T)/Wi-Fi model will run $300. It will hit stores in Japan on December 17, 2011, and arrive in North America on February 22, 2012.

Many are wondering how well the Vita will be received, considering the Nintendo 3DS, which offers 3D features, was initially introduced with a $249.99 price tag and didn't sell so well. Nintendo decided to slash the 3DS' price to $169.99 only four months after its release.

Source: MSNBC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

price is the key!
By Roy2001 on 10/19/2011 12:25:22 PM , Rating: 3
Compare to 3DS and ipod touch, $249 price tag is OK. But, if you consider game price, $249 is way TOO high. It would be OK if game price is $5-$10. For current game price, Vita price should be $150.




RE: price is the key!
By augiem on 10/19/2011 9:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
The hardware and the target user for this device is in a higher bracket than 3DS. $250 is not bad at all. In fact its a steal for the hardware specs compared to all the $600-$700 phones out now with similar specs.

PSP sold for $250 when it launched in 2005, which is the equivalent of $276.70 in 2010 dollars according to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/. When the PSP came out it had 3D capabilities roughly the equivalent to a bit better than Playstation 1, which at the time was launched 11 years earlier. Based on numbers from the A5 which has the same GPU with 2 cores vs the Vita's 4 cores, the GPU in this one will probably be a bit closer to the capabilities of the contemporary consoles (X360, PS3), not the previous generation. (Though they are starting to age.) That's pretty impressive still.


RE: price is the key!
By augiem on 10/20/2011 2:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't notice the game price comment. $5-$10 is simply not feasible for games of PS3 style and quality (what Sony is shooting for on this system). Everyone thinks that the cost of making games has gone down because of the artificially deflated prices on iOS and Android markets. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consumers demand more and more, better graphics, bigger worlds, more immersive gameplay, all of which require more designers, engineers, artsts who all have to be paid (unless you're an iOS/Android dev at a small startup, then you're likely to be working for next to nothing on the hopes of scoring a "hit").

Development costs for the highest tier games has already reached $100 million, and for the most part, the "hardcore" games market is way smaller in numbers than the casual games market or the movie industry. You are asking to pay say $5 for a game that now costs $50. Is this possible? In order for the company to make the same profit (if any) at that price, they need to sell 10X more copies of that game. Is that feasible? To sell 10X more games, you either need to market it a whole lot harder (cost of marketing), or have a much much bigger userbase. The phone has not even launched yet. They have no userbase, but very likely they are not predicting they'll get anywhere near 100m users any time soon if ever with the device.

Movies cost $300M and you can watch one for $10 at the theater and they still make profit. The day as many people buy games on a weekly basis as go to the theater, then your wish will come true. Until then, it remains just that. Wishful thinking.


Bit of a Fail . . .
By Denigrate on 10/19/2011 12:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
Sony should have had this out in time for Christmas. They'll lose some sales at launch due this factor. Other than that, it looks like a great piece of hardware. Will likely pick one up for my son at some point.




RE: Bit of a Fail . . .
By BansheeX on 10/19/2011 2:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
So.... wait a year or two? Would you rather they just not release it until they can sell it for as much as you can afford? Cause that screen and cpu ain't cheap.


Put it in a phone
By sleepeeg3 on 10/19/2011 1:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Put it in a phone with an 8MP camera, 1280x720 screen and 3000mAH battery and I will be a happy camper.

Sony is beating around the bush with the Xperia Play. Merge the technologies already and they will own the smartphone/gaming market for <30 year olds.




RE: Put it in a phone
By augiem on 10/19/2011 10:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sony just bought Ericson so maybe this will help them unify things. Just speculatin'....


AT&T alone makes me not want to buy this
By far327 on 10/19/2011 5:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Really? AT&T has got to be the absolute worst wireless provider/customer service on the planet. Mark my words, you will all feel the wrath of AT&T jacking your money. And what's with the name of this thing.. VITA? It's to close to VISTA. Poor marketing idea for a name. What happened to cool tech names for products? I predict failure all the way around for both juggernaut companies.




By augiem on 10/19/2011 10:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
I like to call it the Sony Vitamin! :)


$250 - $300???
By Apone on 10/19/2011 6:34:31 PM , Rating: 1
While I do appreciate Sony's efforts to continue bringing new and innovative products to the consumer market, would it not make more sense financially to just pick up a fully-functional netbook computer which has a bigger screen, more horsepower and far more capabilities? Honestly $250 can buy a cheap netbook which can not only play games but can do so much more. Or are people afraid of being seen lugging around a netbook which isn't as fashionable as being seen with a PSP or iPad?...




RE: $250 - $300???
By augiem on 10/19/2011 11:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's the controllers, baby. You just can't replicate the 8/16/32-bit experience on a touchscreen. They've tried and failed. Boy have they failed. Gamer-gamers (Sony's market) will never let go of precise control. For most netbooks, GPUs are an afterthought. I don't know of a $250 netbook with similar capabilities GPU-wise. Even if it exists, playing games on a netbook and a controller would be a real PITA on a bus, at school, waiting in line, on the toilet, on a road trip, or wherever people like to play portable games these days.


yum
By SilthDraeth on 10/20/2011 8:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
yum




3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/19/11, Rating: -1
RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By quiksilvr on 10/19/2011 11:21:57 AM , Rating: 4
It has a quad core chip and a 5" OLED screen. At $249 it's not that expensive considering how much we spend on smartphones. The 3G version is stuck on AT&T, but it's the same price as the Motorola RAZR, and this is not a subsidized price like that phone is.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By inighthawki on 10/19/2011 11:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
After hearing the specs and the price I've always thought of this as incredibly well priced, going as far as wondering how they can afford to make it as cheap as it is.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By BansheeX on 10/19/2011 12:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, it has many "ultimacy" characteristics. Its got 2 thumbsticks, we'll never need 3. It's got a resolution so high, that, for the screen size, you'd never need more. 16:9 aspect is here to stay. OLED has no performance flaws like LCD, only lifespan needs improving. As long as Sony waits long enough between sucessors, Vita1 games should carry over indefinitely to Vita2/3/4 with no visual or control problems.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By nafhan on 10/19/2011 12:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how they can afford to make it as cheap as it is
It's the "razor and blades" model that consoles have been using for quite a while now. They will almost certainly lose money on the console, and hope to make it back on the games (and other services, possibly).


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By augiem on 10/19/2011 2:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
I just hope they don't get stuck into the $1 bargain basement mess model of iOS currently. It's terrible for developers. You're expected to utterly lose your shirt developing something and have a 0.005% chance of even recouping your dev costs. While it's awesome for consumers in the short term, it will ultimately prove to be bad for consumers in the long run as well when 1 million bucket o crap games a year flood the market, quality going down and down as they demand quicker development times so they can buckshot the market hoping to make a dollar, developers spawning and dying like flies, etc.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/19/2011 4:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't give a S. If someone can find a way to entertain me with a dollar...why wouldn't I want that? As a matter of fact I am entertained for free in many cases since I have an imagination.

With your logic it is bad that Activision is selling "the best game on the market" for only $60. They should be charging more since they are holding back virtual reality FPSs that would cost $1000! Won't someone think of the virtual reality developers?!

Or how about the ice hockey gear manufacturers? It is so much easier to get into video games than hockey since they are so cheap. Please raise the prices of games or we may never play hockey again!


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By inighthawki on 10/19/2011 7:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
Youre missing his point. Those $1 games still take development costs, and the balance between the quality churned out and the revenue pulled in makes it very difficult to actually turn a profit. In order to make a profit, you have to tone down quality, in order to make a higher quality game, it requires more costs, thus less profit (if any at all). It's a large weight on the shoulders of the industry who don't want to do that, yet are expected to because of the consumer's expectations that it's easy to do.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By augiem on 10/19/2011 9:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, exactly. You said it better than I did. Companies will adapt to the harsh market conditions, but I don't think you'll like results. Canned, rushed, rip-offs, clones of old games, and everyone's new favorite... FREMIUM GAMES! (Free to download nag games with in-game purchases.)


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/20/2011 2:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yep, exactly. You said it better than I did. Companies will adapt to the harsh market conditions, but I don't think you'll like results. Canned, rushed, rip-offs, clones of old games, and everyone's new favorite... FREMIUM GAMES! (Free to download nag games with in-game purchases.)

I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse here. Everything you listed is already here. You act like it is a looming threat if we start palying $1 games. The $1 games are a result of the high price of games that already exists. Most of them being precisely what you list!

The industry has been making amazing games for quite some time now. I can't remember the last time I felt that the games that came out one year weren't of better quality than the previous year. People are saying, "Play value over quality, please" and the market is responding. It is not the other way around.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By augiem on 10/20/2011 2:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not acting like it's a looming threat. I know its already here and it IS having and impact on the game development industry.

As prices fall companies are slowy turning more and more toward crap like the fremium model trying to make a profit in a seriously bad market. I'm saying that you have not seen the end result of this sell-for-less-than-cost model of smartphone gaming. It's going to take time, but in the end I believe the games industry and the consumer who actually cares what they're consuming are going to be the losers in the end when they ACTUALLY get what they pay for.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/20/2011 6:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's going to take time, but in the end I believe the games industry and the consumer who actually cares what they're consuming are going to be the losers in the end when they ACTUALLY get what they pay for.
As I said elsewhere in response to a comment of yours, as long as I and others are willing to pay $60 for a game, there will be someone making that $60 game. And I will get what I pay for.

How do you figure that those games will disappear?

Do you think a significant amount of people are at the store looking at $1 games and $60 games side by side and saying, "I was going to get Black Ops, but now that I see this $1 game...I'll get it instead!"

It is like you think that:

Scenario A)
Since the Corolla is selling for 15k, Acura might as well give up because everyone is going to buy the cheap car. Too bad the Corolla exists, otherwise 100% of the people would be driving Acuras...at least the ones who can afford it. Why must Toyota give people that freedom?! There will be no quality cars now!!!

Scenario B)
Since used, clearance games and otherwise cheap games of various varieties sell for $1 or near close to it, they are also ruining the industry! Blast GOG.com to hell!! Now we have no quality games!!

Scenario C)
Since The Raven buys approx 50% of the (many) games that he buys are used and 'old' he is ruining the industry!! I also heard that he plays open source games, gasp! Good buy Infinity Ward!


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/20/2011 2:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those $1 games still take development costs, and the balance between the quality churned out and the revenue pulled in makes it very difficult to actually turn a profit.
Let me stop you right there... if they don't make a profit, they won't make the games.

People buy COD year after year because they enjoy it. If they didn't they wouldn't buy it. If they don't buy it, guess what? Activision and whoevers' nads that they have in their grip will up the 'quality' whatever that is to the consumer (length, story, gameplay, graphics, etc.) and sell games the next time around.
quote:
It's a large weight on the shoulders of the industry who don't want to do that, yet are expected to because of the consumer's expectations that it's easy to do.

There is also a large weight on the consumer to buy things that they see the most value in. You act as if the consumers have unlimited wealth and the devs are living paycheck to paycheck. So cry me a river.

Everone wants games for free. But to get quality they will pay up. The market determines how much people are willing to pay for quality. Some are fine with Angry Birds while others want the latest COD. As the market is diversified the COD guy can expect to pay more or take a hit on quality. But that option will always be there regardless of the fact that your sister plays Cut the Rope.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By augiem on 10/20/2011 3:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let me stop you right there... if they don't make a profit, they won't make the games...


EXACTLY. This is what the $1 gaming will lead to. Most are NOT making a profit. So guess what? Either game prices will go up or your free buffet of good quality games is going away once we run out of devs willing to give you a free lunch.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/20/2011 3:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
The $1 games will go away if they are not making a profit.
Not the 'quality' games.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/20/2011 3:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Not that the same doesn't apply to the 'quality' developers.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By augiem on 10/19/2011 9:05:13 PM , Rating: 3
Good games do not create themselves, as much as you seem to imagine they do. Zero profit margins = zero incentive for companies to make better products. Once incentive is dried up, guess what? You get what you asked for. A market full of utter crud. There's a reason you have this huge catalog of practically free games and apps to choose from today. A whole lot of software on iOS and Android is being supported on the backs of developers who are working for nearly nothing in the hopes they MAY score a hit. YOU are the beneficiary of their free/underpaid labor. That's what they call a free lunch. You think that will last forever? If you do, you're very wrong.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/20/2011 3:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good games do not create themselves
Nor do dollar bills? Where do you think this -> $$$ is coming from...the sky?!
quote:
Zero profit margins = zero incentive for companies to make better products. Once incentive is dried up, guess what? You get what you asked for. A market full of utter crud.
Umm... as long as I and others are willing to pay $60 for a game, there will be someone making that $60 game. Yes, if everyone decided that they would only buy $1 games then there would be no more $60 games. (As an aside, open source gaming would take off though. Think Assualt Cube = COD quality lol.) The consumer dictates the level of quality in the market...not the manufacturers.
quote:
A whole lot of software on iOS and Android is being supported on the backs of developers who are working for nearly nothing in the hopes they MAY score a hit. YOU are the beneficiary of their free/underpaid labor. That's what they call a free lunch. You think that will last forever? If you do, you're very wrong.
You act as if Cut the Rope took as much effort by as many people to make as COD. It didn't, and therefore shouldn't cost as much. (I'm skipping steps to say that but the market will determine it so.) And if you see Cut the Rope as competition for COD then you have no idea what you are saying.

And no, they don't do it for free. They are getting paid by someone or getting something out of it or else they wouldn't be doing it.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By nafhan on 10/19/2011 4:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure Sony is planning on bucking the $1 game trend. Most of the $1 games are similar to the Flash games that have existed for years on the PC side of things.

Anyway, my guess is that most of the developers that are making the $1 games wouldn't even have a platform to sell them on if it weren't for Android and iOS. Something is better than nothing, right?


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/19/2011 2:37:46 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, no doubt a value for the hardware you are getting. And yes consumers do put more down on phones.
But this is competing more with the DS than a RAZR. This is a Vita and not an Xperia we are talking about, right?

Again it is an expensive toy and not a "necessity" as a smartphone is viewed these days. My point is that Nintendo made their previously cheap toy expensive and failed. So it will be interesting to see how this goes as far as what the consumer is willing to pay for something that is categorized as a toy.

That was my thought that the 3DS failed because people (parents) weren't willing to pay $250 for a toy like the 3DS. But with the PSP there was a pretty good following from what I recall and it is those people that will be buying this to replace that. But my thinking now is that at $250 (regardless of value/features) this won't sell DS numbers. And Sony is probably fine with that. I just think this will be telling of how the launch of the 3DS went when we can step back and look at the numbers. If the price of this was $500 then we wouldn't be able to make very many comparative conclusions.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By augiem on 10/19/2011 11:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is, Sony's target market is something like 18-34 y/o, which does have the cash to spend on their habit (or at least that has been their market in the past). The industry has been moving more and more toward an older market in the last 5 years with casual games, now with the largest segment being 18-49 y/o. 53% of gamers fall into this catergory : http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf. Even in the < 12 y/o market, parents are buying iPads ($700 pacifiers) for their newborns to finger paint on. People do spend inordinate amounts of money on non-necessities.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By The Raven on 10/20/2011 1:40:31 AM , Rating: 2
One thing I forgot about what this thing will be competing with is the phones that have the capabilities that they have now. (Not to mention tablets like you pointed out.) That part of their competition (the other part being the DS) didn't exist when the original PSP launched.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By Hiawa23 on 10/19/2011 2:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
The Vita has more ram than the PS3. I did not like the DS or Lite as I preffered the PSP's tech & more action styled games. I did not like the 3DS, but this Vita, looks pretty impressive. I may get one.


RE: 3DS this is not, but...
By gwidionx on 10/19/2011 1:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
This hardware should be around for 4-5 years if the last systems are any indication. Stable hardware platform = better software. Phones go in and out every 6 months. The controls are reason enough to buy it over a phone. (And the 6 month lifecycle is the other reason to buy it over the Playstation phone.)


That price wont fly.
By stevessvt on 10/19/11, Rating: -1
RE: That price wont fly.
By inighthawki on 10/19/2011 11:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
While yes, cell phones do support many features, they are missing one critical feature that makes or breaks many game experiences. Physical buttons. Phones have a touch screen. That's it. Not joysticks, dpad, buttons, triggers, etc. Pretty much any game more complex than angry birds will benefit from physical controls.

And before you say it, yes I am aware that it would not be costly to add physical buttons to a phone device, it just won't ever happen due to the design of phones.


RE: That price wont fly.
By sleepeeg3 on 10/19/2011 1:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Won't ever happen, huh? Welcome to 2003: http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=264

...or something more relevant - the 2011 Sony Ericsson Xperia Play:
http://www.sonyericsson.com/cws/products/mobilepho...

It is going to happen as soon as Sony pulls their head out of their assphincter.


RE: That price wont fly.
By inighthawki on 10/19/2011 2:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and look how popular those phones are, nobody has one.

My point was not that there is not or never will be a phone with buttons, but that nobody wants them, they will never become popular.


RE: That price wont fly.
By ShaolinSoccer on 10/19/2011 8:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I would have an Xperia Play if Sprint had it...


RE: That price wont fly.
By Flunk on 10/19/2011 11:42:57 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like a pretty low price considering the iPhone is about $600.


RE: That price wont fly.
By BZDTemp on 10/19/2011 11:52:09 AM , Rating: 2
Sure it will. It's not like everyone has gotten poor.

The Vita will sell and sell just like the PSP (70 million units btw).


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki