26 replies to this topic

[Epic Kirby]

I know we pretty much already knew this but Sony boss has been going into more depth about their Wii U killer.


“What could you do with all of this?” asked SCEE’s Phil Rogers at the Develop Conference. “Here’s a few boring technical ideas: you could drive a display from a PS3 game, for example. PS3 can send data down to Vita and Vita can display it. You could use the unique features [of Vita] – gyroscope, touch front and back – as a control device for a PS3 game.”
“You can run software on both devices and use the network to sync the game states. And that’s pretty good, because you then have the processing power of PS3 doing that work, Vita [doing] fancy graphics – however you want to do it. You’re not sacrificing the PS3′s CPU to be able to have a rich experience on Vita.”
It seems that Sony will be happy enough for developers to do this, too, which could bring about some interesting ideas. Touch screen control for PS3 games, for example.

So it's official, Sony are basically saying don't buy the Wii U if you've already got a PS3 just buy the Vita and you'll get the same sort of functionality.

[Bill Cipher]

I know we pretty much already knew this but Sony boss has been going into more depth about their Wii U killer.


“What could you do with all of this?” asked SCEE’s Phil Rogers at the Develop Conference. “Here’s a few boring technical ideas: you could drive a display from a PS3 game, for example. PS3 can send data down to Vita and Vita can display it. You could use the unique features [of Vita] – gyroscope, touch front and back – as a control device for a PS3 game.”
“You can run software on both devices and use the network to sync the game states. And that’s pretty good, because you then have the processing power of PS3 doing that work, Vita [doing] fancy graphics – however you want to do it. You’re not sacrificing the PS3′s CPU to be able to have a rich experience on Vita.”
It seems that Sony will be happy enough for developers to do this, too, which could bring about some interesting ideas. Touch screen control for PS3 games, for example.

So it's official, Sony are basically saying don't buy the Wii U if you've already got a PS3 just buy the Vita and you'll get the same sort of functionality.

Still, How many people will actually bother to use this most of the time?

[Feld0]

I know we pretty much already knew this but Sony boss has been going into more depth about their Wii U killer.


“What could you do with all of this?” asked SCEE’s Phil Rogers at the Develop Conference. “Here’s a few boring technical ideas: you could drive a display from a PS3 game, for example. PS3 can send data down to Vita and Vita can display it. You could use the unique features [of Vita] – gyroscope, touch front and back – as a control device for a PS3 game.”
“You can run software on both devices and use the network to sync the game states. And that’s pretty good, because you then have the processing power of PS3 doing that work, Vita [doing] fancy graphics – however you want to do it. You’re not sacrificing the PS3′s CPU to be able to have a rich experience on Vita.”
It seems that Sony will be happy enough for developers to do this, too, which could bring about some interesting ideas. Touch screen control for PS3 games, for example.

So it's official, Sony are basically saying don't buy the Wii U if you've already got a PS3 just buy the Vita and you'll get the same sort of functionality.

This really sounds absolutely no different from the ability to use a GBA as a GameCube "controller". Or the DS as a Wii controller. Both of these combinations failed quite miserably in the marketplace, despite how innovative they were. The reason?

Cost. What were the chances that everyone who bought, say, Mario Party 8 would have both a Wii and a DS (let alone one for every player, leaving the Wii U multiplayer debate aside for now)? Requiring people to buy a $250 console, one or more $160 "controllers", and a $50 game on top (remember, pre-Wii and DS price drops) just to play a game was simply too great a risk for developers to take. Thus, very few Wii games actually took advantage of the system's connectivity to a DS, and none were designed to rely on the DS as a controller exclusively. I fail to understand why PS3-Vita connectivity will be any different, except that we're now dealing with a $300 console, a $250 "controller", and $60 games - further reducing the chances of every gamer having the combination of systems available.

The Wii U is different in that every single person who buys one will have the tablet controller. Therefore, it is far more feasible for developers to build their entire game around the controller, because everyone's gonna have it. I also wouldn't be worried about the controller consuming excessive amounts of power and compromising the graphical quality of the game - the Wii U is designed to do just that, and is definitely powerful enough to provide a great image on both screens.

Sounds like Sony trying to smooth-talk their way out of this once again instead of admitting that they've got a worthy competitor.

[Andy]

If it didn't work with PS3 and PSP connectivity, why would it work this time?

This really sounds absolutely no different from the ability to use a GBA as a GameCube "controller". Or the DS as a Wii controller. Both of these combinations failed quite miserably in the marketplace, despite how innovative they were. The reason?

Cost. What were the chances that everyone who bought, say, Mario Party 8 would have both a Wii and a DS (let alone one for every player, leaving the Wii U multiplayer debate aside for now)? Requiring people to buy a $250 console, one or more $160 "controllers", and a $50 game on top (remember, pre-Wii and DS price drops) just to play a game was simply too great a risk for developers to take. Thus, very few Wii games actually took advantage of the system's connectivity to a DS, and none were designed to rely on the DS as a controller exclusively. I fail to understand why PS3-Vita connectivity will be any different, except that we're now dealing with a $300 console, a $250 "controller", and $60 games - further reducing the chances of every gamer having the combination of systems available.

The Wii U is different in that every single person who buys one will have the tablet controller. Therefore, it is far more feasible for developers to build their entire game around the controller, because everyone's gonna have it. I also wouldn't be worried about the controller consuming excessive amounts of power and compromising the graphical quality of the game - the Wii U is designed to do just that, and is definitely powerful enough to provide a great image on both screens.

Sounds like Sony trying to smooth-talk their way out of this once again instead of admitting that they've got a worthy competitor.

To add to that, don't you have to buy the games for both the PS3 and Vita? If that is the case, then you'll have to buy up to $100 in games just to do what the Wii U can do at a cheaper price.

[Auzzie Wingman]

Besides, the Vita/PS3 combo won't have all the awesome Nintendo games like Pikmin 3 and SSBU.

[Joshua]

There is still one thing SONY can NEVER copy or take away from Nintendo, and that is simply their 1st party games.

[Epic Kirby]

This really sounds absolutely no different from the ability to use a GBA as a GameCube "controller". Or the DS as a Wii controller. Both of these combinations failed quite miserably in the marketplace, despite how innovative they were. The reason?

Cost. What were the chances that everyone who bought, say, Mario Party 8 would have both a Wii and a DS (let alone one for every player, leaving the Wii U multiplayer debate aside for now)? Requiring people to buy a $250 console, one or more $160 "controllers", and a $50 game on top (remember, pre-Wii and DS price drops) just to play a game was simply too great a risk for developers to take. Thus, very few Wii games actually took advantage of the system's connectivity to a DS, and none were designed to rely on the DS as a controller exclusively. I fail to understand why PS3-Vita connectivity will be any different, except that we're now dealing with a $300 console, a $250 "controller", and $60 games - further reducing the chances of every gamer having the combination of systems available.

The Wii U is different in that every single person who buys one will have the tablet controller. Therefore, it is far more feasible for developers to build their entire game around the controller, because everyone's gonna have it. I also wouldn't be worried about the controller consuming excessive amounts of power and compromising the graphical quality of the game - the Wii U is designed to do just that, and is definitely powerful enough to provide a great image on both screens.

Sounds like Sony trying to smooth-talk their way out of this once again instead of admitting that they've got a worthy competitor.

Nintendo's aim is to score some of the PS3 and 360 gamers to buy the Wii U. In this sense you've missed the point a bit, Sony isn't trying to get new people to buy a PS3-Vita combo they are trying to hold on to their already established fans (those with PS3s) and say hey, you don't need to buy the Wii U if you want that kind of connectivity you just need to buy the Vita which hypothetically will be cheaper than the Wii U and will have exclusive games of it's own as well as being able to play PS3 games, the Wii U controller as far as we know won't have people developing games just for it.

The Vita has a mind of its own, as it were. You can take your Vita out with you and still play games with you but the Wii U controller is nothing without without the Wii U.

Also both your Wii-DS arguments don't make much sense here because the DS can't show Wii games on it's screen and the Gameboy couldn't show GameCube games on it's screen. Not only that but the DS didn't have gyroscope, accelerometer, microphone, or more importantly analog sticks or anything like that. All it had different from a controller was a touch screen.

If it didn't work with PS3 and PSP connectivity, why would it work this time?

Maybe because PS3 games couldn't display on a PSP screen? Also it wasn't pushed enough but believe that Sony are definitely going to push it now.

[GwJumpman]

Ew. Who would want to use anything that even remotely looks like a PSP as an actual controller?

[Epic Kirby]

Ew. Who would want to use anything that even remotely looks like a PSP as an actual controller?

I know those sixty million people who bought the PSP must be on something XD

[Katana_Strike]

This really sounds absolutely no different from the ability to use a GBA as a GameCube "controller". Or the DS as a Wii controller. Both of these combinations failed quite miserably in the marketplace, despite how innovative they were. The reason?

Cost. What were the chances that everyone who bought, say, Mario Party 8 would have both a Wii and a DS (let alone one for every player, leaving the Wii U multiplayer debate aside for now)? Requiring people to buy a $250 console, one or more $160 "controllers", and a $50 game on top (remember, pre-Wii and DS price drops) just to play a game was simply too great a risk for developers to take. Thus, very few Wii games actually took advantage of the system's connectivity to a DS, and none were designed to rely on the DS as a controller exclusively. I fail to understand why PS3-Vita connectivity will be any different, except that we're now dealing with a $300 console, a $250 "controller", and $60 games - further reducing the chances of every gamer having the combination of systems available.

The Wii U is different in that every single person who buys one will have the tablet controller. Therefore, it is far more feasible for developers to build their entire game around the controller, because everyone's gonna have it. I also wouldn't be worried about the controller consuming excessive amounts of power and compromising the graphical quality of the game - the Wii U is designed to do just that, and is definitely powerful enough to provide a great image on both screens.

Sounds like Sony trying to smooth-talk their way out of this once again instead of admitting that they've got a worthy competitor.

What are you even talking about, there was no mention of multiplayer in the quote? The Gameboy Advance cannot be compared to the Vita in any way, one of the reasons it failed is the Gameboy advance is worser than the GameCube's own controller so who would exactly want to use it? The Vita is better than the PS3 controller in the fact that not only does it have the controls of the PS3 controller it has got a lot more as well.

Just don't know what you're getting at.

[Brian6330]

I think we'll just have to wait and see how Sony incorporates the PS Vita as a controller...

[Wertville]

What are you even talking about, there was no mention of multiplayer in the quote? The Gameboy Advance cannot be compared to the Vita in any way, one of the reasons it failed is the Gameboy advance is worser than the GameCube's own controller so who would exactly want to use it? The Vita is better than the PS3 controller in the fact that not only does it have the controls of the PS3 controller it has got a lot more as well.

Just don't know what you're getting at.

What he's getting at is that developers won't make use of the connectivity in a big way. As with the GBA and DS, the only time they will be used is with small features that barely make a difference, simply because requiring a Vita is too big a requirement; the relative failure of Four Swords: Adventures, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles and FF:CC:Echoes of Time will make sure of that.

[Feld0]

Wertville pretty much said it for me.

What are you even talking about, there was no mention of multiplayer in the quote? The Gameboy Advance cannot be compared to the Vita in any way, one of the reasons it failed is the Gameboy advance is worser than the GameCube's own controller so who would exactly want to use it? The Vita is better than the PS3 controller in the fact that not only does it have the controls of the PS3 controller it has got a lot more as well.

Just don't know what you're getting at.

What he's getting at is that developers won't make use of the connectivity in a big way. As with the GBA and DS, the only time they will be used is with small features that barely make a difference, simply because requiring a Vita is too big a requirement; the relative failure of Four Swords: Adventures, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles and FF:CC:Echoes of Time will make sure of that.

[Bill Cipher]

What are you even talking about, there was no mention of multiplayer in the quote? The Gameboy Advance cannot be compared to the Vita in any way, one of the reasons it failed is the Gameboy advance is worser than the GameCube's own controller so who would exactly want to use it? The Vita is better than the PS3 controller in the fact that not only does it have the controls of the PS3 controller it has got a lot more as well.

Just don't know what you're getting at.

First, Learn to use proper grammar. It's worse, not worser.
Plus, on what grounds was the GBA a worse controller? considering that all I used my GBA and Gamecube together for is to play GBA games or for something like four Swords, both instances that it had to be hardwired into the game's code to do, what makes you think devs will go instantly for building/having important features available only with Vita Usage. Your thinking is horribly flawed in that regard

Edited by Lord N, 05 August 2011 - 08:05 AM.

[Star]

So I hear that the PS Vita will be able to work as a controller for the PlayStation 3. Apparently the PlayStation3 can send data down to the PS Vita for the Vita to display, and you could use the gyroscope and touchscreens. You can also save your game on the PlayStation 3 and continue playing on the Vita. Now I don't know if this is just me, but this reminds me a lot of the Wii U. A lot of people bashed on the Wii U because they thought that you don't need a controller with a screen and what not, but here's Sony applying the Vita to their console and all of a sudden everyone likes the idea. When I say everyone, I know that of course not everyone likes it, but a lot of the people I know that called the Wii U dumb, now are excited that the Vita can work as a controller that has all of these extra features. I wonder if people who already own a PlayStation 3 would buy a new one and a PS Vita just to use as a controller. I am not trying to bash Sony or anything, I just want to hear your opinions. Do you think that Sony is trying to copy Nintendo yet again?

[BazzDropperz]

Wait, what? Why would you need to buy a new PS3 to use the Vita with it?

[Nollog]

Vita was doing all that before the WiiU was announced.
You can't use the vita as a controller for a PS3 game yet, but it's something they could easily add to the current ps3 and current psv if they felt the wiiu was a threat.
And rightly so.

[Auzzie Wingman]

I don't think it's necessarily copying Nintendo. I think we've always been at a point over the last 20 odd years where it's hard to delve into new technology without seeming like a copy of some predecessor. In that sense, I don't honestly believe that I have seen anything revolutionary in a long time. I mean, the only thing I can think of that has been revolutionary that I can think of is the internet.

[Andy]

In response to the poll. I already own a PS3, and if you have to buy a new version of it to use PS3 + Vita connectivity, you can be guaranteed that it will be one feature I won't be using.

[nintendo3DS]

In response to the poll. I already own a PS3, and if you have to buy a new version of it to use PS3 + Vita connectivity, you can be guaranteed that it will be one feature I won't be using.

This. I have 2 PS3s. I have one PS3 'phat' and another PS3 slim. That should work, since I have both of the PS3 versions.