Topic: PlayStation Vita TV -- Say what!?

[SixthAngel]

Just found out you need to spend $150 to get one with a controller. The 100 buck version is for people who have PS3s already?


The $100 one also only has 1 GB of storage and the 150 as 8 GB. Get ready to buy some overpriced proprietary Sony accessories.

[Oblivion]

Who the **** doesn't have a DS3 who wants to buy this? Get over yourself.

[SixthAngel]

Who the **** doesn't have a DS3 who wants to buy this? Get over yourself.

So they made a new less functional console for people who already have their console?

I am honestly confused why you are angry.

[Adrock]

It doesn't play because there are extremely heavy touch games that can't be done with the dualshock. But they aren't worth playing anyway. : :

I read that it literally doesn't play some Vita games, as in those games won't function, not that they simply aren't worth playing. I probably wouldn't be too interested in those games anyway, but out of principle, I'd personally rather get an actual Vita. I just don't like the idea that it can't play all the games and more games may come out that I can't play. I prefer 100% compatibility even if playing on a TV is enticing. I'm still waiting for more games I want to play so a 3000 model with even better battery life and a price drop is probably the path I'm taking. Maybe Sony will have a PS4 redesign by then and pack them together. A girl can dream...

And they do have plans to release it outside Japan, but Japan has a timed exclusivity for a few months after launch.

I can't find the article that says they have no plans to release it internationally. I was dicking around at work and was just reading all the Vita TV articles that have all the same basic info so it could be any of those. Right now, I've read that Sony "has not announced plans" to release it internationally which means they might though that's hardly a confirmation. I'll just wait though I expect an announcement for other territories.

I feel like launching Vita TV in Japan first makes less sense than anywhere else in the world. Hasn't their gaming culture transitioned mostly toward portables? If Vita wasn't really selling well, what makes Sony think a Vita tethered to a TV will sell better?

Who the **** doesn't have a DS3 who wants to buy this? Get over yourself.

Dude, chill. Certainly Sony thinks there are people out there who would buy Vita TV though don't also have a Dual Shock 3 if they're offering a bundle with a Dual Shock 3.

[nickmitch]

I honestly don't get this. It's PSVita for your TV? And the PSV was basically a portable PS3? So, it's a mini-mini PS3? There ARE Vita games that I wanna play, but I still don't know. I have enough game machines hooked up to my TV as it is.

[UncleBob]

Yet if you go to some Vita forums or r/vita everyone wants this. Go figure.

...

Enough of the fanboyism here. This is fucking ridiculous.

[Oblivion]

Those are two separate quotes in two separate contexts. You'd make a great mud-slinging politician, Unclebob.

[UncleBob]

You're complaining about the "fanboyism" of folks on a Nintendo forum for not getting excited over a Sony product while using what I'm sure are totally unbiased opinions of folks who hang out on Sony forums (and not just Sony forums, but Vita forums...) to support your viewpoint.

I'm glad that they're two separate quotes, because if you had seriously said them both, one right after another, it would have been even more pathetic.

[Oblivion]

Take a look at any comment section that isn't a fucking Nintendo fansite. ****, man, it was a fucking example.

[UncleBob]

If I look at virtually any comment section on any site that isn't a Nintendo fansite, I'll find tons of people saying "Nintendo sucks, Sony/Microsoft rocks".

Man, you sure did show me.

[Oblivion]

What's the problem here? It couldn't occur to you that JUST MAYBE, Nintendo does suck? I don't see what point you're trying to make.

[UncleBob]

If you believe Nintendo sucks, why do you spend so much time on a "Nintendo Fansite"?

[Oblivion]

I still don't know what point you're trying to make. Ian Sane still comes here. Ask him. I'm still here because I never really realized that Nintendo sucked until I told you two minutes ago.

[UncleBob]

Ian doesn't think Nintendo sucks - he simply thinks they can be better than they are.  There's a huge difference between the two.

[Oblivion]

I feel the same way. However, as of this post, I feel as if what they are doing on both systems is "suck-ish". The 3DS to a lesser degree than the Wii U.

[UncleBob]

Another major difference with Ian is when people disagree with him, he doesn't go off on those "****ing fanboys"...

[Oblivion]

He's also a mature adult. I am not one of those things.

[UncleBob]

Really?  We hadn't noticed.

[Oblivion]

Stop being a douche. I wonder why people like you are even mods.

[SixthAngel]

Well this went to hell.

I really see no appeal.
If you have a ps3 it already streams everything and you can play its huge library as well as all the games it shares with Vita.

If you don't have a ps3 it costs 150 dollars (50 below a ps3) and way above a streaming device.

[UncleBob]

Don't get mad when I agree with you.

[Spak-Spang]

I think the appeal is for people like me...that might want to use the service for steaming media and play some classic games or indie games.  However, I would rather get something like an Xbox 360 for that.  Since the PS3 and Xbox 360 are both more powerful than the Vita...at least I think they are. 

[Kytim89]

The new Killzone and Dragon's Crown have convinced me to buy a (used) Vita. The only issue that I have is those expensive memory cards. Sony passed up an opprotunity to redeem itself by adding SD card support to the new version of the Vita. Hell, they need to offer third party solutions to the current Vita memory cards. Overall, I wish that Sony would implement a streaming service for the Vita that allowed PS@ and PS3 games to be played on the go, and possibly remakes of games for those consoles on the Vita.

[ejamer]

...

I really see no appeal.
If you have a ps3 it already streams everything and you can play its huge library as well as all the games it shares with Vita.

If you don't have a ps3 it costs 150 dollars (50 below a ps3) and way above a streaming device.

You might not see the appeal, but others do.


I agree about pricing - $100 for a decent video streaming box isn't that expensive or unusual, but not including a remote of any sort at that price is a bit misleading. DualShock controllers aren't that expensive if you look around and/or buy used... but the difference between $100 and $150 is significant for this type of hardware. If Sony found a way to include a remote (maybe for video only) at the $100 price point that would be a huge addition.


But games are a great value add, and really set this box apart from other streaming options. While you might not be impressed with the library Vita does have an increasing number of solid exclusives and a nice (limited but growing) back catalog of supported PSOne Classics.


Being part of the PlayStation ecosystem also makes it an easy sell for many people. If you already own games on PSN (or for Vita) then you have stuff to play immediately; if you already have a DualShock controller then the initial buy-in is lower; if you plan get a PS4 then the Vita TV offers some cool extra options for a second screen.


Finally, comparing it to systems that are older and about to have support cut off isn't really fair. This system has a library of games available now and will continue to be supported in the future. It also is still significantly cheaper than any option you mentioned except the SD, non-HDMI compatible Wii.


There is a market for this product. You might not be part of that market, and I have no idea how many people actually are... but it does exist.

[Ceric]

Though I will say that if it only supports HDMI that it is partially hindering the market for it.  Your non-main TV is normally your old TV.