What do Vita owners think of vita

[Colonel]

Erm, I think my Vita might have just died. I'd just finished a speed lap session and went to exit. The screen froze as it was loading the results page and I couldn't do anything. Tried switching it off etc, nothing's happening. Left it for a bit and now the screen is blank, and the PS button is going on and off slowly.

Any help?

EDIT: Sorry, sorted it now, found a forum where they said to hold down the power button until it brings up a reset menu. Thank the Lord.

EDIT: Aaaand, Wipeout's buggered. Can't get past the loading screen now. Excellent.

[infoxicated]

Corrupt save, I'd bet.

Bad luck, man.

[Aeroracer]

my wipeout game crashes sometimes about 3-5 times just freezes and i gotta roboot..nothing major ive experienced worst.

ive warmed to my vita i like it now but i still would like remote play to be able to play games and i would like to be able to trasfer my psp stuff onto it without having to pay ful price again from sony.

[Rapier Racer]

Amazon has the cards discounted when you buy a Vita, a game too. I love my Vita its a great piece of kit, screen looks great bright and very responsive, not really had a chance to use the rear touch panel yet. Tried out the motion controls with Super Stardust they feel really responsive. It’s almost like having a mini PS3 in my hands I didn't expect the battery to last as long as it does either impressed by that.

So far the only thing that annoyed me was 2048's broken online, appears to be fixed, still see some having trouble though. A little worried about the game, still see people having trouble with it and lack of Racebox mode, and feels totally restrictive. I do hope it won't hurt any possible new Wipeouts. On the other hand I find the game to be to a lot of fun, enjoying it for the most part.

Only little downside is the lack of UMD transfer, I want Pure on my Vita without having to pay whatever the full asking price for the digital version is, I think a sale including Pure is the only way I'll get that. Also the PS plus minis don't work yet, I want my hungry giraffe on the go damn it lol

[chalovak]

If I put aside the fact that I bought Vita only for WipEout (2048, Pure, Pulse & Original) with no plans of other ways of exploitation (I know it may sound stupid, but hell with that, it's WipEout! ) then I would say this:

SONY did it again. They produced something that from the beginning of its lifespan looks already dead.
I have concerns about the future support of Vita. I am afraid that story of PS eye camera, Move and any other Sony gaming product will be repeated - Sony (and devs) will abandon Vita. Maybe it's too early to say that and I am too pessimistic, but looking at Vita makes me feel that way.

It appears that the development of this device took place in some underground bunker with total ignorance of what was going on in the world of mobile devices. Closed platform, limited online functionality (+ horrible browser. AGAIN), absolutely stupid interface, strange buttons and analog sticks layout, no HD video support and so on. Will any of these be fixed over time. I highly doubt it. I know, some will say that Vita is a gaming device. But will additional features kill someone? No. They will only make the device more attractive.

Sony should hide their pride in the bunker where Vita came from and look at things others are doing. Oh, well...

Of course, Vita has its pros, but I ignore them here for everybody has already mentioned them in this thread.

[vincoof]

Of course, Vita has its pros, but I ignore them here for everybody has already mentioned them in this thread.

Really ? If all the good things she has have are already been mentioned, well, huh, I'd rather at best delay or at worst cancel my projects of buying one in the future.

[chalovak]

Really ? If all the good things she has have are already been mentioned, well, huh, I'd rather at best delay or at worst cancel my projects of buying one in the future.

Well, I guess in your case it is better wait and see what Sony's actions will be.

[amplificated]

I think the hardware quality is good, but as with Chalovak said - it's so obvious the system is built from the ground up to be a closed platform. In today's world, I think that's a major hindrance and there's too much competition from more open and dev-friendly platforms (even & especially iOS) for the Vita to make an impact outside of its' graphical prowess (which it has... for the time being) mixed with decent controls (although, really, they messed up with their symmetrical-at-all-costs design IMO).

I think the Vita's life will be a ho-hum affair. It's good, but it could have been more.

However, I believe that Sony will be releasing some SDK to "developers" in April, which could mean some unique and cool content may become available; but it doesn't stop the fact that everything is locked down to a single small platform. Vita's sales need to be dramatic in order to atract developer attention, as without dev. attention, the Vita will be a lost cause. With the amount of negativity in the press regarding Sony's attitude towards dev. access to their systems, it's probably too late to make a difference; though Sony has been making concessions as of late, such as granting Dust514 devs the ability to skip the Sony verification process for program updates. So... I don't know, but I aren't optimistic about the quality of the Vita's life being that great. It could be good... maybe. Great? Almost no chance. It's pretty average as of right now.

[chalovak]

The only thing that can save Vita's ass - like amplificated has said - is releasing SDK for "developers".

[G'Kyl]

Indeed. I think that's exactly what they need to do. I bet small development teams would love to do something awesome for a gamer's system like Vita, but somehow I doubt Vita will have quite the same kind of stomach to wait as long as PS3 did until the its PlayStation Store started to get the awesome content it is now notorious for.

[infoxicated]

This is going to be a long one because all I'm reading here is rampant negativity. So bear with me...

Sony have demonstrated time and again that it's a long term game and that they'll stick with the hardware for the duration. It seems to be folk outside the industry and "analysts" who are keen to write the system off really early on. Anyone who actually owns one and has played the launch titles should have no fear at all that they'll be able to pick up new content on the PSN in two or three years time (about the average complete lifecycle of a Nintendo console) on the Vita even if it hasn't sold 50 million units by then, which seems to be the mass market interpretation of "success" for folk who have never seen the projected numbers for the device.

Which is why I don't understand how, without internal knowledge of the company's projections or plans, anyone can write off their chances of success so soon in the life cycle of the product as if Sony are some fledgling start-up with no experience in the games industry. History just doesn't support the widespread belief that Sony don't know what they're doing when it comes to games hardware. Well, save for the original PS3 that had to be trimmed down to reduce costs, but if Ken Kutaragi had predicted the global recession in the first place there are maybe a lot of things everyone would have done differently.

Maybe my memory isn't all it could be, but without going and looking all this up, I believe the original PlayStation launched against the industry incumbents Sega & Nintendo in the mid 90's and schooled them in terms of volume of content and variety with a powerful console that used CD-ROM's when they were still using cart's. In the early 2000's Sony beat Sega out of the games console industry with DVD playing PS2. The PS2 then goes toe to toe with the Microsoft XBox and their 40 million dollar marketing budget - it does quite well and brings some innovative new stuff like EyeToy (ooh, motion control!) and SingStar to our living rooms. Sony would also launch the PSP in the mid naughties, going up against the Nintendo DS and doing reasonably well over its lifespan despite crippling piracy problems.

Microsoft realise that the best way to ensure next-gen success against Sony is to launch ahead of the competition, despite their console only being four years old at the time, ushering in the XBox 360 in 2006 - a console made of cheap and nasty parts that would go on to fail, often. Sony would bring the PS3 to market a year later with a Blu-Ray drive. Nintendo would go on to capitalise during the recession with a cheap console that had motion control (ooh, motion control!) & family games as it's selling point. Nobody but Nintendo would make any money on it because only Nintendo games sell well on Nintendo systems. Regardless of Nintendo's success with the Wii, the sales of PS3 in Europe would catch up with that of the XBox 360 by mid-2010, having done so during a global recession.

That's not too bad a record at selling games hardware over the space of 15 years or so. Yet, somehow, you read gaming forums and the consensus is that Sony have no frickin' idea what they're doing and are doomed to failure with each and every piece of hardware they produce. The "fact" that the "PSP was a complete failure" is usually thrown around by the people who say these things.

Somewhat inconveniently for the folk who say those things, it was a 71 million unit selling "failure".

I remember Phil Harrison saying in Easter 2002 that the important period for the PS2 would not be xmas 2002 or even 2003 - it would likely be xmas 2004 when they would be making and selling the console in such large volumes that the revenue from the games would allow them to fuel the fire with marketing spend. He was predicting a scenario that would unfold two and a half years later. In the event he was a year out, because the PS2 did so well with exclusives like GTA Vice City and online play with EA Sports games that it was light years ahead of the XBox by the time Xmas 2004 rolled around. I find it somewhat ironic that this week Phil has taken a high ranking position with Microsoft, but Phil's point still stands - it's a long term game where success is measured toward the end of a life cycle, not in the year of launch.

So, to write off the Vita after three months just seems very premature indeed - the same journalists and analysts were doing the same with the 3DS six months ago, before it got its second wind.

Sony already have a publishing model for small, independent developers and the Minis (as they call them) specifically for the Vita will come thick and fast, I'm sure. In six months time we'll have our choice of tower defence and swipey swipey, me-too games that have already bored the heck out of me on my smart phone. Where do companies like Rovio go next? Angrier Birds? What about the Minecraft guy?

Those small companies who struck it big have to branch out and support things like the Vita because catching lightening in a jar like they did during the smart phone app boom of the last couple of years is not a business model that's sustainable.

And for the smart phone game developers that are truly innovative, the control options with the Vita will allow them to take their creativity beyond the confines of a single touch screen & tilt. And they have to - the smart phone game market is so ridiculously overcrowded that for every Angry Birds & Cut the Rope there are thousands of other games & apps that struggle to bring in beer money.

As a pure entertainment and gaming device the Vita is already better than any smart phone out there, not just because of the control options, but because while all the manufacturers have been having a bun-fight over making faster and thinner hardware, they've been hamstringing their devices with skinny batteries that are good for two hours play, tops - then you lose your phone and your entertainment device, woo!

That's me - I'm done. I have some Unit 13 to go play on my Vita - probably the best strategic shooter I've played in years.

[vincoof]

Interesting analysis of Sony's past (as well as other companies) and lots of numbers supporting everything written.

Good job Foxx, you definitely are no ordinary blogger =)

Not that my judgement has any kind of importance, anyway...

History just doesn't support the widespread belief that Sony don't know what they're doing when it comes to games hardware.

While the "history" proved that Sony handled correctly (maybe not perfectly, but good enough) the console market over the last 15 years or so, the main concern here is that Sony ~might~ make wrong decisions, hardware as well as software ones, and get overwhelmed by other platforms living in the "present".

Details like crappy web browser or 3G issues mean a lot for some users, especially the ones who already bought devices that already do this for years and don't understand why a top-notch 2012 platform doesn't perform them correctly. One may argue that "performing correctly" is a personal point-of-view and every player places the acceptance level differently, and that no company in the world - not even Sony - can build a system which passes all levels for every player in the huge player base. Not to mention that the player base is more and more finicky every year.

Being hopefully objective (because I'm much less involved in the console wars these years) I'm looking at Sony a bit like I'm looking at Nokia : both are companies which had a major technological and political advantage in their respective business and seemed to sit down on their throne, thinking that nobody could topple their kingdom, but one day they woke up and found that not only someone was going to surpass them but were running so fast that they couldn't be stopped.

Talking about Sony' main product, they did an outstanding success with the first PlayStation. The second PlayStation did pretty well, mainly because so many PS1 players were waiting for PS2. But the third PlayStation didn't appeal as many players because it was too late, too expensive, and it had too few improvements. Fortunately they opted for a Blu-Ray drive in the middle of the BRD vs HDDVD war and they had bet for the best horse. Many players use the PS3 to play BRDs (just like many players used their PS2 to play DVDs) and there's no doubt it helped selling the platform. Good job... except that it was more a lucky shot than a well-studied technological choice. And then there's doubt. What if the company we trusted for so long couldn't propose us what's best for us ?

I know it's unfair but Sony just doesn't have the right to fail. Fortunately for them, counterexamples exists, even in the gaming industry. For instance Nintendo made some bad things, like the N64 which was much less rewarded than the effort that was put into, yet the Japanese company still lives in the same industry they admittedly failed numerous times, and they are one of the most lucrative ones.

And for the smart phone game developers that are truly innovative, the control options with the Vita will allow them to take their creativity beyond the confines of a single touch screen & tilt. And they have to - the smart phone game market is so ridiculously overcrowded that for every Angry Birds & Cut the Rope there are thousands of other games & apps that struggle to bring in beer money.

They need to be innovative for the exact reasons you depicted, but what guarantees us they will ? And if innovation is on its way, why Vita games would be more innovative than e.g. iPhone games ?

The only thing that the Vita is the only one to bring is the rear touch pad. I'm pretty sure that if a game developer shows a fun and creative way to use it on a best-selling game, it would open the way for many game developers, and that would show that Sony did "again" the right thing by granting this uncommon feature. The point is: when will we see such game ? Will this day even come ?

[Darkdrium777]

I think they need to open up the Vita a bit to indie for it to be a resounding success. Make a free SDK on a free and flexible engine, see what happens. Maybe there will be the next Minecraft, or the next Angry Birds. The console has good and unique features, and the more people have access to those and can tinker with them the better IMO. They should take some example from Android and XBLIG.
I'd personally like it to be as open as Android or as the PSP turned out to be, but we know Sony won't ever make a system like that ever again. I liked the PSP custom firmwares for the added functionalities but that caused too much problems overall with cheap people. Meh. Now I have root, it's just as fun so there's that.
I want the console to be successful because it's good tech. I wish I could personally see the memory cards as less offensive but I can't, so I'll wait for the price. But the console should succeed. There's nothing on the market that's comparable right now. The new iPad is real close though, and we know that's a well oiled machine. It's less powerful but that never mattered.

[G'Kyl]

I think they need to open up the Vita a bit to indie for it to be a resounding success. Make a free SDK on a free and flexible engine, see what happens.

I think this might be the biggest thing Sony should pursue in terms of dev support (given they already give the usual big third party developers everything they need). I bet Indies would love to see what they can do with Vita - if only to get some of their existing games to the PSN. I know a bunch I'd buy right away!

The new iPad is real close though, and we know that's a well oiled machine. It's less powerful but that never mattered.

It is and you're right about how little power matters at the end of the day. But I don't think iOS platforms are close enough as gaming machines. In fact, I consider a first generation Game Boy much closer. As long as there's no equivalent I do need buttons.

Also, thumbs up for the post, Rob! I tend to be skeptical myself, but it's quite shortsighted to write off a new device right at launch.

[infoxicated]

Being hopefully objective (because I'm much less involved in the console wars these years) I'm looking at Sony a bit like I'm looking at Nokia : both are companies which had a major technological and political advantage in their respective business and seemed to sit down on their throne, thinking that nobody could topple their kingdom, but one day they woke up and found that not only someone was going to surpass them but were running so fast that they couldn't be stopped.

I don't see the comparison, really. Nokia built their empire on cheap hardware with built in obsolescence - even a quality Nokia phone was never meant to last longer than 18 months because their cash flow depended on people upgrading on a 12 month cycle. But they didn't push the boundaries of what a phone could do, really - each year there was an incrementally safe plastic upgrade to be had. I know, because I had Nokia phones pretty much exclusively from July 1998 to November 2010, and I knew to expect the buttons to start failing within a year.

In the end, Nokia got what was coming to them when the iPhone came along and the Android platform enabled other hardware manufacturers to compete. Nokie were arrogant, and they were oblivious to the tsunami coming their way. Signing up to create Windows 7 phones was the equivalent of grabbing onto the only lifeboat that was available to them.

Sony's dominance in the last generation was built by the perfect storm of the PS2 having very little competition early in its life cycle and GTA III selling (both itself and the console) like hot cakes in it's entire second year, with Vice City further accelerating the growth in the run up to Xmas 2003. That's a scenario that is never likely to happen again - I don't believe that we'll see a new generation of consoles where one manufacturer gets such a huge head start.

Microsoft tried to create that scenario by launching the XBox 360 out of step with the PS2 to PS3 transition, but shot themselves in both feet and the ass by attempting that land-grab with a pretty cheap PC in a well designed box. This allowed Sony to recover somewhat, despite the recession. It could have been a lot different if Microsoft had actually executed with a quality piece of hardware.

So it's not like Sony sat there thinking their empire would never be toppled - it's that they were beaten to the punch in the current generation by Microsoft. Sony's hands were tied - they had to wait for the Cell to be available in high enough yields and for the Blu-Ray drives to be in plentiful supply after that. If you've previously been the fastest runner in the world, but you have to wait at the start line of a new event for your shoes to arrive before you can set off I don't necessarily think that means you were arrogant and didn't take the competition seriously.

except that it was more a lucky shot than a well-studied technological choice.

That's not really true - the Cell was ready for a while before the Blu-Ray drives were in plentiful enough supply that Sony could go into production with the PS3. Putting a high capacity, high quality Blu-Ray drive in the specification was a statement of intent that definitely was very well researched, it wasn't just blind luck or settling for what was available. We've had XBox 360 games that come on two or more discs for some time now, yet the high capacity of the Blu-Ray discs means that space for games is not going to be a problem for the lifespan of the PS3. Sony's strategy here again shows that they were planning for the long term - Microsoft's strategy was to get a cheap box of bits out there with a DVD drive in it to try and get as much of a head start as they could. You have to say it worked for them despite the hardware failures, as they set the landscape up so that the '360 was the first platform to be developed for.

The only thing that the Vita is the only one to bring is the rear touch pad. I'm pretty sure that if a game developer shows a fun and creative way to use it on a best-selling game, it would open the way for many game developers, and that would show that Sony did "again" the right thing by granting this uncommon feature. The point is: when will we see such game ? Will this day even come ?

I think it will - Sony has given independent developers access to the PlaySation Suite for developing games for the Xperia Play and other PlayStation Certified devices for some time. There's a company in Dundee that did a talk a while back at the Glasgow Tech Meetup and they said that it was pretty easy to have their games published on the PlayStation Network. I can't imagine that scenario has changed with the arrival of the Vita and for games developers who have cut their teeth on touch screen smart phone games it's a path for them to evolve onto a proper console.

For me, Tales from Space: Mutant Blobs Attack demonstrates fantastically the clever game mechanics that can come together when you have the combination of a touch screen and traditional console controls. I hope we'll see more of that kind of game for the Vita from the independent developers.

[G'Kyl]

Rob, you almost sound like Microsoft failed to compete with Xbox 360, yet they are quite successful compared to both competitors. Are you solely referring to the quality of the hardware?

[infoxicated]

Oh, of course not - I was merely referring to their attempt to gain an unassailable head start without paying a premium for quality hardware. When I said "You have to say it worked for them despite the hardware failures, as they set the landscape up so that the '360 was the first platform to be developed for." I thought I was being clear on that - maybe not.

It's obvious the 360 has done very well in the current generation and Kinect is definitely a great innovation for Microsoft. There was never a compelling reason for me to pick one up, but appreciate the quality of exclusive titles and online play on the system. I think the fact that Microsoft are in no hurry to usher in their next console shows that they're happy with the market share they have with the XBox 360 - now into it's 6th year, where the original XBox got 4 years before they replaced it.

Still, this is a Vita thread and I wanted to steer it back onto that topic.

[Dogg Thang]

I'm not always convinced that innovation should be a primary goal. It's certainly an attention-grabber but I'm not sure it always does us any favours. The DS, for example, had loads of innovation - two screens, touch screen, mic. Most of my favourite DS games were great in spite of these features, not because of them. Ouendan is about the only game I can think of that was fantastic and entirely built around one of those features. Many games, especially early on, actually would have benefited from just using traditional control schemes. Of course then we might have missed out on that wonderful blowing in the mic feature of many games.

On the Vita, I don't see Uncharted as being better because it uses the touchscreen, back touch pad, camera, gyroscope. In fact the gyroscopic bits are just frustrating and pointless. It would be a better game without these innovations.

I think innovation and the search for it can often be a distraction. It doesn't always make games better. In many cases, it can make them worse (Metroid Hunters control versus traditional dual-stick control, for example). For the most part, traditional controls have evolved really well. They work great. Often games and systems don't need to be innovative. They just have to do what they do really well and that bit better each time.

For me, the best part of the Vita is actually just that it's finally a handheld with dual sticks - a (now) traditional and proven control method.

[G'Kyl]

Rob: Aye and thanks! Just wanted to clear it up, mostly for myself.

Dogg Thang: A agree, innovation for the sake of it seems a waste. However there are two aspects that make it worth the while. One being that some innovations turn into essentials for generations to come. Think analogue sticks, which you mentioned yourself in the opposite context.

The other is that new approaches to hardware and software solutions can open a media like video games to a whole new audience. I know, Wii is not a sexy example, but it works. More important - or at least I believe it is - is the fact that only gamers can wrap their minds around common control mechanisms like, for instance, those of a common shooter. Developers sometimes talk about how people who are generally interested in games but don't know such established concepts as we grew up with have a very hard time getting used to the controls. I guess they'd probably give up playing Uncharted before getting to terms with how the game actually works.

Touch controls however are more intuitive, since "touching to interact" comes more naturally. I too find most touchscreen controls on Vita "gadgetey". But if Vita is the system that makes "real" gamers out of smartphone users... I think the system definitely has a chance of doing so as well es introducing innovative and fun stuff into common games.

[vincoof]

I don't see the comparison, really. Nokia built their empire on cheap hardware with built in obsolescence

Consoles are built with a limited lifecycle, we knew that way before the PS1 went out, so I'm pretty sure Sony knew that too. Moreover, the optical drive issues of the PS1 that prevented almost any original PS1 to work for more than 2 years (at best) pretty looks like "built in obsolescence" to me, though it is unclear if it was intended or not (and we will probably never know).

I agree that Nokia's arrogance was really too high, but I wouldn't say Sony has none either. Far less for sure. But building a PS2 that had creepy hardware and basing their marketing strategy on the fact that so many PS1 lovers would wait for the PS2, this looks like arrogant to me.

Microsoft tried to create that scenario by launching the XBox 360 out of step with the PS2 to PS3 transition, but shot themselves in both feet and the ass by attempting that land-grab with a pretty cheap PC in a well designed box.

I wouldn't say they failed so badly, or even failed at all. The former XBox had so many problems (technically-wise and selling-wise) that I'd say I'm pretty impressed with how Microsoft ended with its second try. And that means much to me, living in a place where we spit on Microsoft nearly every day.

That's not really true - the Cell was ready for a while before the Blu-Ray drives were in plentiful enough supply that Sony could go into production with the PS3. Putting a high capacity, high quality Blu-Ray drive in the specification was a statement of intent that definitely was very well researched, it wasn't just blind luck or settling for what was available.

Mind me, I'm not saying they were lucky for using a high capacity disc. This was clever, pretty much like it was clever to get a CD-ROM drive on the PS1 when almost every other console sticked to cartridges. The lucky shot was to choose the Blu-Ray drive when they didn't know if HD-DVD or BRD would won the HD war. Sega tried something similar with GD-ROMs but this format didn't succeed at all and eventually almost nobody remembers this format ever existed.

As for the cheap choice of MS for the DVD drive, well, you're certainly right. Very few games are sold with more than one DVD so it doesn't sound a big deal for MS, but what players rarely know is that many game developers provide either less content or less quality in order to fit into one DVD.

Back on topic for the PS Vita, I must admit I don't know the "real" plans of Sony - and I guess nobody really knows here either unless someone works for the company - and I'm still curious what it can become. But today if I have to buy a PS Vita I know I'd spend my time almost exclusively playing WO2048 and I find pretty awkward to buy an entire system for a single game. Not to mention that my wallet would commit suicide if I had to buy a new system for every game I played =)