Sony's NeoGeo Pocket's (PSP2/Vita) business/non technical ramifications talk

[dobwal]

I think the problem for PS Vita is the fact people who already carry a smartphone around with them won't see much point in carrying a PS Vita around with them....so that makes it difficult to rationalize spending another $250 for a more richer gaming experience. That and the fact richer PS Vita games will also cost more $40-$50. For people who don't already have a smartphone the PS Vita will give good value at $250. As for digital cameras, the thing is camera phones are VERY limited in photo taking abilities ie weak flash, crappy digital zoom etc. so it's no suprise that many people including me still buy dedicated cameras.

With that said I still may eventually get a PS Vita for its "gadget factor" but I won't be buying any expensive games for it or take it along with me whereever I go. Most likely it'll just get used as a video player.

I agree. If sony and vita developers go about releasing a bunch of $40-$50 dollars games the vita is going to have very limited appeal. There is room for those high end titles but opportunities lie with the $10-$20 games that offers more than what is typically found on smart phones and tablets but embraces what people love about gaming on mobile devices.

People get all caught with the ideal with the graphical superiority. But does anyone consider all the games you grew up playing to be inferior pieces of crap because of the latest and greatest offerings on the pc, 360 or ps3? What i discover with the psp and ios/android devices is that we left a lot of opportunity and a lot of great times behind when development on consoles gravitated to mostly 3d enviroments. There is a lot of juice left in 2d and 2.5d games and current and next gen portables have more than ample hardware to push those titles to visual thats never been experienced on those old school type of games.

 

[boommoob1]

Sony already have 12% of the Android market. They make, smartphones, MP3 players and soon tablets. Sony's tablet=ipad, Sony's smartphones=iphone, Vita=3DS. Cross pollination but the product categories wont change.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I think the problem for PS Vita is the fact people who already carry a smartphone around with them won't see much point in carrying a PS Vita around with them....so that makes it difficult to rationalize spending another $250 for a more richer gaming experience. That and the fact richer PS Vita games will also cost more $40-$50. For people who don't already have a smartphone the PS Vita will give good value at $250. As for digital cameras, the thing is camera phones are VERY limited in photo taking abilities ie weak flash, crappy digital zoom etc. so it's no suprise that many people including me still buy dedicated cameras.

With that said I still may eventually get a PS Vita for its "gadget factor" but I won't be buying any expensive games for it or take it along with me whereever I go. Most likely it'll just get used as a video player.

Your entire premise is a falacy. I own a smartphone. I also own an iPad. I carry these and my psp around with me and i game almost exclusively on my PSP because i see little value in the games that my smartphone and iPad both offer. I agree that the vast majority of people who own smartphones (android and iOS) won't want a Vita or 3DS, but the crux of the matter is that this majority mostly aren't gamers anyway, they never owned a PSP or DS in the first place. Apple and Android have simply grown the gaming market in that they've enabled those multitudes of phone users a platform to buy cheap games. Those multitudes use those games as simple distractions and haven't ever cared about dedicated portable games or the hw they're played upon.

The vast majority of smartphone owners own smartphones for their primary function as phones first, and then their anciliary functions as multipurpose, multifunctional devices. Same with tablets. No-one spends £500 on an iPad simply for games. Whereas gamers who owned PSP and DS's previously will see the value in those consoles. Those same people owned mobiles phones and carried them around along with their dedicated portable handhelds. From their perspective, nothing has changed, and the majority of them will happily carry around both their new smartphone and their portable in the same way they always had done.

Portable game prices being $40 aren't something new either, and it's equally a fallacy that these millions of people that went out in droves to buy pokemon, patapon and monster hunter for $40, will suddenly no longer see the value of those games that they love just because angry birds exists and is sold for $0.99. That's a nonesensical argument.

What your failing to do RudiCurve imo, is recognise that there's a difference between someone who enjoys and play portable games, and someone who has never been a gamer and now owns a smartphone (the majority that makeup the iOS & android userbase). The latter are of no concern to Sony and Nintendo because they have never held a primary interest in games to begin with. Sony and Nintendo's focus now is the same audience they found previously with the PSP and DS.

Oh btw 3DS was supposed to be a GREAT gaming machine too...hows that doing? Not so great....

Well it's hard to convince people you're a great gaming machine when you don't give them any great games to play yet ("yet" being the operative word)

 

[wco81]

I agree that the vast majority of people who own smartphones (android and iOS) won't want a Vita or 3DS, but the crux of the matter is that this majority mostly aren't gamers anyway, they never owned a PSP or DS in the first place.

Do you have data showing this?

Smart phone is a much bigger market. While a majority of smart phone owners may never have owned a handheld gaming device, it's possible that a majority of PSP or DS owner now have smart phones, because the smart phone market is so much bigger than the PSP and DS markets.

 

[Npl]

Do you have data showing this?

Smart phone is a much bigger market. While a majority of smart phone owners may never have owned a handheld gaming device, it's possible that a majority of PSP or DS owner now have smart phones, because the smart phone market is so much bigger than the PSP and DS markets.

And if thats the case then its still no reason not to carry around your phone and PSP, just as we did before.

From what I gather from statistics, install-base of Smartphones are only 18% of the total phones. So I cant stand people talking like there isnt anything else than those inappropriately big and inconvenient "smart" phones.
I like games and Im not interested at all in getting one - I want a phone that I can rely on for a week without feeding it juice, I want it to be easy pocket-able. Why would I game on it, reducing its already short lifespan to a few hours. I feel very uncomfortable without a working phone. So if carrying around a PSP/Vita is a big issue then carrying around a Smartphone is one too, one you can fix by getting a proper phone - oh no good games on that? Well, get a dumbphone and Vita, likely cheaper than a Smartphone anyway.
And for a games-machine I want a big screen, no concern over losing my "phone" when playing and draining battery, good controls and good games. And I will carry it around when I know that I can use it, otherwise theres no point to it - usually this means that I am carrying a bag with other stuff anyway. Smartphone ? wtf.... I could play Tetris on my dumbphone for days without recharge and buy crap games if I felt like it... thank you, but no.
Rather have one thing done well than everything in the most pathetic manner.

Thats my opinion and if I thus conclude that the whole world thinks as myself (base of all the Vita is "doomed" talk), then tomorrow all Smartphones will end up in a landfill and noone will admit of ever having spent money on one!11!!11.
If theres a threat to the Vita then its the tablets (doubt it), but certainly not Smartphones.

 

[wco81]

Unless those PSP and DS owners have moved on, stopped gaming on those devices.

Smart phones may be a small part of the market but we're still talking about tens of millions a quarter. Maybe tens of millions a month.

 

[Npl]

Unless those PSP and DS owners have moved on, stopped gaming on those devices.

Smart phones may be a small part of the market but we're still talking about tens of millions a quarter. Maybe tens of millions a month.

Similar comparison: Do you think the camera market has significantly shrunk since phones have cameras builtin?
Cause I dont think anyone wouldnt carry a camera around because he now has a phone - you might shoot some photos with your phone in events where you dint plan too, but you still do any planned shooting with a good camera.

 

[wco81]

I rarely use my iPhone to shoot pictures but instead have spent thousands on DSLR and lenses.

However, I'm pretty sure the point and shoot digicam sales have been hit by smart phones. I went to a baseball game the other day, with my long zoom to take pictures of the action. But there were far more people around me taking pictures with their phones.

They didn't have to pack gear into a bag and lug it to the park. They just took their phones out of their pockets or purses and took some snap shots. Point and shoots will take better pictures and some of them aren't that much bigger than smart phones. But a lot of people seem content with "good enough" phone cameras.

 

[RudeCurve]

I think people have failed to realize or intentionally ignored the fact that when PSP and DS had the portable gaming market all to themselves there weren't any Android or iOS devices on the market...the landscape is much different now...yeah $40 games are nothing new but $0.99 are ARE. Remember that MANY of the popular types of games that were released on the DS were $30-$40 Touch games ie iOS games that now only cost $0.99...

As for camera phones vs standalone cameras analogy, I find that comparison to be invalid. You don't need to buy $40 film for standalone cameras. Also you could get a very small high quality camera with optical zoom and good flash for around $150. That's the reason why standalone cameras sales haven't changed much ie they've gotten better and cheaper.

 

[Npl]

However, I'm pretty sure the point and shoot digicam sales have been hit by smart phones. I went to a baseball game the other day, with my long zoom to take pictures of the action. But there were far more people around me taking pictures with their phones.

probably the lowest end of the market, but certainly not you or anyone else that cares for good photos. Similary someone who paid for a PSP values games enough to spend this kinda money, the potential market hasnt shrunk IMHO. Nintendo could be more affected, but this thread isnt about them and my concerns arent either.

They didn't have to pack gear into a bag and lug it to the park. They just took their phones out of their pockets or purses and took some snap shots. Point and shoots will take better pictures and some of them aren't that much bigger than smart phones. But a lot of people seem content with "good enough" phone cameras.

Content for "casual" snapshots shots inbetween (maybe even just for showing off their expensive phones in front of friends), they would still take or buy a camera for their vacation. Im not a avid photgrapher (would fit the lowend "casual") and I bought a new 250€ camera for my trip to the US.. I wouldnt think about shooting stuff with a phone there.

 

[wco81]

Most of my photography is from travel. Certainly you will see more mix of good quality cameras at famous venues, since people are spending good money to get to these places.

But you still see a number of cell phones being used to take pictures.

TBH, I haven't printed very many photos, viewing most of them on the laptop LCD. So really, if I got a lower-end camera, for most of the pictures, it wouldn't make that much difference.

 

[Arwin]

I rarely use my iPhone to shoot pictures but instead have spent thousands on DSLR and lenses.

However, I'm pretty sure the point and shoot digicam sales have been hit by smart phones. I went to a baseball game the other day, with my long zoom to take pictures of the action. But there were far more people around me taking pictures with their phones.

They didn't have to pack gear into a bag and lug it to the park. They just took their phones out of their pockets or purses and took some snap shots. Point and shoots will take better pictures and some of them aren't that much bigger than smart phones. But a lot of people seem content with "good enough" phone cameras.

The question is of course if these were people that took cameras with them before. I find myself taking pictures or video with my phone sometimes because I have it with me. But if I know in advance I'll bring the camera.

My new very small camera also shoots Full HD video at amazing quality, but I only started shooting video because my previous camera did a half decent job of that too. I never owned a videocamera in my life.

I'm not saying none of devices are competing with each other, but things aren't as simple as they look.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Right, we're talking about two different things. The huge expansion of digital photography in general, much of it on the back of the proliferation of smart and camera phones, is certainly happening. You simply see more people taking photos in general because so many people are always carrying a camera around now. But that's distinct from camera phones replacing dedicated cameras.

Both are most certainly occurring to some degree, and I think we can draw some parallels to the gaming market. In both cases the number of people engaged in each activity has grown exponentially thanks to advances in technology and connectivity. And there are certainly segments of the market which might have been inclined to purchase a point and shoot camera, or Nintendo DS in the past to service their casual interest in picture taking and portable gaming, respectively, but who now feel well covered by their smart phones.

But it is also true that the number of people whose interest in photography or gaming is more serious also continues to grow. Those people will see the value in a spectrum of dedicated devices. I like taking pictures enough to own and carry a nice Cannon compact camera, but not enough to invest in a DSLR and a bunch of lenses. I'm also interested in videogames enough to own a PSP and want a Vita, even if it means carrying multiple devices.

In neither case does the growth in casual use equate a dearth of hardcore interest. Obviously, dedicated gaming handheld systems aren't going to come anywhere near the, what, 400 million Android and iOS handsets out there. But they don't need to. Either or both can survive well on the 100 million, or so, people with a demonstrated interest in what they provide.

People have read far too much in to the early failures of the 3DS. There were lots of reasons not to buy one that go beyond the specter of iPhone games. A lack of compelling, original titles, a bad price, a backlash against 3D and dated input methods all contributed to the poor sales. Nintendo has addressed one of those issues, but others are fundamental to the platform, so even at the new price it could fail, and we still couldn't point directly at smart phones as the cause.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Right, we're talking about two different things. The huge expansion of digital photography in general, much of it on the back of the proliferation of smart and camera phones, is certainly happening. You simply see more people taking photos in general because so many people are always carrying a camera around now. But that's distinct from camera phones replacing dedicated cameras.

Both are most certainly occurring to some degree, and I think we can draw some parallels to the gaming market. In both cases the number of people engaged in each activity has grown exponentially thanks to advances in technology and connectivity. And there are certainly segments of the market which might have been inclined to purchase a point and shoot camera, or Nintendo DS in the past to service their casual interest in picture taking and portable gaming, respectively, but who now feel well covered by their smart phones.

But it is also true that the number of people whose interest in photography or gaming is more serious also continues to grow. Those people will see the value in a spectrum of dedicated devices. I like taking pictures enough to own and carry a nice Cannon compact camera, but not enough to invest in a DSLR and a bunch of lenses. I'm also interested in videogames enough to own a PSP and want a Vita, even if it means carrying multiple devices.

In neither case does the growth in casual use equate a dearth of hardcore interest. Obviously, dedicated gaming handheld systems aren't going to come anywhere near the, what, 400 million Android and iOS handsets out there. But they don't need to. Either or both can survive well on the 100 million, or so, people with a demonstrated interest in what they provide.

People have read far too much in to the early failures of the 3DS. There were lots of reasons not to buy one that go beyond the specter of iPhone games. A lack of compelling, original titles, a bad price, a backlash against 3D and dated input methods all contributed to the poor sales. Nintendo has addressed one of those issues, but others are fundamental to the platform, so even at the new price it could fail, and we still couldn't point directly at smart phones as the cause.

I definitely agree. Especially with the points on the 3DS and why it's doing so badly. It's a console that sould have been release with dual analogues and a proper touchscreen from the start. And should have been given a name that lets it be easily identified as a new console and not able to be confused with another DS revision but with added 3D.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I think people have failed to realize or intentionally ignored the fact that when PSP and DS had the portable gaming market all to themselves there weren't any Android or iOS devices on the market...the landscape is much different now...yeah $40 games are nothing new but $0.99 are ARE. Remember that MANY of the popular types of games that were released on the DS were $30-$40 Touch games ie iOS games that now only cost $0.99...

As for camera phones vs standalone cameras analogy, I find that comparison to be invalid. You don't need to buy $40 film for standalone cameras. Also you could get a very small high quality camera with optical zoom and good flash for around $150. That's the reason why standalone cameras sales haven't changed much ie they've gotten better and cheaper.

Actually low cost sub $5 games are not anything new. Mobile phones have been doing these shitty shovelware snake-clones forever. What apple did was create a platform where it became financially lucrative for devs to put these games out for a lower price on enough hw such that they could actually make money on it.

Again, continue to compare the $0.99 to $40 games as if the games being bought are of the same quality. You're either failing to understand or accept that this is not so, and/or you yourself are intentionally refusing to face this fact.

The point isn't the price, it's the value afforded to the consumer. Many phone users will be happy enough with their 0.99c iOS/android fodder, but the vast majority that desire richer deeper experiences (i.e. gamers, i.e. those who played and enjoyed games on the DS and PSP) will want those richer experiences that are exclusive to the dedicated gaming hardware platforms. That can't be all that difficult to imagine can it?

 

[patsu]

Travel pictures ? I use a mix of phone camera (still a little too slow), and *drum roll* 3D camera. I took more videos than photos in my last trip. The camera is helpful because iPhone may run out of battery, especially when video is used. When iPhone is out of battery, I lose maps, calls, B3D + neogaf, and photo opportunities. Too high a risk. In fact, we carried an iPhone and 2 cameras (plus an iPad).



Anyway, I came in to post more about the experience. Vita will introduce "Activity" service. Twitter recently added one too (yesterday):
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/10/twitter-activity-streams/

Basically, laying out a social/community services in the proper (and fun !) way is very important in encouraging participation and generating a sense of ownership + belonging. Good for marketing.



Sony should take a hard look at its properties and partners. They seem undervalued and under-mined (as in data mined). Isolated/silo'ed websites like this:
http://www.singstar.com/en_US/community.html

...should be assimilated into playstation fora, profiles, associated with Qriocity or even VidZone... plus so many other music games. Contents will also become Services. Community services like fanclubs help drive content consumptions. Playstation Home has an under-used and restricted clubhouse feature too. A big game like SingStar can be broken down into a simple, mini game to encourage people to jump in on impulse (e.g., on phones, pads, PCs and PS3s).

 

[patsu]

Sony (Japan) Wants to Know What PlayStation Vita Peripherals You Want:
http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2011/08/15/vita_peripherals/

Continuing a series of surveys at the Japanese PlayStation Vita Community Site, Sony has opened a question asking readers what peripherals they want for the platform. Free responses are being accepted through the 17th. If you've got the nihongo skills, voice your opinion here.

A quick scan of the current responses shows some expected results: a UMD drive, a cradle with HDMI out, a compact full keyboard, and a grip adapter with a secondary battery built in. UMD drive does seem to be the most popular response so far. Sony will be sharing a formal look at the results after submissions end.

...

I want a car kit, Sony. Match it with a GPS and other in-car entertainment services.

 

[RudeCurve]

SONY has to many stupid terms to describe too many different things.

Far, Near, Activity, Qriocity, Home, etc.

 

[patsu]

*nod* *nod* [chuckle in agreement]

What is SCEA doing ? Aren't they supposed to help SCEJ in marketing ?
A lot of those sound like Japanese invented app names.

 

[Bigduo209]

SONY has to many stupid terms to describe too many different things.

Far, Near, Activity, Qriocity, Home, etc.

Too much branding (overbrand-ness?!), it's just Sony trying too hard. They usually have good ideas, but like a lot of companies their execution is flawed. And some ideas that are done well, but don't have the massive following/user-base to allow those ideas to catch-on as a trend.
---------------

Saying 99 cents games is better than ones costing 30/40 bucks is definitely over-exaggerating things, especially including the price of a smartphone plus the actual phone plan. That maybe a fair trade-off for plenty of people, but it doesn't mean good value.

As long as there is a large enough number of people who want a multimedia/gaming-device separate from their phone, and kids whose parents won't allow them to have smartphones, I'd say there's still a sizable market that the 3DS/PSV can sell towards.