arrrdawg

@MuneBeam

How is this a ridiculous argument? MMOs? Apples to oranges, MuneBeam. We're not talking about MMOs, we're talking about DLC in the context of a non-subscription game.

The gaming and movie industries are directly comparable as they are both part of the entertainment industry. Their business models are similar.

And slight exaggeration, but plenty of people would pay $60 for a 2 hour game, Portal 2 for example.

How do you know if DLC is extra content and that the game is complete? If the DLC is on the disc, as is the case here, you are paying for an incomplete game. Where do you draw the line? If the DLC is created after the game has been shipped, it's different. Unless of course they shipped an incomplete game. And with today's multiplatform releases which require patches several months post-release in addition to the available DLC, I think one could come to the conclusion that many games are released incomplete.

And your movie example doesn't work at all. Those are all separate films. LOTR were all filmed at once, but not finished at once. Besides, most people wouldn't sit through a 10 hour movie. And a 10 hour movie would likely command a premium price.

$60 games are a direct result of expensive development costs from 2005. Gamers took the bait hence no change. Sure there is inflation, but that's an excuse. Microsoft set the standard, it's their fault.

It's debatable, but from a certain point of view $60+DLC (we're not talking about MMOs here) is a ridiculous incomplete game. Putting the DLC on the retail disc only solidifies it. Of course, as long as $60 games sell and DLC sells nothing will change but we're allowed to point out the irrationality of the status quo. Defending the status quo is a little bit suspicious.

I try so hard to get into Skyrim but I can't. I bought it on 360 and PC. The PC version is certainly more impressive. But I am bored to tears and thinking about completing the main quest just to be done with it.

I loved Morrowind and Oblivion, but Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas have either ruined me or I'm sick of this genre. The forge table characters don't help. Witcher 2 is an infinitely better game.

I almost bought a Vita two weeks back just to play Marvel vs Capcom 3. It was during the BOGO sales and figured portable Ninja Gaiden would be neat. The wife talked me out of it and I went back to Target the next day to get it. Unfortunately it was Sunday so I would be shelling out a little more coin if I wanted to get a couple games (it was either buy two or buy one and get one). I thought about it more and went back home and played the original Marvel vs Capcom on my PSP and figured that was good enough for now.

There is no compelling reason to buy a Vita at this time. The Uncharted game may impress some, but I was not impressed with the small amount of time I spent with it. It also renders at a lower res than native and is jaggy. Not that the 3DS isn't jaggy, but I've been Mario Karting since Christmas. It's fun and it's online. I'm happy. I don't need to shell out $300 right now for games I don't need.

Having said that, from my non-biased POV I don't see where Vita succeeds over the PSP at this point in time. It's in a worse position because of iOS. You guys hate iOS, but normal people don't. The Vita is in a similar boat to PSP accept it is in a worst position because of iOS. To deny this is irrational. Vita could very well succeed and I will likely buy it. Just as I did not buy the PSP initially and now enjoy it quite a bit.

@straw hat

Exactly. It's nice to see the vast majority of comments are not drinking the capcom kool aid and irrationally defending this.

DLC is a double-edged sword. This is the bad kind of DLC. If the content is nearly complete and available on the retail disc, the consumer is being deliberately sold an incomplete game and forced to pay extra to complete it.

Essentially, any DLC can arguably fall under this category really. You don't know if the devs finished it prior to retail or afterwards. IMO, if they worked on it and finished it after than it's worthy of being sold. If it is finished the consumer is being sold an incomplete game and ripped off. Capcom has done this before with REV. This just makes people hate DLC. DLC is yet another way to monetize and rape the consumer out of money when you think about it. The materialist controllers are forever finding new ways to put us in debt to them. Video games are no exception.

@Heffer Wolfe

Yeah, you're right about the gamer is a gamer is a gamer. But regarding MW3, Black Op's YTD sales at this point were better. Time will tell I guess, but CoD has peaked, it is all downhill from here. I'm a CoD fan btw. And MW3 was 'meh' even though it did improve (a little) on the previous version. It's like an expansion pack, kinda over it now. Wouldn't buy the Vita for a sequel though.

All I meant by more serious gamer is that Skyrim is less accessible by the average Joe than CoD. A brainless person (and I hate to stereotype and generalize, but I recently decided that political correctness was censorship and I'm sick of being PC because it shields the truth) that buys a 360 to teabag their mates, play some CoD while drinking or smoking or whatever, and goes to the movies only to annoy their neighbors by constantly texting (hint, there is a lot of these pigs) makes up a chunk of CoD gamers. They would never touch Skyrim. That's too 'nerdy' for them. And so is playing a handheld larger than the PSP in public.

Which I would do if Skyrim was on it. Heck, I'd buy a Vita for an Oblivion port. Or Fallout 3.

CoD peaked in sales/popularity with Black Ops. MW3 was a success, don't get me wrong. But every CoD eclipsed the last, people though MW2 was the peak and Black Ops did even better. It's important to understand this. Look at Guitar Hero for an example of how activision sucks the life out of an annual IP. GH3 peaked, the next one was very successful but not as much. Then to make up for it they saturated the market.

CoD's formula hasn't deviated much from the original. And it's a cookie cutter franchise ever since CoD:4. How will this effect the Vita?

Vita's CoD is being released at a time where CoD as a franchise has peaked and run it's course as king of the fps. Kind of like GTA:LCS on PSP. Nice if you are a fan, but not a system seller.

Now, I would buy Vita in a heartbeat if Skyrim was ported to it this year. So would a lot of Skyrim fans who happen to be more serious gamers than the average CoD Joe sticking to his consoles anyway.

@tendoboy1984

Agreed. Too early to say anything about the Vita. Wait six months. The odds are against them, but that doesn't mean it won't beat the odds. I think people fail to realize that Nintendo has pretty much been the face of handheld gaming for years. That even when they did have competition like the Game Gear, it's sales never came close to impacting them.

The PSP was the only non-Nintendo dedicated handheld to actually succeed. And it's still selling in Japan for many reasons, none of which apply to the US. But the fact is that it wasn't until these past couple of years where the PSP was finally bested graphically by phones. Phones make games that look better, but the difference isn't that dramatic. Even the 3DS isn't dramatically better graphically than the PSP. It was ahead of it's time and sold at a loss, thus it has had a long lifespan. But in a way it is also a competitor to the Vita as is iOS whether people like it or not.

@chrisredfield31

You can't say that's for sure. That is only speculation. The Playstation didn't do anything for CDs as far as I'm aware. CDs had been used for years to store data and was already becoming standard on PCs. The PS1 just went on to become the most popular CD-based console. It was also the last CD-based console when you think about it. DVDs were already catching on before PS2, although PS2 probably helped a little. PS3 on the other hand, now that probably had something to do with blu-ray succeeding.

I seriously doubt that much would have changed if Sony never entered the playing field. Nintendo didn't choose CDs because of licensing issues over the CD technology itself. It was business. In fact, Nintendo's decision to not use CDs is what led to Sony splitting from them to make the PS1 for themselves. The small DVDs were to maintain the small size and also discourage piracy. It worked. They were still DVDs though, just smaller.

Microsoft's xbox was about putting a PCish device in the living room that played games exclusively. I seriously doubt Sony had anything at all to do with influencing this decision.

I've owned every PS device thus far, but I personally hate Sony as a company. They are a gigantic corporation of greedy pigs. Corrupt on several levels. And they've even killed people! They don't make their own games, they bought or invested in others to do that. They are just a brand and the hardware has traditionally used unproven and complicated architecture that nobody else uses. The Vita is the only exception. Sony is just a corrupt entity that throws money around to buy their success. It doesn't always work.

I buy Playstation for the games, not the brand. And that has nothing to do with Sony.

@Tachyonic Cargo

Not sure why you got so many down votes. Guess some people here aren't ready for such uncomfortable truths. Love it or hate it, iOS changed the field. It is irrational to argue otherwise. PSP owners are not all going to be attracted to the Vita. It's missing the UMD BC for one thing. But the other thing is that there is a lot of full-length and traditional games on iOS that play well with touch controls. I love buttons, but I don't take my handhelds with me wherever I go. But I do take my phone and this makes up for the lack of buttons. There would be even more games, but perceptions like we see here (as well as price as in paying a little more for a quality game instead of expecting it to be $1) are holding them back.

So does the Vita fill that void? Don't know yet. It's too early to say anything cause it just came out. But it's going to be a hard sell. The playing field has been altered. The 3DS only sold because of a price cut and Mario Kart in all honesty, and even then its more kids than adults. The Vita has a less kid-friendly lineup. I'll buy one if there is a must have, but will the average gamer do the same? It's hard to say, but the truth is iOS has made dedicated handhelds lives difficult.

@Suichimo

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not even sure the average gamer knows that the Vita is. I want the Vita mainly because of some of the proposed classics coming to it, like a portable FFX. On the other hand, the confirmed lineup doesn't impress me. The price is good, battery doesn't bother me. Lack of a BC solution does bother me cause I have like 30 UMDs. I just don't know about this thing...

And neither does anybody else and it's not marketing that's the problem. 3DS started to catch on mainly with kids. This isn't for kids. I am worried it's going to tank.