Sony didn't miss an opportunity at all, actually. When the PS3 launched, it had backwards compatibility for PS2 and PS1 games, and it didn't sell high numbers. Sony removed the PS2 compatibility hardware from the PS3 to cut manufacturing costs and give them room to drop the price to try and spark more interest in the console. It worked.
Consumers proved that backwards compatibility was not a required feature for PS3, since the backwards-compatible models did not sell ...
I totally agree. For me, the success or failure of the Vita will be an indicator of the health of the traditional gaming market.
I haven't bothered with the Facebook or Twitter apps, but I'd really like it if the Netflix app actually worked.
I am an older gamer. The Vita certainly caters to my gaming preferences, and I look forward to seeing what it offers in the future.
I guess it depends on the user. I have the 4gb card, and it suits my needs now. I'll upgrade later on, to grow my video library, but I can wait.
Me, too. The bundle was too great a deal to pass up.
I've had the Vita since last week, and the screen is amazing. I bought Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" for it last night, and I was surprised at how crisp a black-and-white 1958 film looks on that screen.
I hope the Vita succeeds and becomes quite profitable for Sony. The potential is certainly there, and I've actually seen ads for it, so we'll see.
I hope Sony doesn't include this camera with the PS4, and makes it an optional device instead. I can't use Kinect, and I won't be able to use this if it's a full-body camera.
The launch models of the PS3 are capable of playing both PS2 and PS1 games. Sony gave people the choice to have backwards compatibility, and when poor sales of the PS3 at launch proved that consumers weren't willing to pay for a feature-heavy PS3, Sony cut the PS2 backwards compatibility to save money and lower manufacturing costs.
So the PS3 was capable of playing older games at launch, and the launch models still can. It's the newer PS3s that lack the backwards comp...
Meh. Every time I read articles complaining about the high cost of games today, I laugh. Games cost a lot less now than they did in the '80s, when I had to pay $100+ for a brand-new SNES game from Squaresoft.
Gaming is an expensive hobby. Welcome to life.
I have a 60 gig launch model PS3, which I bought at launch, and I have only used the PS2/PS1 backwards compatibility twice over the years. Why? Because I also have a launch PS2 that works, and an original PSX, which I purchased in '97.
Yes, backwards compatibility is a nice feature to have, but consumers rejected the need for that feature, as the PS3's poor launch performance proved back in 2006-2007. The consumers spoke, Sony listened, and dropped the feature to mak...
That's actually a great question. Unfortunately, you can't continue your PSP saves for games on the Vita.
I'm not sure about the online, ad hoc, and game share capabilities for PSP games on Vita, though.
Mine arrived yesterday, and it's an amazing console. The screen in particular is breathtaking. I downloaded one of my previous PSP digital purchases on it, and it rendered the game full-screen.
If Netflix launches for Vita here in Canada, I'll have found a perfect gaming handhold for my needs.
Edit: I have the WiFi version.
I have to agree with your comment about the Vita's screen. It's absolutely incredible.
It's a little disappointing that I won't get to enjoy the game on PS3, since it looked interesting, but it's good to see developers who recognize their limitations.
/Laughs at insecure fanboys
/Continues to enjoy PS3
Mine arrived this afternoon.
Different people have different gaming tastes. You can't claim the Vita has no games worth owning. You can only state that the Vita doesn't have any games worth owning in terms of games you enjoy.
The launch line-up has several titles that interest me, and I'll be purchasing them. There you go.
There's also the issue of usage caps working against the download-only model. Perhaps MS might release a download-only SKU, but I can't see them abandoning the disk-based model any time soon.
@ShinraES: PS3 sales languished behind both Wii and Xbox 360 until the price was cut. Initial adoption of the PS3 was influenced by its position as the cheapest, and best-value, Blu-Ray player at that time. (Standalone Blu-Ray players were priced in the high hundreds, close to $1,000 when the PS3 launched).
The price cut in the PS3 made the unit more attractive to the mass market. Removing the PS2 hardware-based emulation from the PS3 helped Sony prepare that first price drop...