Oh so I don't have to get a Vita to get it. I have a 360. Good to know.

My point exactly.
Now, to be fair, the new NFS looks absolutely amazing, and the fact that it's running on Vita in its entirety is quite the technical feat.

The Vita version has a few new features in it though that's not in the console versions. I already have several open world racing games on my PC so I don't need anymore of them right now. I have one on the PSP and none on the Vita hence my desire to get it on the Vita, and it will be cheaper too on top of that.

Yes, there are new features: challenges that utilize front and rear touch and the ability to take your picture and use it as a profile pic. http://www.videogamer.com/psvita/need_for_speed_most_wanted_2...

It's nice that it features all of the stuff from the consoles, but the game isn't going to convince people to buy a Vita if they don't adore NFS and treat it as the pinnacle of gaming. They can already play it on consoles, and since the home environment is where most people play video games, portability isn't a factor that is that important.

EDIT: To those who do own a Vita, however, this is one to keep on your radar. It's looking really top-notch.

Still dont see the logic behind of that argument. First, home console version will be taxed higher, 67€ vs 47€ for the Vita's one. Then you might choose between playing at home when main TV is free as well as the main console, or to play it anywhere at any time you want. Usually these who got a handled, got it for a good reason, to play with it there where they cannot play with PC/Home console, and not just because it has the WOW exclusive named "XYZ".

I'm not saying the logic behind getting it on handheld isn't valid; I'm saying that someone isn't going to use the $20 difference to justify purchasing an entire Vita for a single game in most cases. If one already owns a Vita, it makes perfect sense to get the game on it.

And this should be always true, having someone not needing a handheld and buying one just because of a game is a very weird case.

That's not weird. Lots of people buy consoles for a game so why not a handheld? I only for a PS2 for FFX. I got a 3DS solely for Nintendogs. I got a PSP just so I can play Crisis Core. Likewise for the Vita with WipEout 2048. Naturally I did find loads of other games for those systems later, but I got them originally just so I can play one game.

At least on the 3DS board at GameFAQs, I read stories from lots of ppl who actually play handhelds at home (so do I) instead of taking it outside, even though they do have consoles as well. They just prefer handheld games over console games. For me, it's a lot easier to start up a handheld than a console.

I'm probably misreading your conversation and saying something that's not relevant so don't mind me.

Because a handheld is still a handheld even at home. What I mean is that the characteristics of a handheld are the most common reason to buy one, not just the existance of a particular game.

but there is nothing Vita can do that makes people want it instead of any other handheld, unless you're a hardcore sony fan. Everyone already has a handheld system that plays games to some degree. Like seriously, everyone does. Honestly if it wasn't for the glasses-free 3D and the incredible selling power of Mario, 3DS would be in the exact same scenerio. If it wasn't for the immediate obvious quality of games on Vita(bonus points for Vita fans, as I've heard they've avoided Gravity Rush being as bad as a 3rd party Wii title sales-wise, thank god) plus some popular series, it would be in HUUUUGE trouble. So if nothing else, I am glad at least believing for the time being that Vita would be doing even worse if it had less worthwhile games.

Disagree, Vita has 3G, a serious navigator and Skype to start with, that alone allows you be in connection with anyone at anytime from anywhere. 3DS has nothing of these, Vita has also the high speed WiFi conformance level, not the old one as the 3DS/Wii (<- this is an "small" detail that people tend to miss). You will have full speed HD video streaming with that when connected to WiFi, again 3DS cannot compete there. After these points, we can talk about controls and games, worse controls ever being these of the 3DS, not able even to have multitouch screen, dual analogs, back touch panel, etc.

I'm not a hardcore fan of any company, especially not Sony, yet I still got a Vita. Why? They have games the 3DS doesn't have. Simple as that. Only Sony has the WipEout series and the 3DS obviously will never have those, and the Vita will never get Luigi's Mansion 2. I don't care what features a handheld has or don't. All I care is what games they have and whether I want them or not.

It's stupid to stay on one camp when it comes to gaming or you'll miss out on a lot of great games.

I think it partly has to do with what you find important in a game. Vita is aimed at customers who spend relatively more time with gaming devices than others.
Most of those customers think the experience of gaming is important. If you can play your games on a 30" TV why would you play on a 4,5" screen?
Most of the games Sony advertises with are existing franchises made portable, right? i'd rather play Wipeout on a big screen than on a small one.
I can imagine one would buy them because they are sequels but you simply can't play great hardcore games on a train. I missed my station a few times because I was sucked in that damn water in LoZ.
I'm not trying to bash Sony, I think specswise the vita strangles 3DS, but it's aimed a an audience that is fairly small, mainly because the experiences offered on vita are also available on PS3. On a big screen.

Sjoerd, you are describing your case as someone that simply doesnt need a handheld as you seem to be able to play on your big screen everytime you want to play. The case where someone buys an unneeded handheld just because of a "great" game probably is restricted to "hardcores" while the vast majority of potential players will get one only if really needed. We can extrapolate it to PCs vs tablets, I bet only few people are getting a tablet just because it has some particular app or game that cannot be found for PC (mac books included).

Good point. The sum of the parts definitely will matter a lot for the Vita, especially since that sum makes it much more powerful than its individual parts.

However, I do feel it should be noted that people may not necesarilly see everything the device has to offer at first glance, so that will hurt impulse buying. Granted, it's a pretty expensive device, so most will probably do their research before buying it. Hopefully that isn't hampering it too much.

Also, I think his point was this:

It's more a comment on Sony's current direction on the system (and we're pretty well aquanted with that particular topic, so I won't go there).

Considering the audience for the device, 3G, a navigator, and skype aren't going to help sales at all. It's nice to have them, but people aren't going to think of them as important when compared to games.
The WiFi conformance level is definitely a plus, especially with games with a focus on online starting to arise, like Ragnarok Odyssey and COD (although the later may be heavily hampered by the overall quality of the game). I'm hoping Sony advertises it more when talking about the Vita, since it is one gamers definately care about.
As for the controls of the 3DS when compared to the Vita, I actually agree with you that it is the worst of this gen of gaming devices (not when compared to the Jaguar, but when compared to Vita and the consoles) but for none of the reasons you mentioned. Multitouch wouldn't be utilized on 3DS due to the remakably small size of the touch screen, dual analogs isn't hurting it since I can count the amount of games that use it on one hand, and back screen touch hasn't been used for anything trully useful since its inception (altough it does hold big potential. One could use it to accurately throw grenades without blocking the view of the screen, for example.)

let me say something nice about Vita. And probably mean about EVERYONE ELSE. I fully realize this is getting into "complaining about people complaining about games I never played" mode, but the fact that New Little King's Story has been getting mostly meh reviews so far is legitimately annoying me. Short of the port being particularly disasterous (like Sonic Genesis bad), this game deserves better than this. The disturbing amount of weight and seriousness taken with these scores is why this is so...argh...

First of all, I kinda wanted to get the word out of this game despite not even owning the system because Little King's Story is awesome and deserves your money. I'd be more dissappointed in myself if I thought if I did that, that anyone would listen. But really, because people take scores seriously, no one's gonna buy this. Yay for more people losing their jobs because they wanted to make a remake that was actually creative and had effort in it instead of generic rushed licensed game or whatever they were making before. And I'm sure with Little Big Planet and Killzone people will pretend "LOL GAMES ARE FINALLY ON VITA" so they can temporarily stop whining on internet forums for 5 hours about how they can't google search for Vita games beyond Uncharted 3.5. Forget the gamers though, I'll be amazed if more than like 1/3 of the people reviewing it ever played Little King's Story or knew it existed.

But here's the thing, it's gamers who take the scores super seriously so it's their fault. Like there are reasons Vita hasn't sold, but that doesn't mean it's completely fair. I understand "casual gamers" or whatever term they're called this week, but this is why I hate most self-proclaimed hardcore gamers. They are not. More often than not, from what I've seen, if they actually feel they need to actually call themselves a hardcore gamer they are willingly ignorant of good games just so they can complain on the internet and need to go away. And then of course they hypocritically complain that casual gamers don't know anything when they don't know anything either.

Yeah. Retweet, +1 all that.

I scored LKS Vita 4.5/ 5 and in hindsight I was probably being a little too harsh dropping a half point for the rare framerate issue and some dodgy translation work. It's easily the best Vita game I've played.

Until Silent Hill Book of Memories is released. Another game that the "hardcore" are having a cry about because ITS NOT SILENT HILL WAAAAH. Which is missing the point - the reason Book of Memories is so awesome is because it's not Silent Hill.

irony is that the biggest complaint I've heard (as a non-Silent Hill guy) about the Wii game is that it's too similar.

Are you even surprised?

Now granted, I haven't seen anything of Book of Memories so I can understand people being hating if it is a legit, huge betrayal of the series. I don't tend to mind if a series, especially one with a decent amount of games already like Silent Hill, does something really new but it's nice if it stays true to Silent Hill, to a point at the very least. I've only recently been watching a playthrough of Silent Hill 2 and it's honestly the first time since I was a kid I've seen something that legit kinda scared me in a game, so it's already pretty obvious to me that the hype is completely deserved.

Book of Memories stays true to the theme of Silent Hill, though. It's not really scary, but as Diablo proved decades ago, it is possible to do a horror theme in a top-down grindPG.

The people complaining about Book of Memories have not played it in 99% of cases. I'd bet my life on it.

oh so new gameplay. And it's good. And stays true-yeah they're just being silly.