PSVita games = no manuals... or, Dick Moves By Game Companies and why they're wrong

[Kimahri-Ronso]

GameInformer lists it for both consoles, I'll have to double check.
EDIT: DAMN YOU GAME INFORMER, DAMN YOU.
EDIT2: Here's the page that lied to me if any of you care.

Good thing I switched from paper to digital for my GI sub.

Still, hard to believe they would make a huge mistake like that. Jak & Daxter is a sony IP, this cannot be on other consoles.

Anyways, changing this to "Dick Moves by Video Game Companies" topic, so we can also discuss the very wrong Day 1 DLC, on-disc DLC, etc

Well the Metalgear Solid collection was multiplatform and that was a ps2 series if I remember correctly.

Metal Gear Solid is a third party IP, so it can be on any console, exclusive or multiplatform.

For example, Sonic Generations is on 360 & PS3, but Sonic Colors is a Wii exclusive.

[Gwen]

It still makes me a little mad, I'd drop the money for that collection immediately, but now I'm not really given the choice to

[Kimahri-Ronso]

I look forward to a one-console future

/pipedream

[Gwen]

Eh I'm okay with multiple platforms, helps competition and prevents monopoly, but I hate exclusive titles. They make sense and all but I just hate not being given the chance to play a companies game that they worked hard on. I also hate console exclusive characters in games. I get it if it's a console exclusive but if not that's just giving your audience the middle finger.

[Kriven]

There isn't a monopoly on DVD players. I don't see why a universal console format would suddenly mean one company would monopolize the market.

[Gwen]

With only one console you're restricted to that consoles' limitations, there's no room to use different consoles strong points.

[Kriven]

Since the invention of a USB Port and USB Add-Ons, the only restriction really belongs to developers. And that's the point. There shouldn't be console strong points outside of performance and reliability. They're too damn expensive for that shit.

[Gwen]

Gaming companies wouldn't make nearly as much if there was only one console to use anyways, and developing a single controller for every game out there would be fairly annoying.

[Kriven]

You don't need to develop a controller for every game out there. But developers have that choice if they want it, yes.

As far as developers not making as much money, I don't really see how that's true since most people just buy one copy of a game anyways, if they buy one at all.

[Gwen]

But games that are on multiple platforms draw in more money due to multiple sources you can get it on.
EDIT: And while I know it doesn't mean much, I have Borderlands for both my 360 and on my computer.

[Kriven]

But that makes no sense because a person typically only buys one copy of a game even if it's multiplat. You don't need a PS3 version and a 360 version.

[Gwen]

I'm saying there's a wider audience. And while it'd merge I suppose I just don't like only one console as a platform.

[Kriven]

No there isn't. What makes a wider audience: narrowing your possible releases to whoever owns a particular console, or widening it to every consumer in the world because of a universal format?

Oh right, the universal thing.

[Gwen]

It still removes competion, which doesn't really help sales.
Also you then go into the whole world of handheld. Should that be all condensed into one console? That'd be awful IMO.

[Kriven]

It doesn't remove competition from anyone but the hardware developers, and they can still compete for a better perferoming console in the exact same way that people want a better performing DVD player.