Do you think Sony is really in a position to make the Vita a platform exclusively for well-off gamers?

Apparently it's compatible but not 100% compatible, the major omission being PS1 classics which are, at least for me, a huge bullet point. I've also heard rumblings that not everything on the PSN will function on the PS3 out of the gate. Sony says that will be addressed over time, but I'm still waiting for cross game…

So long as you're willing to shell out an additional $120 on top of the Vita's price tag to have remotely adequate memory to support such features... sorry- $400 for a handheld with no games is asking way too much. At least of me...

I made that acknowledgement about the 360 memory pricing in my initial comment. To the point about PSN integration with the PS Vita, my early assumptions were that everything available on the PSN would be cross compatible with Vita. Leading me to believe that PSOne classics and the like would work on the new handheld.…

I'm a person who WAS excited for the Vita. Not typically a handheld owner, but I liked what I was seeing of the software and features. Leading up to the last month or two, I was seriously considering picking one up. After all, I have all of these PSN games that were supposedly going to be compatible with the device...…

Best Buy employs about ten times as many people as Gamestop as well...

Actually, Best buy is worth roughly 3 times as much as Gamestop, so in comparison it's actually a much smaller company...

Because the behavior and tastes of xbox live players is the only metric (other than metacritic of course) that's worth using to gauge a game's success.

Looks like the trolls are hungry today...

Agreed. Personally, Skyrim is the sort of game that I'm a gamer for. Those experiences are too few and far between across the industry. MW3? Couldn't care less about yet another digital shooting gallery with tween focused multiplayer. Been there, done that, about a dozen times.

If you're dumb enough to let a videogame influence you to want to join the military, I say go for it.

Thanks for sharing your views in a more complete form. That said, absolutely nothing you stated above constitutes a valid argument to me. Buy your game new, and none of the problems you stated exist. When you choose to buy a game new, you get to preserve it in it's original form for free. Amazing, no?

I'm not saying it's a perfect system. But I still think that the people who make the game and host and maintain the online content deserve to profit off their end user one way or another.

Classy response. Used game sales hurt publishers. They hurt developers. They hurt everyone in the industry other than the entity responsible for selling the used game.

Way to back up your comment with any logic whatsover. Good show. Make a salient point and I'll be happy to respond.

Look around more. They most definitely do drop significantly via sales. Amazon almost always has firesales for excess inventory withing 6 weeks of a products launch- it's usually $40-45 compared to $60. That a significantly reduced price.

Or wait a month and you can buy any game you want for a fraction of it's initial price. If it's not $60 good, you often know for yourself that's the case. Read the reviews, look on youtube, etc.

"My opinion has always been that if you want to combat used game sales, you should make a game that people actually want to keep. "

The absolute hilarity to me is that we're getting all pissy over a savings that averages $5.

That doesn't change the fact that the buyer of the used software is getting access to something without paying for it. So while it might be a semantic differentiation to you, in the minds of the publishers it's very literal. If player x is buying a used copy of a game, then they are getting access to it's online…