Sony Apparently Trademarks a New PS Vita 3000 Model

[sixones]

99% of SD cards out there are garbage for nitty-gritty dependability and reliability. Sony was right for developing cards they control the specs on and can have a high level of QC on. Sony dropped prices once, but should drop prices again and licence out the technology to third parties, but maintain high QC.

 

Read/write speeds and bit accuracy on most cards people consider "affordable" are completely undependable.

 

It's highly unlikely (and I would call Sony stupid if they did it) that any new Vitas will use SD cards. The developer models have had HDMI though, so if they did release a new model with a more efficient screen and processor that gives even longer battery life *and* an HDMI port, I would absolutely buy one.

 

So true, though I doubt they will ever license the technology to third parties. I imagine the Vita cards offer some form of encryption on the data that is held and some way of decrypting it at high speeds, that other SD cards couldn't support.

 

The Vita cards could also be requiring a lot less power to read and write to as well compared to a normal SD card. Maybe if the Vita used SD cards we would only end up with 15 minutes of game time before it runs out of battery!

Edited April 22, 2015 by sixones

[stitchesnscars]

On topic of memory cards... do we seriously need the SD Card support for Vita?

I mean... I keep reading about overpriced memory cards as one of reasons why Vita is bad but... it's just one-time purchase. You either buy 32GB or 64GB one and you're free from memory card troubles. I do agree that using SD Card would definitely lessen the cost you need to have Vita ready for anything, but if it's just one-time purchase, I don't see it as that serious issue.

 

 

Guess you aren't that 'hardcore' anymore? =D

I can see the turn off from a first time buyer its a bit of a sticker shock if you were to buy everything at once. Buying the vita at its standard price in the U.S already nets you $199 even if you plan to only use free ps plus titles (extra $50 if you don't already have that) then you are out another 60 to 90 dollars on a memory card. It adds up fairly quickly. You've also got  to worry about the space that all of those free games take up on that memory card , sure your indie games aren't that big but a few of those AAA games will run that storage down rather quickly.

 

Keep in mind the above scenario is considering that someone hasn't purchased a game yet. The expensive memory cards might be more detrimental than you think.

[QuinlanLJ]

I was thinking of buying a Vita, but no I don't know what to do. I'm not a patient person to wait for it another year

[Wulfie]

I hope this doesn't come for a year or two because I just got my Vita and I don't have the money spend on the newer model right now.

[Risr1s]

I hope this doesn't come for a year or two because I just got my Vita and I don't have the money spend on the newer model right now.

 

even if it does I think there's no need to worry about that since I doubt SONY would do the same thing as what Nintendo did with their "newer" handhelds

[Neputyunu]

[...]sure your indie games aren't that big but a few of those AAA games will run that storage down rather quickly.

 

His ... indies? Is this some kind of generalizing or something? I mean, it seems many people today are seeing games like "AAA", "Retro/Indie" and "weird and pervert japanese indies nobody needs anyway". As far I can see it, he only has one game in his list that would be "japanese indie", well to be honest, its from NIS, so its not Indie. Also keep in mind that some games are to big for the vita-card and must downloaded partial as DLC. (Hatsune Miku Project Diva F 2nd, eg) Here, there there, I'll show you an japanese indie. Have fun.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsXv3sYfHIA

 

even if it does I think there's no need to worry about that since I doubt SONY would do the same thing as what Nintendo did with their "newer" handhelds

 

Actually, SmashBrotherds for 3DS is nearly unplayable on the original 3DS, because very low fps.

And on the other side, there are games coming that will run only on the New3DS. 

Xenoblade Chronicles 3D is the first one.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Neputyunu

[Hailst0rm_2]

To be fair, its 35$ listprice... for 32GB

For 70$ you get a 64GB Vita-card... awwww, thats sooo mean! The 64GB-vitacard is totally superexpensive!! ò_ó And... oh... wait...

Im sorry, but I dont see a problem here. It looks like the usual "Everyone is complaining, so I must complain too. Because Im not allowed to have an own opinion."

Its like with Käsekrainer... thats a kind of sausages... everyone keeps telling me they must be cooked. But fuck, I want them grilled! Why people cant accept that I want them out of my fucking pan because they taste way better FOR ME? ... "Noooo you MUST cook them!" ... blah!

The list price for 32GB for vita storage is $100 but sells for $70 here

And for 64 GB its $92 >_<

You're proving my point. So you named one of the .1% of SD cards that are reliable and consistent enough (maybe) to match what Sony developed. If Sony then said, "Okay, lets throw out all our R&D and ONLY allow these Samsung EVO SD cards!" Then a million jackasses would put $3 SD cards in and complain about the load times, save corruptions and inconsistent speeds all while whining that Sony said the Vita could use SD cards!

Thats not a widespread problem for the 3DS, PS3 or PS4. why should people be penalized for the small number of people who will be uneducated purchases? All SD cards have performance ratings its not hard to understand ._. Edited April 22, 2015 by Hailst0rm_2

[Neputyunu]

The list price for 32GB for vita storage is $100 but sells for $70 here

And for 64 GB its $92 >_<

 

What, you mean US has 64GB-cards? I had to import it ... and it was even (with shipping) cheaper than the 32GB-card here.

Anyway... how Satoshi said, its a one-time-purchase. Whats the problem here?

https://www.nippon-yasan.com/playstation-vita-japan/5889-sony-playstation-vita-memory-card-64gb.html

Its 78$ here, ~72€. Its okay, I guess? I mean, In Europe every game is more expensive than in US. And, are we complaining? Nope.

Imagine how many Vita-cards I already could buy with the difference in pricetags for games between US and EU...  

AAA cost 70€ new, generally, that is 75$. And then I see boogie2988 on YT complaining that games in the US cost 60$. (55€)

Example... PSN-Game: Ziggurat. Its 15$, but 18€. (15$=13€).

See? SEE?! So, maybe you should do yourself a favor, buy a 64gb card in japan and stop complaining about pricetags.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Neputyunu

[Satoshi Ookami]

I can see the turn off from a first time buyer its a bit of a sticker shock if you were to buy everything at once. Buying the vita at its standard price in the U.S already nets you $199 even if you plan to only use free ps plus titles (extra $50 if you don't already have that) then you are out another 60 to 90 dollars on a memory card.

We can't take PS+ as a guaranteed purchase and as a necessity for purchasing Vita and making it usable

 

You've also got  to worry about the space that all of those free games take up on that memory card ,

Ignoring the free games to stay consistent with my previous statement, the point is, I'm pretty sure you aren't actively playing 20 games at the same time so you should definitely have some games that are just laying and taking up the space so you can delete it.

The same if you are a trophy hunter, once you complete a game, you can delete it and save space.

And of course, there's always the possibility to have retails-only

To sum it up, why don't people just take it like... the console costs 250 bucks instead of 200 and additional money for the card? 

250 is still pretty good price for what you get.

 

but a few of those AAA games 

>implying Vita has AAA titles

 

His ... indies? Is this some kind of generalizing or something? I mean, it seems many people today are seeing games like "AAA", "Retro/Indie" and "weird and pervert japanese indies nobody needs anyway". As far I can see it, he only has one game in his list that would be "japanese indie", well to be honest, its from NIS, so its not Indie.

He used English language structure. The "your" wasn't meant to refer to me. It was a generalization

(Btw, Hotaru no Nikki is the J-indie you are talking about? )

Edited April 22, 2015 by Satoshi Ookami

[Neputyunu]

And of course, there's always the possibility to have retails-only

 

He used English language structure. The "your" wasn't meant to refer to me. It was a generalization

(Btw, Hotaru no Nikki is the J-indie you are talking about? )

 

No you cant go retail-only with Vita. It will ruin you!! Because nearly everything must be importet or is rare in general.  And much stuff is digital only, ...maybe?

 

So, it WAS a generalization from his side, and a missunderstanding from my side. Great. I can live with that.

Yes, that game.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Neputyunu

[GumiDeLaGumi]

I'd buy it if they had announced HUGE list of AAA games. I mean HUGE, not two exclusive titles.

And SD card would be neat too. 

 

 

 

But neither of these two things are happening, so yeah.

[Aoi Nagisa-chan]

they should release more games

[kurtskyKG]

cheaper SD cards i would agree on without sacrificing quality.

then again, more AAA+ titles please.

[Satoshi Ookami]

then again, more AAA+ titles please.

It has plenty of AAA titles.

By Japanese developers

[damon8r351]

It has plenty of AAA titles.

By Japanese developers

 

Freedom Wars, Soul Sacrifice... Yeah somebody will say "But those are niche audience Japanese titles".  Just under half a million sales for Soul Sacrifice, just over a half million for Freedom Wars (and it's been out for a shorter time), I'd call them something, but "niche" isn't the word I'd use.

[sephirothdude]

I wonder will they go back and  use the oled screens again? far superior visual quality.

[merciful84]

Getting rid of the proprietary memory cards and allowing SD cards would actually be pretty sweet.

 

^ This

Just a what if question here:

What if a new Vita model was announced at E3. It removes some of its older model's features, like the back touch pad and a camera. This will make the games that utilise it not backwards compatible. However, additional features include the trigger buttons and Hdmi port.

A whole wave of AAA games from many publishers is also announced, effectively a launch line up (these would only 've compatible on the new model) .The New Vita has upgraded specs, giving a ps3/high end IPad quality. Would you buy it? Only some games would be backwards compatible, but would you think the gains outweigh the losses?

I don't know if Sony would release another model unless it is a huge revamp, I doubt they gained profit on the Vita 2000 model.

 

Horrible tradeoff...no thank you!

99% of SD cards out there are garbage for nitty-gritty dependability and reliability. Sony was right for developing cards they control the specs on and can have a high level of QC on. Sony dropped prices once, but should drop prices again and licence out the technology to third parties, but maintain high QC.

 

Read/write speeds and bit accuracy on most cards people consider "affordable" are completely undependable.

 

It's highly unlikely (and I would call Sony stupid if they did it) that any new Vitas will use SD cards. The developer models have had HDMI though, so if they did release a new model with a more efficient screen and processor that gives even longer battery life *and* an HDMI port, I would absolutely buy one.

 

Ahhh, the technical means Sony uses to justify their greedy ends. Especially with there being no mention of the possibility of adding internal storage as done with the PSP Go. Sounds similar to their reasoning for the lack of backwards compatibility with this new generation of gaming consoles.  Funny how it always somehow benefits them more financially but at the expense of something on the user end. Its all just a consistant and profitable coincedence I suppose...

Edited May 6, 2015 by merciful84

[Death]

Hey, how about Sony ditches the idea of a third model (2000 was released a year ago today in America!) and make some different games that will actually sell their product!

 

 

Enough of this kawaii waifu fan service shit. I want some diversity. Vita may not be dead, but it's just barely clinging to life. Vita is being phased out of most electronic departments that I've been to and it's just barely 3 and a half years old. 

[DaivRules]

Ahhh, the technical means Sony uses to justify their greedy ends. Especially with there being no mention of the possibility of adding internal storage as done with the PSP Go. Sounds similar to their reasoning for the lack of backwards compatibility with this new generation of gaming consoles.  Funny how it always somehow benefits them more financially but at the expense of something on the user end. Its all just a consistant and profitable coincedence I suppose...

 

It's cool if you just don't understand the technicality of the difference between cheap ass SD cards and Vita memory cards. It's even understandable that you don't get the difference between the cell processor in the PS3 and the x86-based on in the PS4 as the reason for no backward compatibility. But shrugging those differences off and just hating on Sony cause you want things cheaper doesn't make your point valid.

[Satoshi Ookami]

 

Enough of this kawaii waifu fan service shit. 

[DaivRules]

Here's a guy who knows a thing or two about SD cards talking about why they're shite: 

 

http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/06/hugo-barra-xiaomi-microsd-battery-mi-4i/

 

"For high performance devices, we are fundamentally against an SD card slot."

 

Barra says, microSD cards "are incredibly prone to failure and malfunctioning of various different sorts,"

 

"You think you're buying like a Kingston or a SanDisk but you're actually not, and they're extremely poor quality, they're slow, they sometimes just stop working, and it gives people huge number of issues, apps crashing all the time, users losing data, a lot of basically complaints and customer frustration. It's gonna be a while before you finally accept that maybe the reason why it's not performing is because you put in an SD card, right? You're gonna blame the phone, you're gonna blame the manufacturer, you're gonna shout and scream and try to get it fixed, so many different ways until you say, 'Actually, let me just take the SD card out and see what happens.'"

[ScutumMagister]

 

Here's a guy who knows a thing or two about SD cards talking about why they're shite: 

 

http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/06/hugo-barra-xiaomi-microsd-battery-mi-4i/

 

"For high performance devices, we are fundamentally against an SD card slot."

 

Barra says, microSD cards "are incredibly prone to failure and malfunctioning of various different sorts,"

 

"You think you're buying like a Kingston or a SanDisk but you're actually not, and they're extremely poor quality, they're slow, they sometimes just stop working, and it gives people huge number of issues, apps crashing all the time, users losing data, a lot of basically complaints and customer frustration. It's gonna be a while before you finally accept that maybe the reason why it's not performing is because you put in an SD card, right? You're gonna blame the phone, you're gonna blame the manufacturer, you're gonna shout and scream and try to get it fixed, so many different ways until you say, 'Actually, let me just take the SD card out and see what happens.'"

 

 

Yep, they have a limited number of times that any particular spot can be used and that's for reading or writing. It's like constantly erasing the same spot on a piece of paper but even reading it wears it a bit thinner and you never actually see the page getting thinner, it just suddenly disappears with anything that was on it becoming permanently lost. That's how SD cards (and SSD drives) work with the cheaper ones having less times you can do it before it happens.

[merciful84]

It's cool if you just don't understand the technicality of the difference between cheap ass SD cards and Vita memory cards. It's even understandable that you don't get the difference between the cell processor in the PS3 and the x86-based on in the PS4 as the reason for no backward compatibility. But shrugging those differences off and just hating on Sony cause you want things cheaper doesn't make your point valid.

 

Oh I understand it but I also understand that there is a bit more room for middle ground than they are letting on. Personally, I've never had issues with SD memory cards...in fact, I'm still using the same SD memory card I bought back in 2008 to backup my saves on my launch model PS3. Shoot, now that I think about it...my SD memory card that CAME WITH my launch model PSP still works fine. Again, you still fail to mention the sensibility of providing internal storage as they already did with the PSP Go. As far as the PS4...I remember two different models of the PS3 being launched concurrently with different size HDD which caused them to vary in price. Could Sony have done the same with the PS4 and charged the extra $100 - $200 for the model with backwards compatibility for those who were willing to shell out that amount of money for it? Could Sony have WAITED until they found a cost effective way to add backwards compatibility to the PS4 before releasing it? YES and YES. The latter especially since plenty of games are still being released for the PS3 and it is still a profitable platform for them.

 

But you know what? Its more profitable for them to make their own Vita memory cards, require them to even be able to boot a game up, and charge ridiculous prices for small amounts of storage ($99 for 32 GB...how can you honestly defend that?!). Its more profitable for them to completely separate their newest home console from their ENTIRE 20 years worth of physical and DIGITAL libraries, so that they can sell you remastered copies of games released a couple of years ago and charge you for a subscription based streaming service for you to play a bunch of games that you may already OWN!

 

So yeah, I understand completely...that just like every other greedy MNC they already have their excuses lined up with the technical proof to support it on why they CHOOSE to make business decisions that are very anti-consumer. It is on us (the paying customers) to see through the bullshit and demand better. Too bad the consumer base is too saturated with short sighted, apathetic Sony apologists.

Edited May 6, 2015 by merciful84

[DaivRules]

Oh I understand it but I also understand that there is a bit more room for middle ground than they are letting on. Personally, I've never had issues with SD memory cards...in fact, I'm still using the same SD memory card I bought back in 2008 to backup my saves on my launch model PS3. Shoot, now that I think about it...my SD memory card that CAME WITH my launch model PSP still works fine.

The PSP launched being able to use Sony's Memory Stick Pro Duo, not SD. And while you weren't affected, there was a huge swath of knock-off cards being sold everywhere, including reputable retailers who didn't know they got shammed. Lots of people have gotten corrupted saves on PSPs as well, consider yourself lucky, not the norm.

 

 

Again, you still fail to mention the sensibility of providing internal storage as they already did with the PSP Go. 

 

Different models with fixed internal storage creates logistical issues. Look at phone launches with different storage options. 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as the PS4...I remember two different models of the PS3 being launched concurrently with different size HDD which caused them to vary in price. Could Sony have done the same with the PS4 and charged the extra $100 - $200 for the model with backwards compatibility for those who were willing to shell out that amount of money for it? Could Sony have WAITED until they found a cost effective way to add backwards compatibility to the PS4 before releasing it? YES and YES. The latter especially since plenty of games are still being released for the PS3 and it is still a profitable platform for them.

 

 

The PS3 launched with 2 models. a 60 gb that had a hardware PS3 emulator that only emulated roughly 80% of PS2 games. That's because the simplicity of the PS2 processor and the ability for it to be rendered down to a chip. The 20 gb model had software emulation that had even less compatibility. The instruction set of the PS2 was close enough that the cell processor could interpret much of it on it's own, but not all of it.

 

The cell processor will not be shrunk down to a chip, nor emulated by x86 processor for years, perhaps decades, if anyone even bothers. It's not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of ROI, for Sony, who is still a business. Why offer ~80% backward compatibility for an extra $100 to a model when you can sell them the whole console with 100% compatibility for roughly the same price.

 

 

 

But you know what? Its more profitable for them to make their own Vita memory cards, require them to even be able to boot a game up, and charge ridiculous prices for small amounts of storage ($99 for 32 GB...how can you honestly defend that?!). Its more profitable for them to completely separate their newest home console from their ENTIRE 20 years worth of physical and DIGITAL libraries, so that they can sell you remastered copies of games released a couple of years ago and charge you for a subscription based streaming service for you to play a bunch of games that you may already OWN!

 

 

Designing the Vita memory card took a lot of time and money and was done for the right reasons. A 4gb card allows you to boot and play for just $20 (or less). You don't NEED the 32/64gb for ~$100. When Sony released the PS1 and PS2, they also *needed* memory cards to play. 8mb for $25+ for PS2. You know how they can defend $99 (now $70) for a 32gb Vita card? By selling a 16 gb for $60(now $30), a 8 gb for $30 and a 4 gb for $20. Pick what you can afford. It's a game console, your life doesn't depend on the choice.

 

You act like everyone who buys a PS4 has any prior consoles. Everyday there are hundreds of people getting their very first console. Those people don't want to have to pay more for things like backward compatibility for games they have no intention of playing. Especially when old, cheap consoles are already available if they want to play those games. 

 

 

So yeah, I understand completely...that just like every other greedy MNC they already have their excuses lined up with the technical proof to support it on why they CHOOSE to make business decisions that are very anti-consumer. It is on us (the paying customers) to see through the bullshit and demand better.

 

No, you just clearly demonstrated you don't. You're stuck in victim mentality and feel owed for some reason.

 

 

 

 Too bad the consumer base is too saturated with short sighted, apathetic Sony apologists.

 

Umm, okay. 

[merciful84]

The PSP launched being able to use Sony's Memory Stick Pro Duo, not SD. And while you weren't affected, there was a huge swath of knock-off cards being sold everywhere, including reputable retailers who didn't know they got shammed. Lots of people have gotten corrupted saves on PSPs as well, consider yourself lucky, not the norm.

 

 

So because someone sells knock offs that validates the arguement that the actual thing sucks so bad that only Sony is qualified to make and only accept their own?! C'mon man...

 

 

Different models with fixed internal storage creates logistical issues. Look at phone launches with different storage options.

 

 

Elaborate please? Storage is storage.

 

 

The PS3 launched with 2 models. a 60 gb that had a hardware PS3 emulator that only emulated roughly 80% of PS2 games. That's because the simplicity of the PS2 processor and the ability for it to be rendered down to a chip. The 20 gb model had software emulation that had even less compatibility. The instruction set of the PS2 was close enough that the cell processor could interpret much of it on it's own, but not all of it.

 

The cell processor will not be shrunk down to a chip, nor emulated by x86 processor for years, perhaps decades, if anyone even bothers. It's not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of ROI, for Sony, who is still a business. Why offer ~80% backward compatibility for an extra $100 to a model when you can sell them the whole console with 100% compatibility for roughly the same price.

 

 

BINGO! You just proved my point! Therefore Sony could have released 2 different models at launch like they did before...one with and one without.  Decades to emulate PSOne, PS2 and PS3 games?! Do you actually believe what you're typing? If Sony can create something as sophiticated as the PS4 then they can do something basic with it such as emulating digital PSOne games.

 

As far 80% compatibility vs 100% compatibility:

 

1. It worked out for them before

2. Precisely my point in why it is that they could have waited to release something.

 

They rushed the PS4 out as soon as it was able to do everything they wanted it to do with next gen gaming but completely neglected to do anything in terms of the current or previous generations. They would rather just force people to continue to buy legacy hardware to play legacy games or subscribe to a stream service....GREED! Its the very reason why they got rid of the 80% PS2 compatibility when they lauched the new models of the PS3. They saw how profitable the PS2 still was!

 

 

Designing the Vita memory card took a lot of time and money and was done for the right reasons. A 4gb card allows you to boot and play for just $20 (or less). You don't NEED the 32/64gb for ~$100. When Sony released the PS1 and PS2, they also *needed* memory cards to play. 8mb for $25+ for PS2. You know how they can defend $99 (now $70) for a 32gb Vita card? By selling a 16 gb for $60(now $30), a 8 gb for $30 and a 4 gb for $20. Pick what you can afford. It's a game console, your life doesn't depend on the choice.

 

You act like everyone who buys a PS4 has any prior consoles. Everyday there are hundreds of people getting their very first console. Those people don't want to have to pay more for things like backward compatibility for games they have no intention of playing. Especially when old, cheap consoles are already available if they want to play those games.

 

So now you're arguing the amount it takes to boot vs a reasonable amount to store content? Really, man?! Actually the PS1 and PS2 did not need memory cards to boot games on the system...they were needed to save data. Vita games cannot even boot without the memory cards present in the device. If you think those are even close to fair prices for the amount of storage that you are listing, you must know on average how much it really cost to store data to those capacities. 32 GB of storage usually goes for $10 - $15.

 

Why would Sony not keep their loyal fanbase in mind when creating a new console? This is borderline trolling now...

 

 

 

feel owed for some reason.

 

 

Yeah, you actually got that right. Rewarding your customers for being loyal to your brand is owed especially if those people have been investing in it for decades and said investment has been a key factor in that brand's success in the market.

 

This a clear case of fanboyism and I can't even take half of what you're saying seriously anymore. Keep going if you want to but this just an insult to anyone's intelligence that wastes any further time reading it.

Edited May 6, 2015 by merciful84