Support NeoGAF

[Mammoth Jones]

I purchased a Vita and a 64gb card. The price was just too high. Especially when they're trying to move units. Why they wouldn't keep the barrier to entry as low as possible to get an install base to sustain the platform is beyond me.

There's no doubt a great many of potential vita owners declined due to the buy in cost of the system + memory + game.

 

[Kathian]

It's not a criticism just a statement of fact that every time I look to buy a Vita I have forgotten the memory card stuff and am looking for digital games. When I realise I switch off totally from the system.

 

[Deadstar]

That's what I think too.
Vita main problem was the software which was available for it.

There wasn't a lot of software because people weren't buying Vita's because the memory card prices were ridiculous.

 

[JayBabay]

Fuck apple and their iPhone pricing too

You tell em!

 

[VLiberty]

My biggest problem with vita cards is that, after 2013's slight pricedrop, the prices remained the same until most western markets straight stopped selling them.

I need a 16 gb card. I've been delaying its purchase at its official price(35€) because I was waiting for a drop, and instead now I can't even buy them for that price as markets aren't selling them anymore and amazon only features 3rd party scalpers who are selling them for 50+€

 

[RoninChaos]

Yes this is a great post and exactly what I was trying to say.

I know some posters have said the memory card was a huge reason they lost interest in the system but I don't think it was the single most important reason the Vita failed. If anything the games failed to excite the mainstream audience. The best game on the system was an 8 year old JRPG from the PS2.

And other terrible decisions included the Backtouch which probably added significantly to the cost of the hardware and was barely used. Splitting up the user base between wifi and 3G which ultimately meant no 3G functions in any games. No multiplayer games over 3G which was a huge mistake considering the iPhone 3GS was out at the same time and changing the landscape of portable gaming. The inability to not be able to have different accounts on the system which lead to not being able to use different PlayStation stores is still incredibly frustrating and prevents significant revenue. The end of first party games on the system was also a poor decision that put the final nail in the vita coffin as a mainstream device.

And yet many gamers still persist with the vita, because it's a great unique handheld for many games. There's plenty of vita games that have been ported to steam but the best place to play them is still on the vita. Games like Danganronpa, Stranger of Sword City, VNs and dungeon crawlers are perfect handheld games.

The problem is that math doesn't work. The memory card is MANDATORY. You couldn't play most games without one.The cost ends up the same.

 

[MooMilk2929]

Getting a huge memory card isn't mandatory. In fact I think the 2nd model comes with 1 GB memory for game saves.

 

[GametimeUK]

We got his point but rejected it.

People don't even buy iPads with the intention of playing multi-gig games on them.

iPads don't have a memory card slot.

Then why are people just comparing the Vita memory card prices to normal sd cards? Why isn't anyone sewing his side of the argument before breaking it down? Now let's see what it boils down to.

A Vita at launch was £230 and a 32gb card was around £50. I can see a random 32gb SD card online now at £30 or a cheap one for £10.

Now, the real question is, was the Vita on its own worth £270 at launch for a 32gb version? That would be £270 for the actual Vita and £10 for the SD card. The OP believes Sony have structured the pricing model of the cards to fit this sort of pricing.

(Edit) I think £270 was personally too much and that's how you break down his argument.

(Double edit) and I do believe the memory cards are flat out overpriced, but that's not the point when trying to debate against OP's argument.

 

[Audioboxer]

When you are Apple you can largely get away with being an anti-consumer fucktrumpet, when you are Sony, you can't.

Apples and oranges (no pun intended).

 

[Panajev2001a]

Quick Amazon price check:

32GB Sandisk Ultra Class 10 SD Card: £9.95
32GB Vita Memory Card: £53.00

In what universe is any criticism unfair?

Well, to be fair it is not a fair comparison right now as the volume of manufacturing for PS Vita cards are manufactured in a lot lot smaller volumes.

 

[Audioboxer]

Well, to be fair it is not a fair comparison right now as the volume of manufacturing for PS Vita cards are manufactured in a lot lot smaller models.

That's.... Sony's fault/problem? If they had gone with micro-SD they wouldn't have had to worry about manufacturing costs at all! Imagine that, adopting an open standard is cheaper for all parties involved!

 

[Shizuka]

Getting a huge memory card isn't mandatory. In fact I think the 2nd model comes with 1 GB memory for game saves.

If all games were available at retail or didn't have any sort of post-launch patch, I'd agree with you.

 

[CNCOMICS]

Getting a huge memory card isn't mandatory. In fact I think the 2nd model comes with 1 GB memory for game saves.

Yeah, but that severely limits what games you can actually play. Also you can't even use that 1GB when a memory card is inserted.

Well, to be fair it is not a fair comparison right now as the volume of manufacturing for PS Vita cards are manufactured in a lot lot smaller volumes.

At the end of the day, it's flash media, and nobody should pay that much for flash media, proprietary or not.

 

[autoduelist]

SD card use could've saved the Vita. It probably would've brought piracy to the system much faster, and at a cost of game sales, but the hardware would've moved a lot more.

I don't think it was a financial decision for Sony, or at least, not directly. I think higher ups at Sony told engineers to make this thing as piracy proof as possible. Engineers pointed out that SD cards were always going to be a primary vector of attack, since you could put them into PCs and read/edit data. They pointed out the only way to truly secure the Vita for any length of time would be to have some sort of proprietary chip reader.

Sony then took this information in, and made a decision to keep the Vita as secure as possible due to the rampant piracy on the PSP.

This meant mem cards that would be more expensive, and Sony made them even more expensive than need be because they used the cards to subsidize the price of the Vita at launch. They clearly hoped the Vita would be a success, and that with higher production the memory card price would fall. That didn't happen, which left them with a hurting-for-sales system with overpriced memory.

I believe the scenario presented above is rational and logical evaluation of how Sony got from X to Y, and why we ended up with proprietary cards. I don't think Sony expected quite the backlash to memory prices, though they should have. In a way, the OP is correct that they probably could have avoided said backlash by selling Vitas with internal mem at different SKUs, thus 'hiding' the price of memory... but with the major issue of users not being able to change mem cards. But that would have sucked for us, too.

Back seat driving doesn't solve anything. It's easy to say that Sony should have went SD, but if they were worried about piracy on PSP and not having software support w/o a secure system, it's hard to fault that decision. If the Vita was hacked early and software support dropped off a cliff due to piracy, we'd have threads on how stupid Sony was for not securing their new system better after what happened to the PSP... backseat driving is easy.

 

[Melkezadek]

The critism is totally justified. Especially since physical Vita releases are becoming more and more rare in the West.

 

[bug_42]

The general consensus on GAF is that the price of the Vita Memory cards are too high and its become a running joke that seems to have no end. But I don't think Sony are doing it on purpose because they are ignorant to people's pleas on this. It's just that the memory card price is tied to the hardware cost.

It seems Vita Memory Card prices are always compared to SD or micro SD card prices, which to be fair is obvious and a normal thing to do but the way Vita and memory is priced is more like devices that have internal memory like the iPhone. The difference is that Sony wanted to put out one Vita SKU and 4 memory cards SKUs, rather than 4 Vitas with different memory capacities.

Now here are the Vita Memory Card Prices I got from Amazon.

8GB: $28
16GB: $42
32GB: $58
64GB: $107

The price of the Vita on Amazon is $153. If you were to buy the system together with a memory card just like an iphone the costs would be -

8GB: $181
16GB: $195 (7% more than the Vita system + 8GB card)
32GB: $211 (16% more)
64GB: $260 (43% more)

Therefore I wonder whether people would still have an issue over the memory prices if the memory was internal on the Vita (ie Sony could just seal the door on a new Vita model update). It looks to me like they are trying to capture a wider market by offering the Vita and memory at a range of prices just like the iPhone. And each iPhone memory level is a $100 jump, but most people seem to have gotten over it.

Then there's the issue of whether the Vita is making money on the hardware itself which probably led to higher memory card prices. The true price of the Vita probably lies somewhere in the middle so that Sony can capture as wide a market as possible where some people can only afford the base model, but many others are happy to pay for more memory and can afford the higher tier card.

If you compare the 3DS and the Vita, its clear the Vita has better guts inside, yet the Vita was only a little bit more expensive when they launched, with the memory card being where Sony was going to make some of their money back on the hardware. By offering the Vita Memory card at higher prices for the higher tier cards, it offered a lower price of entry on the hardware itself.

So to sum up, obviously Sony bungled the marketing on this and probably should have gone with internal memory, with multiple Vita SKUs just like the home consoles. But can we as knowledgeable gamers at least understand where they are coming from? And if you haven't got a Vita yet, and are put off by the memory card price, the Vita + 32GB seems to be a nice sweet spot.

Your point is mute because, they could have kept the price lower by using pre-existing memory cards, and by scraping features no one uses. The rear touch for example, I mean who use that?

 

[horkrux]

If the Vita was hacked early and software support dropped off a cliff due to piracy, we'd have threads on how stupid Sony was for not securing their new system better after what happened to the PSP... backseat driving is easy.

I don't think people blamed Nintendo for not using proprietary cards, and seeing how long it took hackers to blow the 3DS open (IIRC), they seem to have done an acceptable job despite relying on mere SD cards as storage.

Vita memory sticks are highly inconvenient, so this kind of security measure affects us all. I think you could have counted the people blaming SD cards for early hacks on a crippled hand. The PS3 was also pretty secure, yet you could still swap the harddrive, put in a USB stick etc., so it's not like Sony was a stranger to good security systems without going to such great lengths as to lockdown storage media access.

 

[OtakuReborn124]

The problem is that the memory card issue kneecapped it before it got out of the gate. It's all about perception. Memory, and especially external memory, is something that is seen as reasonably cheap and upgradeable. The idea that you need to upgrade to a larger size later down the line when you start to use it more is understood as a future cost and is factored into the initial purchase. You'd think about this for games themselves as well. And in a similar vein, if somebody was selling a console for $200, but the games cost $100, you'd similarly expect that fact to handicap the console due to future cost. Obviously you buy games more often than memory cards, but the idea is similar.

This could have been solved (or at least mitigated) if the system included a decent sized card with it. But if you bought the WiFi version, it did not. So at time of checkout, you already have to make a decision on how big of a card you want and the price issue is brought out front and center. If it came with an 8GB card (like how the 3DS comes with a 4GB SD card by default) then you could at least get the console and not have to worry about it. This could have gotten the system into more hands. Instead, people who go to order are immediately shown comparatively outrageous prices for memory cards and immediately dissuaded from committing.

I ended up buying the 3G version a while back since it was on sale and it came with an 8GB card (for $184). This was in 2013. Now, 3G I don't give a fuck about, but the included 8GB card meant I didn't have to deal with memory card prices (at least for a while) so that's an easier sell. I think bundles nowadays do include a memory card, but the time for mass adoption has come and gone and it's basically dead now. A shame, since it's after playing with it, it's an excellent piece of tech.

 

[Suite Pee]

It's why I don't play the Vita I already own. Garbage practice.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yeah, but that severely limits what games you can actually play. Also you can't even use that 1GB when a memory card is inserted.




At the end of the day, it's flash media, and nobody should pay that much for flash media, proprietary or not.

Uhm... so Intel CPU's should cost like el cheapo ARM chips in low cost smartphones because they are all transistors ?

 

[GiantBreadbug]

Like

Saying "it helped lower the price of the Vita" is just some of the most laughable apologist shit I've ever heard.

It was/is a cash grab. That's it. If they gave a shit about either the health of the platform or its users, they would have allowed SD cards. It's a fuckin standard lol.

 

[potatohead]

I don't think it was a financial decision for Sony, or at least, not directly. I think higher ups at Sony told engineers to make this thing as piracy proof as possible. Engineers pointed out that SD cards were always going to be a primary vector of attack, since you could put them into PCs and read/edit data. They pointed out the only way to truly secure the Vita for any length of time would be to have some sort of proprietary chip reader.

Sony then took this information in, and made a decision to keep the Vita as secure as possible due to the rampant piracy on the PSP.

This meant mem cards that would be more expensive, and Sony made them even more expensive than need be because they used the cards to subsidize the price of the Vita at launch. They clearly hoped the Vita would be a success, and that with higher production the memory card price would fall. That didn't happen, which left them with a hurting-for-sales system with overpriced memory.

I believe the scenario presented above is rational and logical evaluation of how Sony got from X to Y, and why we ended up with proprietary cards. I don't think Sony expected quite the backlash to memory prices, though they should have. In a way, the OP is correct that they probably could have avoided said backlash by selling Vitas with internal mem at different SKUs, thus 'hiding' the price of memory... but with the major issue of users not being able to change mem cards. But that would have sucked for us, too.

Back seat driving doesn't solve anything. It's easy to say that Sony should have went SD, but if they were worried about piracy on PSP and not having software support w/o a secure system, it's hard to fault that decision. If the Vita was hacked early and software support dropped off a cliff due to piracy, we'd have threads on how stupid Sony was for not securing their new system better after what happened to the PSP... backseat driving is easy.

You have a logical thought process here. Except for the part whether it is either or. Because it's never either or.

But remember the primary motivation to keep the memory cards proprietary is the income. And when a decision is made, it's usually not due to one factor, but several or more factors.

Not the piracy alone. That was one element, because it ravaged PSP pretty hard (but the console sold great, and the games sold pretty well too), but the profit margin is a lot bigger incentive to keep proprietary media, not unlike what Nintendo does with their own home consoles or portable consoles.

Yet still, just because that decision was made, it doesn't necessarily make it the right one, given all factors, and now also given 20/20 hindsight. And what we have was a lot of disinterest or at least dissuasion away from the Vita because of the expensive memory cards. That is a symptom of making them proprietary, expensive stuff.

 

[ArtHands]

It's a portable PS3. What'd ya expect?

Edit: I also don't get why people complain you gotta buy a memory card with the Vita when you gotta buy a Hard Drive with the WiiU. If you don't you can't even update Smash Bros on the 8 gb models. And it won't let you use a SD card instead of a Hard Drive either.

Its Sony's decision to make it a portable PS3. Its not our fault Sony did this for those power hungry sony portable fanboys.

There is a reason why previous handheld competitors that are technically better than Nintendo's handhelds, flopped too. Once you include factors like cost, battery life etc you will realize that it is simply not festible for consumers.

And Wii U doesn't use proprietary storage format. You can use any HDD and Nintendo doesn't earn anything from the HDD you buy to use on Wii U. THAT's the difference.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Uhm... so Intel CPU's should cost like el cheapo ARM chips in low cost smartphones because they are all transistors ?

If Intel released a CPU that was a rebranded ARM chip then yes I would expect that. Because that's all Sony did, slap a different shell on a MicroSD and charged crazy money for it.

 

[foolishoptimist]

I hacked my Playstation TV to play all games (like Ys 7) the day I got it, which was over a years ago.

I did that too.

But there's a big difference in having the ability to run homebrew, emulators and pirated software on a device, than spoofing the whitelist preventing you from running software you own(but deemed unfit for the device).

If Intel released a CPU that was a rebranded ARM chip then yes I would expect that. Because that's all Sony did, slap a different shell on a MicroSD and charged crazy money for it.

It's been mentioned in this thread that there's built in custom encryption support. It's not the same product in a different shell. That's probably why we don't cheap knockoff cards coming out of china.
Which could be seen as evidence of Sony preventing other companies horning in their Vita memory $cam, or evidence that Sony were going to great lengths to prevent Vita software being pirated.

 

[tensuke]

It's okay that vita memory cards are so expensive because it's the same as iPhone storage upgrade costs? People complain about those, too. Do you know how much it costs Apple to add an additional 8GB of storage at the volume they produce? 16GB? 32GB? Apple completely overcharges for storage, everybody does, that doesn't make it okay when Sony does it. They're not being "nice" lowering the price of the base vita. The bottom line is that vita cards' costs are just attempts by Sony to gouge because they can. Nobody else can make the cards, you can't buy them from anyone else, so Sony can do whatever they want. I can see why they didn't just go microSD, but at the same time, the prices have been, and still are, ludicrous.

 

[Tangled Up in Blue]

When my old 3DS started to die, I was really leaning toward getting a Vita over a N3DS, but then I nearly stroked out after investigating the memory card prices and, well, a N3DS it is!

(I rarely ever use physical media anymore, especially with handhelds, so lots of storage is a must.)

 

[MegaManTrigger]

OP's logic is ridiculous and focused solely on Amazon pricing as if every retailer follows that pricing scheme. From what I've seen, some Vitas on the retail market go anywhere from 169.99 to the original MSRP of 199.99. You're assuming that everyone is going to pay 150-some when that's not really the case (not to mention, how much cheaper the vita tends to go for on the secondhand market). So it's hard to take the pricing argument seriously. Not to mention, the Vita was released at 250 dollars in the first place...so how did the memory cards manage to lower the entry price point when it edged the consumer closer to 300 dollars to get a complete package (assuming you need more than 4/8GBs).

 

[KojiKnight]

I don't think it was a financial decision for Sony, or at least, not directly. I think higher ups at Sony told engineers to make this thing as piracy proof as possible. Engineers pointed out that SD cards were always going to be a primary vector of attack, since you could put them into PCs and read/edit data. They pointed out the only way to truly secure the Vita for any length of time would be to have some sort of proprietary chip reader.

Sony then took this information in, and made a decision to keep the Vita as secure as possible due to the rampant piracy on the front

Once again, piracy is a bull shit argument... Let me count the ways.

#1: Both the ps3 and ps4 allow use of off the shelf internal drives and usb for various purposes... If Sony were worried about non-propriety parts, they would have made this standard across all platforms.

#2: they wouldn't give everyone access transfer non-encrypted data to and from the proprietary memory out of the box... This led to very early access to psp hacks, and was the starting point to understanding the differences between psp and vita hardware. It also allowed for the installation of homebrew and current henkaku shenanigans to the card after a native exploit was discovered.

 

[alr1ght]

Memory cards should almost be given away. Why would you want to discourage your customer base from buying games due to lack of space? Completely idiotic of them.

 

[Rsinart]

I want to use my vita but can't afford more cards to store more games so I don't use mine.

 

[EVOL 100%]

People put up with Apple's shit because Apple has them by the balls, not because they think it's a reasonable, thoughtful choice for the customer

Handheld videogame consoles were much more of a luxury item when smartphone gaming became ubiquitous, people had no reason to put up with that shit anymore. The proprietary cards aren't the only reason why the Vita crashed and burned, but it's definitely a factor. I saw an argument that the average joe wouldn't care about the cards, which is probably true.

But Sony needed every tech savvy 'hardcore' video game fan on board, and I'd argue that a sizable amount bailed out the moment they saw the ridiculous price gouging on those memory cards

 

[Inuhanyou]

I still have not heard a good reason why Sony did not invest in SD cards instead of proprietary cards? They had SD cards for PSP, why not Vita?

 

[diaspora]

I still have not heard a good reason why Sony did not invest in SD cards instead of proprietary cards? They had SD cards for PSP, why not Vita?

What? No.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

I still have not heard a good reason why Sony did not invest in SD cards instead of proprietary cards? They had SD cards for PSP, why not Vita?

When has the PSP ever had SD Cards? They also had proprietary memory.

 

[ss_lemonade]

I still have not heard a good reason why Sony did not invest in SD cards instead of proprietary cards? They had SD cards for PSP, why not Vita?

No SD cards for PSP. There was that flimsy 3rd party adapter though that allowed dual microsd cards

 

[Wozman23]

Comparing the Vita to an iPhone is the first mistake in this thread.

Apple is a juggernaut in the phone industry, but for all the wrong reasons. They have a lot of anti-consumer practices, rely on restrictive hardware, and favor proprietary solutions for charge cables, which couldn't even remain stable for the first few iterations.

For consumers, the terms 'proprietary' and 'fair' rarely go hand in hand.

The Vita is the first handheld I've bought since I had an original GameBoy in my childhood, and it is a stellar piece of tech, but the proprietary memory cards are an unneeded complication clearly crated to make Sony some extra cash.

No amount of spin could justify the fact that there is almost a $100 difference between a 64GB memory card and a 64GB SD card. For around $100, you can buy 64 Gigs of storage for the vita, or 320 Gigs worth of SD cards for a Nintendo handheld. Or just buy a 2DS, that will come with a 4GB memory card.

The Vita would have found far more success had it adopted a more open Nintendo or Android approach, undoubtedly. Would it have flourished? That's still up for debate.

 

[autoduelist]

I don't think people blamed Nintendo for not using proprietary cards, and seeing how long it took hackers to blow the 3DS open (IIRC), they seem to have done an acceptable job despite relying on mere SD cards as storage.

That another system used SD cards, and was or wasn't cracked, doesn't change the fact that using a proprietary card is far more secure than using a SD card. That is, sure, they might have used SD cards and had no issues... but if you tell an engineer that 'priority #1' is the system being secure, then you'll be told SD cards are a major avenue of attack and that proprietary would help protect it.

I mean, it's like saying one bank was wrong for investing in a high tech vault because some other bank only bought a cheap safe. Sure, it -might- be enough. But if the bank designer is told 'security is our priority' then they'd still likely recommend and implement the more secure option.

Once again, piracy is a bull shit argument... Let me count the ways.

Then we can politely disagree, because I think it's the most obvious and logical explanation for those cards, and makes far more sense than the ridiculously simplistic 'greed' argument.

 

[Inuhanyou]

What? No.

When has the PSP ever had SD Cards? They also had proprietary memory.

No SD cards for PSP. There was that flimsy 3rd party adapter though that allowed dual microsd cards

Huh??

I don't understand what you guys are saying. I only had a 32MB memory stick for the longest time on PSP, the one that came with the console, then i bought a generic 2GB sandisk memory stick pro duo off amazon and it worked when i replaced the original card. I don't know if that's an SD card, but it sure wasn't branded by Sony anywhere. And i didn't use any adapter or anything

https://www.oempcworld.com/mm5/merc...uIAWdYz0AkHl5L2Q5cTKiVuMx1ASobBVrEaApJb8P8HAQ

 

[MegaManTrigger]

Huh??

I don't understand what you guys are saying. I only had a 32MB memory stick for the longest time on PSP, the one that came with the console, then i bought a generic 2GB sandisk memory stick pro duo off amazon and it worked when i replaced the original card. I don't know if that's an SD card, but it sure wasn't branded by Sony anywhere. And i didn't use any adapter or anything

https://www.oempcworld.com/mm5/merc...uIAWdYz0AkHl5L2Q5cTKiVuMx1ASobBVrEaApJb8P8HAQ

Memory Stick Pro Duo is not the same as an SD Card. Memory Pro Duo was proprietary to Sony products (surprisingly they had a use beyond just storing games on PSP, they were also used for camcorders, etc IIRC). Not to mention, there are physical differences with each format such as size of the cards, as well as the type of memory used.

 

[Speedwagon]

Sony should slash the prices in half and add 128GB for $90 and then it would be slightly fair pricing

Even though that's 3x the price of a microSD still LOL

 

[Inuhanyou]

Memory Stick Pro Duo is not the same as an SD Card. Memory Pro Duo was proprietary to Sony products (surprisingly they had a use beyond just storing games on PSP, they were also used for camcorders, etc IIRC). Not to mention, there are physical differences with each format such as size of the cards, as well as the type of memory used.

Sandisk is sony? I thought it was some third party manufacturer. I see...but then again, why so cheap compared to Vita cards? Why not just do the same thing?

 

[MegaManTrigger]

Sandisk is sony? I thought it was some third party manufacturer. I see...but then again, why so cheap compared to Vita cards? Why not just do the same thing?

No. It's not so much the company's name, it's the fact that the card format is Memory Pro Stick Duo, which only works with Sony products as Sony created the format. Funny enough, it has the fewest third party options with Lexar and SanDisk IIRC, which is why you have the SanDisk version.

 

[Velcro Fly]

There are tons of Vita games that I want to play and for many of them digital is either the only option or the best option available. I already have a 16gb and it won't be enough. 64gb would be perfect. I just can't do it. It's insane. Spending $90 on something so that I can enjoy the system is horrible.

 

[ArtHands]

Embedded internal storage will have been a better choice than proprietary memory card in terms of piracy prevention, yet Sony didn't go for it.

 

[Hyoukokun]

Memory Stick Pro Duo is not the same as an SD Card. Memory Pro Duo was proprietary to Sony products (surprisingly they had a use beyond just storing games on PSP, they were also used for camcorders, etc IIRC). Not to mention, there are physical differences with each format such as size of the cards, as well as the type of memory used.

This is true, but as others have posted in various places in the thread, there were MicroSD -> Memory Stick Pro Duo adapters available later on in the PSP's lifespan. Sony locked the Vita memory cards down hard enough that this wasn't possible.

Also, the fact that the memory sticks were a) licensed out to other manufacturers and b) used in other products forced the pricing to be at least marginally competitive with SD cards, price-wise. I still remember them being somewhat more expensive, but it wasn't 3-4x more expensive like we're currently seeing with the Vita cards.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

The criticism about memory card price is completely fair. This is coming off someone who endured the PSP Pro Duo gouging days in addition to buying a 64 GB for the Vita. Selling a device without on board storage of at least 8-16 GB is simply absurd at best. Should have been a 8-16 GB on the regular model and 32-64 GB on a premium model instead of this limited carrier 3G nonsense. God Vita was such a train wreck on so many different nuanced levels.

 

[Brad Grenz]

This is key.

It's a terrible strategy for Sony to place a massive barrier between their customers and their digital storefront.

It's silly to act as if it was a Sony strategy when it's very obviously a concession made to retailers who got burned on PSP. They couldn't make money just selling the hardware after the system was broken wide open for piracy so high margin memory cards immunized them against that possibility AND Sony's plan to make all games available on PSN. Providing a variety of options between $15 and $100 meant people could choose to spend what was right for them.

Personally, the utility of having 32GB of games with me at any time on my Vita was worth the price irrespective of what the flash market looks like. I've also save hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on games thanks to PS Plus and PSN sales. Nintendo's software prices are in no way comparable to that value, and they also expect you to rebuy your Gameboy, DS or 3DS multiple times over the course of a generation. That feels a lot more predatory to me than an upfront investment in flash storage for a system that was not horribly flawed in numerous ways at launch.

 

[dragonyeuw]

Deleted

 

[teflontactics]