thank you sony for lowering the price on the memory cards

#41Zeran_kariashiPosted 12/25/2011 7:50:17 PM
Yeah....I don't mind premium prices but i want better storage space.....32Gb is less then my PSP-2000 has (currently 56 GB (supposed to be 64 but it's losing a bunch due to the 2nd card only applying 16 gb), 41 GB used). The set up cost me about 54 bucks (2 32 gb SD cards and a MS Pro duo bridge, all on sale).


I'm holding off on getting a Vita till the memory option gets at least 64 gb. Or they release a larger version with a full out 500gb-1tb laptop HD in it.
#42Kurgan777Posted 12/25/2011 7:54:20 PM
Zeran_kariashi posted...
Yeah....I don't mind premium prices but i want better storage space.....32Gb is less then my PSP-2000 has (currently 56 GB (supposed to be 64 but it's losing a bunch due to the 2nd card only applying 16 gb), 41 GB used). The set up cost me about 54 bucks (2 32 gb SD cards and a MS Pro duo bridge, all on sale).

For that price, you did NOT buy speed, and it seems you bought bugs too.

Going cheaper is NOT always better, one of these days you people will realize this....
.
---
What's the purpose in owning a Grenade Launcher?
The sheer inability to continue life without it ! ! !
#43KinoPosted 12/25/2011 8:18:49 PM

From: Kurgan777 | #042
For that price, you did NOT buy speed, and it seems you bought bugs too.

Going cheaper is NOT always better, one of these days you people will realize this....
.


Unfortunately, Sony has yet to show how their new memory cards are better. I mean, some initial tests have suggested that downloaded games load slower than their game card counterparts. On top of that, there's the thing with the online passes making some games even more expensive when you buy the download version. There's really no good reason to use those memory cards.

When people buy the memory cards, I'm sure most people won't care about the tech specs of those cards and how it compares to SD cards or Memory Sticks. What Sony needs to do is to show people that their new memory cards are worth the money and let people SEE the practical advantages of using it in the Vita, instead of just listing tech specs.
#44Kurgan777Posted 12/25/2011 8:30:14 PM
Jack In A Cube posted...
some initial tests have suggested that downloaded games load slower than their game card counterparts.

That could have more to do with the PSN version being compressed and the Vita cartridge version not being compressed.

Until we get EXACT specs for both the cards and the cartridges the loading times don't really mean much.

PSN versions of games are often compressed to avoid the bandwidth fees that Sony charges to each developer, 16 cents per gigabyte of bandwidth used. The smaller they can make the file, the cheaper it is for the developer in the long run.

The cartridge version can be decompressed to fill the cartridge, which means it will run faster.
.
---
What's the purpose in owning a Grenade Launcher?
The sheer inability to continue life without it ! ! !
#45KinoPosted 12/26/2011 6:58:24 PM

From: Kurgan777 | #044
That could have more to do with the PSN version being compressed and the Vita cartridge version not being compressed.

Until we get EXACT specs for both the cards and the cartridges the loading times don't really mean much.

PSN versions of games are often compressed to avoid the bandwidth fees that Sony charges to each developer, 16 cents per gigabyte of bandwidth used. The smaller they can make the file, the cheaper it is for the developer in the long run.

The cartridge version can be decompressed to fill the cartridge, which means it will run faster.
.


Again, all those theoretical stuff and numbers don't matter.

Developers' bandwidth costs? Who cares?
Compression? Who cares?
The download versions seem to load slower. That's the end result and the only thing that matters to the average consumer.

Sad, but true.