News Article

Hardware Review: PS Vita Slim - Screen if You Wanna Go Faster

Posted by Damien McFerran

Slimmer, lighter, better?

Hardware revisions are a fact of gaming life; as manufacturers find new ways to cut costs and reduce their overheads, we invariably see new iterations hit the market in the hope that new consumers can be drawn in by the allure of fresh tech and hefty discounts. However, such revisions can come with significant drawbacks; Sony's refresh of the PlayStation 3 famously removed backwards capability with the PlayStation 2, while the PSP E-1000 did away with wireless functionality, making it the handheld that no one bought (or, it could be argued, even remembers).

With this in mind, it's clear that Sony is taking a risk with its redesign of the struggling PlayStation Vita handheld. The console hasn't been the commercial smash-hit that the company had hoped for, although there's still time to turn things around, PSP-style. The Vita is popular with indie developers, and the appealing design, excellent interface options, and powerful technology contained within all make for an alluring product, even this long after launch. A hardware refresh that shaves off both weight and cost is just what the doctor ordered, right?

Sony has certainly ensured that the PS Vita Slim lives up to its name. It feels almost impossibly svelte when compared to the comparatively plump original, and has shed over 40 grams during its remodelling. The overall design has changed, too – gone are the sharp, faux-metallic edges, replaced by a soft-touch matte finish with rounded curves which make the system a lot more comfortable to hold. These reductions in size and weight – along with a change of design – make the Slim easier on your arms when gaming for prolonged periods.

In terms of buttons, things remain largely the same. The power, start, and select keys are now circles as opposed to ovals and are slightly raised, making them easier to locate in a rush. Every other element is pretty much identical to how it was on the original Vita – the rear touchpad feels a little more awkward to interact with thanks to the thinner nature of the console, but that could just be our own personal experience – depending on the size of your hands, you could well find this model makes it easier to reach this under-used aspect of the system.

When it comes to media ports, Sony has tinkered quite dramatically. The memory card slot is now located on the bottom edge of the device, while the game card bay remains largely where it was originally. Replacing cards is still a fiddly process, and not something that you'll want to do on a busy train or bus, but at least you know there's little danger of your precious games being accidentally ejected and lost – something which is always a frightening possibility on Nintendo's rival 3DS system.

A thoroughly welcome change is the removal of the proprietary data and charging connection, and its replacement by an industry-standard Micro USB port. This is the same connection that is used on practically every mobile phone and tablet device out there that isn't made by Apple, and potentially means you could leave the house with just a single charger for all of your mobile tech. Another addition is 1GB of internal storage, which remedies that irksome issue with the original Vita model where the console was essentially useless unless you purchased a memory card with it.

Finally, there's improved stamina to consider. The original Vita is still an impressive slice of cutting-edge tech, and as a result it's something of a battery drainer. Sony insists that the Slim adds an additional hour of play time – despite the reduced size of the bodywork – and our tests seem to support this. The original console would usually give up the ghost after about five or so hours, but the Slim was able to make it past the six hour mark, and – in some cases – even go beyond that. Battery life is still clearly an issue for the hardware (gone are the days when handhelds like the Bandai WonderSwan could happily operate on a single AA battery for 40 hours), but it's good to see that some advances have been made in this revision.

For all of the positive elements that Sony has included in the Slim, there are some major drawbacks to consider. The most glaringly obvious is the screen – gone is the jaw-droppingly gorgeous OLED panel which graced the original version, and in its place is a comparatively drab IPS LCD display. The reasons behind this change are sound – OLED tech is still expensive, and to cut costs Sony clearly had to consider swapping the panel for a cheaper alternative. The issue here is that the LCD screen – while perfectly acceptable when compared to the vast majority of portable devices – is vastly inferior to its OLED counterpart. Colours are duller, blacks aren't as deep, and motion isn't anywhere near as smooth. Viewed on its own the Slim's display is fine, but when placed alongside a Mark I Vita, the difference is like night and day.

Another problem actually lies with something that Sony has added to this iteration – that 1GB of memory. This might sound like a generous figure compared to the "zero" amount of space showcased by the first Vita, but it's almost criminally tight-fisted in this day and age. We live in an era where even the cheapest Android smartphone or tablet can muster at least 8GB of memory, yet Sony feel its consumers can make do with just a single gigabyte. This is useful for save games and small indie titles, but is totally inadequate for retail downloads, which often take up two or even three times that amount of memory. Taking this into account, you'll still need to pony up the cash for a memory card – so Sony hasn't really solved that particular problem at all.

Sticking with the topic of memory, Sony's choice is almost unfathomable —–the Vita is becoming a real hotbed of download goodness these days, with the likes of Hotline Miami, Spelunky, and Thomas Was Alone all being essential downloads. The console is competing with the likes of the iPad and Nexus 7, both of which have large amounts of on-board memory, so why not build that into the Vita and make it a download gaming behemoth to be reckoned with? Cost will be one reason, but memory is so cheap – and the benefits so considerable – that it would have been worth doing. As such, the Slim's new RRP of around £180 should really be pushed up to over £200, as you're duty-bound to buy one of Sony's expensive proprietary memory cards practically at the point of purchase.

Speaking of the retail price, £180 doesn't seem like a big enough drop to justify losing the OLED display – irrespective of the on-board memory and slimmer, lighter chassis. While retailers will discount that price and add in free bundled items, something closer to £150 would have arguably made more sense, given the Vita's lacklustre position in what is becoming an increasingly competitive market. You could argue that with the technically inferior 3DS XL currently selling for around the same amount, Sony's price tag is bang on – but the 3DS is riding the crest of a wave right now, and isn't desperate to gain the attention and support of disinterested players. The Vita needs to win people over, and a significantly lower cost would have done that to a degree.

As it stands, the PS Vita Slim is still an attractive machine, with an excellent form factor, lightweight body, and an impressive library of titles – some of which are the best indie efforts currently available in today's market. What makes this refresh such a disappointment is that Sony has removed one of the best elements – that lush OLED screen – and has once again forced players down the road of having to buy expensive memory cards that can only be used with this console. Moving forward, it's hard to see how the Slim is going to win over unconvinced buyers – especially at this price point – and ironically, it could end up pushing the value of the original model, which is sure to become a sought-after product thanks to its superior screen.


Are you planning to upgrade to the latest iteration of the Vita, or will you be sticking with the original model for the foreseeable future? Shed a stone in the comments section below.

Sponsored links by Taboola

More Stories

User Comments (63)

ScreamAimFire99

#1

ScreamAimFire99 said:

I'd trade OLED for longer battery life and a lighter system. LED is still great. Will rebuy the PS Vita before the year is over.

xMonk

#2

xMonk said:

Wow... That screen difference is insane. The screen [of the OG model] is ALREADY too dark to play outdoors during the day! I'll be keeping my OLED, Sony. You goofed huge on this round.

Squiggle55

#3

Squiggle55 said:

The better battery life and the standard micro-usb charger sound like great improvements, but I'm not up for downgrading my screen.

ShogunRokAdmin

#4

ShogunRok said:

Great review Damien, even in those screenshots the difference in quality between the two screens is insane!

get2sammybAdmin

#5

get2sammyb said:

I like the improved 'Start' and 'Select' buttons, and the improved battery life sounds great - but I agree that the screen is pivotal to the experience. This obviously brings the price of manufacture down for Sony, but it's a shame that the saving's not being passed on to consumers — especially with such a big downgrade.

Gamer83

#6

Gamer83 said:

It's actually a nice-looking redesign. Shame about no OLED screen though.

xMonk

#7

xMonk said:

@get2sammyb I agree with the buttons. Hell, the console overall looks great! However, it reminds me of the PSP-2000... and wonders if this Vita model is just as fragile as that iteration of the PSP. Gah... I'd consider hard-swapping screens, but I'm sure the wiring may be different. Hmm... I'll check it out before too long.

Pink_Floyd

#8

Pink_Floyd said:

I can't justify the new system. I usually buy the new model of a system but the screen comparisons are too huge in my research. I'm not one to focus on graphics but when both models are not too far apart in price its hard to justify a new purchase. Just my 2 cents.

ObviouslySheik

#9

ObviouslySheik said:

You realize that it doesn't cost them much to make the on-board memory larger, right? Memory is the biggest scam in the tech industry. It only costs less than a nickel to double a memory card's size. A 16gb and a 32gb card cost Sony just about the same. The only reason there isn't more on-board storage is because then we wouldn't have to buy their proprietary memory cards.

AVahne

#10

AVahne said:

Just going to say something that will attract some ire (probably): the nvidia Shield is now $250, and comes with all-around superior specs, better screen quality and resolution, more battery life, better gamepad, and comes with a built-in 16 GB internal that's expandable using the increasingly cheaper micro SD cards.
That said, Vita (currently) has more games from western and Japanese major developers and indies that could be considered great...which is (sorta) the only thing 3DS has over the Vita as well.
Anyway, I'll be importing that nice looking blue/white Vita Slim from Japan once I can afford it. Also can't wait for next year's Shield iteration.

PMasterTy9

#11

PMasterTy9 said:

I am glad I got the original while it is still around. I just love the OLED and can't justify downgrading to the slim. Plus I like the thickness of the current Vita and I don't think it should be slimmer but that is just me.

Gemuarto

#12

Gemuarto said:

Wow, why there are no photos of screens right from the front. You know that LED has poorer angles of view, right? But nobody plays from that angles.

PMasterTy9

#13

PMasterTy9 said:

@Gemuarto You know, I didn't even think about that. If you do Google or YouTube search you will see that the difference is really not that bad.

MadchesterManc

#14

MadchesterManc said:

All the comparison images come across as borked due to the offset vertical angle. IPS is well known for a having superb horizontal viewing angle, the panel in my TV has no colour shift across the whole 180 degree viewing zone, but at about 35-45 degrees vertically viewed the colours do shift and all your comparison images are like this. Who plays there Vita at that angle? lol IPS is still used by professional photo editors n the like due to its wide & more natural colour reproduction, so this just seems way off for me. I use IPS display tech daily for home viewing & work, the quality is way above this. Maybe Sony cheaped out & went with the lowest bidder offering low quality panels

Seems the screen is still the only issue most have. Still prefer to check it myself instore before I decide to trade up. I don't like the oversaturated mess that is the Vita OLED myself

AVahne

#16

AVahne said:

@BornOfEvil
That really is true, as it is an extremely niche product. Personally I think it's a brilliant device line that'll be even better in future iterations.

Gemuarto

#17

Gemuarto said:

@MadchesterManc I can't understand why Pushsquare is trying to convince everyone that new screen is total crap. I can't even look at it as downgrade, it's more like different screen than worse screen. OLED has some very nice color transitions and very good blacks... But in exchange, new screen has more natural colors.

charlesnarles

#18

charlesnarles said:

@xMonk I'm with you. It's exactly like the iPhone 5c. Why even bother with the cheap version? Spend 20% more money and get the better quality-for-dollar trade. Idk if you'll still want an LCD in 5 years

MadchesterManc

#19

MadchesterManc said:

@Gemuarto Good to see someone else has noticed :) Like you say, it's a different display tech with its own pro's & cons which doesn't necessarily mean it's a worse screen. I use IPS a lot, my TV has a fantastic quality IPS panel, so I'm more attuned to the wonderfully natural colour gamut that it can display. It's probably why I've never got on with the OLED in the Vita. The oversaturated colours & dull white level pretty much ruin the great strides in black levels & response time. I quite like the LCD in the PsPgo myself. Once the colour gamut is set to wide in the system settings, the image quality manages to 'pop' without losing the natural hue to the colours. If you was to take these comparison shots on face value, the Vita slims screen is WORSE than the PsPgo. Considering that comparison would be IPS (Vita) Vs TN (PsP), it makes things here look even more odd.

rjejr

#20

rjejr said:

"We live in an era where even the cheapest Android smartphone or tablet can muster at least 8GB of memory,"

My thoughts on the Wii U white Basic HOME console for $299.

Sometimes I think Nintendo and Sony have an anti-trust conspiracy agreement where Sony deliberately sabotages it's handhelds and Nintendo sabotages its home consoles so they can both keep making games without either one becoming a Japanese gaming monopoly. It's really the only thing that explains the PSPgo and the Wii U Basic. The Vita and Wii U always seem to go hand in hand.

ShogunRokAdmin

#21

ShogunRok said:

@MadchesterManc @Gemuarto To be fair, Damien has spent hours upon hours with the Vita Slim in order to bring you this review. If he's saying that the screen is a severe downgrade, he probably has a point, regardless of personal preference.

Gamer83

#22

Gamer83 said:

@rjejr

LOL. If it weren't for the Wii completely destroying your theory I might actually be inclined to agree with it because Nintendo did a lot of stupid stuff that led to N64 and Gamecube getting destroyed. There's still plenty of time for Wii U to easily outpace both those consoles though.

Gemuarto

#23

Gemuarto said:

@ShogunRok It doesn't matter how much time he spent with devices, preferences are still preferences. And I don't even know how severe downgrade is possible with current technologies. Are you telling that PSV screen is bad even compared to other IPS screens with same or about ppi?

ShogunRokAdmin

#24

ShogunRok said:

@Gemuarto I have no idea, I'm just saying that Damien reckons it looks worse when compared to the original Vita model's screen, and I tend to trust his word on that since he's spent a lengthy amount of time with the device.

Visiblemode

#25

Visiblemode said:

@Gemuarto yep, your logic stands up. The angle makes it look like the slim has an unusable yellow screen. I love my OLED vita, but have a hard time believing the slim is as bad as these pics make it appear.

KALofKRYPTON

#28

KALofKRYPTON said:

'Sony's refresh of the PlayStation 3 famously removed backwards capability with the PlayStation 2'

No it didn't.

A relatively small number of initial run systems had onboard PS2 hardware to facilitate BC. The hardware was subsequently removed and BC handled by emulation alone on all following 'launch' 60GB PS3s.
The subsequent hardware revisions had no impact on BC, it was a change at the firmware level in order to sell PS2 Classics via PSN.

readyletsgo

#30

readyletsgo said:

@ScreamAimFire99 totally agree with you here. The battery life is so much better and the screen looks great, I got it on launch. Feels excellent! Just need a charging dock for it now.

The price is a joke though.

MadchesterManc

#32

MadchesterManc said:

@ShogunRok Damien prefers the ol' OLED, Noone is disputing that as that's his preference. I'm just pointing out that the shots used for this review seem to have been done in a way to paint the picture of there being a HUGE gulf in quality, when a trip to YouTube to watch split-screen side by side footage shows a difference not as pronounced. These images show the Vita screen to be of a horrifically bad quality, worse than the likes of the PsP which is a little hard to believe. That's the point I was making earlier, not disputing ones preference for OLED

Dannybear75

#33

Dannybear75 said:

Has anyone used a vita remote play function for something like battlefield 4 or ghosts online multiplayer? In remote I mean like not using the same home network as the ps4?

JustAnotherUser

#34

JustAnotherUser said:

@MadchesterManc Exactly.
Another thing that has been bothering me is that if people want to know how the LCD looks, why not look at direct feed video or screen shots on your PC..
The likelihood is that you have a LCD LED backlit monitor, so the Vita would probably look better, if anything at all, due to IPS.

Not that I'm saying that one is better than the other. It would be like trying to say banana cake is better than chocolate cake.
It comes down to personal preference but the difference isn't as obvious as everyone is saying.
When changing from one colour temperature to another it feels like the newer temperature is worse because one is not used to it.
(Think high FPS films)

DamoAdmin

#35

Damo said:

@AVahne I'm a Shield owner and that system is wonderful - great specs, amazing screen. I play it perhaps more than any other handheld...but there's no escaping that most Android games are terrible when compared to what's available on the Vita. I use my Shield mainly for emulation, which is very much a grey area anyway.

DamoAdmin

#36

Damo said:

@Gemuarto @TwilightPoint @MadchesterManc Guys, guys, guys. I've spent long enough with the both Vitas to tell you without a shadow of doubt that the screen on the new model is a duffer compared to the OLED on the original. The photos provided illustrate this perfectly - viewing angles have nothing to do with it, as BOTH machines are being viewed from the same angle in those photos - if I was trying to make the Slim's screen look bad (not sure why anyone would assume that was my motive) then surely I would have only take a shot of that from a sharp angle? Even when viewed straight-on, the difference between the two is remarkable. OLED wins every time.

The screen is a clear downgrade. There's simply no escaping that fact. As I said in the review, the IPS LCD panel has duller colours, less striking blacks and suffers from motion smearing. I adore the screen on the original Vita - it's probably the best screen of any handheld games console I've ever used - and have spent long enough with other mobile tech to know that it's hard to go back once you've sampled the delights of OLED.

Vorlon

#37

Vorlon said:

I just bought an extra Vita to have one in reserve with OLED and 3G. Only €150 (with Invizimals which I will sell).

N711

#38

N711 said:

I bought a Vita £155 with 10 games and a FREE 16gb memory card (so I dont see any memory issue people moan about) I think when the old model is gone the price will drop. Considering everyone agrees the vita wasnt selling that well I think a new cheaper to make model is fair enough as IMO looks like most people are not after quality (or the vitas would have sold a lot more)

banacheck

#39

banacheck said:

I better buy a PSVITA before all the old models go, i like both the new & old model but the OLED definitely has the better picture quality. I've been meaning to get one but with the PS4 releasing I put it on hold, I have quite a lot of PSVITA game's from PlayStation + so game's will not be a problem. So I can put some extra cash towards a bigger memory card, (N711 I bought a Vita £155 ) where did you pick up your PSVITA from if you don't mind me asking? I'm taking it you live in the UK.

Bad-MuthaAdebisi

#40

Bad-MuthaAdebisi said:

I understand the cost issue with the OLED but the lack of a decent memory is a disgrace. Just 8gb would be fine for a casual gamer. I have easily fit about 20 games on my PS vita half and half in terms of DL and Cartridge On a 16GB memory card. Sony should have made something really cheap with 8gb memory but I also think they should have made a high spec version. The slim with extra memory, oled screen and pimped out speakers. What they actually should have done is make a vita 2.0 with full remote play compatibility including all the ds4 features. Never mind.

Bad-MuthaAdebisi

#41

Bad-MuthaAdebisi said:

The screen is a downgrade for sure. Why are you doubting the review. Odd. Just a few clips on YouTube e you can tell the difference a large margin. I watched a clip of gravity rush and it looked bland and washed out compared with the oled by its side.

MadchesterManc

#42

MadchesterManc said:

@Damo "The photos provided illustrate this perfectly - viewing angles have nothing to do with it, as BOTH machines are being viewed from the same angle in those photos"

Viewing angles always matter when doing reviews of LCD tech in particular due to the likes of TN, VA & IPS all having different strengths in that department. Just because OLED is decent from most angles doesn't instantly make that point void. One of the pro's of IPS is its horizontally aligned pixel structure which allows it to have great horizontal viewing angle at the expense of a vertical one compared to OLED. It does matter, whether you'd like it to or not. This comparison shot over at Wololo.net shows exactly what I mean. The screen actually compares more favouribly than your comparison shots would have one believe when compared at a proper viewing angle with each other (although even I can spot a slight yellowish tinge to the image on the LCD which looks a little odd)
Untitled
Not disputing your review or your subjective opinion of OLED, just that the way you've done your comparison shows the margin of difference to be a chasm, when its not.

MadchesterManc

#44

MadchesterManc said:

@Damo Of course. GAME (Bolton) had a demo unit to try last weekend with a demo of Rayman Legends to play (no suprise with the demo choice, its all they use even on the WiiU demo unit lol) so have seen it for several minutes while doing a couple of levels & I own an original Vita. Not enough time to write a tech review, but enough to see how things pan out for the Slim. Crazy I know how someone else can have a slightly differing opinion to your own. I say slightly as Ive not stated once that it isn't a downgrade. Sony want to save money so they obviously got their panels as cheap as possible. Anyone expecting a high quality IPS panel like Apple use in their Retina Displays are just fooling themselves as that would be more like an upgrade and would cost more than the OLED's from Samsung. Aside from the usual gubbins of pros/cons with the 2 techs, the main difference between the two seemed to be colour temperature when I had a look. The OG Vita seems to be on 'Cool' while the Slim appears 'Warm'. No idea why Sony have done that but it contributes to the difference more than anythin else to me.

Like ive said before, no issue with your review or opinion as its obvious there's gonna be no high quality IPs panel introduced when cutting costs, Just that your comparison pics seem off from what Ive seen myself. The Slim Vita lacks brightness & the angles wash out the colours. Obviously demoing a unit, these issues aren't going to be coming into play for myself. The pic I shared above is pretty much how the Slim was when I went into GAME, which is different to how the screen is on your own shots and that probably explains why my viewpoint is slightly different

DamoAdmin

#45

Damo said:

@MadchesterManc I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't have a different opinion, the reason I asked if you'd done a comparison in the flesh was the difference is quite striking when both consoles are actually side by side. There's nothing "off" about the comparison photos I've taken - in the flesh, the original Vita's display is much brighter and more vibrant than the one on the Slim, and the fact that the viewing angle is the same on both consoles removes any implied "advantage" the original console has over its successor. And this is just static images we're talking about here - in motion, the Slim's LCD panel is prone to blurring, too.

The photo you're referencing looks like it was taken under indoor lighting (my images were taken in natural light coming in from a window) and that could also contribute to the fact that the screens look similar in brightness. In reality, this simply isn't the case.

You're right, it's unreasonable to expect Sony to remodel a console and not look to include cheaper parts, but that's the issue here - while the Slim will be cheaper for Sony to make, they're not passing the savings onto the consumer. As a result, there's little reason to buy a Slim over the original system (which is available for less at the time of writing anyway).

Diddy_kong

#46

Diddy_kong said:

@Damo

I think it was a great review. It was honest and it gave me a great sense of the piece of tech that I am considering buying.

Diddy_kong

#47

Diddy_kong said:

@Damo

I do have a question though. I have never owned a Vita and thus have no concept of just how beautiful that OLED screen is. Seeing as I don’t really know what I’m missing with the downgrade to the LCD screen would you recommend the Vita Slim to me? I love my 3DS XL and have spent hundreds of hours gaming with it – do you know how those screens compare?

JustAnotherUser

#48

JustAnotherUser said:

@Damo Terribly sorry.
I didn't mean to imply that you are biased towards one of the other.
It's just in the pictures you provide the slim screen's yellow tint seems extremely excessive.

Though motion blur really worries / annoys me.
I'll probably opt for the 1000 and wait out for a 3000 model (if any at all)

Krinkle_Kaptain

#49

Krinkle_Kaptain said:

@Dannybear75 I use it a lot actually man. Strider, Killzone, basement crawl...just about anything. Warframe will even reconfigure the remote play controls on tha vita to better suite the game. I personally don't like playing warframe via remote play. And, as it stands I can't get me remote play to work outside of my personal WiFi range. But, I can get the Companion app on my phone to work from anywhere. (If anyone else is reading this can you help with that? Thanx)

Krinkle_Kaptain

#50

Krinkle_Kaptain said:

@Diddy_kong I have both(original Vita/ 3DS XL) and the Vita screen is amazing next to the 3DS, but the 3DS screen is jus a little bigger. My gf has it at work so can't do a sidexside right now

Bad-MuthaAdebisi

#51

Bad-MuthaAdebisi said:

Clearly not all games will have a huge difference, specific screenshots are useless. You also need to assume all screen brightness etc is set at the same %.the above screens showing rayman still look better on the old white Vita's oled screen even with room lighting glare clearly visible. Not a good example, a poor example.

DamoAdmin

#53

Damo said:

@Diddy_kong If you don't have the OLED Vita to compare to, then the Slim's screen is perfectly acceptable - compared to other mobile tech, it's certainly not terrible. However, given that the original Vita is actually cheaper to buy brand new than the Slim, I can't see any real reason to pick it over the older model.

JaxonH

#54

JaxonH said:

@Diddy_kong

Vita screen is better than the 3DS screen, no doubt about it. I mean, don't get me wrong, the 3DS screen works fine for that system, and isn't bad by any means, it's just that the Vita OLED looks so sharp and vibrant. Obviously, screens aren't everything- they're just the means by which you view the content you play- it's the content that's most important. But, as far as viewing that content goes, Vita OLED is very nice.

AVahne

#56

AVahne said:

@Damo
That was actually one of my points; that Vita has better games than Android at the moment. However, I'm looking toward the future a bit. By the time the third Shield (the one I'd like to buy) comes out next year or the year after, hopefully developers will develop more complex games to match the amount of power in future high end devices. Hopefully. Maybe if mobile controllers start selling better...
Though personally, there are some Android games out now that I'd like to play on Shield like Asphalt 8, Modern Combat 5 (whenever that comes out), Dead Trigger 2, Record of Agarest War, and others. Of course, my Nexus 5 can run all those games very well, but I don't want to fill the internal 32 GB (formatted 26 GB) memory of my phone with games since I also use it for other things. Which is probably one of the reasons why I want a Shield; have it be a physical place where all my paid Android games can live (especially if Shield 3 supports 128 GB micro SD cards) and not waste space.

N711

#57

N711 said:

@banacheck in a GAME shop
And like Madchester said I've seen videos where the screen difference is not that big

Sutorcen

#58

Sutorcen said:

Seriously... You guys couldn't get worse photos of both screens even if you tried. White is shown as yellowish? Even the worst LCD displays a decent white. Considering that the new LCD panel that the Vita has, is above the average LCDs out there, that photo with the Konami logo couldn't be further from the truth. So unless you want to harm the new Vita, you ow us at least an explanation about these bad photos. Unless your Vita Slim is malfunctioning in which case you shouldn't have taken the photos in the first place. This article is biased in my opinion. Shame.

<---shakes head...

Sutorcen

#59

Sutorcen said:

@xMonk Hold your horses. These photos are obviously photoshopped or shot that way to show that the LCD is bad. There is no way that the new LCD has this yellowish feel to it. So unless the brightness is turned all the way down, there is no way an LCD can produce such a bad image.

MrJohnson71

#61

MrJohnson71 said:

Totally agree regarding the quality of those screenshots. I own a slim and the screen quality looks great, nothing like those shots.

Diddy_kong

#62

Diddy_kong said:

@Damo

Just wanted to let you know that I was able to test out an original Vita today at my local EB Games store. I played Runner 2 for half an hour and that was all I needed to be sold on that OLED screen. Forget waiting for the Slim (I live in Canada and it's not out here yet); I'm picking up an original Vita later this weekend.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...