I think they misunderstood what about the steam deck is making it popular
Sony making their own Wii-U tablet but with less functionality?
Seems like a great idea, totally worked out for Nintendo
Didn't the Wii-U mostly fail because most people didn't know what it was? The marketing and name were terrible and plenty of people thought it was just a Wii add-on or something.
The console itself was actually pretty cool, playing Wind Waker on it was great.
The Wii U was built around a fundamentally flawed premise that more screens = better experience. People can only pay attention to one screen at a time, and giving just one player at the console a personal additive screen in their hands doesn’t provide much meaningful benefit. The most widely appreciated feature of the system was simply the ability to play elsewhere in your home instead of in front of the TV, which is why they leaned hard into that portability with the Switch.
Edit: that said, the name and marketing were absolute disasters too.
Not to be 'well ashkually' but I mean is it? People use dual and tri monitor setups for PCs all the time. Also while smart phones didn't have as much wide spread usage as they do now, it isn't uncommon for people to be watching something on their TV and messing with their phone at the same time. Maybe it wasn't flawed so much as just a bit ahead of it's time.
Both phone usage and PC multi-monitor usage are completely different use cases of productivity and multitasking. Most gaming, especially on console, is a strictly single-taking experience. You don’t need to do things like copy and paste on a game console. And how often do you use your phone while playing a game on your console? The Wii U asserted that it was useful to give a video game two simultaneous screens in different positions. These are many reasons why this wasn’t “ahead of its time” and why the Wii U is considered an overall miss.
When I did play consoles honestly a fair bit when I needed a YouTube walk through. I guess I'm weird though since I like watching TV while playing games.
That’s fair. But the Wii U wasn’t designed for playing single screen games while watching YouTube, really. Your phone already covers that.
Yeah, I never bought into the line that people were confused that a Wii U was a Wii add-on. That's never been a major problem for similarly named consoles before and anyone I knew all knew it was a separate thing. I think that focus on having to pay attention to two screens, as you said, as well as the severe under-powering for a home console of its generation and an abysmal launch lineup of games, all leading to an abysmal launch for the console itself and third parties deciding pretty quickly to mostly bail on it, led to its relative failure.
That said, I still have my Wii U and also have fond memories of playing it. Say what you will about the severe lack of 3rd party support, Nintendo themselves put some great quality games on it: all the Zelda games (including Hyrule Warriors and the BotW port), Smash Bros 4, the original Mario Kart 8, Mario Maker, 3D World, DKC Tropical Freeze, the list goes on. Sega was pretty kind to them too for a 3rd party: Bayonetta 2, TMS #FE (underrated, IMO, good TMS/Persona style gameplay even if its story is goofy... Expected more actual FE-related content though), the quantity of Sonic games (if not quality).
Back when it launched I literally saw a TV news channel demoing it as part of a "Christmas gadgets" segment call it a peripheral for the Wii. They also called Skylanders a board-game.
When you got a fountain of money by getting boomers into gaming, flubbing the branding of the sequel is a massive own-goal.
I guarantee that SOME people were confused about whether it was its own console or not - I just couldn’t say if it was enough people to make a significant difference. Frankly, it was a dumb name and a poorly marketed device that didn’t have the means to command a news cycle through power, exclusives, or an instantly compelling use case. I think it’s basically a huge swing and a miss on Nintendo’s part.
But Nintendo also has the uncanny ability to release incredible games on anything. They could release a 3-button, motion-controlled, tethered monocle game system with a smartwatch chipset and I’d give you 70% odds they launch with a game that has an unforgettable amount of charm and joy infused in it.
Anecdotally, it was a very confusing name and system for consumers. I worked at a game retailer during the launch of the WiiU and easily over half the people I'd try sell to would respond with something likd "Oh no, Ive already got a Wii and I don't really need the tablet for it"
I'm glad the WiiU existed - I'm certain it paved the way for the Switch. But it was a disappointing console, released a year before a major overhaul of the gaming ecosystem (PS4/Xbone).
Great points. The timing was really awful too. It was rightly a poor seller, but certainly not without its merits. I think the relative excitement over its best feature, the remote play, almost certainly drove the creation of the Switch, which is damn near a cultural phenomenon.
DS and 3DS are obviously the exception., but those were special cases being completely portable and the screens were situated right atop one another.
Having the screens atop of each over helped along with the fact that most DS/3DS games didn’t require you to pay attention to both screens at the same time (e.g. some games used screen 1 for gameplay and 2 for a map/inventories etc)
Exactly. And arguably, a big part of what they provided was actually the touchscreen support and a 3D-capable handheld with “Nintendo” on it. Not that many games used the second screen in a way that was truly fundamental and necessary.
For me personally, Wii U was the worst console purchase I've ever made lol. If it wasn't for Smash, Mario Maker and Nintendoland with friends every once in a while I never would have turned it on. I honestly had way more fun with the Vita.
Maybe it's because mine is modded but I get a lot of use out of my Wii u. My switch on the other hand, collects dust.
It's not really fair to compare it to the wii u because the wii u was a handheld console while this is basically a hand held gaming streaming device. The wii u is more compared to other handheld consoles/computers like the steam deck or Asus rog ally.
Honestly, dumb as this sounds, they can't lose. It's not a platform. There's no infrastructure. It doesn't even do cloud streaming, for some reason; it is 100.0% dependent on your hardware and your network. If Sony went bankrupt tomorrow, this gizmo would still work. If the hardware's sold at a comfortable profit and they're not gambling anything on its success, why wouldn't they launch this ridiculous object? They don't care if you don't buy it.
It's not a handheld. It's an accessory.
Well they can lose if they are stuck with unsold inventory. Also r&d costs that need to be recouped.
Look at this thing and tell me any great deal of innovation occurred.
Playing on it so someone else can watch TV is great but has no value outside your home if it relies on your PS5. For gaming like this I will stick with the Switch.
Feels like PlayStations version of the Wii U not the switch
Except without the GamePad's uses for giving one player exclusive information in local multiplayer or the touch screen actually being used in games.
There's a a hands on post that says it will work outside the house. It just needs to be on a wifi network still.
Not to mention all the same utility can be had with say a small TV or computer monitor and like a HDMI switcher for a little over $100. Maybe less if you find a good deal. I had a Wii U. The gimmick of the controller screen got old fast and it sucked pretty hard overall. Not looking to retry that failed concept.
Even comparing it to the WiiU, at least some games took advantage of using both screens.
This is just the tablet as a single screen, with none of the utility.
Yup. That and, if a little more distance or wireless is needed, you can remote play to android/ios devices via PSPlay w/ dual sense and 3rd party controller support.
This is basically the non-techie or expensive taste version of the remote play experience as the WiiU screen added more functionality than mirroring.
I use my Switch exclusively for this. If this handheld can eliminate lag, I'd love to get it. But it's priced a bit too high.
I already use Chiaki on my Deck to play my PS4/PS5.
Sometimes my wife is using the TV for something else. Sometimes I want to be out on the porch, or in bed. Sometimes I just don't want to put my glasses on.
This thing has a better screen and, for PS5 in particular, better controller features than the Deck.
It's a bit pricey, but not as bad as I was expecting. If it goes on sale I'll be tempted to grab it.
Weird that PlayStation named their device the Portal and valve didn't though lol.
Oh my God you idiots just bring back the Xperia Play how hard is that???
Genuinely as hard as "bring back the NGage." Nobody wants to buy a smartphone that's also a console platform. There's no three-year contract required, and AT&T doesn't get to micromanage the dashboard, but it's still two wildly different commitments for no sufficient benefit. It means being stuck with a wonky smartphone on a longer console lifecycle and overpaying for a console with all the limitations of a smartphone.
By contrast - this is a controller with a screen in it. That's all. Why wouldn't they sell that? What's the downside, for them? You buy another accessory priced well beyond its material costs, you provide all the electricity and electronics necessary for it to do anything, and they don't care if you ever play games on it. It's not lashed to the success of yet another online store. It's not even a vehicle for recurring subscription fees. It's a dongle for another toy. They have no incentive to force it to catch on. If it doesn't sell - they'll just stop.
It's been over a decade since Xperia Play, and two since ngage. The market has changed, people are now spending a grand on phones, gamers are now buy some very expensive hardware for their hobby.
The biggest hurdle would actually be the Google Android rules about accessing Play Services on a device that would also need its own store for PlayStation branded games.
Don't recall mentioning price as an obstacle.
The fact people are buying expensive-ass phones is an obstacle to any console trying to be a cell phone or vice-versa. Phones already play modern-ass video games. Any new iPhone is surely more capable than a Switch. Who's going to be swayed into buying some custom Sony bullshit just to access an entirely separate wallet vacuum?
If Sony was going to release a handheld, it'd just be an under-powered PS5 variant, as a Nintendo Switch knockoff. AMD would be happy to provide appropriate chips.
I think the issue is always going to be games. Who wants to make games targeting such a small userbase? Half of the Android games don't even have good controller support (looking at you Genshin/Honkai)
I feel like Sony is the kind of company with enough muscle to get them to add controller support.
For 100€ more you can get a steam deck. Just saying
For 100 more you can have a smaller screen with lower resolution, no adaptive triggers, no haptics. What a deal!
I love my steam deck but for streaming PS5 games this seems far superior.
Glorified android tablet versus actual gaming PC in handheld form. This is not even in the same class as a steam deck, it's 100% utterly useless without internet or a PS5 or playing anything other than PS5 games.
Yes, it’s intended to stream PS5 games, but it does a better job at it than a Steam Deck does. Which isn’t surprising as it’s a purpose built piece of kit.
Yeah no it doesn't. Or does it? You don't know, because it's not even out yet. And what even is there to stream from a PS5? All the best exclusives are on PC now. The PS5 pandemic honeymoon is over, consoles are back to being behind.
Also from everything I'm seeing, ps remote play is capped at 1080@60 which is relatively shit when Nvidia gamestream on PC can do any resolution at any frame rate/refresh rate if your network can keep up. Playing Forza in 21:9 native resolution on my phone at 120hz is infinitely superior to a console accessory that becomes useless when you leave the house.
And what even is there to stream from a PS5? All the best exclusives are on PC now.
Yeah, years later, and you need a €3000 PC to play them.
Also from everything I’m seeing, ps remote play is capped at 1080@60 which is relatively shit when Nvidia gamestream on PC can do any resolution at any frame rate/refresh rate if your network can keep up.
1080p on an 8" screen seems more than reasonable to me.
a console accessory that becomes useless when you leave the house.
You don't need to be in the house, as long as you have wifi you can use it from anywhere.
Not every gamer cares for PC gaming, and not every gamer really cares about 30 vs. 60 fps, or being able to stream 4k on an 8" screen.
I'm more than happy with my PS5, and Nintendo Switch. I'd be pumped to be able to stream any of my PlayStation games to a device like this while I travel for work. I don't have as good of an experience using PS Remote Play on my phone or laptop, so this seems like a slam dunk for me.
And a full Steam library, playing locally without Internet, and having a full pc that you can install whatever you want on aaaand being able to use bluetooth peripherals?
Sure, it’s probably better at streaming ps5 games, but is it a better value for the money? Ehhhh…
Let’s put it this way: I already own a Steam Deck but I’m still considering getting this, especially considering how cheap it is.
PlayStation Portal is the ideal device for gamers in households where they may need to share their living room TV or simply want to play PS5 games in another room of the house.
Okay I can see there being a niche there, mom and dad want to watch a movie but Jr wants to play games. I don't know if that's a huge market, but okay
According to the description, PlayStation Portal is only a Remote Play device and will not allow access to cloud streaming of games on PlayStation Plus Premium. As a result, in order for the PlayStation Portal to function properly, players must own PS5 hardware.
This however seems like a massive lost opportunity. Like Steam Link I assume you could choose which device to stream from, and with companies being huge on the "reoccurring revenue" train this seems like it could have added a ton of value to the device and at the same time increased their subscriptions. It would have gone from a "at home only toy for a niche market" to "pretty much anyone who has a PS5 at home and/or travels"
There are definitely times when either my kids or my wife is watching something and I'd rather be gaming so I think I'd probably use something like this. However, last time I tried a remote play solution from Sony the lag was brutal, so I'm a bit skeptical.
Can one use the cloud streaming via their PS5?
Edit: also I don't think it's that niche. I see this being a common occurrence in any household with only one high end TV and more than one person who wants to use it. The price point isn't much more than a controller and a screen to begin with. They should sell the remote play hardware without the screen (just hdmi out) and controller (just include a bluetooth chip to allow controller pairing) at a lower price point to appeal to a wider market (cause portability in the household seems less useful, but just using another TV seems more common)
It certainly is a common occurrence, but I don't see many households dropping another $200 on top of the cost of the PS5. If this existed back in the days, my parents would have told me to either play something else/go outside, or move the console to my room.
Kids aren't the only ones with gaming consoles. And I already countered the idea of putting a console on a different TV.
Again, the price point may be high, but it's literally not much more than the cost of a screen plus a controller.
I've used remote play to play a casual / non-story game while watching Sports or some other background noise show on my TV more times than I can count. This is perfect for me.
They are just talking about you not being able to stream ps3 games. That's all they are saying.
My experience with steam link was.... Really bad. I also tried the stadia, terrible. Unless things have changed very recently streaming game tech just isn't there yet.
Streaming steam has gotten better, but it really depends on the game. I'd never play a twitch shooter like counter strike on it, but before the Deck I'd stream the Witcher from my home PC to my tiny travel laptop and it was playable. Never as a primary driver though
No, it's there. Just depends on what your Internet situation is and where you're located.
So you need a $500 console to use a $200 handheld streaming device that doesn't have bluetooth so you probably will also buy a PS Link capable headphone that'll cost another $200.
Those are some big bucks to avoid using steamdeck or switch.
It has a headphone jack.
Who owns wired headphones these days? It’s not 1875 anymore.
I have at least four pair in my house right now. Two of them can also be Bluetooth headphones, but they have the option to plug in if need be.
The Portal should have Bluetooth. It really should. But the argument that people have to buy their expensive headphones is obviously not true when there is the alternative present (which, by the way, is the option a lot of people complain about iPhones and Androids not having any more).
Yeah I know, but the kind of audience it's targeting may not be carrying wired headphones to use with their streaming handheld that only works on WiFi.
It’s intended for people who already own the €399 console.
I see a lot of comparisons to steam deck but none to Xbox.
You can literally use any phone or tablet for the same function as this with an Xbox, in addition to cloud streaming most game pass games without needing an Xbox at all.
If we saw Microsoft releasing an identical device I bet there wouldn't be a single person defending it.
You can also use any phone or tablet to remote play on PS5.
What you’re buying here is convenience. A dedicated device with the exact same controller setup as an actual PS5, with the same features (haptics, triggers) and a nice screen with basically plug and play setup.
The article doesn't seem to mention what OS this has, but if the earlier leaks are correct and it's android, you could even use this to do that very same Xbox streaming.
Dead on Arrival...
Yes, I think you could use this to play Koei Tecmo’s Dead or Alive series.
I was on board with this for 150, 200 is just too much for it though
What I haven’t seen anyone mention yet: Since the Remote Play protocol is already reverse engineered (since there are open source remote play clients like Chiaki), it would not seem difficult to create a 3rd party Remote Play server for use on any PC. You could use this to stream your PC games on.
im more interested in the ear buds they announced. planar drivers for $200 or the over the ear with a mic for $150 are good deals afaik.
There's no way that Sony of all companies could have charged less money for it. Goes to show how aggressive Valve priced the Steamdeck.
Its way too specific and i am way too busy to run arouns with this thing
I think they misunderstood what about the steam deck is making it popular
Sony making their own Wii-U tablet but with less functionality?
Seems like a great idea, totally worked out for Nintendo
Didn't the Wii-U mostly fail because most people didn't know what it was? The marketing and name were terrible and plenty of people thought it was just a Wii add-on or something.
The console itself was actually pretty cool, playing Wind Waker on it was great.
The Wii U was built around a fundamentally flawed premise that more screens = better experience. People can only pay attention to one screen at a time, and giving just one player at the console a personal additive screen in their hands doesn’t provide much meaningful benefit. The most widely appreciated feature of the system was simply the ability to play elsewhere in your home instead of in front of the TV, which is why they leaned hard into that portability with the Switch.
Edit: that said, the name and marketing were absolute disasters too.
Not to be 'well ashkually' but I mean is it? People use dual and tri monitor setups for PCs all the time. Also while smart phones didn't have as much wide spread usage as they do now, it isn't uncommon for people to be watching something on their TV and messing with their phone at the same time. Maybe it wasn't flawed so much as just a bit ahead of it's time.
Both phone usage and PC multi-monitor usage are completely different use cases of productivity and multitasking. Most gaming, especially on console, is a strictly single-taking experience. You don’t need to do things like copy and paste on a game console. And how often do you use your phone while playing a game on your console? The Wii U asserted that it was useful to give a video game two simultaneous screens in different positions. These are many reasons why this wasn’t “ahead of its time” and why the Wii U is considered an overall miss.
When I did play consoles honestly a fair bit when I needed a YouTube walk through. I guess I'm weird though since I like watching TV while playing games.
That’s fair. But the Wii U wasn’t designed for playing single screen games while watching YouTube, really. Your phone already covers that.
Yeah, I never bought into the line that people were confused that a Wii U was a Wii add-on. That's never been a major problem for similarly named consoles before and anyone I knew all knew it was a separate thing. I think that focus on having to pay attention to two screens, as you said, as well as the severe under-powering for a home console of its generation and an abysmal launch lineup of games, all leading to an abysmal launch for the console itself and third parties deciding pretty quickly to mostly bail on it, led to its relative failure.
That said, I still have my Wii U and also have fond memories of playing it. Say what you will about the severe lack of 3rd party support, Nintendo themselves put some great quality games on it: all the Zelda games (including Hyrule Warriors and the BotW port), Smash Bros 4, the original Mario Kart 8, Mario Maker, 3D World, DKC Tropical Freeze, the list goes on. Sega was pretty kind to them too for a 3rd party: Bayonetta 2, TMS #FE (underrated, IMO, good TMS/Persona style gameplay even if its story is goofy... Expected more actual FE-related content though), the quantity of Sonic games (if not quality).
Back when it launched I literally saw a TV news channel demoing it as part of a "Christmas gadgets" segment call it a peripheral for the Wii. They also called Skylanders a board-game.
When you got a fountain of money by getting boomers into gaming, flubbing the branding of the sequel is a massive own-goal.
I guarantee that SOME people were confused about whether it was its own console or not - I just couldn’t say if it was enough people to make a significant difference. Frankly, it was a dumb name and a poorly marketed device that didn’t have the means to command a news cycle through power, exclusives, or an instantly compelling use case. I think it’s basically a huge swing and a miss on Nintendo’s part.
But Nintendo also has the uncanny ability to release incredible games on anything. They could release a 3-button, motion-controlled, tethered monocle game system with a smartwatch chipset and I’d give you 70% odds they launch with a game that has an unforgettable amount of charm and joy infused in it.
Anecdotally, it was a very confusing name and system for consumers. I worked at a game retailer during the launch of the WiiU and easily over half the people I'd try sell to would respond with something likd "Oh no, Ive already got a Wii and I don't really need the tablet for it"
I'm glad the WiiU existed - I'm certain it paved the way for the Switch. But it was a disappointing console, released a year before a major overhaul of the gaming ecosystem (PS4/Xbone).
Great points. The timing was really awful too. It was rightly a poor seller, but certainly not without its merits. I think the relative excitement over its best feature, the remote play, almost certainly drove the creation of the Switch, which is damn near a cultural phenomenon.
DS and 3DS are obviously the exception., but those were special cases being completely portable and the screens were situated right atop one another.
Having the screens atop of each over helped along with the fact that most DS/3DS games didn’t require you to pay attention to both screens at the same time (e.g. some games used screen 1 for gameplay and 2 for a map/inventories etc)
Exactly. And arguably, a big part of what they provided was actually the touchscreen support and a 3D-capable handheld with “Nintendo” on it. Not that many games used the second screen in a way that was truly fundamental and necessary.
For me personally, Wii U was the worst console purchase I've ever made lol. If it wasn't for Smash, Mario Maker and Nintendoland with friends every once in a while I never would have turned it on. I honestly had way more fun with the Vita.
Maybe it's because mine is modded but I get a lot of use out of my Wii u. My switch on the other hand, collects dust.
It's not really fair to compare it to the wii u because the wii u was a handheld console while this is basically a hand held gaming streaming device. The wii u is more compared to other handheld consoles/computers like the steam deck or Asus rog ally.
Honestly, dumb as this sounds, they can't lose. It's not a platform. There's no infrastructure. It doesn't even do cloud streaming, for some reason; it is 100.0% dependent on your hardware and your network. If Sony went bankrupt tomorrow, this gizmo would still work. If the hardware's sold at a comfortable profit and they're not gambling anything on its success, why wouldn't they launch this ridiculous object? They don't care if you don't buy it.
It's not a handheld. It's an accessory.
Well they can lose if they are stuck with unsold inventory. Also r&d costs that need to be recouped.
Look at this thing and tell me any great deal of innovation occurred.
Playing on it so someone else can watch TV is great but has no value outside your home if it relies on your PS5. For gaming like this I will stick with the Switch.
Feels like PlayStations version of the Wii U not the switch
Except without the GamePad's uses for giving one player exclusive information in local multiplayer or the touch screen actually being used in games.
There's a a hands on post that says it will work outside the house. It just needs to be on a wifi network still.
Not to mention all the same utility can be had with say a small TV or computer monitor and like a HDMI switcher for a little over $100. Maybe less if you find a good deal. I had a Wii U. The gimmick of the controller screen got old fast and it sucked pretty hard overall. Not looking to retry that failed concept.
Even comparing it to the WiiU, at least some games took advantage of using both screens.
This is just the tablet as a single screen, with none of the utility.
Yup. That and, if a little more distance or wireless is needed, you can remote play to android/ios devices via PSPlay w/ dual sense and 3rd party controller support.
This is basically the non-techie or expensive taste version of the remote play experience as the WiiU screen added more functionality than mirroring.
I use my Switch exclusively for this. If this handheld can eliminate lag, I'd love to get it. But it's priced a bit too high.
I already use Chiaki on my Deck to play my PS4/PS5.
Sometimes my wife is using the TV for something else. Sometimes I want to be out on the porch, or in bed. Sometimes I just don't want to put my glasses on.
This thing has a better screen and, for PS5 in particular, better controller features than the Deck.
It's a bit pricey, but not as bad as I was expecting. If it goes on sale I'll be tempted to grab it.
Weird that PlayStation named their device the Portal and valve didn't though lol.
Oh my God you idiots just bring back the Xperia Play how hard is that???
Genuinely as hard as "bring back the NGage." Nobody wants to buy a smartphone that's also a console platform. There's no three-year contract required, and AT&T doesn't get to micromanage the dashboard, but it's still two wildly different commitments for no sufficient benefit. It means being stuck with a wonky smartphone on a longer console lifecycle and overpaying for a console with all the limitations of a smartphone.
By contrast - this is a controller with a screen in it. That's all. Why wouldn't they sell that? What's the downside, for them? You buy another accessory priced well beyond its material costs, you provide all the electricity and electronics necessary for it to do anything, and they don't care if you ever play games on it. It's not lashed to the success of yet another online store. It's not even a vehicle for recurring subscription fees. It's a dongle for another toy. They have no incentive to force it to catch on. If it doesn't sell - they'll just stop.
It's been over a decade since Xperia Play, and two since ngage. The market has changed, people are now spending a grand on phones, gamers are now buy some very expensive hardware for their hobby.
The biggest hurdle would actually be the Google Android rules about accessing Play Services on a device that would also need its own store for PlayStation branded games.
Don't recall mentioning price as an obstacle.
The fact people are buying expensive-ass phones is an obstacle to any console trying to be a cell phone or vice-versa. Phones already play modern-ass video games. Any new iPhone is surely more capable than a Switch. Who's going to be swayed into buying some custom Sony bullshit just to access an entirely separate wallet vacuum?
If Sony was going to release a handheld, it'd just be an under-powered PS5 variant, as a Nintendo Switch knockoff. AMD would be happy to provide appropriate chips.
I think the issue is always going to be games. Who wants to make games targeting such a small userbase? Half of the Android games don't even have good controller support (looking at you Genshin/Honkai)
I feel like Sony is the kind of company with enough muscle to get them to add controller support.
For 100€ more you can get a steam deck. Just saying
For the same price you can get a Switch Lite.
Thats 400+ ??
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/steamdeckrefurbished
For 100 more you can have a smaller screen with lower resolution, no adaptive triggers, no haptics. What a deal!
I love my steam deck but for streaming PS5 games this seems far superior.
Glorified android tablet versus actual gaming PC in handheld form. This is not even in the same class as a steam deck, it's 100% utterly useless without internet or a PS5 or playing anything other than PS5 games.
Yes, it’s intended to stream PS5 games, but it does a better job at it than a Steam Deck does. Which isn’t surprising as it’s a purpose built piece of kit.
Yeah no it doesn't. Or does it? You don't know, because it's not even out yet. And what even is there to stream from a PS5? All the best exclusives are on PC now. The PS5 pandemic honeymoon is over, consoles are back to being behind.
Also from everything I'm seeing, ps remote play is capped at 1080@60 which is relatively shit when Nvidia gamestream on PC can do any resolution at any frame rate/refresh rate if your network can keep up. Playing Forza in 21:9 native resolution on my phone at 120hz is infinitely superior to a console accessory that becomes useless when you leave the house.
Yeah, years later, and you need a €3000 PC to play them.
1080p on an 8" screen seems more than reasonable to me.
You don't need to be in the house, as long as you have wifi you can use it from anywhere.
Not every gamer cares for PC gaming, and not every gamer really cares about 30 vs. 60 fps, or being able to stream 4k on an 8" screen.
I'm more than happy with my PS5, and Nintendo Switch. I'd be pumped to be able to stream any of my PlayStation games to a device like this while I travel for work. I don't have as good of an experience using PS Remote Play on my phone or laptop, so this seems like a slam dunk for me.
And a full Steam library, playing locally without Internet, and having a full pc that you can install whatever you want on aaaand being able to use bluetooth peripherals?
Sure, it’s probably better at streaming ps5 games, but is it a better value for the money? Ehhhh…
Let’s put it this way: I already own a Steam Deck but I’m still considering getting this, especially considering how cheap it is.
Okay I can see there being a niche there, mom and dad want to watch a movie but Jr wants to play games. I don't know if that's a huge market, but okay
This however seems like a massive lost opportunity. Like Steam Link I assume you could choose which device to stream from, and with companies being huge on the "reoccurring revenue" train this seems like it could have added a ton of value to the device and at the same time increased their subscriptions. It would have gone from a "at home only toy for a niche market" to "pretty much anyone who has a PS5 at home and/or travels"
There are definitely times when either my kids or my wife is watching something and I'd rather be gaming so I think I'd probably use something like this. However, last time I tried a remote play solution from Sony the lag was brutal, so I'm a bit skeptical.
Can one use the cloud streaming via their PS5?
Edit: also I don't think it's that niche. I see this being a common occurrence in any household with only one high end TV and more than one person who wants to use it. The price point isn't much more than a controller and a screen to begin with. They should sell the remote play hardware without the screen (just hdmi out) and controller (just include a bluetooth chip to allow controller pairing) at a lower price point to appeal to a wider market (cause portability in the household seems less useful, but just using another TV seems more common)
It certainly is a common occurrence, but I don't see many households dropping another $200 on top of the cost of the PS5. If this existed back in the days, my parents would have told me to either play something else/go outside, or move the console to my room.
Kids aren't the only ones with gaming consoles. And I already countered the idea of putting a console on a different TV.
Again, the price point may be high, but it's literally not much more than the cost of a screen plus a controller.
I've used remote play to play a casual / non-story game while watching Sports or some other background noise show on my TV more times than I can count. This is perfect for me.
They are just talking about you not being able to stream ps3 games. That's all they are saying.
My experience with steam link was.... Really bad. I also tried the stadia, terrible. Unless things have changed very recently streaming game tech just isn't there yet.
Streaming steam has gotten better, but it really depends on the game. I'd never play a twitch shooter like counter strike on it, but before the Deck I'd stream the Witcher from my home PC to my tiny travel laptop and it was playable. Never as a primary driver though
No, it's there. Just depends on what your Internet situation is and where you're located.
So you need a $500 console to use a $200 handheld streaming device that doesn't have bluetooth so you probably will also buy a PS Link capable headphone that'll cost another $200.
Those are some big bucks to avoid using steamdeck or switch.
It has a headphone jack.
Who owns wired headphones these days? It’s not 1875 anymore.
I have at least four pair in my house right now. Two of them can also be Bluetooth headphones, but they have the option to plug in if need be.
The Portal should have Bluetooth. It really should. But the argument that people have to buy their expensive headphones is obviously not true when there is the alternative present (which, by the way, is the option a lot of people complain about iPhones and Androids not having any more).
Yeah I know, but the kind of audience it's targeting may not be carrying wired headphones to use with their streaming handheld that only works on WiFi.
It’s intended for people who already own the €399 console.
I see a lot of comparisons to steam deck but none to Xbox.
You can literally use any phone or tablet for the same function as this with an Xbox, in addition to cloud streaming most game pass games without needing an Xbox at all.
If we saw Microsoft releasing an identical device I bet there wouldn't be a single person defending it.
You can also use any phone or tablet to remote play on PS5.
What you’re buying here is convenience. A dedicated device with the exact same controller setup as an actual PS5, with the same features (haptics, triggers) and a nice screen with basically plug and play setup.
The article doesn't seem to mention what OS this has, but if the earlier leaks are correct and it's android, you could even use this to do that very same Xbox streaming.
Dead on Arrival...
Yes, I think you could use this to play Koei Tecmo’s Dead or Alive series.
I was on board with this for 150, 200 is just too much for it though
What I haven’t seen anyone mention yet: Since the Remote Play protocol is already reverse engineered (since there are open source remote play clients like Chiaki), it would not seem difficult to create a 3rd party Remote Play server for use on any PC. You could use this to stream your PC games on.
im more interested in the ear buds they announced. planar drivers for $200 or the over the ear with a mic for $150 are good deals afaik.
There's no way that Sony of all companies could have charged less money for it. Goes to show how aggressive Valve priced the Steamdeck.
Its way too specific and i am way too busy to run arouns with this thing
Does it even run over mobile data?
Wifi only