If it works on 60 Ghz mm wave technology then it is worth it
Otherwise no use
That being said, if it is the 60 Ghz mm wave tech based, then this what I was waiting for.
Hope it would be compatible with other hardware as well … Oh wait
Doesn’t 60 Ghz mm wave require line of sight? That would make it even more pointless.
This. Absolute waste of money unless youre a hardcore ps fan who wants to play portable around the house while having your ps5 on.
Remote play is already pointless if it is wifi based. Atleast with 60 Ghz one could have perfect performance and picture quality with negligible lag.
100% agree. £500 for the console
Then £70 for a game
Then (let’s be ultra nice and say) £300 for the handheld.
That’s dead on arrival for sure.
Sorry, but this device is more DOA than PSVR2… seen some weird defenses of the device, but this only tells me that Sony and its defenders have no idea what they’re doing with this. Always-online and only Remote Play which requires a PS5… read that again because I’ve seen some weird comparisons to xCloud but the problem with that comparison is that you as the player are not required to have any other hardware than the phone/tablet you’re playing on, so that’s like comparing apples to feces. Furthermore, the requirement for Remote Play is so asinine because it drastically limits the environments the damn thing can even be used; again, saw what I think is some comparison to Xbox’s feature but the problem with that comparison is that RP for Xbox is additive and not the only method to play said titles.
This is just another example of Sony looking at a market, throwing what works out the window and thinking they can do better with some more-restricted, half-assed and likely overpriced solution. Apple and Sony are infamous for this… but I suppose at least Apple sticks with the line and improves upon via further generations (though not always of course).
8 Likes
What is the point of this as long term it becomes ewaste since it can only be used on PlayStation and won’t run anything natively, plus everyone, including kids, now own tablets or cellphones that can do the same exact thing.
So it’s basically like xCloud except you need the console, defeating the main purpose of xCloud?
1 Like
Not only that, but so far, from the leak, it’s only good for remote play, not even cloud based gaming. You actually need to own a PS5 to even use it!
As long as it’s marketed and sold as a link device, I don’t get the big deal.
Pricing will be key for a device like this. If it’s relatively cheap like it should be, I can see some finding value in this.
Personally I’d prefer a proper handheld device that doesn’t require online and I can play games locally on.
1 Like
It’s not even a cloud device, it’s only a remote play one. It’s weird as heck, especially if it’s more than $100
5 Likes
I’m not defending this device, but it is a good thing Sony isn’t putting out a handheld that can play games natively. Sony can’t reasonably support three devices (handheld, VR, console) with their teams. The Switch is successful in part due to Nintendo folding their handheld and console teams into one pipeline. If Nintendo can’t support separate console and handheld devices, no way Sony can.
Anyway this could be a neat little device if it is priced reasonably (unlikely) - even if your phone can do the same thing. I don’t think everyone wants to play full-fledged console games on their phones. They want to scroll social media and play candy crush on their phones. There’s a reason why MS is supporting devices designed specifically for x-cloud even when everyone already has a phone. Of course, x-cloud devices make waaaay more sense than remote play devices.
1 Like
Precisely… just a weird reaction. If this device was a legitimate follow-up to the Vita -and Sony actually supported the damn thing more than 24 months - it could be a massive win (also assuming Sony foregoes proprietary storage formats that absolutely killed the Vita). I still have both my OLED Vitas - use them at least weekly and would love to have a proper successor with locally playable titles.
Yeah I understand that, that’s why I think pricing will be key.
this sounds horrible
1 Like
Sounds totally pointless. I can’t imagine anyone other than the hardcore PlayStation faithful being interested in buying this.
1 Like
I wonder if they’ve seen enough remote play growth to want to capitalize on it?
Seems strange not to enable cloud gaming on it.
Atm it is literally impossible for PS5 games as there are no PS5’s in the cloud in the same way there are Series Xs.
1 Like
That bit will never cease to be funny to me: how do you buy an effective monopoly on cloud gaming by buying Gakai and OnLive more than a decade ago; before anyone else was investing in the sector, and fail to capitalize on any of it…
Before someone comes in with the response that they don’t have the infrastructure that MS does, or some other nonsense, the pre-emotive retort is to point out that almost none of the cloud gaming services own their infrastructure - most of them rent server time essentially, and there’s no excuse other than an unwillingness to adapt on Sony’s part (they certainly have the money).
This whole thing, if true, seems like such a reality-disconnect on Sony’s part.
3 Likes
I don’t understand who would find this interesting enough to put down a few hundred bucks on it. I’m a little unclear if it works for PS4 as well since that’s what the Verge article implies but it’s not present in the original article.
Either way, if it’s purely for remote play I can’t imagine there’s that big a market of people who are dedicated enough to want to play while away from their console but not want to carry around a controller and use their mobile devices?
One of my friends carries around a controller sometimes so she can do her daily quests or whatever in Genshin Impact, maybe they’re planning on incorporating that into their rumored GaaS?
Edit: I do want to add that I didn’t understand the point of tablets when they announced the iPad, so my befuddlement doesn’t mean much 
3 Likes