Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
They are just talking about you not being able to stream ps3 games. That's all they are saying.
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.
For 100€ more you can get a steam deck. Just saying
For the same price you can get a Switch Lite.
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’s intended for people who already own the €399 console.
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.
I was on board with this for 150, 200 is just too much for it though
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.
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.