Support NeoGAF

[SlimySnake]

A controller, a screen, and a bigger battery aren’t exactly cheap and Sony needs to make margin on this product since it’s not a loss leader or zero net profit like the console is

Controllers are really cheap. Just because sony is charging $70 for it doesnt mean it costs that much. Probably $15 to $20 max on the controller. Nintendo charges $80 for switch nunchucks lol. These are all greedy bastards.

I understand that this is not meant to be a zero profit product like the vita or the PS5, but there just isnt anything in there that even remotely gets them close to $150, let alone $200. The screen shouldve been OLED. The bluetooth shouldve been included. The bluetooth fiasco has already caused them irreparable PR damage with that idiot marcus browne going viral for saying this thing doesnt even have a headphone jack. Millions of views on both twitter and youtube. Doesnt matter if hes wrong, the damage is done. A bluetooth adapter wouldve cost them maybe $2 max. Was it worth the bad PR?

I quite like the machine. The fact that it has no latency is kinda awesome and my son can finally play my PS5 when im in my office working. And I honestly dont mind paying $200 for it despite the lack of bluetooth and oled screen, but there is no doubt in my mind that sony of 10 years ago wouldve shipped this with an OLED. Sure it might cost them an additional $20 per unit but they wouldve taken that deal back in the day.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Thing is I also have Xbox/PC/Switch/Steam Deck etc. If I want to remote play only device, I will rather pay more for a Logitech G Cloud so I can play more games across more platforms, and not limit myself to the handful of installed PS5 games with this. Hell I can even add emulators to G Cloud.

I would say you are well covered and this device is not for you.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Controllers are really cheap. Just because sony is charging $70 for it doesnt mean it costs that much. Probably $15 to $20 max on the controller. Nintendo charges $80 for switch nunchucks lol. These are all greedy bastards.

I understand that this is not meant to be a zero profit product like the vita or the PS5, but there just isnt anything in there that even remotely gets them close to $150, let alone $200. The screen shouldve been OLED. The bluetooth shouldve been included. The bluetooth fiasco has already caused them irreparable PR damage with that idiot marcus browne going viral for saying this thing doesnt even have a headphone jack. Millions of views on both twitter and youtube. Doesnt matter if hes wrong, the damage is done. A bluetooth adapter wouldve cost them maybe $2 max. Was it worth the bad PR?

I quite like the machine. The fact that it has no latency is kinda awesome and my son can finally play my PS5 when im in my office working. And I honestly dont mind paying $200 for it despite the lack of bluetooth and oled screen, but there is no doubt in my mind that sony of 10 years ago wouldve shipped this with an OLED. Sure it might cost them an additional $20 per unit but they wouldve taken that deal back in the day.

Don't get me wrong, they could have gone with more components and higher quality components....I think they went as cheaply as possible for the most part. I think the BOM is north of $100.

I think they really wanted to hit that $199 price target with a healthy margin to justify the product. I am very curious to see how "seamless" this device is. Like, I can just carry it anywhere in my house, turn it on without needing to set up any remote play app, and not experience much in the way of latency? I think that's a really cool companion device for my primary platform.

 

[SlimySnake]

Don't get me wrong, they could have gone with more components and higher quality components....I think they went as cheaply as possible for the most part. I think the BOM is north of $100.

I think they really wanted to hit that $199 price target with a healthy margin to justify the product. I am very curious to see how "seamless" this device is. Like, I can just carry it anywhere in my house, turn it on without needing to set up any remote play app, and not experience much in the way of latency? I think that's a really cool companion device for my primary platform.

Its enitrely seemless according to several youtubers. Turning on the portal turns on the PS5 and thats it. you are using the playstation 5 like you would with your dualsense. no need for an extra app or anything. Its an elegant solution. I honestly dont get the hate this thing is getting on youtube.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Its enitrely seemless according to several youtubers. Turning on the portal turns on the PS5 and thats it. you are using the playstation 5 like you would with your dualsense. no need for an extra app or anything. Its an elegant solution. I honestly dont get the hate this thing is getting on youtube.

I don't get the hate either.

Sure, it looks a little weird. But it's functional which is what matters the most. I like that the controllers aren't massively downgraded (I can't play Switch handheld mode at all - too uncomfortable)

Sure, it's not a dedicated handheld I can take outside the house and expect to play it without internet.

But it's a reasonable price at only $199 to get PS5 fidelity visuals in the palm of your hand.

But as someone that already owns a PS5? And simply wants to play in their bed, in a different room, or just not turn on the TV....Seems pretty slick and does what it is setting out to do. I don't know why there's this vocal minority of people that want a new dedicated handheld after PSP and Vita didn't find the greatest market traction. Only way that would work is if Sony went the Switch route, which would alienate their console fanbase.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Don't get me wrong, they could have gone with more components and higher quality components....I think they went as cheaply as possible for the most part. I think the BOM is north of $100.

I think they really wanted to hit that $199 price target with a healthy margin to justify the product. I am very curious to see how "seamless" this device is. Like, I can just carry it anywhere in my house, turn it on without needing to set up any remote play app, and not experience much in the way of latency? I think that's a really cool companion device for my primary platform.

I think its a great extension of the Ps5 and like you can't wait to see how well it does work

Either way since I have a powerful mesh router system I am buying this

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I think its a great extension of the Ps5 and like you can't wait to see how well it does work

Either way since I have a powerful mesh router system I am buying this

If you're using it in the home, does it even use your home WiFI or is it some other direct interface with PS5?

 

[TheGodfather07]

Will be handy for those who want to play portable around the house. Not for me personally as I hate gaming on small screens. I've never used my switch in handheld mode either. It's too uncomfortable too.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

If you're using it in the home, does it even use your home WiFI or is it some other direct interface with PS5?

I haven't seen officially either way

 

[Sorcerer]

Sharing my take on why the Portal doesn't have PS+ cloud streaming support, I think it's actually very simple. Right now PS+ cloud streaming officially supports PS4, PS5 and PC. We know the Portal runs Android, and at this point in time Sony doesn't have an Android cloud streaming app. That's it.

Now we know Sony are planning an "aggressive cloud" push that we should learn more about in the next couple of months. We'll have to wait and see if that might involve an Android app, but even if it doesn't right now, it could still come at some point in the future.

They can't sell a device on the promise of an unannounced feature that could come at some indeterminate point in the future, which is why they only discuss the remote play functionality of the Portal. If or when Sony does announce an Android cloud streaming app, I fully expect that they'll announce that this functionality is being added to the Portal via a firmware update.

Then why not hold off on the device until the vision is complete?
In my mind they got it backwards. The device should have been made to appeal to those new to Playstation first. (Getting subs, generating additional income off that, bringing holdouts into the ecosystem). Current owners in the Playstation ecosystem second. Looks like they are hoping to attach proprietary headphones ($200) with every sale. At that point just come up with $100 bucks, buy a PS5 and forget this thing altogether.

 

[SlimySnake]

I don't get the hate either.

Sure, it looks a little weird. But it's functional which is what matters the most. I like that the controllers aren't massively downgraded (I can't play Switch handheld mode at all - too uncomfortable)

Sure, it's not a dedicated handheld I can take outside the house and expect to play it without internet.

But it's a reasonable price at only $199 to get PS5 fidelity visuals in the palm of your hand.

But as someone that already owns a PS5? And simply wants to play in their bed, in a different room, or just not turn on the TV....Seems pretty slick and does what it is setting out to do. I don't know why there's this vocal minority of people that want a new dedicated handheld after PSP and Vita didn't find the greatest market traction. Only way that would work is if Sony went the Switch route, which would alienate their console fanbase.

I think the travel aspect of the switch and other handhelds is overrated. I always take my switch with me on plane rides and i honestly cant last more than 10 minutes playing it on the plane. The experience even with fancy noise cancelling headphones is trash with just how uncomfortable you are on planes. I can see kids being annoyed that you cant play this during long car rides but adults are typically the ones driving.

i have stayed in airbnbs and have always regretted not bringing my PS5. This thing would probably not work on hotel wifis but going to your relatives over thanksgiving, christmas and other extended holidays, this thing will come in real handy.

Besides, if sony went the vita route no one would support it. no one other than nintendo supports the switch. whats the point of a ps portable when you cant play FF16, star wars, diablo, street fighter, and spiderman on it? Sony would need a $800-1000 machine that runs the PS5 games natively whenever the 3nm chips come out reducing the thermal costs of a 10 tflops gpu, and none of us are paying for that. This is a perfect compromise.

P.S My guess is that this is made for the Japanese market. they have fast internet everywhere. Even on trains.

 

[SlimySnake]

If you're using it in the home, does it even use your home WiFI or is it some other direct interface with PS5?

There is a direct interface when you are near your PS5. Once you go farther away you can connect using your home wifi. No idea about the range before wifi kicks in. my guess is something like the wii u. same floor is ok. I lived in a small apartment back during the wii u days so never had to worry about it losing connection when going from my living room to my bedroom.

Here is kotaku doing a test. 50 feet seems to be the max range for the Wii U but the tech even back then could go up to 100 feet.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Sharing my take on why the Portal doesn't have PS+ cloud streaming support, I think it's actually very simple. Right now PS+ cloud streaming officially supports PS4, PS5 and PC. We know the Portal runs Android, and at this point in time Sony doesn't have an Android cloud streaming app. That's it.

This isn't how I See it.

Sony is choosing not to have a streaming app; that is well within their ability to create or contract out, in fact they used to have apps of various TVs, Blu-Ray Players, and PS3 that they ditched. A remote play app is basically ALREADY THERE lol

They clearly just aren't embracing the "play anywhere" concept yet, PARTICULARLY for PS5 games.

I personally think they are waiting until they can get publishers on board with allowing PS5 games to be streamed when you purchase them (of course this will require a sub.)

At that point then this $200 device might as well be a PS5 from a marketing standpoint.

This isn't some tech reason, it's quite specifically Sony not choosing to support cloud as much as they could have, or as much as they USED TO back in like 2017.

They want you buying a PS5 to play PS5 games.. that's why Portal doesn't support streaming.. hell that's likely why PS4's PSNow app won't get PS5 game support.

 

[FrankWza]

I don't get the hate either.

Sure, it looks a little weird. But it's functional which is what matters the most. I like that the controllers aren't massively downgraded (I can't play Switch handheld mode at all - too uncomfortable)

Sure, it's not a dedicated handheld I can take outside the house and expect to play it without internet.

But it's a reasonable price at only $199 to get PS5 fidelity visuals in the palm of your hand.

But as someone that already owns a PS5? And simply wants to play in their bed, in a different room, or just not turn on the TV....Seems pretty slick and does what it is setting out to do. I don't know why there's this vocal minority of people that want a new dedicated handheld after PSP and Vita didn't find the greatest market traction. Only way that would work is if Sony went the Switch route, which would alienate their console fanbase.

Yeah I'm getting one. I wasn't going to because of the lack of back buttons but I'm sure there will be a mod like the dualsense one at some point. The Link and audio compatibility sounds awesome.

no need for an extra app or anything. Its an elegant solution.

This is the key takeaway.

The bluetooth shouldve been included. The bluetooth fiasco has already caused them irreparable PR damage with that idiot marcus browne going viral for saying this thing doesnt even have a headphone jack.

The audio would have been terrible and they would have gotten flack for that. Since it has a 3.5 jack people that really want to can add a Bluetooth adapter that will work just as well as anything they would have included. Some of them even have embedded mics.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

There is a direct interface when you are near your PS5. Once you go farther away you can connect using your home wifi. No idea about the range before wifi kicks in. my guess is something like the wii u. same floor is ok. I lived in a small apartment back during the wii u days so never had to worry about it losing connection when going from my living room to my bedroom.

Here is kotaku doing a test. 50 feet seems to be the max range for the Wii U but the tech even back then could go up to 100 feet.

I know the screen isn't OLED

But does it at least have HDR?

 

[Cyberpunkd]

But as someone that already owns a PS5? And simply wants to play in their bed, in a different room, or just not turn on the TV....Seems pretty slick and does what it is setting out to do.

This is my take as well. Sometimes you don’t want to have light from your big ass TV all around the salon + outside if you have neighbours close by. This has good screen, probably decent battery life and I can play in bed.

Steam deck is tempting but the cheapest model + SSD is close to 3x the price, also it’s loud AF when the fans start spinning + 1 hour battery life for top games.

 

[aygomyownroad]

when the WiiU came out, I loved being able to play games on the controller while my wife watched the tv.

This has potential but the input lag/delay if your Wi-Fi is patchy is something I wonder about now.

The lack of streaming options as well.

But mostly the cost, at $200 it’s just to difficult to justify, could get a switch for that,

 

[Bernoulli]

Have to try it before buying but if in the future it supports cloud i will buy
There has to be a way to put gamepass apk on it

 

[ReBurn]

I'll probably grab this on sale during Black Friday. $200 is not bad but considering how limited this is and what it doesn't support, it's less of an ideal price.

$199 is bad for the limitations it has. It should have at least supported Bluetooth headsets for that price. $169 feels like a better price to marry a controller with a screen and a wifi antenna.

That said, I still kinda want one and I'll prob buy it.

 

[Fafalada]

Controllers are really cheap.

...

The bluetooth shouldve been included.

But why? No controller ever released supported BlueTooth audio out - why would this?
It literally behaves exactly like PS controllers behaved for the past... 15? years, it's not like it is some deviation from established expectations (other than the made-up ones that never existed).
Frankly I am about 99% certain if they had BT audio this would only increase the amount of complaining how this isn't a PSP successor and it should've been one, increased the price (to Sony) and yield no positive PR (perhaps even more negative on the back of BT audio lagging, less battery life etc).

I understand that this is not meant to be a zero profit product like the vita or the PS5, but there just isnt anything in there that even remotely gets them close to $150, let alone $200. The screen shouldve been OLED.

This is true - but then again the same is true of every other premium controller that sells for 150-250$ - they're all overpriced. Or any of the wheels on the market. It was also true of WiiU Pad that sold for 150$. They are accessories that sell for - healthy - profit, they always have.

 

[Boaty McBoatface]

Not interested but what's with US and GBP having price parity? that's a £60 difference (same with the YEN)

 

[coffinbirth]

I’m surprised you can’t cloud stream with this device. Seems like it would be a trivial thing to support. Regardless it’s not for me.

 

[Rob_27]

Is it some wifi 6 wizardry ?

 

[xBlueStonex]

$200 in-home streaming device that does the same exact thing as streaming apps on nearly all mobile devices? You can literally just buy a $15 clip for your phone and have the same exact functionality, if not better if you already have a high-end device.

I literally can't think of a dumber product coming out this year.

 

[coffinbirth]

...

But why? No controller ever released supported BlueTooth audio out - why would this?
It literally behaves exactly like PS controllers behaved for the past... 15? years, it's not like it is some deviation from established expectations (other than the made-up ones that never existed).
Frankly I am about 99% certain if they had BT audio this would only increase the amount of complaining how this isn't a PSP successor and it should've been one, increased the price (to Sony) and yield no positive PR (perhaps even more negative on the back of BT audio lagging, less battery life etc).


This is true - but then again the same is true of every other premium controller that sells for 150-250$ - they're all overpriced. Or any of the wheels on the market. It was also true of WiiU Pad that sold for 150$. They are accessories that sell for - healthy - profit, they always have.

Because it's an Android tablet. Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they find a disabled BT chip in teardowns.

 

[mckmas8808]

So don't compare its price to a stand alone console maybe ?

If you're a PS5 gamer then you already paid 450 to 500€/$ before paying for the Portal.

So the total cost is for both devices not only one.

Simple math and logic.

Who is comparing the Playstation Portal to the Nintendo Switch?

 

[mckmas8808]

This isn't how I See it.

Sony is choosing not to have a streaming app; that is well within their ability to create or contract out, in fact they used to have apps of various TVs, Blu-Ray Players, and PS3 that they ditched. A remote play app is basically ALREADY THERE lol

They clearly just aren't embracing the "play anywhere" concept yet, PARTICULARLY for PS5 games.

I personally think they are waiting until they can get publishers on board with allowing PS5 games to be streamed when you purchase them (of course this will require a sub.)

At that point then this $200 device might as well be a PS5 from a marketing standpoint.

This isn't some tech reason, it's quite specifically Sony not choosing to support cloud as much as they could have, or as much as they USED TO back in like 2017.

They want you buying a PS5 to play PS5 games.. that's why Portal doesn't support streaming.. hell that's likely why PS4's PSNow app won't get PS5 game support.

I think you are secretly 100% SPOT ON! Most people don't want to have this conversation though. This conversation can lead to some weird things that could make people uncomfortable.

 

[Fafalada]

Because it's an Android tablet.

Right - and consoles are windows-PCs so they should all natively support printers.

 

[midnightAI]

I don't get the hate either.

Sure, it looks a little weird. But it's functional which is what matters the most. I like that the controllers aren't massively downgraded (I can't play Switch handheld mode at all - too uncomfortable)

Sure, it's not a dedicated handheld I can take outside the house and expect to play it without internet.

But it's a reasonable price at only $199 to get PS5 fidelity visuals in the palm of your hand.

But as someone that already owns a PS5? And simply wants to play in their bed, in a different room, or just not turn on the TV....Seems pretty slick and does what it is setting out to do. I don't know why there's this vocal minority of people that want a new dedicated handheld after PSP and Vita didn't find the greatest market traction. Only way that would work is if Sony went the Switch route, which would alienate their console fanbase.

Do you know what's even better? No reason this wouldn't work with PS5 Pro (if that happens) or even PS6 either (unless that has vastly different controls or something, which I doubt)

 

[coffinbirth]

Right - and consoles are windows-PCs so they should all natively support printers.

Astounding logic.

 

[Madjaba]

Who is comparing the Playstation Portal to the Nintendo Switch?

IGN in their preview video, here :



That's what my post is about.

At the 7 minute mark of their video they say : "And while it's not quite as portable as a Switch or a Steam Deck, it's less expensive".

Yep the accessory is less expensive... but can't operate without a PS5...

 

[coffinbirth]

IGN in their preview video, here :

That's what my post is about.

At the 7 minute mark of their video they say : "And while it's not quite as portable as a Switch or a Steam Deck, it's less expensive".

Yep the accessory is less expensive... but can't operate without a PS5...

Not even less expensive.

 

[vivftp]

Then why not hold off on the device until the vision is complete?
In my mind they got it backwards. The device should have been made to appeal to those new to Playstation first. (Getting subs, generating additional income off that, bringing holdouts into the ecosystem). Current owners in the Playstation ecosystem second. Looks like they are hoping to attach proprietary headphones ($200) with every sale. At that point just come up with $100 bucks, buy a PS5 and forget this thing altogether.

Why hold off? Remote play is available now and used by many people so that in itself is a perfectly valid reason to pick up this device. Plus even if an Android app is on the way, we can only guess when it'd come. There wouldn't be any point in holding off for that arbitrary date if the device is ready to go this holiday season.

And just randomly tacking on the price of the headset to the price of the Portal doesn't jive. The Portal doesn't have bluetooth audio because bluetooth audio is laggy horse shit for gaming that needs to be stomped out. That's why the PS5 and the Portal don't support that nonsense. The Portal has a headphone jack for those who want to use alternate headphones. Also they're allowing other headphone manufacturers to make devices compatible with PS Link, so the official PlayStation models won't be the only option in the not too distant future.

This isn't how I See it.

Sony is choosing not to have a streaming app; that is well within their ability to create or contract out, in fact they used to have apps of various TVs, Blu-Ray Players, and PS3 that they ditched. A remote play app is basically ALREADY THERE lol

They clearly just aren't embracing the "play anywhere" concept yet, PARTICULARLY for PS5 games.

I personally think they are waiting until they can get publishers on board with allowing PS5 games to be streamed when you purchase them (of course this will require a sub.)

At that point then this $200 device might as well be a PS5 from a marketing standpoint.

This isn't some tech reason, it's quite specifically Sony not choosing to support cloud as much as they could have, or as much as they USED TO back in like 2017.

They want you buying a PS5 to play PS5 games.. that's why Portal doesn't support streaming.. hell that's likely why PS4's PSNow app won't get PS5 game support.

The "aggressive cloud initiative" is likely only a month or so away from being revealed, so we will have a better idea of what direction they're going in at that point. You may ask "what are they waiting for?" when it comes to expanding the footprint of their cloud streaming to more devices, and I think the answer is PS5 hardware in the cloud. That's what is coming and is being beta tested right now. It's a major milestone for the cloud infrastructure and the service, and I think it's a bottleneck that's been holding back expansion (geographically and on more devices) until it's in place.

We know that Sony are working on allowing the cloud streaming of select owned games, this was already revealed in a blog post not too long ago. It shouldn't be much longer until we learn just how widespread this initiative is and how many owned titles will be streamtable via the cloud.

As for the ability to stream PS5 games to a PS4 or PC, we have no reason to believe that'll be limited upon the full rollout. It's restricted to PS5 for the beta, that's all we know.

We have different perspectives on their motivations. At least we won't have to wait much longer to learn more about their next steps in cloud gaming.

 

[mckmas8808]

IGN in their preview video, here :



That's what my post is about.

At the 7 minute mark of their video they say : "And while it's not quite as portable as a Switch or a Steam Deck, it's less expensive".

Yep the accessory is less expensive... but can't operate without a PS5...

Oh wow! Yeah now that's just stupid!!! I have no clue why IGN would even say that. Just dumb all around.

 

[TrebleShot]

Literally can’t wait for this to launch.

The ease of just turning on the portal turns on the ps5 sounds awesome.

Anyone that has used remote play on other devices knows you have to fumble around with an app and when you interrupt report play it can stop and break in the background.

On the steam
Deck and ally you get third party apps like chiaki and psplay but you don’t get dual sense support and you have to dial in exact settings to avoid flashing etc. using those devices away from home is also a complete tinker fest where you need to forward ports etc.

Finally this in conjunction with the new headphones sounds like apples ecosystem where you can be on your iPhone with AirPods then flip over to MacBook for calls and it will be seamless between devices pretty cool.

 

[ReBurn]

But why? No controller ever released supported BlueTooth audio out - why would this?

Because this isn't just a controller. It's a remote play device. it supports Sony's proprietary wireless headsets so it's pretty crappy for Sony to try to force people to buy Sony branded headphones when they probably already have a decent set of Bluetooth headphones nearby. How many co trollers in the past 15 years let you connect any wireless headphones to them.

I have a Genki audio adapter that lets me use my Bluetooth earbuds with my OG Switch and PS5. I'm not expecting that it will work with this but it would be cool if someone released a device that did.

 

[Banjo64]

Would/will only be viable if it uses Wii U tablet tech or similar.

Home wifi will introduce image quality interference/artefacting no matter how good your broadband connection and wireless set up is. It is unavoidable.

 

[IntentionalPun]

We know that Sony are working on allowing the cloud streaming of select owned games, this was already revealed in a blog post not too long ago. It shouldn't be much longer until we learn just how widespread this initiative is and how many owned titles will be streamtable via the cloud.

As for the ability to stream PS5 games to a PS4 or PC, we have no reason to believe that'll be limited upon the full rollout. It's restricted to PS5 for the beta, that's all we know.

We have different perspectives on their motivations. At least we won't have to wait much longer to learn more about their next steps in cloud gaming.

I just disagree that we have no reason to believe in my perspective.

Sony has made it abundantly clear that they do not want to disrupt the retail/digital sales market in place of subscriptions.

They have had great offerings in the sub space, but are staunchly against 1st party games coming quickly to these services. They want game sales 1st, sub sales second. They do not want to develop users who are dependent on their game sub catalog (like Microsoft has.)

Yes I'm aware Sony have already announced plans to offer purchases via cloud, which is at the core of my point, the lack of ability to buy games and stream is the holdup for device expansion.

In a world where all games can be played via cloud if you purchased them (and you also pay a sub fee to access,) Sony has way less reason to worry about "not selling someone a device."

But even then.. Sony ALWAYS wants to sell you Sony branded devices. That's not a strategy Sony is likely to want to give up any time soon. They want you to buy Playstation branded this, Playstation branded that, etc. One way to guarantee that is to... well MAKE you buy those devices to use their games/services. (oh and they want those products using Sony developed media formats, they are the kings of that)

I could see a multi-phase approach that will take years to get there:

1) Streaming remains only on PS4/PS5/PC (and possibly yanking PS4 support for PSNow at some point as they did w/ PS3.)
2) Sony gets a few partners involved with the "play your bought games via Cloud" initiative.
3) Sony them magically releases PS5 game streaming for the Portal but not PS4. They will use the "DualSense is key!" excuse for that, as they have for doing things like not letting you use DS4 on PS5 for PS5 games even though every game works fine with it. Why? Because they want to sell you Portals lol
4) Next generation Sony negotiates into their contract that all PS6 developers games will show up on PSNow if the user has purchased access. Sony is the one company that can probably get everyone onboard, at little to no costs to themselves, but doing it in the middle of a generation is a lot trickier.
5) Suddenly Sony stops caring as much what device you play on, now they have apps everywhere.

I still kinda doubt 5 though lol.

Sony has done well in the market by incentivizing new device sales, not embracing the "hey you don't need a device" mentality MS pretends to have.

 

[DragonNCM]

PlayStation’s first Remote Play dedicated device, PlayStation Portal remote player, to launch starting Nov 15 at $199.99

Pulse Explore wireless earbuds and new Pulse Elite wireless headset revealed; features lossless, low latency audio using new PlayStation Link technology.

blog.playstation.com

 

[vivftp]

I just disagree that we have no reason to believe in my perspective.

Sony has made it abundantly clear that they do not want to disrupt the retail/digital sales market in place of subscriptions.

They have had great offerings in the sub space, but are staunchly against 1st party games coming quickly to these services. They want game sales 1st, sub sales second. They do not want to develop users who are dependent on their game sub catalog (like Microsoft has.)

Yes I'm aware Sony have already announced plans to offer purchases via cloud, which is at the core of my point, the lack of ability to buy games and stream is the holdup for device expansion.

In a world where all games can be played via cloud if you purchased them (and you also pay a sub fee to access,) Sony has way less reason to worry about "not selling someone a device."

But even then.. Sony ALWAYS wants to sell you Sony branded devices. That's not a strategy Sony is likely to want to give up any time soon. They want you to buy Playstation branded this, Playstation branded that, etc. One way to guarantee that is to... well MAKE you buy those devices to use their games/services. (oh and they want those products using Sony developed media formats, they are the kings of that)

I could see a multi-phase approach that will take years to get there:

1) Streaming remains only on PS4/PS5/PC (and possibly yanking PS4 support for PSNow at some point as they did w/ PS3.)
2) Sony gets a few partners involved with the "play your bought games via Cloud" initiative.
3) Sony them magically releases PS5 game streaming for the Portal but not PS4. They will use the "DualSense is key!" excuse for that, as they have for doing things like not letting you use DS4 on PS5 for PS5 games even though every game works fine with it. Why? Because they want to sell you Portals lol
4) Next generation Sony negotiates into their contract that all PS6 developers games will show up on PSNow if the user has purchased access. Sony is the one company that can probably get everyone onboard, at little to no costs to themselves, but doing it in the middle of a generation is a lot trickier.
5) Suddenly Sony stops caring as much what device you play on, now they have apps everywhere.

I still kinda doubt 5 though lol.

Sony has done well in the market by incentivizing new device sales, not embracing the "hey you don't need a device" mentality MS pretends to have.

Indeed there are numerous ways for this to play out. Excited to see where this journey takes us

 

[Crispy Gamer]

I said this device was DOA but I didn't expect it to come in under $200 it's almost impulse buy territory and if it becomes compatible with Sony's project Cronos next year that'll add a lot of games to stream. I'm still not feeling a non-OLED screen but they'll use the Nintendo playbook and release an upgraded model if this is successful

 

[Wulfer]

The unit isn't designed for travel at all. It's almost like Sony's saying "go ahead and break it, we'll sell you another." And that name, something has to be done about that name!

 

[Fafalada]

it supports Sony's proprietary wireless headsets so it's pretty crappy for Sony to try to force people to buy Sony branded headphones when they probably already have a decent set of Bluetooth headphones nearby.

If you want to use those exact headphones on your PS5 today - you either use them wired, or you don't. Nothing changes.

How many co trollers in the past 15 years let you connect any wireless headphones to them.

None of them that I know of - that's the point.
And all PS branded headphones for the past 15 years need a dongle to do wireless on stationary Playstations too.

 

[THE DUCK]

Imagine it selling more than Xbox Series S, that's gonna be crazy from near-useless hardware.

You think it's going to sell 10 million units? Plus it's far from useless, it's focused. Not focused on what you want per say, bit none the less it has valid uses.

 

[nial]

I quite like the machine. The fact that it has no latency is kinda awesome and my son can finally play my PS5 when im in my office working. And I honestly dont mind paying $200 for it despite the lack of bluetooth and oled screen, but there is no doubt in my mind that sony of 10 years ago wouldve shipped this with an OLED. Sure it might cost them an additional $20 per unit but they wouldve taken that deal back in the day.

The Sony of 10 years ago literally replaced the OLED screen in a revised model of the PS Vita with an LCD.

PlayStation Vita 2000: Sony aims for the casual market with redesign

Keith Stuart: PlayStation 4 arrival prompts a refresh for its handheld gaming device, aimed at casual purchasers

www.theguardian.com

 

[FrankWza]

If you want to use those exact headphones on your PS5 today - you either use them wired, or you don't. Nothing changes.


None of them that I know of - that's the point.
And all PS branded headphones for the past 15 years need a dongle to do wireless on stationary Playstations too.

There are ways to connect Bluetooth headphones to PS5. There most likely will be ways to connect to Portal as well. You still will need to have a lossless adapter and your headphones need to support the codec for it to work well consistently. A big reason Sony is doing Link is to make compatibility seamless and straight forward. People think all Bluetooth is equal and will blame them when their headset lags or sounds bad. Look at all the comments complaining about Bluetooth. It took Nintendo almost 5 years to add native Bluetooth support to the switch and that is a handheld. I don't think they ever added mic support and I believe there are issues with it lagging and with the overall quality.

 

[ArtHands]

I agree with you guys. They are likely not having the cloud support, a standard feature in modern day handheld release in the recent years, because they want you to buy games instead. That's on top of limiting to only the digital Playstation ecosystem.

It won't appeal to the PS5 players who supports physical format. Most PS5 players only want to play on a large TV and hate small screen gaming even if it means someone else is hogging the TV
And those who do, have cheaper/better options for remote play on existing devices like mobiles, tablets, ROG Ally whatever.

In a nutshell this is trying to compete in a small pool of highly competitive market.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

This thing is a hilarious shit-show. The fact that it only works with their proprietary ear buds instead of standard Bluetooth is the 2girls1cup icing on the cake.

 

[NewYork214]

Probably getting this. But really considering waiting because im hoping they do a cellular edition. They had 3g on vita. Not ideal for everyone depending where you live, but I'd be interested.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Probably getting this. But really considering waiting because im hoping they do a cellular edition. They had 3g on vita. Not ideal for everyone depending where you live, but I'd be interested.

This thing isn't going to run well on cellular networks, so I would not get your hopes up that it'll ever happen soon