112
PlayStation Portal review: impressive hardware but is Remote Play itself good enough?
(www.eurogamer.net)
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
112 points (96.7% liked)
Games
32400 readers
923 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your phone has an 8” screen and an integrated Dual Sense?
Your Steam Deck has adaptive triggers and HD haptics? Mine doesn’t.
I’m considering getting this even though I already have a Steam Deck.
Funny how they pretend to ask a question, then downvote you when you give them an answer they don’t like.
It’s also half the price of the SD with a bigger resolution screen (bUt mUh oLEd). I pick it up, press like 2 buttons, and I’m playing in 20 sec. I was happy to pay for the convenience, have been using it a lot since I got it the day after the release.
You can plug your dual sense into both a phone and a steam deck without it costing you any more money.
And the dual-sense then attaches to your phone and increases the size of the screen for free?
Get some glue and make a holder or something. Bigger screen? Use a tablet, laptop, or PC that you've probably already got. £200 for a device that can't do anything on its own? Stop bending over for them.
You pay for convenience.
A handheld that can only stream games from a home console is anything but convenient.
On the contrary, it’s super convenient. You turn it on, it connects, you play.
Yeah, and convenience used to be putting multiple different functions in one device. Now apparently it's more convenient to pay £200 for a device that can literally only do one thing instead of using the many other devices you already own to conveniently do the same thing.
This goes for lots of things. What point are you making? You’re mad people are wasting money? When they didn’t cuz they like their purchase.
No I'm disappointed they didn't make a worthwhile device. I would've loved this if it had some worthwhile additions, but it's an overpriced screen with a controller attached, useless without your PS5 connected to it wirelessly.
Even just streaming from PS+/Now would've done it for me, but "here's a way to play games you already own that are installed on the console you already own, but it costs £200 and you could do the same thing with many of the devices you already own, some of which may have an ethernet connection, so they're better at it" just feels like a waste.
Hopefully it'll get hacked and they'll get gamepass streaming on it or something.
Then don’t buy it.
Did you think I was going to?
It's just a $200 pro controller with a screen. I don't think it's gonna have a massive market, but for what it is, it's not entirely terrible. Not everyone has a phone with a large screen so upgrading to a $1k phone is not a move they can make, but $200 for what's basically an extra controller with an 8in display is not terrible just very niche.
Edit: If you just want a screen controller combo for streaming, there are a myriad of android based options littered in the space for nearly the same cost and similar screen size.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure it'll find a small market, it just could've had a bigger one with comparatively little effort and now the device it could've been will never exist. I had hopes for this as I'd expected it to stream from Now, but it just doesn't for no reason beyond "CBA" really.
The thing is they are only targeting that small market for PS5 gamers, they don't want to compete in the handheld market and possibly loose those customers who would be happy with just a ps5 remote play experience vs a better more expensive device. I get it, they don't have to have as many competitors and it makes it slightly cheaper versus the non dedicated competitors giving them a niche area to sell to.
Yeah, I always use my Swiss army knife in the kitchen, way more convenient than using my chef’s knife, because it combines so many functions.
Convenience is often a tool that does one thing and does it really well. Combining multiple functions almost always complicates things.
I used to own a combination microwave/oven/steamer/grill that I replaced with a simple microwave, as I rarely if ever used any of those other functions. Guess which one is more convenient to use?
Compare a simple black and white laser printer with an all-in-one printer/scanner/fax combo an tell me which one is more convenient.
I'd say the printer/scanner/fax combo is more convenient the second you either need to scan something or find yourself in the 1980s and need to send a fax.
It's kinda absurd to think Sony can't put more than one feature into this £200 device without over complicating it. There's no reason it couldn't stream from PS Now, all the hardware it needs is already there. It's just the bare minimum and much of the potential was squandered.
They do sell like $5 phone clips for controllers now a days as some mobile games are adding more controller support. But if for you an extra inch or two of screen real estate for the display is worth $200 then that's your position, it just seems like the market share for that will be pretty damn niche. Like the nvidia shield I don't expect it to be around for to long so if you do want this you better get one while they make em but know once the ps5 is done support for this will die out as well.
Lol, would love to hear why on earth this is downvoted - guess we're in full on reddit mode and just downvoting everything that isn't exactly what I think lol
Honestly when it drops to $150 or so, I'm in. Mostly for these same reasons. I use the PS5 on the good TV, but if I wanna be in the room with my partner while they watch a trash reality show, and keep working on my game, this is perfect. At $200, I'll stick with remote play on Android and a Bluetooth controller, but the Portal seems better for this use case. So when the price is low enough... Sure.
I recommend you to do some research, it might not be that good for the only thing this gadget can do.
My phone is nearly a 7in screen, I could Bluetooth connect a Playstation controller and have the exact same functionality, using the hardware I already have. I get that if you don't have a phone with a bigger screen then this becomes more of a proposition as getting a newer device with a larger screen is gonna be north of $1k USD, so spending $200 to get a portable display and extra controller in a sense is not that bad value wise. I do see where people are seeing it being wasteful as other devices are capable just not at the same level, the only thing I'm wondering is how big is the market of people who wouldn't rather get a $5 phone holder for their ps5 controller and just use their phone. I see a couple people in this thread here but if most realized they could get a similar experience for $5 for a plastic phone clip would this really look as enticing?
Assuming an iPhone Pro Max, with a 6.7” 19,5:9 screen, the 8” 16:9 on the PSPortal has 60% more surface area.
Correct but that screen real-estate isn't the biggest issue as you generally have the phone and controller fairly close to your eyes, at an optimal viewing distance. Plus, I can stream up to 4k on my device or 1080p at 120fps if I wanted to stream from my pc. Think monitor vs TV gaming. Viewing distance is much more important than screen size on its own.