• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

PlayStation Sony Announces the Playstation Portal; a Remote Play-oriented Handheld; 199.99 USD | 219.99 EURO | 199.99 GBP | 29,980 YEN

lemonfresh said:
They did but yall didn't buy it
Click to expand...
i-did-my-part-colin-mcconnell.gif
 
Tangerine_Cookie said:
That honestly was also part of the not seriousness, lol.
Click to expand...
I know lol. I'm just a bit passionate about the Wii U :p

Tangerine_Cookie said:
The WiiU concept was definitely about dual screen play. The execution however wasn't quite there, and despite some outstanding games like Splatoon or Nintendoland, the reality is that most of the catalog ended up being single screen games with an off TV mode.

Even a lot of the games that actually used both screens also supported single screen play and off TV play, which kinda dilutes the value of the dual screen implementation, too.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. It felt like devs wanted to commit to Off-TV at least being an option, which greatly limited how integral the second screen could actually be. Still - I feel games like Xenoblade X and Pikmin 3 were more enjoyable with it. Even stuff as simple as the menus in the HD Zeldas were a nice-to-have. But it wasn't as valuable as games designed with the second screen as a requirement would've been, yet at the same time Off-TV often felt compromised because the second screen did provide something of note; I would often just not play if I couldn't use the TV because of that (though I was someone who generally got their fill of TV time anyway).

And then the whole asymmetric multiplayer thing couldn't be easily adapted to traditional multiplayer concepts, leaving the GamePad essentially useless in games like Smash, or just an unfair advantage in Mario Kart. It really was a confused system. (But I understood it, I swear)

Tangerine_Cookie said:
So, to a degree, yeah, this thing is gonna be what the actual WiiU experience turned out to be in the end.
Click to expand...
I'm mainly curious how it'll compare from a technical perspective. The Wii U was a low latency marvel, even if it was just streaming 480p60; ~33ms of total display latency (per Digital Foundry) is incredible even now for a wireless device, let alone ten years ago. The Portal is looking to push a lot more data while simultaneously relying on the user's network equipment to be a middleman. Presumably some latency tradeoffs will be made to allow for an adequate buffer to keep everything smooth; I'm curious what the final result will be like. Perhaps it'll adjust its own buffer depending on the network performance, and opinions on the thing will range from unplayable garbage to feeling like it's running locally.

At least it'll have an obvious range advantage, since it'll scale with your own network instead of just 10-60 feet depending on your environment.
 
If the remote play on it is good and there were maybe some sales on it to bring down the price by a good amount, I might be down for it. It’s convenient to play games without having to go to the couch. I just didn’t have the best experience trying out remote play last time and it’s a little pricey
 
0
totofogo said:
… no PS Plus streaming, not even “coming later?”

This really is the Sony Wii U gamepad as Move was to Wii, but much later lol

Good price at least! Can it double as a second player controller without need to stream? That seems like an easy win.
Click to expand...
Can't double as a second controller since it doesn't have Bluetooth....

Rest not related to the quote.


Also, console warring? Is it console warring to parrot the general consensus that this is a useless product that does nothing but to milk a fan base? I don't think it's console warring to call out a company for an extremely questionable product and decision as to how they are handling it.

No Bluetooth so you have to buy $200 proprietary headphones?
No ability to connect to and stream Sony's NEW cloud service on a STREAMING ONLY device?
A handheld only device that only streams video but still has a 3ish hour battery life?

These are all extremely fair criticisms and flaws and calling them out is not console warring.
 
Last edited:
Red Monster said:
Just because you don’t have a use for a remote play device doesn’t mean it’s useless.
Click to expand...
It's solving a problem that laptops, phones, and tablets have solved several years ago. This is a useless product in that if people wanted remote play for their PS5, they have already had ways to do it with pieces of tech they most likely already owned while using the controller that came with their system. Those products also have Bluetooth support to allow for any wireless headphones to be used while streaming their PS5 games remotely.

If people feel as if they have to buy into a $200 device that does something products they (most likely) already own just to stream games to their PS5 then they are really clueless. What makes it worse is Sony locks down their streaming tech to ONLY work with their PS4/PS5 controllers so ROG Ally, steam deck, that Logitech cloud device; they can't easily and reasonably stream ps5 games to their handhelds because Sony wants to lock things down and play the walled garden game.

Everything about how they're handling their streaming tech is borderline anti consumer and they're trying to funnel people into their own proprietary device. I wouldn't be surprised if they start supporting phones in the coming years for console streaming.
 
Last edited:
Idk, if someone is into remote play then I totally get the enticement behind this. Using your phone/backbone is obviously an option but that also comes with a lot of inconveniences. Having something that's built for one purpose exclusively can go a long way as opposed to the "Swiss army knife" nature of a smart phone.

It is odd how upset people have gotten about an accessory that they don't have to get but a certain audience is gonna be super into.
 
JorgenRaft said:
Idk, if someone is into remote play then I totally get the enticement behind this. Using your phone/backbone is obviously an option but that also comes with a lot of inconveniences. Having something that's built for one purpose exclusively can go a long way as opposed to the "Swiss army knife" nature of a smart phone.

It is odd how upset people have gotten about an accessory that they don't have to get but a certain audience is gonna be super into.
Click to expand...
For me it's more of a "what could've been" scenario. Why not go the extra mile, make a $300 device, and make a handheld device that's streams and also plays ps1, ps2, and psp classic releases as well as select indie games it's capable of running?
 
Scrawnton said:
For me it's more of a "what could've been" scenario. Why not go the extra mile, make a $300 device, and make a handheld device that's streams and also plays ps1, ps2, and psp classic releases as well as select indie games it's capable of running?
Click to expand...
I think they're done with splitting their resources to have to worry about 2 consoles of very different strengths, same as Nintendo (which I'm happy about in both cases tbh). If you look at Xbox's current situation, S and X aren't that different and even then it's been presenting them issues.

But they're also selling this as an accessory and never pushed it as a singular console so I don't think having that expectation for it ever really made sense anyways. This is kind of like their reverse answer to a Switch dock except it's sold separately as an option.
 
JorgenRaft said:
I think they're done with splitting their resources to have to worry about 2 consoles of very different strengths, same as Nintendo (which I'm happy about in both cases tbh). If you look at Xbox's current situation, S and X aren't that different and even then it's been presenting them issues.

But they're also selling this as an accessory and never pushed it as a singular console so I don't think having that expectation for it ever really made sense anyways. This is kind of like their reverse answer to a Switch dock except it's sold separately as an option.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't have to worry about two consoles with this approach. Have a handheld that streams their console games but also plays emulated legacy titles and select indie games that the system can handle. The console would take the games developed for the "handheld" and run them at natively higher resolutions and frames.

If Sony, a company that's been making consoles and software for nearly 30 years, can't figure out how to pull something like that off, then they're slacking. But this is the company that wouldn't emulate PS1 games on PS4.... so...

I guess what annoys me most about this new PSP is that Sony is more interested in nickel and diming their consumers (IMO) instead of pushing the industry forward with worthwhile tech (IMO).
 
Scrawnton said:
They wouldn't have to worry about two consoles with this approach. Have a handheld that streams their console games but also plays emulated legacy titles and select indie games that the system can handle. The console would take the games developed for the "handheld" and run them at natively higher resolutions and frames.

If Sony, a company that's been making consoles and software for nearly 30 years, can't figure out how to pull something like that off, then they're slacking. But this is the company that wouldn't emulate PS1 games on PS4.... so...

I guess what annoys me most about this new PSP is that Sony is more interested in nickel and diming their consumers (IMO) instead of pushing the industry forward with worthwhile tech (IMO).
Click to expand...
The whole "select indie games" could be a lot of work but I agree on the rest. As it is I've seen no reason why I wouldn't use my Steam Deck or phone with Chiaki (so I can use other controllers that can attach to it) over this.
 
0
Scrawnton said:
It's solving a problem that laptops, phones, and tablets have solved several years ago. This is a useless product in that if people wanted remote play for their PS5, they have already had ways to do it with pieces of tech they most likely already owned while using the controller that came with their system. Those products also have Bluetooth support to allow for any wireless headphones to be used while streaming their PS5 games remotely.

If people feel as if they have to buy into a $200 device that does something products they (most likely) already own just to stream games to their PS5 then they are really clueless. What makes it worse is Sony locks down their streaming tech to ONLY work with their PS4/PS5 controllers so ROG Ally, steam deck, that Logitech cloud device; they can't easily and reasonably stream ps5 games to their handhelds because Sony wants to lock things down and play the walled garden game.

Everything about how they're handling their streaming tech is borderline anti consumer and they're trying to funnel people into their own proprietary device. I wouldn't be surprised if they start supporting phones in the coming years for console streaming.
Click to expand...
as someone who owns a G Cloud, I can tell you that the experience of playing PS5 games on that device is far better than using my phone with a Backbone or my tablet that I have to set down somewhere. For someone who is actually interested in remote play, it’s not hard at all to see why this product exists.

It’s not a perfect product by any means, I’ll give you that. But calling it useless tells me that you simply aren’t the target for this type of device.
 
Scrawnton said:
They wouldn't have to worry about two consoles with this approach. Have a handheld that streams their console games but also plays emulated legacy titles and select indie games that the system can handle. The console would take the games developed for the "handheld" and run them at natively higher resolutions and frames.

If Sony, a company that's been making consoles and software for nearly 30 years, can't figure out how to pull something like that off, then they're slacking. But this is the company that wouldn't emulate PS1 games on PS4.... so...

I guess what annoys me most about this new PSP is that Sony is more interested in nickel and diming their consumers (IMO) instead of pushing the industry forward with worthwhile tech (IMO).
Click to expand...
Sure but again that's just setting up the expectations for an actual console when with this they just wanted to make a dedicated remote play accessory.

If they said they were making an actual console and it was missing all the details you mentioned, then sure I'd see that as really disappointing. Otherwise it just feels like being upset that your Airpods don't play music by themselves without actually being connected to your iPod.

At the end of the day, they probably just saw a noticeable amount of people using their remote play services and saw an opportunity to make a dedicated accessory of their own for that audience. But if people want to keep using their smart devices instead, they still can. I don't think they approached this thinking "this is the next step in PSP/Vita." And I don't think what their plans are to bring back more legacy content has much to do with this one way or the other. It's just another option.

You're definitely not the audience for it and that's totally okay. It's just always worth noting that there is an audience for it despite that. How big? I suppose we'll see.
 
If I was a PS5 nut something like this could have enough appeal. I mean, I'm enough of a Switch nut that I bought a Lite just so I could play in bed without worrying about damaging my real Switch by dropping it to the floor while nodding off.
 
I wonder if the application for this would be ripped out and ran on a more typical Android handheld. it would make for an interesting comparison with something like the g cloud, though you'd miss out on the playstation specific features
 
0
The one thing I wish they did is gave it support for the PS+ PS1 / PSP games. The PSP name would be a bit more warranted if you could at least have (very limited) PSP BC
 
0
I'm very much in the minority here, but I might want this. $200 is still a tough ask for what it offers. However, it would be nice to hang out in the same room with other people instead of secluding myself whenever I play PS5. The deciding factor is how smooth the remote play works. I never had an issue with PS4 remote play on my laptop, but for some reason it was really bad when I tried it on PS5 one time. It was weird because I have fast internet.

I'm not well versed in tech, but is there any reason to believe the Portal would be more optimized for remote play than any other phone, laptop, or tablet?
 
Gengar said:
is there any reason to believe the Portal would be more optimized for remote play than any other phone, laptop, or tablet?
Click to expand...
Streaming latency should be about the same, but supposedly PS Portal should shave off a little of the controller latency. Whether that will be appreciable remains to be seen.
 
0
It’s aimed at middle aged dads who don’t get to play Destiny in their PS5’s as much as they would like. That is who has the money to burn on a product with such a narrow use case.

Just a thing to milk legacy fans as has already been said.
 
Old Sorta Fan said:
It’s aimed at middle aged dads who don’t get to play Destiny in their PS5’s as much as they would like. That is who has the money to burn on a product with such a narrow use case.

Just a thing to milk legacy fans as has already been said.
Click to expand...
I could see everyone who lives in a household where multiple people have to share 1 tv being in the market for this. If I owned a ps5, I would consider it.
 
0
Gengar said:
I'm not well versed in tech, but is there any reason to believe the Portal would be more optimized for remote play than any other phone, laptop, or tablet?
Click to expand...
we don't completely know. based on how it connects to the PS5, it shouldn't be much different than other methods
 
0
L_esson said:
But you actually can, as long as you have some Wi-Fi available.
Sony seemingly doesn't want to let people know about it for some reason.
Click to expand...

People keep saying that, but on the blog and purchasing page they keep refering to your home network. I wouldnt be too sure.
 
DrJay said:
People keep saying that, but on the blog and purchasing page they keep refering to your home network. I wouldnt be too sure.
Click to expand...
I'm unsure why they only mention that to be honest, but multiple sources have confirmed that it can be used anywhere (even Digital Foundry on their latest video about it), some articles even adressed the matter after innacurately saying it was home-only at first.
 
Leo said:
How has this been made without anyone in the process going "but guys, this is a Wii U"?
Click to expand...
It’s not a Wii U though. The Wii U gamepad was designed to provide a second screen, like a DS but for home consoles. I think off-TV play was a nice bonus. The Portal is not going to be used as a second screen like the Wii U gamepad is. Further, the gamepad was tethered to the console in a way that the Portal absolutely will not be: the Wii U only works within ten or maybe fifteen feet of the console, whereas the Portal will work anywhere on your home network, or, because it’s a remote play device, on any network given it’s a solid-enough connection.

The comparison to be made here is not to the Wii U, but to the Logitech G Cloud. Whether that’s a device that could fit your needs is something that people are gonna decide for themselves. For me, it does. For others it doesn’t. But this talk of how Sony has just made a Wii U is factually wrong and tired.
 
Red Monster said:
It’s not a Wii U though. The Wii U gamepad was designed to provide a second screen, like a DS but for home consoles. I think off-TV play was a nice bonus. The Portal is not going to be used as a second screen like the Wii U gamepad is. Further, the gamepad was tethered to the console in a way that the Portal absolutely will not be: the Wii U only works within ten or maybe fifteen feet of the console, whereas the Portal will work anywhere on your home network, or, because it’s a remote play device, on any network given it’s a solid-enough connection.

The comparison to be made here is not to the Wii U, but to the Logitech G Cloud. Whether that’s a device that could fit your needs is something that people are gonna decide for themselves. For me, it does. For others it doesn’t. But this talk of how Sony has just made a Wii U is factually wrong and tired.
Click to expand...

I think it's even worse than the Wii U because, like you said, it doesn't offer much more than off-TV play which, as much distance from the device as it allows, is still limited to that general environment (so it's not really portable), and on top of that it requires two expensive pieces of hardware instead of one.

I guess it makes more sense as an accessory instead of being the whole point of your console, but still, doubt there's a lot of people interested in what it offers.
 
L_esson said:
I'm unsure why they only mention that to be honest, but multiple sources have confirmed that it can be used anywhere (even Digital Foundry on their latest video about it), some articles even adressed the matter after innacurately saying it was home-only at first.
Click to expand...

Im not sure if those sources are not just going of the fact that its "remote play" and extrapolating from there. I haven't heard anybody that specifically asked if it can be used on a different network.
 
0


various gaming outlets have been given review units already. reportedly the embargo ends tomorrow?
But despite its strange aesthetics, Sony's handheld feels awfully nice in your hands. The semi-detached handles shift the center of gravity toward the center of the screen, allowing it to feel a little bit lighter than it actually is. The rounded sides are significantly easier on the palms of your hands than the squared-off bottom edges of the Switch or the Steam Deck. It feels more like holding an actual controller than a big ol' rectangle of plastic. Who'da thought?
Click to expand...
- Kotaku

still wish they'd enable more features than just streaming games from your console.
 
Krvavi Abadas said:


various gaming outlets have been given review units already. reportedly the embargo ends tomorrow?

- Kotaku

still wish they'd enable more features than just streaming games from your console.
Click to expand...

that picture puts it into perspective just how heckin’ big the Portal is. I thought my G Cloud was big, but it’s peanuts compared to the Portal.
 
0
Reviews seem to be mostly positive. It sounds like it all comes down to how good your wifi network is.

I am interested, but I'm holding off big purchases these days. Maybe Santa can do me solid.
 
0
At first I was quite interested, but after a few tests with other devices with my new router and network setup, I'm definitely out. Streaming just doesn't work well enough for gaming with my infrastructure. Not even now with the new equipment. It just feels too much like a compromise for me to be willing to invest that much money. Too bad.
 
So Digital Foundry review came out today and portal has 4-5 frames of extra lag compared to a good TV in game mode at 60fps in ideal conditions. They compared to Wii U which has none. They also mentioned that even in ideal conditions remote play always has some frame drops. This definitely matches up with my previous experience with remote play compared to Wii U and confirms that I have no interest in this.

I kinda held out a little hope they'd something custom to improve remote play to portal compared to streaming to a phone or a steam deck with chiaki in order to justify the £200 price tag but nope they did not.

 
Last edited:
Machrider said:
Kinda crazy how Nintendo solved the lag issue way back on the Wii U and even modern 'solutions' aren't as good.
Click to expand...
The Wii U didn’t work unless you were within like, five meters of the console and there wasn’t anything in the way. The Portal will work literally anywhere in the world as long as you have an internet connection. The Wii U and remote play devices are not comparable.
 
TreeSign said:
Sony just released this device haphazardly. Don’t even know what they are trying for with this device.
Click to expand...
They wanted to release a remote play device, which they did. And it seems relatively successful so far seeing as it’s sold out its initial shipment.
 
TreeSign said:
If people have money to throw away. This also seems like people hurrying to buy a product without seeing the drawbacks.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if people who either have no interest in remote play devices or literally don’t understand what they’re for would just not comment on remote play devices.

I don’t have a Portal, but I do have a G Cloud, and in my experience remote play works great. It fits into my life very well. If it doesn’t fit into your life, that’s fine! But that doesn’t mean a remote play device like the Portal is a waste of money.
 
Please refrain from insults or namecalling toward people for purchasing a gaming device. - Phendrift, xghost777, meatbag
Red Monster said:
It would be nice if people who either have no interest in remote play devices or literally don’t understand what they’re for would just not comment on remote play devices.

I don’t have a Portal, but I do have a G Cloud, and in my experience remote play works great. It fits into my life very well. If it doesn’t fit into your life, that’s fine! But that doesn’t mean a remote play device like the Portal is a waste of money.
Click to expand...
Yeah it is a waste. It doesn't even get that much of distance without lag. Sony released this realizing suckers would buy it.
 
Red Monster said:
The Wii U didn’t work unless you were within like, five meters of the console and there wasn’t anything in the way. The Portal will work literally anywhere in the world as long as you have an internet connection. The Wii U and remote play devices are not comparable.
Click to expand...
Wii U worked for me with walls in between. And portal will technically work anywhere in the world but given its performance in ideal conditions and the fact that Sony's marketing only really mentions "anywhere in the house" and "home Wi-Fi" except in an FAQ question I wouldn't be expecting a great experience from the other side of the world tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom