Sony's Portable PlayStation Portal Launches Later This Year For $200 (theverge.com) 50
Sony is officially launching its portable PlayStation later this year, the PlayStation Portal remote player. The handheld device will stream PS5 games over Wi-Fi and features an eight-inch LCD screen running at 1080p resolution at 60fps. Sony says the PlayStation Portal will be available later this year priced at $199.99. From a report: "PlayStation Portal will connect remotely to your PS5 over Wi-Fi, so you'll be able to swiftly jump from playing on your PS5 to your PlayStation Portal," says Hideaki Nishino, senior vice president of platform experience at Sony Interactive Entertainment. "PlayStation Portal can play supported games that are installed on your PS5 console and use the Dualsense controller." The PlayStation Portal features prominent controllers on each side that look very much like Sony's PS5 DualSense controllers. They support adaptive triggers and haptic feedback, so PS5 games will feel similar to using a dedicated DualSense controller. The PlayStation Portal will also be capable of playing media, as the homescreen has a dedicated section for it as it's mirroring your PS5. You won't be able to run anything locally though, so if you don't have Wi-Fi then you're out of luck.
Purpose of this device? (Score:3)
I can stream games from my XBox to my phone or tablet and connect my XBox controller to those devices with Bluetooth. It seems like this $200 device is replicating that and not really adding anything more. Does Sony not allow you to stream to phone/tablet, presently? Why would someone want this? Everyone already has a phone and maybe a tablet.
Re: (Score:1)
I can see this device having some benefit from an ergonomic perspective, and some people my just like the convenience. There is also the possibility that the first party accessory has some integration benefits. However, IMO the $200 price tag is way off, I would probably pay $99 for such a device, personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're mostly buying a screen and a battery and hopefully well made buttons and joysticks. And WiFi that can stay solid at 15-20Mbps without dropouts.
Yeah, $100 is about the price of the more powerful CPU.
Re: (Score:2)
Steam deck ranges from 399-649.
But you can actually play games on it instead of simply streaming
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A PS5 controller costs $70.
Now add in a 1080p screen, a much larger battery, wifi, a decent CPU, video decoder chip, etc. $200 doesn't seem unreasonable.
Another way of looking at it:
A Nintendo Switch Lite is $200. This has much higher quality controls and the screen is larger, higher resolution, and higher quality. This probably has a weaker CPU and less storage though. Seems reasonable to be in the same price ballpark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is a touchscreen - nothing else in the PlayStation lineup has touchscreen functionality and they don't mention it in TFA. You're basically paying $200 for a Wi-Fi-connected VNC terminal, without a keyboard, but with a DualSense controller sliced in half and glued to the sides.
And to top it off: even though this device's existence is streaming from your local PS5, Sony have already said it won't work with the PS5 Plus Premium games that you need to stream to your PS5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A separate battery that you can kill at will is a big one. I wouldn't be using my phone for gaming and then be unable to communicate because I ran my phone dead.
Plus having the screen and controller combined. A tablet is only good for tabletop gaming - you're not going to be handheld with that while also holding a gamepad. Remote Play already works with the other devices.
It's definitely not for me. My Switch is in a cabinet permanently docked and connected to my AV receiver. I don't really do p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Purpose of this device? (Score:2)
I donâ(TM)t know about the Xbox, but the PS5 is quite quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave up on the high power consoles two generations ago. The PS3 was loud as shit, and the 360 was even louder. I ended up putting them in a different room and running cable extensions so I could play them. Wasn't too bad that way but I could still hear them, through the wall.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you doing with your consoles?
I've got my PS5 under my computer desk, right by my feet. I don't notice the noise from it when I'm playing a game.
The only time I've really ever noticed noise from consoles was on the ones that played games directly from an optical disk. PS4/XB1 required the games to be installed to the hard drive, so noise went way down that generation. The PS5/XSX require them to be installed to an SSD, so there aren't any drive noises at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Purpose of this device? (Score:2)
PS5 is quieter than its disc drive for sure. I compared it to a spinning disc drive in my other post, but it's lower volume then that. I was thinking like a dvd player or something.
Guys at work ragged on me for playing only PS4 games on my PS5 for months after it came out, it was hard to explain how huuuuuuge a difference it was, just eliminating the noise, and nobody really talks about it. I'd put it at the top of the list of reasons to upgrade, easy.
Re: (Score:1)
Most modern consoles in the past 15 years, including 360 and PS3, also include audio output that compliments the video aspect of the games. You should give that a shot and see if it solves your issues.
Re: Purpose of this device? (Score:2)
PS5 is on a completely different scale than PS3 and 4. Those were both loud, okayish in menus but really annoying when playing a game.
PS5 goes from I can't pick it apart from the ceiling fan almost silent to probably the level of a spinning DVD drive, max. I expect about the same from the current gen Xbox. Both have huge cooling systems AFAIK, that's how they pulled it off, and the boxes are noticeably larger than previous gens. It's like if you took a laptop and gave it the cooling system of small desktop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they really manage to drop the ball I assume that this device will be a more pleasing implementation than some random phone; but you'll really have to want the incremental improvement for the $200 and a device that's a paperweight outside the range of a local playstation console.
Re: (Score:2)
And there's Chiaki [sr.ht] for Linux and other OSes (including the Nintendo Switch!). Chiaki works quite well for both PS4 and PS5.
Re: (Score:2)
Form factor would actually be a massive selling point for me. I loved my Vita because it allowed remote play and had proper controller sticks and buttons, without the need of bringing a separate controller to connect to my phone which I would then need to position somewhere. So while this device might not add anything new, it might offer the same in a way that suits me better. YMMV.
Depends on the performance (Score:2)
I can stream games from my XBox to my phone or tablet and connect my XBox controller to those devices with Bluetooth. It seems like this $200 device is replicating that and not really adding anything more. Does Sony not allow you to stream to phone/tablet, presently? Why would someone want this? Everyone already has a phone and maybe a tablet.
Hmm, last I tried the XBox version, the performance was pretty mediocre...could have been my WiFi at the time. If you add compression and other technologies to make it seamless, I'd buy one. I had a choice between XBox Series X and PS5. Given that Games Pass was good then and Sony's offering sucked, I figured XBox was the way to go. Now with their VR + this + better exclusives, I wonder if I made the wrong choice.
It's a bit overpriced, but I'd rather have something optimized for the function than a
Re: (Score:2)
It's not cheap, but for a device that would allow me to unlock more value from my PS5 by making it usable when the TV it is attached to is otherwise occupied it's not super expe
Useless device vs Switch (Score:2)
They got this device backwards. Nintendo did it right by making the ideal pocket console connect to the TV. That way you could take your offline game on the road with you or to your room. This $200 device has to compete with the $200 Nintendo Switch Lite. Imagine you live in a household where you have a PS5 but no Nintendo Switch? Which device do you buy for $200 to have portable gaming? Remember, if the intended user is away from home, this device is a brick. I'd pick the Switch Lite over this device in a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The Switch is marketed as a portable, but it's huge compared to the old GBA/DS/3DS lines. Almost no one actually uses it as a portable, it just gets used around the house so you can play without the TV.
Of course, the genius of the Switch was the marketing. It sold off the dream of being portable, even if almost no one actually uses it that way.
Re:Useless device vs Switch (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a laptop, and haven't had a desktop in decades. I move my laptop once a month maybe, mostly when I spend a few nights not at home. You can argue I'm overpaying since I could have had much better specs on a desktop for similar price, but for that 5% of the time I use it as a laptop, it's worth it. It's the same argument for people buying SUVs or trucks - most people don't often need offroad capabilities or use the truck bed, but 5-10% of the time, they actually do, and they're paying for the eventuality.
The Switch is this great console that is a normal console, and yes it's a bit bulky if you want to travel with it, but you CAN, and that's intensely appealing. The PS Portal cannot travel, because you need the PS5 with it. That reduces the use cases quite dramatically to exactly what you said. Honestly the most appealing use case I see for it is adolescents playing in bed without their parents knowing (or for adults, 30 min in bed while their partner is reading).
Re: (Score:1)
I'd also argue most people want the possibility of portability, even if the vast majority of the time that's not the use case.
And that's the genius of Switch. They marketed it like this miracle portable device, even tho it's not actually very portable. The marketing image of the Switch is far more appealing than the device really is.
Honestly the most appealing use case I see for it is adolescents playing in bed without their parents knowing (or for adults, 30 min in bed while their partner is reading).
All these portable devices get used a lot in families to solve fighting over the TV. Kids go off to their room, adults sneak off to get a break from the kids, etc. It's also really common for the whole family to be in one room, each with their own screen.
This is a practical device built around how peop
Stretches the meaning of "portable" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The big feature here is that it allows you to play PS5 games while on the toilet.
Not so much "gaming on the go", but "gaming when you have to go".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Best I can tell the only thing actually being added to a setup is a small $200 portable TV. And some people are pointing out they had those in their pockets already.
Not that far-fetched though, people have paid more for an extra screen on their wrist.
So a Nintendo Switch, but not as useful (Score:2)
Sorry Sony the gimmick was not that you can just free up the TV in your house, the gimmick is that you can take your games with you. Unless you can make your PS5 wifi reach a plane during an intercontinental flight, or my car during a long road trip, you've missed the point of the Switch.
My prediction: This will sell poorly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a Switch, it's a Wii-U Gamepad.
Adding to a stellar track record (Score:3)
"Last time we took on Nintendo with a portable and failed, we created a device that was more powerful, but was also bulkier, more expensive, had way less games, and no other compelling reason to buy ours. This time will be different because although this one is bulkier, more expensive, has less games, and no killer feature, it also isn't portable outside of WiFi range and you can't hook it to a television."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is I forgot about the Vita and was thinking about the PSP Street, and I think that says a lot more about the Vita's impact on the gaming market than my previous post.
Forehead-smack worthy (Score:3)
Look, Sony, all we wanted was a PS Vita 2.0... and a dock w/ ethernet and HDMI so it could function as a PS TV 2.0 at times (which was the best, actual Playstation Classic ever). Instead we get a cross of a Switch and that controller add-on I keep getting ads for on Facebook... but without ANY ability to play or do anything at all locally when offline, and for $200 (which is $200 more than Verizon will charge me for a last-gen iPhone with plan contract).
Unless the extra space in the screen is being used to house the best Amplified Wifi Antenna on the planet, this makes no sense.
Re: (Score:1)
Vita TV + PS4 combo was amazing, kept my PS4 in my living room, but could to play it via remote play on my vita TV whenever I felt like it, and as long as I did so over Ethernet instead of WiFi everything worked great! Vita TV was also my preferred way to play most of the Vita exclusive games.
appletv (Score:2)
Please, no more false advertising (Score:3)
Quote: "... its portable PlayStation ..."
It is NOT a PlayStation (a videogame console). It's a SCREEN with WiFi that REQUIRES you own a PlayStation 5 console. Fullstop.
Call it "Portable Screen for PS5"
Proprietary! Why doesn't Sony learn? (Score:2)
Does anyone remember what happened to the Vita because it had the reputation of having first party overpriced memory cards? I loved the handheld but they killed it on release with that one decision.
Now this handheld is a $200 accessory for the PS5 that cannot be used for any other use case. You can't use normal bluetooth headsets with it... you have to buy Playstation only accessories for the accessory. Here comes another flop!
They are so obsessed with locking people into their ecosystem it's bewildering. W
1/2 (Score:1)
I'd spend $100 not 2 on this.
Sitting ducks (Score:2)