630°

Is PlayStation ready to compete against Google’s Stadia?

"Google took the gaming world by the storm with its Stadia announcement. This idea is by far something completely revolutionary. Streaming games have been alive since the days of OnLive and Gaikai. The impressive part comes from the fact that Google indeed has the capital and infrastructure to make this work. With robust competition in the streaming market, is Playstation ready to compete against Google’s Stadia?" -- PlayStation Enthusiast

Read Full Story >>
playstationenthusiast.com
IRetrouk1885d ago (Edited 1885d ago )

Would it not be the other way around? Seeing as its playstation who currently has the biggest game streaming service? Sonys working on updates as we speak, they said as much, if anyone thinks Sony sees Google and micro coming and is just sitting there is in for a shock.

anonymousfan1884d ago

I wonder if tomorrow's "state of play" is timed precisely to show off Sony's streaming service

IRetrouk1884d ago

Not a bad shout tbf, although they did say it would feature games, both unannounced and show off ones we know about too, excited for it but keeping myself in check😂

fr0sty1884d ago

Why show it off in a public event when we can all play it right now?

IRetrouk1884d ago

Well I mean they would have to hype the upgrades and also roll them out, one good thing is that Sony has a hell of a lot of data to work with, which can only lead to improvements, also the roll out of any upgrades will probably happen quick, they already have a very good base to work off. Its input lag I want to see an improvement in the most, it kills racing games for me, which I would play the most to be honest.

crazyCoconuts1884d ago

I don't think so. I think they'll be quietly getting something ready but will wait to play their hand. Competition hasn't really revealed anything useful about pricing model or anything. I'm sure they'd like to know what they're up against before making adjustments.

Ju1884d ago

Sony could just make every PSN game you own available on PSNow (and integrate the cloud saves better). Bam. Thousands of games available right away. This doesn't even cost them a dime. And then, merge PSNow subscription into a PSN+ version and make all free PSN games PSNow games (which in fact it already is).

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1884d ago
battlegrog1884d ago

Clearly you dont understand the back end of this business. Its the infrastructure and technology which sony has neither. The only way sony can compete is if they are renting servers all over the world because they dont have that structure and have a huge cloud team working on making this work. Theres 2 reasons why ps now is not hugely popular. They are using a small tech company sony bought up and the service is not even close to being good enough.Plus they decided to only go in a random selection of games library compared to choosing what games u want to buy to stream. So for the sake of sony i hope that is exactly what they will do. They could team up with Amazon maybe since google is going in on its own. MS has the structure, the tech and the library. So they have a very strong place hold in this cloud concecpt

IRetrouk1884d ago (Edited 1884d ago )

What a load of crap, ps now is bigger than all 3 of eas services and ms gamepass, it's the only working streaming game service, how has it not got the structure or tech if it's been working from 2014?🤣🤣 they payed for onlive, that alone gave them over 140 patents and other bits of tech, they also bought gaikai or whatever it was called, they have plenty of tech and servers, ps now works fine, its input lag that puts me off, and guess what? Input lag will always be present, no matter who does the streaming, basically your whole post is a diehard xbox fans rant😂

rainslacker1884d ago (Edited 1884d ago )

It's funny how people really seem to know what kind of server space Sony has to run PSNow. They don't have the technology. They don't have the servers. Sony's been running PSNow for a while now. It works. They obviously have the technology. They obviously have the server space. If they need more, they can buy them, or rent them. Hell, they could rent it from MS or Google if they wanted to. Or they can do what they're already doing and partner with RackSpace.

One may not understand the back end of the business, but you haven't done anything to prove Sony isn't capable, or doesn't have the server availability. Nothing points to them not having it. Sure, MS and Google have more, but it's not like they're dedicating all that space to these services.

Ju1884d ago (Edited 1884d ago )

Funny that they cite "the infastructure" when all other 2 main competitors explicitly say, they are putting custom servers in their data centers. MS builds custom XB1S blades, and Google a dedicated x86/10Tf server. Sure, if they can interface with the rest of their data centers to do some processing, that's an advantage, but why even bother putting custom (!) HW in data centers then? All PSNow servers are custom PS3/PS4 blades. What's the difference? I tell you, from a business standpoint, nobody will clog up expensive CPU resources with games nobody will pay for when you can charge per cycle for any compute resource in the a data center.
I have the feeling some here think all this will come free for a $10 subscription and no additional cost. Guess again...those $60 per game need to come from somewhere... also, for games to really work you need dedicated instances per gamer. Even if they just play a game for 5 minutes. You need to have the HW available instantly. That's significantly more grunt than say stream 100 (or so) video streams from the same node at the same time (or something). And then you probably cover 10% of the market.
As long as the games run on dedicated HW (and don't offload loads of stuff to the "cloud") all those are, are just "remote consoles". All one needs is a warehouse close enough to a fat fiber pipe and you are good to go. Doesn't matter if that is owned by google or not. Google and MS pay for real estate like anyone else - no matter if they own the place or just rent it.

rainslacker1884d ago (Edited 1884d ago )

@Ju

In theory, blade servers could be networked in a way where unused processing time can be distributed to other systems. Not every game is going to use all the power all the time. That'd be highly inefficient to actually have a single blade server for any given potential concurrent player count. I think the Blade servers are not quite what some people assume. Same with the one's on PSNow. They will have multiple processors running in tandem, and each processor will be more powerful than the allotted 10TB.

They're still expensive, but distributed computing is nothing new. It's how Cloud already works, and while I don't have spec details on any of these services, it's the most reasonable assumption to make. It's also the most versatile and upgradable solution for expansion, as they wouldn't have to replace all the servers when more power becomes necessary.

The above solution is the only way that these services would be viable that I can think of. The cost of a blade server, even a basic one, would require quite a lot of users per unit on the subscriber base to make a return. Like a few hundred or more assuming a $20/month fee, or them just taking a cut of individual sales....not to mention the bandwidth costs involved if Google is talking about 25-30Mb/s data throughput. They'll also have other costs associated with the service, and assuming a sub model, the cost to license all those games, or potentially developing their own if they're going that route.

uth111884d ago

they can scale up as needed or rent from a public cloud. They've had a decade to work it out. The main reason it ian't bigger is the demand for streaming just isn't there

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1884d ago
rainslacker1884d ago

You'd think so. PSNow has been out for what....6 years? Has the bulk of the game streaming market.

I'd say Google is about as prepared as they can be, but Sony hasn't been sitting around doing nothing all these years despite what people think.

Starman691884d ago

Google will be begging sony for a PlayStation App on their machine, not the other way round. Luckily they have a good relationship with one another.

Alek831884d ago

Exactly! Playstation is an established brand, Stadia is not.
I did a stress test weekend for Stadia and it was not great.

Even discarding the random crashing, the input lag was not pleasant to deal with.
Maybe once everyone has gigabit internet.

opc1884d ago

I think the issue is that PSNow requires at the very least a PS controller and the PSNow client. On the other hand Google simply requires Chrome and a google account, something billions of people already have.

subtenko1884d ago

google has better servers I think but its PS with the exclusives

fundy1884d ago

With you on that one. Google is entering an arena dominated by consoles like PS4. They are the ones that need to equip themselves with everything they got. Not too worried here.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1884d ago
Jin_Sakai1885d ago (Edited 1885d ago )

They’re the only one of the big companies that’s had a game streaming service of scale up and running for years. I’m sure they’re also improving the service behind closed doors as we speak. On top of that they own all the patents from Gaikai and OnLive for game streaming.

Sony also have the advantage of putting their world class exclusives on PS Now if they choose which would be a huge incentive for the service.

PS Now is fine.

https://www.notebookcheck.n...

IRetrouk1885d ago

Another thing I noticed, playstation has had a streaming service since ps3, never was it seen as revolutionary or the next step in gaming, infact certain fans of a certain console actively downplayed streaming games and ps now any chance they got, soon as Google and micro want in it's a different story, while I dont like streaming games myself I do find the latest 180 funny.

battlegrog1884d ago

buying up a small cloud company and not having the infrastructure nore the service that can properly provide what will make it works is not a 180.Theres a reason why sony raced that little company to the market. Theres a reason why its not main stream. they dont have the structure behind it

IRetrouk1884d ago

Its bigger than gamepass, and all 3 of eas services, how has it not got the infrastructure behind it? it was 2 companys they bought by the way, not one, the point is it worked on ps3 and works on ps4, it was never seen as the next big thing till now, and was actively talked down, so yeah defo 180. Microsoft nore Google will solve the input lag, it will always be there, that's what I dont like about streaming and why I dont subscribe, but trying to say that the company that already has the working product, since 2014 I may add, is the one that needs to compete with the company that hasn't is crazy talk, ms has all the money in the world, did that stop playstation from being dominant?

ILostMyMind1884d ago

Like VR. Wait for Microsoft to decide to do so.

NarutoFox1885d ago (Edited 1885d ago )

If you show this link to that certain group they'll deny it 😂

https://www.notebookcheck.n...

Godmars2901885d ago

EA has three separate streaming services?

IRetrouk1884d ago

Yeah this likes to be ignored, especially lately🤣

T2X1884d ago

Never understood fools not accepting facts. The reason Sony never truly went all in on streaming is because there is no need to. I like having the option, but I also like having my console in my house.

rainslacker1884d ago

More than just EA. Although they're the only publisher oriented one I know about. There are quite a few of these services around the world....and I have a feeling many people around here are blissfully unaware of it. Heck, I had ATT cable for a while, and they have a game streaming service. This was about 7-8 years ago. I believe Time Warner does too. From what I can tell, they kind of suck, and have limited content, but they're there. There's also that one that serves hotels whose name I don't know. So on and so forth.

Not sure why people think this is really something revolutionary, or what Google and MS are doing are going to be any better than the rest. They may be more successful since they'll market it left and right, but marketing doesn't always pay off. Google will leverage YouTube and instant access to games from those streamers, and the streamers will promote it because it'll likely make them money. MS really has no such advantage other than Windows, but if they push it like they push XBL or the Windows Store on Win10 right now, I don't expect they'll get much from that, because they don't make it intrusive like they used to do with similar companion products.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1884d ago
CaptainCook1885d ago (Edited 1885d ago )

"Sony also have the advantage of putting their world class exclusives on PS Now if they choose which would be a huge incentive for the service."

Can you play new triple A games on PS Now like Assassin Creed? Nope.. You'll have to wait 5 years for Sony to add games that's limited to 720p via streaming, while Google offers 1080p to 4k streaming.

IRetrouk1885d ago

At the minute Google offers nothing but words, same as ms, Sony has it working right now...

JesusBuiltmyHotrod1885d ago (Edited 1885d ago )

lol..that is just a business decision. Sony does not now because they dont need to. SEE GOW, Spiderman sales....Once the market dictates they want it sony will do it..Thats the diff between MS, and google and sony..Sony is smart enough to not try and push this on consumers until it is feasible globally...

There is a bog world outside your little american bubble.

uth111884d ago

They could easily develop exclusives for PS Now. They don't do it now because there's no competative advantage to do so.

I'm sure we will see them up the resolution as well

rainslacker1884d ago

Until you know the price of playing world class AAA games day on on the service, I don't know if it's worth bragging about. If they charge full price day one, then what's the point? It's unlikely to be part of a sub service, because Google isn't going to spend all that money to get all those exclusives day one, or even real early.

krauley1884d ago

Do blockbuster movies come out straight to the streamers like netflix, hbo and the like before they show up at the theaters? Nope... youll have to wait until they make the rounds at the theaters to make the money then they go to the streamers. Kind of makes sense to do it that way doesnt it captain, just like sonys blockbuster games.

Ju1884d ago (Edited 1884d ago )

I would think the business model is there to protect the HW platform. But I can imagine, that will shift quite a bit; especially since Sony makes most of its money from network services lately, anyway. They might just build that PS5 not only as a console but also to stuff it into their data-centers. It's not a technical limitation. They could allow you to play PSN games - the ones you pay full price for - to become available through PSNow. That's even the perfect time right now when the PS4 hw market flattens and it won't cannibalize console sales much any more. I would be OK with that - well, I would prefer to roll PSNow subscription into PS+ then, but this is all business and has nothing to do with tech. They have every single game on PSN today, at launch. So storage isn't the issue.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1884d ago
fragock1885d ago

that headline is an Early April fools joke

CaptainCook1885d ago (Edited 1885d ago )

No, PlayStation Now is currently limited to 720p, while it still needs a high Download Speed.

Vasto1885d ago (Edited 1885d ago )

Not only is it 720p but it has a lot of old games that are mostly PS3, bad image quality and horrible input lag. Thats why nobody uses it.

What Google showed is already better than PS Now. Microsoft's will be even better.

IRetrouk1885d ago

Sony has the only one working, Google's had what? One test? Micro is gonna be better? How? It used a fake forza vid to promote what they are trying to sell, and after the way ms pr has been, who's actually believing what they are saying?? Crazy xbox fans man😂😂

bluefox7551885d ago

Sure, but those PS3 games are by and large better than anything being offered by Google or MS. Even if you just compare the streaming services and ignore the rest of the console, Sony has a far superior software library.

Vasto1885d ago (Edited 1885d ago )

Oh, and I forgot PS Now is $19.99 a month!

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

IRetrouk1885d ago

I know, good value for what they offer isn't it, while I dont subscribe myself my wife's does, she absolutely loves playing all those older games she missed out on, for the record I dont like streaming, i play mostly racing and fighting games with RPGs thrown in for good measure, the input lag is too noticable with those types of games.

Razzer1885d ago

"but it has a lot of old games that are mostly PS3"

Vasto suddenly doesn't see the value in "old games". LOL

ShadowWolf7121884d ago (Edited 1884d ago )

Nobody uses the service that's responsible for 52% of game streaming revenue?

Jin_Sakai1884d ago (Edited 1884d ago )

@Vasto

“Not only is it 720p but it has a lot of old games that are mostly PS3, bad image quality and horrible input lag. Thats why nobody uses it.”

“What Google showed is already better than PS Now. Microsoft's will be even better.“

No one will solve the latency problem. There’s also video compression and macroblocking. Streaming will always perform worse than a local experience.

In the end PlayStation fans will continue to enjoy the best exclusives in the industry on a physical console while also having PS Now as an option.

Ju1884d ago

I still want to see proof that those games are 720p. And even if they were, I can't see it...everytime I hear this I go back and check. Maybe I need my eyes checked then. What did google show, what PSNow can't do? Switching from one device to the next? Sony had clients for all kind of devices and scrapped those - who knows maybe it'll be back. All they showed were words and some 30fps 1080p game. What else? Nothing really worked at that show. All talk. And all MS is trying to do has been tried before. Well, but hey, sure, Kinect is not eyetoy, either. Now they want to force console developers to add extra effort into their games to makes sure those games work on mobile devices. LOL. That has been done before and failed miserably. There is a reason there is a console market - one target spec. Not 100.000 screen sizes and controller schemes. I mean, if that would be so easy, we would have seen ton of games on mobile platforms already. That's just stupid to believe now that MS is promising the world, all of a sudden this will work. And, frankly, google rookie has no idea. We've already been there. Philly boy must have forgotten that.

NarutoFox1884d ago (Edited 1884d ago )

Vasto

At least they got a bigger library of games 😁 .

Microsoft will be better? Here we go again. I've heard this before lmao

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1884d ago
Razzer1885d ago

PlayStation is more than just PlayStation Now.

ginsunuva1882d ago

Most PS3 games output at 720p anyway so that's why

italiangamer1885d ago

Is Google ready to compete against Sony's Playstation?

How naive (or dumb) can people be thinking Sony isn't doing nothing to improve PS Now and the whole PlayStation ecosystem?

anonymousfan1884d ago

Yup spot on. I am personally not ready for streaming myself but I suspect tomorrow's "state of play" presentation might have to do with those improvements. Especially with the timing... Stradia, xcloud being on everyone's headline.

Cueil1884d ago

It's not that Sony can not compete its that MS and Google have a massive advantage that Sony simply can not make up for. It's the reason NVIDIAs service needs to partner up with others to compete.

Cueil1884d ago

Sony doesn't have massive infrastructure they own all over the planet.

wolokowoh1884d ago

Actually Sony has a digital distribution network all over the planet just like Microsoft does and Google does. If your point is that Sony's isn't as big, that's perfectly fair, but Sony does already have infrastructure in place and the capital to expand that infrastructure, especially through contracts with other could based companies. Considering Stadia has some requirements that will be a barrier to entry, Sony will be fine making its dollars off the niche, while they are getting ready and cloud is still catching on. They have time before they even have to compete

Ju1884d ago

Another multi billion $ company already tried...and didn't work. Next!

Show all comments (152)
90°

10 Rarest PS1 Games You Should Probably Not Buy

There are plenty of super rare PS1 games that are worth playing, but at some of the prices quoted here? Ask your accountant.

Read Full Story >>
culturedvultures.com
Chevalier1d 7h ago

My friend has Tron Bonne and I got the Persona game

440°

New PlayStation Handheld Reported Again, Supposedly Runs PS4 Games

Another leaker has claimed that a PSP/PS Vita style PlayStation handheld is in the works, and it'll supposedly support PS4 games.

Read Full Story >>
playstationlifestyle.net
anast3d ago

If this is true, it will crush everything for the price.

VenomUK3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Needs to be a PS5 portable.

Cacabunga3d ago

PS4 native with PS5 remote play capabilities. Would be sweet.

And let PS Portal support cloud streaming for all PS+ games.

anast3d ago

Going off all the pricing behavior of Sony to this point. I'm willing to bet it will be cheaper than the Steam Deck. And when the price is revealed and I am right, send me a message.

Cacabunga3d ago

Could be an attempt to counter switch 2 which will have PS4 power.
Imagine all the PS4 third party re releases switch 2 is going to get.. “PS4 portable” could get the exact same games once again and publishers can resell software ..

If this portable has provides PS5 remote play on top then it will have a nice argument and exclusive feature.

DarXyde2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Cacabunga,

Possibly, though I think any attempt to win against Nintendo in the handheld space is hopeless.

I loved the PSP and I still enjoy my Vita, but there's something about a full scale Mario and Zelda in your hands that makes it clear Sony should share the space, but never dream of taking it.

It's a very safe bet from Sony to have it run PS4 games too because then neither you nor developers are on the hook to make dedicated games for it.

Time will tell. I hope it's real. I'm willing to bet that it is—this is an inevitable strategy for Nintendo and the Surface team is allegedly handling Microsoft's next hardware stint. Sony wouldn't be the only one without portable hardware.

JL29301d 23h ago

$199 for a dedicated handheld when they are trying to sell that piece of shit streaming screen for the same price. Hilarious.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1d 23h ago
crazyCoconuts3d ago

It would be a niche product like Portal. Not bad, but not mainstream. It's legacy PS4 right?

Kneetos3d ago

The switch 2 and next steam deck will be out by then and will likely be way more popular

anast3d ago

The switch 2 will be a handheld Series S for kids and the next steam deck will be ridiculously over priced for a bunch of aging CRPGS and F2P mobile style games.

Kneetos2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

@Anast the switch 2 will Fortnite dance on the new Sony handhelds grave
Playstation can't compete with Nintendo there

With playstation porting all it's games to pc and by extension steam deck it pretty much makes the new pshandheld system irrelevant

Especially since all I ever hear from the Sony crowd is "I NEED graphics or I can't enjoy the game" a handheld PS4 is going the same way as Sony's handheld ps3

Hypertension1402d ago (Edited 2d ago )

If the switch 2 isn't backwards compatible, it will fail.

If this is true, then it will already have a large of games to play from the start, add ps1,ps2,psp,vita games to the mix, and it can be massively popular.

anast2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

The switch is a Mario machine and for kids, they have their own space. Tell me where I am wrong here.

The problem is that Sony isn't porting all of the games to the Steam Deck specifically. The Steam Deck can't play every game. It even has a verified category with games that run the best and a "playable" category that can barely run games. So, the best option to play would obviously be a Sony product.

The last point is inane. I can't respond to comments that use caps. the point should be able to stand on it's own

NotoriousWhiz2d ago

It doesn't matter hiw popular the Playstation handheld is if it shares the same library as the PS5. It just brings more people into the ecosystem and provides them with more ways to play their games.

Kneetos2d ago

@anast Nintendo is competing with Sony and no amount of backpedaling will change that
They were competing during the GameCube era and the Wii u era, coincidentally the 2 gens they lost to Sony, but we're suddenly not competing during the ds, Wii and 3ds era because they beat playstation, but of course we can't have that can we so "Nintendo isn't competition Sony auto wins"

The switch is more then a mario and even a first party machine these days as there are plenty of games, specifically Japanese and indi games that are doing better on switch then their ps counterpart
It's irrelevant that Sony isn't specifically porting to steam deck, the games will end up on there and people will wait for a pc port just like how playstation fans wait for a playstation port of games, you aren't unique

Playstation fans constantly brag on graphics, so a handheld that only plays PS4 games isn't going to entice a lot of them, like the vita before it, and Sony has a history of just dropping unsuccessful projects, the vita psvr and it looks like the portal isn't doing too hot either

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
Vits3d ago

They literally charged people $199 for a bottom-of-the-barrel tablet with a DualSense controller bolted on. So I really can't see them releasing a powerful yet affordable native handheld.

Ps5conehead3d ago

I love my portal I’m handicapped and the portal lets me play on days I’m not at my best. It’s great .and the screen is admazing even though it’s not oled

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1d 23h ago
-Foxtrot3d ago

If you had every PS1, PS2, PS3, PSP and PSV game then sure but I mean if it's just the PS4 why not just get a Steam Deck?

anast3d ago

You might be correct, but it depends on the price point. Also, most PC gamers wait years for Sony releases, so it might be better just to get the PS4 handheld.

crazyCoconuts3d ago

I'd be surprised if Sony reversed course and continued to put new releases on PS4. It would cannibalize their PS5 sales

MrBaskerville3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

If it supports your library, some people own more ps4 games than steam games. I know I do.

crazyCoconuts3d ago

I might buy something like this to play my old library but man those old games are cheap on steam. This console would have to be cheap to make sense. I don't see it happening

MrBaskerville3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

@CrazyCoconuts
I also think it sounds a little off. I would probably buy if it could run Ps5 games, but that sounds expensive. Being ps4 only is a little limiting I think.

But if it ran all ps4 titles and new stuff created for the handheld. then it could be interesting. Basically a Vita that just happened to come with a huge ass backlog of existing games.

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

My libraries are roughly equal in size for both, maybe if I could play more classics games on the Playstation one I could consider it. But it's a tough selling point for people who aren't already heavily invested in the Playstation ecosystem.

SegaSaturn6693d ago

Deck is very viable option given how good PS3 and switch emulation have become. Even new releases are chugging along at 30fps.

Lexreborn23d ago

To be fair, I have a lot of ps4 games I don’t have on steam that is can play on my ps5 but I choose to play ps5 games on my ps5.

I also haven’t rebought any of my PlayStation exclusives on PC because I own them on my ps4/5 and even the upgraded ways that rival the pc version. So, if I wanted to play them on my steam deck I would still have to buy them again which if I bought the 6 top games Spider-Man 1,2, mm, horizon, fw , GoW and ragnarok and GoT with LoU1,2. It would more then. Likely be the cost of this device.

So, instead of double dipping I would buy the handheld and if it has a playable sf6 that actually works online (steam deck is not functional) I think I would want it for myself

Vits3d ago

If you have them in digital form, for sure. Because I don't see Sony giving you a digital copy of your old physical PS4 games. That doesn't sound like them at all.

And also, Steam doesn't depend on PS4 games. PC got more games that generation than all the consoles combined. The ports of PlayStation games are just one of the cherries on top of the cake.

Lexreborn22d ago

@vits I do have them in digital form which is why I said from my perspective. I also have a steam deck but that doesn’t mean everything runs on it which not everything is playable. And as I am also stating the perks of why people WOULD want them even while having a steam deck it’s weird to see people disagreeing purely because I wouldn’t want to double dip financially.

But even in the event you have physical copies of games, if you have ps plus most if not all of the ps4 games are there. So, it’s not like the options are non existent and people can’t find VIABLE reasons to purchase the device.

If people are justifying the portal, they can justify a dedicated portable. The desire to make it seem like people can only own one thing these days is an odd occurrence.

Vits2d ago

@Lexreborn2
Then for sure, if you already have your library in digital form, something that can tap into it is definitely a good deal. That's basically the same reason why the Steam Deck is popular with PC and Steam users in general, because their library is available on it.

PS Plus is an extra cost though, and those games aren't yours. So I get where you are coming from, but that is a different discussion. As for the Portal, I don't get how people justify that piece of crap either, but they sure did so I can see a PS Vita 2 being sucessful. I don't see it being cheap or better value than the Steam Deck or any Windows Handheld, unless Sony really makes some radical changes.

As for why people want one device to rule them all instead of a bunch of them, it's likely because most people here are adults. If I recall correctly, the N4G user base is around their mid-30s. At this point in life, the issue is not usually owning things but actually having time to use them.

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

@Vits,
I don't think a new PS handheld would be worth it for me after owning the Steamdeck, assuming there will probably be a lot of overlap of both libraries in my case, so just having the one device is fine for me (I don't need the clutter or devices with too much overlap). I'll probably just stream the PS4 games I don't have on Steam to the Steam Deck via Chiaki, I would probably need the PS handheld to have its own exclusives to entice me.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2d ago
Profchaos2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Because if you already have a large digital library of PS4 titles and this plays PS4 games you don't need much more than the system. It's also rumoured to play some ps5 games.

If you buy a steam deck you have to re buy your library.

Eonjay2d ago

If you are already in he PS ecosystem you probably have hundreds of digital PS4 games. Especially if you are on PSPlus Extra. These folks, of which there are millions upon millions would probably rater have access to the games they already own vs buying them all again on Steam.

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

This is the question, might be nice for the Playstation exclusive games from previous generations, but Sony's Playstation Classics lineup is seriously lacking, especially from their PS1 catalogue, I don't think the PS2/PS3 catalogue are that huge either.

A Steam Deck is already somewhere between a PS4 and a PS4 Pro in terms of power. Without those exclusive games from Sony's previous consoles, I don't see how you could convince anyone a new Playstation handheld to be better value than a Steam Deck. I can also literally put previous Playstation's libraries onto it without too much trouble.

-Foxtrot2d ago

“ Without those exclusive games from Sony's previous consoles, I don't see how you could convince anyone a new Playstation handheld to be better value than a Steam Deck.”

Exactly and this is a prime example of why exclusives matter

Without them Steamdeck just looks like the better choice overall

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
MeteorPanda3d ago

I still play my vita. The oled screen was too good for it's time. I obviously had to home brew it but playing my old snes/ps1 games on it is so good.

Barlos2d ago

So many times I've been tempted to hack my Vita but I just can't bring myself to do it. I kind of want it to be as originalas possible. Also, for emulation I have my steam deck.

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

I was tempted to hack my Vita, but I couldn't bear to risk it, something about having the original software/experience on the handheld.

I'll happily emulate on the Steam Deck, especially the games that weren't available on the Aussie store or ones I just missed out on.

Skuletor3d ago

How many people will buy this at launch? As a Vita owner, I'd definitely hold back after how Sony's support for that turned out.
Also, PSP played near PS2 quality games, PS Vita played near PS3 quality games, shouldn't the next Playstation handheld be aiming for near PS5 quality?

MeteorPanda3d ago

the sadest thing on vita support for me was the removal of Close? The app that let you see local players and what they were playing. i made friends back in the day for co op that way lol.

I think it was privacy breaching? such a shame.

Skuletor3d ago

Vita had so much promise, I wonder what it would have taken for Sony to have been more supportive. GTA: San Andreas Stories would have probably brought more sales alone, if they could have gotten that. I was disappointed we never really got anything on the same level as Killzone: Mercenary after that game, which looked amazing running on the Killzone 3 engine. Would have loved to see new entries of PS IP like Infamous, God of War etc, Sony really dropped the ball and using proprietary memory cards that were ridiculously priced didn't help, if they were smart, they'd have sold them cheaper since they were mainly being used to store stuff people were paying for in their store anyway, lol.

anast3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

The people that remember the vita are in the minority.

Skuletor3d ago

So are the amount of people that bought it

Einhander19723d ago (Edited 3d ago )

The point would be that it plays PS4 games, PS4 is still getting games constantly.

Everyone here including yourself presumably already has a library of games to play on this.

The success of the Portal shows the value of not needing to have a separate game library.

Skuletor3d ago

I don't think it will have native PS4 support

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

@Skuletor,
Why not? The PS5 plays PS4 games fine (because the tech is similar), one could assume that if Sony is using AMD hardware, then they will probably have native PS4 support.

MeteorPanda2d ago

Honestly the amount of games you could get on these cards was better value than what the switch was offering per cartidge. Cartridges got no slack from these same people.

The games for vita were very cheap, 30 dollars on average in store.

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

I'm still salty about the proprietary memory card prices, I don't remember those ever getting cheap.

Eonjay2d ago

I mean how mich more support does the PS4 really need. It's not a new system... just a portable PS4. There are over 10 000 PS4 games available. Sony doesn't need to support it.

There are some crazy rumors out there but we don't have the technology to run a Series S in Portal mode let alone a PS5.

Skuletor2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

How many people that have a physical PS4 library will be willing to buy their games again to download these rumoured PS4 games to this rumoured portable? Until it gets officially revealed, none of us really know how this thing will operate but I will point out, Sony usually sell their consoles at low profit with the intention of making more money later in software sales. People that will be mostly playing games they already own, won't be their largest target market, most likely.

Also, hopefully it would have it's own exclusives to highlight the portables strengths too and not just games from a last gen system

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

Even if we did have the technology, imagine how terrible the battery life would be! You'd have to be more tethered to a power outlet than any of the other PC handhelds.

Barlos2d ago

Yeah same here. The way they handled the Vita has left me burned. I don't trust them to give a handheld the support it needs and so I'll not buy it at launch. I need to see their commitment first.

FinalFantasyFanatic2d ago

No, I don't think the technology would be near enough to give us PS5 quality, not unless you're okay with 20 mins battery life (then there's heat dissipation and weight to think of too). I feel like that's the mistakes PC handhelds like Rog Ally, MSI Claw and Lenovo Legion Go make, they over power the Steam Deck, but you pay for it in battery life, I'd rather have more battery life when I'm using a handheld.

To be fair though, with the race to beat climate change/reach net-zero, they're developing new battery tech all the time, maybe in a few years we could have a battery that adds a stupid amount of playtime to a powerful handheld.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
Show all comments (97)
90°

PlayStation Store Being Investigated for Anti-Competitive Practices in Poland

Polish headquarters of Sony Interactive Entertainment were raided by government authorities as part of an investigation into their anti-competitive practices.

Read Full Story >>
playstationlifestyle.net
PapaBop3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

This is precisely why discless consoles are a terrible idea. I made my money back on my disc based ps5 within the first two months when comparing the cost on the PS Store to what I paid for my physical disc versions. The last game I bought was Armoured Core 6 for £43.85 on ShopTo, still costs £59.99 on PS Store. Those savings soon add up.

TheColbertinator3d ago

Sony is becoming exposed for who they really are.

3d ago
fsfsxii2d ago

shit-tier countries wanna make it look like they're working for the consumer's benefit, meanwhile they leave apple alone, the mobile market is actually something that affects people, not psn lmao

gold_drake2d ago

yea, its really odd how they pick and choose, when theres Nintendo and Microsoft and Steam ha.