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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, and convenience used to be putting multiple different functions in one device

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.

[–] Gamoc 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Gamoc 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then don’t buy it.

[–] Gamoc 2 points 1 year ago

Did you think I was going to?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Gamoc 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.