I'm not sure who this device is for. It is very limited to PS5 owners or those wanting to use Sony's cloud streaming, which is behind Microsoft right now. It will have to be cheap for it to be worth it compared to just getting a controller mount or an attachable controller for your phone. Your phone will have the same ability to stream to it, on top of having the general increased usability of a phone.
Games
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.
personally, i can see the appeal of the device as someone who frequently shares a tv with others, but sony’s decision to limit its capabilities to streaming only places it squarely in a “niche product” category. this creates a few problems that will shape my decision to purchase depending on how sony addresses them.
-
the device’s capabilities are no different (at least as far as we know) from remote play apps paired with a dualsense controller. in this case, you have greater flexibility when it comes to screen size since these apps are available on phones as well as computers, allowing you to tailor your experience to suit your needs. the q, on the other hand, is extremely limited in its application. the degree to which the q is able to justify itself as far as the quality of the gaming experience is yet to be seen, but it needs to be compelling in order for me to consider it over alternatives. it’s very much a niche product.
-
wrapped up in the experience is the price. i can do one thing with the q: stream ps5 games at home over wifi. if my power goes out, it’s unusable. this would also render my ps5 unusable as well, but therein lies the issue. a nintendo switch lite costs $200 brand new, and is its own self-contained experience capable of playing games downloaded to the device independent of anything else. the q provides half the experience that a switch lite does, in my eyes, so the price should be reflected in its diminished capabilities. i would pay $100 (maybe up to $120) for it. anything more than that and i’m looking elsewhere for something more capable. given that the price of the dualsense edge is $200, though, i’m not optimistic that the q will be priced much lower than that. if i’m looking at spending $200 just to stream games tethered to a home console when i can already do that for free, then i’m not looking at the q anymore. i’m looking at a steam deck.
it feels like sony wanted a slice of the switch pie without trying to make something that could genuinely compete in that space. if the price matches the experience, i’ll bite. otherwise, i’ll consider picking it up at a discounted price years down the road, if at all.
personally, i can see the appeal of the device as someone who frequently shares a tv with others, but sony’s decision to limit its capabilities to streaming only places it squarely in a “niche product” category.
And because it's a Sony product there is no chance they will allow people to find a way for it to run apps on its own. This device is going to be permanently handicapped compared to other handhelds.
In a certain way this feels like Sega of the 90s decided to make an add-on for the PS5 after playing a whole bunch of WiiU.
If it’s $150 I’m totally getting one. For not much more than a controller you get a 1 for 1 experience for remote play since you get a full dual sense controller. If they want more than $200 I think it’s dead on arrival though.
There was an Microsoft document during this whole FTC hearing that said that Sony was "also antecipated to release a handheld version of Playstation 5 later this year for under $300"
Now, under 300 can mean a lot for things, even $150, but if they charge something like 299 for this remote play device its going to flop hard.
Depending on the price, I'm actually looking forward to this. I've been playing more and more on my phone via remote play, so a dedicated device just for that would be pretty awesome.
If it’s dirt cheap I might pick one up. I love the portability of my switch, and have a ps5. If it’s the price of a switch and doesn’t run anything standalone it’s probably DOA.
It’s just for streaming games? That sounds uninspiring
It's not a deal-breaker for me, since I already own a PS5 and I was already looking to stream those games to my computer anyhow, but haven't got it set up well yet. There's some weird audio stuff going on, at least.
I am also not interested in buying handheld-only games for another underpowered system, so it's fine that it streams them from a powerful device instead. If they manage to get the battery life good enough, I'm going to seriously consider it... But not at launch.
If you don't mind me asking, whats a streaming to another monitor/tv setup like? Controllers are already wireless so i was wondering if itd possible t9 setup streaming via ip or do we need some hdmi/display port based streamong hw?
I haven't done it to a PS4, so I can't speak for that streaming setup.
But for Windows, I just run an app, link it to my account, and then I can stream PS5 games on my PC. The experience wasn't great, though. The resolution seemed low/fuzzy, and the audio came out of both my TV (which turns on with my PS5 automatically) and my PC speakers, which wasn't great.
When I tried playing on my PS VR headset, my TV kept coming back on repeatedly, even if I turned it off, so I expect streaming will do the same thing, though I haven't tried it much yet.
Streaming my PC games to another PC is a lot better, especially with Parsec. Sony has a lot to catch up on here, IMO.
Not exactly the same topic, but can you still do in-home streaming from Xbox to a PC or phone on the same wifi?