this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
127 points (100.0% liked)
Emulation
3569 readers
5 users here now
Community to talk about emulation & roms.
RULES:
1.) No bigotry
LINKS:
-
Emulation Wiki - Your source for everything emulation :)
-
[WIP] Emulation Links Wiki - My personal wiki for emulation links, please help contribute!
-
r/Roms Megathread - Megathread of Roms
-
RetroArch - RetroArch is the popular front-end to libretro which is a simple API that allows for the creation of games and emulators.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Neat trick, but the device is already of questionable value (a portable device that doesn't work outside your house). Jailbreaking it doesn't really add much functionality. 6GB storage isn't particularly useful in 2024.
It doesn't exist to be anything but a remote connection to your PS5. It's an in-home television alternative.
Everyone clowns on this thing, but it makes perfect sense for Sony: it doesn't split the platform, it doesn't require infrastructure, and if you don't buy it, they don't care. Its market is anyone who went 'oh neat, now I can play from the office' or 'now I can play while sportsball is on.' If you don't have an immediate use-case for it - then don't buy it. You won't bother the people who do.
Having a device that could stream only from PS5 for 200$ is not a good value. And the limitation is artificial.
You can buy a handheld that could do the same, while also stream from your own PC and run games and emulators natively. Or you can buy something like Backbone One for your phone. They won't have haptic feedback, but the controls still be good and you won't be limited only to PS5.
Then don't buy it.
If you want a foolproof way to do what you could jump through your ass to approximate, Sony offers a ridiculous-looking device that does one thing well. If you don't care then they lose nothing. Not like they sunk a lot of R&D into looks.
I'd think companies like Sony do care if people buy or not
It's a niche gizmo they're selling for a healthy profit. The break-even point has to be very low. They want some people to buy it. But they don't care if you buy it.
They don't need to spend money supporting it because it's strictly local. If it was a new PSP, there'd be a whole storefront, and updates, and complex risk assessment for how much to spend for expected returns. There'd be a huge marketing push to ensure they hit some lofty goal for sales figures.
But this is a split controller glued to a shite Android tablet. It's low-risk. It could have sold zero units and they'd shrug off a minor loss. They don't expect it to sell a zillion units, and they don't need it to sell a zillion units. It's there for anyone who wants one.
I don't think developing and selling a whole hardware device is quite so trivial, but I also doubt that it would mean they don't mind taking losses on it. This is not a new market that would be worth risking a loss to get a headstart, people could even get the same experience with... a tablet and a split controller, which has a lot more functionality.
I don't know what's your point with "they don’t care if you buy it". Of course they don't have a department keeping track of one single guy. Sounds like you are taking criticism of this device personally.
No, Sony can go fuck themselves, and consoles as a concept need to end. I'm only pointing out that poor sales will not matter in the slightest. I am speaking to people who keep asking, 'why would I want this?' and if you have to ask, the answer is, you wouldn't. And so what.
Here's the thing. Of course sales matter. Sony is not only a for profit company but one that is not particularly inclined to play around just to be different (like Nintendo). Saying sales don't matter just does not make sense.
Besides, people are not just lamenting that it isn't a full-blown portable console, but it's also not integrated with the Playstation Now cloud gaming service, so the use case is so limited as to be baffling. It shouldn't have been much more costly to make it capable of playing cloud games.
You are asking people "so what", and they are telling you what. Good for you if this is good enough for you. It doesn't mean everyone else gotta just agree or say nothing. This is a discussion thread. The most that one might say is that the discussion has strayed away from emulation, but then again I don't think arguing what it's originally intended for contributes much to that either.
Only if you're not listening. Some discussions are supposed to end, when their questions reach answers. People ask why anyone would buy this, and the answer is, to play their PS5 without their TV. People ask why it doesn't do more, and the answer is, because that would cost Sony more money, requiring higher sales figures to break even.
This object is this way because limited scope means poor sales will not matter. No shit Sony wants to sell some. No shit they'd be thrilled if it sold eight billion units. But they don't need that. It is a project with low up-front costs, low marketing costs, and low upkeep costs. If it was higher-risk then it probably would not exist.
It is a completely optional accessory for PS5 owners. They don't want it to be anything more.
Nah. I'm listening, I just don't agree that you get to decide when the discussion gets to end. You are just repeating yourself at this point, but folks aren't satisfied simply with responses of why someone ought to buy it when they want to comment on the limitations and missed opportunity.
Additional costs and risk aren't even a reason not to do it, they are merely a consideration to have. Companies choose to take these risks all the time. The PS5 has a whole new VR2 headset even though the market for that is even riskier than a portable device. Yes, it would cost more, and they could have done it anyway.
Besides, a cloud gaming feature wouldn't even raise costs all that much, and it might even lower the risk as an additional selling point.
If you want to tell me that Sony didn't do it because Sony didn't do it and some people bought it because some people bought it, that's not much of an answer.
But you also glossed over the detail that if what people want is to stream their games to a device that's like a cheap tablet with a split controller... they can just use a tablet with a split controller, spending less while also not having weird restrictions such as needing to buy a separate headset for it. Most people who can afford a PS5 already have phones that would do this perfectly well without spending whole $200 on an extra dumb screen.
They could've, but they didn't.
I've explained why - because people asked.
The same questions, again, will have the same answers.
The fact you're still talking does not make that an ongoing discussion.
If you want to stream games on your phone, do.
That's not what this device is for.
I think we're done here.
It just seems mental that they have an entire cloud gaming platform and it doesn't connect to it.
Admittedly that one is harder to excuse. But I think the idea is, you should never want to take this outside your house. That's why it's literally two halves of a controller slapped onto either side of a cheap tablet. Convenient portability was not a concern.
Making this a streaming device also means you might buy one without owning a PS5.
I think that last one would be what they're aiming for.
It's no longer Xbox vs PlayStation. It's PSN vs GamePass.
Sony absolutely wants you to buy a Playstation. They're running the same strategy they had for the PS1. It worked great then, it worked better on PS2, it floundered on PS3... and ever since then it's been a charade. But it's a charade that prints money. So long as they pretend games are made for their hardware, and it would obviously be ridiculous to suggest running them anywhere else, they can convince you to sink $500 into brand loyalty.