• Gamoc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Get some glue and make a holder or something. Bigger screen? Use a tablet, laptop, or PC that you’ve probably already got. £200 for a device that can’t do anything on its own? Stop bending over for them.

      • Lilium@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A handheld that can only stream games from a home console is anything but convenient.

        • BorgDrone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          On the contrary, it’s super convenient. You turn it on, it connects, you play.

      • Gamoc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • willya@lemmyf.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  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.

        • BorgDrone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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.