Still, not entirely sure who this is supposed to be for. The poor battery life, lack of Bluetooth, and the inability to play media is just disappointing, even at 200 dollars. Just feels like there are better ways to play PS5 games on the go than this.
Another true IGN moment. 8/10? Man this thing looks ugly. And it can only stream your local Playstation 5 on the local network, otherwise it's useless. Battery life is a joke for a streaming only device. Does not have Bluetooth. And the price is expensive for what it does. Yet IGN praises this. Imagine Microsoft did the same thing for XBox. I really don't want to come off as a Console War guy (I'm a PC Gamer), but imagine that for a moment. And no, I do not hate Sony, I just hate this device.
I don't think this is a console war thing. I just think IGN is a sellout rag that rates games however game companies tell them to. Their ratings are consistently unexplainable by anyone with sense.
But I think it does not support streaming over the internet. Its only limited to the same network you are with your PS5. Or am I wrong? Edit: Apparently I can't read. At least it is possible to stream your PS5 to other wifi networks.
Thanks for confirmation. One can't even stream the online streaming games with the PS Plus subscription. Its really only about the local games you have... I'm totally baffled.
“This was the turning point for me, where I went from “well this is kind of neat,” to “this is actually rad.” There I was, playing FF7R from the PS5 in my house in a cafe across town and it was nearly indistinguishable from the experience at home. Again, that’s something that can certainly be done on your phone or tablet (and those are able to get past that login screen) but none of them feels as good to hold and play on as the Portal.”
It does play via remote wifi but only games from your local ps5.
Hmm, okay. So I got most of the stuff correct then (no internet streaming), but didn't got the part it would stream on other wifi networks. I skipped parts of the review, because I didn't expect that functionality would have changed. Shame on me and this should be a lesson! So then that went from useless (in my opinion) to useful at times.
But the PS5 has to run for that, right? Can you remote control to run and sleep the PS5?
So the remote play functionality from before remains intact. So once paired with the PS5 the device can remotely turn the device on or the device is always listening for the connection.
This is a dedicated device for that though. If you read my initial post I’m not a fan of the device and even less of the manner by which IGN reviewed it. They’re looking at it in a complete vacuum and comparing it to a device that basically already failed (The Backbone).
"…so it’s not like you can play it on the go (there’s no version with a cellular connection) or without also owning a PlayStation 5. There is literally nothing else it can do. That seems like a bit of a bummer given the $200 price tag – I’d have liked to be able to watch Netflix or YouTube on the Portal, but all media functions are disabled on Sony Remote Play. The PlayStation Portal will only play games and let you navigate the PS5’s menus, so without a PS5 at the ready, the Portal is a paperweight. "
They try to say that the screen is bigger, but at that point they could just play on a TV, since they need to be with their PS5 at home.
Also mystifying that they say a tablet with a bigger screen would be inconvenient because you couldn't play it on the bus. You can't play this thing on the bus either.
Any chance of this being a flop? Years ago, we would have said no way, but we’ve seen some high-profile screwups before. It’s certainly at the time period where Rockstar might have brain drain on its better developers.
I agree with you and coming from a different perspective. I’ve tried the games and they just don’t do it for me for whatever reason. I don’t see this flopping at all. I also think recent launches will make sure they have things ready to go. It will sell like crazy and the fans that love the games will love it I’m sure.
Fucking flaming gasoline trails, vehicles actually running out of gas after having their tanks punctured, it seems like the ejection was really toned down in GTAO but you could really get out of the windshield in single player.
I did get ejected through an incoming car in cyberpunk recently and was like "wow been a while."
I haven’t played in a couple years. Are you still bombarded with texts and phone calls as soon as you load into the game? And is theininap barely visible because of all the mission/activity markers?
Because that’s how it was last time I got on there. And that was right after they added the demolition derby stuff.
Reading this comment makes me give kudos for letting GTA V (singleplayer) exist as its own thing. I haven’t played GTAO since probably 2015 and have no idea what it’s like because of how little Rockstar pushes it on Singleplayer players.
No, they’ve done a couple of really nice qol updates lately that got rid of most of those, or at least reduced the calls to texts. I mean there’s still some annoyances, but it is better than it was. At least, last time I was there. Only join in maybe once a month or so now.
I get that things felt sparse but Starfield does have over 200 hours of content. That’s roughly how much went into my first playthrough and I never felt like it was repetitive. I also didn’t go for completion so there were likely another 100 hours I skipped.
Despite what others are saying, the game is fine (at least compared to its previous state/status)… They’ve made a lot of changes to improve the onboarding experience and remove pain points. They’ve made things less grindy and more engaging every expansion.
The last DLC just had kind of a meh story to it, “the discovery of strand.” The environment they used also wasn’t all that pretty or interesting. It wasn’t snow, it wasn’t a swamp, it was a minimalistic city-scape with some canyons.
That, plus increased pricing and over dramatization of the loss of the red war and foresaken content (which wasn’t even that good compared to the new stuff mind you – it was extremely short and grindy) has almost definitely caused the profit loss.
Not to mention, playlist activities still feel bland… Implement map voting and modifier voting, and make a higher difficulty playlist for PvE content. I swear once you’re caught up, it’s either stomp over everything in the same 5 maps over and over, or face the exact same somewhat challenging (or extremely challenging) encounter over and over for an entire week. They have all this content they could open up to high end rewards and mutators, but they don’t.
Except Bungie isn’t creating a new game here, they’re continuing a game they’ve been supporting for years. They have years of metrics and they should have a pretty good understanding how much revenue to expect. Even if they were overly optimistic and set an unrealistic projection it doesn’t explain missing it by 45%.
I can’t really comment on the current quality of the game in 2023, since I noped out about 4 years ago, but there are any number of explanations.
Lack of new content. I haven’t seen the game discussed much in the gaming press, which means there probably haven’t been any notable content drops for a while. It sounds like the game’s next expansion has been delayed, and the game is being maintained by a skeleton crew while the rest of the studio focuses on Marathon.
Competition. With few exceptions, good games always slowly bleed users as shiny new alternatives attract players. This is compounded if you’re running a live service game and have a long content drought.
My point isn’t “Destiny good”, I don’t really know that. My point is that we can’t really draw conclusions about the quality of the game based solely on missed revenue targets.
I agree that you can’t draw conclusions about the quality of the game simply by the fact that it missed the revenue target. But I’m not drawing the conclusion based on the fact that it missed the target but rather based on by how much the target was missed. If they missed by 15% then sure, it’s not an indication because maybe they really did overestimate their target. But 45%? You don’t miss by that much when you have yearly revenue numbers showing you the trend. My point is that such a severe miss in this case does end up being indicative of the quality because the explanations, even yours, will end up being negative about the game.
It sounds like the game’s next expansion has been delayed, and the game is being maintained by a skeleton crew while the rest of the studio focuses on Marathon.
FWIW, they have ~650 people even after the layoffs for destiny 2 alone. Hardly a skeleton crew. The content drops have been the same as they’ve been for years, seasonal content drops in-between expansions. There is definitely a lul period where there’s not new stuff getting released to give people a chance to catch up.
Competition. With few exceptions, good games always slowly bleed users as shiny new alternatives attract players.
There is some of this. I think there also just seems to be a general recoil of players at what games are costing these days. I’m personally fine with it, but I see what feels like infinite complaining about how greedy … basically every company that isn’t indie is being.
Realistically, I’d say it’s A) bad PR and B) a failure to make new gameplay loops that shake things up significantly C) a failure to fully utilize old content (there’s not a lot of reason to play old strikes, not a lot to encourage players to help others out in old story missions, etc – replay value is artificially neutered by making too many things curated which limits choice)
I think there also just seems to be a general recoil of players at what games are costing these days. I’m personally fine with it, but I see what feels like infinite complaining about how greedy … basically every company that isn’t indie is being.
I think this is mostly just the fact that the people who spend the most time on social media are also basically kids with very little spending money. None of my millennial peers even blinked when AAA game prices went up to $70 with the new console generation. We have fairly mature careers and have paid off our student debt by now.
Maybe, but we’re also seeing it in reviews in such high quantities, it feels like it has to be more than just kids. And like, sure I’d love if the games were cheaper, but they certainly haven’t gotten cheaper or less risky to make.
It’s frustrating either way… I don’t care if the game is $100. I want to know A) does it have pay to win mechanics or gambling (things I actually consider to be predatory – another word that is significantly over used right now), B) is it fun?, and C) how much replay value is it (i.e. should my expectations be set for a really great 80 hours or potentially hundreds – I’m okay with the former sometimes, but it’s nice to know what I’m getting into).
Lately with steam reviews it’s like “tHiS gAMe coSt toO muCh. Y u So gReDy!?!” Which tells me none of those things and just gives me old man yelling at a cloud energy about how things (particularly live service stuff) does cost money to develop and run beyond a 1 time purchase of $25.
So it sounds like the developers had a better bead on why D2 has been losing numbers and there’s no way for them to provide feedback. And as a result, they were probably tied into the layoffs. Talk about some obvious mismanagement. The wrong person was laid off.
ign.com
Aktywne