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.
The performance category feels like they purposely limited it to one performance per game, otherwise we'd have seen multiple reps from Baldur's Gate 3. The performance for Astarion was great, but I could easily see the nod going to Karlach or the narrator as well. And no disrespect to Idris Elba, but what he had to work with in Phantom Liberty (enjoyable as it was) doesn't hold a candle to Karlach; I might even say that another actor in Phantom Liberty put on a better performance than Elba did, again just because she had better material to work with.
Also, this is the first time the fighting game category nominees didn't make me angry. Usually they omit some notable game that belongs in the category and include a game or two that clearly don't belong there.
While I’m not entirely inclined to disagree, I doubt his idea of how much an hour of gaming should cost your average player aligns very well with mine.
What he is doing sounds reasonable on the surface but it's a rhetorical trick.
This is about getting players in forever live services to keep paying forever even if the game is not adding anything more to make it worth it. There is a hint of merit of paying for a game that you enjoy a lot but don't forget how today games are endlessly padded out with grind and daily missions to keep players coming back out of habit, delaying access to what they really want to get, rather than because they are enjoying it. Nevermind that these tactics are also what gets people impatient and buying Shark Cards, for instance. It's why the freemium model became so commonly used. He wants to profit in the mean time too.
It definitely should not. Gamers use it because there are a range of genres of game. JRPG's ala Monster Hunter and Disgaea are pretty much a 300 hour minimum. There is no way GTA ever produces something worth 300 hours of gameplay, the closest they've gotten is their Online versions which frankly, would be horrible if they were priced per hour.
Racing games would have very little merit in price per hour. Sports games probably in between.
Then there's the whole fact that pacing can be implemented at the whims of the creators. It takes 4 hours to get energy so you can continue? Well, that 4 hours of paid playtime baybee, payyup!
How about games with little to no story? Should the new CoD only be $25 because it's campaign sucks? It's short after all. Or will they try and include multiplayer time, you know, something independent and timeless. Will they become arcades and start charging you per round?
Horrible, horrible idea. No matter hour you look at it, hours per game are only good for gamers with specific intentions, be it their limited time, their desire to 100%, or to see if it simply respects their time in the first place.
Absolutely. This is supposed to persuade people who say they want games to be long enough to be worth their price, but the actual intention is to create an excuse to charge forever while offering very little for it. It's very easy for any game to pad out their playtime with grind.
It's yet another way to trick people into paying for trappings of games that have nothing to do with the actual content. If you buy a board game, or an oldschool game cartridge, you don't need to keep paying for it however many times you go back to it. They may use servers as another excuse, but today servers exist to enable them to charge extra, not because they are truly necessary. There are many older and smaller games, as well as Minecraft, that show that players can run online games on their own just fine.
And they charge extra by selling fiction. Shark cards with in-game currency are just a number in the game that is trivial to change with no effort from them. It's very different from selling content packs including new vehicles and weapons, locations, characters and story. Same goes for games that sell the chance of getting an unit of an item or character, split by arbitrary levels of rarity that have nothing to do with how demanding it was to create that content, rather than selling full access to content packs including those items and characters, to be used however many times they player wants.
It's layers upon layers of something that is pretty much a scam at this point. Taking advantage of people who can't tell apart product and service from a sense of hype and value in an imaginary context.
The interest in or aptitude of is irrelevant for the position of CEO. The CEO's skill lies in increasing shareholder value, period, end of discussion. I don't get why people still buy into the idea that CEOs give a good god damn about consumer's opinions of quality - they never have.
Because it's deeply dysfunctional how much of our society is driven by this shortsighted approach. A lot people are not surprised by it at this point, but just explaining and accepting that shareholder value is the only thing that matters to them doesn't really fix the issues. And there's a lot more issues caused by this than just how fun some games are.
We are beyond asking how it works or why, we should be asking what should be done about it.
Joking aside, length of a game is a terrible metric for price. I always consider how much time I spend playing a game compared to the price for the ROI. But a lot of games just add filler content that is copy and paste missions.
Why did we single out just this award from the whole show? Not only are there plenty of others worth talking about, there's also all the ways that show hung on by a thread. Troy Baker basically apologized for each joke written for him to read, and he and Gary Whitta had to yell at a nearby table for talking loudly over award winners.
gaming
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.