Slashdot Mirror
PS Vita TV's Killer App: Remote Play
jfruh writes "When Sony announced the PS Vita TV yesterday, most observers saw it as competition for the Apple TV and Roku, or maybe the Ouya. But gaming writer Peter Smith views it differently; he thinks that remote play, including the ability to stream games from the upcoming PlayStation 4 console, will be the Vita TV's killer-app. In that sense, it isn't so much a low-cost replacement for casual gamers as an add-on to the high-end PS4. '[W]hen you're in the middle of a game and someone wants to watch TV, you can just grab a Vita and keep on playing. (This is similar to the popular "tablet play" feature of Nintendo's Wii U, without the Wii U's limitation of having to stay in close proximity to the base console.) ... For any Playstation 4 household with more than one TV I think the PS Vita TV will become a 'must-have' accessory; it's almost like getting a second PS4 for $100.'"
Apple TV mirrors your desktop, so you can do on the TV what you can do on the mac. Macosx maverick will use use Apple TV as a second desktop, menu bar and all, so Sony get a PS4 extension, well done!
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Hasn't the WiiU his this, you know, forever? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-TV_Play This is not a killer app, it is just progressing as things should have long ago. Sony followed Nintendo's lead with their motion control. This time I do think they will offer an excellent console, though.
I'm wondering a bit about the "playing PS4 games" part in regards to the controller. The PS4 controller has a touchpad that the Dualshock 3 doesn't have - I suppose as long as games don't make it integral to the gameplay it will work, otherwise, not so much unless/until the Vita TV supports the new controller...
[W]hen you're in the middle of a game and someone wants to watch TV, you can just grab a Vita and keep on playing.
The way the summary is written implies that you need a Vita TV to stream to a Vita, but you don't. What the article actually says is that, instead of streaming direct to a Vita, you could instead stream to a Vita TV connected to another TV.
I can see "Vita" and "Vita TV" causing a lot of customer confusion.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Uhh, my PSP was able to do this with my PS3. What's new, here?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
This seems to be the first Cloud gaming console: cheap streaming hardware, common controller, connected to an existing console account.
The only part missing is the PS3 cloud streaming service, which will come in 2014.
It seems pretty dumb to release a box to play Vita or PS4 games that has a controller that can't even replicate most or all of the control surfaces. The Vita even has a rear touch pad though it's probably the front one that matters most. The Vita TV could draw a little circle to indicate where the user is touching on the screen.
'it's almost like getting a second hdmi cable for $100.'
Tomorrow is another day...
do these stupid tech writers have any idea how unplayable remote play is? the delay is fairly significant, at least in my testing
avoid purchasing any of this electronic junk, turn off your TV, get off the couch, and go for a walk instead of developing type 2 diabetes
The PS3 is well known for crippled DLNA that does not even accept push as a client, typical Sony crippleware device. So if I take my cell and try to push a pic or a vid to it, it is essentially useless. Sure I can pick up the controller and browse to a DLNA server and then just maybe if the server is written by the Google summer of code guys I just might be able to view my videos and picks but only by browsing to them on the device which sucks big time
Sorry but the crippled DLNA of both the Xbox and the PS3 makes them essentially just what they are toys, not great devices with a future in my living room. Until Microshaft and Sony realize the full potential of these devices and stop crippling what they are easily capable of doing at a software level with DLNA, Samsung smart tvs will keep invading more and more living rooms because they are more capable than these toys! Making users pay another 100 bucks for crippled gimmick screen mirror device like Apple TV is not selling me on Sony products.
Right now I am using a GNU UPNP AV Control Point on my laptop to push to a Samsung while I type this, heck I can even pause and replay or control the TV volume through push DLNA. SONY AND MICROSOFT are missing the boat big time and Samsung is starting to eat their breakfast in the home entertainment field and for good reason!
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Looks like if you want to play video games at the cutting edge, you'll have to go against your anti-sony faggottry.
I play cutting edge perfectly fine without a console... if you haven't noticed, there is this thing called a "PC" which can be used for gaming. Not only that, but it has better controls for certain types of games. Crazy I know.
This is really chasing into the diminishing returns...
If you're playing a game, on your tv, and someone wants to watch tv, you tell them to fuck off and watch it on their own tv.
If you're playing on their tv, then you save and quit, watch the show with them, if it's any good, and go play again when they're done.
So, now, for a high price, you get a third option, that's not particularly an improvement - you get to play the game on an inferior screen, with an inferior controller, while some asshole watches your tv.
Such a shame that Nintendo didn't learn from how quickly the Wiimote was copied by their competitors that gimmicks can be quickly copied and nullified as competitive advantages. The Wii U is a really nice console, but they just don't have a clue how to take on Sony and Microsoft...
observers saw it as competition for the Apple TV and Roku, or maybe the Ouya
Why is Ouya even mentioned at all, it's hardly in the same league. Their cube is heavily under powered not to mention the rest of the nightmares that came from it.
> but it has better controls for certain types of games
but it has better controls for SOME types of games.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
How is it like getting a second PS4 for $100? The PS4 is single session, meaning that the best this adds is a sense of portability to the PS4. It's comparable to those devices that allowed the user to transmit a VCR output over RF that could be picked-up by other TVs in the house. Great, if only person in the house wants to watch a video.
>'[W]hen you're in the middle of a game and someone wants to watch TV, you can just grab a Vita and keep on playing.
Because we're still living in the '50s where every household has only one tv.
observers saw it as competition for the Apple TV and Roku, or maybe the Ouya
Why is Ouya even mentioned at all, it's hardly in the same league. Their cube is heavily under powered not to mention the rest of the nightmares that came from it.
Because my local Game store sells the OuYa but not the Roku an Apple TV...and its a Game Console, and FYI I am enjoying mine.
You can also use standard console controller with them and carry them to another room if you have the portable kind. I have HDMI cables hanging off all my TV's so I can plug any one of by three laptops into a TV to watch movies, TV shows, Netflix, downloads, play games on a big screen, play music, look at photos, read a book (yes I've spent many a sick day sitting in bed reading books on my bed room TV that has my home media server in the closet. I don't even have to get out of bed to turn it on, it's always there.). My PCs also have emulators that give me backward compatibility with the PS, PS2, XBox (original, is that what we're calling it now? I'm unsure.), NES, SNES, N64, Game Cube, Saga and a bunch of other consoles.
The only advantages a console has over a PC is they're slightly cheaper, but I have to own a PC anyway since I can't do everything I want with just a console, and exclusive games, but I'm predicting with this gen of consoles (because they're all x86 based) most games will be available for both PS4 and XBOne as well as PC's. If not on release then eventually through an emulator.
The fact that you can use a regular console controller for a PC, or a mouse and keyboard means you get the best type of control for whatever type of game you want to play. There's no question IMHO that PCs have the better controls for ALL games. Ever tried play an RTS with a console controller? It doesn't work. FPS, keyboard and mouse beats console controller any day. MMORPG, I couldn't play without hot keys, keyboard and mouse wins. Simulator, too many controls for just a single controller.
Actually the only thing I can think of that console controllers are better than a keyboard and mouse for is a JRPG like old school Final Fantasy, that's not to say you can't play it with a keyboard and mouse, but in that case the controller is easier to just hold and repeatedly tap 'A'.
Actually if you look at how console controllers have evolved you'll see pretty quick they have to keep adding new buttons for all the actions that keep getting added to games, pretty soon it'll just be a keyboard-mouse combination you hold more comfortably.
There's no question IMHO that PCs have the better controls for ALL games.
No.
Ever tried play an RTS with a console controller? It doesn't work
Yes, I have, and it does work. Have you, or are you just spouting what you think is true because you're one of those "PC Master Race" people.
FPS, keyboard and mouse beats console controller any day.
You know why PC FPS players like mice? Easy headshots. Maybe you don't remember when the first mouselook shooters showed up and the old school DOOM players calling that "easy mode" And I'll take analog movement over WASD any day.
MMORPG, I couldn't play without hot keys, keyboard and mouse wins.
You did know that Final Fantasy XI implemented hotkeys on the controller right? And that nobody, not even those who played it on the PC used keyboard to move and nobody used mice.
Simulator, too many controls for just a single controller.
That's what USB is for...which also lets you hook up a HOTAS or a keyboard and mouse if you want...so according to your own argument the PC has zero advantage in controls.
Anti Sony faggotry? I was bit by XCP, others were bit by OtherOS and having their CC info on an unencrypted web facing database. You're either trolling you're part of that damned evil company. Only an idiot would call a Sony victim a "faggot", you god damned bigot. FOAD,
I remember buying a new second PSX for $100 just because it was so cheap.
Desktops and notebooks have plummeted in price since then, why are consoles getting more and more expensive?
Just reminding folks that Sony uses your money to do things you hate. Don't give Sony your money.
'[W]hen you're in the middle of a game and someone wants to watch TV, you can just grab a Vita and keep on playing.
Who the fuck cares about that? Anybody with enough disposable cash to buy gaming systems likely makes the kids play the damn games on the old TV sitting in the other room. I sure as shit don't let the teenagers play games on my living room TV. To the basement, you snot-nosers!
There's no question IMHO that PCs have the better controls for ALL games.
No.
Yes, that is my opinion. You can argue, but you don't get to dictate what I do and do not believe.
Have you
I've played plenty of RTS games with a controller back in the NES and SNES days, keyboard and mouse is superior. They don't seem to make very many RTS games for consoles these days, Hmmm I wonder why?
or are you just spouting what you think is true because you're one of those "PC Master Race" people.
I'm not one of those "PC Master Race" people, I have several consoles including an Ouya, PS, PS2, PS3, Wii, SNES, NES, XBox (original). I do find PC, especially a good laptop with an emulator is a better all-in-one solution, it's portable and has the mouse & keyboard or controller option, but I guess if your one of the console fanbois that wouldn't matter anyway.
You did know that Final Fantasy XI
I've played FFXI on both PS3 and PC. PC is far superior. On top of the keyboard being better than the controller for hot keys, the keyboard is pretty much essential for text chat, which I find better for communicating that a headset, but that's a different argument.
You know why PC FPS players like mice? Easy headshots
Yeah, they had to implement "assisted lock on" for console controllers in order for PC and console players to play together because a mouse was just too accurate when compared to a controller.
Sorry, but them's the facts.
I've played FFXI on both PS3 and PC.
Sorry that was a typo. I've played FFXI on both PS2 and PC.
For any Playstation 4 household with more than one TV I think the PS Vita TV will become a 'must-have' accessory; it's almost like getting a second PS4 for $100.'"
Can you still call it a killer app if it could only fill the intersection of three niches?
You're either trolling you're part of that damned evil company.
I *suspect* he was trolling. Either that or this is a highly unusual new approach on the part of Sony's PR department.
Only an idiot would call a Sony victim a "faggot",
Or a troll, rather obviously.
You can argue, but you don't get to dictate what I do and do not believe.
I said "No" because you said "all" which we both know is an exaggeration.
You know as well as I do, that there are far far more genre's out there than FPS's, RTS's and simulation...but that seems that those are the only genre's PC gamers want to talk about when it comes to controls. And those other genres...well some of them do play better with gamepads.
I've played plenty of RTS games with a controller back in the NES and SNES days
Your memory is faulty, there are no NES and SNES RTS's, the first one was a Genesis game, Herzog Zwei, (which inspired Westwood to do Dune II) so the genre actually originated on consoles. Never play the C&C series, Dune 2000, Warcraft II, or Warzone 2100 on a PSone?
I've played FFXI on both PS3 and PC. PC is far superior.
How so, it's the same game other than resolution.
[quote]On top of the keyboard being better than the controller for hot keys[/quote]
Say what? Those hotkeys were fast enough, easy to use too. Though I had a keyboard for chat and could use hotkeys that way too. You did know the PS2 supports USB keyboards right?
Yeah, they had to implement "assisted lock on" for console controllers in order for PC and console players to play together because a mouse was just too accurate when compared to a controller.
I am going to make a general rant of how I am sick and tired of elitist FPS fanboys thinking competitive FPS's are the be all of gaming. Yes the mouse makes those headshots easier...but that means that a gamer who can get headshots with the controller is thusly more skilled because it's more of a challenge, correct? And some might say that easy headshots aren't all that realistic. And I did point out that the old school FPSers considered mouse-look to be "Easy mode"
You CAN play it on a backwards compatible PS3 though.
Why not just use your second TV to watch TV? I don't get it
I far prefer a Wii Remote and Nunchuck combo for an FPS. It's 1:1 input and gives me analogue movement.
Which my PS3 is, I just haven't played FFXI on it because I preferred to play it on my laptop instead. Completely unrelated to our discussion, I just don't have to compete with my wife for the TV to play games on my laptop, and the original PS3 is a lead weight. Way to heavy to carry up and down stairs and setup on different TVs depending on if I want to use it as a game machine or a media server client.
I said "No" because you said "all" which we both know is an exaggeration.
Your opinion is different than mine that's fine, but in this case it doesn't make my opinion wrong or an exaggeration.
You know as well as I do, that there are far far more genre's out there than FPS's, RTS's and simulation...but that seems that those are the only genre's PC gamers want to talk about when it comes to controls.
Ok, great. It would have been nice if you followed that up with some examples, I'd like to hear about other genre's. Assassins Creed would be a good start, that might be better with a console controller, but I've never tried it with a keyboard and mouse and I only ever played the first one. I don't know what the genre is called these days Action Adventure? Third Person Adventure?
Sports games, ick, are better with a controller...I think... Don't remember the last time I played one. Racing games are better with a racing wheel and pedals over a simple controller, not sure if those exist for consoles (excluding the steering wheel controller attachment for the Wii).
I did know the PS2 supported USB keyboard & mouse, that's how I started out playing. I switched because my laptop has it built in and I found using the mouse, on top of being more responsive, was much more comfortable at my desk than trying to play off the arm of a chair or coffee table and I'm not tethered five feet from the console while playing on a 65" TV with cords running across the room. Now a days I suppose I'd use a wireless Keyboard and Mouse, but again, why it's already built into my laptop.
controller is thusly more skilled because it's more of a challenge, correct?
You're correct, they would be more skill full, but the fact is it's easier with mouse and keyboard because the mouse is a more accurate pointing tool. For FPS games it's like you're giving one person a hammer and the other a screw driver and asking who can drill in a one and a half inch Robinson head screw first. The right tool for the job is going to get it done. Your argument comes of as who's more skilled for doing things the hard way vs. who's smarter for using the right tool.
I'm way more of a JRPG fan and, like I said before, it's one of the genre's that does benefit from the simplicity of a controller, but I can still play them just as easy on a keyboard.
I think we might be arguing about two different things here. I said a PC is better because it supports all types of inputs making it the better over all for gaming, but you seem to be limiting the argument to keyboard & mouse vs. controller.
I'm with you CronoClod, even if newbile-slashdot is not.
Simple fact, there were games before FPS and RTS and they played best wtih gamepads and sticks. Most games outside of these areas play better with pads. PC Gamers (of which I am one) just seem to think FPS and RTS are the end-all-be all of gaming. It also never occurs to them, that many PS3 games which require it, support Mouse and Keyboard and have since the introduction of USB ports on PS2.
Risk on PS3 plays fine. Civ on PS3 plays fine. Simcity was adapted to SNES to play rather well with a pad, meanwhile, was absolutely BRUTAL with a stylus on DS.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Good call, I played Golden Eye with the Wii mote and nun-chuck for a while. It was fun, but I found it really sluggish.
I think two new shoulder buttons L2 and R2 were added in 1994 and sticks were added in 1996. By Sony. 17 years ago. The gamepad has essentially been unchanged ever since, unless you count Nintendo, which finds a way to get by with less buttons.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
The gamepad has essentially been unchanged ever since, unless you count Nintendo, which finds a way to get by with less buttons.
The new generation console controllers for XBOne and PS4 have new buttons and features. You'd pretty much have to exclude all of Nintendo consoles, every system had a different controller with different buttons and layouts. The Sony controller kept the same layout for the PS2 and PS3, however the PS3 controller also had accelerometers in it, but the only game I've played that takes advantage of that is Folklore.
Simple fact, there were games before FPS and RTS
Yeah, I remember trying to play Kings quest and Space quest with a joystick. It was better with just the keyboard, which you needed up to KQ5 anyway. Or did you mean games in the time frame between text adventures and FPS/RTS. Because I'm of the opinion that Commander Keen and similar side scrolling platforms were just as good with a keyboard as with a joystick. Damn now I have an urge to go and pull out some old games.
I actually don't mind adventure games with a stylist. I recently picked up a copy of broken sword, which I originally played on PC, it was pretty good on the DS. Not sure if King's or Space Quest would scale as well with the man eating plant maze or fall off cliffs and stairs and die challenges.
I personally did not like Civ on the PS3, at least the demo version I played, was very dumbed down and limited. Simcity on the SNES was an atrocity compared to the PC version, but that's just my opinion.
The argument is mouse & keyboard vs controller and not PC vs console. You need to look at what various inputs provide and what they're superior. The quantity of buttons on a keyboard is a non-issue. One could always, if one wanted to, add more buttons to a controller and in fact some controllers have featured keyboard addons. I, for example, own a Gamecube controller with an ASCII keyboard included on it. SquareEnix, in fact, recommends you get a USB keyboard for use with communication. These game consoles support keyboards and there are games for them that support keyboards. That leaves us with the differences in input as the platform itself really doesn't matter.
The mouse & keyboards principle advantage is in precision pointing from the mouse. The controller's principle advantage is derived from the control stick which provides a huge advantage in precision movement. The best that a PC has match is attempting to use the mouse point as a movement guide with distance from center of the screen indicating speed or you use the mouse to govern camera movement and whatever your controlling is just constantly barrelling forward. That's a terrible method because the natural resting state is wherever you left the mouse pointer or it wrecks the ability to independently move the camera while still moving in the direction you want. The joystick provides an advantage here as it naturally rests at neutral and provides a much smoother control of movement. Flight sims and driving games, for example, are vastly superior on a controller compared to the binary input mode for steering that's provided by the keyboard.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I don't know what you're talking about.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Also, take that consoles.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Nothing beats mouse and keyboard for a pro FPS player. I could headshot snipe your Wii remote using ass from across a map, while rocket jumping over a lava filled chasm before you even got your bearings.
I'm not sure if you can really say too accurate. A controller gives more of a feel of moving through 3d space, and in fact you are describing 3d arcs with your thumb/hand/whatever. A mouse is just point and click in a 2d co-ordinate system. Or a difference between reaching for something with your hand or pushing an object towards a space. Someone needs to pop some gamers into brain scanners and see what brain difference if any and what activation differences between keyboard people vs controller people.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Someone needs to pop some gamers into brain scanners and see what brain difference if any and what activation differences between keyboard people vs controller people.
I would find that a very interesting read.