PlayStation 4 Console Thread

[Smitty]

So, it's only worthwhile when it's PS4 games? Really? C'mon... You'd call me out for stuff like that.

The two are very different propositions. I said at the time being able to play games off the screen isn't a system seller (well selling to me) with the WiiU and neither is it here.

[rubberducker]

oh come on lets not turn this thread into another wii u bitch fest.

basically sony have made the PS4 all things to all men. It can do the kinnect stuff and the wii u stuff - and with the best graphics of the lots.

[scottcr]

No they aren't. But there's no point arguing.WiiULOL etc

Edit : to Smitty

[Purin]

Having it as an option to a kick ass console is different than having it on a underpowered one - with no games - that is a built around having this massive ass pad to make it possible.

Add exclamation marks to every post!

You don't need a massive ass pad...you need a seperate £200 console.

[Smitty]

You don't need a massive ass pad...you need a seperate £200 console.

Yeah, I realised that. But when i'm playing on the PS4 i'll be using a regular pad, not the WiiU's tablet thing.

If I use this optional feature then i'm playing on the Vita, which is also smaller and lighter than the WiiU's tablet as well.

They are two different propositions and I prefer this one.

[BarryL85]

I had a Wii U and I have a Vita, the difference is the vita isn't limited to close proximity to the console and hardly any Wii U games can play on the pad alone. This sounds like almost all PS4 games will work via remote play!

Just for additional info the size of the Wii U gamepad was not an issue for me and nor did it actually feel massively different than playing with a conventional pad the ergonomics was good.

Playing full fat PS4 games on the Vita does appeal to me but the ergonomics of the Vita will take away from the experience! If only Sony would allow us to use the Dual Shock 4 whilst using the Vita screen!

[scottcr]

I had a Wii U and I have a Vita, the difference is the vita isn't limited to close proximity to the console and hardly any Wii U games can play on the pad alone. This sounds like almost all PS4 games will work via remote play!

Just for additional info the size of the Wii U gamepad was not an issue for me and nor did it actually feel massively different than playing with a conventional pad the ergonomics was good.

Playing full fat PS4 games on the Vita does appeal to me but the ergonomics of the Vita will take away from the experience! If only Sony would allow us to use the Dual Shock 4 whilst using the Vita screen!

this is the complete opposite of being true

[Mr. Gerbik]

I have no interest at all in remote play on the Vita! The touchscreen is a horrible solution for the two missing shoulder buttons! Am I doing this right with the exclamation points! But even if it isn't something that I'm interested in, it's great that it's there because it's optional! It doesn't impact my main reasons for pre-ordering a PS4 (more powerful, better multiplatform games, no mandatory Kinect, Sony pushing for 1080p @ 60FPS as standard, Sony actively encouraging indie devs to develop for it) so I'm all for it!

#TEAMSONY

!

[Dudley]

Yes, it's optional (unlike Kinect) and adds £0 to the price of the console (unlike the Wii-U pad or Kinect)

[jonamok]

Yes, it's optional (unlike Kinect) and adds £0 to the price of the console (unlike the Wii-U pad or Kinect)

I thought they had a dedicated bit of silicon in the PS4 for remote play to Vita? If so, I'm guessing there is some cost associated with it.

[Dudley]

It depends how they're doing it, I haven't read up. But in theory there's no need for dedicated silicon.

[scottcr]

Hopefully you can turn on the PS4 with the vita, so you can just pick up the Vita and play a PS4 game without having to bother about putting on the big telly and stuff. Even better if the range is further than the WiiU and I can use it anywhere within my wireless network.

[BarryL85]

this is the complete opposite of being true

Sorry what I should have said is hardly any of the games I had could play solely on the pad, I had Zombi U, Nintendoland, Lego City Undercover and Mario Bros U. Only one of them could properly play without the tv!

[El Spatula]

Yeah you can use remote play anywhere within the range of yer wireless network. So immediately betterer. And dat screen.

[Spacehost]

What I like about the mandatory remote play is that with instant game resume (and I assume you'll be able to boot into Remote Play from the Vita just like the PSP can boot up the PS3) I can dip in and do random little bits of inventory shit or tune a GT car or something trivial, rather than starting up Generic F2P Game on my phone.

[DocG]

I thought they had a dedicated bit of silicon in the PS4 for remote play to Vita? If so, I'm guessing there is some cost associated with it.

It has a dedicated (cheap) chip dedicated to producing a video stream of the game, yes. One use of that stream is to send it to a Vita for remote play. But another use of that is to save the stream to disc for the Sharing feature where game clips are uploaded to YouTube and the like. So it's bigger than just the Vita bit, and it's not an expensive component anyway.

It makes me think of that bit in the Abridged PS4 Announcment video on YouTube. 'It can cross play games with the Vita! Please buy a Vita.'

[robdood]

Preordered.

#TEAMSONY

[Pob]

Is there likely to be perceptible lag on remote play?

[scottcr]

Is there likely to be perceptible lag on remote play?

My assumption is that they've got it sorted if they're being so confident about it.

[Uncle Mike]

There'll be some lag (or at least, it might feel a little less responsive than the WiiU's version) simply because it's Wi-Fi as opposed to a Miracast derivative, I'd have thought. But otherwise, it should be OK.

[Epcotman]

PS3 remote play already works really well. But now that it's mandatory on PS4 games, with a dedicated chip and all that Gaikai knowledge, I'd expect it to be pretty much perfect.

[MDY]

There'll be some lag (or at least, it might feel a little less responsive than the WiiU's version) simply because it's Wi-Fi as opposed to a Miracast derivative, I'd have thought. But otherwise, it should be OK.

Digital Foundry (and the people who hacked the Wii U) reckon it's not Miracast - uses almost standard wireless n..

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-secrets-of-the-wii-u-gamepad

[Uncle Mike]

Digital Foundry (and the people who hacked the Wii U) reckon it's not Miracast - uses almost standard wireless n..

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-secrets-of-the-wii-u-gamepad

That's why I said derivative. These techs are all practically the same shit anyway,

[ravon]

I though the remote play was proper remote play as in streaming to where ever you are in the world more like onlive

[Uzi]

Is there likely to be perceptible lag on remote play?

From the Eurogamer article:

Remote Play itself is nothing new of course - PSP and Vita had lacklustre, laggy support for a handful of PS3 games - but Vita itself has seen virtually no additional support, despite the introduction of a higher-quality 480p protocol. Indeed, those running hacked PS3 firmwareshave had access to the most games. The problem is that PS3 Remote Play is based around software video encoding via the Cell's SPUs, and developers are not keen on sacrificing that CPU time for Remote Play support, while the technology itself is slow to respond, with dodgy image quality.

It's all change for PlayStation 4, which features bespoke hardware video encoding for Remote Play, gameplay recording and screen-sharing support with all the benefits of the Gaikai streaming technology. It's a feature built into the operating system itself, incurring no performance penalty to developers. Up until now, the question has been to what extent publishers would want the feature enabled - conceivably, opening up a new library of software for Vita could steal sales from games designed for the system. The news that Sony is mandating support for all titles that don't require the camera takes the choice away from the publishers and ensures a level of consistency in the features that the majority of games offer.

If you already have a vita, it is a huge incentive to get a PS4. As for R2/L2 type extra buttons- the back touch pad should be able to emulate though but thinking about it, a lot of games that I would want to play on the vita from full console wouldn't need those much anyway.

[squirtle]

Not so much of a draw though if you don't have a Vita, as you'll need to stick approx £200 on top of the console price to enjoy this "luxury".

[NecroMorrius]

If you really want/need the L2/R2 buttons, you can sync a PS3/probably PS4 pad with your Vita and play it like that too.

[pauc]

I could see Sony releasing a PS4/Vita bundle at launch to tempt a few more people with a Vita in all the launch excitement.

[ras el hanout]

I could see Sony releasing a PS4/Vita bundle at launch to tempt a few more people with a Vita in all the launch excitement.

For £750

[Uzi]

Not so much of a draw though if you don't have a Vita, as you'll need to stick approx £200 on top of the console price to enjoy this "luxury".

The vita is a pretty fine portable itself. Has a lot of the best of the PSP library available for good prices and looks and plays better than ever on that hardware. The PS+ support has been amazing too as has the recent indie support for it. A few months ago I thought it was all but dead, but Sony have really kept me happy as an owner. Loads to play on it. Oh and it has Persona 4 so there ends the argument.

It's a completely optional "luxury" that simply rewards you for owning both and gives you amazing functionality at no extra cost to you. If you buy a vita just to play PS4 games offscreen, then I suggest you don't exist so I find the criticism odd.

Besides, the biggest actual incentive to buy a PS4 is the xbone lol.