Other Gaming Forum

Topic: PS Vita TV announced. (Oyua am cry)

Showing 181 to 200 of 238

AuthorMessage
Peach64

Peach64

181. Posted:

@Scar392 You can link your account to two PS3s, two PSPs etc, not just 2 systems over all. If you think that's a reason not to buy anything from Sony, then how do you justify Nintendo making you buy games all over again for each system you have?

You then complain they didn't explain features that don't exist yet. Again, it would be like saying no point in buying any Nintendo stuff as they didn't explain their unified account system yet. Why the heck would you expect to be able to use a PS3 to remotely access a PS4? Why would they ever put anything into the PS3 when designing it almost 10 years ago to allow it stream from another console?

Peach64

AuthorMessage
SCAR392

SCAR392

182. Posted:

Peach64 wrote:

@Scar392 You can link your account to two PS3s, two PSPs etc, not just 2 systems over all. If you think that's a reason not to buy anything from Sony, then how do you justify Nintendo making you buy games all over again for each system you have?

You then complain they didn't explain features that don't exist yet. Again, it would be like saying no point in buying any Nintendo stuff as they didn't explain their unified account system yet. Why the heck would you expect to be able to use a PS3 to remotely access a PS4? Why would they ever put anything into the PS3 when designing it almost 10 years ago to allow it stream from another console?

NVM, I read it wrong. It says "2 PS3 and/or 2 PSP". So I would just replace 1 PS4 or Vita as a home or portable console.

Do you seriously think PS3 can't handle a PS4 stream? I bet you people were streaming stuff over Linux before it got the boot. These machines can do alot more than they let them, and that's why I'm disappointed and choose not to care about Sony.
My point is that Sony hasn't explained or included alot of features I already know are possible.

The same argument works for Nintendo as well, but this is one bunch of BS that proves Nintendo is given alot more grief than they should be. This thing can't even stream a separate multiplayer screen as far as we know. I would expect that would be info they would include, yet it's not there.

Sony may have the account system somewhat on lock(besides being the only 1 of the 3 being hacked and actually effecting customers), but this thing adds nothing aside from what tons of already existing devices can do, including the PS3.

I'm not talking to you in general, but if you think about things a little bit more, this does nothing in comparison. It's a different device that does the same thing, yet doesn't in some areas.

You might as well pay the extra $100 for touch, 3G, portability, and remote play on the Vita.

EDIT: BTW, PS3 can stream from PC. It supports ad-hoc.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
SCAR392

SCAR392

183. Posted:

Just for the record, all of the 3 are doing questionable stuff.

Now Microsoft is saying Xbox 360 BC is possible, which I already knew since the beginning(and people disagreed with me), BTW. It's just a matter of programming for these things to do this s***.

Also, Xbox One won't support ext. HDDs, and Sony hasn't commented about anything.

We're getting to the point where it's apparent that people gave crap to Nintendo when everyone else fell short in similar areas.
It's hypocrisy at it's finest while considering no one really was confident about much of anything, yet always had an idea in mind.

People want more and more, then don't know what the hell to do with it, or never cared either way.

In conclusion, the whole thing is a big mess on all 3 fronts as of now(IMO), yet Nintendo's been the one taking bullets for couple years or so, now.

EDIT: It's the exact same argument I ALWAYS make in regards to PS2 BC on PS3 slim systems. You seriously can't tell me a PS3 can play a PS1 game, but not a PS2 game. BS to the max!!

Ya, Sony was just lazy at programming and didn't give a damn.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
CanisWolfred

CanisWolfred

184. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

You seriously can't tell me a PS3 can play a PS1 game, but not a PS2 game. BS to the max!!

As someone who used to be really into emulation, I can assure you PS2 games are way harder to emulate. And again, this is the difference between software and hardware emulation. Software Emulation is resource-heavy, and you need a powerful machine to keep from suffering significant slowdown when you're dealing with higher performance games like the PS2. Not to mention you need to fine tune the program with each individual game - all 2000 of them in the PS2's case. Hardware emulation makes things much easier, and the PS3 used to have PS2 hardware within it. Yes, even the PS3 models that used Software emulation still had the GPU of the PS2. Without it, the PS3 simply can't emulate them properly. Sure, it can emulate PS1 games easily, but so could the PS2 slim. The PS1 is just easier to emulate, due to both programming and simplistic hardware.

PS2 Classics, mind you, are a different story, since they've gone through special processes to be compatible with the PS3. Hence why they have to charge $10 minimum for them.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun
Arooo~

AuthorMessage
LztheQuackAdmin

LztheQuack

185. Posted:

I don't think this will be the "salvation" of the Vita. There's no point in releasing games if the majority of consumers want the console version of the Vita. It would have to compete with the PS4, Wii U, Xbox One, PS3, 3DS, and the 360.

Nintendo Life Community Administrator

Fire Emblem! Enough said! TINGLE_loggery

Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky

AuthorMessage
CanisWolfred

CanisWolfred

186. Posted:

ScroogeMcLz wrote:

I don't think this will be the "salvation" of the Vita. There's no point in releasing games if the majority of consumers want the console version of the Vita. It would have to compete with the PS4, Wii U, Xbox One, PS3, 3DS, and the 360.

Maybe it won't be the salvation, you're talking as if it hold no value. It's $100 and you get more powerful games that any other machine for that price. Again, it opens doors for casuals who either want a streaming device with gaming capabilities, or want some gaming without spending too much money. It also opens doors for less affluent people. It's much easier to afford a $100 console to do a little gaming than to save up for $250-$400 devices if you're on a budget.

And it's also good as a cheap extra for other gamers, including those who intend to get a PS4.

Really, I don't see how this could possibly go wrong (it's already selling out in Japan), and I've been wanting the big console makers to do stuff like this for a while - put out cheap consoles of their own to suppliment their new expensive ones so they get the best of both world instead of having to wait for until they can afford to drop the prices down to something more people are willing to pay to get the big influx of sales.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun
Arooo~

AuthorMessage
Retro_on_theGo

Retro_on_theGo

187. Posted:

I am definitely the market this is aimed it! I want!

Help Scott Pilgrim become backwards compatible for the Xbox One!

My Deviant Art! Feel free to browse my work!
[url=http://backloggery.com/r...

Twitter:

AuthorMessage
SCAR392

SCAR392

188. Posted:

@CanisWolfred
I know how it works, that's why I think Sony is stupid. This whole spec non-sense regarding the PS4 is Atari Jaguar all over again, because actual performance is all that matters in the end, and it's pretty apparent Sony doesn't know how to actually use it, otherwise we'd see alot better performance in comparison.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
SCAR392

SCAR392

189. Posted:

I also want to add, that 2DS still has all the same features as 3DS besides 3D. That's $30 more, has a larger library, has Pokemon, Streetpass is a utilized feature, uses SD cards, etc.
How is Sony suppose to compete with a device that retains all of it features and had more to begin with?

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
Reala

Reala

190. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

I also want to add, that 2DS still has all the same features as 3DS besides 3D. That's $30 more, has a larger library, has Pokemon, Streetpass is a utilized feature, uses SD cards, etc.
How is Sony suppose to compete with a device that retains all of it features and had more to begin with?

Well Vita TV is being referred to a lot as a micro console, I don't think its meant to compete with 2/3DS.

Reala

AuthorMessage
Sleepingmudkip

Sleepingmudkip

191. Posted:

I am upset the way sony doing its 1 party games if you look at the list all the first party games are rated M or not rated at all(Sadly im almost 14) so i cant even get a ps4 at launch,i really hope infamous is rated T because if its not i have no interests in the ps4 and i will only get a vita if i get a ps4 so they lost 2 sales. Sony acts like all kids gone to smart phone well there is a few who did not. so in till some games i can play come out im not getting a ps4(i already have to sneak from my mom to get watch dogs on the wii u)

WiiU
3DS XL
New 3DSXL

Tumblr

Nintendo Network ID: lionel1 | Twitter:

AuthorMessage
SCAR392

SCAR392

192. Posted:

Reala wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

I also want to add, that 2DS still has all the same features as 3DS besides 3D. That's $30 more, has a larger library, has Pokemon, Streetpass is a utilized feature, uses SD cards, etc.
How is Sony suppose to compete with a device that retains all of it features and had more to begin with?

Well Vita TV is being referred to a lot as a micro console, I don't think its meant to compete with 2/3DS.

That won't stop people from drawing similarities and buying a Nintendo system instead.

For as much as people compare basically anything Sony and Nintendo do to each other, it's astounding how PS Vita TV and 3DS/2DS similarities don't exist once you hook it up to a TV.
That's not how I see it at all.

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
OptometristLime

OptometristLime

193. Posted:

ScroogeMcLz wrote:

I don't think this will be the "salvation" of the Vita. There's no point in releasing games if the majority of consumers want the console version of the Vita. It would have to compete with the PS4, Wii U, Xbox One, PS3, 3DS, and the 360.

So much this. Is it really worth segmenting their market just to gain some sales from lightweight gamers? Maybe if it was a huge breakout hit like Wii... which really was the salvation or 'discovery' of the casual market, in some practical sense. I wouldn't have such a strong opinion, except we are talking about a company that, to their credit, supports a legacy of devices. Yet could potentially splinter their content delivery towards three divergent systems... perhaps they are equipped to handle that. We could talk about the implications for the PS4 sales; Vita TV complements that user base, while targeting the opposite income bracket. The gamer that can afford two consoles from the same publisher, performing arguably a similar or identical (in the case of PS4 streaming) function.

You are what you eat from your head to your feet.

AuthorMessage
Jaz007

Jaz007

194. Posted:

Sleepingmudkip wrote:

I am upset the way sony doing its 1 party games if you look at the list all the first party games are rated M or not rated at all(Sadly im almost 14) so i cant even get a ps4 at launch,i really hope infamous is rated T because if its not i have no interests in the ps4 and i will only get a vita if i get a ps4 so they lost 2 sales. Sony acts like all kids gone to smart phone well there is a few who did not. so in till some games i can play come out im not getting a ps4(i already have to sneak from my mom to get watch dogs on the wii u)

Not all of Sony's first party is rated M. Uncharted is rated T, imFamous: Second Son will be rated T, and there will be new T rated IPs from Sony in the PS4. Here is a quick list of PS4 games that should be rated T that aren't first party too, FFXV, Star Wars: Battlefront, and Mirror's Edge. That not including any and that are just platformers, or racing games either. I can't play rated M either and I think the PS4 is looking absolutely amazing, like the best gen yet.

Jaz007

AuthorMessage
CanisWolfred

CanisWolfred

195. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

@CanisWolfred
I know how it works, that's why I think Sony is stupid. This whole spec non-sense regarding the PS4 is Atari Jaguar all over again, because actual performance is all that matters in the end, and it's pretty apparent Sony doesn't know how to actually use it, otherwise we'd see alot better performance in comparison.

No, no you don't. You haven't the slightest clue. My PC is about on par with the PS3. I can't run PS2 games on very good emulators, even with all the tweaks I've tried. It's harder than you think.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun
Arooo~

AuthorMessage
SCAR392

SCAR392

196. Posted:

CanisWolfred wrote:

SCAR392 wrote:

@CanisWolfred
I know how it works, that's why I think Sony is stupid. This whole spec non-sense regarding the PS4 is Atari Jaguar all over again, because actual performance is all that matters in the end, and it's pretty apparent Sony doesn't know how to actually use it, otherwise we'd see alot better performance in comparison.

No, no you don't. You haven't the slightest clue. My PC is about on par with the PS3. I can't run PS2 games on very good emulators, even with all the tweaks I've tried. It's harder than you think.

So just because you can't get it working on a PC, automatically makes you think PS3 can't do it?

You can't compare PS3 to a PC, so perhaps I have more of a clue than you think. PS3 is still part of the PS family of products, with BC hopefully(but apparently not) being a thought for the people at Sony CO.

Ya, I'm not going to take your PC emulation seriously, especially when that's far from from being a goal I would expect your PC to have, while it is a goal I would expect PS3 to have.

Sony just didn't try as hard as they probably should have.

I can understand if you don't care about PS2 BC at all about it being an issue, but otherwise this is technically a very questionable problem with the knowledge that they are products in the same line.

Edited on by SCAR392

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
CanisWolfred

CanisWolfred

197. Posted:

A console is a specialized computer! There's nothing that would magically make it do things that PCs can't do, the benefit of the console is just that its specs and programing are standardized and at the very least First parties should be able to get more of the console because they'd have access to a great amount of info on how the machine works. And I just meant specs-wise my PC has a comparable level of power.

I'm seriously wondering where you get your so-called knowledge of machines, because it's definitely not the places I've gotten my research...

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun
Arooo~

AuthorMessage
SCAR392

SCAR392

198. Posted:

So you seriously expect a PC to be able to run a PS2 game, but not a PS3?

I understand the concept of hardware differences. My point is that Sony doesn't/shouldn't want you to be trying to emulate PS2 games on a different device other than a Playstation. Perhaps Sony doesn't care that people are trying to emulate their games, because they aren't?

If you know enough about programming, this shouldn't be a problem. I'm not going to criticise the "tweaks" you've made to try to run a PS2 game, because this is something I would have expected Sony to do in the first place.

This whole thing is an OS issue, and Sony should have been able to figure it out.

The only explanation for not blaming Sony about not including PS2 I can come up with, is if you genuinely don't care about the feature. Since you're trying to get your PC to run PS2 games, I'm assuming you do.

Are you trying to run PS2 games off of a disc, or a digital file?

$¢@®³’²

AuthorMessage
CanisWolfred

CanisWolfred

199. Posted:

SCAR392 wrote:

So you seriously expect a PC to be able to run a PS2 game, but not a PS3?

Yes and now. I expect that a PC of comparable specs should be able to do similar things to what a PS3 can do. PS2 emulation is possible on more powerful PCs. I've seen it done. It's just that emulating the PS2 hardware is a serious drain of the machine. The PS3 is perfectly capable of emulating the PS2 - I apologize for making it sound like I was saying it's impossible - it's just that it can't do it well because it doesn't have to power to do so.

SCAR392 wrote:

I understand the concept of hardware differences. My point is that Sony doesn't/shouldn't want you to be trying to emulate PS2 games on a different device other than a Playstation. Perhaps Sony doesn't care that people are trying to emulate their games, because they aren't?

That is true. That is why they the PS2 difficult to program for way back. However, I'd wager that they did such a good job that now it's difficult for themselves to emulate the PS2 on their own machines without PS2 hardware included with the machine.

SCAR392 wrote:

If you know enough about programming, this shouldn't be a problem. I'm not going to criticise the "tweaks" you've made to try to run a PS2 game, because this is something I would have expected Sony to do in the first place.

Those tweaks are actually easier said than done but I can't go into too much about that because of the rules.

SCAR392 wrote:

This whole thing is an OS issue, and Sony should have been able to figure it out.

I really don't think it is, but I'm not sure how the OS works.

SCAR392 wrote:

The only explanation for not blaming Sony about not including PS2 I can come up with, is if you genuinely don't care about the feature. Since you're trying to get your PC to run PS2 games, I'm assuming you do.

I'm not blaming Sony because I've heard enough of their side to have some understanding as to why they did it.

SCAR392 wrote:

Are you trying to run PS2 games off of a disc, or a digital file?

I've tried both. I didn't notice much of a difference, personally.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun
Arooo~

AuthorMessage
SCAR392

SCAR392

200. Posted:

@CanisWolfred
I would say Other OS and PS2 are a somewhat related matter. They were excluded at the same time, and I speculate that the way Other OS operates on PS3 is similar to the way PS2 handled its software.

They weren't able to assign Other OS and PS2 to the same component. That's why PS2 hardware was probably required without compromising the Other OS feature.

That's just my speculation, but I'd say it's a safe bet that Sony had good intentions and things didn't end up going exactly how they wanted, so they ended up losing 2 features at once in the slim revision.

$¢@®³’²