This is quite a clever product from Sony, it's a good reuse of existing technology and repackaged for a different market. There's plenty of casual gamers who won't want to invest $400 into getting a PS4, but want something they can play some games on their TV and get access to streaming services, so it's great for their needs. It's great for gamers who may have to share one TV with their PS4 on, but have access to another so they can continue gaming without having to unplug and shift it.
Sony seems to be putting some really strong ideas forward at the moment, it's interesting to see.
> want something they can play some games on their TV and get access to streaming services
Roku has been around for years and everyone that wants your list already bought one (or a competitor). Other than a slightly fancier controller cannibalizing higher end sales yet not being completely compatible with the higher end, and a much larger ad budget, I'm not sure what if anything Sony brings to the table better than the numerous established competitors in exactly the same space.
Its the "memory stick" of streaming boxes.
If I was in the market, I'd probably be more likely to purchase one of those generic android PCs with HDMI out, so I have the same apps my phone and tablet have on my TV, or buy yet another Roku, which has worked well for many years for me doing the exact same tasks being claimed as "new" by the sony device.
Game Quality. That's the key difference, at least compared to its direct competitors. IMO that's a large difference, and not one that Roku and the like can compete with. It's a serious value-add, and as long as the media services are as seamless as it's competitors, it's a good choice.
Ah but its hardly the only "attach to a TV to play games" device out there. You have an extremely narrow window between "don't care / angry birds is good enough" and "Must have major title XYZ or its worthless". So you're J6P with your $700 TV and $150/month cable subscription and there's a $100 device thats not nearly as good as a mere $300 xbox, err...
Back in the industrial era there was this car called the Edsel which tried to wedge itself into a ecological niche too small for it to fit in, and it became a legend. Not a good legend BTW.
Roku has been around for years, sure, and it's available in 5 countries. Add on the fact in the UK outside of the tech followers the name 'Roku' is mostly unknown, Sony on the other hand has significantly more cachet.
What they're bringing is two things. Game quality and quantity, ranging from a classic like Final Fantasy 7 through to modern PS Vita games. There's very literally something for all the family, with some strongly recognised titles. The next thing they're bringing is not just access to Netflix, but most likely access to the Sony Entertainment library. That's a big ol' collection of entertainment that they can leverage against.
What Sony brings is brand name recognition, and most likely worldwide distribution. If they promote it well they'll sell a lot.
>Sony on the other hand has significantly more cachet.
That's a problem. Root kits. Memory sticks. MD Minidiscs. Beta video cassette recorders. Something will inevitably be "wrong" with this new Sony product; they all inevitably disappoint.
The Playstation (1/2), the Walkman, Triniton. Minidisc is unfair, I know of some people who still use them (music production purposes), they weren't a bad product they just launched at the wrong time.
They've had some hits, they've had some misses, they still have a significantly bigger presence than Roku. There's plenty of Sony Centres open in the UK just as a product outlet.
My interest in it is that there are games released on the PSP/Vita that aren't released on the PS3. I have no interest in a handheld when I have a nice couch and big TV.
Ouya just got owned. At least, for me, anyway: I wanted to get one, I'll get this instead due to vastly better game quality, and a great platform for indies as well. Nice move, Sony.
Well, the Ouya still has some selling points over this device - we've got the Apple/PC division going here, since Sony is notorious for being one of the most hardcore we-control-your-device DRM fans while Ouya prides themselves on openness. With ease of porting from Andriod and very low development overhead, Ouya will still have some selling points for developers too.
I hope the marketplace has room for both devices. But yeah, Ouya will have to take this as a serious challenge - they'll have to move fast and get any outstanding flaws in their devices and libraries locked down.
Okay, I'd agree with that; I do think however that Ouya's main issue right now is actual game quality, which this device kills. Unlike mobile phones and the like, I don't know if Worse is Better really works (yet, anyway, we will see in the future!).
I hope this makes the microconsole guys sit up, take notice, and start pumping money into some of these indie studios if they want to compete with this device. One can dream, right? Hy
I wonder how much of this project was sparked or inspired by Ouya. I got an Ouya with the intention of making games for it, but I've barely turned it on after the two-week experimental honeymoon, mostly because of a limited discovery system and the low quality of most games.
My PS3 has ended up being basically a dedicated Netflix box, that I very occasionally play some quick games on. If Sony doesn't completely blow it, I'll be replacing my PS3 with this.
I think it's a sensible, low-risk, clever move. It does fragment the Vita platform by creating a Vita runtime that doesn't support the touchscreen. If it's successful as a kids' room device, it further argues for an AppleTV with gaming capability since that's exactly what a lot of folks do with AppleTVs.
Don't most televisions come from the factory Netflix etc capable? My Sony Bravia from like 4 years ago had it as a 'new' feature so I'm sure it's standard by now.
I on purpose bought the best top of the line tv from a manufacturer that didn't include the built in junk. I have never seen one that is implemented decently. I would rather have a "dumb" tv that starts fast that I can use for a decade while I swap the "computer" every year if I want. TV manufacture companies have zero interest in keeping your Bravia software up to date. Think of your TV like a first generation android. You knew there is better software that could run on your TV (even when you bought the device), but the manufacture just won't bother releasing an update, ever.
They've actually released quite a few updates that add new channels/apps. But the look and feel of the interface is basically the same. I just want to be able to choose a service and browse selections and play them, and it works fine for that.
There's always the option to connect it via HDMI to whatever TV streaming box is out there. But I'd rather not connect another device and have another remote, etc.
I think that's a definite market, which is why I was so confused when Nintendo released its' Wii Mini, which has no network support. Looks like Sony is getting it right.
It's such a shame that Apple still hasn't added a gamepad and app marketplace to the Apple TV, especially after the success of the iOS App Store and the dominance of games on the platform. It seems so obvious, but such is Apple's notoriously frustrating blind spot towards games.
I'm willing to bet that the Apple TV has a very weak processor and a similarly weak graphics card, or none at all. Without those, you're limited to (essentially) angry birds, and other games that aren't really associated with the big screen.
I think that Apples reluctance to add gampad/app support is because of the experience. Apple knows that all its devices sell on the seamlesness experience they provide. Assuming that the Apple TV has lower end hardware, they're only going to be able to provide a sub-par experience, which will essentially be a loss to them, brand wise.
EDIT:
Ok, so the processor is the A5, with 512Mb of RAM. This (like I said) is only really good enough for fairly simple games, or poor quality complex ones. Definitely not what you'd expect to play on a "big" screen, so a degraded experience, and not one able to compete with the other big players in the market.
Your point about choosing the things that matter is the pertinent sentence. Apple doesn't want to put any focus on game, as media streaming is the focus of the device.
Consider the possibilities:
1) Apple implements amazing support for games on the Apple TV. Consumers who want to play AAA games on their TV won't buy it - they'll get a traditional console instead. Consumers who play the kinds of games that the iPhone/iPad/iPod support also won't be drawn to it, as they've already got their iPod/iPad/iPhone, so why would they want to play the game using a worse interface, slower, and when they could be watching TV.
2) Apple implements mediocre support for games on the Apple TV. This (like I said) will muddy their brand, as well as possibly taking personnel away from the core focus of the device - streaming, and again muddying their brand.
Either way, it's really not worth it for Apple. In the first case, the fraction of consumers they attract is really so tiny that it's not worth it for them to implement gaming. In the second case it's a net loss for them, both in terms of effort/payoff, and in terms of damage to the brand.
Apple could have made a huge impact in the games market. Their knack for polishing their products to the finest detail is exactly what games need these days.
At $499 that's squarely in AAA-console pricing territory, and Apple is not geared up to fight the PS4 and Xbox One... nor do they particularly want to.
I think there is a miscomprehension of the iOS gaming market, or casual gaming on mobiles in general. People don't play Angry Birds or Temple Run because they are fans of the games (in the same way you'd play Halo or Civilization), they do it to kill time.
Mobile games are intentional time-wasters for when you're standing in line, riding a bus, sitting in the doctor's office, etc. This is diametrically opposite to AAA-console gaming where users actively seek it out as something to do and dedicate time towards it. Platforms like the PS Vita straddle this weird middle ground - and it's arguable that Apple could potentially capture this middle ground also.
Either way, an AppleTV/Mac Mini fusion device wouldn't.
Don't forget, many games already support the Apple TV. Instead of installing the game on the Apple TV, you play the game on your iPhone/iPad/iPod and the game streams videos to the Apple TV. Some games even have a dual screen mode. http://www.macstories.net/stories/the-untapped-potential-of-...
that chip can power some impressive games (real racing 3) on a retina device. It's not far off 720, and if you look at a retina iPad it can't be far off 1080p.
So if next week they release a new apple TV with the A6, it should be doable.
I imagine an AppleTV capable of playing iOS games (not necessarily iOS touch games, but possibly using iOS devices as controllers) is in the works, or at least has been tinkered with.
It seems to me Apple might have plans to pull the trigger on this at a strategic moment, i.e. when it would be most "disruptive" (or to put it another way, have the greatest chance of success and do the most damage to rivals). If so, I think this is the moment -- we're about to see a console platform transition, Wii U has failed. Imagine if Apple releases an A7X-powered AppleTV with bluetooth controller support tomorrow -- or in the next month.
Base package for 9,954 yen includes the console, 2m HDMI cable, AC adapter. "Wireless Controller (DualShock 3) is necessary".
Value Pack for 14,994 yen additionally includes one DualShock3 "PlayStation Vita TV edition (white)" plus USB connector and an 8GB PSVita memory card.
The controller is also available separately for 5,500 yen.
The system features a 1 GB "Built-in memory card" and "maximum power usage"(?) of 2.8W.
In the video an ethernet port is visible, but the site does not specify whether the system actually has builtin WiFi (though I'd guess so, considering the PS4 streaming).
> Value Pack for 14,994 yen additionally includes one DualShock3 "PlayStation Vita TV edition (white)" plus USB connector and an 8GB PSVita memory card.
Looks like it's still going to use proprietary memory cards then. It's too bad, if it took an SD card or supports a USB mass storage device it would have been an easy sell for me (assuming it comes to the NA market.) Having to factor in the cost of an overpriced memory card makes it a harder sell.
I wonder if this originally got greenlighted as a "gaikai" player, gaikai being a competitor to onlive which sony bought and has promoting as part of the playstation 4.
As the article mentioned, ps4 games are supposed to allow remote play on a vita device, so this will actually be useful in my household where the tv with the ps4 is being occupied, but that seems like niche problem to solve.
Being able to add to the installed base of the Vita is a good thing for sony which will drive more game development, and if they can work out how not to cannibalize ps4 sales by offering gaikai direct (assuming it really works; color me skeptical that it will be a lag free experience), plus the video services like netflix, this may turn out to be a nice device for Sony.
It would be really cool if you could use a PS4 plus one of these boxes to do dual screen co-op as an alternative to the usual split-screen local co-op.
This is certainly a niche use (and Sony may not see it as being in its interest since it might cost them a small number of full PS4 sales), but it would be pretty cool and Sony has done plenty of nichey things in the past like using 3D tvs to do full screen co-op where each user sees a different image on the same tv.
Interesting, but I wonder why they explicitly mention only the DualShock 3 controller. Would not the DS4 be the better option, considering the PS4 connectivity and the launch date?
I thought about that too, but then you'd have _three_ game tiers: No touch (VitaTV + DS3), single non-video touchpanel (VitaTV + DS4), and the Vita handheld :/
They might talk the same protocol, but I'm willing to bet the initial target audience is people that are far more likely to have a PS3 already rather than hang its success on those that buy the PS4 at launch.
I never could adapt to the shape of the Vita. I had to hold it in a very awkward position to avoid touching accidentally the touch sensitive back panel. This seems like a viable option for me to play games released in the console and with a good price since I already own a ps3 with controllers.
Very nice move from Sony, the low price makes their games available to those not wanting to spend the extra money in their 'big' consoles.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know why this will support PSP and PS1 games but not PS2? Surely it will have more than enough power to handle those?
I didn't know the PS3 did complete emulation of the PS2 at all. The earlier PS3s that supported backwards compatibility actually contained the PS2 hardware (the first gen had both the cpu and gpu, and the second gen PS3 had the GPU and used emulation for the cpu).
I know that there are a lot of PS2 games in the PSN store, but I was under the impression that those were actually recompiled for the PS3 and did not use emulation. Are those actually emulated?
The early ones were ports, they were recompiled and enhanced with higher resolutions and/or framerate, trophy support, etc... They're titled "HD Collection" or "HD Remastered".
Many of the later ones are actually emulated. I think they're called "PS2 Classics" or some such.
Not all PS2 titles were "updated" to support newer PS hardware. Although, once the PSN Cloud (Gaikai) launches it should have the entire PS catalog at your disposal.
FYI, Vita is capable of playing PS3 titles through Gaikai.
Tell me this supports the Vita as a controller and I'd be sold. I really miss being able to plug my system to my TV like I could with the PSP. (Honestly, if they could just release a cable for the Vita that connected to my TV, I would be ecstatic!)
While we're on the subject, when the heck is Nintendo going to release 3DS support for the Wii U?!? I'd like to finally retire my GameCube w/GameBoy player.
There are a few games (including the flagship Uncharted) on Vita that are going to need patches to remove touchscreen/backpanel/camera requirements to play or finish the game. The [edit: accelerometer] can be replaced with the one built into the SixAxis controller.
A shame they didn't have the forsight to demand that all Vita games should be completable solely with the buttons.
>A shame they didn't have the forsight to demand that all Vita games should be completable solely with the buttons.
Why do you think so? What VITA game is not playable without touch/motion controls? Uncharted you mentioned is perfectly playable without either, I know because I played it.
There had been an issue with the OS that did not support buttons in the system dialogs but it's been fixed in one of the first updates more than a year ago.
If they get support for PS4 gamepad, you've got a touchpad pointing-device right there. Obviously it's not nearly as good an experience as the Vita, but it's there.
Sony should have switched to Android for the PS4 and this $100 console. They could have completely hijacked the Ouya market / the lower cost Android game market. It would have given the PS4 a substantial built-in leg up over the XBox One on launch as well: it'd come out of the gate with a marketplace of tens of thousands of games.
This is a great idea, but personally I'd have preferred it if the product was a docking station that came with a Vita. And had an option of getting just the docking station if you already have a Vita.
One of the things I really like about my PSP Go is the docking station that allows for easy TV play.
This is great. The PS Vita really has more than enough power to express a modern video game. I hope that this becomes popular and makes it more viable for large game companies to spend less time on graphical detail and more time on pursuing original ideas.
Bold move by Sony but the PS Vita is fundamentally borked by ignoring / excluding the Android ecosystem. Having owned 3 PSPs and dozens of UMDs I would rush to buy a Vita and the TV version, the hardware quality was always fantastic and the PS Vita looks a lot better than any sub-7" android/ios device for gaming, but being deliberately incompatible with everything I've bought in the last couple of years is just silly.
Sony is going to have a truckload of indie titles on PS VITA which VITA TV owners will directly benefit from. In total there are around 1300 games ready to be picked up and played (PS1, PSP and PS VITA combined).
I'd pick a pure gaming platform game over an Android / iOS based game any day. 100% Controller support for all games, and the games are generally of higher quality.
Sony having 100% control of the underlying platform for the device for 100% integration with their other devices (PS4, PS3, etc) is far more important than supporting Android games.
I think this is pretty much the end for Ouya, come to think of it. Android is just too fragile as a pure gaming device compared to something that was built from the ground up for that sole purpose.
Other than just gaming, the ability to watch movies, listen to music, stream PS4 to another TV, instead of purchasing 2 PS4's, (e.g. one for the bedroom and one for the living room), are excellent features. Each of which on their own are excellent selling points, except you get all of them for the same price.
I think a lot of people may be underestimating this product. If successful, they are literally taking Apple's Apple TV and Ouya's market at the same time, as well as creating a new market themselves.
They deliberately ignored it because Android at the time would have been a horrible choice. The PS Vita was released in late 2011. About a month after ICS was unveiled. This means it would have ran either 2.3 or 3.2, either of which would have been terrible choices.
Not to mention the overhead of Android and maintenance burden of using an OS that has to support so many other devices and functions. This might be your reason for not liking the Vita but I doubt it applies to many others. There are countless Android console style devices and judging by their lack of mainstream success, I seriously doubt this would have caused the Vita to fare much better than it has.
I think Sony should've just used Android as the base for PS Vita (and later PS4, etc), instead of going around it and making that "PS Mobile" thing that had to be compatible with both Android and the Vita OS, which in the end they ended up ignoring anyway.
I get this feeling that in US especially, people will be more reluctant to join the "Sony ecosystem" precisely because it's not much of an "ecosystem".
Having deep integration with Android and Google's ecosystem to fight against Microsoft, would've been the superior strategy in my opinion. Who will want to use "Sony apps" or "Sony services", or "Sony video-chat"? I can tell you a lot fewer people than if they were "Google apps, Google services, Google video-chat", etc.
It's good to see Sony innovating and being disruptive with this $100 console, but I think whatever they're doing now could've been amplified many times over by being part of a much larger ecosystem. Unless you think the 3 main ecosystems right now are already too big, and they should be more decentralized, and less powerful? That could be a good argument for consumers, but either way Sony will be fighting an uphill battle.
The biggest thing is that Sony's high-end phone line, Xperia, is in the Android space. So Sony is juggling two ecosystems when they could have one.
Imagine a single unified Sony ecosystem - make a small and large phone/PSP (small like Xperia Play, large like PSP) device and sell both in phone and wifi-only versions. Then bring in the set-top device.
You could make the native remote for your set-top a Move, then you get good interaction with touch-oriented apps.
Personally, if I were Sony I'd just be forking Android and making a de-Google'd form. Then use Sony's massive media and gaming assets to have the mother of all e-shops.
It's beyond retarded they make a subset of their stuff that (even in its entirety) relatively nobody will buy compatible with the devices everyone has been buying instead for the last few years. Mono isn't even a serious choice for games outside of Unity3d because Xamarin charge so much it's not worth it unless you have a mountain of existing stuff to port.
Sony had some other certification program previously as well and even made a nice little psp phone on top of Android but they just let the whole concept rot last time.
> Sony had some other certification program previously as well and even made a nice little psp phone on top of Android but they just let the whole concept rot last time.
It's still the same initiative/system, the Sony Ericsson Play was the first Playstation Certified Android phone.
Looks like a flop to me. We need less devices hanging off the back of the TV, not more, and anything this does the PS4 should be able to. It will probably cannibalize PS4 sales too with these low-margin devices, as well as cheapen the Sony brand by running low-grade games, which will look even worse blown up on an HDTV.
I thought so too until I read the article. Buried at the bottom is the ability to stream my Playstation 4 content within my house to this box. That's awesome. I hope it works.
My wife does not want all that stuff dangling from my television, but what she really hates is a game console hanging from my television. If my game console can be in my basement, and I can duct tape this to the back of my TV upstairs, then we both get what we want.
Sony seems to be putting some really strong ideas forward at the moment, it's interesting to see.