zero129 said:
twintail said:
I think of lot of these WiiU comparisons are pretty strange considering that controller was the dedicated input for the WiiU whereas this is clearly an accessory for those want to game at home (or via wifi) at times when they can't use their TV. The issue is clearly the lack of Cloud functionality. Whether that changes in the future or not remains to be seen, but this would've been better served released when it could connect with Sony's cloud service from day 1. Until then, the device is incredibly niche. I think there's nothing wrong with a remote play dedicated device but I do believe that it being a remote play only device is not a strong sell. If it can eventually use the cloud, and if it could somehow function as a 2nd controller directly without the remote play aspect, then I think the Portal would be a much better device, and serve as a great accessory. If I could cloud stream certain games from anywhere, that would make me very interested in the Portal. But right now, I'm not sure I see the need for it. I look forward to impressions once it's launched. |
I think the point is that it "was" included and no one really cared for it, so how many people are going to care for a device that they have top pay 200 extra to use?. I think not many at that price. |
I agree it's an incredibly niche product, but I don't think that really changes that the WiiU comparison being somewhat flimsy.
No one is being forced to use their PS5 with the accessory. It's for ppl who want it, so even if the argument is that not many ppl are going to care, I can't help but wonder why that even remotely matters for an optional device some ppl will want.
