o_O.Q said:
Play4Fun said:
Bunch of jackasses.
I said Vita streaming is too limited to offer the exact same thing that Wii U pad offers, not that it can't be done at all.
Terrible reading comprehension all around. Wasted my time.
|
"I said Vita streaming is too limited" the problem we're all having is this what do you mean by too limited? what more is needed other than wireless connectivity and sufficient processing power? since you seem to understand the tech better please explain?
|
I have risen from the depths of my ban (which I blame all of you for BTW) to finish what I started.
If this sort of thing does get enabled on PS3 with Vita, we can't expect games to have Uncharted 3 like graphics at the same time the PS3 is rendering geometry for the Vita screen as well. That's kind of where I think it would be beneficial for the PS3 to just send executable code to the Vita, rather than just video, or a hybrid of both. There's no reason the PS3 can't load an inventory screen and the like onto the vita and have it execute that code itself.
Where I think Vita can be much more useful is where it would actually download a client app that's meant to interact with the PS3 title. Vita has bluetooth, so it can act as a controller for the PS3. So think of the demo they showed with Zelda where you use the touchscreen for item selection or a map? That sort of thing should be easily doable with no lag. While that may not open nearly as many 'new' gaming experiences, it would be a very welcome addition to those that have a Vita ... and would be quite easy to develop at little expense.
Playing a full game the way Wii U does it won't be done on Vita. Take that new Dragons Crown game for instance. You own PS3 version and Vita version. You play on PS3, save, transfer to Vita, load up game on Vita, and pick up where you left off.
Theres no lag that way since the game itself is running on the Vita. Think of it like a glorified version of Kojimas Transfaring idea for PS3 -> PSP.
That said, its not exactly what Wii U is doing since that only requires one game copy. Its also more time consuming unless they use cloud saves. And its more expensive since youll need both game copies unless they start doing cheap pack ins.
Wii U's method of streaming is also better. The Vita receives streaming data from the PS3 over 802.11g it will first need to be processed and converted to whatever your display understands and be fed to the display in the fashion. The display will then use its own processor that decodes the signal.
If the WiiU is using something similar to wireless HDMI, the conversion to whatever your display needs/understands is done by the console and streamed directly, alongside the signal to your TV, to controller screen (which decodes the signal). So in essence WiiU is doing away with that one extra step that needs to be done on the PS3/Vita combination.
There are 2 kinds of "streaming" we are talking about here.
1 . The network/IP kind, you do over your network, ala Netflix. That's handled by your router, that's local internet traffic.
2. A proprietary wireless RF video-mirroring solution. This is what Nintendo is using, some kind of UWB thing - this does not run on your network. It's like a cordless phone base, it's its own thing, and won't impact the traffic on your local network.
The only real issue is potential interference but I imagine they have that sorted with frequencies and channel hopping.
The Wii U method is #2, it is going to be extremely solid and not prone to dropping out, in all likelihood. Sony would have to employ method #1 for video streaming, which they do NOT need to do to support 2-screen gaming. The PS3 game on disc could come with a little Vita app that would install once and handle very light communication via WiFi or BT, obviating the need for compressing and throwing around a big laggy video stream.
I'm done and will now take my leave. Possibly for good if what I've done pissed the mods of enough.
And...er...I apologize for the jackass comment. I guess I just got really irritated.
Currently Online 
