By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - PSVITA.TV just announced!!!

zumnupy10 on 10 September 2013

Any news about when VT-TV will come to the west ?



Around the Network
johnsobas on 10 September 2013

wouldn't it be easier for everyone just to make PSvita games downloadable and playable on PS3 and PS4? I think they could probably do that without requiring you to purchase anything, i could see tons of blowback from that but this seems totally unnecessary. People had been talking about PSP games on PS3 for a long time, but Sony didn't want to kill the PSP hardware by doing that. Now they do this...



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

JoeTheBro on 10 September 2013
Viper1 said:
JoeTheBro said:

Back when I had a ping of 0, onlive worked FLAWLESS. Couldn't even tell it wasn't running locally.

Where you pinging the server...or your default gateway?
Gehirnkrampf said:


sou you plugged a 1 inch long LAN cable directly to a onlive server? wow.


I know I know, technically my ping was probably just 0.4.



Links

osed125 on 10 September 2013
JoeTheBro said:
Viper1 said:
JoeTheBro said:

Back when I had a ping of 0, onlive worked FLAWLESS. Couldn't even tell it wasn't running locally.

Where you pinging the server...or your default gateway?
Gehirnkrampf said:


sou you plugged a 1 inch long LAN cable directly to a onlive server? wow.


I know I know, technically my ping was probably just 0.4.

You do realize the ping in speedtest.net doesn't have anything to do with onlive right? The reason you can play onlive games flawlessly is because of your download speed, and not the 0ms ping. Speedtest just used the best server host to your location, and giving that is 0ms you most live very close to a server host without knowing it.

Edit: in order to know the ping you get from playing onlive games, you have to do a speed test to the servers onlive uses.



Nintendo and PC gamer

theprof00 on 10 September 2013
Veknoid_Outcast said:
theprof00 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

OK, I see where you're coming from. So for you this is kind of like a Gamecube Game Boy Player? It allows you to play the games you already enjoy on your handheld on a TV. It just seems expensive for that level of functionality.

As a Vita owner myself, I would just never recommend this product to someone interested in playing Vita games. Those games were designed, in most cases, with the Vita hardware in mind. Not to be played with a Dualshock controller on a TV. Plus, the raison d'etre of any handheld system is portability. You lose all that with Vita TV.

Well, you might've understood better had you read the product details first.

It's a media streaming device that ALSO plays the vita catalogue. It's not meant for gamers, it's meant for the audience of people who spend 100$ to have hulu, netflix, etc on their tv, with the exception that now they can play games too.

So Vita TV is for people 1) who don't own any seventh generation consoles, a computer, or a smart TV, 2) really want to play Vita games, and 3) don't have an extra $100 in disposable income to buy a real Vita?

That's not much of a target audience.

I'm not going to argue with someone who is clearly trying to blow things out of proportion.

Here is the target audience:
People who want a solution to the cable box. Funny how you think this is an insignificant population, when clearly Apple, Google, and Samsung all want it for themselves. The only difference is that Sony's plays games too, oh and can stream gaikai...which may someday include ps4 games. Sounds fine to me.



Around the Network
Acevil on 10 September 2013
theprof00 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
theprof00 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

OK, I see where you're coming from. So for you this is kind of like a Gamecube Game Boy Player? It allows you to play the games you already enjoy on your handheld on a TV. It just seems expensive for that level of functionality.

As a Vita owner myself, I would just never recommend this product to someone interested in playing Vita games. Those games were designed, in most cases, with the Vita hardware in mind. Not to be played with a Dualshock controller on a TV. Plus, the raison d'etre of any handheld system is portability. You lose all that with Vita TV.

Well, you might've understood better had you read the product details first.

It's a media streaming device that ALSO plays the vita catalogue. It's not meant for gamers, it's meant for the audience of people who spend 100$ to have hulu, netflix, etc on their tv, with the exception that now they can play games too.

So Vita TV is for people 1) who don't own any seventh generation consoles, a computer, or a smart TV, 2) really want to play Vita games, and 3) don't have an extra $100 in disposable income to buy a real Vita?

That's not much of a target audience.

I'm not going to argue with someone who is clearly trying to blow things out of proportion.

Here is the target audience:
People who want a solution to the cable box. Funny how you think this is an insignificant population, when clearly Apple, Google, and Samsung all want it for themselves. The only difference is that Sony's plays games too, oh and can stream gaikai...which may someday include ps4 games. Sounds fine to me.

Um.... I think you lost the argument Theprof00 with that statement, since Apple, Google and Samsung have been failing with those devices in large. By failing I mean reaching the mass market appeal they trying for. 

This product is aiming for niche market of the TV streaming sector, and Sony Enthusiest (such as myself).

Personally I think Smart TV (Which Samsung already owns the market) defeats these products really easily. 



 

theprof00 on 10 September 2013
Acevil said:

Um.... I think you lost the argument Theprof00 with that statement, since Apple, Google and Samsung have been failing with those devices in large. By failing I mean reaching the mass market appeal they trying for. 

This product is aiming for niche market of the TV streaming sector, and Sony Enthusiest (such as myself).

Personally I think Smart TV (Which Samsung already owns the market) defeats these products really easily. 

Ah, but to say that just because currently they have not reached mass market appeal does not mean that this isn't the future. Cable is on the way out. Devices like these will be the basis of home entertainment in a short time.

All cable has left is exclusive content.

Just look how well xbox did when ms was able to convince everyone that multiplat was the way to go.



Viper1 on 10 September 2013
JoeTheBro said:
Viper1 said:
JoeTheBro said:

Back when I had a ping of 0, onlive worked FLAWLESS. Couldn't even tell it wasn't running locally.

Where you pinging the server...or your default gateway?
Gehirnkrampf said:


sou you plugged a 1 inch long LAN cable directly to a onlive server? wow.


I know I know, technically my ping was probably just 0.4.

Use the actual ping command from the command line and ping a network that has some real distance from you.  A ping of sub 1.0 ms suggests that you had a Speedtest hub damn near across the street.   Your university might even be a Speedtest hub.

Try Vgchartz itself.
ping 65.111.186.138



The rEVOLution is not being televised

CityOfNoobs on 10 September 2013

I would be 100% sold if it did 5.1 audio and 1080P, but 720p and 2 channel sound is terrible for a set top box :(



Who is John Galt?

 

3DS Friend Code : 2535-4338-9000 

AMD FX 8150 , 8 GB DDR3 Kingston Memory,  EVGA GTX 560 TI 2 GB superclocked, Samsung 256 GB SSD

errorpwns on 10 September 2013
PlaystaionGamer said:
GribbleGrunger said:
Would this VitaTV be added to the Vita sales figures here or would it be seen as a totally separate device? I'm assuming the 2DS will be added to the 3DS and 3DSXL figures too?


its still a PSVita, same as a 2DS is still a 3DS.



2DS is a handheld.. The PSVITA.TV is a home console similar to Ouya mixed with a streaming box. I don't even see how you could compare the 2DS and Vita.tv. Considering under the chart is says consoles and PORTABLES. Referring to the 3DS and Vita. If they bunch in the Vita.TV with the Vita sales I would be disappointed. It's quite decieving as they both serve different purposes. Another thing. Just because it has the same hardware does not make it the same thing. Some of segas arcades shared their console hardware. Should we had the arcade sales to the console sales? However minimal that might be?