🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:30:38 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>https://twitter.com/yosp/status/670077392761716736
>
>I thought I would never see that (except for the third party hack which 
>became official this week)

I was interested in the Killzone series, but couldn't come to grips
with playing it with the PS3 controller. I'm guessing you'll still be
stuck playing the PS4 version with a Sony controller?


Allmost can't believe they're even doing this and can't imagine Sony
smoothly working out the logistics.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:30:38 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>https://twitter.com/yosp/status/670077392761716736
>
>I thought I would never see that (except for the third party hack which 
>became official this week)

Sounds kind of like a solution for using an old 386 to run games so
that we can remotely access them with a 486 or Pentium, just to say we
can  ;)

Are there really enough PS exclusive titles to make this remotely
worthwhile?

Am 29.11.15 um 16:42 schrieb Tim O:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:30:38 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> https://twitter.com/yosp/status/670077392761716736
>>
>> I thought I would never see that (except for the third party hack which
>> became official this week)
>
> I was interested in the Killzone series, but couldn't come to grips
> with playing it with the PS3 controller. I'm guessing you'll still be
> stuck playing the PS4 version with a Sony controller?
>
Seems like it, I have a Sony tablet and there you have either an 
onscreen controller scheme (which is really bad) or you can remote play 
via a bluetooth connection to the PS4 controller (which works really well)
>
> Allmost can't believe they're even doing this and can't imagine Sony
> smoothly working out the logistics.
>
Well they got pressure from the third party hack, but I am also 
surprised. I guess they are slowly giving up on their mobile division.
Wouldn´t surprise me to see Sony grinding the axe over the PS Vita and 
the Mobile phones soon (the PS4 remoting was a big selling point for 
those devices)

Am 29.11.15 um 17:48 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:30:38 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> https://twitter.com/yosp/status/670077392761716736
>>
>> I thought I would never see that (except for the third party hack which
>> became official this week)
>
> Sounds kind of like a solution for using an old 386 to run games so
> that we can remotely access them with a 486 or Pentium, just to say we
> can  ;)
>
Depends, consoles have one major problem, they block the TV, so if 
someone wants to watch TV you can move to your PC and continue your game.

> Are there really enough PS exclusive titles to make this remotely
> worthwhile?
>
Pretty much everything which has come from Sony the last two years.
(Well except Knack which is supposed to be mediocre at best)

Sony has a pretty good track record of producing high quality content on 
the Playstation.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 21:26:03 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 29.11.15 um 17:48 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:30:38 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>
>>> https://twitter.com/yosp/status/670077392761716736
>>>
>>> I thought I would never see that (except for the third party hack which
>>> became official this week)
>>
>> Sounds kind of like a solution for using an old 386 to run games so
>> that we can remotely access them with a 486 or Pentium, just to say we
>> can  ;)
>>
>Depends, consoles have one major problem, they block the TV, so if 
>someone wants to watch TV you can move to your PC and continue your game.

I've always been a technology person -- perhaps the opposite type that
resists technological change.  But, I do think I've become jaded over
the years watching the erosion of gaming at the hands of consoles.

It seems to me there is a disturbing progression here:

1.  Consumer wants console so they can play on the big TV in the
living room - also  because consoles are cheaper than PCs.

2.  They find the TV being blocked by others in the house, so instead
of buying another cheap console and a spare TV for another room, they
lower the common denominator even further by settling for an extra
layer of network lag (from streaming), just so they can play the game
on a platform the game was not even designed to be run on (a superior
one).

Bought a console so I can play on the TV but can't play on the TV so
I'll stream the console to my PC really seems like nailing one foot to
the floor and running in circles looking for solutions.

What's next?  Stream from the PC to the console/steam box, then stream
that to the laptop because the TV is being used for something else.
But now a family member needs to type on the laptop so let me beam
that signal back to the same PC I originally streamed it from so I can
play the game.  Meanwhile I've introduced about a 3 second lag between
the type I hit a button and something happens on the screen, all my
CPU and GPU resources are maxed out and my power bill has tripled ;)

Meanwhile the gaming industry realizes the need for multi-streaming,
so in order to get around the 3 second lag problem they start watering
down the game engines to run better under multi-streaming scenarios.

Yeah I know it's a hyperbolic scenario, but on a smaller scale that's
basically what has happened to PC gaming.

>Bought a console so I can play on the TV but can't play on the TV so
>I'll stream the console to my PC really seems like nailing one foot to
>the floor and running in circles looking for solutions.

    Gotta say this is pretty much my reaction.  "We can't allow exclusives 
to ever get ported, so we'll allow you to watch the game on your pc, *while 
still requiring a console purchase to actually run the game*".  Such a nice 
gesture.  It's just smoke and mirrors.

rms 

Am 30.11.15 um 05:34 schrieb rms:
>> Bought a console so I can play on the TV but can't play on the TV so
>> I'll stream the console to my PC really seems like nailing one foot to
>> the floor and running in circles looking for solutions.
>
>     Gotta say this is pretty much my reaction.  "We can't allow
> exclusives to ever get ported, so we'll allow you to watch the game on
> your pc, *while still requiring a console purchase to actually run the
> game*".  Such a nice gesture.  It's just smoke and mirrors.
>
> rms
Yes and no, I have had remote streaming for a while, thanks to a Sony 7 
inch tablet. I like the streaming, I have played quite a lot of games 
that way in bed.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 18:25:18 +0100, Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 30.11.15 um 05:34 schrieb rms:
>>> Bought a console so I can play on the TV but can't play on the TV so
>>> I'll stream the console to my PC really seems like nailing one foot to
>>> the floor and running in circles looking for solutions.
>>
>>     Gotta say this is pretty much my reaction.  "We can't allow
>> exclusives to ever get ported, so we'll allow you to watch the game on
>> your pc, *while still requiring a console purchase to actually run the
>> game*".  Such a nice gesture.  It's just smoke and mirrors.
>>
>> rms
>Yes and no, I have had remote streaming for a while, thanks to a Sony 7 
>inch tablet. I like the streaming, I have played quite a lot of games 
>that way in bed.

Its not to say that being able to disconnect from the TV and continue
a game after turning the TV over to someone else isn't useful as a
feature, at least in a well-executed concept.  As you already know,
the Wii U does this by design.

However, there are several of key differences:

1.  Wii U uses a proprietary, low-latency protocol to communicate
between the console and game pad (no detectable lag).
2.  The controls are integrated with the screen on the gamepad and the
games are designed to be played this way from the ground up, it's not
gerry-rigging a secondary solution as a ghetto work around.  It is not
an "afterthought" like the Sony solution.
3.  Nintendo does not insult us by suggesting we run their games on a
PC, a platform that's infinitely more powerful than their console.  If
they really wanted us to do this, they would simply make a
Nintendo-produced emulator, since Intel chips can run circles around
the chip used in the Wii-U.  But these are smart guys that realize it
would be a reckless use of company resources.  Nintendo games are
meant to be played on Nintendo hardware, end of story.  They realize
that playing a game on a platform for which it was not designed is an
interesting novelty, but is a bastardization of the original
developer's vision, and will probably result in diminished enjoyment
in the case of many games (which makes it unfair to judge the game on
those platforms).

It's not that Sony doesn't have bright engineers, but look at their
track record of handling of various technologies:  Betamax, Trinitron,
all these proprietary digital music players, etc.