Technical Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Bagel seed
Veteran
Vita is better to wield and more portable. With a tablet hooked up to a controller you still need some surface or stand to lay it down on or prop it up to play.
Not with Surface tablets
Its definitely more handy but I think you would get more fidelity from a 10 inch screen while using the controller the game was designed for.
Bagel seed
Veteran
Not with Surface tablets
Its definitely more handy but I think you would get more fidelity from a 10 inch screen while using the controller the game was designed for.
Surface tablet? What's that
PC support would be good tho, I agree. Laptops are more proppable and I'd use it on my WSXGA+ 14incher. Vita to laptop to PS4, wow the screen options!
ShadowRunner
Veteran
You could see it as hitching a losing device to a winner (if ps4 does well)
If nothing else it may help sell a few more Vitas. There are very little negatives here for Sony or the consumer.
Surface tablet? What's that
PC support would be good tho, I agree. Laptops are more proppable and I'd use it on my WSXGA+ 14incher. Vita to laptop to PS4, wow the screen options!
hehehe
Depending on the state of wireless connectivity in Japan, I also see it as a way of getting more people in the East to buy a Vita and combat the shellacking it's getting compared to the 3DS. Every little bit helps.
Speaking of which, what's the feasibility of this working on a strong 4G LTE connection? I get around 25ms latency on my T-Mobile iPhone 5, which is just a tiny bit worse than the 9ms latency I get on my Comcast Internet at home. At least for a single-player game, it shouldn't be that bad, right?
The most important feature of the Vita is it's integrated game controls and dual analog sticks which can be mapped exactly on the playstation controllers. They certainly planned to do this when designing the Vita, they tested the waters early with PS3 remote play.
If microsoft planned it from the start (did they?) and also made remote play a mandatory feature for all games (which we don't know), reserving resources for it, sure they could do it on tablets with an additional controller, but device portability takes a big hit. You can't play on the bus/subway/taxi/toilet, you can't play while waiting for the bus/subway/taxi/poop, you can't even play in a waiting room, you can't play anywhere but at a desk. It needs a bag. Portability is king. I can keep my Vita in my Jeans front pocket comfortably (YES I can. Levis 505 regular fit, 2011 lower waist revision, thin commuter fabric, 98% cotton, 2% elastane... deal with it)
If microsoft planned it from the start (did they?) and also made remote play a mandatory feature for all games (which we don't know), reserving resources for it, sure they could do it on tablets with an additional controller, but device portability takes a big hit. You can't play on the bus/subway/taxi/toilet, you can't play while waiting for the bus/subway/taxi/poop, you can't even play in a waiting room, you can't play anywhere but at a desk. It needs a bag. Portability is king. I can keep my Vita in my Jeans front pocket comfortably (YES I can. Levis 505 regular fit, 2011 lower waist revision, thin commuter fabric, 98% cotton, 2% elastane... deal with it)
Microsoft has big plans for SmartGlass 2.0. You can read all about it in vgleaks. They have a variety of implementation including streaming to multiple devices at once and remote rendering. And yes, including over the net play. It doesn't cost any additional resource as the console has a built-in video encoder. The advantage Vita has is that it has physical buttons.
Much more than buttons. The advantage is that it has a complete and compatible controller with analog sticks, where your muscle memory still works when you switch from playing at home and playing the same game on the go.
Why are you limiting the device options to tablets? Theoretically, MS (or Sony for that matter) could create a device with the exact same inputs as the main system controller and add a (removable) retention clip capable of holding a smartphone. This device could work with either a tablet OR a smartphone depending on circumstances and, since it would work with devices you already own, would be considerably cheaper than buying a Vita just so you can have what is effectively a portable dumb terminal.
Yeah I admit that'd be pretty good. Make a clip on for popular phones. Would be great on a Galaxy S4, just have to install the client software from Google store.
(((interference)))
Veteran
Yeah, MS has lots of plans for SmartGlass and device mirroring/streaming.
I don't know how they're going to get around the lack of physical controls on your smartphone/tablet though. I was thinking they could have the XB1 controllers pair with phones/tablets, that would be pretty cool.
I don't know how they're going to get around the lack of physical controls on your smartphone/tablet though. I was thinking they could have the XB1 controllers pair with phones/tablets, that would be pretty cool.
Android can already pair with the PS3 controller, and maps everything to the native game controller inputs for games. I don't see why it wouldn't work for the xbone controller if it's bluetooth. Even more so for windows phones as I suppose they have a games API for such inputs. Still cumbersome, ideally they'd need to make a slim clip on.
(((interference)))
Veteran
The controller is WiFi Direct, will that work too?
Maybe they could bring out special controllers with Bluetooth for pairing with iDevices.
Maybe they could bring out special controllers with Bluetooth for pairing with iDevices.
I believe the current Xbox controllers are a proprietary 2.4Ghz radio, has there been any change for XBOne? I always thought this was a rather cheap move by MS to grab licence fees from peripheral makers, Bluetooth works fine for this stuff
(((interference))) said:
Really? Seems like too much radio for the job, I thought they'd confirmed another new proprietary radio solution incompatible with the old pads.
(((interference)))
Veteran
Yes Xbox One controllers use WiFi Direct - i'm certain about that.
Letting the controllers pair with phones/tablets is just me speculating though.
Letting the controllers pair with phones/tablets is just me speculating though.
Buetooth is expensive, last I heard years ago, don't know if it changed. But it has a very robust adaptative frequency hopping (spread spectrum), which is both friendly to other devices on 2.4, and also quite impervious to interference.
Doesn't Wifi Direct require a lot of power? What would be the reasoning behind that choice?
Doesn't Wifi Direct require a lot of power? What would be the reasoning behind that choice?
Range? Maybe you can stream video to an alternate screen in the house and still use the controller paired to the console, instead of having to pair it to another device in your home?
Isn't WiFi direct pretty rare still?
I think a usb adapter would work well in the absence of BT capability.
I'm more excited about this capability than the Vita thing. Plus on a tablet or laptop you could still play high quality games locally like vita but on a larger screen.
I think a usb adapter would work well in the absence of BT capability.
I'm more excited about this capability than the Vita thing. Plus on a tablet or laptop you could still play high quality games locally like vita but on a larger screen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
