PS Vita Successor


Recommended Posts

So there have been a lot of articles recently such as:

Sony: climate "not healthy" for PlayStation Vita successor

I'm not sure I agree with Sony and here's my crazy idea.  The PS Vita is essentially mobile tech.  It has a quad-core ARM Cortex-A9 CPU and a Quad-core PowerVR SGX543 GPU at it's core which is VERY similar to a smartphone SoC.  The PlayStation TV also came along later that uses similar hardware and it's a nice idea but the execution is a bit off because it was designed after the Vita.  So my crazy idea is to design together a PS Vita 2/PlayStation TV 2 with the idea that the PlayStation TV 2 would compete with Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, nVidia Shield Android TV, etc.  The Vita 2 would thus be just a mobile version of the PlayStation TV 2.

If Sony waits for the 14nm process shrink that's about to happen and launches these products together, say in the 2016 or 2017 Christmas season I think they could be successful.  The PlayStation TV 2 could have whatever the current quad core ARM 64bit SOC is at the time (Cortex-A72?) as well as an updated PowerVR GPU (Series 7XT?).  Since the tech is essentially just updated versions of the same things in the Vita it could be backwards compatible so it would be able to play Vita games, its own games (keep a backwards compatible Vita card format as well as digital for games), as well as digital downloads of PSP and PS1 games like Vita does now and PS3 games via PS Now support.  If the hardware is capable they could even add digital downloads of PS2 games.  On the streaming front it could support 4k@60fps Netflix, 4k@60fps YouTube, and PlayStation Vue with 4k@60fps support.  Sure the GPU wouldn't be able to drive 4k or even 1080 gaming but it would be a solid streaming box to rival Amazon, Apple, Roku, etc. but have great gaming with older PlayStation support (PS1, PS2?, PSP, and Vita support plus native all locally as well as PS3 via PS Now.)

Suggested Specs:

CPU: ARM Quad core 2x Cortex-A72 + 2x Cortex-A53 (big.LITTLE)

GPU: PowerVR Series 7XT

RAM: 2GB LPDDR4

Storage:  micro-SD Card (maybe 8GB built in?)

HDMI 2.0, 802.11ac Wi-Fi, Gigabit Ethernet, USB 3.0 (including external storage)

Portable version would have a 720p display which should be cheap by then given what cell phone displays are now.  The TV one would still share the PS4 controller.

Given the price and features of the new Amazon Fire TV now this should be VERY doable by them in 2016/2017 at a $99 price point for the PlayStation TV 2.

Then again the push wouldn't be play this over mobile games.  It would be choose this over Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, Roku 4, etc. and oh by the way, here's a portable version as well that you can also play your PlayStation TV 2 games on and actually has physical buttons/sticks/etc.

 

 

 

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1273820-ps-vita-successor/
Share on other sites

Nintendo owns this space. And they didn't have to build the powerhouse handheld to do it. Sony made an expensive device, with proprietary memory cards, and frankly, a lack of games. I don't know what they were thinking, and I am saying that as someone who owns one!

I imagine your hypothetical device would eat battery like it was going out of style.

  • Like 1

why not just combine the two devices into one? say, a Vita that can plug into your tv, use netflix-like apps and support for the DS4.

I agree, somewhat, with compl3x. Sony shot themselves in the foot w/ those stupid proprietary memory cards. The system was too expensive at launch, and they didnt advertise it well.

as far as hardware, the Vita still amazes me. I love playing mine and still have several games lined up to play.

Nintendo owns this space. And they didn't have to build the powerhouse handheld to do it. Sony made an expensive device, with proprietary memory cards, and frankly, a lack of games. I don't know what they were thinking, and I am saying that as someone who owns one!

I imagine your hypothetical device would eat battery like it was going out of style.

 

Did you even read what I wrote or just the title and then comment.  The whole point was NOT to pitch a mobile device but make the PlayStation TV style device the primary to compete with Amazon Fire TV, Apple TV, Android TV, Hulu, etc. as a streaming box that plays games.  Just in this case the "games" would be actual older PlayStation games instead.  The mobile device would be secondary but allow you to play your PlayStation TV games on the go.  Nintendo doesn't even compete in that space (though they may with the NX?) let alone "own" it.

You realize my hypothetical device has worse specs than the current iPhone?  How do you imagine a device in late 2016/2017 that has similar specs to a mobile phone today would "eat battery like it was going out of style"???

why not just combine the two devices into one? say, a Vita that can plug into your tv, use netflix-like apps and support for the DS4.

I agree, somewhat, with compl3x. Sony shot themselves in the foot w/ those stupid proprietary memory cards. The system was too expensive at launch, and they didnt advertise it well.

as far as hardware, the Vita still amazes me. I love playing mine and still have several games lined up to play.

 

I don't imagine a lot of people are going to connect a portable device like a gameboy or PSP to their TV and controller.  Also the idea is to try to hit the $99 price point which ditching a screen and such helps you get to.  I mean they could make it so the portable version had a hdmi port and supported the DS4 as well but I doubt it would sell as well as the TV version.  Again the main point is to try to take the market from Apple TV, Hulu, Amazon Fire TV, etc. or at least carve their own little profitable niche by leveraging their extensive back catalog, remote play, PlayStation Now, PlayStation Vue, etc. in addition to standard streaming services.

I too agree the proprietary memory cards were stupid.  I have no idea what it has to do with anything I said however and I don't think that if the PS Vita shipped with micro-SD card support instead that it would be selling double or more what it currently is.  I really don't see that stupid decision as single-handedly sinking the PS Vita, I think it would have sunk anyway.  Any number of things contributed to it failing (price, marketing, proprietary memory, etc.)

i don't really understand what you are advocating for here. I thought you were talking about some hybrid portable playing 4k content. That is why I added my battery content. Play some 1080p content on your phone and see how long your battery lasts.

 Are you talking about a Vita-branded media player that also plays older PS titles? Don't you think the media player market is crowded enough with Roku, FireTV, Apple TV, and people making HTPC? If they decided to make a media player, why would they keep the Vita branding?

 

I read your entire post, I am just not sure what you're driving at here.

i don't really understand what you are advocating for here. I thought you were talking about some hybrid portable playing 4k content. That is why I added my battery content. Play some 1080p content on your phone and see how long your battery lasts.

 Are you talking about a Vita-branded media player that also plays older PS titles? Don't you think the media player market is crowded enough with Roku, FireTV, Apple TV, and people making HTPC? If they decided to make a media player, why would they keep the Vita branding?

 

I read your entire post, I am just not sure what you're driving at here.

First I don't think they should keep the Vita branding.  I'm just calling it Vita 2 and PS TV 2 because I don't know what the new name should be.

The main device I was talking about was a replacement for the PlayStation TV (which is currently based on Vita hardware).  Maybe I didn't describe it well the first time, sorry for that, I'll try again... this generation they made the PS Vita, and then much later they designed a PS TV based on the Vita hardware.  I'm saying next time they should flip it.  Design the PS TV successor and then just make a portable version of it for the Vita successor (conceptually at least... both would actually LAUNCH at the same time).

So the driver device would be the PS TV successor and it would be positioned to compete with Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, Android TV, etc.  Do I think the media player market is crowded enough?  It's not a matter of how many players there are but if I think Sony would have a distinct advantage or not.  If Sony can release a streaming box that supports 4k@60fps video streams (as nVidia Shield Android TV does today but no one else currently does) for around $99 then I think that gets them in door.  To differentiate themselves though they have the PS brand, the PS services (Now, Vue, Remote Play, etc.) and their extensive back-catalog of games to set them apart.  I think anyone who was considering a Fire TV with the gamepad would much rather have a PS TV 2 with a DS4 and the extensive PlayStation library access.  Amazon and Apple and Google aren't going to be able to match the Sony back-catelog for people looking for micro-consoles.  Plus if it's a PlayStation device you'll potentially have new games being developed (first party and others) specifically for the new hardware.

I think the PS TV is a GREAT idea but it suffers from the fact it's an afterthought of the Vita.  It's got a UI that really wasn't designed with TV in mind, it's a lousy streaming box (can't even do 1080p) because the hardware was made for drive the Vita's sub-720p screen, etc.  For some reason I don't even think Vue supports it.  I absolutely think it would sell if was a competitive streaming box (which requires 4k streaming like the nVidia Shield Android TV) plus had it's game pedigree and if they can up the specs enough to hit PS2 emulation that would really seal the deal.

I can totally imagine a PS household where there is a PS4 in the living room and a PS TV 2 on every other TV in the house.  The PS TV 2s are used for remote play from the PS4 as well as PS Now, PS Vue and local gaming on new PS Vita 2 games cartridges, PS Vita cartidges, and downloadable games (including PSP, PS1, and possibly even PS2 games).  If PS4 get PS1/PS2 emulation you could in theory buy a PS2 classic and have it attached to your PSN account and play the game on the PS4, any PS TV 2 in the house and on the go with the PS Vita 2... with one purchase.

Nintendo owns this space. And they didn't have to build the powerhouse handheld to do it. Sony made an expensive device, with proprietary memory cards, and frankly, a lack of games. I don't know what they were thinking, and I am saying that as someone who owns one!

I imagine your hypothetical device would eat battery like it was going out of style.

Both the 3DS and Vita were horribly priced to begin with, but Nintendo made the difficult choice of cutting the RRP to save the handheld. Even so, the 3DS is nowhere near DS sale numbers, and I doubt it will ever reach them.

Sony could have done the same theoretically. I'm sure they have their reasons for not, but certainly trying to compete with smartphones was always going to be an issue. I couldn't understand why both Nintendo and Sony even thought about going up against Apple. 99c games and smartphones had taken over long before either device launched.

I love both of them, but I don't think we'll see either company release another traditional handheld again.

  I don't imagine a lot of people are going to connect a portable device like a gameboy or PSP to their TV and controller.  Also the idea is to try to hit the $99 price point which ditching a screen and such helps you get to.  I mean they could make it so the portable version had a hdmi port and supported the DS4 as well but I doubt it would sell as well as the TV version.  Again the main point is to try to take the market from Apple TV, Hulu, Amazon Fire TV, etc. or at least carve their own little profitable niche by leveraging their extensive back catalog, remote play, PlayStation Now, PlayStation Vue, etc. in addition to standard streaming services.

I too agree the proprietary memory cards were stupid.  I have no idea what it has to do with anything I said however and I don't think that if the PS Vita shipped with micro-SD card support instead that it would be selling double or more what it currently is.  I really don't see that stupid decision as single-handedly sinking the PS Vita, I think it would have sunk anyway.  Any number of things contributed to it failing (price, marketing, proprietary memory, etc.)

my comments about their memory cards werent related to anything you said. i was agreeing with compl3x.

what youre describing IS a PS4 w/ mobile games... this exists today. The PS3/PS4 can do everything an Apple TV or Fire TV can do, and they still play mobile/indie games. But yes, these devices obviously dont hit a $99 price point.

if a PS Vita TV next gen device was created, there'd be little incentive to make quality games. The Vita was billed as a powerhouse on-the-go running titles like Uncharted and Killzone. What youre suggesting is a mobile platform on your tv w/ games like candy crush. that market is saturated already. plus, if you have an MHL cable or WIDI, then you can hook your phone/mobile device straight to the tv anyway.

 

I love both of them, but I don't think we'll see either company release another traditional handheld again.

oh i think Nintendo will still release a successor. i think, however, it wont be a completely new device. i think they'll upgrade the current 3DS as they recently did this year w/ a slightly faster CPU, etc. Nintendo would be smart to release a newer 3DS that'll incentivize people to buy a new device but still play their full library. (perhaps that's wishful thinking)

No way will we see another Vita. Graphics wise it is absolutely fine as it is anyway. A purchase of it now just needs to come with the expectation it's really an indie/JRPG machine, and the best value in having it may be cross-buy titles/PS+ titles. I still stand by Sony made a terrible decision on the memory cards which is the blame I put on them. The hardware and device itself is great, and with it doing 60FPS remote play now, I really cannot see how another Vita would supplement the PS4/this generation in any meaningful way.

The Vita was a great machine and still is, hardware wise. Sony screwed up big with the memory cards and then the massive lack of developer support after the first 6 months of sale. If big studios invested time into it, and released handheld versions of their great games (Uncharted on the Vita was excellent) thats the reason I think it bombed in sales. 
As for a Vita 2, I can't see it happening. With smartphones essentially being much more powerful then the Vita anyway and the hardware suggested for your Vita 2 being outdated in 3 months with the latest and greatest phone, it would honestly be a waste of money to buy one. 

what youre describing IS a PS4 w/ mobile games... this exists today. The PS3/PS4 can do everything an Apple TV or Fire TV can do, and they still play mobile/indie games. But yes, these devices obviously dont hit a $99 price point.

if a PS Vita TV next gen device was created, there'd be little incentive to make quality games. The Vita was billed as a powerhouse on-the-go running titles like Uncharted and Killzone. What youre suggesting is a mobile platform on your tv w/ games like candy crush. that market is saturated already. plus, if you have an MHL cable or WIDI, then you can hook your phone/mobile device straight to the tv anyway.

What I'm describing is NOT a PS4 w/ mobile games... and does NOT exist today.  The PS3/PS4 can NOT do everything an Apple TV or Fire TV can do.  Neither the Xbox One nor the PS4 have hardware HEVC/VP9 support to support 4k video streams for Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, etc.  Now MAYBE they'll get software decoders at some point as both should have more than enough processing power to do it in software but neither can do it today nor is there any official announcement that it's coming that I'm aware of (The PS3 will almost certainly never support it).  Even with software decoders, which aren't a given, I don't believe either the PS4 or Xbox One have HDMI 2.0 that are required for 4k@60fps, instead they have HDMI 1.4 that is capped at 30fps for 4k.  Also as you stated the PS4/Xbox One aren't going to be hitting a $99 price point anytime soon.

I don't know if people would make quality NEW games or not for a next gen PS TV device.  I'm not so sure they wouldn't as you seem to be though.  But even if they didn't if it plays existing Vita, PS1, PSP, and possibly even PS2 games locally that's already better then Apple TVs and Fire TVs candy crush games as you call them.  Add in PS3 games via PS Now and PS4 games via Remote Play and you've got a pretty strong stable of quality non-Candy Crush games without ANYTHING new being made.  Again though I'm not so sure if the hardware sold that developers wouldn't make new quality native games for it.  I'm absolutely NOT suggesting they make new games like Candy Crush for the device, the proposed device would be more powerful than the existing Vita which is already well beyond Candy Crush.

As for hooking a phone to a TV that's been possible for a while now.  How many people do you know that do that?  I don't know anyone, my last phone had an actual HDMI port and I think I hooked it up once just to see how it worked.  No one wants to hook their personal device to the TV, you want to walk around the house with your mobile device... it's mobile.  If you teather it to the TV it's anchored.  If you need to hit the restroom while your watching TV with your family and you want to play a quick round of Candy Crush or check facebook you don't want to go disconnect your phone from the TV everyone is watching.  You don't want to have to hook your phone to the TV for you kid to play some video game.  Using a phone as a micro console is going to be just as popular for the masses as hooking up a computer to the TV in the living room. Sure it's POSSIBLE to do that but very few will want to actually do that.  There IS a market for small fixed sub-$200 devices like Apple TV, Fire TV, Roku, Shield Android TV, etc. and it doesn't cut into high end consoles like PS4 and Xbox One (heck with remote play support they may drive sales for each other.)  Sony has a unique advantage there precisely because the competition is making games like Candy Crush for their consoles (which isn't even really fair as I would consider Shovel Knight above Candy Crush style games and Amazon bought Double Helix of Strider and Killer Instinct fame to develop quality first party games for their platform... they're just getting started though) and Sony could put quality PlayStation games on the device.

 

What I'm describing is NOT a PS4 w/ mobile games... and does NOT exist today.  The PS3/PS4 can NOT do everything an Apple TV or Fire TV can do.  Neither the Xbox One nor the PS4 have hardware HEVC/VP9 support to support 4k video streams for Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, etc.  Now MAYBE they'll get software decoders at some point as both should have more than enough processing power to do it in software but neither can do it today nor is there any official announcement that it's coming that I'm aware of (The PS3 will almost certainly never support it).  Even with software decoders, which aren't a given, I don't believe either the PS4 or Xbox One have HDMI 2.0 that are required for 4k@60fps, instead they have HDMI 1.4 that is capped at 30fps for 4k.  Also as you stated the PS4/Xbox One aren't going to be hitting a $99 price point anytime soon.

I don't know if people would make quality NEW games or not for a next gen PS TV device.  I'm not so sure they wouldn't as you seem to be though.  But even if they didn't if it plays existing Vita, PS1, PSP, and possibly even PS2 games locally that's already better then Apple TVs and Fire TVs candy crush games as you call them.  Add in PS3 games via PS Now and PS4 games via Remote Play and you've got a pretty strong stable of quality non-Candy Crush games without ANYTHING new being made.  Again though I'm not so sure if the hardware sold that developers wouldn't make new quality native games for it.  I'm absolutely NOT suggesting they make new games like Candy Crush for the device, the proposed device would be more powerful than the existing Vita which is already well beyond Candy Crush.

As for hooking a phone to a TV that's been possible for a while now.  How many people do you know that do that?  I don't know anyone, my last phone had an actual HDMI port and I think I hooked it up once just to see how it worked.  No one wants to hook their personal device to the TV, you want to walk around the house with your mobile device... it's mobile.  If you teather it to the TV it's anchored.  If you need to hit the restroom while your watching TV with your family and you want to play a quick round of Candy Crush or check facebook you don't want to go disconnect your phone from the TV everyone is watching.  You don't want to have to hook your phone to the TV for you kid to play some video game.  Using a phone as a micro console is going to be just as popular for the masses as hooking up a computer to the TV in the living room. Sure it's POSSIBLE to do that but very few will want to actually do that.  There IS a market for small fixed sub-$200 devices like Apple TV, Fire TV, Roku, Shield Android TV, etc. and it doesn't cut into high end consoles like PS4 and Xbox One (heck with remote play support they may drive sales for each other.)  Sony has a unique advantage there precisely because the competition is making games like Candy Crush for their consoles (which isn't even really fair as I would consider Shovel Knight above Candy Crush style games and Amazon bought Double Helix of Strider and Killer Instinct fame to develop quality first party games for their platform... they're just getting started though) and Sony could put quality PlayStation games on the device.

 

The real money for Sony though is via the PS4. For dedicated boxes like those you mentioned, that ship has already sailed. People either want an Apple TV or a cheap android box because they are invested heavily in those ecosystems. When Sony do Android it means they are tied to Google's ecosystem and the competition is just too fierce. Amazon/Google can make losses on the hardware as their stores rake in the real money. The only time that's viable for Sony is on Playstation platforms where they own the store. On the PS4 it's their store and they make all the money. There won't be another Vita TV, let alone a Vita, and Playstation Mobile has already been shutdown on Android. 

A PS4 does Netflix, Youtube and things like that for your TV and that's the way it will be until the PS5.

 

The real money for Sony though is via the PS4. For dedicated boxes like those you mentioned, that ship has already sailed. People either want an Apple TV or a cheap android box because they are invested heavily in those ecosystems. When Sony do Android it means they are tied to Google's ecosystem and the competition is just too fierce. On the PS4 it's their store and they make all the money. There won't be another Vita TV, let alone a Vita.

 

I actually agree with a lot of this here and I think it SUPPORTS my idea not refutes it.  There exists A LOT of people who aren't going to pay $300+ for a PS4.  Even if you have a PS4 you aren't going to buy one for every TV in the house while you may put a $99 box that uses the same controllers you already have and streams games to your other TVs from your PS4 via Remote Play.  "That ship" has NOT sailed though, the just announced, not even available yet, Apple TV is the FIRST one to even support apps...  how could the ship have sailed.  You right, people want Apple TV or Android TV or Fire TV because they are invested heavily in those ecosystems, well Sony has an ecosystem as well that they want people to invest in.  As you said on PS4 it's their store, they make all the money, and I'm saying use that store on a $99 device to bring in more users.  I'm NOT saying use Android or someone elses store, I'm saying it would use the PlayStation Store just like the PS4, PS3, etc.  It would be part of their own PlayStation ecosystem including Vue, Now, etc. not someone elses.

 

I actually agree with a lot of this here and I think it SUPPORTS my idea not refutes it.  There exists A LOT of people who aren't going to pay $300+ for a PS4.  Even if you have a PS4 you aren't going to buy one for every TV in the house while you may put a $99 box that uses the same controllers you already have and streams games to your other TVs from your PS4 via Remote Play.  "That ship" has NOT sailed though, the just announced, not even available yet, Apple TV is the FIRST one to even support apps...  how could the ship have sailed.  You right, people want Apple TV or Android TV or Fire TV because they are invested heavily in those ecosystems, well Sony has an ecosystem as well that they want people to invest in.  As you said on PS4 it's their store, they make all the money, and I'm saying use that store on a $99 device to bring in more users.  I'm NOT saying use Android or someone elses store, I'm saying it would use the PlayStation Store just like the PS4, PS3, etc.  It would be part of their own PlayStation ecosystem including Vue, Now, etc. not someone elses.

 

With the multitude of devices the average person owns though there isn't an onus on the PS4 to have to be in every room. Most people have smart tvs to start with, and then mobile devices/pcs/laptops and probably an Apple or Android box. That's what I mean with the ship having sailed for media especially, there isn't a need to have a PS device in every room as it's likely every TV you have can already use netflix/youtube/hulu/etc. The PSTV was aimed at the gamers wanting to game in multiple rooms, but the market spoke and hardly anyone bought it. Most gamers will game 90% of the time on the one main TV or monitor. Those that want multiple gaming TVs can either probably already afford 2 PS4s, or just have to wait a few years till the hardware becomes cheaper to pickup a 2nd PS4. Or if they're invested in PS already, just hookup the PS3 to one TV (it's still supported with new releases and PS+).

As for anything Apple do, you know what their grip on the market is like. The only place you're going to see PS store is on dedicated PS devices, and that store is 99% all about games. It would be a colossal waste of money for Sony to try and bring in tons of apps and free games, and then focus their store as a competitor to iOS/Android. Just not worth it, and it would fail spectacularly. Playstation Mobile tanked on Android, the market just wants the latest and most heavily marketed F2P games.

 

With the multitude of devices the average person owns though there isn't an onus on the PS4 to have to be in every room. Most people have smart tvs to start with, and then mobile devices/pcs/laptops and probably an Apple or Android box. That's what I mean with the ship having sailed for media especially, there isn't a need to have a PS device in every room as it's likely every TV you have can already use netflix/youtube/hulu/etc. The PSTV was aimed at the gamers wanting to game in multiple rooms, but the market spoke and hardly anyone bought it. Most gamers will game 90% of the time on the one main TV or monitor. Those that want multiple gaming TVs can either probably already afford 2 PS4s, or just have to wait a few years till the hardware becomes cheaper to pickup a 2nd PS4.

As for anything Apple do, you know what their grip on the market is like. The only place you're going to see PS store is on dedicated PS devices, and that store is 99% all about games. It would be a colossal waste of money for Sony to try and bring in tons of apps and free games, and then focus their store as a competitor to iOS/Android. Just not worth it, and it would fail spectacularly.

 

Even if all you want is a dumb media device then the ship hasn't sailed because we're just at the start of the move from 1080p streaming devices to 4k.  That's the BASELINE for a future product though it's not the differentiating point.  By your logic no one would be buying Apple TV or Fire TV because their TV already has streaming apps.  Google wouldn't make the Nexus Player they'd just use ChromeCast instead of bigger more expensive boxes.

Not only does Amazon have a Fire TV box in addition to the Fire TV stick but they also have a Fire TV Gaming Edition of that box.  Not only does Google have the Nexus Player box in addition to the ChromeCast stick but Android TV runs on the nVidia Shield micro-console.  Sure if you JUST want media then NONE of these things are necessary yet they're being made and selling.  Whoever is buying these things over the simple media stick would be the users Sony would be trying to win over.

If you have more than one family member who games and you have to share TVs then there's a need to have gaming devices on more than one TV.  If you want to play the latest PS4 game in your Office while your significant other watches a movie on the living room TV and your kid plays a Vita game in their bedroom I'd wager there is demand for that if the device(s) that enable it are cheap in the $99 range.

The PSTV flopped because it's a hack that doesn't do it's non-gaming job well.  I'm all but certain when they designed the Vita hardware/software they didn't have the PS TV in mind.  It does the gaming part well but that's the differentiating point and it doesn't cover the baseline.  People see the PS TV and they think it's like an Apple TV or a Fire TV or a Roku yet it can't even do 1080p streams like cheaper devices.  The OS is a mess because it was designed originally for touch on the Vita touchscreen.

I absolutely disagree with your "can probably afford 2 PS4s" statement.  It must be nice to live where you come to believe that's true but I know a lot of people who still can't afford a single PS4 let alone a second.  A $99 PlayStation device would probably sell pretty well to them if it wasn't JUST games and such a poor streaming device like the existing PS TV.

Apple isn't even in the top 3 of streaming devices so no, I don't "know what their grip on the market is like".  They're not present at all at the moment in micro-consoles because they FIRST one that supports apps hasn't actually shipped yet.  You act like I'm suggesting Sony make a smartphone to compete with iPhone and Android, in case it wasn't clear I'm absolutely NOT. The micro-console/fixed streaming box market is still in it's infancy.  Right now the #1 player there is Roku not Google or Apple. I think Google is #2 and Amazon is #3 with Apple being #4.  Sony could absolutely carve out a niche there without having to compete with iOS or Android in the tablet/phone/watch/car markets.

I don't even understand your "The only place you're going to see PS store is on dedicated PS devices". Agreed, and the PS TV 2 would be a dedicated PS device, what's your point?  As for being 99% games have you looked at the lastest PS4 system update... you see no social features there?  There's no streamed movies or music services on the PS4?  As far as services I don't think they'd have to do much, if anything, the box would just present their EXISTING services for the most part.  Almost nothing would have to be PS TV 2 specific.  PlayStation 4 suports twitch and youtube and amazon prime and Spotify.  Maybe they'd have to add Pandora and such but I'd imagine PS4 owners would like that as well. HBO Go, PlayStation Vue, etc.  I really don't see how you can say the store is 99% games.  Maybe the parts you use but the other parts ARE ALREADY THERE and even if they're not being used much now this would be something to help change that.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • On the topic of being locked out of a service. Recently two different friends of mine got locked out of their Google accounts. Both were hack attempts and one of them is waiting 30 days before he can get back in. He had backup codes and MFA but not a passkey. It was a browser token hack. Anyhow he has to wait 30 days for the dispute or whatever to end. The other person only had a password and is screwed losing all of the email, docs and years of photos. Google won’t help her at all. Her fault because she had no backup/recovery setup. Enable passkeys if possible. Also do NOT use browser based password managers. If using a cloud service make sure it is one you can fully sync to one of your devices so you can back it up. Like a PC or Mac with some backup drive plugged into it. Google is the worst to use IMHO. You can’t sync your photos at all. You have to use the “Take Out” service which is manual and takes days. That service strips the meta data from your photos. Also Google Docs synced to a device are useless without a Google accounts. MS Office/Libre Office is not going to open a link to a Google doc to a dead account.
    • Why you need to take back control of your synced passwords and how to go about doing that by Paul Hill Credit: Pixabay Last month, when Google decided to introduce daily and weekly caps for Gemini, it reignited an anxiety of mine, that you can’t really depend on service providers to maintain features forever, and it got me looking into free software (as in freedom) in other areas too. One app I quickly came across was KeePassXC on desktop and KeePassDX on Android as an alternative to password manager lock-in within the Chrome or Firefox ecosystems. I personally like to switch around with browsers, and using either password manager is inconvenient, so something like KeePassXC was interesting to me. The main issue with it now is syncing; I was not sure how to do that. After a bit of research, I came across Syncthing, a tool I was vaguely familiar with but had never used because it seemed complicated. However, I was completely wrong, and honestly, I think everyone should use it if they use multiple devices. It essentially lets you share folders peer to peer across all of your devices, no cloud services that you don’t control necessary! And it was fairly simple to set up, if not a bit clunky. Since setting it up, I’ve also started using Syncthing to back up other apps too, so don’t think it’s limited to just saving password databases. You can use it for pretty much anything you use Dropbox or Google Drive for. Before continuing to talk about those apps a bit more, let’s walk back a bit and talk about browser sync. Ever since the late 2000s and early 2010s, really, since we have been using smartphones, browser sync has been a necessity of life. I don’t know about you, but I have hundreds of passwords saved. For the most part, they’re all unique, so I don’t remember them and rely on software to manage them for me. Until recently, I’ve relied on password managers in Chrome and Firefox, but what I always found annoying was that it can be hard to transfer them between browsers. Sure, on Windows it is simple enough, but on Linux, exporting bookmarks has been temperamental. It works OK nowadays, but not too long ago, Chrome required you to enable exporting passwords in chrome://flags. The situation is even worse on mobile; there is no exporting or importing of passwords of any kind. You literally have to do it on a desktop, which is incredibly annoying in our mobile-first world. Sync also lets us take out bookmarks, history, tabs, and autofill data easily. To enable sync, it’s just a matter of signing into the browser once, and it handles the rest. It’s nice and easy. Obviously, all this has some issues, including those I’ve outlined above about it being hard to transfer data between browsers, but also things such as account suspension, lost account passwords, and other lock-in mechanisms, such as passkeys, being tied to a specific browser. On a sidenote, I have just removed all of my passkeys because they can make it harder to move browsers. I think the biggest threat to your synced passwords, especially if doing this with Google, is having your account suspended. I don’t ever expect mine to be suspended, but you do hear horror stories on Reddit where people lose access to their Google accounts. Imagine if you have hundreds of passwords, then suddenly lose access to them because Google froze your account, what would you do? So yes, it can be nice to use these syncing services for their convenience, but they also have risks. You may have seen me going on about free software quite a bit in my editorials. It’s essentially a concept championed by the Free Software Foundation. It’s software under particular licenses that grant you four freedoms: run the program for any purpose (0), study and change the source code (1), redistribute copies to others (2), and the freedom to distribute modified copies to others (3). For example, if there is an app I use and one day it gets abandoned by the developer, I can keep running it or even clone the software and continue developing it. Look at the myriad of cool services Google has run over the years before killing them. You can’t take the source code for those because they are proprietary, for the most part. Both KeePassXC and Syncthing are free software, so I get the freedoms listed above. In my use case where I’m syncing a database full of my passwords, I also get proper ownership over my data, there is no losing access to the database due to a frozen account, I can access the code of the tools I’m using, and I can get support from real people online if I run into issues, rather than having to consult a vague help page from an opaque company. With the KeePassXC password manager, you create a .kdbx file, which is what will be synced between devices. KeePassXC has cross-platform apps and also has browser extensions so that the browser can fetch passwords from the database once it is unlocked. Meanwhile, Syncthing is a peer-to-peer file sync tool where you can select folders to sync between your devices. Just pop files in the folders you choose, and then they will be available across your other devices whenever they come online. Syncthing is resilient as it works over both LAN and the internet and only ever sends content between your devices, never to a third-party server somewhere else. By combining these two pieces of software, you can essentially replicate the browser sync functionality. I have had a weird, conflicting issue where a new file is appearing, but it doesn’t seem to be impacting my main password database, which is updating between devices just fine. If you want to get a setup similar to what I have, you will need to go here to download KeePassXC for your computer. Once you have that, you will need to download your passwords from your web browser to a CSV file. In Chrome, you can type chrome://password-manager/settings into the URL bar, and you should see an option to download your passwords under Export Passwords. This will give you the CSV file you need for importing into KeePassXC. If you use a different browser, just use a search engine and type “browser-name export passwords” and muddle along. In KeePassXC, you’ll want to press Import File from the home screen, select the CSV file, and create a new database from it. On one of the screens of the wizard, there will be a Title field with a drop-down selected to none. Change this to Title and continue. You’ll select a name for the database, the encryption level (the defaults are fine), and then you will pick a password. I would choose four unrelated words that are easy for you to remember, as you’ll be typing them fairly often to access your passwords. When you have all your passwords in your new database, you will want to set up the browser extension so that your browser can fetch passwords from KeePassXC. Rather than explain how to do that here, refer to KeePassXC’s guide on how to set it up properly. Once you’ve got that set up, you want to install KeePassDX on Android. You can grab it on the F-Droid store and the Google Play Store. For iPhone users, there are other .kdbx-supporting apps, but I haven’t tried any of them, so have a look around and use what suits you. Once you have that done, you will want to install Syncthing on your computer and find a third-party app for your mobile device. On Android, I use an app called BasicSync; there are also options for iOS, but again, I’ve not tried these. Once you’ve got SyncThing, you’ll want to set it up and connect all of your devices together and share a folder between your gadgets. PCWorld has a good tutorial on setting up a synchronized file between your devices using SyncThing. Once you’ve set it up, congrats, you’ll never have to touch that stuff again except for adding or removing devices. I’ll be honest, I didn’t particularly like setting up Syncthing. It didn’t take me a massive amount of time, but I think I had to check online because I found it a bit confusing. That said, I’ve had it running for several weeks now and never need to touch the Syncthing settings, so that’s very nice. I also mentioned a conflicting file. I’m not sure why this is appearing, but the main .kdbx file seems to be updating and syncing just fine. What’s nice is that both KeePassXC and Syncthing are free software, so they won’t just vanish one day; you can take the code and fork the project or use a range of alternative implementations that others have made. It’s also nice that it works over LAN, so even if your ISP is having problems, your passwords will still sync. One area where you will want to be a bit more careful with this setup is if you only have one device. I am OK because I have a computer and two phones, all synced up. If you just have one device, you will probably want to store a backup of your .kdbx file somewhere else. Obviously, you’ll also want to remember your password really well, too. If you get locked out, it's game over. Overall, if you want to take back control of your computing from big tech, taking control of your passwords is an important part of this. You don’t need to immediately clear out your browser’s password manager; try running KeePassXC and the password manager concurrently for a while to see if you run into any problems. If you do try this out, let us know some other creative ways to use Syncthing. I haven’t really come up with a solution about what to do with my bookmarks, for example.
    • If the price was a dollar, someone would complain "Why isn't it free?" If it was free, someone would complain they weren't being paid to play it.
    • That lens of history will burn if you hold it at the right angle... Warn users too late: Shame, Microsoft! That extremely minor update to an obscure Control Panel widget required 2 years of warning. Warn users too early: Shame, Microsoft! We've got better things to do. Pipeline and process be damned, we'll just always be disappointed, eh?
    • Microsoft Paint used to be my favorite Windows app as a kid, and it's still pretty good by Usama Jawad I have been using Windows since the early 2000s, when I was around 10 years old or so. I vaguely remember playing around with Windows 98 and Windows 2000, but that may have been on school PCs which had old operating systems installed. My main OS on the home PC, and the one I recall spending most time with, was Windows XP. At that time, I used the home PC to create Word and PowerPoint documents for school, but a lot of the time, I simply used it to play games. My dad would bring game discs which we would try and install on the PC, sometimes unsuccessfully, and sometimes, we would rely on flash games in the browser, like Bubble Trouble on Miniclip. However, the problem with the latter approach was the internet speed. On a good day, our dial-up internet would offer us speeds of 56 kbps, but on most days, it was closer to 33 kbps. This did not facilitate online gaming as I would often have to wait minutes for a game to load or "draw" on the screen, and trying to download pirated games wasn't simple either. I remember getting tired of waiting for online games to load and just downloading simulator games from the Big Fish Games website instead, only to be disappointed after finding out that I was just being given access to trial versions of the title, and I needed to fork out money to pay for the full version. All of this is to say that it wasn't very easy to find entertainment options on the home PC when I was a kid, due to a number of reasons, mostly outside of my control. This situation pushed me towards a rather unconventional ally: Microsoft Paint. Whenever the internet wasn't working as good as I expected, I would simply spin up Paint and draw complete rubbish on the canvas. Of course, that wasn't always the intention, but it usually happened when I messed up drawing a straight line or something, and then I would give up on that particular piece and simply draw a random collection of objects. Microsoft Paint was extremely accessible and easy to use. Even if you weren't an artist, you could quickly understand the tools at your disposal and how to leverage them on a canvas. The absolute breadth on offer ensured that each painting was truly unique, as you could utilize various combinations of tools like the pencil, paint, spray paint, and more to truly personalize your creation. Since I wasn't particularly good at drawing both on digital screen or a physical screen, I remember that my main style of art would be to insert a bunch of randomly intersecting lines and then fill them with random colors through the paint can. I have trying to replicate that art style in the latest version of Paint below, and as you can see, it's truly Pablo Picasso-esque. The human imagination truly knows no bounds Microsoft Paint kept me occupied for hours and was my best friend when video games on the home PC were inaccessible for one reason or the other. There was no academic or professional reason for which I would need to use Paint, but I still loved using it in my personal time, even if what I created wasn't worth being shown to anyone. It was simply fun. Fast-forward to today, and the situation is mostly the same. Now that I am almost 29 years old, and I still have no reason to use Microsoft Paint in a professional capacity. In fact, I don't even use it in a personal capacity, except to dabble with it from time to time, just to see if core functionalities are still intact. And I'm happy to say that I think Microsoft Paint still offers the same accessibility and inviting experience that it did to me a couple of decades ago, even though its UX has been refreshed and it's been integrated with Copilot features. Interestingly, things could have been a lot different, had Microsoft had its way. Microsoft Paint was marked for deprecation with the Windows 10 Fall Creators Update in 2017, and even began displaying a product retirement alert, urging customers to shift to Paint 3D instead. Fortunately, after consumer backlash, Microsoft reversed course on this decision, and Paint continues to be a native app inside Windows installations that can also be updated quite frequently through the Microsoft Store. Instead, Paint 3D ended up on the chopping block, which is for the better, I think. I have intermittently played around with Microsoft's refreshed Paint experience in the past few years, and I do think it has received worthwhile upgrades. the UI and the UX has been modernized while retaining core functionality, and the app is still fairly easy to use. It doesn't meet any of my use-cases, but I've never really had any use-cases ever, as described previously. Of course, the elephant in the room is the Copilot integration. Personally, I believe that this is one place where Copilot does make sense, environmental concerns aside. I know that a lot of creatives use AI to generate images, and while some may be using professional alternatives, Paint still offers a decent casual experience, with the power of Copilot. Of course, you do need to have a valid Microsoft 365 Copilot license and available credits to use it, but even if you don't, you still get the big Copilot button in the toolbar, unfortunately. All in all, I am glad that Microsoft Paint continues to be a native feature in Windows 11, and a piece of software that has evolved to meet modern needs without cutting off its own roots. It's just an iconic piece of Windows history that was an essential part of my childhood, and while I don't use it anymore, I'm just glad it is still there.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      88
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      73
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!