PS5 Fans Divided on PlayStation Portal Handheld

I would love to have one, but I would not love to pay for one, not unless it is ever on sale for literally half the price. The problem is I have no idea how well it is going to perform with my wi-fi and at 200 quid I ain't taking that risk.

It's odd that only 7% use the feature regularly but 24% plan to buy a $200 device that only does that one feature. To each their own I guess. Personally I have never tried remote play and don't see a scenario where I ever do.

I’m warming up to the idea. I think I’d get more gaming time in if I could do some casual bedtime or couch gaming from time to time. It might be $200 well spent if it means I get through a few more games each year.

If it streamed from the cloud as well then it would be a more attractive proposition but as is I really don't see the point of it. It's just a streaming device with none of the benefits of what streaming can offer

It only 200 dollars I'm getting it

I thought I saw that the Portal was going to use some sort of new "PlayStation Link technology" but looking back it seems that may have just been for the headphones they announced. If the Portal really is streaming games over wifi, I am probably not going to get it. I would consider it if the device connected directly to the console and could be sort of like a Wii U gamepad, because I had no issues playing games on that. But as it stands, I don't think its for me.

I think if they can get 10% of their base to buy it, it would be considered a success.

In our household one or two of these will actually be of a great help, so we shall be making sure to pick them up on release no doubt.

I understand the desire for it to also stream game collections from Plus etc, but that in its current form would require a PS5 to stream the game and control inputs from the cloud, then to Portal. In which case it’ll just not be a pleasant experience for many lag wise.

However, if in the future it could be adapted to stream direct from the Plus collection, that would be of benefit to many I imagine.

I did use the Vita for exactly this, streaming from my PS4 in bed, or when the main TV was being used etc. So this will be exactly what I’ve wanted.

Also my daughter has a PS5 in her bedroom, but she only stays with me at weekends, and then not every weekend.

So it means she would be able to remote in to her PS5 from her mothers home.

I know it’s not for everyone, but I feel just like PSVR2, those who feel it helps them or brings something new for them, will really latch on to it.

It’s what I’ve been wanting since the PS5 release for example. Yet to many it shall be useless. It’s basically the Marmite/Vegemite of the PlayStation ecosystem.

Plus, for those who are married it could be the first time they’ve been satisfied in bed in years.

I think imma grab one. Sometimes I wanna play in bed and my PS5 is hooked up inside of my living room entertainment cabinet and to a 65" TV. So chillin in bed with earbuds on to play Sea of Stars or Blasphemous 2 sounds good.

@BacklogBrad I don't use remote play currently but I would make use of it if I had a device like the Portal to use it on. I'm undecided on whether I will get one at the moment but knowing me I will end up buying one.

If you happen to have a need for the limited ways this can be used, the next concern is performance.

Historically, Remote Play has not been very good even on a local network. If that is the same system being used with the portal, I think people are going to be disappointed unless their expectations are suitably low.

I definitely wouldn't recommend pre-ordering this until there is solid information on real world performance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is basically useless on a bus, doctor's waiting room or the beach? The sorts of places a handheld would be useful?
Sorry, but if that's right, I have no use for this. Its a paperweight.

And I would like to point out, despite some stating it will be the case the Portal can connect direct to the PS5 without the need to bunny hop on home wifi, when in range, there’s no documentation on that at all.

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/accessories/playstation-portal-remote-player/#:~:text=PlayStation%20Portal™%20Remote%20Player%20can%20stream%20compatible%20games%20installed,at%20least%2015Mbps%20is%20recommended.

Everything including the small print and FAQ refers to the need of either a home WiFi or a public/private none home one.

At no point is it mentioned it will create a direct ad-hoc connection to the two devices when in range.

So if that is the case and they do indeed use that, which would be much preferred, they’ve clearly forgotten to mention it.

When can I pre-order this delicious product 🙏🏻

Not surprised at all by the Poll results. I am sure it will appeal to some and others may buy to try out Remote play, but whether they get enough 'use' or it ends up gathering dust somewhere, time will tell.

In any case, it would still be a Sale to Sony whether you use it daily, weekly, monthly or just once. I don't know how many they'd need to sell to break even, let alone be 'profitable' to be considered a 'success' by Sony but if just 10% buy, that's still a LOT of units.

Doesn't suit me at all or how I wish to game on my PS5. I have a RoG Ally to game ANYWHERE if I choose with a significantly 'bigger' Library of games at my fingertips. I might not be able to play 'Spider-Man 2' in bed/on the toilet, but I can play Spider-Man and thousands of other games until I can turn my PS5 on and play on my large screen 4k HDR TV.

Just wanted to point out that you don't need to stick to just playing on your home WiFi network, just need to join any WiFi that has greater then 15Mbps ideally.

From the FAQs at
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/accessories/playstation-portal-remote-player/

Can PlayStation Portal™ Remote Player only be played on my home Wi-Fi network?

While your home Wi-Fi network represents a great option to use PlayStation Portal™ Remote Player because you have control over the quality of your own home Wi-Fi, it is not required. PlayStation Portal™ Remote Player can also be played wherever you have access to broadband internet Wi-Fi with at least 5Mbps for use1. For a better play experience, a high-speed connection of at least 15Mbps is recommended. If you are using public Wi-Fi, be aware that the quality of the internet connection may be out of your control, and could impact the quality of your play experience.

It's really stupid device since I can add 100$ more and have Logitech G Cloud which will not only give me Remote Play access, but also access to PlayStation Streaming, Android native games and access to other streaming services.

@Futureshark what annoys me there is that yet again they focus entirely on bandwidth when latency is just as important.

Connecting from my phone to my PlayStation writing the same house I get single digit latency and things are great, but if I connect from elsewhere it's not uncommon to get 20-40ms ping with horrendous jitter which can make anything that's not entirely turn based essentially unplayable.

It’s just a fundamentally stupid product. Android tablets have been doing this for years at a reduced price point. You’re paying for an official product because you have brain rot.

I just don't see the point, it's not small enough to take around with you, plus it needs to be on the same wifi and the price is ridiculous for something with such basic functionality. Anyone with a tablet or a decent size phone can replicate the experience without spending a penny and not be tied to the same wifi connection. I often plug my phone into a monitor at work and using the wifi and an old dualshock 4 it's better than this thing in every way.

Wow, I didn't know they made it even more expensive for us in Europe. My interest was at zero but now it's in the negatives.

This is an overpriced, low tech, waste of everyone's time.

IF and it's a big IF, the PS5 kicked out it's own signal like the PS4 does and it could be used independent of your own WiFi, then maybe. Or a USB connection. Something like that. If it does I can't find that information. But it only works via over-the-air wifi? That's madness. The amount of latency caused by that would render most action games near unusable, let alone an online game where you essentially double or triple your latency. The Portal is DOA for me. Even the Vita/PS4 remote play would be more viable.

Taken for what is supposed to be, rather than what some people want it to be, its a perfectly fine niche market product.
Remote play on a phone doesnt work for me unless you want to go incommunicado, and I value proper haptics and a product that will simply boot up and play my ps5. Ive talked this one through with the wife and we are both keen on having it, so its a definate purchase here.

@Kevw2006 couldn't you connect a controller to your phone and remote play on that?

I don't think it's such a bad premise but you're sandwiching yourself in between Switch and Steam Deck when it comes to handheld options. There's simply no competition.

Guess it is divided, about 75% no and 25% yes, which I'm sure Sony would be more than happy with.

Still seems like a Gamepad but without all the good things the Gamepad could do, like asynchronous gameplay. Do we even know if this can be used as a 2nd controller for 2 player couch gaming? Heck can it even be used by player 1 on the TV if their other controller doesn't work well? 🤷

Portal 2 could potentially be a useful product, maybe get the divide to a more even 50-50?

@NinjaNicky there are options to help with the propping up your phone. There is a backbone controller for half the price or mounts that attach your phone above the ps5 controller for $15.

I have enough old phones and tablets around that I would probably use a dedicated one for this if I did. Then there wouldn't be any notifications. Plus you can actually use Bluetooth headphones on a phone or tablet.

@BacklogBrad I could but responding to any messages or notifications on my phone while I'm playing would be annoying.

@Kevw2006 I get that but at least you could try it and see if you like it. See if your internet handles it well, etc. I have old phones and tablets laying around that I would use to avoid notifications.

Things are just too expensive these days. That’s my reason. I can’t justify buying this thing that runs off technology that I’ve personally witnessed having mass amounts of lag and glitches. Playing games like Elden Ring and even Dark Souls that require accurate inputs are just not fun on the technology.
I don’t have a need for this thing so it goes to my do not buy list.

@BacklogBrad Oh I have tried it before and I used it a few times on my Vita to stream my PS4 and found it a great feature, I definitely prefer it when it's all contained on one device and not a device with a separate controller connected.

i already gave opinion about this topic. this is the short version: this device will only appeal to 5% of the ps5 userbase; of those 2m people, perhaps 1m will actually purchase one at launch or in the near future. i can see up to 2m of these being sold over the next 12-24 months before the the product is discontinued. it will be quite the critical and commerical failure for sony.

It's about £75 too expensive for what it is. £199.99 is ridiculous considering it can't do much and wireless audio is locked behind an additional paywall.

Given it's using a dual sense controller (of sorts) and it should be designed around reduced latency, I'm interested, but will wait for a huge price drop.

If this was a PS Vita 2 (...of sorts) I'd already have a preorder in place.

I definitely want one! Looking forward to playing curled up on my couch next to my lady while she watches her favorite TV shows after work. Wish it was a little cheaper (like 150 seems about right), but I think I will get good use out of it for the money.

I'm getting one so I don't have to watch the rubbish my wife watches frequently.

I have a hard time seeing this succeeding. A streaming-only handheld just isn't a particularly appealing concept, especially when everyone already has smartphones that can stream games.

I like niche things but even I think it's rough. Also the marketing is going to confuse people, announcement it did and even still it may not more as youtubers/PS Blog confirm but still.

We don't even know if it has Android either or just a basic remote play/second screen menu option like Vita. We don't know at all.

I voted I like remote play, but no interest in the Portal.

Well you have it's use cases of parents at night after work/while watching TV for kids and parents.

And you have Indies that supported Vita that laughed at it at the announcement taking it as a middle finger and I don't blame them if they did.

You have Wii U/Vita fans going why not a handheld (we know why Sony told us with the Vita why, and it's clear here the same response years ago again).

Yet we have no co-op/dual screen features it's just a (if android) remote play app, dual sense controller and parts to cast and image to it wow.

-Why Vita (PSNow by the way for a time, PS+ support later with this Portal likely),
-PSVR (brief Playroom VR asymmetrical minigames) and
-Playlink (Everybody 1-2 Switch smartphone support but back in 2014 with more party games and Singstar)

if they were just going to make a single screen handheld like the Portal with less features then a Vita/Wii U.

Wireless single screen is fine but I mean who cares. I could Steam Link or Xbox remote play if I wanted over WiFi too in my house or outside with a connection that's good enough why should I with a PlayStation Portal? What's the selling point? Besides the game library on the go nothing? I can get a device with all 3 like a phone and be good.

Or dual screen phones even that are more exciting even if more expensive sure but still more exciting for Android, those services and better DS emulation than single screen offers 'hopefully' even if sigh no dual screen games or apps just multiple apps grrr. Then again it is what I wanted with Wii U so I can't be too annoyed at that as it was single apps/games focus with dual screens used.

Let alone my phone and phones will be better than it's connection in a few years so regardless of hardware specs being outdated sure the connection will be too. XD

At least with hardware that's old and has a library it's usable, when you have a companion like a phone who cares to sync it to their PS5 let alone the Portal lying around after a few years. Oh wait Sony has your money by then that's why.

Phones/tablets/PC/PS4 remote play exists, manufacturing wise Xbox was smart to drop the streaming box for a tv app instead that's cheaper/more relevant and well it find it kind of less appealing to anything else on the market.

Besides that I'm not even an owner of a PS5, I have access to one but would I buy this or just not.....

Also AUX cable/silent console is also a thing.

That and link button than bluetooth it's not a tech limitation here (earphones/headphones work on other devices yet this doesn't on the handheld, just get cabled who cares about the quality, wireless and price get a cheap pair).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Back to the marketing point at the beginning:

IF it did on announcement, Youtubers get things less clear then the PS Blog so it's still sometimes confusing and yet it's not a new handheld. Saying companion is not clear. Neither was Wii U to most people.

Most people don't care you can cast your phone to the TV with third party apps let alone even know you can do that. I can remote play and cast it back to the TV if I want to be stupid about it. XD

They don't care for dual screens yet the Portal would benefit from it to be single and dual screen support in games and apps but nope.

I got what a Wii U was but that was years later when I bought one in 2018 I didn't seek one out during 2012-2016 at all I never even heard of it so I didn't get the Wii U is a Gamepad for the Wii at all from it.

But I knew what PSP remote play was even if ad hoc was still more confusing then Download Play on DS as a name for things even if ad hoc is accurate it's a tech word I never understood for years till later when I now know what it means.

@Marquez While the PS Blog confused me on it.

I don't deny any people that are for the device they should enjoy it. I have read some good points in other comment sections and I totally see the appeal even if it isn't for me or think some aspects are missing (dual screen support, streaming will come later I assume).

Parents after work or while watching TV and with a partner/child/friend can easily enjoy this device.

Enjoy the handheld even if it isn't for many of us.

Not everything has to be for everyone. Just like Playlink had it's place of smartphone party games in 2014 on PS4 for families (Everybody 1-2 Switch anyone in 2023).

I think it's a cool idea in theory, but likely not so much in practice.

It’s only 200$, that’s the price of a meal at a nice restaurant.

Remote Play and my experience with it kills any desire of mine to have this.

I have a Switch. It plays games on its own without any network connectivity. I can play it anywhere I want.

Plus I’m going to ask a question. People who are interested in this have you played a big AAA 3D game on such a small display?

I’m gonna tell you that I don’t even play TOTK handheld on Switch very much. It’s just not nearly as good as playing on the TV. Instead I use it for more traditional handheld 2D games. Where portable devices really excel.

And if you really just want something portable to play when you don’t have access to a TV what about the Switch Lite? It’s the exact same price. It’s a flawed product in my opinion but it still plays games without an active network connection and you can take it places.

I simply don't get why you would release a product with such an extremely narrow use-case. If it had also supported cloud streaming, you'd at least have a somewhat future-proof product with a much wider use-case. But it doesn't, you're stuck on your home wi-fi and limited to your local library.

On top of this fundamental shortcoming, it doesn't have an OLED screen and shockingly doesn't even support bluetooth, so the only wireless headsets you'll be able to use are official Playstation devices. It's a complete car crash. What is going on at Sony?

If it does turn out to be remote play only, then it's going to be a fairly niche product. But then you could argue the same for their VR headsets and they sell fairly well and even have bespoke games for them. Sony simply have to manufacture and maintain the streaming function of this handheld.

Would I buy it? No. Had it been a decent screen 8" tablet with controller attached with Android OS, that could have been a decent emulator depending on the SoC. But given I don't even have a PS5, it's obviously not a product that will even be on my radar, other than as a curiosity.

just go get a Steam Deck. where you can play games natively. Without the cloud.