-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Yoshida: Wii U will inspire Vita experiments
- Thread starter Elios83
- Start date
CamHostage
Member
Thanks to GoFreak for clearly stating the situation!
The framework would be as easy as taking advantage of something like "Game Sharing" feature of PSP, adding that as an option on PS3 via Bluetooth. There are other ways too, the point is the excecution is fairly easy and already part of Sony's portable-to-portable mechanics, just add an app transfer protocol to the console that fits and you're done.
As somebody mentioned, this is a misconception about Remote Play, Singstar for PS3 already does it where the PSP in Remote Play mode can make a track list and even shop for tracks on PSN. (Seems like an awesome party feature, too bad Sony never played this up.) I've not tried it myself but it looks to be robust in features and graphics, comparable to the maps and ninja stars we've seen so far with Nintendo's implementation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZWx7WPqmxM
But either way, it's not greatly likely that Sony will use Remote Play much as the PS3/PSV connector.
Look, this isn't about trying to dominate the market with console-to-handheld technology, all anybody said was that it's doable. Whatever Sony does with the connection, the Wii U has the clear advantage of having it packed in and having it seamlessly integrated. I don't think anybody's seriously worried about Nintendo being damaged by this, all anybody is saying is that it's possible.
gofreak said:
The framework would be as easy as taking advantage of something like "Game Sharing" feature of PSP, adding that as an option on PS3 via Bluetooth. There are other ways too, the point is the excecution is fairly easy and already part of Sony's portable-to-portable mechanics, just add an app transfer protocol to the console that fits and you're done.
Callibretto said:
Man said:
As somebody mentioned, this is a misconception about Remote Play, Singstar for PS3 already does it where the PSP in Remote Play mode can make a track list and even shop for tracks on PSN. (Seems like an awesome party feature, too bad Sony never played this up.) I've not tried it myself but it looks to be robust in features and graphics, comparable to the maps and ninja stars we've seen so far with Nintendo's implementation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZWx7WPqmxM
But either way, it's not greatly likely that Sony will use Remote Play much as the PS3/PSV connector.
titiklabingapat said:
Look, this isn't about trying to dominate the market with console-to-handheld technology, all anybody said was that it's doable. Whatever Sony does with the connection, the Wii U has the clear advantage of having it packed in and having it seamlessly integrated. I don't think anybody's seriously worried about Nintendo being damaged by this, all anybody is saying is that it's possible.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
I haven't had a networking class in a damn long time, so someone who is better at this stuff is going to have to correct me, buuuut...
The max bitrate for a blu-ray disc for movies is 54Mbps, correct? And 802.11g has a peak data rate of 54Mbps, right? So using those measurements you easily have the bandwidth to stream a compressed 1080p video signal. So we know the bandwidth exists to stream at least that.
The next question is the latency. Latency would be effected by the propagation velocity of the radio wave itself, and any additional processing required to handle the transfer of the signal (IE, what your wireless card and router do so fast that you don't actually care about it). The propagation velocity cannot be effected by hardware. So the only real way to effect latency is to reduce the distance the signal must travel, or remove obstacles that would hinder the propagation velocity. So essentially, the only place you can eliminate latency is in the processing of the signal. We know both the PS3 and the Vita have some pretty serious hardware that would be capable of doing that.
Now, PS3 has a built in 802.11g wireless card, and the Vita has even better than that. I don't quite understand where the conflict on having the PS3 system stream the data directly to the Vita is coming from. It's nowhere NEAR impossible, and it's probably not going to have much more latency than anything, unless they need to send more than 54Mb of data to the Vita per second. In reality, the amount of data they'd need to send would be much less than 54Mb, and could be much more heavily compressed, as the Vita doesn't even have a 1080p resolution screen.
But I may be wrong because I really don't remember how this shit works that well, so I welcome people correcting me.
The max bitrate for a blu-ray disc for movies is 54Mbps, correct? And 802.11g has a peak data rate of 54Mbps, right? So using those measurements you easily have the bandwidth to stream a compressed 1080p video signal. So we know the bandwidth exists to stream at least that.
The next question is the latency. Latency would be effected by the propagation velocity of the radio wave itself, and any additional processing required to handle the transfer of the signal (IE, what your wireless card and router do so fast that you don't actually care about it). The propagation velocity cannot be effected by hardware. So the only real way to effect latency is to reduce the distance the signal must travel, or remove obstacles that would hinder the propagation velocity. So essentially, the only place you can eliminate latency is in the processing of the signal. We know both the PS3 and the Vita have some pretty serious hardware that would be capable of doing that.
Now, PS3 has a built in 802.11g wireless card, and the Vita has even better than that. I don't quite understand where the conflict on having the PS3 system stream the data directly to the Vita is coming from. It's nowhere NEAR impossible, and it's probably not going to have much more latency than anything, unless they need to send more than 54Mb of data to the Vita per second. In reality, the amount of data they'd need to send would be much less than 54Mb, and could be much more heavily compressed, as the Vita doesn't even have a 1080p resolution screen.
But I may be wrong because I really don't remember how this shit works that well, so I welcome people correcting me.
tycoonheart
Member
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
Can't compare bluray bitrate to network bitrate like that. There are way too many limiting factors in network access. Just imagine how many CPU cycles are used rendering the damn thing. Just because 802.11g's maximum through put is 54mpbs doesn't mean that you will be seeing all of it.
Agent X
Member
Withnail said:
I mentioned it in another thread yesterday, but I'm glad you and a few others have brought it up in this thread. The concept has already been done by Sony on the PS3 and PSP. It's also been done with the Wii and DS in some of the Guitar Hero games.
With this bit of history in mind, I don't get why a few people here insist that this type of connectivity won't be possible between PS3 and PS Vita.
Callibretto said:
Those are really good points you've made. From a pure technical perspective, they could have done something like this already with PS3 and PSP (see the example with SingStar), but the PSP doesn't offer anything in the way of input that you couldn't already do with the PS3's Sixaxis or Dual Shock 3 controllers. That will change with Vita, because of the added options with the multi-touch screen and cameras and such.
So for something simple like SingStar (letting someone in the room build a playlist), the PSP comes in handy, since the PSP user is doing something separate from the person who's doing the singing. For the LBP/MNR games in the way they exist now, there's no benefit to using the current PSP as a "controller". Again, Vita could easily change that, giving users who own both systems a reason to want this interoperability.
Cwarrior said:
Likewise, over 50 million PS3 owners would only need to buy the Vita, rather than buying a new home console which will probably cost more.
Would developers bother to support it? If it's something like calling plays in a sports game, then I could see it happening. Contrary to what a few people here are saying, you would not have to buy the same game for both systems. You'd only need to buy the PS3 version, which could then transmit its own "control application" (not a full game) to the Vita. I don't think this would require a significant amount of development resources, and (as some others here have pointed out) they could probably share some interface design elements with the Wii U. Such resource sharing could benefit both the Wii U and the PS3/Vita combination.
Fredrik
Member
Oh God please don't.
PS3 and PSVita are two completely different consoles, it will be impossible for Sony to highlight this connectivity funtionality without just doing Nintendo a huge favor. It would only strengthen Nintendo even more. Everyone who buy a Wii U will get this funtionality. Everyone. And every single game will use it in some fashion. But the only ones who'll get it with PS3-Vita is the one with both a PS3 and a Vita and who buy the PS3-Vita-connected games. Please don't go this way Sony. Just Don't.
Look, even if it worked Sony would still just split their user base once again. Those who own a Vita - And those who don't. It's just like with Move. But even worse, because I highly douts that the tech would be as good. No, Sony need to downplay this. Make Nintendo look bad. Make the tech sound unneccesary. A gimmick. A fad.
And when the time comes for the PS4 to see the light. Please don't go the Nintendo route again as with Move. You don't have to. Just do something else. Something better. Something new. Something that make people go "WOW" - instead of "Oh, cool, it's like Wii U".
Plus, I'll most definitely buy a Wii U. I won't need another one. And I hope this generation will be the last one where we have to buy two pretty much identical consoles (360/PS3) for $400 each. I won't do it again.
PS3 and PSVita are two completely different consoles, it will be impossible for Sony to highlight this connectivity funtionality without just doing Nintendo a huge favor. It would only strengthen Nintendo even more. Everyone who buy a Wii U will get this funtionality. Everyone. And every single game will use it in some fashion. But the only ones who'll get it with PS3-Vita is the one with both a PS3 and a Vita and who buy the PS3-Vita-connected games. Please don't go this way Sony. Just Don't.
Look, even if it worked Sony would still just split their user base once again. Those who own a Vita - And those who don't. It's just like with Move. But even worse, because I highly douts that the tech would be as good. No, Sony need to downplay this. Make Nintendo look bad. Make the tech sound unneccesary. A gimmick. A fad.
And when the time comes for the PS4 to see the light. Please don't go the Nintendo route again as with Move. You don't have to. Just do something else. Something better. Something new. Something that make people go "WOW" - instead of "Oh, cool, it's like Wii U".
Plus, I'll most definitely buy a Wii U. I won't need another one. And I hope this generation will be the last one where we have to buy two pretty much identical consoles (360/PS3) for $400 each. I won't do it again.
tycoonheart
Member
"With this bit of history in mind, I don't get why a few people here insist that this type of connectivity won't be possible between PS3 and PS Vita."
I have already outlined why this type of connectivity is unfeasible between the PS3 and Vita.
Lets take hypothetical WiiU game where your TV screen blanks out and the game moves on to your handheld screen. The game moves to the controller screen in all its glory. Its not just an inventory screen or a map or something small. Its the full game.
Explain to me how this is possible between the PS3 and Vita w/o any lag or latency issues?
I think the only way its possible is if a copy of the game exists in your Vita and all the PS3 has to do is send small bits of data back to the Vita. But if the game is of decent size, how do you fit that in the Vita?
How would you move massive amount of data between the PS3 and Vita over Wifi or Bluetooth?
I have already outlined why this type of connectivity is unfeasible between the PS3 and Vita.
Lets take hypothetical WiiU game where your TV screen blanks out and the game moves on to your handheld screen. The game moves to the controller screen in all its glory. Its not just an inventory screen or a map or something small. Its the full game.
Explain to me how this is possible between the PS3 and Vita w/o any lag or latency issues?
I think the only way its possible is if a copy of the game exists in your Vita and all the PS3 has to do is send small bits of data back to the Vita. But if the game is of decent size, how do you fit that in the Vita?
How would you move massive amount of data between the PS3 and Vita over Wifi or Bluetooth?
That phrasing in the OP feels... off... as far as corporate speech goes. I dunno, feels like they'd go with "Oh, well we already do this and that and are dedicated to this and that, etc" but parts of that almost look like "yup, we'll get right on trying to rip that off to the max." Not saying that's what they're doing directly or anything, just sounds... weird.
Agent X
Member
Fredrik said:
It wouldn't split the user base, if it's done properly.
Take, for example, a football game like Madden NFL '13.
On the Wii U, you would be able to select your plays on the tablet, and draw routes using the touch screen.
On the PS3, if you have a Vita, then you would be able to do exactly the same thing.
On the PS3, if you don't have a Vita, then you would select plays in exactly the same way that you did in previous Madden games.
There's no splitting of the user base. It would merely be an added option for people who happen to own both machines.
AbsoluteZero
Banned
Wouldn't be the first time Sony shamelessly took ideas from Nintendo.
Lance Bone Path
Member
I had thought that the 3DS would be shown connecting to the wii u the way that vita connects with the PS3. It seems like a missed opportunity, but maybe they can work that in for the next revision of the 3DS.
can someone please explain to me why there would be latency issues with the vita/ps3 and not with the wiiu controller? i honestly don't understand. couldn't the vita use wifi/bluetooth or even a direct cable??
also, why is everyone saying sony is copying nintendo, when not only has sony been doing this for years with remote play, yoshida specifically said developers might experiment with this. it's not sony all of a sudden adding it in. the possibility was already there before the wii u was announced.
also, why is everyone saying sony is copying nintendo, when not only has sony been doing this for years with remote play, yoshida specifically said developers might experiment with this. it's not sony all of a sudden adding it in. the possibility was already there before the wii u was announced.
tycoonheart said:
Im thinking itll work for some games that are pretty much exactly the same on PS3/Vita...take that new Dragons Crown game for instance.
You own PS3 version and Vita version. You play on PS3, save, transfer to Vita, load up game on Vita, and pick up where you left off.
Theres no lag that way since the game itself is running on the Vita. Think of it like a glorified version of Kojimas Transfaring idea for PS3 -> PSP.
That said, its not exactly what Wii U is doing since that only requires one game copy. Its also more time consuming unless they use cloud saves. And its more expensive since youll need both game copies unless they start doing cheap pack ins.
Agent X
Member
tycoonheart said:
You didn't read my post very thoroughly, did you? "This type of connectivity" meaning something like using your system as a secondary screen for a game. This is not video streaming. There is a big difference.
Also, a "copy of the game" would not have to exist on the Vita. Please see the example with SingStar. This type of "secondary screen" functionality exists now, with the PS3 and PSP systems that are available now. You don't buy a SingStar game for the PSP to make this type of interoperability work.
Now, moving a game from the big screen to the controller...yeah, they wouldn't be able to do this as elegantly using streaming. But Sony has their own way of allowing you to "transfer" your gameplay experience between PS3 and Vita--one which has its own set of advantages and disadvantages.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
tycoonheart said:
Actually, you essentially can compare them in terms of bandwidth. There's nothing keeping that data from being transferred. That's the question. The Wii U controller and Wii U system will need to do just as many CPU cycles to decompress/render/handle input as anything else will. There's no magic instantaneous data processing happening. The best argument you could have is that the Wii U would be able to send it uncompressed and therefore eliminate the latency in decompressing the data, since it theoretically has higher bandwidth (we don't actually know this, since they didn't release technical details). But the amount of latency decompressing the feed would add is nearly negligible compared to the rest. Would the Wii U have less latency, granting that? Yeah, sure. But adding 30-50ms of latency (three frames?) isn't going to have any effect on most types of games. Yes, it would suck for fighters that require frame precision, sure. But most games that would use this sort of tech wouldn't be limited by that.
Almost all of the latency people talk about when it comes to remote play probably is network latency.
Edit: I am overstating that a bit. There's some obvious network overhead with packet management, etc, but it's not that much of an overstatement.
tycoonheart
Member
Agent X said:
Yes... maps, inventories and simple stuff could be streamed on to the Vita because the amount of data required for that kind of stuff isn't massive. But if/when WiiU comes out with a game that uses the controller screen to show a different view or perspective of the 3D world you see on your TV, I highly doubt this could be done well on the PS3/Vita.
tycoonheart
Member
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
The streaming capabilities of WiiU probably works kind of like how wireless HDMI works.
http://technology.17things.com/how-does-wireless-hdmi-work
And the dongles can be as small as this:
From another site:
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
I don't think this matters much. I don't think Sony would even be happy with letting people play PS3 games on the Vita when a genuine Vita version of that game exists.
I'm thinking more about letting users use the Vita as a secondary screen/input for other stuff that interact with the main game running on the PS3. Just like they imagined the PSP could be used for via Remote Play (rear mirror etc).
I think that's totally doable without even using Remote Play. Just transfer some data, run it on the Vita and let the bluetooth do the UI talking.
Fredrik
Member
Look, even if they managed to get it to work just as good Wii U would still have tons of other cool features where this is used, not just a few games here and there. Sony cannot win this. Wii U would come out on top no matter what. And Sony would do Nintendo a favor, a commercial for PS3-PSVita connectivity would pretty much be a commercial for Wii U. As soon as people start to think that this tech is cool they'll rather buy a Wii U.Agent X said:
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
tycoonheart said:
All that is is an increase in the bandwidth of the data transfer. It's like upgrading from 802.11g (54Mbps) to 802.11n (100-200Mbps). All that does is allow you to transfer more data at once. Which is great, because it means you can have less compression in order to eliminate some of the latency decompression and processing would bring in. The REAL question is whether a) more than 54Mbps of bandwidth is necessary and b) whether decompression and processing would add enough latency to actually be a bother.
TTP said:
The only reason I bring it up is that some people are saying the Vita would have to essentially run executable code in order to make this function at all, and it would require installs, and yada yada. It's completely feasible for the PS3 to handle all processing and stream the video portion only to the Vita, via it's wireless card.
This solution would be similar to ad hoc party as it would mandate that the PS3 could not use the wireless network for internet, since that would have to be entirely dedicated to streaming the video to the Vita.
tycoonheart
Member
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
This is a response more to your previous post:
Why would the stream to the WiiU controller screen need to be processed? Your HDTV receives the stream from say an HDMI cable and displays it, wouldn't your controller screen be essentially be doing the same, except wirelessly?
Dr.Palutena
Member
I think with PS3 and vita we will see some good stuff similar to wii u but it won't really get crazy until vita and ps4 in my opinion, though i think ps4 will inevitably have its thing without vita.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
tycoonheart said:
Believe it or not, your TV has a processor in it that decodes the HDMI signal, and then instructs the pixels on the screen to change their values, in order to render the image. Your TV, depending on what features it has, probably does some other post processing, like motion smoothing, or dumb stuff like adding yellows to the source. In that case it's all done in hardware, so it's pretty fast, certainly faster than a software solution, if the software solution were running on a processor of similar power. But the processor of the Vita is probably significantly more powerful.
CamHostage
Member
tycoonheart said:
Wii U has game demos already that show full 3D on both screens, as impressed as I was with how graphically complete the Singstar PS3-to-PSP Remote Play functionality is I'm not sure that there's enough in the PS3's tank to spit out this much polygonal detail to both the TV and remote handheld. (Though remember when PS3 was originally going to ship with two HDMI ports??)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpCLm0wlmfs&feature=player_embedded
That said, all this is useless conversation because Sony doesn't have to use Remote Play at all, Vita can simply get a download app and it'll be capable of much that Wii U can do. It won't be nearly as elegant, though.
Fredrik said:
Nobody's talking "winning", we're just talking about what's doable.
why does it have to be about "winning"?? what would they be winning exactly? the point is, it won't split the userbase and it would be a great feature for vita/ps3. obviously, the wii u will offer more connectivity since all wii u's will have a wii u controller.Fredrik said:
also, people can say that the wii u will have all this amazing connectivity in every game but it will have one same problem as vita/psp: devs would have to develop the extra features/controls as an option because of the fact you can have it so you're just playing the game purely on the wii u screen and not using the tv.
Agent X
Member
Fredrik said:
If they think the tech is cool, then they'll go with whichever system they think is best, with all other hardware and software factors in consideration.
The relationship between the PS3 and the PS Vita has many similarities to that of the Wii U and its tablet controller, but it also has many differences. One of the key differences is that the PS Vita is a self-contained system, and doesn't require a separate console to act as a "base station" for transmitting data. This means you could take a game and literally make it portable, and play it while you're away from home.
I'm sure the differences between the two setups has been argued many times here and on other forums already, and probably will continue to be argued for years to come. Neither arrangement is completely superior to the other, as both have distinct advantages and disadvantages.
tycoonheart
Member
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
The difference is that when the Vita receives streaming data from the PS3 over 802.11g it will first need to be processed and converted to whatever your display understands and be fed to the display in the fashion. Sure the display will then use its own processor that decodes the signal.
If the WiiU is using something similar to wireless HDMI, the conversion to whatever your display needs/understands is done by the console and streamed directly, alongside the signal to your TV, to controller screen (which decodes the signal). So in essence WiiU is doing away with that one extra step that needs to be done on the PS3/Vita combination.
Maybe?
AbortedWalrusFetus said:
I'm not so sure. Remote play eats a lot of system resources already, and even tho custom firmware allows to stream games such as GTA4 on the PSP, I have yet to see a PS3 game running on the main screen AND on the PSP simultaneously. That's the issue. Not just the wifi streaming. It's the WiFi streaming PLUS the "main" one on the big screen. I doubt the PS3 could handle both unless the game supporting this tech is super easy on the system resources (like Ad Hoc Party).
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
CamHostage said:
Best and most reasonable response to this.
If this sort of thing does get enabled on PS3 with Vita, we can't expect games to have Uncharted 3 like graphics at the same time the PS3 is rendering geometry for the Vita screen as well. That's kind of where I think it would be beneficial for the PS3 to just send executable code to the Vita, rather than just video, or a hybrid of both. There's no reason the PS3 can't load an inventory screen and the like onto the vita and have it execute that code itself. If they take the other approach, there will be some repercussions to the graphics of both systems. Not really a huge issue, if the way they use the Vita screen adds to the gameplay significantly.
Both approaches have merits, and if devs have good ideas to implement them, they should. They just need to not be gimmicky about it.
TTP said:
This relates to the above post as well. There have been examples of the PSP running remote play while the PS3 renders a game (see Singstar), it's just never been used during a game which is very demanding of the system (to my knowledge). And likely will never be. Then again, neither was much of what we actually saw of the game concepts for the Wii U.
tycoonheart
Member
CamHostage said:
But I'm not sure the WiiU needs to spit out two sets of polygonal detail to have something showing on the TV and be mirrored on the screen.
If that is true, then the WiiU CPU and GPU are much more behemoths than anyone ever imagined.
I'd like to get more detail on this streaming technology they are using.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Just read through the thread and there is definitely an opportunity for Sony to cock block Nintendo and roll out similar functionality for Vita/PS3 before Wii-U hits, even a single first party game would be enough.
I think a killer advert for Vita using this concept would be to show a Wii-U user playing, then going on the bus, bored then a PS3 user using the Vita as a controller and taking it with them on their journey and continuing to play, then reaching a friend's house and showing multiple people using Vita control on LBP2 PS3 and the person sitting down and joining in with their Vita.
It would highlight the flexibility of Vita, sell the PS3 and rag on Wii-U for just one tablet controller.
I think a killer advert for Vita using this concept would be to show a Wii-U user playing, then going on the bus, bored then a PS3 user using the Vita as a controller and taking it with them on their journey and continuing to play, then reaching a friend's house and showing multiple people using Vita control on LBP2 PS3 and the person sitting down and joining in with their Vita.
It would highlight the flexibility of Vita, sell the PS3 and rag on Wii-U for just one tablet controller.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Zoe said:
Err, HDMI splitter?
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
Zoe said:
Yeah, I'm pretty convinced that the controller has no processing on its own, or they would have remarked about how you could take the gaming with you, rather than emphasizing that it was tied to the system.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Zoe said:
Are you sure about that?
I don't think those setups with one Blu-ray player running 20-30 displays in an electronics shop requires the player to render 20-30 streams...
Not an expert though, maybe tech-GAF can explain how it works.
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
zomgbbqftw said:
HDMI splitters typically mirror displays, or enlarge an image and display it on multiple screens. The source signal never changes.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Zoe said:
Good point. In that case it looks like Nintendo could be leveraging Eyefinity, but would that not limit the ability to do 1080p for the main stream?
