• TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Nah. I’m listening, I just don’t agree that you get to decide when the discussion gets to end. You are just repeating yourself at this point, but folks aren’t satisfied simply with responses of why someone ought to buy it when they want to comment on the limitations and missed opportunity.

    Additional costs and risk aren’t even a reason not to do it, they are merely a consideration to have. Companies choose to take these risks all the time. The PS5 has a whole new VR2 headset even though the market for that is even riskier than a portable device. Yes, it would cost more, and they could have done it anyway.

    Besides, a cloud gaming feature wouldn’t even raise costs all that much, and it might even lower the risk as an additional selling point.

    If you want to tell me that Sony didn’t do it because Sony didn’t do it and some people bought it because some people bought it, that’s not much of an answer.

    But you also glossed over the detail that if what people want is to stream their games to a device that’s like a cheap tablet with a split controller… they can just use a tablet with a split controller, spending less while also not having weird restrictions such as needing to buy a separate headset for it. Most people who can afford a PS5 already have phones that would do this perfectly well without spending whole $200 on an extra dumb screen.

    • mindbleach
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      They could’ve, but they didn’t.

      I’ve explained why - because people asked.

      The same questions, again, will have the same answers.

      The fact you’re still talking does not make that an ongoing discussion.

      If you want to stream games on your phone, do.

      That’s not what this device is for.

      I think we’re done here.