I guess if you're just comparing it to the Vita, after you get a memory card only 50 dollars difference doesn't sound so bad for at *least* a generational performance increase. But that's just hardware alone, the Vita has exclusive games (if not that many) and big developers dedicated to it. On the third hand (foot?) the bigger appeal of this may be PC streaming, play on the pooper without lugging your rig there.
The pricing is still too high imo. You can buy great tablets for almost half that. You can attach a USB or bluetooth controller to those tablets, too. The only thing that's truly innovative about Shield is the one thing that should be universal to tablets and other PC's: gaming streaming. nVidia would be wise to NOT take forever (ie., SLI) to make this inter-operable across all kinds of hardware.
Also, even if I accepted the pricing (and I don't), I'd still have a problem with their statements of games having to be compatible with their streaming. Meaning, they have to go in and ADD support rather than support being default. Meaning, only certain games will work and if they move on from this initiative, then you'll move on from having streaming games.
Like the Nexus 7? That would still be on the prior version of Tegra (which is much worse performing) and you would have to buy a controller too, and something for HDMI output, and you'd still not be able to stream your PC games. I'm not saying this is a great idea, but it has its niche.
The PS4 will support streaming of all its games to Vita over both local Wi-Fi as well as remotely via Gaikai, so I guess with a Vita you can play your PS4 games on the go or wherever.
The PS4 comes with Gaikai technology and will itself act as a server and remotely stream games to the PS Vita even when it is not on the same local network as the PS4. The wording of my earlier post was kinda off.
Somewhat justifiably: it relies on a hardware encoder to bring latency low enough for viable streaming. No hardware encoder (of sufficient performance), no streaming. I suspect denying the use of software encoders is mainly to prevent people from trying it on a card with insufficient grunt to encode in real-time and then complaining about the poor quality.
If AMD can demonstrate a software encoder of similar latency though? Then commence the complaint torrent.
I believe that some of the motivation for Project Shield was losing all the console business to AMD. I do like that they are standardizing on the Google Play store, since so many of the games that I play are there.
I would like one, but the are two hang ups for me.
First is the price, $350. At $250 I would be a buyer for sure. Even if the SOC is brand spanking new, nVidia's profit margins aren't my problem.
The next issue is screen size and resolution. For the price both should be better. One of the more compelling features of Shield is PC game streaming from my main PC. But how are games designed for a high res monitor going to look at 720p? Am I going to be happy going from 1440p to 720p? I would have been more happy if they made it $200 and didn't include a screen and just made it a set top box.
Zero mass market appeal and very limited niche appeal. Speaks to how desperate Nvidia is to do something to counteract AMD's coming x86 gaming hegemony. The future of x86 gaming is HSA APUs and AMD owns that space. Nvidia will have zero leverage with game developers who will increasingly see Nvidia as an unwelcome guest at the table.
No, AMD will not budge Intel out of x86 dominance. Mark my words. APUs will go nowhere in two markets. Gaming and Professional where Nvidia dominates AMD.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
19 Comments
Back to Article
tipoo - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
I guess if you're just comparing it to the Vita, after you get a memory card only 50 dollars difference doesn't sound so bad for at *least* a generational performance increase. But that's just hardware alone, the Vita has exclusive games (if not that many) and big developers dedicated to it. On the third hand (foot?) the bigger appeal of this may be PC streaming, play on the pooper without lugging your rig there.HisDivineOrder - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
The pricing is still too high imo. You can buy great tablets for almost half that. You can attach a USB or bluetooth controller to those tablets, too. The only thing that's truly innovative about Shield is the one thing that should be universal to tablets and other PC's: gaming streaming. nVidia would be wise to NOT take forever (ie., SLI) to make this inter-operable across all kinds of hardware.Also, even if I accepted the pricing (and I don't), I'd still have a problem with their statements of games having to be compatible with their streaming. Meaning, they have to go in and ADD support rather than support being default. Meaning, only certain games will work and if they move on from this initiative, then you'll move on from having streaming games.
tipoo - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
Like the Nexus 7? That would still be on the prior version of Tegra (which is much worse performing) and you would have to buy a controller too, and something for HDMI output, and you'd still not be able to stream your PC games. I'm not saying this is a great idea, but it has its niche.thedarknight87 - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
The PS4 will support streaming of all its games to Vita over both local Wi-Fi as well as remotely via Gaikai, so I guess with a Vita you can play your PS4 games on the go or wherever.cmdrdredd - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
It won't stream to the Vita, games will stream from the cloud to the PS4 itself.thedarknight87 - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
The PS4 comes with Gaikai technology and will itself act as a server and remotely stream games to the PS Vita even when it is not on the same local network as the PS4. The wording of my earlier post was kinda off.piroroadkill - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
Pricing is fine, but how is the thing in the hand.. and in the pocket? It looks pretty bulky.Then you have the issue that kills the whole thing for a good number of people: it arbitrarily only supports NVIDIA cards.
It's only sending controller commands and encoding a bloody h.264 stream..
psuedonymous - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
"it arbitrarily only supports NVIDIA cards."Somewhat justifiably: it relies on a hardware encoder to bring latency low enough for viable streaming. No hardware encoder (of sufficient performance), no streaming. I suspect denying the use of software encoders is mainly to prevent people from trying it on a card with insufficient grunt to encode in real-time and then complaining about the poor quality.
If AMD can demonstrate a software encoder of similar latency though? Then commence the complaint torrent.
Kevin G - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
Intel has their QuickSync encoder on desktop/mobile Sandybridge/Ivy Bridge chips (minus Sandybridge-E). That should be more than fast enough.tipoo - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
The encoder would be fast enough, but the GPU? :Pgopher1369 - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
Rubbish, I have no problem streaming my Radeon 7850 to my Nexus 4 via Splashtop, latency free. Shield is propietory because Nvidia want it to be.ChuckDriver - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
I believe that some of the motivation for Project Shield was losing all the console business to AMD. I do like that they are standardizing on the Google Play store, since so many of the games that I play are there.Shadowmaster625 - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
So will I be able to "stream" a MOBA like League of Legends onto this device?tipoo - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
In theory. The game needs to add support.hpglow - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
I would like one, but the are two hang ups for me.First is the price, $350. At $250 I would be a buyer for sure. Even if the SOC is brand spanking new, nVidia's profit margins aren't my problem.
The next issue is screen size and resolution. For the price both should be better. One of the more compelling features of Shield is PC game streaming from my main PC. But how are games designed for a high res monitor going to look at 720p? Am I going to be happy going from 1440p to 720p? I would have been more happy if they made it $200 and didn't include a screen and just made it a set top box.
ET - Sunday, May 19, 2013 - link
If you're curious about playing in 720p, why not just try it?spigzone - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
Zero mass market appeal and very limited niche appeal. Speaks to how desperate Nvidia is to do something to counteract AMD's coming x86 gaming hegemony. The future of x86 gaming is HSA APUs and AMD owns that space. Nvidia will have zero leverage with game developers who will increasingly see Nvidia as an unwelcome guest at the table.cmdrdredd - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
No, AMD will not budge Intel out of x86 dominance. Mark my words. APUs will go nowhere in two markets. Gaming and Professional where Nvidia dominates AMD.thesavvymage - Friday, May 17, 2013 - link
If nothing else, its perfect for emulators! Can play everything up through ps1/n64 era, which is all of the emulators available today anyways.