PlayStation Portal Remote Player Launches Later This Year for $200 - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 23 August 2023 / 4,284 Views
Sony Interactive Entertainment announced the Project Q remote player will be called the PlayStation Portal and will launch later this year for $199.99 / €219.99 / £199.99 / 29,980 yen.
The PlayStation Portal remote player has all the features of the PlayStation 5 DualSense Controller, an 8-inch LCD screen that is capable of 1080p resolution at 60 frames per second. The device connects to your PS5 via Wi-Fi and plays supported games installed on your PS5 and use the DualSense controller.
PlayStation VR2 games and games streamed through PlayStation Plus Premium's cloud streaming are not supported.
Read details on the PlayStation Portal remote player:
PlayStation Portal remote player brings the PS5 experience to the palm of your hand. It includes the key features of the DualSense wireless controller, including adaptive triggers and haptic feedback. The vibrant 8-inch LCD screen is capable of 1080p resolution at 60fps, providing a high definition visual experience that’s expected from the high quality games created by world-class developers.
PlayStation Portal is the perfect device for gamers in households where they might need to share their living room TV or simply want to play PS5 games in another room of the house. PlayStation Portal will connect remotely to your PS5 over Wi-Fi, so you’ll be able to swiftly jump from playing on your PS5 to your PlayStation Portal. PlayStation Portal can play supported games that are installed on your PS5 console and use the Dualsense controller. It also includes a 3.5mm audio jack for wired audio. PS VR2 games, which require the headset, and games that are streamed through PlayStation Plus Premium’s cloud streaming, are not supported.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
The fact that you cannot use for cloud streaming is... well... disappointing to say the least.
I guess... technically you can. Only no direct cloud but instead using the PS5 as the buffer. So streaming an already streamed game seems odd but it is what it is... for now.
No, is has been explicitly stated that you cannot do that either.
For now, at least. Maybe with a future software update that could change?
But not launching with that feature is pretty piss-poor, if that's their intent.
As I commented in the forum: This seems likely to be a very niche device. Maybe useful for crowded households where there's competition for the TV. Beyond that, it'll allow people to play while sitting on the toilet or laying in bed, but a $200 purchase is going to be a tough sell for those purposes.
Yeaaaaa, no. The lack of cloud support is baffling and $200 is just ridiculous for a device the only function of which is to play games you can already play somewhere else in the house on what looks to be a clunky as hell device. They definitely missed the mark this time.
This thing probably needed to be $150 at the most and ideally $100.
As it stands, it doesn’t support any cloud streaming natively, and it doesn’t even support Bluetooth audio out. I think the only reason anyone would buy this is if a partner is watching something else on the TV
Yeah. At $100 I think it would sell a lot. But, at half the cost of a PS5, and no ability to stream games outside of the home, it is very hard to see the appeal.
Agreed. But given what Sony charges for just a controller, a controller with a screen is unlikely to ever drop to $100.
Seems dead on arrival to me. Why would anyone spend $200 on a local remote play only device? The Vita had local remote play with PS4 games and it's own Game Library, and they still were barely able to sell it at $200 after it's price cut in 2013.
$100 too much
$200 too much
This... will not sell. From a business perspective I'm not sure if this is a good decision. The fact that you need a PS5 on top of wifi connection. But similar to the Steam Deck and PSVR I guess its for a niche audience and more options are always welcomed from a consumer perspective.
Each company is trying to do something different. Nintendo's trying to make money on hardware, knowing only the PC market offers Switch-style handhelds so they can get fat margins. Microsoft is trying to get as many people subscribed to their services as they can, and they don't care what hardware people play on.
Sony's goal is to sell as many PS5s as possible, so they're being aggressive on system pricing, and offering a broad array of accessories. This does not look like it's designed as a mass market accessory, but if they at least break even on it, and it sells a few more PS5s, then they probably think it's the right plan.
I don't say any of that to suggest this is a good device at a good price, as I don't think it is. But I think it explains Sony's thought process.
So basically the wiiu and we know how well that went
It's possible that it runs in Android and that you could in future run emulation without modifying it, imagine playing SNES, PS 1, Psp, n64 and possibly PlayStation 2 via emulation, a possibility of an extq bonus
This COULD have some niche use as a way to play games while somebody else is using the TV... but you can easily get another TV for well under $200. So I really can't see a use for this.
Well, you'd need another TV and another console, unless you want to move your console between TVs. That might be OK with a Series S as it's super small, but less appealing with a Series X or a PS5.
I'm not saying that makes this a good device, though. I sure wouldn't buy it. It costs nearly as much as a Switch Lite or a Series S.
"Consumers are more than twice as likely to play mobile games while relaxing at home than they are while at work or commuting. "
I think a lot of you need to hear this. Portable gaming is most popular at home, it's just a different way of relaxing and offering freedom. This is not a new console in need of software support or a strong userbase, it's literally just a peripheral, we'll never hear about how many units its sold, each unit though will likely being sold for a big profit margin and it doesn't need sell much to justify it's existence.
Lack of blutooth and cloud gaming are disappointments, the latter should be possible through future update and is probably part of the roadmap latter in PS5's life. The former is an annoying oversight since most people are switching to wireless headphones now.
Big difference is you named devices that are mobile by design. Owning a tradition console like Xbox or PS5, I'm going to pick playing on my TV 99 out of 100 times with the rare exception of not having access to TV when I want to play. When I do want to play a console game on a handheld, I stream it because it gives better flexibility where I can play and I practically never stream at home because why would I when I can play the native console version. If it offered streaming, I would understand the appeal, but it doesn't. Hugely wasted opportunity. If you will use this, then great but it's going to have a low attachment rate.
Look beyond your preferences, the most popular games on console are very much jump in and play experiences. You do not need a 55inch, cinematic experience everytime you want to mess around for an hour in GTV5, Minecraft, FIFA, Fortnight, Diablo etc.
I mean do we think people exclusively play their Switch in TV mode when at home?
Most people in the world also live with others, so casually playing games without it taking up the whole living room or casually playing in bed.
It's certainly not for everyone. And the capacity to streaming without a ps5 is definitely a knock to its appeal
Nobody is saying that this device will not sell, they are saying its not a mass market device because its use case is niche. That point you really cannot deny.
You continue to compare this device to the switch but its not. The switch is a complete gaming system with a mobile front end. You have to pay 400 bucks for the PS5 then another 200 bucks to play it as a mobile device you can only use it at home. Not only that we do not even know the range on this mobile connection between the PS5 and this device. If its bluetooth range then its very short meaning that unless your PS5 is in the same room as you, your connection to it will be very limited.
The current people who have demoed this device have been in a controlled environment, lets wait until it ship so we see what the actual range is for this device for good streaming because right now, I am thinking it will not be great.
You should read the comments again. Plenty are saying its DOA/Won't sell/questioning its existence...
Inversely no one is saying this is going be huge, just that it has a market which why it exists, like most peripherals, i.e the elite controllers
As far as being a device that will garner huge sales, I would agree it will not succeed in that respect. There is nothing about this device that screams "must have". Its a 200 dollar device you cannot leave your home with to use. Its not on the same level as a Switch which you can user anywhere at anytime.
I also question that Sony made the device so limited where its dependent on someone actually needing a PS5 in order to use it. It would have been a much better device if you could use it anywhere and only need PS+ to stream your games to the device. Not only can you not use it with PS+ you must have the game on your PS5. It sounds like a huge miss but I am sure it will sell at a very low compacity but then again that may be what Sony want.
I'm sorry Wii U. It must be a joke, for sure.
It's going to be an enthusiast device (and possibly a very niche one at that) at $200 with only Wi-Fi Support. $150 or under with an option to connect without Wi-Fi would probably sell millions and millions. This might sell 1-2 million.
Could be nice since I often want to play games lying on my bed rather than sitting on my shitty chair, which is impossible for me to do in my room. Only problem: I don't have a PS5... and it's way too expensive especially knowing it's apparently a work in progress.
At that point, why not just sell the PS Joycon as an individual controller for the PS5? They seem comfy enough, and would have much more appeal than the tablet itself.
Less than what some were expecting, but still more expensive than I would be willing to pay for basically a small screen that depends on network and having a PS5 processing the game.
will it work on any wifi network or is it direct wifi to the 5 only? Like how the PSP needed to be direct wifi to the PS3.
Might be both. With WiFi 6 the direct connection would be awesome but even a network one would be just fine. To get the best experience you need 15 MBs connection. On the same wifi this is no problem.
However, over the internet I think alot of people would fail to reach top quality.
I hope MS hurry and release their streaming device/controller with full Xcloud support so Sony is forced to compete and add this much-needed feature.
Anddddddd winner of the most useless piece of tech in 2023 goes toooooooooooo SONY!!!! Good job, were all so proud of you!
Im not understanding this. Everyone hated the WiiU pad and this just feels like the same idea but for PS5. If it had internal hardware that would be decent but price would sky rocket so its an odd device
Maybe because with the WiiU you were tethered to the controller in order to play in the first place. This is just an additional accessory for ppl who want it.
I don't think it's that difficult to understand the difference.
But without bluetooth and cloud support (which admittedly could come later once cloud is further along for Sony), it has a limited audience indeed.
Well it is hard to understand because this device is tethered and is exactly what people didnt like about the WiiU pad.
It wasnt a very successful idea in the past, same as the Vita with its cross play with PS3 games.
Its just a very random and odd move based on the market research.
But who knows, maybe it will do okay
Waste of money, just use a stand to attach your phone to a controller.
"The device connects to your PS5 via Wi-Fi and plays supported games installed on your PS5" is there a list of what games will be supported at launch?
If adoption for this device is super low, I don't see many developers outside of PlayStation's first-party studios that will support this device.
Games media massive fail once again. Why aren’t they demanding to know who at Sony made this clueless decision to make it a home only “portable” .
Making it only playable at home massively reduces its viability. This was made to fail, & someone at Sony who made the final decision deserves to be criticised, demoted, and/or sacked. Jim Ryan is ultimately responsible.
PS I’m gonna say this again since people don’t know what they’re looking at, but the Portal looks to be the best controlling Handheld in history…..IF it controls like the PS5 controller that it’s modelled on. That is a big deal.
Price is not too bad for what it is.
