Didn't the Wii-U mostly fail because most people didn't know what it was? The marketing and name were terrible and plenty of people thought it was just a Wii add-on or something.

The console itself was actually pretty cool, playing Wind Waker on it was great.

Well they can lose if they are stuck with unsold inventory. Also r&d costs that need to be recouped.

Feels like PlayStations version of the Wii U not the switch

There's a a hands on post that says it will work outside the house. It just needs to be on a wifi network still.

Not to mention all the same utility can be had with say a small TV or computer monitor and like a HDMI switcher for a little over $100. Maybe less if you find a good deal. I had a Wii U. The gimmick of the controller screen got old fast and it sucked pretty hard overall. Not looking to retry that failed concept.

I use my Switch exclusively for this. If this handheld can eliminate lag, I'd love to get it. But it's priced a bit too high.

Genuinely as hard as "bring back the NGage." Nobody wants to buy a smartphone that's also a console platform. There's no three-year contract required, and AT&T doesn't get to micromanage the dashboard, but it's still two wildly different commitments for no sufficient benefit. It means being stuck with a wonky smartphone on a longer console lifecycle and overpaying for a console with all the limitations of a smartphone.

By contrast - this is a controller with a screen in it. That's all. Why wouldn't they sell that? What's the downside, for them? You buy another accessory priced well beyond its material costs, you provide all the electricity and electronics necessary for it to do anything, and they don't care if you ever play games on it. It's not lashed to the success of yet another online store. It's not even a vehicle for recurring subscription fees. It's a dongle for another toy. They have no incentive to force it to catch on. If it doesn't sell - they'll just stop.

I think the issue is always going to be games. Who wants to make games targeting such a small userbase? Half of the Android games don't even have good controller support (looking at you Genshin/Honkai)

There are definitely times when either my kids or my wife is watching something and I'd rather be gaming so I think I'd probably use something like this. However, last time I tried a remote play solution from Sony the lag was brutal, so I'm a bit skeptical.

Can one use the cloud streaming via their PS5?

Edit: also I don't think it's that niche. I see this being a common occurrence in any household with only one high end TV and more than one person who wants to use it. The price point isn't much more than a controller and a screen to begin with. They should sell the remote play hardware without the screen (just hdmi out) and controller (just include a bluetooth chip to allow controller pairing) at a lower price point to appeal to a wider market (cause portability in the household seems less useful, but just using another TV seems more common)

I've used remote play to play a casual / non-story game while watching Sports or some other background noise show on my TV more times than I can count. This is perfect for me.

My experience with steam link was.... Really bad. I also tried the stadia, terrible. Unless things have changed very recently streaming game tech just isn't there yet.

They are just talking about you not being able to stream ps3 games. That's all they are saying.

It’s intended for people who already own the €399 console.

It has a headphone jack.

You can also use any phone or tablet to remote play on PS5.

What you’re buying here is convenience. A dedicated device with the exact same controller setup as an actual PS5, with the same features (haptics, triggers) and a nice screen with basically plug and play setup.