PREDICTION: "The Shield" gaming console will be an epic fail

[Hugo Drax]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7159/nvidia-confirms-ship-date-for-shield-july-31-

Another one to add to the long list of failed gaming devices. What where they thinking.

 

[jpiniero]

What were you thinking posting this in OT?

Anyway, nobody wants Tegra 4 so they needed something to sell with it. Sounds like they will have better luck with the 4i.

 

[Mushkins]

Too convoluted and expensive of a solution, and one of the biggest draw is of questionable functionality. 99% of PC games just flat out aren't designed with this kind of streaming functionality in mind, and I can't imagine developers and publishers are going to push to focus on it considering the costs and technical challenges involved and the already niche market of the device. $350 for a Tegra 4 and an xbox controller is a little pricey, and this quote pretty much sums up the streaming and its lack of portability:

"Latency is impressively low and there’s minimal to no hitching. I played Borderlands on Shield connected to a Falcon Northwest box with GeForce Titan inside and found it more than playable. "

Borderlands isn't exactly groundbreaking performace-wise, and the device uses local streaming only. If a $1000 Titan is still presenting hitching that's only rated "more than playable" at 720p and i'm already tied to my local network, at that point why wouldn't I just sit down at my PC with it's beautiful 1080p or above monitor, crank all the settings to max, and enjoy the game without any hitching at all?

I'm glad devices like the Ouya and the Shield are coming out of the woodwork, someone will eventually learn from the mistakes of these first efforts and come out with something that can hold its own, but the Shield honestly comes off as a hacked together solution for a problem that didn't exist in the first place.

 

[Aikouka]

I've been tempted to give this a try since I like technology and I already have GeForce GPUs that support streaming. However, that $300 price tag is a real buzz kill.

99% of PC games just flat out aren't designed with this kind of streaming functionality in mind, and I can't imagine developers and publishers are going to push to focus on it considering the costs and technical challenges involved and the already niche market of the device.

What? I don't think you understand how the device works.... The GeForce Experience software has a streaming feature in it. When it's enabled for a game, the software tells the video card (GeForce GTX650+) to encode the frame. The video card pulls the frame buffer, encodes it and provides that to the software that sends it out. The same software also receives button presses from the Shield unit, and I would assume that it translates them into key presses (or emulates a XBOX 360 controller).

In other words, there should be no need for a developer to make the game work with Shield.

$350 for a Tegra 4 and an xbox controller is a little pricey

It's $299.

Borderlands isn't exactly groundbreaking performace-wise, and the device uses local streaming only. If a $1000 Titan is still presenting hitching that's only rated "more than playable" at 720p and i'm already tied to my local network, at that point why wouldn't I just sit down at my PC with it's beautiful 1080p or above monitor, crank all the settings to max, and enjoy the game without any hitching at all?

Any sort of lag issues with the stream are more than likely a product of the wireless environment not the computer, and a Titan is certainly not required. What you see on the computer's monitor is exactly what's sent to the Shield. So, if your computer lags while playing the game natively on the PC, it should lag on the Shield as well.

 

[smackababy]

I think it is a good step forward, but I don't see it taking off. It just isn't portable enough (can't be so far from the GPU you're streaming from), so other than it being a "oh, this is a cool concept to render and then send to a device rather than the monitor" I don't get it.

 

[sweenish]

Any sort of lag issues with the stream are more than likely a product of the wireless environment not the computer, and a Titan is certainly not required. What you see on the computer's monitor is exactly what's sent to the Shield. So, if your computer lags while playing the game natively on the PC, it should lag on the Shield as well.

You completely missed the boat on this one.

 

[Mushkins]

I've been tempted to give this a try since I like technology and I already have GeForce GPUs that support streaming. However, that $300 price tag is a real buzz kill.

What? I don't think you understand how the device works.... The GeForce Experience software has a streaming feature in it. When it's enabled for a game, the software tells the video card (GeForce GTX650+) to encode the frame. The video card pulls the frame buffer, encodes it and provides that to the software that sends it out. The same software also receives button presses from the Shield unit, and I would assume that it translates them into key presses (or emulates a XBOX 360 controller).

In other words, there should be no need for a developer to make the game work with Shield.

I should clarify. Yes, the GeForce Experience software handles the streaming. What I meant is that most PC games are not designed A) to be used with a gamepad instead of Mouse/Keyboard. Some are designed specifically for the Xbox360 controller, but will the Shield make these games register as if that controller is plugged in for native support? I doubt it, which means controls might not work right or may be buggy via software mapping.

B) Most PC game UI's are also designed to be viewed on a 20" or above monitor even at resolutions like 720p. Squishing a lot of games onto a 720p monitor at 5" is going to make the games considerably difficult to play unless the developers cater their UI design to be Shield friendly.

It's $299.

The Anandtech review states $349, thats what I was going by. If they reduced the price and didnt update the article, my bad.

Any sort of lag issues with the stream are more than likely a product of the wireless environment not the computer, and a Titan is certainly not required. What you see on the computer's monitor is exactly what's sent to the Shield. So, if your computer lags while playing the game natively on the PC, it should lag on the Shield as well.

I'm pretty sure Borderlands running on a benchmarking-calibur Titan rig can run at 720p smoothly with above constant 60FPS. Yet the review states that there was hitching and latency. Tolerable and playable hitching and latency, but they were still there and still noticed. You're right in that it's a network issue, not so much a hardware issue in the example, but not everyone is going to be pairing a Shield with a high end Titan rig. You can bet the low and mid range Nvidia cards are going to see people with the settings turned to a place where it runs tolerably on their PC, but streaming to the Shield is going to show considerably more hitching and performance issues than in the review.

 

[Aikouka]

You completely missed the boat on this one.

If you're talking about my use of the term "lag", I'm talking about frame rate slowdowns. In other words, if your PC hits an intensive scene and starts generating frames at sub-30 FPS, you won't magically have more frames on the Shield.

A) to be used with a gamepad instead of Mouse/Keyboard. Some are designed specifically for the Xbox360 controller, but will the Shield make these games register as if that controller is plugged in for native support? I doubt it, which means controls might not work right or may be buggy via software mapping.

I would assume software mapping as that might explain why only a few games are supported at launch. Although, to be fair, the streaming option is only in beta (it's actually already in the GeForce Experience software).

B) Most PC game UI's are also designed to be viewed on a 20" or above monitor even at resolutions like 720p. Squishing a lot of games onto a 720p monitor at 5" is going to make the games considerably difficult to play unless the developers cater their UI design to be Shield friendly.

Hmm that's certainly a valid point. My assumption was that the controller itself would preclude this from being used on games that weren't really designed for a controller. So, this would probably be used on games that have a console presence as well, which is probably why I saw them demo it with Skyrim all the time.

The Anandtech review states $349, thats what I was going by. If they reduced the price and didnt update the article, my bad.

If you were reading the hardware overview article, that's an old article. The price drop was was only about a month ago.

I'm pretty sure Borderlands running on a benchmarking-calibur Titan rig can run at 720p smoothly with above constant 60FPS. Yet the review states that there was hitching and latency. Tolerable and playable hitching and latency, but they were still there and still noticed. You're right in that it's a network issue, not so much a hardware issue in the example, but not everyone is going to be pairing a Shield with a high end Titan rig. You can bet the low and mid range Nvidia cards are going to see people with the settings turned to a place where it runs tolerably on their PC, but streaming to the Shield is going to show considerably more hitching and performance issues than in the review.

I was mostly just trying to push that I don't think the support system being a Titan is really an issue. It's pretty common to remove any possible variables from a demonstration via a little over-kill. Although, I do find it interesting that the test that you're referencing had issues with latency where the YouTube demonstrations from conventions didn't have any problems. They event spent half the video talking about how convention WiFi is bad.

 

[Mopetar]

Seems like too much of a nice platform to really take off, but as long as NV manages inventory well so that they're not taking any $900 million write-downs, there's no reason that even if they're not moving volume on the same level as the major players that they can't generate some extra profit.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I think its biggest drawback is that its pretty strictly a gaming device where most of its functionality is banking on the user having an already decent gaming PC.

Now while it is based on Android and is likely far more versatile than just for gaming, its form factor leaves a lot to be desired in that regard - who wants to carry that bulky thing around instead of (or more likely in addition to) a smartphone and/or tablet?

Its also considerably bulkier and more expensive than the Nintendo DS (which isn't that slim and space-saving) and the PSVita is also smaller and less expensive (and Sony even claims it will offer similar game-streaming functionality with the PS4)


Shield sounds pretty incredible for what it claims it can do, the problem I see with it is that its just too expensive and too much of a frivolous toy for people to bother with in this economy. If they could have somehow made the screen a sort of mini tablet/smart phone that could break away and operate independently of the controller device they might have had something, although that would have undoubtedly increased the cost, likely quite a bit.

 

[Arkaign]

Yeap, this is a disaster, a complete and utter disaster.

Nvidia would have been MUCH better off finding a way to partner with Apple or Valve or Google or whomever, and make a legit little console-capable Android tablet that worked like a regular tablet but with pumped up video capability, micro hdmi out, and Bluetooth handheld controller support, etc. When you have a legit tablet that is useful for more than just entertainment, you can get the higher price you're asking for it.

Shield is just going to be an expensive, embarrassing failure.

 

[Mopetar]

I don't think any major company was really interested in partnering with them. Apple uses their own chips and isn't really big into gaming, Google doesn't want to show too much preference to any one hardware vendor, and Valve's SteamBox might use NV's desktop GPUs, but probably doesn't have much use for the Tegra SoC.

 

[Doppel]

Looks like a waste of time. $300 for a device that can't even play games--it is just a screen you can hold in your hand to hook up to an existing gaming PC and even then it would only be suitable for PC games that work with a controller (so many, but not all).

Seems like a less functional version of the Wii U controller, but with even less value. The Wii U is normally plugged into a tv so if somebody needs it you can play on your screen, but most gaming pc's have a dedicated monitor.

As mentioned above a solution to a non problem. That is unless I am misrepresenting this thing. I vaguely recall hearing about it before but there is virtually no buzz at all.

I say DOA.

 

[purbeast0]

i had never head of this thing until this thread, and it sounds like a terrible idea. the name is also terrible so that isn't going to help it succeed. it definitely does seem like it has absolutely no target audience.

 

[Mushkins]

Looks like a waste of time. $300 for a device that can't even play games--it is just a screen you can hold in your hand to hook up to an existing gaming PC and even then it would only be suitable for PC games that work with a controller (so many, but not all).

Seems like a less functional version of the Wii U controller, but with even less value. The Wii U is normally plugged into a tv so if somebody needs it you can play on your screen, but most gaming pc's have a dedicated monitor.

As mentioned above a solution to a non problem. That is unless I am misrepresenting this thing. I vaguely recall hearing about it before but there is virtually no buzz at all.

I say DOA.

It plays regular Android games too. But... doesn't have any of the other major functionality of a $300 android tablet.

The big selling point here is the "portability" and the game streaming, but the portability is arguably worse than a regular (and more powerful/cheaper) android tablet or high end smartphone with a third party usb controller, and the game streaming is extremely limited in scope/usability and can only really be considered a gimmick at this point.

So yeah, an overpriced solution looking for a problem to solve.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Yeah another vote for failure here. I just can't imagine there is much of a target audience for this thing. When I first heard about the Shield, I compared it to the PS Vita. The Vita is a relatively large, bulky handheld for "serious" gamers. And it's not been a huge success.

Portable gaming, at least among adults, has been dying since smartphones became common. So you have this shrinking market, and one small segment of that market is where the Vita is aimed. And the Shield is aimed at an even tinier niche within the Vita target audience, serious gamers who also want to stream games from their PC.

But even the streaming feature is almost useless since it requires you to be connected to the same local network as your PC to use it. So why not just go over to your PC and get a much better experience?

Huge fail.

 

[Mushkins]

Yeah another vote for failure here. I just can't imagine there is much of a target audience for this thing. When I first heard about the Shield, I compared it to the PS Vita. The Vita is a relatively large, bulky handheld for "serious" gamers. And it's not been a huge success.

Portable gaming, at least among adults, has been dying since smartphones became common. So you have this shrinking market, and one small segment of that market is where the Vita is aimed. And the Shield is aimed at an even tinier niche within the Vita target audience, serious gamers who also want to stream games from their PC.

But even the streaming feature is almost useless since it requires you to be connected to the same local network as your PC to use it. So why not just go over to your PC and get a much better experience?

Huge fail.

I dunno, to be fair the Vita had its own set of problems. The DS/3DS are in the same segment as the PSP and the Vita, and they have been a booming success. I think the Vita really hasn't made any ground primarily because its too expensive and the games just arent there. The design is solid, as an adult it fits my hands way more comfortably than the PSP did, but between the hardware cost, the proprietary and expensive memory card, and the fact that there's maybe three games i'm even remotely interested in, I just haven't been able to justify the purchase. I think for adult gamers this is a pretty big thing, we *have* the money, we want to *give them* the money, but if the games aren't there than the games aren't there.

Surprise surprise, the PSP was also expensive, used proprietary and expensive memory cards, and had a really weak lineup for the first few years... make of that what you will.

 

[Aikouka]

Yeap, this is a disaster, a complete and utter disaster.

Nvidia would have been MUCH better off finding a way to partner with Apple or Valve or Google or whomever, and make a legit little console-capable Android tablet that worked like a regular tablet but with pumped up video capability, micro hdmi out, and Bluetooth handheld controller support, etc. When you have a legit tablet that is useful for more than just entertainment, you can get the higher price you're asking for it.

Shield is just going to be an expensive, embarrassing failure.

I think they would be better off turning the Shield concept into a $100 set-top box that's essentially an AppleTV with the PC streaming capability. You hear people talk about not wanting to sit down at the PC and play games, and this gives them the ability to still play those games, but from the comfort of their couch. The biggest difference is the price. $300 is a hard price to swallow, but if the $100 device can also run XBMC and such (it should), it double dips as a cheap media center.

 

[purbeast0]

I dunno, to be fair the Vita had its own set of problems. The DS/3DS are in the same segment as the PSP and the Vita, and they have been a booming success. I think the Vita really hasn't made any ground primarily because its too expensive and the games just arent there. The design is solid, as an adult it fits my hands way more comfortably than the PSP did, but between the hardware cost, the proprietary and expensive memory card, and the fact that there's maybe three games i'm even remotely interested in, I just haven't been able to justify the purchase. I think for adult gamers this is a pretty big thing, we *have* the money, we want to *give them* the money, but if the games aren't there than the games aren't there.

Surprise surprise, the PSP was also expensive, used proprietary and expensive memory cards, and had a really weak lineup for the first few years... make of that what you will.

i think the 3ds is marketed more towards kids where the vita is marketed more towards teens/mature crowd. that isn't to say that adults can't enjoy the 3ds, but that is the general gist i get from all of the marketing buzz around both. and the kids who are playing 3ds don't really have cell phones, whereas the teens that are being marketed for the vita do.