143
PlayStation official response to Helldivers 2 fans
(nitter.poast.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
143 points (93.9% liked)
PC Gaming
8012 readers
277 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Maybe I'm just jaded, but I wonder how long it will be until Sony 'changes their mind' and tries to enforce contractual obligations again. I'm going to guess 6 months to wait for the negative PR to cool.
Like TV manufacturers who wait until the product return period is over before enabling ads.
That's exactly why you never connect your TV to the internet
People keep saying this, but when you only want to use the TV for online streaming apps, it makes it quite difficult to keep it offline.
That's why you plug in a streaming device to the TV...
"Buy two things instead of one"
Yes, exactly.
If your $20 streaming device starts fucking with you, rip it out and replace it. If your several hundred (thousand?) dollar device decides it's going to fuck you with rampant ads and user data collection and forced arbitration you didn't agree to when you bought it 6 months ago, well now you have a much bigger problem.
What streaming device is $20? Amazon firestick is close to that but still more and has all the ads and tracking we're complaining about. Chromecast, a used crappy version, is $50+ after taxes it looks like, then Roku seems to be even more. I mean I get it and we all want to stop ads. I personally have pihole and just blocked the Samsung telemetry stuff but not everyone is that savvy. That's the point of the first comment of this chain. Most people just want a simple single device to watch what they want without all the ads and tracking. All these companies suck, let's unite over that!
Walmart ONN 4k
Unfortunately that's unlikely to ever be the case. You can use a Linux PC but it will not be a great experience.
Using the one in your TV is most likely to get you the most ads and tracking because they know they can implement them in such a way that the only recourse you have is to succumb to their demands or buy a new TV. Roku has already begun this.
Sure.
That said a lil media center PC (maybe Raspberry Pi) or an Apple TV - both more than $20 once properly loaded, even used I imagine - is probably much less enshittified (spy-y & ad-y).
I pretty much have always had an Xbox connected to every TV I've had, but ever since owning a Smart TV, with the streaming apps are all there the moment you turn on the TV, why would I add an extra level of booting up, signing in and starting the app on my Xbox (which will then probably run worse and lower quality than my native TV app)?
If anything the power of the external device is much more than the native TV app shoehorned on there, especially an Xbox or even a roku that can do 4k streaming for $50
I don't understand. I'm telling you the TV is faster and higher quality than the Xbox. I thought we were all shitting on Roku lately, why would I but a Roku device to daisy chain it into my system?
This has not been my experience at all with my Smart TV and Xbox. I routinely use the Xbox for simple things like YouTube because the apps are noticeably slower to respond than the TV.
And I'm saying it's not but we can agree to disagree, and also just providing examples of devices that aren't expensive and better than what the TV provides but if you want to use what ships with the TV that's fine, this conversation isn't for you to defend your purchase and choices, cheers.
No the conversation was to explain why an external device would be better than a native device. Nobody seems to be able to explain that.
I would honestly be interested in some performance comparisons between say Samsung TV UI and that of various streaming boxes, but all I can find is streaming boxes being compared against one another.
Ah well for me and others in the thread, using the TV app isn't even an option because of the enshittification of Sony games and all TVs in general which was the overall point of the comment thread...
That's fair enough. I don't really know much about the Roku TV enshittification thing other than snippets I've read on here.
I'm just trying to understand why an external device would be any better (for those who still have a working TV that is). Most are made by the same type of companies who make the Smart TVs. The Walmart ONN device for example, mentioned elsewhere in the thread as a great alternative, is literally a Roku device. Forgive me for not getting it.
If you buy a proper streaming device instead of an XBOX you will have an identical experience as you would just using your TV.
As for why, it's already been explained: there's a precedent that's been set that these companies can change the terms of service on you at will (to, for example, show you an ever-increasing frequency of ads or collect your data), and that you can choose to either accept the new terms or throw that shit in the garbage because it is suddenly not functional and it is past the return period.
Aside from all of that, you can choose what kind of user experience you want, rather than having it chosen for you. Most of the cheap streaming boxes will deliver a better experience than whatever comes on your TV.
Got it, so I don't need to buy a seperate streaming device.
I get where you're coming from with the privacy aspects and whatnot, but I very much doubt that a seperate streaming box will get me a better experience than turning on my TV and having Netflix booted in 3 seconds.
...huh? No, not strictly. I'm just telling you it's in your best interest.
I don't think you do. This is about much more than privacy.
In regards to that specific function, it will likely be identical or better, depending on exactly what streaming box and TV we're talking about. You can choose to not believe me, but you do so at your own potential peril.
If it's about more than privacy. Please enlighten me. My whole point is that no-one wants to go out and buy an extra device to perform the same function as the TV they already have with vague hand wavy warnings. If it's true peril, you'll be able to explain why.
To believe you all I would need is like, a YouTube video of someone booting the TV and the device up. Does it need multiple remotes? If so it's definitely slower. Are we talking Chromecast type dongle? If so, I used one of those on the TV before my Smart TV (purely because there was an app I needed that wasn't available on Xbox). It was slower, less reliable, worse quality and more of a chore than the Xbox, which in turn is much slower than my current TV.
It's about choice. It's about ads. It's about control.
Roku has already begun finding new ways to implement ads by injecting them in while your TV is paused, even when using an external source. They're also forcing users to agree to forced arbitration or never use their TV again.
It's $20 and you can order it and have it delivered to your door.
I am being very explicit.
...okay, go for it?
I mean that depends on your exact situation and what other devices you have connected but probably not.
HDMI-CEC has been a thing for a long time. When you turn on the device the TV will detect it and automatically power on and switch the source. When you turn it off, the TV automatically powers "off". You can also control the volume and I'm sure other things that I don't use. You really only need the TV remote to configure TV settings.
But I don't have a Roku TV... someone in here even suggested a Roku streaming device would be better but that makes zero sense.
Yeah, if there was a reason to buy it.
About the Roku injection of ads and anti-consumerism. Why would buying a streaming device made by another corporation be any better.
I think our wires got crossed, I was asking you for evidence.
I kind of get the gist of what you're saying. But I just wanted to understand why there's a "doom and gloom, down with all Smart TVs" attitude, when a lot of the streaming boxes are still made my these mega corps and could potentially have the same issues.
You're missing the point. Roku are trailblazers. They are testing the limits of what amount of bullshit their customers will tolerate. If customers tolerate this (which they will), others will certainly follow suit. This doesn't end with Roku. We've seen software and services continually become more and more oppressive across a wide array of platforms and corpos, and still you can't understand this?
Moving the goalposts. I've already given you several reasons.
See above.
And I was telling you to go and get it. I am not Google. I am not an LLM. Go ask them.
I've already explained this. It really just seems like you're intentionally ignoring my answers in favor of winning an internet argument. I don't have interest in that sort of discussion, so I won't be wasting anymore energy. Good luck.
So let me get this straight, I should not connect my TV of any brand to the Internet for fear they might do something that Roku did? If Roku are trailblazers, why do you think other companies selling streaming boxes won't also go down that path?
Why are streaming boxes safe but not Smart TVs?
Why do you think Roku will care that you won't tolerate them if you are and never were going to be a customer?
Absolutely ridiculous. This whole thread is about reasons to use it over the native TV. I'm honestly interested. I've seen no solid reasoning. [Ignoring that this was a reply to your snark that I can get it delivered instead of "going out" to get one when I was actually asking why I should and you knew I was]
You're the one ignoring me! I asked if you're talking "like a Chromecast" because I have one of those and if that is the kind of device you're talking about, I can compare 3 different methods of watching anything on my TV that are better in every way.
I don't care to go and buy another similar device without a good reason, and I was simply interested in what the landscape looks like right now.
I'm not sure why you're getting so aggressive over this, or so defensive about being told to separate your TV from your streaming tools so that if the streaming tools start to suck you can just replace a $20 stream stick instead of a several hundred to several thousand dollar TV you need to calm down and stop being a dick to people trying to politely help you and explain things to you.
I'm the one getting aggressive? I think you need to read the whole thread.
Connect it to a small PC or a used laptop. It will be a million times better than the 8 year old phone CPU inside your Roku TV. I'm honestly surprised by the number of people I interact with who don't have their TV connected to a computer.
I'm not sure about that. Whenever I've used my PC to stream to my TV it's been less responsive and much slower. Unless I go for the super long hdmi cable to my gaming PC, but that's just a faff.
I guess it varies greatly by TV though. My Samsung is super fast, but have recently had the misfortune of using a Philips which has similar functionality but is horrendously slow. I know nothing about Roku TV other than the kerfuffle about ads, but assume they are a bit shitty.
Don't stream to the TV, you do have to plug it in directly. A Raspberry Pi sized computer is perfect for this, and then you don't need to run a cable all the way to your gaming PC.
I hear you. I want to be positive about this because I want to keep playing, and the reversal (for now) makes me OK with doing so.
But Sony has a horrid track record. Edit - so does Msoft, people often forget how bad both of them are.
I also expect they'll try to work it back in somehow to capture more revenue and/or data. If it's not this again in a stealthier form, then it'll be something similar. No crossplay without PSN or no credit store without PSN, something like that.
This is moreorless what I'm expecting. They will either strongly incentivize it when the publicity dies down or place restrictions on those that don't link accounts.
They might require it for crossplay or give some goodies for linking, but there's no fucking way they try to make it retroactively mandatory just to play at all again. After this statement, there would be ACTUAL grounds for a class action lawsuit if they did.