NVIDIA Announces Project Shield

and for hd content, the only thing that is at all difficult to decode, its all mpeg4 already, so who cares. If its some sd xvid file you decode it in software fine.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think it should be fine. I was (in my high end bias) thinking more about Blu-ray quality content. MPEG-2 transport streams and such with lossless DTS or true HD audio played back natively on the device.

Also why put it on SD card? Play off network share. And why would you encode to 720p? Question was about using it as media server, the screen is 720p but you can output 1080p via hdmi... or 4k they said.
Click to expand...

So you scan the network with XBMC and play the shared files back, it should work as long as tegra 4 gets supported. I guess this is a solution for people who don't have or don't want to build an HTPC.



P.S: I will not get over the fact that a GTX660M laptop or GTX650 and above desktop card is required for this to work at all though. For someone who doesn't have the required Nvidia video card it means:

Buy Shield
Buy NVidia video card equal or better than GTX650 or laptop with 660M
Do not play games on the PC you just upgraded or the laptop you just bought.
Stream games at 720P on a tiny 5inch screen and/or be tethered to your TV by an HDMI cable
You can't even take your PC game collection on the road as the device only does WIFI
 
Last edited:
I see this particular device failing, but the technology is going to advance gaming a step.
 
benefits of console gaming, but only having to buy PC games. I see this putting a small hurt on consoles.

The only problem I foresee is the need to keep up with high end NVidea gfx cards
 
I love it when stuff like this gets shown off at trade shows and then everyone in discussion threads proceeds to shit all over it like they're complete experts on the product before anyone has had any chance to actually try it. Gotta love the internet! :D
 
I think the Shield could be good depending on the price.

Would be handy for those spur of the moment urges to play console style games with your pc anywhere in the house or outside for that matter.

If they can keep it inexpensive I would be interested otherwise there are much cheaper alternatives.
 
Emmm... no.

Gaming on a monster PC so you can stream to a tiny screen or other screen with no mouse & keyboard? And... have wifi lag as a bonus?

If I want no mouse or keyboard for gaming I'll just pickup a new console instead of having to play PC ports, which will probably be more optimized for AMD cards anyways.

Oye...
 
I don't see the point of this. You would have to spend a ton on a GPU + the Shield just to be able to play something on a tiny screen or stream to your TV?

The more people come up with consoles, handhelds and the like, the more my PC seems as a "can do it all" device that I'm proud to spend ungodly amounts on. It's still cheaper than buying a lot of stuff just to be able to do what I can do with my PC + a cheap HDMI cable.
 
cdr_74_premium said:
I don't see the point of this. You would have to spend a ton on a GPU + the Shield just to be able to play something on a tiny screen or stream to your TV?
Click to expand...

You are correct, you do not see the point of this.
 
It looks uncomfortable, but initial reports suggest that NVIDIA nailed the design.
 
Watched the demo video and a couple things scream out at me.

First off, they mention in the video an average latency between button press and screen action to be about 100ms. I can see that being bareable in a single player experience but we all know what its like to have a 100ms ping in multiplayer, not to mention if we already have that 100ms in the game on the PC and then use this thing it will bump us up to around 200ms...thats craptastic for multiplayer gaming, or at least FPS multiplayer. They also mention that some TVs push out latencies as much as 60ms, so take the previous scenario and have this thing hooked up to your big screen tv...your now looking at roughly 260ms on a server your hitting at 100ms from the PC...blah.

Secondly, the monitor on the computer outputs the video from the game that your playing on Shield, so someone can't use the computer while your playing on Shield, and they also say thats the way they intend for it to work...wtf...really? So, instead of just tying up your computer playing games, your now tying up the computer and potentially commandering another room to play the game on the Shield, talk about being an asshole...if you throw headphones on then your shutting yourself out of being in a different room and you might as well just play in front of the computer.

The thing looks nice, the screen looks pretty, it appears to be pretty peppy moving through the interfaces, and I can see it being pretty cool just as media streaming device from your PC...but we already have multiple solutions on the market that will do the same thing.
 
Seems like the sort of gimmick Razer would have come up with. Basically they did minus the laggy streaming. What was it called, the Switchblade?

Playing on a console controller is a non-starter for me, but I suppose this is one way to take advantage of the rampant consolitis in games. All the controls are already supported by most titles now from the start. And Nvidia can call this a 'console' even though its really not.

It does seem like a good thing to hand to a kid to play on instead of letting them on the main PC.
 
Last edited:
The only thing that turns me off is that the game is displayed on the desktop pc.

It would be great for my kid to game with the Shield while I'm working on the PC (or playing)
 
This seems interesting for single player games. For multiplayer, the input lag would make this concept laughable.
 
If I could turn my PC into a server streaming the games to multiple devices then i think it would be worthwhile. That way I only have to continue to upgrade my video card and the kids could play on these devices while i'm gaming on my PC. Its very promising tech but still to early for me to spend my money on.
 
Mystique said:
This seems interesting for single player games. For multiplayer, the input lag would make this concept laughable.
Click to expand...

They are talking about adding 100ms of lag. I can't imagine that is tolerable unless you are playing scrabble. Some people freak out about a monitor with 20ms lag even on single player games.

The gimmicks are what is getting all the attention, but really what should be looked is the core function: Portable Android Game machine.

Even then I have a big issue. It isn't really that portable.

I would like it better if the screen detached and became a 5" android tablet, that I could throw in my pocket when I didn't want to carry the whole device.
 
Snowdog said:
Some people freak out about a monitor with 20ms lag even on single player games.
Click to expand...
Some people make far too much of it. They see numbers that they believe should be near zero and come to the conclusion that it's a problem that the numbers aren't near zero.

Meanwhile, the average human reaction time is around 200 milliseconds. 100ms of latency is a little on the high side, but it's far from rendering the device unusable.
 
wonderfield said:
Some people make far too much of it. They see numbers that they believe should be near zero and come to the conclusion that it's a problem that the numbers aren't near zero.

Meanwhile, the average human reaction time is around 200 milliseconds. 100ms of latency is a little on the high side, but it's far from rendering the device unusable.
Click to expand...

the 360 and PS3 have about 120ms end to end just as an FYI not counting if your TV has shit delay as well then your looking closer to 200ms
this is for single player to btw
 
Initial "previews" from Anand and PCper seems to be impressed and both report lag is a non-issue.
 
I have to admit thanks to the video I'm much more impressed then I was previous to this announcement. The 100ms of latency however has me concerned. I'm pretty sensitive to latency (input latency) so this might be a no go however hearing Anand being happy with it brightens the outlook.

I'm really curious about the price , I don't really see how they could sell this for anything under $249 and really $200 should be the price point. If its over $300 I'm not going to bother.
 
I have no interest in buying this so I did not read the entire thread, but I still like to keep up on new tech. I went to the Shield website and it said this:

"Take your gaming anywhere with Project SHIELD, a gaming portable designed for gamers who yearn to play when, where and how they want."

Where is ANYWHERE? Does it need to be near a PC or not? If all it does it let me play a few rooms away from my $5000 desktop with my 30" LCD, I see no need for it.
 
rinaldo00 said:
I have no interest in buying this so I did not read the entire thread, but I still like to keep up on new tech. I went to the Shield website and it said this:

"Take your gaming anywhere with Project SHIELD, a gaming portable designed for gamers who yearn to play when, where and how they want."

Where is ANYWHERE? Does it need to be near a PC or not? If all it does it let me play a few rooms away from my $5000 desktop with my 30" LCD, I see no need for it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should watch the video linked on the main page. It offers a demo and gives a look at all the features ....
 
rinaldo00 said:
I have no interest in buying this so I did not read the entire thread, but I still like to keep up on new tech. I went to the Shield website and it said this:

"Take your gaming anywhere with Project SHIELD, a gaming portable designed for gamers who yearn to play when, where and how they want."

Where is ANYWHERE? Does it need to be near a PC or not? If all it does it let me play a few rooms away from my $5000 desktop with my 30" LCD, I see no need for it.
Click to expand...

It's an android game machine. So you can take it anywhere.

But it also has a PC screen mirror gimmick, that you obviously need a PC within Wifi range to use.
 
Watching the PCper video, the guy says you install some app on your computer and it launches games with optimal settings, and he specifically mentions 720p. 720p isn't optimal if you were using hdmi out to your tv. I wonder if streaming games is limited to 720p? It doesn't seem like it should be, unless high bitrate 720p is smooth, but at 1080p there isn't enough bitrate to keep fast moving games looking good?
 
Snowdog said:
It's an android game machine. So you can take it anywhere.

But it also has a PC screen mirror gimmick, that you obviously need a PC within Wifi range to use.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply. I cannot see a need for this device and I am suprised Kyle is so excited about it. People play Android games on smart phones, how many of those games are exciting enough to play on a console? It only becomes something extra next to a PC, and not just ANY pc, a PC with an Nvidia 600 series graphics card.

This article says it best in my opinion:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/01/08/nvidia-shield-may-not-be-as-disruptive-as-we-think/
 
bexamous said:
Watching the PCper video, the guy says you install some app on your computer and it launches games with optimal settings, and he specifically mentions 720p. 720p isn't optimal if you were using hdmi out to your tv. I wonder if streaming games is limited to 720p? It doesn't seem like it should be, unless high bitrate 720p is smooth, but at 1080p there isn't enough bitrate to keep fast moving games looking good?
Click to expand...

He mentioned that the screen on the gamepad is 720p. There may be an option to play games at higher resolution on the TV, but remember most console games are only 720p as well.

rinaldo00 said:
Thank you for the reply. I cannot see a need for this device and I am suprised Kyle is so excited about it. People play Android games on smart phones, how many of those games are exciting enough to play on a console? It only becomes something extra next to a PC, and not just ANY pc, a PC with an Nvidia 600 series graphics card.

This article says it best in my opinion:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/01/08/nvidia-shield-may-not-be-as-disruptive-as-we-think/
Click to expand...

It isn't just Kyle that is excited about it, a ton of people are excited about it. I don't see how you can downplay it so much. First off they showed a few games running on it in Android mode that were current games. The Android gaming market is growing much faster now with newer Android devices. That Forbes article was a bit misleading about the 'fracture' in Android gaming. Also it is misleading about what games are high end games. There certainly are not as many high end games for the iOS as there are for PC, and many of the games they showed working on the Android platform for this device were also PC/'console games that you won't find on iOS. Also note that this adds the ability of the controller to games as well, something that most smart phones do not really have.

In addition to that, the ability to extend your PC to your living room or bathroom or wherever you want is a pretty cool idea in itself. Also is the ability to use it as an all around home entertainment device. This device has a little bit of everything.

And the continuing comments about how this limits people to using Nvidia graphics cards, well so what? iOS limits you to using Apple. I don't see how that is a real 'limit'. You don't 'have' to use the streaming function at all. But there are a ton of people with Nvidia machines out there that could take advantage of this device as well. So its not like there is that limited of a market for it.

Now the one quip I might have with it, is it doesn't seem to include any kind of 3G plan, that would truly make it more of a mobile platform. Being able to play multiplayer with friends while you are out and about would be a great feature.
 
rinaldo00 said:
Thank you for the reply. I cannot see a need for this device and I am suprised Kyle is so excited about it. People play Android games on smart phones, how many of those games are exciting enough to play on a console? It only becomes something extra next to a PC, and not just ANY pc, a PC with an Nvidia 600 series graphics card.[/url]
Click to expand...

They also needed a product to showcase their Tegra 4 SoC, to sort of "magnify" their announcement. This thing certainly generated a lot of interest. Even if they don't sell boatloads of them, if it can help to move more Tegra 4s then it's a success.

Contrast to the anemic AMD presentation of boring Windows 8 ultrabooks and tablets.
 
I think it is easy to down play because there are alot of ifs and each time you throw in an IF more people will not buy the device.

That would all change if this was a device you needed anyway, everyone needs a smartphone so even if you do not have a whole apple get up you still might buy an iPhone. And due to the fact it is small and goes with you everywhere and does tons of everything we see why smart phones are so popular.

But this device does not do alot of things so in the end if its cheap we will see alot of them if its not a ton of IFs will kill its popularity.
 
NoOther said:
He mentioned that the screen on the gamepad is 720p. There may be an option to play games at higher resolution on the TV, but remember most console games are only 720p as well.



It isn't just Kyle that is excited about it, a ton of people are excited about it. I don't see how you can downplay it so much. First off they showed a few games running on it in Android mode that were current games. The Android gaming market is growing much faster now with newer Android devices. That Forbes article was a bit misleading about the 'fracture' in Android gaming. Also it is misleading about what games are high end games. There certainly are not as many high end games for the iOS as there are for PC, and many of the games they showed working on the Android platform for this device were also PC/'console games that you won't find on iOS. Also note that this adds the ability of the controller to games as well, something that most smart phones do not really have.

In addition to that, the ability to extend your PC to your living room or bathroom or wherever you want is a pretty cool idea in itself. Also is the ability to use it as an all around home entertainment device. This device has a little bit of everything.
.
Click to expand...

It ONLY has a little bit of everything IF you own an Nvidia card, and not just ANY Nvidia card, a 650 or better. How large is that market? A lot smaller than Apple's. Do you think anyone with a smart phone will pay $300 more to play some more (how many more?) Android games, even if the games are better?
 
I am not sure what to pick. A $999 steam box, PS4 with its new anti used game feature, xbox720, or shield.
 
serious said:
I am not sure what to pick. A $999 steam box, PS4 with its new anti used game feature, xbox720, or shield.
Click to expand...

I vote none of the above, but I left consoles behind when I ditched my ColecoVision, and haven't looked back.
 
serious said:
I am not sure what to pick. A $999 steam box, PS4 with its new anti used game feature, xbox720 with its anti used game feature, or shield.
Click to expand...

FTFY. Also...both new MS and Sony console will also allow used games to not be blocked.
 
Elios said:
the 360 and PS3 have about 120ms end to end just as an FYI not counting if your TV has shit delay as well then your looking closer to 200ms
this is for single player to btw
Click to expand...

No way does a console setup have 120-200ms of video delay!!! That's 7 to 12 frames of lag at 60Hz. That's HUGE.
 
What I haven't heard about this technology is if it only works when on the same network. Will it only stream this wirelessly to your device or from the device to a tv if your on the same network, if that's the case then the streaming is pointless as I'd rather play on my eyefinity setup when I'm at home. Not sure about you guys but the 100ms delay doesn't seem ideal for online gaming and I'm assuming that is if your on the same network (if being on different networks is even possible) I'd imagine that the delay would be even greater than 100ms.

Too many unanswered questions but I'm sure everyone's interest is as piqued as mine.
 
J-Will said:
benefits of console gaming, but only having to buy PC games. I see this putting a small hurt on consoles.

The only problem I foresee is the need to keep up with high end NVidea gfx cards
Click to expand...

I don't think this'll affect console sales at all. I think if anything, it's the Vita that might take a hit. The 3DS to a much lesser extent, since Nintendo fans will always love Nintendo. People who buy the Vita are those who want a portable PS3, and the PS3 doesn't really have its own identity like past consoles have. The PS3 and 360 have pretty much the same library give or take a couple of dozen games. Many of those are also on PC, so the Shield can be a way to play those games from your bed or something. That's something the Vita and the PSP before it kind of specialized in.

I'm kind of split between excitement and pessimism. On the one hand, the potential for it is great, especially if nvidia can convince game developers to develop full portable Android games that take the Tegra 4 and controls into account. Not just throwaway games like Angry Birds, but like a role playing game, or a hack and slash, or a first person shooter. The PC streaming is really cool, but if you need a GTX 650 or newer, you're limiting the platform's marketshare by quite a bit. It may be a clever way for nvidia to sell more video cards, but it's a bit much to ask for someone to purchase a video card that's at least $125 (or much more if they want a better card) in addition to a device that'll probably be about $400-500. If they can push developers to make worthwhile Android games though, it could be a nice alternative to the usual Nintendo or Sony handheld though, all while still having the potential of allowing you to stream your PC games, if you own an nvidia card and a vast Steam library.
 
bexamous said:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132122/measuring_responsiveness_in_video_.php?print=1

Here is some measurements... further down he tests different games. PS3 on a CRT he gets minimum of 50ms, in game testing though it varies from 4 to 8 frames depending on game, not including display, add another 1-2 for decent non-crt tv.
Click to expand...

That includes input and processing. I was just referring to video output lag (which I said directly), but that's some good information linked there regardless, thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top