Nvidia Shield Review: A Solid Niche Offering

Nvidia Shield Review: A Solid Niche Offering

We take a look at Nvidia entrant into the handheld gaming scene with its Android-powered Shield.

Read Full Article

I'll be more interested as HDMI over wireless becomes more stable. As it is, this is more a wireless remote to my PC which should be then directly hooked up to my TV.

Instead, soon (as a crappy version of wireless HDMI already exists) maybe your PC (with a GTX 660 min.) might be in the basement, but you are playing upstairs on another TV, bridged by the Shield. Maybe with Wifi, over the Internet. Now that will be something.

This is a good review of an interesting item. Others seem to have missed the point of this machine, focusing on the price (which used to be higher), the PC game streaming element (which requires a nvidia-enabled PC, which begs the question, why not just use that?) or doesn't get how great an emulation device this is. I love having every console ever (at least up until 1999) in my hands.

Gorfias, I don't think wireless mirroring is quite ready for gaming. I enjoy AirPlay on AppleTV but it's laggy for twitch games. The Nvidia Shield can do Miracast but it really shines with an HDMI cable attached and booted into Console Mode. For old people like me, it's easier to just have an Ouya instead -- but that's mainly for emulation of classic games, since they don't use the Play Store.

Emulating Banjo Kazooie was no longer necessary after I saw Kazooie & Tooie for sale on Xbox Live :>

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY

Damn you, Microsoft. Rare needs to be given their game-making gloves back. Do it. Let us have Banjo Threeiee!

Anyone else find it kind of weird that an article advocates the illegal downloading of software on a site that openly condemns it? "There's the legal gray area, sure, but that probably never stopped you from playing Super Mario 64 on your PC, right?"

It is interesting that this is basically a PC handheld. Something like if Microsoft made an open handheld. I might be interested but probably not. I don't download things I haven't purchased and so this doesn't have much use for me. At a price like that, I'd rather have a Vita (and do) or a 3DS. Most android games I enjoy don't need this kind of hardware at all and I have little/no desire to play most higher powered games in my lap.

But, like the title says, it's great for the niche market that does want all those things.

I have one and I like it a lot :)

Lightknight:
Anyone else find it kind of weird that an article advocates the illegal downloading of software on a site that openly condemns it? "There's the legal gray area, sure, but that probably never stopped you from playing Super Mario 64 on your PC, right?"

It is interesting that this is basically a PC handheld. Something like if Microsoft made an open handheld. I might be interested but probably not. I don't download things I haven't purchased and so this doesn't have much use for me. At a price like that, I'd rather have a Vita (and do) or a 3DS. Most android games I enjoy don't need this kind of hardware at all and I have little/no desire to play most higher powered games in my lap.

But, like the title says, it's great for the niche market that does want all those things.

Emulators are not illegal, and neither are ROMs, provided you own the original cart/disc. The biggest hurdle is that some emulators require a copy of the original system's BIOS, which you have to get from a system you own(rather than downloading it off the internet). But all of those legal hurdles lie on the user's side. The emulators themselves are perfectly legal.

I love my Shield. Big believer in the system. It's one of those things you can't understand the appeal of until you play it, and then if you fit the niche it's going for, realize it's the kind of thing you always wanted.

It IS for a very specific niche, though.

The new Tegra 4 version is a sweet piece of hardware, unfortunately I cannot see a great deal of use for it. That is coming from a gadget addict as well, I have all kinds of phones, tablets, networking kit and media centres and servers but even I cant see a use for it other than "its shiny".

This is one of those things where I really don't understand who they're marketing towards. Let's look at the competitors:

Smartphone + controller - roughly same price (with contract), can make phone calls, can play all the same games

Smartphone (no controller) - cheaper (with contract), portable, can make phone calls, can play all the same games (but with worse controls)

PSvita/3DS - cheaper, less bulky, better controls, higher quality games

Ouya - significantly cheaper, easier to hook up to TV, no worry about games being compatible with the controller, free demos for all games

All of these fits a niche (hardcore gamer, casual gamer, budget gamer) whereas the Shield seems to be aiming for somewhere in the middle? Granted, I haven't played one, and who knows, maybe if I did I'd be blown away by its splendor, but who's going to take a chance on it at that price?

I picked up one of these awhile back because I figured "I don't have an Android device" and "I don't have a gamepad for my PC," and here was a great chance to kill those two birds with one stone with a chance it would rebound off birds related to "replacing the iPad 1 Apple left to die in an OS-upgrade related ditch" and "streaming PC gaming remotely." The $300 could not wait to jump out of my wallet.

So I bought it, and barely used it. It's a shame, really, because the NVIDIA shield really has a lot of impressive firepower in such a small frame. It's genuinely good hardware.

So what's the trouble? I grossly overestimated when I would want to use it.

* When I'm doing PC gaming? I got a PC, and it plays games just fine without ditching the mouse and keyboard, adding a few milliseconds of lag, and being broadcast to a tiny screen, thanks.
* When I'm doing tablet browsing? Having that big honking controller attached to the bottom of the tablet makes using the touch screen rather awkward. Also, when I accidentally clicked on an advertisement link off of Escapist's website with my SHIELD, it automatically surrendered my Gmail address to some guy trying to sell advice on picking up girls. Thanks for that, Escapist, and to you also, Google, for apparently coding Chrome thusly.
* When I'm Android gaming? Again, the touch screen is hard to use with that big honking controller attached, and the only Android games not built with tablets in mind are a select few for hardware like the SHIELD.
* When I'm doing tablet video watching? Of all the screens I have in my house, why would I want to watch videos on the one that's about six inches wide?
* When I'm on the go? Well, most of its features are reliant on either having Wifi Internet access or Wifi LAN access to your computer so, if you're in the middle of nowhere with your SHIELD, I hope you like what Android games you drudged up.
* When I'm steaming emulated games from my PC to the gamepad on my SHIELD, essentially taking a console-bound experience and making it portable so long as I'm within range? We've just found the SHIELD's perfect niche! Too bad I'm not playing any emulated games right now because that's sort of illegal.

Also, it turns out that plugging the SHIELD directly into the PC does not cause windows to recognize it as a gamepad. I can only use it as a gamepad for my PC if I stream? Geez.

GameSpot was quite unsympathetic. "You opened the package? No returnsies." Part of me was relieved, though: this really is cool hardware, even if I haven't figure out how to make time to use it.

Devin Connors:
Nvidia Shield Review: A Solid Niche Offering

We take a look at Nvidia entrant into the handheld gaming scene with its Android-powered Shield.

Read Full Article

To stream games from the PC, you need at least a GTX 660 650 nvidia card.

You may want to add that as some people may want that feature but don't have the card for it based on this review.

EDIT:

Ah, GTX 650, my bad

WHAT ARE THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR STREAMING PC GAMES TO SHIELD?
The basic requirements are a Wi-Fi router and a modern gaming PC with a GeForce GTX 650 or higher desktop GPU. The detailed requirements are:

GPU: GeForce GTX 650 or higher desktop GPU (Notebook GPUs are not supported at this time)
CPU: Intel Core i3-2100 3.1GHz or AMD Athlon II X4 630 2.8GHz or higher
System Memory: 4GB or higher
OS: Windows 8 or Windows 7
Software: GeForce Experience application and latest GeForce drivers
Routers: 802.11a/g router (minimum). 802.11n dual band router (recommended). Check out a list of GameStream-ready routers.

source: http://shield.nvidia.com/faq/

Huh. Something new came out in the vidya gamez industry, and reading about it didn't instantly make me angry.

That's weird.

So a dedicated gaming system has a worse screen than many phones, and is only "on a par" with them in terms of computing power? Given that you can get a controller for a phone (Android and iOS, don't know about Windows) for less than 1/10 the price, there just doesn't seem much point to this.

Scars Unseen:
Emulators are not illegal, and neither are ROMs, provided you own the original cart/disc. The biggest hurdle is that some emulators require a copy of the original system's BIOS, which you have to get from a system you own(rather than downloading it off the internet). But all of those legal hurdles lie on the user's side. The emulators themselves are perfectly legal.

The quoted bit was acknowledging that the legal grey area never stopped you [the reader] from playing Mario 64 on the pc.

Of course there's nothing wrong with the emulator itself. I just thought this site was particularly against everything from the grey area down. Am I wrong about that? Would a poster not be banned/warned for encouraging the download of emulators/ROMs etc or is this viewed as a different area altogether?

Lightknight:

Scars Unseen:
Emulators are not illegal, and neither are ROMs, provided you own the original cart/disc. The biggest hurdle is that some emulators require a copy of the original system's BIOS, which you have to get from a system you own(rather than downloading it off the internet). But all of those legal hurdles lie on the user's side. The emulators themselves are perfectly legal.

The quoted bit was acknowledging that the legal grey area never stopped you [the reader] from playing Mario 64 on the pc.

Of course there's nothing wrong with the emulator itself. I just thought this site was particularly against everything from the grey area down. Am I wrong about that? Would a poster not be banned/warned for encouraging the download of emulators/ROMs etc or is this viewed as a different area altogether?

If you own a copy of Mario 64 for the N64, it is not illegal to play Mario 64 on an emulator. The Escapist's Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits advocacy of piracy and links to the site offering the same. Since it is perfectly possible to play a ROM on an emulator in a completely legal way, the comment in the article does not violate the policy. On the other hand, linking to a ROM hosting site would violate the anti-piracy policy. So would talking about running ROMs of games you don't own the original cartridge for.

Scars Unseen:

Lightknight:

Scars Unseen:
Emulators are not illegal, and neither are ROMs, provided you own the original cart/disc. The biggest hurdle is that some emulators require a copy of the original system's BIOS, which you have to get from a system you own(rather than downloading it off the internet). But all of those legal hurdles lie on the user's side. The emulators themselves are perfectly legal.

The quoted bit was acknowledging that the legal grey area never stopped you [the reader] from playing Mario 64 on the pc.

Of course there's nothing wrong with the emulator itself. I just thought this site was particularly against everything from the grey area down. Am I wrong about that? Would a poster not be banned/warned for encouraging the download of emulators/ROMs etc or is this viewed as a different area altogether?

If you own a copy of Mario 64 for the N64, it is not illegal to play Mario 64 on an emulator. The Escapist's Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits advocacy of piracy and links to the site offering the same. Since it is perfectly possible to play a ROM on an emulator in a completely legal way, the comment in the article does not violate the policy. On the other hand, linking to a ROM hosting site would violate the anti-piracy policy. So would talking about running ROMs of games you don't own the original cartridge for.

That is actually false. No matter if you own an original copy of the game, it is still illegal under US law (not sure about others) to download and use ROMs for emulators. Many companies take a relatively light approach to this, but Nintendo is dead against it.

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#emulator

Da Orky Man:

Scars Unseen:

Lightknight:
The quoted bit was acknowledging that the legal grey area never stopped you [the reader] from playing Mario 64 on the pc.

Of course there's nothing wrong with the emulator itself. I just thought this site was particularly against everything from the grey area down. Am I wrong about that? Would a poster not be banned/warned for encouraging the download of emulators/ROMs etc or is this viewed as a different area altogether?

If you own a copy of Mario 64 for the N64, it is not illegal to play Mario 64 on an emulator. The Escapist's Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits advocacy of piracy and links to the site offering the same. Since it is perfectly possible to play a ROM on an emulator in a completely legal way, the comment in the article does not violate the policy. On the other hand, linking to a ROM hosting site would violate the anti-piracy policy. So would talking about running ROMs of games you don't own the original cartridge for.

That is actually false. No matter if you own an original copy of the game, it is still illegal under US law (not sure about others) to download and use ROMs for emulators. Many companies take a relatively light approach to this, but Nintendo is dead against it.

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#emulator

I didn't say it was legal to download ROMs. I said ROMs themselves are legal. Granted, the equipment needed to rip cartridge ROMs is expensive, and I doubt that many people that claim to use emulators actually have it, but then that's why it's considered a grey area.

Scars Unseen:
I didn't say it was legal to download ROMs. I said ROMs themselves are legal. Granted, the equipment needed to rip cartridge ROMs is expensive, and I doubt that many people that claim to use emulators actually have it, but then that's why it's considered a grey area.

Do you honestly think the intention of the poster was saying it to with the few who make their own ROMs themselves? I think common sense would regard this as an article expressing the benefit of the device to the average user and includes the ability to download ROMs to play on an emulator (I'm still under the impression that the emulator itself is the gray area whereas the ROM is almost always illegal).

Lightknight:

Scars Unseen:
I didn't say it was legal to download ROMs. I said ROMs themselves are legal. Granted, the equipment needed to rip cartridge ROMs is expensive, and I doubt that many people that claim to use emulators actually have it, but then that's why it's considered a grey area.

Do you honestly think the intention of the poster was saying it to with the few who make their own ROMs themselves? I think common sense would regard this as an article expressing the benefit of the device to the average user and includes the ability to download ROMs to play on an emulator (I'm still under the impression that the emulator itself is the gray area whereas the ROM is almost always illegal).

I think that using the phrase "legal grey area" to describe something that is always legal (downloading an emulator) is less likely than using it to describe an act that might be legal, but probably isn't in most cases (playing a ROM on an emulator). It's grey precisely because there is a possibility for legal use, and it can be spoken of because of presumption of innocence.

Do I think that most people rip their own ROMs? No. Do I think that the OP thinks that? No. But the original question that spawned this inane argument was why it was allowed to be posted when there is an anti-piracy rule. My response is that technically no explicit endorsement of piracy was mentioned.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here