As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Stadia: Don’t cross the streams.

1356794

Posts

  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    dipuc4life wrote: »
    For me, it comes down to the games. Nintendo and Sony have their exclusives and both could conceivably stand a console on their own (albeit with probably slower releases). Microsoft just invested millions of dollars to buy studios to provide them with games. Third parties like EA, Ubisoft, Activation ETC. will probably flock to this if the scaling pricing and license fees are good. SO if this works we will have potentially four systems with exclusives.

    Also, if this is going to work well it HAS to scale down to the lowest common denominator. Either that or they leave money on the table in all the countries with poor internet. Hey, eff those guys since they have less disposable income to spend on games anyway ... hey ... I'm one of those guys ... eff you too. So it will either be you buy the games but the subscription is free (with paid high speed 4k60 tier) or you subscribe and get the games (but then how do the developers get paid). Oh and if we (or any studio that releases a game on this service) decide that that game is going away poof ... sorry?

    The part of me that thinks developer in intrigued, the part of me that thinks gamer is weary, and the part of me that thinks money is scoffing.

    Thats only if the system has games that are preinstalled that you sub to or w/e. If it goes with previous models of providing you remote access to "your own pc" more or less, then you just continue to buy games normally, and pay a sub fee to access the VM.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
  • Dr. ChaosDr. Chaos Post nuclear nuisance Registered User regular
    Here’s my money, now give me the last console I’ll ever own.
    Amen, brother.

    Pokemon GO: 7113 6338 6875/ FF14: Buckle Landrunner /Steam Profile
  • General_ArmchairGeneral_Armchair Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    How can you be sure that Steam will give you a way but Google will not give you a way?

    Steam games are downloaded to your computer, even if they didn't give you an official way you could hax0r your games to work.

    With Stadia, it's all in the cloud.

    So how are you sure that they won't release the game to you if, for some reason, Google closes the service down?

    They might also give me a Lamborghini as an apology, but I'm not holding their breath. One can never know how gracious a company will be when they close their doors. We shouldn't bank on promises either, since management can change and people can make promises that they are physically unable to fulfill.

    We can only truly count on what we have. If a cloud service shuts down on day out of the blue by an act of God, then everything that I had on the service is gone.

    If a digital distributor gets raptured, then I still have everything that's on my machines. Some games will be fine, some will be irreparably broken, and some will be fixable with MacGyver'd hacked together fixes.

    3DS Friend Code:
    Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
  • finnithfinnith ... TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Does anyone think that the move to streaming will only amplify the current trend of AAA-design moving towards to "Games-as-a-Service" format (i.e. The Division, Anthem, WoW, Destiny, ARK)?

    Probably the easiest way to entice people to sign-up for your service is to have a consistent and diverse set of these types of games being released and/or updated. Relying on new games is important, but games like The Division or Apex: Legends offer a consistent and reliable amount of content. That is, I know if I drop into an Apex: Legends match or Division session I can find something to enjoy. Harder to know if I'll like game x by random developer y, and these days I rely a lot on sites like Waypoint, Giantbomb, or consistent developers (i.e. PDS/CD Projekt Red) to inform my Steam purchases.

    finnith on
    Bnet: CavilatRest#1874
    Steam: CavilatRest
    dipuc4lifeNightslyrGennenalyse Rueben
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    reVerse wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    How can you be sure that Steam will give you a way but Google will not give you a way?

    Steam games are downloaded to your computer, even if they didn't give you an official way you could hax0r your games to work.

    With Stadia, it's all in the cloud.

    So how are you sure that they won't release the game to you if, for some reason, Google closes the service down?

    They might also give me a Lamborghini as an apology, but I'm not holding their breath. One can never know how gracious a company will be when they close their doors. We shouldn't bank on promises either, since management can change and people can make promises that they are physically unable to fulfill.

    We can only truly count on what we have. If a cloud service shuts down on day out of the blue by an act of God, then everything that I had on the service is gone.

    If a digital distributor gets raptured, then I still have everything that's on my machines. Some games will be fine, some will be irreparably broken, and some will be fixable with MacGyver'd hacked together fixes.

    Assuming you have every game already downloaded, though.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Historically, game publishers are also leery of distributing their games for low low prices on streaming (like PS Now and OnLive) because of the perception that it undercuts their video game prices and cannibalizes their core market (there are marketing studies that show that this is actually not the case, but it's still the perception). Software support is huge for this kind of thing if it's going to be a service*. The reason that Microsoft Game Pass is working so well, for example, is because they put their exclusives on there and make it valuable to subscribe to their service. It's a calculated move that undercuts potential profits on their new exclusives by also providing more value to their core market and drive their hardware sales (which are lagging behind their two nearest competitors).

    * Note: We don't know if this actually WILL be a Netflix-like service! We don't know anything at this point.

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • General_ArmchairGeneral_Armchair Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    3DS Friend Code:
    Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
    OneAngryPossum
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    edited March 2019
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.

    ChaosHat on
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    One other thing to think about:

    Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon are all worth about 30x what Nintendo is.

    If they start getting desperate for "content", we're talking about a "Microsoft buying LinkedIn" level transaction. Big, but not enormous.

  • General_ArmchairGeneral_Armchair Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.

    Yes I do.

    3DS Friend Code:
    Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
    NaphtaliWildaliFiatilBurtletoy
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.

    Yes I do.

    Then you are absolutely not who this is for.

    a5ehrenCasually Hardcore
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    You are amazing.

    OneAngryPossumMvrck
  • finnithfinnith ... TorontoRegistered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    I would like to point you to the first comment regarding Dropbox on Hacker News back in 2007.

    Bnet: CavilatRest#1874
    Steam: CavilatRest
    urahonkySmurphZombie GandhiCarpyDarkewolfeEvermournLord_Asmodeus
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.
    Music is not exactly a great comparison. There aren't, like, gaming radio stations where free games are just rained on you at all times for your entertainment. Although one can argue that there are many free avenues for gaming like app stores (F2P games) and the like. But in general, we don't value music and TV as we do other forms of media. We are relatively inundated on all sides with music and TV for free.

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    Jeep-Eep
  • CruorCruor Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.

    Yes I do.

    Then you are absolutely not who this is for.

    And that's the danger. If it takes off in a big bad way and supplants traditional gaming as it is, a large sector of people who can comfortably game now will be shut out of gaming due to poor access to high-enough speed internet.

    Granted, that's a nightmare scenario, but given *waves hands about* nightmare scenarios have proven to be more common than we would like.

    Gennenalyse RuebenJeep-Eep
  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.

    Hahnsoo1WildaliCroakerfurlion
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.
    It bothered me that they didn't show off any first party games. Just tech demos and other people's games. But they claim that first party games are coming Soon (TM).

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    NightslyrWildali
  • dipuc4lifedipuc4life ... In my own HeadRegistered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    SNIP...

    * Note: We don't know if this actually WILL be a Netflix-like service! We don't know anything at this point.

    This whole presentation has left ME with more questions than answers. There are just so many details that were not stated or just not given information for at all. We should get some of those answers in time so we'll see.

    NNID: SW-6490-6173-9136
    Playstation: Dipuc4Life
    Warframe_Switch IGN: ONVEBAL
    Hahnsoo1
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Cruor wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.

    Yes I do.

    Then you are absolutely not who this is for.

    And that's the danger. If it takes off in a big bad way and supplants traditional gaming as it is, a large sector of people who can comfortably game now will be shut out of gaming due to poor access to high-enough speed internet.

    Granted, that's a nightmare scenario, but given *waves hands about* nightmare scenarios have proven to be more common than we would like.

    I don't expect video game publishers are going to go all in on producing for a system that inherently cuts out a large chunk of their potential consumer base.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
    CruorGennenalyse Rueben
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Morran wrote: »
    Did they ever state the minimum recommended bandwidth and latency for the streaming test with ac?

    I'm on 40 Mbps with 11/27 ms latency (unloaded/loaded) according to fast.com.

    Would that be good enough for something like Stadia?

    Shadow, a similar-ish service, suggest 15 mbps for their system.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.
    Music is not exactly a great comparison. There aren't, like, gaming radio stations where free games are just rained on you at all times for your entertainment. Although one can argue that there are many free avenues for gaming like app stores (F2P games) and the like. But in general, we don't value music and TV as we do other forms of media. We are relatively inundated on all sides with music and TV for free.

    I mean I can't remember the last time I listened to the radio or watched whatever happened to be on the TV at the moment. I also don't understand the comparison. Wouldn't all the free stuff mean people would be less inclined to pay for the other stuff? I mean there's a free Spotify tier, there's a free Pandora tier, etc. If the radio was a good replacement for "listening to whatever the hell music I want to right now without ads" then those services wouldn't take off.

    Spotify doesn't try to replace the radio. It tries to (and succeeds at in my opinion) in replacing your music library. Just like a game streaming service would try to replace your game library.

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    This will be great until they break up google or google kills it suddenly because they fucked up some privacy settings.

    Smurph
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    edited March 2019
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.

    Sometimes Google gives up on shit. Sure. Sometimes it absolutely doesn't and has the fuck you money to keep trying and iterating until they have 80% of the market. See: Android.

    Like I don't give a shit about Xbox or games on Windows or whatever. That's not a value add to me over "streams to your chrome browser, chromecast, and maybe possibly phone down the road."

    ChaosHat on
  • CruorCruor Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Cruor wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.

    Yes I do.

    Then you are absolutely not who this is for.

    And that's the danger. If it takes off in a big bad way and supplants traditional gaming as it is, a large sector of people who can comfortably game now will be shut out of gaming due to poor access to high-enough speed internet.

    Granted, that's a nightmare scenario, but given *waves hands about* nightmare scenarios have proven to be more common than we would like.

    I don't expect video game publishers are going to go all in on producing for a system that inherently cuts out a large chunk of their potential consumer base.

    While I generally agree, maybe Google will offer AAA developers infinite Google money to only put their games on the streaming service. If the devs can get out of it making as much or more money with only streaming, they will. Profits generally mean more to stakeholders than how many people are able to play, and the stakeholders generally control the devs.

  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.

    Because our industry needs a shakeup and this could be the start of something good?

    Halfmex
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.
    Music is not exactly a great comparison. There aren't, like, gaming radio stations where free games are just rained on you at all times for your entertainment. Although one can argue that there are many free avenues for gaming like app stores (F2P games) and the like. But in general, we don't value music and TV as we do other forms of media. We are relatively inundated on all sides with music and TV for free.

    I mean I can't remember the last time I listened to the radio or watched whatever happened to be on the TV at the moment. I also don't understand the comparison. Wouldn't all the free stuff mean people would be less inclined to pay for the other stuff? I mean there's a free Spotify tier, there's a free Pandora tier, etc. If the radio was a good replacement for "listening to whatever the hell music I want to right now without ads" then those services wouldn't take off.

    Spotify doesn't try to replace the radio. It tries to (and succeeds at in my opinion) in replacing your music library. Just like a game streaming service would try to replace your game library.

    The issue is that comparing this to spotify implies that there would be a free version, but you can only play games from a genre (maybe publisher) you selected at random, and only for 5-10 minutes before it switches to the next game.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    First of all, streaming won't ever be a full replacement for local hardware. There are too many scenarios where it can't feasibly work (airplanes, subways, etc). They talked a lot in this presentation about tight integrations with Unity and UE4. Devs will keep building their games on those engines as always and just launch it on Stadia in addition to other platforms. They specifically called out cross-platform play as well. It's likely they'll commission exclusive games, but as always that dramatically reduces playerbase size, so it will cost Google a pretty penny to get exclusive rights.

    On the business side, I'm pretty sure this is no different than Xbox Game Pass - monthly service with a selection of games Netflix-style. Some games will leave the lineup over time when it's no longer worth the cost for Google to license them. They'll probably also have a storefront for permanent purchases as well, but if the service flops they'll almost certainly transfer ownership of the games to another platform, as other defunct services have done before.

    Digital Foundry did an overview with some latency numbers (skip to 10 mins). Take the Stadia numbers with a grain of salt because it seems like a Google-provided test environment, but they did test it on Project Stream last year as well with similar results. TLDR the latency numbers are very impressive. From my experience on Stream, if you're looking for latency you'll find it, but to the untrained eye it's not noticeable (which is important when you consider they're surely aiming at a more mainstream audience).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG06H7IQ9Aw&feature=youtu.be

    ChaosHat
  • MorranMorran Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Morran wrote: »
    Did they ever state the minimum recommended bandwidth and latency for the streaming test with ac?

    I'm on 40 Mbps with 11/27 ms latency (unloaded/loaded) according to fast.com.

    Would that be good enough for something like Stadia?

    Shadow, a similar-ish service, suggest 15 mbps for their system.

    Ok!

    Digital foundry over at Eurogamer just posted a hands-on article, where they said that
    If you have a very wide internet connection, Stadia supports 4K video at 60 frames per second with HDR support. However, based on conversations with Google, we expect that 1080p streaming is more likely to be the norm on connections with around 25mbps of bandwidth. Stadia will go lower, dropping down to 720p60 with connections in the region of 15mbps - but having seen it in action with an artificial cap in place, it's clear that fast action causes obvious artefacts on a large, living room display. Google itself considers this to be a 'worse case scenario'. The experience would likely hold up much better on a smaller screen, however.

  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.
    It bothered me that they didn't show off any first party games. Just tech demos and other people's games. But they claim that first party games are coming Soon (TM).

    I get the feeling they announced this now in order to generate hype and get ahead of Microsoft because Project Xcloud will likely be a huge part of Xbox's E3 presentation (along with, potentially, the new hardware they've been developing for a while). Between last year's announcement, October's hype video, Microsoft upgrading their Game Developer Kit so XBL services can be communicated with on just about every platform (including the Switch), and some other stuff being whispered about, it really seems like Microsoft is also going to be (nearly) everywhere soon.

    I do think that Stadia has a shot, specifically if they market it as the not-console for gamers who can't afford current hardware. That it's a compelling budget option that allows one to play games with some trade-offs (need good internet, performance may be uneven, etc.). That should be their direction, at least at first. Outside of a killer, must-have app (or, like, three), it's hard for me to see it making much of a dent in the others' marketshare, Google technical wizardry or not.

  • SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    I'm reminded of when I bought a Google TV set top box a number of years ago. It looked awesome on paper and had some cool features that other boxes didn't have at the time. In reality it was buggy, barely ever got updated, and was abandoned by Google within like 2 years. A few years later they launched Android TV and from what I can gather that is also dead with Google's first party apps not really being update anymore.

    Google is like a really smart rich kid that picks up a new hobby every other month, buys themselves all the highest end gear and starts impressing people with their progress and potential, then gets bored at the first obstacle and moves on to the next cool thing.

    dipuc4lifeGeneral_ArmchairWildaliCroakerCaedwyrfurlion
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Dr. Chaos wrote: »
    If streaming takes off, does that mean I don't have to buy a new goddamn console every 6-10 years?

    If so, I'm in and this is needed.

    Depends, do you play fighting games? I doubt stuff like that will work out super well on this sort of thing.

    Also do you like owning games? Because streaming means youre basically paying a huge rental fee

    What's the difference between this and Steam then?

    You can download a game on steam and presumably if steam ever died they'd give you a way to continue playing those games.

    If this flops you retain nothing

    The thought that a dying company would give a shit about it's consumers is hilarious to me.

    Yeah I'm sure if Steam is dying Gabe Newell will devote a lot of resources to helping you get your games as the company implodes.

    The rental nature is fine to me. I'd say I probably get, on average, a game a month. Some of those I will play for a month or less and then never again. I probably come out ahead in a lot of those scenarios.

    Valve doesn't need to provide shit. I can rip my modem out of the wall if I'd like and play most of my games with steam in offline mode right now.

    For games that require steam's infrastructure to work for server browsers and such, there is nothing stopping the pc community from making their own peer to peer system that that could emulate what valve has in place and trick legacy steam installations into thinking that they were connecting to valve's old network.

    That's accurate. I'm going to guess the majority of people don't have 100% of their games downloaded at once. Drives will fail eventually, and you're going to spend a lot of effort and time keeping redundant copies backed up etc etc.

    If that's what you want to do and how you want to spend your time that's awesome and I mean that sincerely. But like I haven't owned a song in forever and it's fucking GREAT over here man. If we can export that experience to video games I'm all in.

    I run my own nightly backups of my pc to my own raid and periodically move copies of my backups off site.

    Okay but do you still pay for and download MP3s of music?

    This is also more effort than 99.9% of consumers will put into their shit just sayin.
    Music is not exactly a great comparison. There aren't, like, gaming radio stations where free games are just rained on you at all times for your entertainment. Although one can argue that there are many free avenues for gaming like app stores (F2P games) and the like. But in general, we don't value music and TV as we do other forms of media. We are relatively inundated on all sides with music and TV for free.

    I mean I can't remember the last time I listened to the radio or watched whatever happened to be on the TV at the moment. I also don't understand the comparison. Wouldn't all the free stuff mean people would be less inclined to pay for the other stuff? I mean there's a free Spotify tier, there's a free Pandora tier, etc. If the radio was a good replacement for "listening to whatever the hell music I want to right now without ads" then those services wouldn't take off.

    Spotify doesn't try to replace the radio. It tries to (and succeeds at in my opinion) in replacing your music library. Just like a game streaming service would try to replace your game library.

    The issue is that comparing this to spotify implies that there would be a free version, but you can only play games from a genre (maybe publisher) you selected at random, and only for 5-10 minutes before it switches to the next game.

    I mean Spotify free lets you play anything (some artists are not on the free tier) with ads right? It's been a long time since I used it but I don't think it's a radio like Pandora. Also it doesn't HAVE to have a free tier. I don't think there's a free tier for Tidal or Apple Music (I could be wrong). There absolutely isn't a free tier for Netflix or HBO. A free tier isn't necessary, my point is that the existence of free does not preclude people from paying.

    Further, there could be a free tier with a limited or ad supported game library but in the spotify mode, not in a random radio mode which is obviously ridiculous and not an argument in good faith.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited March 2019
    urahonky wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.

    Because our industry needs a shakeup and this could be the start of something good?
    Our industry DOES need a shakeup, but I can't imagine that this service will do anything good for the people who work in the industry.

    EDIT: I mean, if it does take off, it will mean good things for people who work specifically at Google, but those folks are already well-compensated.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    TubularLuggageNightslyrGennenalyse Rueben
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.
    It bothered me that they didn't show off any first party games. Just tech demos and other people's games. But they claim that first party games are coming Soon (TM).

    I get the feeling they announced this now in order to generate hype and get ahead of Microsoft because Project Xcloud will likely be a huge part of Xbox's E3 presentation (along with, potentially, the new hardware they've been developing for a while). Between last year's announcement, October's hype video, Microsoft upgrading their Game Developer Kit so XBL services can be communicated with on just about every platform (including the Switch), and some other stuff being whispered about, it really seems like Microsoft is also going to be (nearly) everywhere soon.

    I do think that Stadia has a shot, specifically if they market it as the not-console for gamers who can't afford current hardware. That it's a compelling budget option that allows one to play games with some trade-offs (need good internet, performance may be uneven, etc.). That should be their direction, at least at first. Outside of a killer, must-have app (or, like, three), it's hard for me to see it making much of a dent in the others' marketshare, Google technical wizardry or not.
    Gamers that can't afford current hardware also can't afford a strong internet connection with no caps (virtual caps or hard caps).

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
    NightslyrfurlionGennenalyse Rueben
  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    urahonky wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.

    Because our industry needs a shakeup and this could be the start of something good?

    Good and Google aren't words I'd put together.

    Besides, nothing about this announcement really has anything to do with the current problems facing gaming, outside of (potentially) broadening the overall playerbase. Google isn't going to magically make EA or Activision not suck, or improve worker conditions, or promote diversity in gaming, or curb toxic bullshit online (I mean, for fuck's sake this is the same company that has PewDiePie as it's most visible employee), or get rid of the AAA mentality of "It didn't sell a billion units, so let's start shuttering studios."

    At best, this is a new player on an existing field. The field itself won't change much, if at all.

    CruorHahnsoo1dipuc4lifeCroakerkime
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.
    It bothered me that they didn't show off any first party games. Just tech demos and other people's games. But they claim that first party games are coming Soon (TM).

    I get the feeling they announced this now in order to generate hype and get ahead of Microsoft because Project Xcloud will likely be a huge part of Xbox's E3 presentation (along with, potentially, the new hardware they've been developing for a while). Between last year's announcement, October's hype video, Microsoft upgrading their Game Developer Kit so XBL services can be communicated with on just about every platform (including the Switch), and some other stuff being whispered about, it really seems like Microsoft is also going to be (nearly) everywhere soon.

    I do think that Stadia has a shot, specifically if they market it as the not-console for gamers who can't afford current hardware. That it's a compelling budget option that allows one to play games with some trade-offs (need good internet, performance may be uneven, etc.). That should be their direction, at least at first. Outside of a killer, must-have app (or, like, three), it's hard for me to see it making much of a dent in the others' marketshare, Google technical wizardry or not.
    Gamers that can't afford current hardware also can't afford a strong internet connection with no caps (virtual caps or hard caps).

    You're saying you don't know anybody who can't afford a few hundred dollars up front for console + game but could afford to pay like $15-20 bucks a month or whatever? That's so weird.

    Low upfront cost lowers barrier to entry too.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Smurph wrote: »
    I'm reminded of when I bought a Google TV set top box a number of years ago. It looked awesome on paper and had some cool features that other boxes didn't have at the time. In reality it was buggy, barely ever got updated, and was abandoned by Google within like 2 years. A few years later they launched Android TV and from what I can gather that is also dead with Google's first party apps not really being update anymore.

    Google is like a really smart rich kid that picks up a new hobby every other month, buys themselves all the highest end gear and starts impressing people with their progress and potential, then gets bored at the first obstacle and moves on to the next cool thing.
    For Google, if this fails, they can just repurpose all of their edge nodes for YouTube stream delivery and deliver WebRTC shit (since it's basically the same technology). It's not like they'll take a hit if they spin it down.

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Good and Google aren't words I'd put together.

    Alright see that's where I know I can go ahead and bow out of this then. :)

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    Project Xcloud has a much better chance of gaining traction because of XBL, IMO.

    I'm not certain. Chromecasts and Google enabled TVs are already pretty common. This seems low barrier to entry and Google probably has way better infrastructure than MS to bring this to the masses.

    I mean it's ultimately going to come down to service quality and games and Google has a leg up on one, Xbox on the other. I just feel like games is the easier one to fix.

    Eh? Microsoft has Azure, which is a pretty big deal. Also, more importantly, Microsoft has inertia. Will gamers really want to abandon their Gamertags and all of that history, as well as the best-in-class online gaming service? Project Xcloud was revealed at the last E3. We'll likely see a working demo at this year's E3 (it's hard for me to believe that they would announce it without it being available 'soon'). It's not out of reason to think that the first Project Xcloud device will be the Nintendo Switch, or that Microsoft will partner up with TV manufacturers to have their own app.

    I mean... while Bing isn't Google, it's still in that space. And last I checked (could be wrong), it powered Apple's Siri service. And Xbox has working experience providing the cloud backbone for games like Halo and Destiny, meaning they won't have to start on the ground floor. So, I don't really buy the narrative that Microsoft is somehow lacking in this capacity. They're pretty much neck and neck with Amazon's AWS for the number of cloud apps that they host, and have far more practical experience with games/gaming than Google.

    I mean yeah people will abandon that shit for greener pastures. I was a 360 person and went PS4. That stuff happens often. They go where the games and services are.

    Bing also has to pay people to use it so saying it's in that space is generous. Providing the cloud backbone for Halo and Destiny is also substantially different from running the game and streaming the whole thing to the consumer.

    I guess, for me, I'm having a hard time seeing the hype. Google is a company known for abandoning projects as quickly as it starts them and has no real experience in the gaming sphere. Everyone is looking at this like Google's information architecture, which is indeed impressive, somehow guarantees that they're going to crush it.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft's information architecture, while not Google's, is still among the top 2-3 on the planet, Microsoft has almost 20 years of practical experience in this sphere, including developing and maintaining the world's best online multiplayer suite of services, and is working on their own streaming service which will have all of the benefits of XBL behind it. Yet, there's consternation?

    I don't get it.
    It bothered me that they didn't show off any first party games. Just tech demos and other people's games. But they claim that first party games are coming Soon (TM).

    I get the feeling they announced this now in order to generate hype and get ahead of Microsoft because Project Xcloud will likely be a huge part of Xbox's E3 presentation (along with, potentially, the new hardware they've been developing for a while). Between last year's announcement, October's hype video, Microsoft upgrading their Game Developer Kit so XBL services can be communicated with on just about every platform (including the Switch), and some other stuff being whispered about, it really seems like Microsoft is also going to be (nearly) everywhere soon.

    I do think that Stadia has a shot, specifically if they market it as the not-console for gamers who can't afford current hardware. That it's a compelling budget option that allows one to play games with some trade-offs (need good internet, performance may be uneven, etc.). That should be their direction, at least at first. Outside of a killer, must-have app (or, like, three), it's hard for me to see it making much of a dent in the others' marketshare, Google technical wizardry or not.
    Gamers that can't afford current hardware also can't afford a strong internet connection with no caps (virtual caps or hard caps).

    You're saying you don't know anybody who can't afford a few hundred dollars up front for console + game but could afford to pay like $15-20 bucks a month or whatever? That's so weird.

    Low upfront cost lowers barrier to entry too.
    The kind of internet connection that you need for this service, to play games longterm, costs way more than 15-20 bucks a month, either for a phone or an ISP. If you have the disposable income to afford a phat connection, you probably also have the disposable income to buy a console or subscribe to Netflix or whatever. I know very few people who are in poverty, but also seem to have god-like Internet. Most people who can't afford a console or even a console payment plan are leeching from their landlord's WiFi or something.

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    - The controller connecting directly via wi-fi is big advantage over competing streaming options, especially when you have wireless screens like phones/tablets, that is one less hop over a slow, noisy connection. Plus you don't have to deal with Apple's mFi nonsense.

    - Haven't seen anyone mention the youtube integration. Click a link provided by a streamer and you're instantly in the game you've never played before. Click another link and you get to copy their game state so you can instantly go to whatever scene they are in. If this is part of a subscription service so there's no price barrier, then its going to be huge for game watchers.

    - Yes they are going to lose all the people with slow/capped internet, or who want the lowest latency and best visuals. But they are going to gain people who want to play the latest high-end games without sticking down $500 for a console and then dealing with the installation, disc library and endless downloading of patches. That's quite a large potential audience to pick up there.

    - Nintendo's retro platformers and competitive FPS or fighters will probably suck with the latency. But cinematic action experiences like T2 interactive, ubisoft, and sony push out barely require reaction time as is, and can be tweaked that way further going forward to support streaming platforms. I mean that's half the kind of games you can't play on a low spec system like Switch as is, leaving many people the option of skipping console hardware for the AAA movie-games and sticking to something cheaper for their reflex-based indie titles.

    KoopahTroopahChaosHat
Sign In or Register to comment.