(CNET) Phil Spencer: Project Scarlett likely isn't the last console. Best way to play games is on local device.

Prine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,149
I feel their entire point is:

  • Switch exists therefore they don’t need streaming.
  • A physical console exists therefore they don’t need streaming.

That’s it. It really makes no sense in this thread, but there you have it.
Ah ok.

Thanks. What an odd proposition. In this scenario Switch would benefit from having access to non-switch games, ie Cyberpunk 2077, Red Dead 2 etc.
 

SG-17

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,148
Never say never. Give it 20 years, more or less. Think back to how fast/reliable your internet was 20 years ago. Now extrapolate 20 years into the future. We'll be streaming all over the place like there's no tomorrow.
It won't change the laws of physics.

Maybe one day streaming can be 95% perfect and that will be fine for the majority of people, but we will never have true perfect streaming without FTL communication. It's not physically possible.
 

wafflebrain

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,189
I'm very open to streaming services for gaming but yeah its gonna be awhile until it matches a native experience wrt hardware. I would never think to play certain tentpole releases for the first time with streaming, not yet anyway. Then again I haven't seen xcloud or Stadia with my own eyes so maybe that would impress me more than expected. I don't have a terrible amount of faith in my ISP's performance for long gaming sessions though.
 

Sulik2

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,997
As Sony uses azure. Ms will probably get a cut of psplus or psnow revenue. Also Microsoft is giving gamers so many choices in how to buy and play their games and where to play them. It's all about maximizing opportunities. Game pass will be a monster next gen as word of mouth continues to spread.
Nah it won't be revenue split. Sony will just pay for servers and other billing like any company that hosts on Azure and some money spent for codesign on gaming functionality. There is no way they do a partnership that shares subscription revenue, that defeats the entire purpose of the cash cow.
 

ThankDougie

Banned
Nov 12, 2017
1,630
Buffalo
that sort of helps. is the idea that future Scarlet games will run on a One X and investment now is sort of like an investment in a less powerful graphics card? that kind of makes sense, but makes me think i should just invest in a PC anyway. that way I can update parts as needed and not buy into new systems every time i need a little power/memory boost.

the hard part for Microsoft, at least in my head, is to make a case that their own hardware is worth investing in, especially if so many games are available on PC.
 

yyr

Member
Nov 14, 2017
579
White Plains, NY
Problem: Guy leading the xcloud charge himself says its not as good as playing locally. So, why would I pick it over local play? I wouldn’t.

So, he choose it for play on the go right? Why? When the switch is available to do just that and do it without an Internet connection, and without milking my data caps, and also no lag.

So the problems in my view that makes this unappealing are two-fold: Play on the go has superior alternatives. Play at home has superior alternatives.
In a technical sense, yes, Switch is superior to xCloud on the go because everything is rendered locally. But if xCloud gives me access to my entire Xbox library (which is quite large) and Switch does not, and xCloud runs on devices with longer battery life than Switch, then there are pros and cons to both options. It's at least something I'd consider using for non-action games, especially considering that I wouldn't need to buy a 2nd copy of a game to own a portable version.

I don't think they're trying to sell xCloud to someone who plays at home all the time on an Xbox console.

Never say never. Give it 20 years, more or less. Think back to how fast/reliable your internet was 20 years ago. Now extrapolate 20 years into the future. We'll be streaming all over the place like there's no tomorrow.
I think back to how my TV service from Verizon FiOS was 5 or 6 years ago...truthfully, it was better than it is now. They're devoting less bandwidth to it, so I'm getting more artifacting in my picture.

Business priorities change all the time. In the USA, almost all Internet service is provided by profit-driven companies, and politics are driven by money as well. Even if our Internet speeds continue to improve, there's no guarantee that game streaming won't be throttled into the ground. But one thing will never change: the response time from a gamepad on your sofa to a datacenter many miles away will never, ever be as fast as the response time from a gamepad on your sofa to a box aside your living room TV. Nothing can change that.
 
Last edited:

Cynn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,269
But I thought hardware didn;t matter? Streaming is going to be niche for a long time yet.
He said what hardware you play “Xbox” games on didn't matter, as long as you’re playing them. He didn’t say that hardware it’s self doesn’t matter. I’m fact, he’s been very vocal on consoles being important.
 

jroc74

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,299
Ah ok.

Thanks. What an odd proposition. In this scenario Switch would benefit from having access to non-switch games, ie Cyberpunk 2077, Red Dead 2 etc.
Exactly.

Aren't there some games now that's streaming for Switch?

I see alot of ppl say to emulate Cell for PS3 games is too daunting a task, not worth it. Streaming to the rescue.