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.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
(CNET) Phil Spencer: Project Scarlett likely isn't the last console. Best way to play games is on local device.
- Thread starter Khrol
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.