• 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.

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,711
That'd be an incredibly odd move for any major tech company in the next 20 years (at minimum) - except maybe Google, and good luck with "favorite game ever" coming from that side.

Don't know why even though things appear to be moving really fast with game streaming people like to throw these big numbers, "It will take 20, 30, 60 years for it to be possible". Do you really think it is that unlikely that a company like Google or Amazon (When it inevitable announces their own cloud gaming service) will invest in a showcase game that is imposible to run on local hardware? That game might be the favorite game for someone that is obsessed with physical media. At that point you will have to make a choice, are you more in love with plastic or with the actual experiences of playing games.
 

Raider34

Banned
May 8, 2018
1,277
United States
Sony, like other company can use Azure servers if desired, or the ones from Amazon and so on. In fact, most gaming companies choose don't use Azure for their gaming servers and choose other cloud servers instead.

Regarding game pass, did they mention that your game pass games are going to be streamed?


Sony can use those servers but how long do you think they'll realistically allow Sony to make money using their servers in a space where they are trying to compete somebody will pay the 70 billion and buy them out
 

goonergaz

Member
Nov 18, 2017
1,710
Just think about it for a minute, you are more in love with the fact that you can grab the physical game than with the experience of gaming itself. I guess this is something that people will slowly adapt to and realize that what will be possible with cloud gaming is really awesome. It would be a waste for somebody like you to stop gaming just because the distribution method changed.

It's all part of the experience. I mean, it's a bit like going to a football match vs watching on TV.
 

Gobias-Ind

Member
Nov 22, 2017
4,021
I didn't like my experience with PS Now, but I'm fully open to adding streaming into my gaming routine when the tech ramps up a bit. I often find myself roaming around the Microsoft Store/PS Store/eShop bored on a Saturday looking for something to play. It would be nice if, say, I decide I want to give The Witcher 3 another shot I could jump right in without waiting for a download that will eat up a decent part of my day.
 

dom

▲ Legend ▲
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,438
These people don't get it all the participantion trophies they've received over the years have them thinking everything is even Google and Microsoft are trillion dollar companies Sony isn't even in the ball game
I guess a lot of things didn't get the memo they were part of a trillion dollar company and shouldn't have failed.
 

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,711
Realistically, I probably wouldn't stop, per se, but I'd be a hell of a lot less likely to support anything money wise.

I've built an entire YouTube show on classic games and it's only possible because of physical media. I play retro games more often than modern titles and the physical good is part of that experience for me.

I'm spouting hyperbole because I DO NOT want this to become the norm.

Fair enough, I'm a big fan and that is why I'm taking the time to share my perspective. Don't want to lose your input, analysis and opinion on good games regardless of where they comes from. It will be fun to continue this conversation as the years pass, lets see what happens.
 
Last edited:

cyba89

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,628
At least in the US, the infrastructure just isn't ready. For zero latency streaming in lossless 4k quality, we have some time to go.

Most people won't care about lossless 4k if the can play AAA-games in an instant on their phone or via an SmartTV-App and don't have to shell out $400 for a new console every 5 years and download 100GB of game files.
Dedicated consoles won't disappear for those who care about picture quality and minimal input lag. Streaming will just be another option that is just much more convenient for a lot of people. Just like people watch movies on Netflix and don't bother with the UHD 4k BluRay.
 

LCGeek

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,856
So like any streaming service this has to go from your device through your home or wireless infrastructure, down the old internet to the servers, process the data, video, input and send back to your device with in milliseconds? So basically like other streaming services "PS Now" that have been on the market for a good few years now. I don't personally use PS Now and I've only tried it once, it was OK.

Considering that the internet protocol suite relies on solid hardware and software to maximize it's potential reducing the way the technology works doesn't override that everyone different implementation will have much different effects. Just on a OS basis alone google uses a superior network stack to what sony or MS offers so that will help them offer a better streaming service.

Now all of a sudden because Microsoft or google or who ever are entering the game (years late) its going to be fantastic and amazing with no lag. Yeah right! All I've read over the last few years is people and media outlets slagging off PS Now and now said people think its the future?

Not once have I read that any of these formats will be without lag. There's a world of a difference between aiming for low latency and doing what you can vs doing what Sony has done which has been to let you use your own garbage devices for stream on their garbage back bone. Local games feel lag, stutter or performance issues why would an online format be any different.

This may or may not be better but lets face it there are hundreds of possible scenarios from how the data gets from you to them so instantly thinking streaming is now going to be reinvented by Google or who ever is silly.
No matter what resources these company's have its always going to provide different experiences, person to person. I can bet now that these services will be about the same quality as others on the market now which will NEVER be as good as local play.
So no its about as much a next generation game changer, war as TV was this gen...

Any company that wants can begin to invest in a data center driven solution or vpn, or a combination that would allow them more control than the default chaos you are left to if you don't deal with HOPSs. A good core infrastructure or topology would insure that any possible scanerio is up to spec. Up to this point very few companies had a reason to take this venture seriously with there being a reason I don't see them backing down from tech that exist that they have bungled for about 15 years in implementing. Profit and opportunity really do make some companies change.
 

chanunnaki

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,783
Just think about it for a minute, you are more in love with the fact that you can grab the physical game than with the experience of gaming itself. I guess this is something that people will slowly adapt to and realize that what will be possible with cloud gaming is really awesome. It would be a waste for somebody like you to stop gaming just because the distribution method changed.
What's gonna be possible with streaming that isn't possible with physical media?
 

Alucardx23

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,711
It's all part of the experience. I mean, it's a bit like going to a football match vs watching on TV.

I'm sure we can agree on the point that even though it might be better to watch a football game being physically there for some people, that is not even an option for the rest 98% of the people that watch the games.
 

gremlinz1982

Member
Aug 11, 2018
5,331
I wasn't saying that Microsoft isn't able to provide a interesting offer, just that they are in competition with anyone, not only worlwide but also locally. In competition because of the tech that is agnostic, but also the content. When only Nintendo or Sony are able to stream the content they produce, anyone can stream all the runing Windows content.

And why outside Sony, Nvidia or Shadow no one is interested ? Because the demand for that particular tech isn't there that's simple as that. Gaming is popular but not in any way like books, movies or music - and streaming has more inconvenient than advantage in many case.

But I am sure that Microsoft are going to provide something at least very interesting for Xbox owners, exactly like Game Sharing, Remote Play or PS Now is interesting for PS4 owner.
The only way streaming makes sense is if it is a low cost, high volume business. This is what EA is trying to do with EA Access Origins and Microsoft is trying to accomplish with Game Pass.

You will still get games from third party developers on console or PC storefronts because these are markets that still exist. Streaming is simply a way to try and target consumers who are not going to be on these hardware devices.

Microsoft does not care where you are going to be playing their content on, as long as it makes them money. Sony has already brought Playstation Now to PC so that is a market that they are looking at.

Gaming is growing each day and people gaming on consoles form an increasingly smaller percentage of the market. I would even argue that the console market shrunk if you looked at total console sales last generation compared to this generation i.e. Wii/360/ps3 versus WiiU/XB1/PS4 while the mobile gaming market grew and continues to grow at a faster pace.

Netflix and Spotify have blown up an some of the most popular games today are Minecraft, Fortnite and PUBG.

Lastly, Microsoft has a good product in game pass, and play anywhere. Streaming will eventually allow you to play games across multiple devices and you still get new games same day of release as with game pass is what I would postulate.
 

Yurinka

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,457
Sony can use those servers but how long do you think they'll realistically allow Sony to make money using their servers in a space where they are trying to compete somebody will pay the 70 billion and buy them out
In the business world there aren't fanboy wars: One company offers a service and the other one buys it. Sony can pay to use Windows, Word, MS servers and so on like tons of other companies do. MS pays Sony to use certain patents. The stock images for Buzz! (Sony games) were licensed from a Bill Gates company. Sony released games on Windows, MS on PlayStation. They even share code, give conferences to each other and so on.
 

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,734
As long as Sony wants. Why wouldn't they?

Talk of Sony using Azure is off-base in any event.

Sony is using the same datacenter companies directly for PS Now infrastructure that Microsoft uses in their own leasing for Azure infrastructure (& that Amazon uses, etc. etc)

While Microsoft and others additionally own some of their own datacenters, there isn't a (connected) region/location in the world that doesn't and won't have third party leasable datacenter capacity. If one day Sony's needs exceed those that they can get through leasing, they'd probably be more likely to start selfbuilding or partnering with others to build, than co-locating with a competing cloud's space at a premium.
 

Saint-14

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
14,477
How would online work with streaming btw? I imagine you would need a much better connection than the adviced for other games.
 

Tusken77

Member
Oct 27, 2017
730
England, United Kingdom
If you want to write any serious article about game streaming you can't just ignore PSNow especially when it was the first serious service to do so. It is also incredibly naive to assume that the market leader won't be able to sign deals for server capacity especially when they are already doing it with PSN (they were even the first to offer remote play years ago).

This whole situation reminds me of the Xbox One reveal event where MS was claiming that Xbox Live has the potential capacity of 300.000 servers (essentially adding all Azure servers together even though only a fraction was actually used by Live). In reality, things don't exactly work like that and just because you own the servers it doesn't mean it's free for you.

Agreed, instantly lost interest in the article after I read that first line. I expect better from Eurogamer.
 

goonergaz

Member
Nov 18, 2017
1,710
I'm sure we can agree on the point that even though it might be better to watch a football game being physically there for some people, that is not even an option for the rest 98% of the people that watch the games.

It was one example which can be applied to many things (I initially thought sex but then watered it down lol), point is the experience includes the physical aspect...and if you can't agree with that then I'm lost.
 

Deleted member 15948

User Requested Account Closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
786
I find it funny when people talk as if having the ability to stream is going to automatically stop everything else from happening. It's going to be an option for people. Just because it doesn't work for groups of people doesn't mean that it shouldn't come out and have it be available for those who can. That's like saying video games aren't going to happen because not everyone can afford them. Like...yall. Yea, US internet isn't great everywhere...but there is still alot of places in the US where it is. Places in Europe, Australia, Japan, etc... And it's not like shit won't change over time and 5G being around the corner as well ain't help with connectivity. This is no different than digital games feasable for some people around the world because of the infrastructure and payment plans and they have to buy physical. The industry shouldn't stop because of it and it's not gonna "not" happen because of that. Your games aren't going anywhere.

I don't legitimately think streaming will do well but for the sake of argument... it absolutely will restrict what games are available. We already live in a time when many digital games are simply not available in a physical form, which means people on terrible internet around here have to come into town and borrow a friend's connection to download, or simply never be able to play that particular game, period. No doubt streaming will be the same.

If MS/Google/etc really wanted to generate some goodwill and some new business, they'd start funding high-speed internet in rural areas (yes I know about Google Fiber, call me when they start connecting communities <5K people). But since that's actually hard work, I don't see that happening.
 

chowyunfatt

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
333
Considering that the internet protocol suite relies on solid hardware and software to maximize it's potential reducing the way the technology works doesn't override that everyone different implementation will have much different effects. Just on a OS basis alone google uses a superior network stack to what sony or MS offers so that will help them offer a better streaming service.



Not once have I read that any of these formats will be without lag. There's a world of a difference between aiming for low latency and doing what you can vs doing what Sony has done which has been to let you use your own garbage devices for stream on their garbage back bone. Local games feel lag, stutter or performance issues why would an online format be any different.



Any company that wants can begin to invest in a data center driven solution or vpn, or a combination that would allow them more control than the default chaos you are left to if you don't deal with HOPSs. A good core infrastructure or topology would insure that any possible scanerio is up to spec. Up to this point very few companies had a reason to take this venture seriously with there being a reason I don't see them backing down from tech that exist that they have bungled for about 15 years in implementing. Profit and opportunity really do make some companies change.

Well if you want to stream then that up to you and I hope you enjoy it but I'll be playing on local hardware as usual.
I think this is going to be another gimmick marketing trick come the reveal of the next Xbox. We had TV, TV, TV shoved down our throats with the Xbox reveal, then 4K, 4K True 4K, 4K with the reveal of the X and I can just see it now on stage going something like this at the scarlet reveal, Streaming, Streaming, Services, Streaming.

Good to have choices for people but its not the future and wont be for a long time, the way some are now hyping it up all of a sudden.
 

Soprano

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
990
It's just like voice activation with the Kinect for microsoft. poeple kicked off about microphones and cameras in their house "listening" to them but then amazon does it, infinitely better and it takes off worldwide.

It happens all the time with Tech. SOny weren't the first company to do VR headsets but I would put money that they've sold the most, poor oculus.

Right, but this isn't really about popularity, sales, or who does it better. It's not even acknowledging a streaming service that already exist and has for years.

I don't care about streaming games at all. It's just a little funny to me.


You can also argue that it is very different services. PS Now is a Netflix-style service and compares more to Game Pass then Xcloud. It is not a service that lets you play your games on more devices.

Streaming is streaming.

Sony did have PSNow on more devices. Maybe with this new competition they'll think about expanding it back.
 

tzare

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,145
Catalunya
People act as if Google's and Microsoft's cloud gaming services already existed and as if psnow was some legacy service.
I am sure Sony has learned quite a few things from psnow and is probably more ready to launch a bigger streaming service if required, than people suggest.

Reminds me of the beginning of current generation, Sony was about to disappear and couldn't compete with MS.
 

Dewin

Member
Oct 26, 2017
627
If you want to write any serious article about game streaming you can't just ignore PSNow especially when it was the first serious service to do so. It is also incredibly naive to assume that the market leader won't be able to sign deals for server capacity especially when they are already doing it with PSN (they were even the first to offer remote play years ago).

This whole situation reminds me of the Xbox One reveal event where MS was claiming that Xbox Live has the potential capacity of 300.000 servers (essentially adding all Azure servers together even though only a fraction was actually used by Live). In reality, things don't exactly work like that and just because you own the servers it doesn't mean it's free for you.

Pretty much this. I'd like to know how much data this Project Chrome is using, and can it do 4k? Because 4K is very costly on bandwith.
And... are all these new streaming services working around the patents Sony owns. The two pioneers of streaming were Gaikai and Online and Sony has all their patents. Are these streaming services working around that?
If not, Sony will benefit from new game streaming services.
 

Ripcord

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,773
Fired Project Stream up and was pretty surprised by how smooth and responsive it is. If they threw a subscription around a service like this I'd be on it in a minute. Can't believe I'm getting zero lag from the connection or the controller. Visuals aren't as nice as my PC, but they don't look bad. Reminds me of consoles. No install/loads is amazing and it works just as well on my weak ass work laptop/connection.
 

Arulan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,571
I'll also echo that (traditional, no ownership) streaming services for gaming is a terrible idea for enthusiasts, and one I won't support. Despite their popularity here, closed-platforms will continue to serve corporate interests. Unfortunately, the conveniences will win over the mainstream.
 

Deleted member 8752

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,122
I don't care for game streaming at all and, even if the experience is a perfect match for offline (and I don't see that becoming possible for a long time at best) it still removes all notion of ownership. Really hope it remains an optional thing.


That would mark the end of supporting new games for me. I'd become retro only.



Yea... I'm with you on this. For me, it's not the issue of ownership - I already buy digital-only games without issue. In fact, I think that digital-only games have really had a positive effect on the industry in giving us types games we'd never get otherwise. And I also don't entirely mind streaming video and audio stuff either. I enjoy Netflix, amazon prime, and spotify - and also purchase the TV, music, and video I enjoy most in physical formats.

But I'm the type of guy that plays all of his retro games on OG hardware on a CRT for the most authentic experience. Because when it comes to video games, I need to be able to run the game on my own local hardware with the fastest display possible. I don't care if it's a handheld, console, PC, or smartphone. It's essential for me to have consistent, measureable, controllable form of minimal input delay. It's important for me to know that every form of slowdown, stutter, bug, or glitch is occuring on my own hardware in a controlled environment. And it's essential that I be able to play without any form of video compression that a streaming service could add.

It's a tactile notion. Like the difference between driving manual and automatic. There's a certain feel to controlling games that has kept me coming back year after year to experience all the medium has to offer. It's true whether we are discussing playing a fighting game, Rocket League, or even a simple turn based RPG.

And if streaming became mandatory, I'd consider it relinquishing too much control over what I enjoy about the hobby. There's a line I'm not crossing. And streaming is the line.
 

chanunnaki

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,783
Netflix & Co were superior to everything before. immediate access to movies you want. You don't have to go to a retailer or have to wait for Sky & Co to show it. The image quality was almost as good as on physical media and you could even download the movies to watch them offline.

Game streaming is a whole different thing. People already have eShops and can download and play every game they want. The image quality in streaming is way below a native console/PC experience. Streaming is only viable for specific "slow" games and 60FPS is just impossible to achieve through streaming. Not to mention other problems like noticeable lag and fps "hickups" and online is obligatory.

Game streaming is not even remotely comparable to movie/music streaming.
I'm with you here, I really don't want an all-streaming future and believe there are too many technical hurdles at present to make it viable. However, I don't think we are that far away technologically of game streaming becoming reasonably viable for the vast, vast majority of people.

And this is where my concern lies... platform holders make close to zero $ per console sold and this is because they need to grow their installed base and then make money from software sales. These platform holders have also probably long-realised that they make more money from subs than the direct sale of games, so I think they're going to follow the easy money of diving into streaming as soon as the technology is suffiently good enough. I think consumers may demand it more and more as time goes on too.

This is the worst-case scenario for me, because I like having local media. I can't imagine that changing, but much stranger things have happened in the past with tech.
 

Jom

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,490
It's kinda funny that people and media just assume because it's Microsoft that this will somehow be a great implementation of streaming gaming or even much better than psnow. Yeah yeah Microsoft has loads of money and is huge, but how is that W10 app store or even W10 update implementation going?
 

DrDeckard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,109
UK
Right, but this isn't really about popularity, sales, or who does it better. It's not even acknowledging a streaming service that already exist and has for years.

I don't care about streaming games at all. It's just a little funny to me.




Streaming is streaming.

Sony did have PSNow on more devices. Maybe with this new competition they'll think about expanding it back.

I totally agree, they should be recognized but I do think it's more a thing that Google and MS are planning this service to run on absolutely anything.
 

XVerdena

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,918
Provided that's the case, I will be happy and just fine!
I actually think that expanding your potential audience through game streaming could even become a good thing for console/pc gamers. It could mean more money for publishers/devs and a more healty industry, which could lead to more games being developed for us all.
 

Jokegeta

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
890
All Sony has to do is watch and see how it turns out. Once Sony puts their first party games on any streaming service, its game over period.
 

Expy

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,860
Microsoft entered the game streaming market last, and all of a sudden they started the war? lol
 

LCGeek

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,856
I don't legitimately think streaming will do well but for the sake of argument... it absolutely will restrict what games are available. We already live in a time when many digital games are simply not available in a physical form, which means people on terrible internet around here have to come into town and borrow a friend's connection to download, or simply never be able to play that particular game, period. No doubt streaming will be the same.

If MS/Google/etc really wanted to generate some goodwill and some new business, they'd start funding high-speed internet in rural areas (yes I know about Google Fiber, call me when they start connecting communities <5K people). But since that's actually hard work, I don't see that happening.

High bandwidth internet won't change what plagues latency outside that it will cap people from making one of the basic issues of bufferbloat happen which isn't that there isn't enough. Even if you have bandwidth bufferbloat symptoms can still be felt by the queue length, your nic device buffers, the queueing discipline itself, vm settings, and coalesce settings all which while do effect your bandwidth easily can effect your latency in various fashions as well.

Google is doing plenty of hardwork, I know because dave taht reports on some of it considering he works for them and google still lets him manage big parts of the movement.

Are they doing enough no, but don't blame google fiber on google blame it on shitty politcians wanting to help out the shitty ISPs which even compared to MS are garbage on bufferbloat sans comcast. You sound just saavy enough to know about Last mile issues in why a lot of companies or even cities/towns can start up their own ISPs. Shame we lack politicians to explain all this to masses cause they would be pissed to know the reach around ISP get while everyone else is left to deal with the problems of that cronyism.
 

MentalZer0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,361
Comparing video games with movies and music? Video games are interactive media, the best you can get in this form. I see Game streaming as an additional option to enjoy video games. The classic way to play video games is untouchable, especially on PC.

For me, at least, game streaming services can die anytime. I want to see all the real pixels on my screen :)