Sure, but Microsoft has the money to put as many as they want on each country they have the service. Sony doesn't.
-
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.
Eurogamer: Google and Xbox just started the next platform war And this one will be different.
- Thread starter SharpX68K
- Start date
It's a bit surprising how completely NV is ignored in these discussions, given that you can easily argue that they offer the most "complete" streaming service right now.
- You can stream thousands of games.
- You actually own those games, and can e.g. take your progress in them to a local system (and back).
You can argue that NV isn't a real competitor to those large companies, but they aren't some tiny startup either. And more importantly, they provide the entire stack from the server GPU hardware over the software and infrastructure all the way to the consumer streaming hardware (Shield), and can therefore offer the lowest server-side latencies.
I'm not really interested in any of these services, but if I had to choose one it would be the one where I own my games and save data.
- You can stream thousands of games.
- You actually own those games, and can e.g. take your progress in them to a local system (and back).
You can argue that NV isn't a real competitor to those large companies, but they aren't some tiny startup either. And more importantly, they provide the entire stack from the server GPU hardware over the software and infrastructure all the way to the consumer streaming hardware (Shield), and can therefore offer the lowest server-side latencies.
I'm not really interested in any of these services, but if I had to choose one it would be the one where I own my games and save data.
I would try it, but I still want to at least be able to dl my games like I have been this gen. I have a 25 down connection and don't think it would be very stable in my situation. Still, I didn't think without a much broader, faster connected spread pf high speed internet throughout the US that this was anything more than a pipe dream save for people on the coasts for a loooooong time. Neat.
MS has alot more data center globally compared to Sony...
Example: I'm from Singapore. There's Azure server datacebter in singapore and makaysia. The nearest PS now server from me in Singapore is probably Japan. And it's region locked (I can't test it using my local PSN acct).
Also, the number of streamable devices seems to have decreased to only PS4 and PC/Mac.
If Sony truly want to expand, they need to have Android/iOS client for it as well.
Have I completely misunderstood what Microsoft is trying to do? Isn't it to allow you to stream games you own? An additional way to play your game. But you need to buy the game to stream it (or for it to be included in "Game Pass" or other service)?
Or is this some stealth "digital cant be owned" post?
Well technically Nintendo is also in the mix in Japan (not that they have their own infrastructure but they allow third parties to launch and test these games)
Considering how slow is Google on these things, i don't think Project Stream will be launched in other countries outside the US anytime soon.
Considering how slow is Google on these things, i don't think Project Stream will be launched in other countries outside the US anytime soon.
Last edited:
This explanation makes little sense when there is a grand total of one game announced between Project Stream and xCloud.
There's no reason for Amazon, Google, or Microsoft to team up with Sony on this one because Sony would limit it to Sony hardware, and these companies would want it on their own hardware as well as everyone else's hardware. Look at how Google has tried to shift to its own premium units, Amazon's building its entire tech ecosystem through Fire/Alexa, and then Microsoft is pretty self-explanatory.
Amazon, if they get involved, are going to want to do the same thing MS and Google are gonna do: focus on third parties, get as many games as possible, release them on as many platforms as possible in order to reach the widest customer base. Sony simply has nothing to offer anyone else except as a third party, and since they already have their own streaming service, they're unlikely to want to hop on another service as a third party. They don't have the infrastructure to keep up with the big bois tho, so their success in the streaming world is unlikely.
A lot of people are assuming we're moving to a model where you don't buy games individually, but subscribe to a service and play everything on that service.
The hardware isnt there at that datacenter for MS. The only difference would be final cost as MS owns the space while Sony would need to rent.
Streaming is the future because of how it lets people interact. Two decades ago, no one in the console space was heavily invested in online gaming. It was Microsoft that came in and invested heavily on the online setup. That same time we were looking at mobile phones simply as communication devices as opposed to the multiple tiered communication and entertainment devices they are today.
Back then if you wanted to game, you would need to buy hardware or go to the arcade while today you can do that on a device primarily invented to help with communication. Two billion gamers in the world, an ever increasing presence of gamers in the online space and more and more developers targeting mobile markets.
Streaming allows Microsoft, Google and Amazon to sell and distribute content to people that may have an issue going out to buy a console or high end gaming PC while offering a subscription model. The future of entertainment is more and more on low cost, high volume business to supplement the existing business models. These are the three companies that already have that infrastructure in place.
Agree. Nvidia has done it already, but it is news when Google and Microsoft start a fight. It'll always be.
Either way, I'm happy that Microsoft is looking at the Nvidia model. Own your games or play via Gamepass and you can play where you want. It's better than not owning any game or making it seperate from the traditional console.
Agree. I don't share the sentiment that Google and Microsoft have an unbeatable advantage here. If Sony changes their ideology on gaming and start using more third party datacenters then PS Now can become a huge success. THey'll need to improve the gaming library and their global reach for that tho.
How is the pricing model likely to be on this kind of thing?
Will it be a £7 a month Netflix thing, and if so how will publishers who currently sell £40 games make use of it? F2P only games? Legacy titles in a back catalogue thing? Tons more microtransactions on everything to make up for the loss of that £40 per game?
I agree streaming is the future, but it's going to be a while before the service is working well for most people. People still have buffering issues with Netflix etc.
Will it be a £7 a month Netflix thing, and if so how will publishers who currently sell £40 games make use of it? F2P only games? Legacy titles in a back catalogue thing? Tons more microtransactions on everything to make up for the loss of that £40 per game?
I agree streaming is the future, but it's going to be a while before the service is working well for most people. People still have buffering issues with Netflix etc.
Can't you already use PSNow on several devices including PC?
EDIT: No, just PC.
If physical ever goes away I'll be more than happy to check out. There is a vibrant retro scene and thousands of games I haven't played yet.
Because for obvious reasons Microsoft and Google are so much better than Sony when it comes to software and services.
But that doesn't mean this time will be a huge success, i can still this being something slightly better than what Onlive was, it all depends on how aggressively these companies will push cloud games.
I dont trust MS to release it outside the US/UK(at most) for quite some time either
This is not about what games were announced yet (since the projects are still basically projects) but what they intend to announce - full libraries instead of select old titles. That they are being tested with Odyssey and not Unity already show the difference in mentality between it and ps now
Current streaming solutions are between $20 and $40 per month. I expect them to go under that price a bit, so I'll reckon between $10 and $15 per month.
iirc it's only on sony gaming devices and PCs, and that's it? I don't believe it's on ios, mac, or android devices.
If MS has a model where I buy a game or subscribe to a service, I can play locally on an Xbox or PC, or even stream on a variety of other devices in the near future then Sony may need to change their attitude quick. I'm not saying it's all doom and gloom but that could be huge. Not only is the more core gamer playing Halo Infinite on his Xbox or PC but he is going to school and showing his friends while he streams on his phone. "How did you get that?" They ask. I think it's a powerful proposition if MS plays their cards right. Sony need to get on the train in a big way if they aren't already moving that direction behind closed doors.
How many subscribers is the most popular streaming service likely to have in the next 5 years?
How many machines do you need to support that userbase?
How much will provision for that cost?
Will that cost challenge the several billions Sony spends annually right now on the existing logistics of game distribution alone?
I'd wager the likely upper end of scope of a mass streaming service in the next 5-10 years is unlikely to challenge the scope of the physical distribution market Sony is already dealing with today.
I think in these discussions, people also ignore an obvious set of infrastructure that Sony/MS/Nintendo could leverage, and that would favour those companies that pump more hardware into homes. Do not be surprised if Sony (or indeed MS) ends up allowing users with sufficiently good internet connections to lease back portions of their idle game machine time back to the cloud for streaming to other users. Sony technically has stepped into this territory with private sharing. They could turn on a more general virtualisation across their entire PS4 consumer network and use that to augment datacenter capacity. 'Even' Microsoft - and Nintendo ultimately - could be minded toward a strategy like this for the benefits of reach it could offer.
Why the assumption this won't improve? If PSNow bumped their bandwidth baseline to match Google's - for example - that alone would allow them to cut latency, without any other initiatives.
Lol
Sony is the "market leader" in game streaming in the same way Microsoft was the "market leader" in smartphone OSes up until 2007
Because the author should make game steaming better than it is actually is... so putting "next platform", "future", "battle", etc in the article makes the reader think this time it will really success.
BTW nVidia Now was left outside the window too lol
Well, that's what Microsofts goal is. Sony will need to reevaluate their business model within 5 years in my opinion. The next God of War should be playable on a phone in a streaming service.
Don't you agree that Sony's current offerings are not the way the 'streaming future' should be? We should be looking at Nvidia's efforts instead in my opinion.
One model (the one currently offered by NV) is that you need to actually own the games that you play. E.g. you log into your Steam, or Uplay, or whatever account and play the games you have there (and saves are stored in their cloud storage).
The only thing you rent is the actual compute power to run and bandwidth to stream the games. This has the obvious advantages of huge library and actually owning the games, but the disadvantage (from a casual perspective) of needing to own the games.
Or second world counties
Or most locations in first world countries since the internet infrastructure simply isn't there outside of the big cities in most places.
This is why you won't be seeing too many day of date titles from third party unless they are not part of the subscription model. Last I checked the couple being offered on Switch are the same price as retail. Now you need to convince gamers streaming is just as good as buying a digital copy, so far that's been a tough sell.
Then the service is not for them is it? That doesn't mean we shouldn't be pursuing better infrastructure in more regions and we should not be advocating for better quality like 4K and Netflix. Microsoft took a gamble years ago by requiring broadband speeds for Xbox Live at a time when most had dial-up. Seems to have paid off.
5G will be coming to most Western European countries within 6 years.
I really think Sony needs to change their attitude on this if they haven't already.
Someone make the image of Google Stream and xCloud inside with PSNow looking in from outside the window in the rain, lol
This initiative seems to run counter to that of ISPs increasingly looking to monetise the broadband speeds necessary.
I wonder if Google and MS would try and reach arrangements with ISPs or whether they're accepting that this will only be a product for the affluent.
I wonder if Google and MS would try and reach arrangements with ISPs or whether they're accepting that this will only be a product for the affluent.
I think they tend to want to exert way more control over things than everyone else. Look at how awful in-home streaming on the PC from PS4 is, vs Microsoft's Xbox integration. MS just needs Bluetooth. Sony needs special controller dongles and barely works.
With Project xCloud, Microsoft has committed to putting ALL their games and most Xbox One games on the platform as they launch.
Sony has made no such commitment, and their service seems limited to old games.
I assure you, PS Now would have been a big deal if Spider-Man launched on the platform day and date with release.
You can't have it both ways. An anemic service will likely not have popular acclaim
Will it have Last of Us 2 day and date? Because if not it will continue to be an unattractive service.
While history have proven time and again than we can trade drops in quality for ease-of-use (see compressed audio vs. uncompressed audio), the issues raised by game streaming far surpass say being limited to 1080p vids on a 4k TV.
In many games, lag make it feel awfully wrong and quite a bit of people can feel that even if they aren't able to articulate what's wrong.
But then again, you never know. Maybe most people will see no issue when playing CoD 2022 with 200ms input lag.
But aren't most of the existing PC services out there a matter of monthly free + play the game you already own on Steam.
In other words you still purchase games as you currently do, you just no longer shell out the initial upfront cost of a PC/console. You pay monthly instead to 'rent' one.
Well, guess you Americans shouldn't have given those ISP's so much power. Now you want to rely on tech giants to save you from the ISP's? ;) Don't you have a government?
The USA can be a weird country.
Yes. Isn't that how it should be? You still own your games, can still play them on your console. Or, use Gamepass (or comparable services) and play any game you want for an extra fee.
Yeah, I know. And I'm sure both Google and Microsoft will offer compelling services when they're good to go. But that doesn't change the fact that Sony has a solution today with over 600 games to stream and play today. Just seems bizarre to me to brush aside all of it, limitations and all.
Sony can put whatever they want on there. If it runs like this, people will continue to give zero fucks.
From back when I played beta, sometimes this happens for a few mins. But 99% of the experience is more like this: