-
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.
I'm not paying for console game streaming (Microsoft xCloud, Google Project Stream) what about you?
- Thread starter SharpX68K
- Start date
It totally depends on the price. Until we know more details about the service, there is no way to answer this question.
I have no plans to stop buying games for local hardware, but if I have an extra option to stream those games on the fly, and the price is right, then yes I'll be there.
I have no plans to stop buying games for local hardware, but if I have an extra option to stream those games on the fly, and the price is right, then yes I'll be there.
I will buy and play on physical console at home, but I am open to streaming in some use caeses.
It would be cool to play in a hotel while on a business trip. Or play some single player games from other platforms without buying the console for just that one or two games. For example Sony would get $60 (+ price of streaming) from me if they had Horizon on streaming which is much better than $0 that they got so far.
It would be cool to play in a hotel while on a business trip. Or play some single player games from other platforms without buying the console for just that one or two games. For example Sony would get $60 (+ price of streaming) from me if they had Horizon on streaming which is much better than $0 that they got so far.
I think streaming games will have many advantages we cannot foresee right now. I mean. Imagine having the advantages you have using switch but without the power limitations it has. I want to be playing the next Final Fantasy on my big TV and then just turn on my switch when I go to bed to play just a few minutes more. And there it is, exactly as I left it in the big screen.
Obviously this is just if it works perfectly.
Obviously this is just if it works perfectly.
I use Netflix and Spotify, yes. I don't mind *not* owning that stuff. Games on the other hand I want and I want on a shelf.
I'm stuck with Comcast and I can't even stream too many 4k movies without these assholes giving me a warning about going over their data cap. Game streaming isn't an option for me because I don't want to pay for something that is going to make me go over my cap and incur more fees.
I'm not paying for any streaming services currently either.
Because the 2 biggest ones have yet to be unveiled.
So I won't make a determination on whether they are appealing or not until they've been unveiled.
Because the 2 biggest ones have yet to be unveiled.
So I won't make a determination on whether they are appealing or not until they've been unveiled.
OK, so it's not liked you said. "I like to, y'know, own the things that I pay money for." and that's OK, you can choose whatever option you like, but the same benefits that you enjoy by paying Netflix and Spotify will more and more apply to games as time goes on.
Something that I expect to see eventually is for cloud gaming services to not cut out of the data limit for people with data caps. Heck, that might even be a surprise when Google gives the details about their service.
They have, sure. I was impressed with the results from Project Stream. I have a gigabit connection at home, but the latency was still too much. I am hypersensitive to it, so I need as close to local latency as I can get. I could live with the video quality, but that'd be an extra bonus.
This is how I view it.
If these Cloud services are like Playstation Now (monthly fee gives you access to all games on the service), the latency is low enough, and the price is reasonable, then I'd totally be willing to try it out.
If the price is too high, you have to individually buy the games you stream, or the latency sucks, then I won't do it.
And games I still know I want to own I'll still buy. Like I buy all the Marvel movies on Bluray, but there's plenty of movies I like and don't own because they're on Netflix or Amazon Prime.
For what I have seen Geforce Now is even better that the Project Stream Beta. On regards to latency you can find examples like PUBG and Fortnite running at 120fps on Geforce Now, compare that to Fornite running on the Switch at 30fps. So at some point we must stop using lower latency like it's some kind of default for local gaming. I have seen people here that report having only 1ms of latency to one of the Nvidia servers. This is an ideal situation of course, but you will see how this type of scenario becomes more and more common as more servers for cloud gaming open.
I have nothing against the option to stream games. That doesn't mean I will give up purchasing and downloading my games - it simply means I am open to more options.
Hell, I only play 1 or 2 games on year on PS4. If Sony offers their library on PS Now I may forego buying a PS5 and just play whatever they make through streaming.
Hell, I only play 1 or 2 games on year on PS4. If Sony offers their library on PS Now I may forego buying a PS5 and just play whatever they make through streaming.
I'd pay depending on price and quality. I dont play anything remotely fast paced away from my PC(too addicted to 144hz and a M/KB), so being able to pay $20/mo or whatever to stream console games instead of $60 a pop(and then hundreds for the consoles) would be completely ok with me, assuming they can match current "console-quality" visuals/input lag which I suspect they will be able to do over the next few years. I beta tested Project Stream for an hour or so and found the input lag to be completely acceptable(definitely felt less responsive than a 144FPS native game, but given that the stream was 60FPS and I haven't played an AC game in a decade, it felt completely fine to me) so if they can replicate that experience consistently, I'm down.
What a ridiculously arrogant reply. I fully intend on embracing streaming because I hate clutter.
I'd be willing to pay for PSNOW once the quality of the experience is carbon copy the same as running on local hardware, no drops, no lag, no pixelation of the content (not even for a couple seconds). And it would be on top of being able to play games physically on the box.
Sorry didn't mean to come across as arrogant I just think streaming is adding an unnecessary layer to what is already ideal
I'm open to it. If I can lay in bed, stream Forza Horizon 5 on my phone and knock off some collectibles or something I'd be game.
I also love the idea of one account for all my hardware, so being able to stream to a Switch/Phone w/ my Xbox account is appealing.
I also love the idea of one account for all my hardware, so being able to stream to a Switch/Phone w/ my Xbox account is appealing.
Don't know how you can say that, when many are showing interest and are saying how this type of service might be useful. Playing your game library anywhere you have access to a good enough connection, not having to pay the console/PC price to play the games you want to play, how is that unnecessary? I mean you could be talking only about what you want, but you seem to be talking about anyone that is interested in this type of service as kids who don't know what they want.
Last edited:
My interest in paying for any streaming service hinges entirely on its ability to provide access to my existing library of paid-for games on a mobile device. If one of them allows me to play my entire Steam library on my phone when I'm away from home without also wanting to charge me for game entitlements (ie, GamePass model) then I would absolutely pay for it. The only other scenario where I would consider double dipping on a game via streaming would be for GaaS/persistant world games that offer account-based cross-progress (which tend to be F2P anyway). Still chasing that unicorn of grinding out resources on my PC Warframe account while on my lunch break at work.
For certain games latency isnt as big of an issue as you would think. And you'd be surprised how far image quality has come for game streaming.
The only games I had issue with playing over Nvidia's solution how ever many years ago that was, was games with a counter button, like Batman, Assassins creed, etc. I would miss the counter every time. But every other game I played (Borderlands, Saints Row4, a few others) played totally fine
It is early days... The tech is getting better all the time and attitudes will all change one day.
I once swore that I would never buy digital music over CDs. Now I don't even buy digital music, I just stream music.
I once swore that I would never buy digital movies over DVDs/Blu-Rays. Now I don't even buy digital movies, I just stream them.
I think that most of us swore we'd never buy digital games over disc-based games. That has changed dramatically this generation. One day, we will be streaming games through services without even thinking about it.
It is sad, though!
I'm satisfied with digital downloads already, streaming is not quite there yet so wouldn''t jump in straight away. I think the better way to introduce streaming is to make it part of every game purchase you make if you buy the games full price digitally. People can test the options out of interest and see where they are with it and if it doesn't work, then they don't really lose out but if satisfied, would use it more often when travelling around not really for home use.
I used to agree with this, until I realized the disc is out of date the week it comes out for many non-Nintendo games.
Nop, I'm sick of subscription based models. Let my netflix account die a few months ago and couldn't be happier
That's not an issue at all IMO. You pay for services and as long as the service works good enough I dont see why anyone who has capable internet and data would opt out of paying a monthly fee or yearly fee to have access to a high end gaming experience. Couple that with one of the many subscription services popping up like gamepass or now and you have a good recipe to get lots of people in with relatively low cost upfront. Now obviously the tech hasn't been up to par so far so I have my doubts on if it could actually offer a level of experience akin to a high end PC or even xbox one x with respect to lag and IQ but if someone figures out the issues I think lots of ppl would hop on board. (Edit for spelling)
I think we generally put to much weight into the idea of "owning" something and hold to tightly to that concept in the traditional way. I mean if you want to play something and you have access to it anytime you want (under circumstances that currently apply to most games) then why should it matter how you access that material? In the end the result is the same.
After trying Project Stream it's a definite no. Poor visual quality and horrible framerate on a good connection is a total no go if you want me to pay monthly for your product. There's also the problem of how much data it actually uses and having a data cap.
Nope let it die. Even if we had the infrastructure widespread I don't see any benefit on the consumer side of things for streaming to even be a thing. I still don't see value in Digital games besides having to change out the disk or cartridge out of convenience.
I just wish people won't astroturf or back it up with weak comments on how its "the way of the future" because it's not. It's just a potential reality where consumer lose more rights over their ownership and rights of the titles they purchase & play.
I just wish people won't astroturf or back it up with weak comments on how its "the way of the future" because it's not. It's just a potential reality where consumer lose more rights over their ownership and rights of the titles they purchase & play.
I've dabbled with PS Now. Played a few hours of Fallout 3. A little Tales of Zestiria. A tiny bit of Asura's Wrath. A couple others. It seems perfectly fine. In fact, the ability to sample a game you may otherwise never buy nearly instantly without installing it feels pretty powerfully novel.
How many of you seem to live in a world of perfect network conditions?
Read this article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio
"20 to 50 subscribers, each assigned or sold a bandwidth of "up to" 8 Mbit/s for instance, may be sharing 8 Mbit/s of downlink bandwidth"
This is how consumer broadband works. In the evening your connection going to be toast.
It's like getting an OLED TV and being told that using it as you'd normally do is using it improperly. Imagine trying to play a new game and having to stay up till 2am just to not get some shitty 480p stream.
Read this article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio
"20 to 50 subscribers, each assigned or sold a bandwidth of "up to" 8 Mbit/s for instance, may be sharing 8 Mbit/s of downlink bandwidth"
This is how consumer broadband works. In the evening your connection going to be toast.
It's like getting an OLED TV and being told that using it as you'd normally do is using it improperly. Imagine trying to play a new game and having to stay up till 2am just to not get some shitty 480p stream.
Those are some... interesting options to vote for.
I'm not TOTALLY AGAINST IT, but I'm not interested in the current services so unless they were to introduce something amazing suddenly, I won't be in.
There could have been other options instead of so many "yes" ones.
I'm not TOTALLY AGAINST IT, but I'm not interested in the current services so unless they were to introduce something amazing suddenly, I won't be in.
There could have been other options instead of so many "yes" ones.
Virgin Media already is, G.Fast should get FTTC up to speed.
As long as there's local servers with minimal latency, I'm down with giving them a go next gen.
Nah, I'm fine with PS+/Game Pass services where I can actually download the game and don't need to worry about my connection or input lag.
On FTTC contention hadn't been a factor for years. Connections have been more limited by line conditions individually. Peak time speeds on FTTC in THE UK are generally fine.
Virgin Media is a different story, peak time contention is a big issue in certain locations because of old equipment that is limited by DOCSIS spectrum limitations.