-
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.
I'm not paying for console game streaming (Microsoft xCloud, Google Project Stream) what about you?
- Thread starter SharpX68K
- Start date
I have an insane connection with direct fiber straight into my apartment and I'll always have at least two frames of lag streaming.
Fuck that.
Fuck that.
What information do you have on FTTC? BT do not publically state it anymore.
There's also the connection into the ISP's core network that can be contented as well.
It's a fantasy to assume that low latency, high bandwidth streaming won't be affected.
i'd definitely get a streaming only console if they offered one next gen.
i only have a PS4 for exclusives and i don't exactly buy a console for good performance/graphics. i play mainly on PC so it'd be perfect for me to play games i can't on PC for whatever reason.
i only have a PS4 for exclusives and i don't exactly buy a console for good performance/graphics. i play mainly on PC so it'd be perfect for me to play games i can't on PC for whatever reason.
Nope. I like to own hard- and software. I don't want on-going payments and I don't want to be depended on that service to play my games.
PS Now is not bundled with Plus and guess what? It's not dead by any means.
Well, since the details about PS5 are still non-existent, I cannot definitely decide anything.
But, I am open to streaming PS Now (if and when it becomes available in my country), under current conditions of being able to download a game and play locally for a subscription fee.
However, other than my current PS4, I really don't own any other hardware to stream on, and no way I am doing it on my phone.
My PS4 will be 7 years old when PS5 comes out, so the most likely choice is to purchase a new console and stream using it.
I have no allegiance towards game ownership, stream and discard is perfect strategy for me.
But, I am open to streaming PS Now (if and when it becomes available in my country), under current conditions of being able to download a game and play locally for a subscription fee.
However, other than my current PS4, I really don't own any other hardware to stream on, and no way I am doing it on my phone.
My PS4 will be 7 years old when PS5 comes out, so the most likely choice is to purchase a new console and stream using it.
I have no allegiance towards game ownership, stream and discard is perfect strategy for me.
If the tech gets to a point where the image quality is up to par and the input lag isn't noticeable, I'd absolutely pay for a games streaming service. I've long since gone all digital (outside of books and vinyl) and certainly don't miss ugly plastic filling up my house. I'd probably be willing to check out more games on streaming than having to make individual purchases.
The vitriol here is pretty disappointing -- it's the same kind of silly, impulsive dismissal we still see toward stuff like mobile games or motion controls. I'm always amazed at how reticent gamers are to almost any sort of change; the entire hobby is built on a foundation of technology, and evolution is intrinsic to technology. Gamers are some bizarre traditionalists.
The vitriol here is pretty disappointing -- it's the same kind of silly, impulsive dismissal we still see toward stuff like mobile games or motion controls. I'm always amazed at how reticent gamers are to almost any sort of change; the entire hobby is built on a foundation of technology, and evolution is intrinsic to technology. Gamers are some bizarre traditionalists.
Ofcom release peak and off peak speed statistics periodically as part of the regulation to advertise average speeds.
Average speeds roughly match line sync speeds on FTTC in the UK now. Think broadband has good stats on this. Remember most bandwidth usage is now streaming and there far more videos steamed than even if every gamer switched to streaming.
Bandwidth isn't the issue here at least, latency is as Virgin Media implementation of DOCSIS 3 is very jittery and doesn't focus on latency like 1 and 2 did.
Hopefully G.Fast wont affect latency as FTTC latency is generally excellent if you're on a good line.
Well even on BT Openreach FTTP they say there's contention. And average speeds is one thing but if usage spikes up with game streaming then that could have an effect.
The difference with video streaming is that you can have local delivery at the ISP that is relatively cheap reducing bandwidth that needs to travel to their core network and to the internet. But with a game it's for an individual and on a path to whatever data centre it's running at.
It's a significant leap. I remember reading that Vodafone do 2 10gbps links to their core network at every exchange they're in. That's certainly a bottleneck even if Home to Exchange doesn't have contention.
Users might find that they need to switch ISP after their ISP has a sale and gets oversubscribed.
I'll stick with physical copies for as long as it's an option, and will continue buying digital when it's convenient (if I don't want to wait for shipping or if the discount is good or if I just don't care about a game enough to get it physical). Really don't see a scenario in which streaming is more attractive to me than either of the normal options.
This is really my issue. If quality and lag can hit parity then I'm all in. Tried PS Now, Nvidia beta Streaming, Project Stream, and a few others. Google was the best but even then it was just ok.
When it comes to games (and movies, music, & books), I want to own what I buy. Under U.S. federal law, physical copies are treated as "sold, not licensed" and are covered under the First Sale Doctrine, meaning I can sell, lend, trade, or gift those copies at my own discretion. Digital copies are treated as the exact opposite, being considered "licensed, not sold." If you download a digital copy from the XBL Marketplace, Nintendo Store, Steam, etc., that copy belongs to the publisher, not you, and they can dictate if, when, and how you are able to sell, lend, trade, or gift a copy. If they do so, it's only as a courtesy, as they have no legal obligation to do so. And they can rescind your license at any time for any reason or no reason at all. That's not the only issue I have with digital downloads, but I'll leave it at that since the topic is about streaming video games.
To me, streaming is even worse than downloads. At least with a downloaded copy, it will remain on my storage medium of choice as long as said medium exists (however long that is; hard drives don't last nearly as long as a well-maintained disc or cartridge). But I refuse to invest in streaming games for the same reason I refuse to invest in always-online games. I just don't like the idea of a game that is completely dependent on having an online connection. It requires more than just a system, the electricity to power it, and the copy of the game. It also necessitates that your connection, the game's servers, and (if applicable) the online service you're using to all be up and running, and if any one of those things go down for any reason, the game is absolutely useless to you.
Streaming spreads the problems with always-online games to gaming as a whole because it makes even single-player games dependent on a constant internet connection. If I'm unable to connect to the streaming service for any reason, that means no playing anything until the connection can be re-established, and the quality of my gameplay experience is dependent on the quality of the internet connection. If a game is removed from the service for any reason, such as being rotated out Netflix-style or simply being de-listed because there was some sort of rights issue or the publisher went under or just wanted to stop making games (like when Irem stopped making games and forced Nintendo, MS, & Sony to temporarily de-list every Irem title from their digital stores), then you don't get to play that game until it gets re-listed, which may never happen depending on the circumstances. I don't have these problems with my offline games. My NES games are still perfectly playable after 30 years, as are every other physical game I have. Same with movies. I have Ghostbusters 1 & 2 on Blu-ray. Good luck watching them on Netflix, since they were removed earlier this month.
if streaming continues to be an option, and only an option, I won't mind its existence, but the moment the industry abandons physical games is the moment I abandon them. And it irritates me immensely when people hope and actually push for a digital-only future. There are people out there that, whether they realize it or not, don't want me to be able to buy physical copies of anything anymore. They don't want me to have the option. That's what I hate. The claimed "convenience" of digital does not to me outweigh what I feel are significant drawbacks. In fact, I feel the supposed convenience of digital is vastly overstated. I have muscular dystrophy, yet I'm not beyond taking the less than 30 seconds needed to swap discs (I timed myself). So, you might save maybe 20 seconds every time you switch from playing one game to another if you have them digitally. Is that really such a massive time saver? And then there's the "I don't have to get up to switch between games" people, which for able-bodied people is just laziness and is an argument that can be summarily disposed of.
Also, I've seen a couple of people bring up the environmental impact of physical games, which is also vastly overstated. As of Dec. 31, 2018, there were 876 million PS4 games shipped globally. Now, presumably not all of those are physical copies, but let's assume that about 80% of them are, meaning about 700 million discs. One PS4 disc is about 13.57 cubic centimeters, so if you melted all those discs down and made a cube out of them, it would be only about 9.5 billion cubic centimeters, which sounds like a lot until you realize that that's a cube only a little over 21 meters per edge. That could fit into my small-ish back yard, and would only be a tiny section of the typical landfill. And the game cases (original dimensions, meaning not melted down, since they are storage boxes) occupy only about 23.67 times the volume, meaning a roughly cubic shaped stack of 700 million PS4 game cases would be about 61 meters per edge. So, even if every PS4 owner threw out all of their physical copies, case and all, the amount of garbage would be far, far from ruinous (in the U.S. alone, all the garbage tossed in one year amounts to a cube 805 meters tall), and I'd submit that only a tiny percentage of those games actually will be discarded. Oh, and game discs and cases can be recycled.
If you want to use minuscule time savings, or laziness, or keeping your garbage to the most absolute minimum humanly possible as reasons to go all-digital, then by all means go all-digital, but don't insist that the rest of us do so as well. A Nielsen survey from last summer showed two-thirds of console gamers prefer physical copies. The demand for physical is real, and if that demand is ignored by the industry because of some push for a mandatory digital/streaming regime, then they don't deserve my money.
To me, streaming is even worse than downloads. At least with a downloaded copy, it will remain on my storage medium of choice as long as said medium exists (however long that is; hard drives don't last nearly as long as a well-maintained disc or cartridge). But I refuse to invest in streaming games for the same reason I refuse to invest in always-online games. I just don't like the idea of a game that is completely dependent on having an online connection. It requires more than just a system, the electricity to power it, and the copy of the game. It also necessitates that your connection, the game's servers, and (if applicable) the online service you're using to all be up and running, and if any one of those things go down for any reason, the game is absolutely useless to you.
Streaming spreads the problems with always-online games to gaming as a whole because it makes even single-player games dependent on a constant internet connection. If I'm unable to connect to the streaming service for any reason, that means no playing anything until the connection can be re-established, and the quality of my gameplay experience is dependent on the quality of the internet connection. If a game is removed from the service for any reason, such as being rotated out Netflix-style or simply being de-listed because there was some sort of rights issue or the publisher went under or just wanted to stop making games (like when Irem stopped making games and forced Nintendo, MS, & Sony to temporarily de-list every Irem title from their digital stores), then you don't get to play that game until it gets re-listed, which may never happen depending on the circumstances. I don't have these problems with my offline games. My NES games are still perfectly playable after 30 years, as are every other physical game I have. Same with movies. I have Ghostbusters 1 & 2 on Blu-ray. Good luck watching them on Netflix, since they were removed earlier this month.
if streaming continues to be an option, and only an option, I won't mind its existence, but the moment the industry abandons physical games is the moment I abandon them. And it irritates me immensely when people hope and actually push for a digital-only future. There are people out there that, whether they realize it or not, don't want me to be able to buy physical copies of anything anymore. They don't want me to have the option. That's what I hate. The claimed "convenience" of digital does not to me outweigh what I feel are significant drawbacks. In fact, I feel the supposed convenience of digital is vastly overstated. I have muscular dystrophy, yet I'm not beyond taking the less than 30 seconds needed to swap discs (I timed myself). So, you might save maybe 20 seconds every time you switch from playing one game to another if you have them digitally. Is that really such a massive time saver? And then there's the "I don't have to get up to switch between games" people, which for able-bodied people is just laziness and is an argument that can be summarily disposed of.
Also, I've seen a couple of people bring up the environmental impact of physical games, which is also vastly overstated. As of Dec. 31, 2018, there were 876 million PS4 games shipped globally. Now, presumably not all of those are physical copies, but let's assume that about 80% of them are, meaning about 700 million discs. One PS4 disc is about 13.57 cubic centimeters, so if you melted all those discs down and made a cube out of them, it would be only about 9.5 billion cubic centimeters, which sounds like a lot until you realize that that's a cube only a little over 21 meters per edge. That could fit into my small-ish back yard, and would only be a tiny section of the typical landfill. And the game cases (original dimensions, meaning not melted down, since they are storage boxes) occupy only about 23.67 times the volume, meaning a roughly cubic shaped stack of 700 million PS4 game cases would be about 61 meters per edge. So, even if every PS4 owner threw out all of their physical copies, case and all, the amount of garbage would be far, far from ruinous (in the U.S. alone, all the garbage tossed in one year amounts to a cube 805 meters tall), and I'd submit that only a tiny percentage of those games actually will be discarded. Oh, and game discs and cases can be recycled.
If you want to use minuscule time savings, or laziness, or keeping your garbage to the most absolute minimum humanly possible as reasons to go all-digital, then by all means go all-digital, but don't insist that the rest of us do so as well. A Nielsen survey from last summer showed two-thirds of console gamers prefer physical copies. The demand for physical is real, and if that demand is ignored by the industry because of some push for a mandatory digital/streaming regime, then they don't deserve my money.
I never thought I'd see the day when a good percentage of this community would be fighting against the inevitable future. I wasn't around on Gaf when Netflix and Hulu first started poppin but I can only imagine the meltdowns and resistance.
Netflix and company are by their very nature non-interactive and don't need realtime inputs to modify what is shown, heard and altered. They are the modern digital form of old VHS formats being streamed, with minimal care for interactivity. Buffering, buffering, please wait buffering was like the biggest hurdle that needed to improve technically, and bandwidth solved that.
For videogames, interactivity is paramount. You can stream data into a computer and process that information locally to get the best latency and minimal lag, but you could do that with cartridges, cassettes, CDs, Blu Rays or remotely download data for local processing. Why do I have to stream this instead and rely on external servers to be available for me to play videogames, which I have been playing fine over the last 40 years?
Because we will eventually reach a bandwidth and computational speed where that issue won't matter anymore. You're judging an entire future of game streaming technology on its infancy, which is never a good way to judge anything. It would be like judging VR's future on only the wired helmets we see today. I've seen the "why" and "impossible" arguments time and time again to where we are proven wrong over time, almost every time. What really makes this so different?
I'm not against steaming consoles, I'm just not personally interested in it. I like to own my games physically.
That's the techie argument, so this argument supports the current download model. This reaching of bandwidth and computational speed means we can download to a local computing device near enough instantly, and we can make the most of local computation for better latency and minimal lag.
So why do I still need streaming and to rely on external servers to play videogames? The business argument is more control from the publishers to control prices and get a subscription model in place, which they've been trying to do for the longest time.
People already struggle with lag playing MP games and the data exchanged in these scenarios are significantly smaller than streaming the entire game from servers that are god knows where. And that's without even talking about ISPs and their love for data caps and overpriced slow speeds.
There are very few scenarios where the ability to stream a game is in any way preferable to local hardware (like, I dunno, your console breaking or you traveling for a period of time where it doesn't make sense to bring dedicated gaming hardware along)... Otherwise the experience is 100% worse, and it will never end up being better financially. Either it's going to be too expensive to be good value for consumers, or too cheap to be financially sound for corporations.
And game preservation is super important imo, if games (eventually) are made to only run on a company's servers, we would not be able to have it available in any way if the company goes bust or decides to not allow you access for whatever reason.
There are very few scenarios where the ability to stream a game is in any way preferable to local hardware (like, I dunno, your console breaking or you traveling for a period of time where it doesn't make sense to bring dedicated gaming hardware along)... Otherwise the experience is 100% worse, and it will never end up being better financially. Either it's going to be too expensive to be good value for consumers, or too cheap to be financially sound for corporations.
This is super important. The moment they pull the plug on those services your games are gone and you have no way of playing them again.
And game preservation is super important imo, if games (eventually) are made to only run on a company's servers, we would not be able to have it available in any way if the company goes bust or decides to not allow you access for whatever reason.
You're only thinking of the at-home on the couch/at the desk consumer and not of the minblowing part where anyone on a phone or tablet can finally stream these console experiences without needing a new console, new graphics card, etc. and can just enjoy their game on anything they want. That is huge to me and that is a future I'm picturing. The immediate next step should be for Xbox or Google to figure out good compact controllers for mobile devices.
I would only consider streaming if every game was released the same day as the physical copy and it could be downloaded and played off the HDD with the same quality as the physical. I tried PS Now and although it's pretty cool, the quality of the stream and latency are not good enough.
Actually, that's rather presumptuous of you to think that I wasn't thinking of smartphones or devices that aren't desktops or consoles. If we're talking about reaching bandwidth and computational power in the future, local storage and power is trivial. And if you want a device agnostic platform, you need an agnostic API. Think Java for videogames. You do not need streaming for this.
I wouldn't pay extra for it, but I'm not opposed to streaming on principle. I actually used onlive sincerely for a while. (Though the idea of games being exclusively stream only scares me.)
Definitely not the main way I'd play a game, but I could see it being a good "Well, I can play it now while it downloads!" option.
Definitely not the main way I'd play a game, but I could see it being a good "Well, I can play it now while it downloads!" option.
I voted no, but I'm not actually against streaming at all, it's just not for me. I think it's going to be a huge part of the future of gaming but I'm not going to give up local play on my own hardware until they stop offering it.
I agree.
It could be convenient for parents who don't want to pay 2 or 3 games a month for their beloved piec... sweet hearts ;). They won't cry for 2 frames (most of them are button smashers)
At all. Just saying it's cheaper for parents to pay 20 or 30 dollars a month than paying several games.
Hulu and Netflix haven't been forced to be a mandatory replacement for DVD & Blu-ray. And that's what a lot of us are worried about with gaming: digital downloads and/or streaming being forced as the only option. If it was forced, it would be the first and only major sector of the entertainment industry to force people to pay for digital to enjoy anything at all. Hollywood hasn't ditched physical formats for home video, and while Blu-ray has never reached the heights of DVD it's far from dead (and DVD is still kicking around, too). Book publishers haven't forced us to buy e-readers, and print books are thriving. Even the music industry of all things hasn't forced us to all purchase mp3s or subscriptions to streaming radio, and it still releases albums on CD and vinyl despite album sales in general cratering over the past 18 years (and for what it's worth, the majority of full album sales in the U.S. are still on physical formats).
Yet some gamers are proclaiming that physical copies for console games will cease to be a thing in a decade's time despite a large majority of console gamers preferring physical copies, and are even outright clamoring for that outcome, damn what us old folks with our optical discs and cartridges might want. Streaming is tolerable as an option, and an option only, but if the gaming industry ever ditches physical copies in their entirety, they won't be getting any more money from me. I'll still have at least four decades worth of excellent games still playable. The idea of even single-player games being dependent on an internet connection and the possibility of entire games becoming completely (and perhaps permanently) unplayable if they are removed from the service are absolutely abhorrent to me.
Also, I tend to view streaming TV/movie services like Netflix sort of as their own premium on-demand cable channel. Most TV shows I'm one-and-done (TV series are much larger time sinks than movies, something that reduces their re-watch value, much like how a game being really long reduces its replay value for me), while some I really like I'll watch re-runs when they come on, and if it's something I really, really like I'll likely buy the physical version (and even Netflix puts out some of its originals on physical discs).
The funny thing is, experts are saying general A. I will be here in 25-50yrs.
And when and if the singularity does happen local consoles and streaming will seem like ancient technology.
I wonder if an A. I is created and it does not kill us all, I wonder if governments will stagger the technology (if they can even control they A. I, hopefully the A. I will laugh at the humans trying to control it and put a blindfold on society). The A. I would be our God effectively, I wouldn't mind a god A. I
And when and if the singularity does happen local consoles and streaming will seem like ancient technology.
I wonder if an A. I is created and it does not kill us all, I wonder if governments will stagger the technology (if they can even control they A. I, hopefully the A. I will laugh at the humans trying to control it and put a blindfold on society). The A. I would be our God effectively, I wouldn't mind a god A. I
Sad that we are for the convenience of streaming, we are losing the physical "ownership" of our games (yes, I know it is still only a license). And, I am going to miss that "new game smell"!!
(I still miss albums. Nothing like taking the shrink wrap off a new record album!)
I can't really vote in the poll given the options.
I probably won't, because it appears (from what I understand) that I won't have to, but I'm not "totally against it."
In fact, as long as I can keep buying games the ways I do now in addition to streaming, then I think I'm all for it.
I probably won't, because it appears (from what I understand) that I won't have to, but I'm not "totally against it."
In fact, as long as I can keep buying games the ways I do now in addition to streaming, then I think I'm all for it.
Project Stream worked way better than I expected it to, but the technology is still not there, especially if you're on wifi.
OP
OP
Google's conference is over.
What do you all think now? I'm totally skeptical of instant access to high-end games at 1080p / 4K and 60fps.
What do you all think now? I'm totally skeptical of instant access to high-end games at 1080p / 4K and 60fps.