I take it you are still coming to terms with Netflix and Spotify, too.
You will always have the option to buy games, even if consoles shift 100% to streaming th PC will always exist.
-
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
I take it you are still coming to terms with Netflix and Spotify, too.
You will always have the option to buy games, even if consoles shift 100% to streaming th PC will always exist.
As of now, and as much as I distrust Google, I´m extremely interested in what they have to show next Tuesday. I will probably continue to choose Microsoft when it comes to gaming, but GDC should be a milestone in selling streaming to the masses.
Yesterday I was able to test a local, Turner Latin America-funded streaming gaming system (GLOUD) here in Argentina and it worked unexpectedly well even with my high-latency connection. Considering the costs of hardware in my country, if the price is right, I would migrate to streaming in a relatively near future. I do believe the tech will be there during the next decade or so.
Yesterday I was able to test a local, Turner Latin America-funded streaming gaming system (GLOUD) here in Argentina and it worked unexpectedly well even with my high-latency connection. Considering the costs of hardware in my country, if the price is right, I would migrate to streaming in a relatively near future. I do believe the tech will be there during the next decade or so.
Too much depends on external and uncontrollable factors when going streaming, both that can affect the quality of the experience or even it's ability to log in and play.
This is not Netflix, primarily on that depends one-way streaming capability. It needs equally very fast speed and response times to emulate a local hardware based experience!
Wait till you see compression artifacts, screen-tearing, intermittent down sampling ...
This is not Netflix, primarily on that depends one-way streaming capability. It needs equally very fast speed and response times to emulate a local hardware based experience!
Wait till you see compression artifacts, screen-tearing, intermittent down sampling ...
Sure, I think the performance on 4G won't be optimal. But I'm interested to see if I'll be able to play Assassins Creed Odyssey on 720p with acceptable latency when I'm on the train (either via 4G or the train WiFi (4g is better)).
I can watch football matches. I can watch Netflix movies. So how far are we away from it?
By the way. I'm currently paying 35 euros per month for unlimited 4G. And I'm paying too much.
Add 10-15 euros for the Game library and streaming service and it'll be an expensive hobby. I agree with that.
It's also interesting to see how fast interesting speeds are changing in The Netherlands:
So an average 4G speed increase of 4Mbps or more between all providers within one year.
T-Mobile is the best with latency, clocking at 28.2ms.
If they get the stability up to par (with either 5G or improved 4G networks) mobile internet will be really impressive.
So an average 4G speed increase of 4Mbps or more between all providers within one year.
T-Mobile is the best with latency, clocking at 28.2ms.
If they get the stability up to par (with either 5G or improved 4G networks) mobile internet will be really impressive.
I don't get why everyone on here is treating it as one or the other. I'd Glady play my games on hardware at home and use xcloud to play games when I'm not at home and don't want to drag my console around places. Xcloud is supposedly gonna work on phones, tablets and everything else so I don't get why everyone here is saying they wouldn't use it cause they want actual hardware.
I know this thread is about the console space, but I want to share my 2C anyway (more like $10 if you go by word count :P).
I've been trying out the Geforce Now beta for a few months now. I can say it's both better than I thought it would be, and worse than it should for me to actually consider paying at this point.
I have 100mb fiber and with the latency, it barely fits the 1080p/60 requirements. Luckily, I'm not burdened by data caps; at my max speed it says it might use up to 15GB per hour.
I understand it's not exactly the same service as it is likely to be on consoles, considering it is more centered around leveraging your existing game libraries from other clients (thus sidestepping the "ownership issue" at the moment) or accounts from F2P games, but it works the same in essence: somewhere else in the world there is a piece hardware natively running some software and sending a signal through a cable to a local machine I can play on. It works fine, but that's as far as I'd go. It generally feels more like playing a YT video of a game than a game itself. As such, it's great to see my 2012 work laptop run a demanding game at ultra settings with only minimal input lag; it's fascinating tech in that regard, but still not enough to feel as fluid as native.
The problem is that it's massively dependent on robust infrastructure and straight up physical distance, and the distance part is currently not ideal and I don't expect it to be when even a company as big as Microsoft doesn't currently have local centers to assuage this issue. When that's the case, it's hard to not see it more like a side gimmick I might engage with every now and then instead of a primary platform for play. It's so dependent on factors I have no or little control over that I don't want to be at the whims of the technology. Heck, even stuff like online only in a super connected world can be extremely annoying when poorly supported, which most games still do. If everything else moves to online only like a bunch of Ubi stuff is doing, I can only see even the local option getting worse.
Another problem (so far exclusive to the PC space but might not always be the case) is that I like doing local modifications to these games. Stuff like Football Manager just doesn't work for me without being able to install a bunch of graphic packages (even steam workshop mod solution is lacking on this front), or games like Path of Exile where installing a loot filter and trade macro are essentials to me. Through these streaming services I have no option to modify my local files because well, they are not mine anymore.
___
tl;dr: IF gamepass/equivalent proves to be very good value on PC and IF Microsoft/equivalent manages to make the service work better than the competitors, IF they solve the issue of distant servers, and IF my ISP manages to keep up with the requirements or my carrier implements 5G and it's all that, and IF there are some added benefits I can see myself using a streaming solution as an additional option to my local hardware, for select games. I think only a few parts of the world are ready for it atm, and it remains to be seen if the implementation is consumer friendly in terms of content and costs.
That's a lot of big IFs.
I've been trying out the Geforce Now beta for a few months now. I can say it's both better than I thought it would be, and worse than it should for me to actually consider paying at this point.
I have 100mb fiber and with the latency, it barely fits the 1080p/60 requirements. Luckily, I'm not burdened by data caps; at my max speed it says it might use up to 15GB per hour.
I understand it's not exactly the same service as it is likely to be on consoles, considering it is more centered around leveraging your existing game libraries from other clients (thus sidestepping the "ownership issue" at the moment) or accounts from F2P games, but it works the same in essence: somewhere else in the world there is a piece hardware natively running some software and sending a signal through a cable to a local machine I can play on. It works fine, but that's as far as I'd go. It generally feels more like playing a YT video of a game than a game itself. As such, it's great to see my 2012 work laptop run a demanding game at ultra settings with only minimal input lag; it's fascinating tech in that regard, but still not enough to feel as fluid as native.
The problem is that it's massively dependent on robust infrastructure and straight up physical distance, and the distance part is currently not ideal and I don't expect it to be when even a company as big as Microsoft doesn't currently have local centers to assuage this issue. When that's the case, it's hard to not see it more like a side gimmick I might engage with every now and then instead of a primary platform for play. It's so dependent on factors I have no or little control over that I don't want to be at the whims of the technology. Heck, even stuff like online only in a super connected world can be extremely annoying when poorly supported, which most games still do. If everything else moves to online only like a bunch of Ubi stuff is doing, I can only see even the local option getting worse.
Another problem (so far exclusive to the PC space but might not always be the case) is that I like doing local modifications to these games. Stuff like Football Manager just doesn't work for me without being able to install a bunch of graphic packages (even steam workshop mod solution is lacking on this front), or games like Path of Exile where installing a loot filter and trade macro are essentials to me. Through these streaming services I have no option to modify my local files because well, they are not mine anymore.
___
tl;dr: IF gamepass/equivalent proves to be very good value on PC and IF Microsoft/equivalent manages to make the service work better than the competitors, IF they solve the issue of distant servers, and IF my ISP manages to keep up with the requirements or my carrier implements 5G and it's all that, and IF there are some added benefits I can see myself using a streaming solution as an additional option to my local hardware, for select games. I think only a few parts of the world are ready for it atm, and it remains to be seen if the implementation is consumer friendly in terms of content and costs.
That's a lot of big IFs.
Last edited:
Kinda missing options for those of us who aren't willing to pay for it now.
I'm not against the concept at all but I won't adhere to it until I've got no other choice.
I'm not against the concept at all but I won't adhere to it until I've got no other choice.
I already bought a Steam Link* and a Nvidia Shield
I am part of the problem and I'm willing to see how Xcloud performs 🤷🏻♂️
I am part of the problem and I'm willing to see how Xcloud performs 🤷🏻♂️
The only scenario where I would pay for a cloud gaming subscription is to play a must-play moneyhatted exclusive and immediately unsubscribe after beating it.
I'm vehemently against cloud gaming as it completely gives up ownership to the big corps.
I'm vehemently against cloud gaming as it completely gives up ownership to the big corps.
Okay good for you? I think this is gonna end up being the standard eventually, and when it is it'll be cheaper and easier than owning the hardware yourself. So, I have no problem with it, but I wouldn't pay for it right this second
I don't think streaming is for me. Not reliable enough, especially with my current Internet connection. Hell I can barely get lag free online gaming, let alone game streaming. Add to that I don't like the notion of having so many different subscriptions. Plus I like to actually mostly own my games and products.
It will be interesting how this is being priced? Monthly subscription? Weekly subscription? Maybe even weekends only? You could hop onto it when you go home for Christmas or travel to China for business, and use the native device at home. I do think the services will be monetized, especially further down the road.
I won't pay for it full-on, My internet speed doesn't support it. However, I do want to see options on its use.
I'm still on the side that buying a digital game should mean that you get the cloud version included. That way you're making even more incentive for digital purchases.
Or having cloud versions included in a more expensive sub for Gamepass can work too.
I mainly just don't want to see stuff like "Buy the digital game at $60 and get the cloud version included for $10 more"
I'm still on the side that buying a digital game should mean that you get the cloud version included. That way you're making even more incentive for digital purchases.
Or having cloud versions included in a more expensive sub for Gamepass can work too.
I mainly just don't want to see stuff like "Buy the digital game at $60 and get the cloud version included for $10 more"
Never ever. I like buying retail copies. If I had to pick, it'd be Gamepass since at least you download and install it to your local hardware.
I'm a stickler for latency and image quality, both of which can vary when you stream a game.
I'm a stickler for latency and image quality, both of which can vary when you stream a game.
Not right now, no. My internet wouldn't support it. However, I would be more open to it later down the road if we're less burdened by internet speeds and data caps.
Assuming the streaming quality is good, and the price is reasonable (if I'm going to end up paying as much or more than I would just buying actual hardware I'll stick to hardware), then sure.
How can you possibly make a call on this until you see the services in action and know the cost?
Calm down.
Edit; also do you buy games digitally at all? If so you may want to look at some of the ownership issues there.
Calm down.
Edit; also do you buy games digitally at all? If so you may want to look at some of the ownership issues there.
Something to consider:
Imagine buying a PlayStation 5 next generation. But Microsoft releases the new Fable game (or whatever) and it's looking really good. Would you play Fable via streaming so you don't need to buy an Xbox Scarlett?
Imagine buying a PlayStation 5 next generation. But Microsoft releases the new Fable game (or whatever) and it's looking really good. Would you play Fable via streaming so you don't need to buy an Xbox Scarlett?
as a programmer who puts on twitch in the background streaming game services (especially if I could just hop in via twitch) might actually totally destroy my life/ productivity.
I'm going with no. I'm fairly sporadic and eclectic in my gaming tastes, and there's no way any provider would have all the games I would be interested. By the time I've paid for a few game subscriptions, it would probably just be cheaper to buy the games I want outright (I'm happy to wait for deals and discounts etc). I also like having the physical media there for preservation and potential emulation in the future.
However, I'd sign up intermittently if there were good deals on. For example, I grabbed that 2 months of GP for $2 deal just to play FH4 for a couple of months.
However, I'd sign up intermittently if there were good deals on. For example, I grabbed that 2 months of GP for $2 deal just to play FH4 for a couple of months.
It all depends on price and how well it works. I think once 5G hits then it will be of good use to me. I can't see myself using it in my home unless it's to stream PS4/PS5 games on the PC but so far Sony is reluctant to put new titles on their service.
I'm not totally against it, but I wouldn't use it. That was the only option I was able to pick, though. I have no interest in streaming because when I've tried it, it hasn't worked well for me.
lmao very hardcore of you.
On topic, I'd pay for it if well implemented. Kind of a bizarre question as we don't know any real details of the next gen hardware. Although I do think streaming is the future and I honestly can't wait.
I have a PS4 now, exclusively for the ,hmm, exclusives I'm interested in. Meaning I have like 5 games on it and it collects dust most of the time. I have exceptional broadband here, so if Sony can offer me a decent working service at a fair price you can bet I'm interested. I can see myself subscribing in the month(s) that a game I really want to play gets released, finish it and unsubscribe if I don't need/want it anymore.
In an ideal world I play every game on my PC. Preferable as a local digital copy that I can mod/hack as much and as far as I want, or in the case of console exclusives, that I can stream to my PC. The less plastic boxes and physical games I need to buy, the better.
In an ideal world I play every game on my PC. Preferable as a local digital copy that I can mod/hack as much and as far as I want, or in the case of console exclusives, that I can stream to my PC. The less plastic boxes and physical games I need to buy, the better.
Streaming games has been a garbage experience for me every time I've tried it. The input lag is unbearable.