I think I know what this idea is. Remember Kojima said he wanted to make a game where the disc exploded if you die. Well this will probably be your account is locked out if you die (the game would likely have to be free).
It's not far off it's already here, a large amount of people using it is some what far off but not too far
I'm sure it will, but I can't see how latency would be solved. Even though bandwidths tend to get larger and larger, and we assume that the standard becomes glass optic fiber, we still cap at around 200,000 km per hour, that's where the latency issues come from, doesn't really matter if you have a 1gb connection if you're still bound to that speed.
I'm not dismissing anyone here. I'm defining people that prefer the distribution method before the game as not real gamers, but you can define it however you like and I will know what you mean every time you use it, get out of your head and pay attention to what I'm saying instead of whatever definition you have in your head. You are focusing too much on "Not a real gamer", instead of the meaning I'm assigning to it, "people that prefer the distribution method before the game." We could just jump to the part where you say that "Yes, the distribution method is more important than the game" and share your argument of why is that.
When you say "solved", can you say exactly what are you referring to?
It's not far off it's already here, a large amount of people using it is some what far off but not too far
we need to separate the tech itself and the amount of people using it, the tech is already here
I'm not dismissing anyone here. I'm defining people that prefer the distribution method before the game as not real gamers, but you can define it however you like and I will know what you mean every time you use it, get out of your head and pay attention to what I'm saying instead of whatever definition you have in your head. You are focusing too much on "Not a real gamer", instead of the meaning I'm assigning to it, "people that prefer the distribution method before the game." We could just jump to the part where you say that "Yes, the distribution method is more important than the game" and share your argument of why is that.
I can make the same argument that people who are ok to use a service that compromises the game playing experience (streaming) over the best experience (local rendering) are not real gamers. Instead, how about sticking to your OP?
Kojima believes that the future of games is streaming. There are many reasons that this is more difficult and further out than people think but, yes, streaming will have some place in the future of video game distribution. Will it auto magically expand the number of people playing his games because now you will have access through a phone? Most likely, no. Will it allow games to reach a more casually observant audience? Maybe. Will it allow for the most die-hard gamers to access a library from multiple devices? Most likely.
Preferring a certain distribution method doesn't mean you care about the games any less. It simply means that you think it is the best way for you to receive those games. The fact that you thought this sounded better is hilarious to me.
If you say I won't play any games that I might like, it might even be my favorite game ever, but I won't touch it if it is on a cloud gaming service, you are saying that the first and most important thing is the distribution method and then the game. I just care about if the game is good or not. Might be digital, physical only, cloud only and if it has my attention, good scores, critical acclaim, etc. I will play it.
When you say "solved", can you say exactly what are you referring to?
What I can do is challenge your argument once you have made clear what you're talking about. You are saying "compromise the game playing experience", say exactly what you mean by that and we can discuss it.
You say that streaming will likely not expand the number of gamers, why is that? To use a random number, if you are releasing an app that allows you to play console games and the market is around 2 billion people, how is that it is likely that it won't expand the market? Unless you are prepared to say that no one will play consoles games on an app like that, you must adjust what you say to "a small number of people will play games there", not that it is likely that it won't expand the number of gamers that buy console games.
Of course it will - who doesnt believe that now?
... you people who still buy physical discs? That will disappear, replaced by digital, replaced by streaming
This transition will take YEARS - but it will happen. Just like other media like music and movies
I don't know what a gif of a live demonstration of a service that was still in development has anything to do with the tech already being here
Yay, input lag and visual artifacts due to compression.
The moment this becomes the new standard and the only way to play games is the moment I move on.
I don't know what a gif of a live demonstration of a service that was still in development has anything to do with the tech already being here
there's people in here that play GeForce now and played project stream last year with no issue
It's not only developing countries and third world countries. I live in Germany and the Internet situation in some parts of the country is dire. We will eventually get there in the future, but it will take time to connect everybody to fast internet access. It's not an easy task, especially not in overly bureaucratic countries.Once again everyone forgets about developing countries and third world countries.
I don't see you as a real gamer then. For me it all starts and ends with the games. I'm very exited with the type of games developers will be able to make with the power of the cloud and Kojima seems to be too.
I'm curious about all of the statements like, "If gaming goes full streaming then I'll give up gaming." Just seems so bizarre to me, like, akin to someone saying "If gaming goes from cartridges to discs, I'll give up gaming." If the medium goes in that direction, goes that way enough that it seems to be obviously a very popular format, then... why does it matter? Of course there will be compromises as the medium shifts to a different format, and as technology advances.
I just don't get the people who are, like, tribalistic about the format that data gets to their gaming device. It's just a method of transferring data.
It shows Phil pressing the jump button 3 times during the on stage demo at GDC launch and not jumping until the 3rd press. Latency.
Forgot about VR.This.
Gaming is not music/movies.
The enjoyment of gaming should not be limited to just those people with speedy Internet connections, or those who are always online.
The insane hardware and responsiveness requirements of VR (which some other folks claim is also the future of gaming) are not compatible with streaming at all.
No, streaming is not the exclusive future of gaming. There will always be a niche for it, just like VR, but I'd put money down that we'll be playing games on our consoles and PCs for many years to come.
Traditionally these kinds of paradigm shifts have made huge differences in the types of games being made. Like the shift from coin-ops to home consoles, or 2D to 3D in the N64/PS1 era, or the introduction of Xbox Live. I bet today's GaaS would be unthinkable to most just 5-10 years ago. What remains to be seen here is what kind of difference.Streaming won't change the types of games being made, just make them more accessible.
I wouldn't say being connected to a network where hundreds of other people are connected would be called optimal environment, people already played project stream with no issue and that was an even earlier build of stadiaThat's wasn't just a live demonstration of a service still in development. That was a live demo of a service not working in the most optimal and completely controlled environment just 6 months ago after being in development, reportedly, for years.
I don't see you as a real gamer then. For me it all starts and ends with the games. I'm very exited with the type of games developers will be able to make with the power of the cloud and Kojima seems to be too.
PS What?
Sorry, but I listen to a lot of Amerrican gaming podcasts like Axe of the Blood God with Kat Bailey and the Giant Bombcast with Jeff Gerstmann, and I'm pretty sure if Sony had a way for consumers to play games via streaming then media veterans like them would be aware of it.
As Kat and Jeff said, only once Google release Stadia and Microsoft releases xCloud, will Sony finally get around to looking at streaming. American comapnies are always first to jump on to new technologies like this.
Yet physical movies and music continue to be supported, with no real sign that will stop.Of course it will - who doesnt believe that now?
... you people who still buy physical discs? That will disappear, replaced by digital, replaced by streaming
This transition will take YEARS - but it will happen. Just like other media like music and movies
When you say "solved", can you say exactly what are you referring to?
That was not a network being shared by hundreds of other people. That was an on stage, live demo, directly connected to their servers. They were not using the GDC public wifi for that.I wouldn't say being connected to a network where hundreds of other people are connected would be called optimal environment, people already played project stream with no issue and that was an even earlier build of stadia
Idk what they were using I just know they were in a large building that had its own network, so I'm just guessing others were using it tooThat was not a network being shared by hundreds of other people. That was an on stage, live demo, directly connected to their servers. They were not using the GDC public wifi for that.
That gif is not the actual experience though. Unless you have a shitty internet connection.
As I type this message I'm playing Diablo 3 and it feels no different than playing in local hardware.
Idk what they were using I just know they were in a large building that had its own network, so I'm just guessing others were using it too
your just ignoring the project stream test though that I've already mentioned 3 times here and I've also used GeForce now multiple times with no issues
Yea so you should know that gif doesn't even come close to representing GeForce now or project streamOh, I'm not at all. I was in the test as well. I have a subscription to GeForce Now too. I sit ~5 miles from the biggest datacenter on the east coast and run gigabit fiber to my desktop. Didn't stop their service from telling me that it was at capacity on a Wed afternoon. Nor did it stop intermittent input lag and macro blocking from appearing.
Even at it's best, it doesn't hold up as well as just running the game on my PC.
Yea so you should know that gif doesn't even come close to representing GeForce now or project stream
stadia shouldn't have a capacity problem
Because stadia is much larger than GeForce nowNever said it did. But I have experienced drops, crashes, and latency issues on every cloud service.
As for Stadia not having a capacity problem, how do you figure? Stadia are dedicated servers, not part of google's general compute pool. Hell, last year YouTube experienced a 45 min outage in the US during world cup because they couldn't keep up with capacity. On a linear stream.
He's referring to the fact that you can for example access Netflix from basically any screen. Once Cloud gaming services become widespread, then you can either watch a Netflix show or continue playing Cyberpunk on your smartphone, while being a passenger in a car.