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).
-
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.
Kojima: Gaming will move on to streaming
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
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
OP
OP
When you say "solved", can you say exactly what are you referring to?
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.
They are referring to the issue of press/result. There is ALWAYS going to be some latency. Period. From action to reaction. Doing this across the raw web where you can not control every step along the pipe? More difficult. Google's "negative latency" is just awkward phrasing at best. Rendering multiple possibilities to be ready to serve, on a frame by frame basis, to MILLIONS of players simultaneously? Even if you could, the compute and resource curve required to do this would be horrifically expensive en masse.
Claiming that Stadia latency could be better than what you experience on a local machine rendering in real time is highly dubious.
Last edited:
It will certainly be an option but local copies of media will not disappear until the technology is almost perfect
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.
OP
OP
Sure you can. I cannot control how you define things. 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.
Fantastic lag-free tech.
Also US =/= The world.
Is that gif supposed to prove anything?
OP
OP
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.
Death Stranding for Stadia!
I still won't play it as the walking simulator doesn't sound interesting to me, but I want as many big AAA games on Stadia as possible
Because a cloud gaming service isn't what is best for me. Not everyone has the luxury to say if it gets good scores I'll play it no matter what. Things a bit more complicated than that for a lot of people.
No, but common understanding of words and meaning define them. I don't redefine words to fit a narrative.
- Inconsistent access to high performance networks across the country means I can't be assured that I will have access to my games, or play them as well as I could on a dedicated device.
- Exotic platforms means that I can't avail myself of extra compute resources in a data center if servers are running at capacity. Basically, if too many people are playing on nodes in a particular geo that I need to access then I can't play.
- Can't play them on a train, public wifi, on a plane, etc.
- Uncontrolled picture quality fluctuation.
- Uncontrolled or unexpected input latency.
The issue with more people NOT playing RDR2 is not one of access. There is a certain portion of the population that won't play a 120 hour western that requires a 32 button controller. The argument that people won't have to buy a console as a barrier to entry is false. I live in a country (USA) where people are buying $700-1000 cell phones and $250 4K TVs. The cost of the console is not the barrier. The game type is. But, hey, don't take my word for it.
"There may be some disappointment that the market increase won't be as large as some people think," Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick told me in an interview earlier this month.
"I don't think it's as simple as there are a couple billion phones out there, and only a couple hundred million consoles out there, so the market will grow by 10 or 20x. I think that's facile," he said.
https://www.businessinsider.com/video-game-streaming-service-challenges-strauss-zelnick-2019-6
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 hereFantastic lag-free tech.
Also US =/= The world.
there's people in here that play GeForce now and played project stream last year with no issue, I've used GeForce now multiple times myself
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.
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.
That'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.
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.
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 enough for all major players in the industry to shift there, then... why does it matter? Of course there will be compromises as the medium shifts to a different format, and as technology advances some get ironed out, some persist, etc.
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. I understand why someone might prefer one method to another, especially as the technology is developing and the infrastructure around it develops, but I don't get the tribalistic ride-or-die perspective.
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. I understand why someone might prefer one method to another, especially as the technology is developing and the infrastructure around it develops, but I don't get the tribalistic ride-or-die perspective.
I love movies but if they stopped showing them in theaters and started making me go see them in some markedly inferior form, I would probably stop going to those, too. Streaming is a garbage tech that exists purely to move more control into the hands of the publishers and take it away from consumers. If there's no local install, I'm not getting involved.
The speed of light isn't going to change, the PR bullshit about latency solutions is just that - bullshit, and not owning the software in any way is a negative for the consumer. Streaming is not a useful consumer solution for interactive content, and never will be. It's purely a move to consolidate more control in the hands of the publishers at the expense of the consumer. At the very least, Stadia's model of charging retail price for a game that vanishes when the service ends is a dead end.
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.
Forgot about VR.
Yeah, just for that alone streaming can't be the near future of gaming.
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.
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
User Warned: Objectifying women.
My god Jade Raymond is hot.
OT local will be available for a long time. I will absolutely use streaming and already do. I also use digital.
Im too much of a fan of physical hardware and games. I have every console ive ever loved to play from a working atari 2600 and Commodore 64, to the PS4.
OT local will be available for a long time. I will absolutely use streaming and already do. I also use digital.
Im too much of a fan of physical hardware and games. I have every console ive ever loved to play from a working atari 2600 and Commodore 64, to the PS4.
Someday, maybe. It certainly won't be anytime soon.
I'm sure a few people here will read this as "Kojima endorses Google Stadia!" I know who those people are, already.
God damn, I can see this thread got off to a great start.
I'm sure a few people here will read this as "Kojima endorses Google Stadia!" I know who those people are, already.
God damn, I can see this thread got off to a great start.
Yet physical movies and music continue to be supported, with no real sign that will stop.
But those are bad comparisons anyways; movies make most of their money in theaters and TV syndication.. musicians make their money touring and via merch, and they gave up on physical music sales being a prominent revenue source because piracy was too rampant. To some extent, same with the film industry.
Games for the most part make their money.. selling copies of games. Streaming of movies really replaced movie rental, as movie "Sales" were never that high to begin with outside of the brief window where DVD became super popular (and again, piracy started to erode that and studios gave up and "gave in" to streaming.)
In simpler words, Input Lag. when you have a game running in a server, your command has to travel back at the server so it registers it. Some games would be absolutely fine, others, is a big no no. In order for a game to feel good, you want it to respond as fast as possible. Suppose you are playing Dark Souls, and you die because you pressed dodge and it took too long to respond. Fighting Games, Competitive games in general, Big problem in my book.
Now, I'm sure they can mitigate it, but never be the same as playing locally because, like another poster claimed above, they're still bound to the laws of physics.
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.
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
Fantastic! Sometimes, it works just fine. Now go play that game on public wifi, at a hotel, a school, etc. That gif WAS the actual experience, on stage, of the tech running. As I said, one of the biggest issues is that cloud streaming can not have predictably consistent performance at this time. And, not for years to come.
I wish people wouldn't compare streaming of film, television and music to streaming of games. So many problems with non-interactive streaming can be accounted for just with buffering. Not to mention that live game streaming like Stadia will always consume significantly more bandwidth for the same quality level due to the lack of B-Frames.
I'm not saying streaming doesn't have a future, I'm just saying that it's probably not the only future.
I'm not saying streaming doesn't have a future, I'm just saying that it's probably not the only future.
They were in a large building. And no way they were sharing that network connection with 25,000 attendees in a launch event.
Oh, 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
If your experience is the same as that gif then my experience has been much better than yours
Never 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.
I'm not even going to pretend I can predict 15 years from now onwards but lol at this thread. Only real gamers believe in streaming, our Lord Kojima has spoken!
It will need much more than 5g to enjoy streaming games in a car.