-
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.
Ubisoft: We Will Have a Better Experience Streaming Something than Buying a Machine
- Thread starter osnameless
- Start date
This sound horrifying when multi-million sellers, big budget AAA online games still doesn't have servers in all regions!
And how big the infrastructural investment required to accommodate launching something like AssCreed that would more than 5 millins on the first week on a streaming service?!
And how big the infrastructural investment required to accommodate launching something like AssCreed that would more than 5 millins on the first week on a streaming service?!
Nobody says VR will be THE future, FYI. You need to fix that thinking. It will just be one key component, among many others, that make up the future of gaming. Once the hardware and cost improves, of course.
Haha, no. Just no.
Still way too many places don't have proper speeds (at affordable rates) and connectivity issues are still rampant.
Imagine getting your new UbiStream App on your TV or w/e and then being at the mercy of their infrastructure not caving in when The Division 4 launches.
Edit: I also like OWNING my games instead of buying a license the publisher can withdraw / stop supporting at any time.
Still way too many places don't have proper speeds (at affordable rates) and connectivity issues are still rampant.
Imagine getting your new UbiStream App on your TV or w/e and then being at the mercy of their infrastructure not caving in when The Division 4 launches.
Edit: I also like OWNING my games instead of buying a license the publisher can withdraw / stop supporting at any time.
OP
OP
Slightly related
In light of the whole "For those who wants to play local, there is the X360" blunder at the start of the Xbox One cycle, it is interesting to see if Microsoft actually has a better answer this time with their plans to release two iterations of consoles next gen (or that is how I understood it at least)
Yup. It sounds like "let's wait and see" for many publishers. If Microsoft actually managed to pull off something like that, even in limited regions, I guess this will mark a major shift in the video game landscape.
In light of the whole "For those who wants to play local, there is the X360" blunder at the start of the Xbox One cycle, it is interesting to see if Microsoft actually has a better answer this time with their plans to release two iterations of consoles next gen (or that is how I understood it at least)
Yup. It sounds like "let's wait and see" for many publishers. If Microsoft actually managed to pull off something like that, even in limited regions, I guess this will mark a major shift in the video game landscape.
Especially considering that every gaming system ever made has some degree of lag.
We already have the majority of music streaming services offering garbage bitrate, and that is tiny music files. Can't wait for heavily compressed video games when they realize they can cheap out on the back end, or nickle and dime you for higher quality streaming.
I will stick with my blurays and high sample rate music
I will stick with my blurays and high sample rate music
I wonder if the end of Moore's law might help streaming to get more popular. When it's getting harder and harder to create small, efficient and powerful consoles, maybe it makes more sense to have games rendered in dedicated data centers with highly optimized cooling and power infrastructure, as well as seamless scaling.
This will not happen until worldwide poverty is gone lol. Not everyone can afford internet, especially the highspeed internet needed for streaming.
Guys we really have to be vigilant for ppl that want to separate us from ownership.
A subscription based delivery system is turbo powered by streaming normalcy.
Subscription based models work for people who don't revisit the games they own, but imagine a company makes a big time franchise available only through subscription?
Imagine you want to stop paying $XX a month for whatever reason, but that means you can't play your favorite franchise again until you do?
A subscription based delivery system is turbo powered by streaming normalcy.
Subscription based models work for people who don't revisit the games they own, but imagine a company makes a big time franchise available only through subscription?
Imagine you want to stop paying $XX a month for whatever reason, but that means you can't play your favorite franchise again until you do?
Centralizing computing power has many flaws as a concept.
It's handy when building multi-tentant solutions that provide virtually the same data to a huge number of users (like websites do, think youtube etc.).
But when every user needs his/her own data, like in a game that is being rendered in real time, it's a bad solution no matter how you slice it. Centralization means more heat, inherent lag and strain/demands on a number of systems related only to the transport of information (routing, load-balancing, system orchestrators etc). It also needs a LOT more power in a central location, which from a global ecological standpoint is bad; green power isn't centralized and transportation of power requires power.
Having end users power their own computers and do as much work as possible on the client side is awesome, not only right now as things are at this moment, but also from a future, theoretical standpoint.
Why companies want centralization? Money.
It's handy when building multi-tentant solutions that provide virtually the same data to a huge number of users (like websites do, think youtube etc.).
But when every user needs his/her own data, like in a game that is being rendered in real time, it's a bad solution no matter how you slice it. Centralization means more heat, inherent lag and strain/demands on a number of systems related only to the transport of information (routing, load-balancing, system orchestrators etc). It also needs a LOT more power in a central location, which from a global ecological standpoint is bad; green power isn't centralized and transportation of power requires power.
Having end users power their own computers and do as much work as possible on the client side is awesome, not only right now as things are at this moment, but also from a future, theoretical standpoint.
Why companies want centralization? Money.
As if current gen console adaptation in third world countries is high right now.. And we'll still have regular systems. We will always have them.
Imagine Ubi, EA and Activision lmao
They'll sell premium packages with higher draw distance / LoD for €/$15 a month more.
Then the US gets slapped with some nice anti-net neutrality tax too.
"Enjoy your games suckas! Love, Comcast"
Probably accurate in terms of timing. Need some sort of quantum entanglement to get 0ms.
If there is 0 latency added (to rendering, monitor output, etc.) and no visible compression artifacts, at 4k resolution, I would believe that if it won't rely on an internet connection and depends on their servers.
I still like to play my games when servers are down (due to maintanence, network failure, hack, or whatever).
I still like to play my games when servers are down (due to maintanence, network failure, hack, or whatever).
Last edited:
But most companies don't have the resources to pull this off, so even if some like Ubi of EA give it a try, bigger companies like Microsoft will still have a huge advantage when competing for releases.
I think Xbox's strategy is to get ahead. Timing is everything. Disney is huge and they will struggle against Netflix because they got there first and secured millions of users. And to continue with the same analogy, most movie and music producers didn't try their luck with their own stores and streaming platform, in the end there are only three or four tops in every industry. Even if some companies try their luck against Sony and Microsoft, in the end the number of players will remain similar.
Hi Yves. Do you have a solution for terrible American internet speeds, or are you just handwaving it because streaming sounds cool? ...oh, it's the second one again? Okay.
To be fair though, even he seems to see it as simply a future "option", and on that I agree. Streaming games is a great idea in environments that support it, and you can already see some successful implementations in places like Japan. But I really don't think we'll be reaching a point where most Americans can stream with decent IQ and latency anytime soon.
To be fair though, even he seems to see it as simply a future "option", and on that I agree. Streaming games is a great idea in environments that support it, and you can already see some successful implementations in places like Japan. But I really don't think we'll be reaching a point where most Americans can stream with decent IQ and latency anytime soon.
What about the purchasing low you get when your machine is made redundant by an 'X' version? :p
Hard pass for me. With internet speeds in Australia being awful, and the government being inefficient with getting the country ready for the future of the internet (it's been a shitshow failure), it'd be a nightmare asking people to stream games.
And then we hear stories like that fire department in America whose internet speeds were throttled on purpose and they were told they could increase their speeds if they purchased a more expensive option. What's to stop internet providers from throttling the connection to gamers and then asking them to pay more money so we could stream games?
Others have raised this point, and it is a very valid question. You pay the $100 AUD (base price for most games here) and you have play the game, even when the internet is out or there are issues with the internet. If you no longer can afford the streaming service (e.g. you lost your job) and have to cancel your account with them, then you lose out on those games until you can afford the service again?
There's just too much to this possible future that I can't agree with or see working. Like, would every single publisher have a service? Would we need to pay $30 each to Ubisoft, EA, Square Enix etc. every single month just to play their games?
And then we hear stories like that fire department in America whose internet speeds were throttled on purpose and they were told they could increase their speeds if they purchased a more expensive option. What's to stop internet providers from throttling the connection to gamers and then asking them to pay more money so we could stream games?
Others have raised this point, and it is a very valid question. You pay the $100 AUD (base price for most games here) and you have play the game, even when the internet is out or there are issues with the internet. If you no longer can afford the streaming service (e.g. you lost your job) and have to cancel your account with them, then you lose out on those games until you can afford the service again?
There's just too much to this possible future that I can't agree with or see working. Like, would every single publisher have a service? Would we need to pay $30 each to Ubisoft, EA, Square Enix etc. every single month just to play their games?
I'm not entirely convinced they can actually do this, but this is what streaming needs to pull off to get me interested.
I remember when onlive was first one the scene, and they pitched it as "look you can play assassin's creed by streaming", when I already owned three devices that could play assassin's creed.
Show me something not already possible with existing established hardware platforms.
I remember when onlive was first one the scene, and they pitched it as "look you can play assassin's creed by streaming", when I already owned three devices that could play assassin's creed.
Show me something not already possible with existing established hardware platforms.
LOL I don't understand why people are so hyped for this when America's internet infrastructure is so behind the rest of the world. Not even half of America owns broadband internet, yet they want us to believe we are ready? Yeah right.
Why should 100% of the population be ready? Large parts of the world also don't have internet or even stable electricity.
I can imagine people in cities in the US and people in Western Europe should be able to try this out.
This just wont happen until interner infrastructure is good enough in most parts of the world which wont happen any time soon. A large chunk of the world(Including developed countries) still have horrid internet that stop this from becoming a reality. Maybe 5G will fix this if we're lucky but I personally wouldn't hold out on something like this being standard for another 15~ years.
The closeness of servers thing came up in my uni course, it was about cars not gaming but same solution though. Edge data centers. Instead of using only massive centralised servers you also have lots of little ones dotted all over the place for really speedy data transfer. One example below.
http://about.att.com/story/reinventing_the_cloud_through_edge_computing.html
http://about.att.com/story/reinventing_the_cloud_through_edge_computing.html
OP
OP
That Ubisoft is can or can't do this is up for question of course, but I don't think he is handwaving it, Ubisoft, in particular, has made statements along those lines for years now.
I think I've read the same idea being talked about by a Ubisoft executive on five different occasions.
Not that they are alone, many big publishers talked about that before.
They seem to believe that we are at the cusp of the final traditional generation cycle, and it is gonna be streaming from that point forward.
Oh, I really didn't mean to allude that this gonna go either way. I honestly have no idea how this thing will manifest, or what all of this will mean to console-making publishers, AAA publishers, or small publishers.
What I believe it is gonna be a huge logistical and infrastructural challenge that we still need to have an actual conception of.
In any case, The "getting there first" strategy sounds like a smart move.
It is hardly the point, but the Netflix example doesn't seem accurate in this case, to me at least. Netflix indeed has an immense userbase at this point, but it has been struggling notably for the past few years, to the point that maybe if someone was to offer a similar service, they actually could turn the tables.
Another thing, Netflix's original content is really outright uninteresting at this point. Disney on the other hand, will it is Disney. They won't have a shortage of content for sure.
If Disney also was able to offer more incentives to studios to stream their stuff on Disney Play, that I don't see why Disney can't out-Netflix Netflix eventually.
Didn't Square Enix try cloud based gaming a few years ago with Shinra Technologies? They reported extraordinary losses and shut it down.
Beyond the inherent limitations of the technology (transmitting data over hundreds of km will always, unless physics is broken, be slower than transmitting data over 2-3 meters), I believe that the future is ALSO in hybrid gaming, and I doubt that it will be compatible with remote play within the next 10 years.
I think that with some improvements, this might become another "30fps situation": We all know that 30fps is not great, and higher framerate is obviously preferable, but it's "good enough" for many people. So those companies don't need to create perfect streaming, they just need to make it good enough. Coupled with other incentives, this could be all that's needed to make streaming popular.
For example, what if you don't have to pay for online gaming* when playing on a 3rd party streaming service?
(*of course they will make you pay for online gaming at some point, but they will wait until they get enough customers).
Oh no. You will still "buy" those$60 $70 games, you just won't own them.
For example, what if you don't have to pay for online gaming* when playing on a 3rd party streaming service?
(*of course they will make you pay for online gaming at some point, but they will wait until they get enough customers).
Oh no. You will still "buy" those
Last edited:
Yeah, no. He should be subjected to Australian internet for a couple of months and see if he (and other streaming advocates) still sings the same tune. I'll never buy a streaming console.
OP
OP
Oh, I was never aware that Square Enix tried something like that.
The fact that they called it Shinra Technologies is amazing, though.
Yup...so predictable...as we can see already with all the exclusive pc game launchers.
uPlay streaming service,EA Origin streaming service,Blizz.net streaming service,R* club streaming service,Bethesda.net streaming service and on and on and on..... :(
Playing fighting games right now you still get a lot of bad connections... and they want us to go forward with that while streaming the entire game at the same time? LUL
At least everyone will get a bad connection. And when everyone is bad, no one is :p
I'm not sure if what Square tried is comparable with what Ubisoft is proposing as the future, but I feel like the connection between having games playable from the clouds was close enough. This thread just happened to jog my memory of it aha, it's been a long time since I've thought about Shinra Technology.
They shut it down because they couldn't get investors, so maybe companies aren't fully into the idea as well. It's certainly a future I do not wish to see happen.
Still feels like a direction that the companies are going to try to force rather than something that will happen organically.
Games have largely rejected game streaming so far , whoever goes first with this streaming 2.0 is going to have to get it right straight away and site an actual working system that blows everyone away
Games have largely rejected game streaming so far , whoever goes first with this streaming 2.0 is going to have to get it right straight away and site an actual working system that blows everyone away
OP
OP
It is something to look into for sure, but calling it after an evil company from Final Fantasy VII is a great idea.
You and me, my friend.
Well, you basically are already. Games are licensed to use; you don't "own" them.
