Yup yup.
Going to bump this too and I and several friends of mine can relate to this.People always miss the absolute killer. Even if you are the non-existent demographic with hot shit internet, interest in high end gaming but no console or pc you need to consider:
1. You live in a house with other people, including yourself, who like to use the internet for downloading files, watching shows or just general browsing.
Think about it. How the fuck would you play a game like red dead redemption 2? You are riding along, realising you are going to spend the next 10 minutes doing absolutely fuck all like an idiot. You reach for your phone ... but nope you can't use bandwidth so what are you going to do? Well all you can do is sit there and watch a horses ass as you grow older and hurtle towards an inevitable death.
The more connected you are, the less streaming works. It is not the future.
How is pointing out the fact that we don't have any real studies on the environmental footprint between cloud gaming versus local gaming a massive reach?
Intuitively: you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a consumer device is more energy effient and has a more sustainable power source than a mass scale data centreHow is pointing out the fact that we don't have any real studies on the environmental footprint between cloud gaming versus local gaming a massive reach?
I completely agree with you here. Game time is indeed at a premium when you get older, as many of us can barely finish a game per month (or 2, 3,4 ...).My (personal) experience is the opposite.
Older gamers have more disposable income, but don't really care all that much about playing the latest games at release. Consoles are bought 2-3 years in, not at launch, so $249-300 or so at most. The investment is more than worth it because consoles double as media boxes (DVD/BRD/Netflix/Amazon Video/HBO/Spotify) so the investment is more than worth it outside of "just games."
Extra controllers are pointless if you don't game much- they're not really prone to breaking. There's no shortage of interesting games clogging the shelves at best buy or amazon for $19.99 new.
You'll take that $19.99 game and spend 5 or 6 months working your way through it, because game time is at a premium.
If you're not gaming very much, a recurring bill of $9.99 a month for Stadia makes very little sense.
edit: My wife is even worse about this than I am. She's only interested in playing ONE game. It's a PS3 game she's been playing since 2009, she'll play for a couple hours a week, and has no interest in anything else. She WILL use the PS3 and PS4 as media boxes though.
Nintendo games.
PSN went down today, how fun will it be when your streaming service goes down after you've had a busy day at work and instead of being able to relax for the night playing a fun game you're just faced with an error screen and no other gaming alternative.
Knowing myself, 35 years old, I rarely play console games anymore. nor do I want to keep upgrading my computer since I dont have the time to be honest. I rather skip the big upfront cost and pay 10 bucks a month and a game from time to time. Even the PS5/next Xbox arent getting me exited anymore and I doubt I can justify paying for one just for the two or three games I will buy for it. So especially with most titles being Multiplatform, stadia looks like a pretty attractive solution for me. Heck I can just load it up on my Ipad in my lap, with controller in hand and play an hour in bed before sleep or something and then continue on my home office PC, or on the couch at the big TV.My (personal) experience is the opposite.
Older gamers have more disposable income, but don't really care all that much about playing the latest games at release. Consoles are bought 2-3 years in, not at launch, so $249-300 or so at most. The investment is more than worth it because consoles double as media boxes (DVD/BRD/Netflix/Amazon Video/HBO/Spotify) so the investment is more than worth it outside of "just games."
Extra controllers are pointless if you don't game much- they're not really prone to breaking. There's no shortage of interesting games clogging the shelves at best buy or amazon for $19.99 new.
You'll take that $19.99 game and spend 5 or 6 months working your way through it, because game time is at a premium.
If you're not gaming very much, a recurring bill of $9.99 a month for Stadia makes very little sense.
edit: My wife is even worse about this than I am. She's only interested in playing ONE game. It's a PS3 game she's been playing since 2009, she'll play for a couple hours a week, and has no interest in anything else. She WILL use the PS3 and PS4 as media boxes though.
Not when you only have 1 ISP available.Data cap issue is interesting, but all it takes is one ISP wanting greater marketshare to offer a "unlimited gaming/4K streaming" plan and the other ISPs are suddenly forced to have to react to that. Data bandwidth is something ISPs are more apt to give away before anything else.
in Europe here, I can count the total time when there was no internet when I needed it in under a minute total for the past 5 years. I personally dont care about playing offline. I dont mind being connected to a server all the time, no data caps so it doesnt cost me any extra (and this is not a rare situation here)
I was thinking the same thing, I work in IT and need reliable access. On the last 15 years I have used DSL/cable/fiber from over 5 different providers to my house and cannot think of any time I had an extended downtime.in Europe here, I can count the total time when there was no internet when I needed it in under a minute total for the past 5 years. I personally dont care about playing offline. I dont mind being connected to a server all the time, no data caps so it doesnt cost me any extra (and this is not a rare situation here)
ok but then you disagree with it for yourself, because you're in a prime location for it to function as advertised
1 frame at 60fps is 16ms, 33ms at 30fps. The thing is, people throw around ms figures here and complain about latency without trying out the service, and how many here can notice one frame of lag, or two or even three?In home streaming would be like 5-15ms
If I remember correctly, 24ms is around 1 frame of input lag at 60fps.
All of the above except for number 61. Editing files and modding are gone
2. You won't be able to play these games once/if they leave the service or you stop paying Google / Microsoft
3. The companies will most likely use your personal data to conduct advertising surveillance on you
4. Both developers and consumers hand over even more power and control over to these giant companies
5. If the Internet is ever down, you won't have access to any of these games.
6. We are not sure about the environmental footprint compared to physical consoles.
7. Say goodbye to videogame preservation and people being able to play classic games that helped form the video game culture and legacy. That in itself should be a huge dealbreaker, imo.
The majority of players are already paying a subscription fee on top of paying for games. The subs are called Xbox Live Gold and Playstation Plus, which are required to allow a game to go online, required for the biggest games out there.The idea of paying a monthly sub fee on top of paying for the game is silly when I do the math in my head. Even publisher specific shops like Ubisofts thing is so silly to me. To imagine paying 180 dollars a year to play maybe one or two games on them. Maybe other people get the value out of it and I'm happy for them, but subscriptions are another way for pubs to nickel and dime people to me.
Savage, but great post lol
Let's assume 3 things.
1. There is no discernable difference in lag between playing a game on a streaming service and a local device.
2. The streaming services have better visuals due to upgrading hardware every few years.
3. Almost all the major third-party games are on streaming services.
I have no data caps. And my speed test means I get max performance.
I also don't care about "owning" games. Basically, I'm asking if everything actually works as described in my home wouldn't it not only be good enough it would actually be better? What is the argument against streaming games taking over for people like me?
Halo 5 is 65ms and people were complaining about how Halo 5 controlled for years. I'm doubting the Forza number but Killzone sounds about right for how sluggish it's aiming was. If you play shooters seriously you will notice 1 frame of input lag. If you play fighting games at all you will absolutely notice 1 frame of lag, most modern fighting games even add this as a training option for when you're playing online against laggy people.1 frame at 60fps is 16ms, 33ms at 30fps. The thing is, people throw around ms figures here and complain about latency without trying out the service, and how many here can notice one frame of lag, or two or even three?
For reference, some input latency tests by DF and NX gamer on some popular games:
Doom ~ 80ms
Killzone SF ~ 110ms
Halo 5 ~ 120ms
Forza Horizon 3 ~ 170ms
So when looking at this we can see that Forza Horizon 3 actually has about 5 frames of latency.
Totally unplayable game, right? ;)
Not if Elon Musk's satellite Internet takes off. His goal for first gen is 20ms, worldwide connectivity. If this becomes reality then gaming will go full streaming for sure.Input lag will always be a thing. It's currently a thing even on your own wi-fi, now pretend you're ping-ponging to Canada and back as ISP's route you in circles.
The majority of players are already paying a subscription fee on top of paying for games. The subs are called Xbox Live Gold and Playstation Plus, which are required to allow a game to go online, required for the biggest games out there.
Also Stadia does not require a subscription if you're fine with 1080p.