-
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.
Is cloud based gaming services the future? Mat Piscatella (NPD Analyst) is skeptical.
- Thread starter MrTired
- Start date
I imagine analysts said the same when Netflix adopted this model. Now look what has happened.
I'm fairly sure more people listen to music, watch films and series than ever before.
Not saying it'll happen with games, as I'm no analyst, but I'm sure Google, Microsoft, Sony, etc aren't just throwing money around if they don't see a market opportunity.
I'm fairly sure more people listen to music, watch films and series than ever before.
Not saying it'll happen with games, as I'm no analyst, but I'm sure Google, Microsoft, Sony, etc aren't just throwing money around if they don't see a market opportunity.
I don't think a lot of people will play GTA V on their phone. But maybe on their television set, without needing a console or a PC.
Without having to install. Without having to patch.
Yep. Game streaming also isn't a 1:1 version of the Netflix model but rather just movies along the lines of the Movies Anywhere program. Streaming won't be limited to the games in Game Pass or PS Now.
Most people play on mobile and only free to play titles. They aren't feeling "starved" for gaming content and will pick free games over having to pay for something and the other group of people who are willing to pay for games are already doing it with consoles and PCs, not waiting for "streaming" platforms and services.
Not saying there's 0 market for streaming, but I don't think it's the same as Netflix.
I don't quite get his point. That cloud based gaming isn't likely to pull in more (paying) gamers? That doesn't mean paying gamers won't switch to cloud based gaming when it matures since they will no longer have to pay for hardware, still making it the future.
Whether it is the future or not shouldn't be tied to how well it can pull in new paying gamers?
I don't think he's quite trying to make the point that the OP has in the title...
Whether it is the future or not shouldn't be tied to how well it can pull in new paying gamers?
I don't think he's quite trying to make the point that the OP has in the title...
So someone who isn't normally interested in video games or has a passing interest will avoid buying a console and will, instead, purchase a third party controller off Amazon / Best Buy, hope that it will bluetooth into their TV where they will subscribe to a game streaming service utilizing their amazingly consistent internet connection?
I want to see how many of these people exist in the world.
Price is everything. If people can play CoD for ten bucks a month forever and not have to do anything but open a browser. It will be Successful.
If people have to pay full price the download outright and doesn't offer a comparable speed, graphical performance it won't be competitive.
If people have to pay full price the download outright and doesn't offer a comparable speed, graphical performance it won't be competitive.
Oh, I'm not saying the market is as large as Netflix.
But I can imagine there are quite some people who would like to play FIFA, but don't want to buy a console. Imagine being in a youth hostel, where every TV turns into a FIFA console. Or a place to play Call of Duty.
Or they'll use their phone as the controller.
Smart TV's having apps for game streaming is another possibility.
This market won't grow from 0 to 100 in one day. It'll need time. Both because of the connections, lack of 5G deployment, datacaps and lack of controllers. But I don't think it's weird to think that making games more accessible will bring in more gamers.
I imagine a future where, when I'm on a business trip I check in at a hotel, and as one of the paid services the TV has access to things like Game Pass or EA Access. And you can directly play games via that service. No downloads required, no updates, no licensing.
Piscatella is right on the money. I'm sure these services will have some form of hook - exclusives, free trials to get people in the door - but as is, I can't see them being anything more than a moderate success among the 1/3rd that already pays for content.
I get it. I remote play my PS4 to my phone all the time. But, as someone who uses game streaming a lot, I'm not seeing where this is going to bring in new gamers. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to get this shit working correctly and it's not near as turnkey as buying a console is.
I'm just not seeing the would-be gamer who is ready to jump in on COD / GTA if only they had a bluetooth controller, great wifi+internet, a TV with app, a subscription to a game streaming service and the patience to troubleshoot when there are technical errors.
Maybe a decade or two from now it will be successful, but it wont be from new gamers, it will be because people like us are forced into game streaming to play the games we want.
Installing and patching is a complete nonissue if your internet is fast enough for streaming.
Yup, yup and yup. People are forgetting that this will cost money...the average gamer is either almost exclusively F2P, or will be very picky about the service especially as those people likely already have XBL/PSN/EA Access. Not to mention internet issues playing anywhere but home. People really think these services will play nice with hotel and airport internet? LOL
I don't get the Netflix comparisons. People aren't going to pay to play games on some crappy Fire tablet. Just look at the Xbox GamePass...all those games a month for one price plus heavy backwards compatibility? Yet, Xbox is in a distant 3rd place right now...there isn't the same demand to play EVERY game right now. Most people play 1 or 2 games at a time, which will always be cheaper than a monthly service, especially if one or both of those games are free to play.
Netflix isn't competing against free. People have Netflix because they have exclusive content there that you can't find elsewhere, and the rest of the content is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than a month of cable. Spotify/Apple Music/Google Play Music is for all real purposes, the only place to get music now...and radio is still very popular amongst car owners. So let's stop comparing this to other streaming services.
We'll see.
Not needing a console to play FIFA anymore will leave a lot of people not buying consoles. And thus making other people see the light and playing FIFA without a console too.
I disagree. I recently played Gears of War 4. 130GB.
Even with my connection (which is fine for game streaming) that was quite the download.
An annoying download for sure. But getting rid of that means you are entering a world with a new set of difficulties. Before you know it you may be wishing you could go back to simply downloading the game and going.
There is no reason why you wouldn't be able to start the game after downloading may be 10% of it. I mean that's already possible on PS4.
Which should always remain an option for people who have dedicated hardware.
Agree.
I think that it's different though. We like to compare the games industry to the film or music industry but many fail to understand that fundamental differences in the medium itself lead to different outcomes. The games industry doesn't evolve like home VHS > Redbox > Netflix did... and people also still go to the cinema despite all of that.
The convenience of streaming music and video is apparent because both are static. Apart from having your media library in one place, the convenience factor is immense compared to a physical purchase in a store.
You spend a significant amount of time with a game, sometimes hundreds or thousands of hours. The need for immediacy just isn't there.
Another factor is someone with a poor internet connection won't be able to stream so that person can still download the game (even if it takes a while). Vice versa a person with a good internet connection might as well quickly download the game and they don't have to worry about artifacts, disconnects, data caps, save game data, game availability, mods etc. etc. streaming just comes with so many caveats. The only real positive aspect at the moment is that you don't need to buy a platform to play on and even that's not entirely true.
It's like the prediction that PC gaming will die - or that consoles will die due to mobile. Not everything will evolve "logically". I don't think that streaming has a meaningful future, not within the next 20-30 years if ever; and if it does it won't clash with classic PC/Console gaming but it'll evolve into its own distant thing with different experiences.
The bold is what I was getting at. I don't see a new market expansion just a replacing of the current PC/Console market. Most likely streaming will be forced on us because it benefits the content holders that we don't own anything.
I think the public Google is trying to reach are the ones that have some interest in games but are not willing to buy a console or a hi-end PC just for that. But if they had a simpler way to play, they would give it a try and maybe get hooked up.
I'm sure this public exists, but I don't know how big it is and specially, how many people inside that demographic has good enough Internet to stream games. There's definitely a lot of people out there wanting to play the latest AAA games but with no money to buy a new console (just look at how much X360, PS3s and even PS2s are still being sold in third world countries), but those people can't afford that kind of internet connection yet.
So, I believe that streaming is the future, but I don't think the future is so close.
I'm sure this public exists, but I don't know how big it is and specially, how many people inside that demographic has good enough Internet to stream games. There's definitely a lot of people out there wanting to play the latest AAA games but with no money to buy a new console (just look at how much X360, PS3s and even PS2s are still being sold in third world countries), but those people can't afford that kind of internet connection yet.
So, I believe that streaming is the future, but I don't think the future is so close.
Streaming will suffer the same fate as movie streaming, everyone will want to sell their separate service and it will be a shitshow.
If you don't have a good internet connection Stadia is DOA for you. (im guessing)
That's already happening. EA, Ubisoft, Sony, MS, Google, etc.
Well, those companies that are trying to force such changes will learn quickly if the userbase isnt there. Trying to make changes to the industry self fulfilling prophecies only goes so far
Honestly I think the core gamers he's talking about will eventually go to streaming because it's *better*. That's still not a guarantee, but if the technical (latency, macroblocking) and business (subscriptions, game prices, server costs) issues are "solved" (meaning competitive with PS/XB/Steam), then all the user-experience aspects of cloud gaming could be way more convenient. We could have solid 4k/HDR/60fps graphics on almost any device loadable in seconds. It's almost too good to be true.
I think streaming is something that publishers want alot more than consumers do. Stadia is targeting people who're interested in high quality gaming, but don't have the money to invest in a console or gaming PC, but have the money for high speed internet? How many people meet those 3 criteria? I'd imagine not as many as Google and co are hoping for.
The only way I see Stadia making an impact in 2019 / 2020 is if they come out with a really good price (free even), the tech works for a lot of different internet setups and they snag huge gets like RDR2, GTA5, FIFA, COD:MW, etc.
But even then, they won't be bringing in new gamers, it'll be people like us who jump ship from consoles to the service, IMO.
You think there were a sizeable portion of people who never watched movies or TV but started because of Netflix?
It's just not analogous at all. Netflix took something everyone does and made it more convenient. They didn't have to persuade people to become interested in watching moving pictures.
Unless you mean gamers will opt for convenience over quality as people did with Netflix. I do see that as an unfortunate possibility. Mat may be assuming too little flexibility among habitual, money spending gamers.
Then you have to find those that have the brodband to support it, which narrows the field even further.
Great post. Thank you.
I think you bring up a couple of great points here. For most people streaming games will not be their (prime) solution. But, I believe there is an audience with current gamers and new gamers that could benefit from game streaming quite a bit. It makes gaming as a medium more accessible.
Imagine having some friends over and organizing a FIFA tournament with them. In the future the only thing you'll need is a TV with Wifi capability. People will use their phones as controllers, connect to Wifi for the input and all you need is a subscription to EA Access ($10).
That's accessible gaming. The success of the Nintendo Wii was the accessibility of it all.
I was someone like that. Before Netflix I just watched cable television and went to the cinema 1 or 2 times per year.
Now I watch tens of series and films per year.
With the Xbox's offering you can own, subscribe, download or stream the same content. With Stadia you can only subscribe and stream.
In my opinion, netflix solved another problem. Many of us overpaid for content that we didnt watch. Netflix fixed this, somewhat. I dont know that cloud based gaming does this, exactly. It does lower the barrier to entry, but are those people interested in the first place? It will be interesting.
Absolutely, you also nailed it with this post. I think streaming is a great platform different from what we currently have with its own unique experiences. I imagine many will be short, without the requirement of previous savegames. Like you said something like a *FIFA lite* version. Plenty of other stuff that is tailored to that audience.
Do you think they'll offer a download and local play option?
Will you be able to stream 2-4 screens at a time on different devices and share the same account with 6 family members? That's a big reason why NF and video streaming has taken off for low income viewers. $10 per month and shared with many is different than $60 per game and maybe shared between 1-2.
There's no way AAA games are streamable for a monthly fee, they need to recoup budgets. A $10 monthly collection of older games? Maybe.
I feel like video games are too different (budgets, consumer spending habits) to say it will be just like movies and music
They won't offer a download and local play option. But they could offer an option to own the games you buy. So imagine buying Odyssey and playing it on Stadia. Doesn't mean it isn't in your uPlay library.
But as I said, we have no idea how it'll work. We don't know if they will offer a subscription (they probably will), if you are able to buy separate games, etc.