-
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
This doesn't happen to enough games for me to worry or care about
I've had more hardware break than digital games delisted from what I've bought over the years
1 xbox
3 Xbox 360's
1 ps3
1 PC
and I think I've lost 1 game from delisting
Last edited:
5G will make low latency connections a lot more common.
"With 4G networks, you're looking at an average latency of around 50ms. That could drop to 1ms with 5G technology. Just to give that some context, it takes at least 10ms for an image seen by the human eye to be processed by the brain. Low latency is vital for real-time reactions in machines or cars and it could also make cloud gaming possible. Gamers could play via their phones on remote hardware, as services like Google's Stadia are suggesting. 1ms is what you can aspire to, as it's what's possible in near-perfect scenarios. The average latency you can expect on 5G will likely be around 10ms."
5G vs. 4G: Key differences between networks explained | Digital Trends
How do 5G and 4G compare in terms of speed, latency, and coverage? We pit them against each other to uncover the differences -- and what that means for you.www.digitaltrends.com
1ms is what they aspire to, in near perfect environments. Also, that is latency to the cell, not the data center. Latency looks more like 10ms in end-to-end response times. Also, this is assuming that your servers are located in a MEC and not a PoP behind the cells.
I think the biggest single issue for cloud streaming overall is consistent availability. While 5G allows for connectivity at high rates of speed, while devices are moving at high rates of speed, handoff between cells, 4G, or even wifi remains a question.
What if they take your favourite game away from the streaming platform because of licensing reasons. That happens all the time, but for now you can buy it in the store and play it still.
Ok so my point is that gaming will move to streaming like music, movies, and series have.
So gaming physical media in 7-8 years (next-next gen) will be in the same state as music and movie media is now; you call it "massive amounts", I call it "residual"
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.
That's good for you. It will only increase. Maybe you won't experience it much but others will, and for that reason it is bad for the community as a whole imo. Just because it doesn't impact you greatly doesn't mean you should support practices that impact others more.
for me, I'd prefer gaming to be physical + digital + streaming, and at the least digital download + streaming. Streaming only is too risky as it relies on the publishers and service company to maintain availability. I'm happy that streaming sounds like a good option for you, so I'd like you to keep that option, just like I'd expect you to want others to maintain the option of physically or at least digitally (via download) owning their games
Is this a joke post?
PS Now has like 1.4M subs, is $9.99 per month now, and has existed since 2014. Sony literally bought Gaikai for this. How is paying almost $400M in 2012 for Gaikai not "looking at streaming"?
PS Now has been around for years at this point. Not sure if you are serious here...
I prefer having physical media. I like having the ability to trade/resell games. I don't like the idea of having to rely on an internet connection to play everything. I live in an area with a rather poor internet connection and I don't see it getting better anytime soon so even if I wanted to stream games I doubt that I could (I tried a PS Now trial and ran horribly). So yeah all that combined I would be out of gaming if it ever became streaming only.
OP
OP
Don't blame me if I'm horribly uninformed about the gaming industry because I get my news from American gaming podcasts.
OP
OP
Yes, we still cannot point to that successful cloud gaming model yet. Will it be subscription model, buying individual games, a combination of both or something completely new? Whatever happens things will change and evolve based on consumer feedback and spending habits. Within that "those that can't afford consoles" group, there will be people as you mentioned that wont buy any traditional console games, but some will and that is the point. Some will be able to try, enjoy and then buy games on cloud gaming services, because the barrier of access will be so low.
Last edited:
OP
OP
But the costs are also huge for a new console with R&D and stuff, right? The problem I see right now is if every publisher has to build their own streaming service in the future or if Google takes most of them.
I didn't say physical had to go away completely for streaming to exist, I was just saying the positives of streaming
Not with the infrastructure we have in the US my man lmao
I get what he is saying though. It feels inevitable sadly.
I get what he is saying though. It feels inevitable sadly.
No.
And if it happened it will not be exclusively for streaming.
Physical and Digital will co exists.
And if it happened it will not be exclusively for streaming.
Physical and Digital will co exists.
Everytime this topic comes up and it gets compared to videos and music which are all passive experiences I kinda cringe a bit.
It's a false equivalence that completely hinges on the fact that we've seen it only rise in the past few years and haven't had to deal with any of the fallout yet that is coming from splintering of services. It also ignores the vast amounts of difference between interactive media spanning years versus passive experiences like watching an hour and a half movie or something.
The experiences of a music album and film, all of which have a ton of alternate methods of acquisition are not the same in a lot of ways as games, which with the shift to GAAS are being geared towards a system in which they create yearly releases, charge you full price, iterate very little, and if streaming works the way they intend it to, can literally just shut off the old games and make you buy into the new ones.
Not only is preservation in gaming already shit compared to other media's many other forms, but when emulation is looked down upon so much and DRM is invasive and game companies hell bent on squeezing every dollar out of players already, the idea that this new environment will be "player friendly" in the long run seems really naive. Prices will go up, people will take their toys away from other companies to sell on their own, and they will continue to have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to have access to things they're buying already.
It's part of the reason why I think Stadia is a joke. I have to pay for a monthly service, and then I have to buy the game again. I'm paying to "rent" someone's infrastructure and while that works I guess for a wide variety of people, if gaming ever tried to limit big titles to "only subscribers" or "Only on streaming services" it would be a big deterrent for me from the gaming sphere.
I want to like streaming, in a sense, but the idea of giving publishers more power than they already have when they've already pushed every boundary almost conceivable in the space doesn't leave me with a lot of confidence when they literally hold the power to stop you from enjoying the game you like for whatever arbitrary reason they deem necessary. If majority of gaming ever goes GAAS/Always online and continues this gen's trend of "chores" with daily logins and manipulating people to log in daily on top of sub fees I'm probably going to stick what will then be "retro" gaming.
In the end though so long as physical media exists that's what I will prefer. I prefer to own and upkeep my own games and reserve them. Long after the Wii shop dies I'll still have games from the NES era I can play. And this is ignoring the obvious speaking points people have gone on about multiple times involving data caps, infrastructure, etc. The entire concept of having to have internet access (and pay for multiple services, if not pay more for internet when they know they can monetize the data caps and stuff for how big gaming is compared to film/music streaming) to be able to play things I supposedly "own" is one of the most anti-consumer things I can possibly imagine, and yet people are cheering for it to be a thing. Fascinating.
It's a false equivalence that completely hinges on the fact that we've seen it only rise in the past few years and haven't had to deal with any of the fallout yet that is coming from splintering of services. It also ignores the vast amounts of difference between interactive media spanning years versus passive experiences like watching an hour and a half movie or something.
The experiences of a music album and film, all of which have a ton of alternate methods of acquisition are not the same in a lot of ways as games, which with the shift to GAAS are being geared towards a system in which they create yearly releases, charge you full price, iterate very little, and if streaming works the way they intend it to, can literally just shut off the old games and make you buy into the new ones.
Not only is preservation in gaming already shit compared to other media's many other forms, but when emulation is looked down upon so much and DRM is invasive and game companies hell bent on squeezing every dollar out of players already, the idea that this new environment will be "player friendly" in the long run seems really naive. Prices will go up, people will take their toys away from other companies to sell on their own, and they will continue to have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to have access to things they're buying already.
It's part of the reason why I think Stadia is a joke. I have to pay for a monthly service, and then I have to buy the game again. I'm paying to "rent" someone's infrastructure and while that works I guess for a wide variety of people, if gaming ever tried to limit big titles to "only subscribers" or "Only on streaming services" it would be a big deterrent for me from the gaming sphere.
I want to like streaming, in a sense, but the idea of giving publishers more power than they already have when they've already pushed every boundary almost conceivable in the space doesn't leave me with a lot of confidence when they literally hold the power to stop you from enjoying the game you like for whatever arbitrary reason they deem necessary. If majority of gaming ever goes GAAS/Always online and continues this gen's trend of "chores" with daily logins and manipulating people to log in daily on top of sub fees I'm probably going to stick what will then be "retro" gaming.
In the end though so long as physical media exists that's what I will prefer. I prefer to own and upkeep my own games and reserve them. Long after the Wii shop dies I'll still have games from the NES era I can play. And this is ignoring the obvious speaking points people have gone on about multiple times involving data caps, infrastructure, etc. The entire concept of having to have internet access (and pay for multiple services, if not pay more for internet when they know they can monetize the data caps and stuff for how big gaming is compared to film/music streaming) to be able to play things I supposedly "own" is one of the most anti-consumer things I can possibly imagine, and yet people are cheering for it to be a thing. Fascinating.
The real point of 5G is it's cheaper for a telco to mount an antenna outside of your window than run fiber into your premises.
It is not consumer driven, consumers prefer to avoid external antennae.
It is not consumer driven, consumers prefer to avoid external antennae.
My tired arguments against streaming, again:
Basically, this:
- If "I like to own things I buy" is the Old (Wo)Man Hill that I have to die on, so be it, I guess. The idea of all these different companies siphoning out all of my money for endless "subscriptions" to things so that I can borrow whatever I want/need from that particular almighty corporation, and everyone just nodding along like "yes, this is fine," is dystopian to me and it's crazy that this has any supporters. I am already expecting every single publisher is going to want to have a separate subscription service for their games. You're gonna need your Spotify, your YouTube Red, your Pandora, your Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Hulu, Apple thing, Stadia, then I'm gonna go ahead and assume that all those separate PC launchers today are gonna eventually transition into being the portals for their streaming services, which will also require individual subscriptions... Everything is going to fragment all to hell and back -- it's already starting in other media -- and then each fragment is going to independently charge "only $10/month" or something. Once that happens, you're either gonna have to make some sacrifices or you're gonna have to pay for all of those services and be spending the same amount of money as buying the games outright would've cost, but then still not actually owning them.
- Ownership and financial debates aside, I don't find the idea of playing a beautiful 4K HD action game on a cell phone with a touch screen at all compelling, and I'm not gonna carry around a separate full-sized controller just for that because that, as a bulky item, is inherently less portable than just the phone. It's not a selling point for me.
Basically, this:
Yes yes yes to all of this post.
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.
It is going to happen. But we are still a ways off from streaming being the primary way people play games.
So what if those factors changed? If you could get games streamed to your location in a reliable and fast way, without any perceivable input lag, would you still feel the same way?
I work in distributed data architecture on top of VERY expensive, heavily optimized infrastructure leveraging the latest in private cloud network hardware. You wouldn't believe how often I use phrases like 'the laws of physics still apply' when talking to clients and developers about latency.
The costs to deploy 5G, from an infrastructure cost/buildout POV, are vastly more expensive than running lines. In addition, there are many reasons why a telco may not be able to run lines to particular geographies. The real advantage of 5G is that physical lines to end points are not required, making high speed services available to more places/homes than receive them today.
Oh yes, there are so many people that believe that bandwith = speed
"I have 100mb connection, why is my ping higher than when I had 10? It's ten times faster"
His logic is flawed, maybe not about the fact that streaming is the future but when he expresses that only then gaming will compete about resources with film and music. They're already competing with them for a resource that's much more valuable than stupid online bandwidth. They're competing for my and everyone else's time and that's not going to change.
Maybe if the new releases were like 10-20 dollars I'd consider it. But that is assuming a lot which I don't see happening. Right now I can buy a game for 60 and sell it once I'm finished for around 40-50 dollars.
They're right but you're just hung up on the use of the word "gamer".
OP
OP
Dismissing people by saying they aren't real gamers is/was/always will be stupid.
Yep streaming is going to become the only option instantly over night with no transition period, before you even have a chance to have better internet available to you
these comments are ridiculous
OP
OP
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.
Last edited:
Quite understandable, however this isn't an issue specific to game streaming. It is an issue of digital distribution in general.