That is not what I am saying at all. What I AM saying is that the number of players that can be supported per node is REALLY small compared to generalized compute services. This means that any cloud provider needs to put in a proportionally larger amount of infrastructure to support the small number of users, relatively speaking, that would use this service. So if you want to define the really small percentage of the market that uses this at launch as high demand, then yes, you will saturate the availability of the service. If you are fine with waiting in a queue to play your game due to saturation, enjoy that cloud gaming future.
OK, so "the number of players that can be supported per node is
REALLY small". I'm very interested on this, do you care to share the source for this claim? Curious to see what number goes with "REALLY SMALL".
It's not an issue of determination, it's one of experience. Go play the new MW on a 5" screen and tell me how good your sniping abilities are when the draw/view distance is insanely deep. Now add sporadic lag and frame drops to that equation. Want to play Civ 5 this way? Fine. So may other games, from interface, font sizing, to viewability become a massive problem and, in some cases, unplayable.
The problem is that you cannot take yourself as reference and then predict how everyone else will behave. You are the guy with an Ultra Blu Ray player and a 20,000 home theater, predicting how Netflix will never succeed because the image quality and sound don't compare. It should be easy enough for you to look at reviews from Xcloud and see how the majority of people are both surprised on how good it works and looks and say that this is something they could see themselves using. You can pretend like every gamer using a cloud service will play every game on a 5" screen, but that wouldn't be accurate. You and me know that you could also use an 8"/10" tablet as well. It could be a crappy $150 12" notebook.
Of course there are many people that can not afford a $2-300 console...
Correct, this is not what you said here, "The cost of the console is not the barrier." Because it is a barrier for millions of people. You can simply not deny how more people will have access to console games now.
...and those households are typically the same households that can't afford to pay for high speed/unlimited internet access. One barrier to access does not mean that the other is magically removed.
Here is my question for you. Do you feel that cloud gaming will replace consoles AND dramatically increase the number of people playing console games?
Yes, but you should be able to understand that more people are able to pay an internet connection, compared to the amount of people that pay an internet connection and also have a console. One group is undeniably larger than the other. I do believe that cloud gaming will eventually replace local gaming as the main way to play games, but people find it difficult to think and see things as a gradual change. Stadia should be better than any other streaming service on regards to image quality, input latency and scale of the service, but the real test will happen once the service is out there for people to try. There is a big difference between 75/85% of the public saying online that they can't believe how good Stadia plays and looks vs the same percentage saying that they could not log in most of the time and when they did, they had a horrible experience. If most people have a great experience with Stadia you can bet your life that the service will be successful and will continue to grow.
Access is one thing, but the service must work for most people that try it in order to become popular.
I have to say, you are the single most passionate supporter of cloud gaming I have seen here, in all of the discussions that have popped up around cloud gaming anywhere on Era. I will just say that there are many like me who have worked on cloud gaming/network services, worked in game development, and worked in telecommunications that are cautious or skeptical about the claims of the next crop of game streaming services.
Hey, I would be pleasantly surprised to be wrong! I also believe that there are some experiences that cloud service could deliver that are really unique and cool. I remain skeptical, especially in light of the comments/assertions that the Stadia marketing has made. Microsoft is doing a MUCH better job of describing the potential, roadmap, and expectations of xCloud vs Stadia.
I am looking forward for the new type of games that will be possible on the cloud, anyone that likes games should be at least curious about it. I also like the idea of developers having a bigger market to sell their games. This leads to developers taking more risks with new ideas and be less prone to go broke. Even if you are not planning on using a cloud gaming service, you should at least understand how that benefits you. Death Stranding is a wonderful example of someone trying to make something different with a big budget, you might not like the game, but everyone should at least respect that Kojima didn't try to make a Call of Duty clone, because that is what sells. I want to see more games like that.
I apologize if I sometimes act a little bit harsh on people, but I do spend a lot of time investigating and reading online about how this works and it is very frustrating when someone (not necessarily your case) responds to all the information that is shared with "NOPE, you are wrong, a cloud game on every case will have a higher latency, worse image quality and everything about making server blades work together is a lie". Some people actively either knowingly or not, spread a lot of incorrect information, because they see this a threat. I will be there sharing as much factual information as I can every time I see it.
