-
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.
Prediction - Google will reveal a cheap streaming only device tomorrow and era will wrongly assume its a failing business model
- Thread starter Deleted member 46103
- Start date
Is it potentially the more temporary nature of games that makes you feel different? We've seen a ton of games go offline, or get delisted from stores, or etc. so if you don't own that game, it's gone, and you can't get it anymore unless you pirate it -- and even that's not always an option. If you do own it and it gets delisted, most places will still allow you to do download it. The game doesn't vanish into the ether like it would if it was just something you were getting on a Netflix-style service.
With movies you can feel fairly certain that you could always turn around and buy the move if you really wanted.
Google allows you to stream digital movies that you have bought. Don't see why games would be any different.
I'm kind of struggling to identify the market for this. At absolute best the performance is equivalent to actual hardware running locally and gets worse from there. From an economics perspective, I'm debating whether someone who can't afford a $300 PS4 or Xbox can afford a $100 streaming box with a $15 a month (or more) subscription fee... I really think that these large companies (Microsoft, Google, etc..) have invested so much money into data centers and are trying to find ways generate revenue/turn a profit on them. As a result, they are pushing game streaming (even if it's not ready or even necessary).
Not matter what it is or how well the Google box does, Era is going to compare it to ps4's sales and say it failed.
if its stream only i will not care, i dont live in US or Europe where this service will be available
A good example would be someone like my dad. He's bored of TV and heard so many good things about red dead in mainstream media he asked me if he should give it a go. But the effort of buying a large console that takes up space in his living room and then buying a game too was too much. If its just a subscription service and a cheap set top box, I think he'd be very tempted.
Edit: i actually remember I sold him on the prospect of microsofts rumoured cheaper stream console when we discussed this. So definitely people in the market for this.
If you want to use your console online (i.e. 99% of people) you're paying a monthly fee on PS4/XBO as well. Paying a monthly subscription all-you-can-game makes sense to me, especially if you can use the service everywhere there's Chromium available.
I only stream 1080 Netflix and most of my monthly allotment of data (1tb on Comcast) goes towards the handful of games released on Game Pass. I try to be conservative outside of this and most days bandwidth is usually for regular browsing, youtube streaming (non 4k), plus podcasts, and by the end of each month I'm usually within the last few hundred gigs before hitting that 1 tb. Add a high end game streaming service like Google Stream to it and I'm definitely going over the line. I'm all for streaming games as a future thing but it just isn't feasible enough currently with infrastructure issues plus data caps. One of the reasons I think Google will be selling something with dedicated hardware as well. The entry price may be low with just a dongle and controller, but this will hit a lot of users' data caps fast.
I really with Google Fiber was working near my place. Some kinda Google streaming combo package would be great.
There seems to be this silly notion that their box NEEDS to be successful. It doesn't. The streaming is so much more than that. It's your phone, your Chrome browser, your TV. Compatible with just about any Bluetooth controller out there.
The demographic would be gamers of any kind. I know of popular gaming Youtubers who don't have a decent enough network to upload their episodes from their own homes (in France).
If you limit your target demography to people living in "big" cities with a decent connection, your demography would probably be too limited to be interesting enough for developers to make exclusives on it. And without exclusives, it would just be a concurrent for Shadow.
Not sure it's interesting enough for Google.
I expect nothing more than a streaming service for PC games. Something like Geforce Now, but Google made. There wont be exclusives, as they are just playing PC games.
There *thing* will be you can play it on any device with a chrome web browser.
OUYA was launched on a paltry $10 million budget.
No matter what, you have to take Google's project more seriously than that.
Exactly. The front-end to the service is Chromium, available on billions of devices. Grab a random Android tablet, a smartphone, Android TV on any box or smart television, whatever. Any controller will work - Google has implemented the standardised Gamepad API very well with support for Dualshock controllers, Xbox controllers, hell even JoyCons can be used in Chromium. This will be a very adaptable service, meaning you can use any hardware with some kind of video output and stable networking.
If it's a streaming box I think it'll find some modicum of success, but if it's a full on console I think it'll bomb hard. It's funny that they have Dreamcasts laying around because that's the exact kind of situation I think they're in. Why get a Google console when I can wait a year or so foe Sony and MS' new consoles, who have both proven themselves?
Also Google pulled fiber from my city, so fuck em'.
I was too and it was shit. It will fail utterly.
I hope it's not just a streaming service, but I suspect it will be. Still, very, very interested in the drama.
How many people watch YT at 4k 60fps though? Many people also play games at 4k 60+fps, but you don't see devs making games for that sliver of population alone do you? Like i said afterwards, there is a market for game streaming, but people thinking that it's the main plate for the present or even the immediate future are completely deluded.
I'm skeptical. Every game streaming service I've seen thus far has had issues with the gameplay not feeling responsive enough or the graphics being muddy and washed-out.
That, compounded by the fact that the kind of people who're wary of purchasing a dedicated console most likely don't currently prioritize having a fast internet connection.
That, compounded by the fact that the kind of people who're wary of purchasing a dedicated console most likely don't currently prioritize having a fast internet connection.
The thing is: you don't need crazy upload speeds. I think Google has a very firm grasp of what is attainable with the available bandwiths. Over 55 million Chromecasts (or Chromecast-compatible devices) have been sold already, I'm pretty sure they have done the math regarding the technical feasibility. I do think that Google's gaming plans wont succeed if you really need a specific extra device for it that will occupy another HDMI port. But if it uses the Chromecast platform; it might be big.
In fact forget about lte enormous antennas in top of big buildings and say hi to hundres of 5g hotspots in every road
It's not necessarily a failing business model, it's just too soon. I think as internet improves game streaming will be the "no brainer" way to play games (similar to Netflix and movies), but with most people today having data caps and mediocre speeds, it's just not there yet.
And I don't know if Google has the patience to play the long game.
And I don't know if Google has the patience to play the long game.
It'll fail because google won't deliver on content & get bored with it not making any money after 2 years.
Plus it's another box under the TV, another HDMI port taken up. If this was s/ware only it'd be a different matter.
Plus it's another box under the TV, another HDMI port taken up. If this was s/ware only it'd be a different matter.
because those are two entirely different groups of people who want that. The generation that grew up with the existence of Netflix or even things like Microsoft's Gamepass have become accustomed to the idea of paying for access rather than ownership, it's the default way of life for them.
It's mostly older people who still remember physical media that want to cling onto ownership (myself included).
I could post a theory but I'd get banned for platform warring.
You are right on all counts, lol. Google will reveal a business that is streaming-only (maybe with a little box & controller), and Era users will count it out because they haven't experienced how it works for themselves (much like VR).
Having tried the Project Stream beta on crappy American internet, I am optimistic for the service and excited to see what happens tomorrow.
Having tried the Project Stream beta on crappy American internet, I am optimistic for the service and excited to see what happens tomorrow.
Any connection that can run Netflix can run game streaming, unless you have extreme latency issues. It's just a video stream rendered in some data center instead of served from a flat file.
Imagine first from the perspective of someone who doesn't particularly enjoy games, and never liked any game enough to want to own it. Same people that exclusively game on mobile devices. The games just happen to be there, and they'll play them when riding on the bus or something. Now of course those people probably won't be convinced to pay a monthly fee to play games, and certainly not a monthly fee + the price of games $60 to sustain AAA development, but there's at least a market.
*puts on tinfoil hat*
mainstream 4k is a year away when all the consoles will come with it, and the introduction of 5G will make adaption quicker to faster speeds.
Deluded? lol. You seriously think all these streaming talks from the major players plus Google, Amazon, Apple entering the games business is all pure delusion? you're in for a rude awakening once next-gen ends. Next gen will be when streaming games will become mainstream.
Remember all the shit thrown around during 2013 when oh what if I lose connection blah blah blah and now half of game sales are from digital downloads?
It's software only too. They are not going to tie this into a box. You'll be able to just get on your smart tv and download a app to play.
Streaming movies and tv is completely different from streaming games. A movie that goes from 2160p to 480p for some time won't annoy the viewers too much. On the other hand, a game that flinches, stutters and loses image quality is very annoying.
Also, it's really a hard sell to stream a game in the same setting you'd very easily run it locally.
It's like picking the worst and most complicated option just because.
Also, it's really a hard sell to stream a game in the same setting you'd very easily run it locally.
It's like picking the worst and most complicated option just because.
yeah, tell that to everyone who watches netflix i.e. people who don't buy Blurays anymore. how is that confusing? A game is $60 a piece and if you can just stream a collection of games whenever you want on whatever device you want, why would you spend $60 on a single game when you can spend $20 a month to choose from hundreds of games?
I'm not tech savy here, at all, so my question is, if your internet is good enough to play Multiplayer games online, would it not also be good enough to stream games off a server? Isn't that basically what you're doing when you play multiplayer games online? Like, if every game runs as well as Rocket League or Rainbow 6 Seige, for me, and probably a lot of people, that would be good enough wouldn't it? Like I guess my XBOX or PS4 is rendering things on a local level that this wouldn't be, but what is the difference between this and say jumping into your friends Minecraft world or Far Cry world or games like that where you are kind of playing on your friends version of the game? Does that make any sense? What part of this do I have completely wrong?
It's definitely not generational, it's investment (not just monetary). Clearly if you were a huge fan of The Godfather, you wouldn't just subscribe to services and hope you see it some time it's on there. You'd own a physical copy (or a digital license).
The purpose of streaming services is content for people that don't really care about what content they get.
Buying of blurays is completely different, movies have the theater. Games industry can't sustain game development on $20 / month subs.
This could definitely fall in line with the industry chatter of Sony going big with acquisitions.
Don't have to be Take Two.
But Sony's aiming high for a Streaming service rich in content.
Project Stream felt like a step in the right direction, but it didn't feel ready.
I have a moderately fast internet connection and even then it'd frequently pause or the quality would turn sub 720p with a ton of artifacts. Even still, there was noticeable input lag (much better than say, other forms of game streaming I've tried).
I have a moderately fast internet connection and even then it'd frequently pause or the quality would turn sub 720p with a ton of artifacts. Even still, there was noticeable input lag (much better than say, other forms of game streaming I've tried).
This really is a fantastic post and I am going to respond to it in full once I am on my PC because it's a pain to respond in length on my phone as I have to keep scrolling up and also my fingers are constantly mistyping things on here haha.
Honestly though this was the best response I have ever received and I really appreciate long form well thought out replies as I commonly (when not on my phone) prefer to do the same.
I agree with pretty much the majority of your post, I do have a differing view on game streaming for a number of reasons however I will leave that for my proper response, I might end up inboxing you though as it will probably be pretty lengthy lol.
But I don't think that's entirely true anymore. I don't think we have a generation of people growing up with that expectation.
What they expect is that there will be a streaming service that supplies access to the things they are huge fans of, and that's the one they give their money to. These services will be run by the license holders of the properties themselves. And the industry is seemingly testing to see what the limit is for people willing to subscribe to multiple services at once by every major producer creating their own platform.
Fans of the MCU films will likely subscribe to Disney in order to see their favorite Marvel films again. And if not on an ongoing basis, if Disney prices it low enough, it's going to become one of those "Oh I really want to watch Thor 2 again, I guess it's only $6/m for Disney+, I can spare that for a month", and Disney just thrives on people subbing and unsubbing whenever the temptation takes them, or having it low enough that people just maintain the sub even when they're not using it that often, or at all, because it's just "pocket change" to do so. And people will willingly go along with this.
That's where I see the business going. The amount of people who really care about ownership is dwindling. It's not like they're going to disappear overnight, but consumers have shown they're willing to throw away the concept of ownership for convenience, and short term savings.
I mean if Disney puts their entire catalog up for $6/month that will be one of the best deals of all time, but that's like asking Nintendo to put up every NES, SNES, GC, Wii, and Switch game up for $6/month. It'll never happen. People will be buying digital licenses / physical copies for as long as capitalism lasts.
I doubt it's a failing business model, but I bet Google aren't the successful player in the market, give up after 2 years and shelve like with their laundry list of projects.
Personally, not in for streaming due to the types of games I play. I know it's inevitable but I'll have 40 years worth of gaming to play by then.
Personally, not in for streaming due to the types of games I play. I know it's inevitable but I'll have 40 years worth of gaming to play by then.