-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes 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
I predict Google will get bored of this and close up shop, sell it or have a massive privacy scandal that will severely reduce it's popularity. Obviously Sony survived its own privacy scandal but Google doesn't have that sort of cache in the gaming space.
Streaming is the future but surviving on streaming alone isn't guaranteed to work, even if you're Google.
We'll just have to see in five years.
Streaming is the future but surviving on streaming alone isn't guaranteed to work, even if you're Google.
We'll just have to see in five years.
OK but to put this in line with Ouya is disnegenuous at best. You have people like Jade Redmond and Phil Harrion already onboard. Plus Google is far from a crowd funding project and their investment in streaming isn't just a fad.
Chrome Browser on a PC. Streaming console is just an entry point for those who want to use it. The service is what matters.
I bet I own a PC with a Chrome Browser installed. Same browser that I tested this service...want to revisit this tomorrow?
Have either one of you tried Project Stream?
I believe in streaming, it's google's commitment that I don't have a lot of faith in.
At the same time, I actively hope this project crashes and burns. When you come at the kings, you better not miss,
At the same time, I actively hope this project crashes and burns. When you come at the kings, you better not miss,
OP
OP
Nah he was constantly banned back in the neogaf days and I was only once but that was because I asked them to ban me when that place turned to garbage.
This. I'm all digital, and I'm open to the idea of streaming games, but with current datacaps, it's just not feasible for me personally. Make Comcast stop being assholes about datacaps and I'll start streaming games, no problem.
Youre wrong. You nit being able to notice insane input lag and latency doesnt mean others cant
Chyeah lol
I'm an optimist when it comes Cloud / Stream tech, and reading some of these posts can be somewhat thought provoking, but Streaming technology...after so many advancements made since Onlive or Ouya to here...still isnt nowhere "there" enough to Stream high-end games without there being extensive sacrifices made in the process.
Let's try again in 12-15 years. Seriously. Streaming tech is moving adequately. By 2030, we could see something major.
SD video can be around a GB/half a GB an hour. So you can imagine for 1080P content the data requirement is exponentially much higher, forget 4K Streams.
Also unlike Video Streams which just need to send an audio and video signal. With gaming streaming it also needs to send / receive input data which is the most crucial aspect. Not even 33ms of difference and folks will immediately notice what they are inputting on screen is not coming out instantly.
Forget playing timing sensitive games like STGs / Shoot Em Ups, or twitch reaction FPS-type games.
Same. I do most of my gaming at home. No need or desire to stream a game when I can play it locally.
Streaming only will prove Google is truly clueless and will fail to be a major force in the market. MS will have a traditional console with a streaming service on top. There's no reason to invest in whatever Google is doing when MS will be all that plus more
Yep ^ The only way Google becomes a viable option is if they mirror what Microsoft is doing with Scarlett, meaning a traditional console (in MS's case, 2 consoles) and an inexpensive device that relies on xCloud / streaming to do the heavy lifting. If all Google has is streaming, they will alienate a MASSIVE number of people from the start.
They have to have a conventional console as part of the offering, otherwise...
They have to have a conventional console as part of the offering, otherwise...
I'm 100% anti streaming and I don't even care about the tech. Sooner or later it will be ready. I think streaming is potentially devastating because of the network effects of these kinds of services and because of how it will affect how games are made, preserved, and modified by the community. I think that we are in a really good place now overall with healthy competition between the three console players while pc is an open platform with no barriers to entry for small developers. Steaming by comparison is a massive step backwards on that front with the trade off that we get a small gain in convenience which really is a lot smaller than most think because you are still going to need a screen and controller. The biggest reason I am so anti-streaming is that I think there's a good chance that in a decade playing games locally will be a fringe hobbyist thing, and there is simply no way that will be good for the diversity of games and the diversity of people making games.
I wish people realized that streaming is all about creating and controlling the media player. It's the most oppressive form of DRM imaginable, for gamers and devs alike. There is nothing more to it.
Last edited:
OP
OP
lol google isn't infallible and will hardly be the only one in this streaming space. They'll inevitably be just one of many options much like how google music, spotify, apple music operate now.I think most people will still opt for traditional consoles.
Streaming is inevitable when the majority of this and every country has A. Unlimited bandwidth and B. Giga+ service. Last i checked just in the US alone more than 60 million people didn't have internet and you have to figure more than 50% of the people who do either have data caps or slower internet. It's going to be a long, long, long time before streaming takes over physical. There's a reason you still see CD's and DVD's in retail shops even though people have been claiming both physical mediums have been dying since the early 00's.
I expect the product to be as popular as a Shield TV specifically targeted to a more niche group.
Please explain the pricing differences between Google Stream and Project XCloud
A lot of the doubts come off as people hoping streaming doesn't take off, rather than genuinely thinking it won't.
Frankly, I hope it does. I really want to see how the industry's output changes with an audience so much broader than the usual suspects (i.e. us).
My only question is what game can I play. If it's just mobile trash from the play store then no thanks.
I don't think the general public will care either.
I don't think the general public will care either.
OP
OP
One requires an Xbox or desktop PC.
The other requires anything with chrome. Do you know how much a chromecast costs?
https://kotaku.com/heres-what-were-hearing-about-googles-plans-for-gaming-1833389082
"Google wants it to be playable on any hardware: PCs, Macs, phones, TVs, and so on. Buzz we've heard is that you'll be able to play on a computer or Chromecast using a regular Xbox controller, and that Google will also unveil its own controller that has some sort of streaming capabilities. (We're not sure how the controller will work, but it may allow you to use Google's streaming platform on a television even if you don't have any other hardware hooked up.)"
Like I said. Price.
OP
OP
We don't really know how either work and what platforms they're fully supporting yet so I'd wait to lay stakes on any of those tbh
based on the twitch comments they'll have Fortnight. Wouldn't be surprised if Apex is tied I. to the an annocement too.
Just being able to play hardcore games is a really high barrier to entry, which is why most of the casual audience went to mobile gaming. I really don't think there's a big crossover between people who want to play those games, people who have good enough internet to stream those games and people who don't already own a console/PC.
I won't say Google's initiative is doomed but I do think it's going to have a long road ahead of it to make any kind of impact, especially if they don't have their own exclusives to sell it with. My guess is it ends up doing okay but nowhere near Google's expectations, so Google will eventually just shut it down.
how they reveal it/market it will be vital to its mainstream appeal
it seems like Google would have no issues fitting it into a home ecosystem with other google products, so clearly showing how it interacts with all of those, along with how it could enhance the user experience while playing, will be key
it likely won't be a console for me, but that's not to say it couldn't garner a wider audience in general
it seems like Google would have no issues fitting it into a home ecosystem with other google products, so clearly showing how it interacts with all of those, along with how it could enhance the user experience while playing, will be key
it likely won't be a console for me, but that's not to say it couldn't garner a wider audience in general
Ubisoft, id Software and Crystal Dynamics are known to be there and will possibly be speakers/featured at the event tomorrow. So there will likely be some console level games shown. Not including the Sega rumors from earlier.
Last edited:
I'm down for a low-cost ($99 or below) streaming box but in no way am I going to call it the future of gaming, especially when it comes from a company like Google. For one, like most of Google's other v1.0 products, it's probably going to be US only. Then you've got the bandwidth requirements, data cap issues, input latency, etc. No doubt Google's muscle can put a dent into these issues (HEVC alone is going to do wonders for both quality and bandwidth) but there are factors beyond Google's control that are equally as important.
If it's a $399 direct competitor to MS or Sony, though? Then we've got a fight.
If it's a $399 direct competitor to MS or Sony, though? Then we've got a fight.
Its success or failure will revolve around two things: 1) what their pricing model looks like for actual streaming games not the hardware. 2) what the content for it looks like.
So much of this is ripped from my own thoughts. I often think about GAAS type games like the Division and so on which I love but lightweight demonstrate what kind of control you give up when you go full streaming. If UBISOFT is tired of hosting servers for it, you can't play this game anymore. There is no way to prevent a game company or Google from flipping a switch and just being done with it. With content you own that is not dependent on streaming or in the case of GAAS/MMOs, company owned servers, you can plug in your console 10-15 years from now and still play your games. One we get to streaming only as a future you can say goodbye to passing down game collections and potentially emulation and hello to rights holders pulling content when they see fit and you being SOL. All for the sake of some kind of convenience.
I don't see the appeal of even Google potential offering when you can still get a system from Sony/Nintendo/M$ that have established store fronts and a history of support for thier products unlike how Google approaches things. Plus with xcloud coming from m$, it will give you the best of both worlds and be hardware agnostic. I would shudder to think about playing a fighting game or dmc v or anything with tight timing on any of these streaming services however.
I'm all for streaming. Cali has great internet. It does suck for people who don't have good internet tho. We will see soonq
OP
OP
I'm just going to leave this here. I believe it speaks for itself.
So does this.
https://www.speedtest.net/global-index#fixed
Someone's forgetting that barrier still exists with internet quality. You cannot just focus on the console price + games and then ignore the new set of problems that a streaming console would present, especially when the device is reliant on your infrastructure being good (not to mention, cost/availability of internet itself might be a barrier to people depending on if they live in a rural area).
I think a lot of people (OP included) forget that PS Now exists, works on PC and has no barrier of entry beyond the subscription and ones home PC or laptop, in other words what the OP and people like zedox are already talking about.
The big question however is what Google's availabile content will be like, or the quality of the library of games available, and that is where Google needs to prove themselves.
The big question however is what Google's availabile content will be like, or the quality of the library of games available, and that is where Google needs to prove themselves.
How is that relevant? Doesn't matter how fast your internet is if you're more that 50km away from the nearest hardware centre. There's no getting around the physical limits of latency so only people within those specific cities marked on that map can even get access to the service in the first place (and even then, it'll probably be a slow rollout). It'll be a huge limit to the service's ability to grow.
Cloud gaming will never be more than a niche market until someone finally starts taking the global rollout of servers seriously.
I sort of agree on the basis that gamers don't want streaming, so there after this weird subset of people that are interested in games but not enough to care about latency, I don't think that many people exist that don't already have access to more casual gaming experiences on their phones, or won't subscribe for a short period of time.
Streaming is this future that no one seems to want for themselves but are convinced that a lot of people must want.
We'll see how it goes.