-
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.
Reggie on Streaming Games: "The technical infrastructure doesn’t exist for that to happen in the US"
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
that's great but he's still not wrong. My parents just got speeds faster than DSL a few months ago and many people in this vast country still don't have great access.
Have we had any user feedback on these from people in Japan? Who is running the cloud servers for these games? The publisher or Nintendo?He's basically answering to why those aren't available in the US but are in Japan:
Someone told me there were more in another thread but the "postings" search seems busted right now. It's apparently the same company that does those "cloud ports", and it's that same company that might be the one deciding which region to target.
User warned: Driveby, low effort post
This is rich. Nintendo suddenly acting like they have standards.
You would be surprised how many people can't get proper broadband in the us
How ignorant do you have to be to actually think that the vast majority of people have reliable internet connections just like you.
I actually want you to respond and give a serious reply, because your statement is dumb as hell.
Switch already has at least 3 fully streamed games in Japan, so yes I think they can.
Not to mention the Wii U was technically all about "streaming". Just on a far more local connection.
Are you sure about that? Just look a few posts above yours.
Reggie statement is that it doesn't work at all which is a complete lie.
Like, by that standard there's "no infrastructure for it" on the Japan either because there's places with shitty coverage too.
You do realize you can have streaming services before every single square meter of a country is covered, yes?
OP
OP
Nintendo is a fairly conservative company, but they have produced numerous innovations in the video game market. Being different has pros and cons.
It works fine for a dozen people on google stream. But would it work fine if there would be playing millions of players, and would be your internet connection speed enough if hundreds of people in your area would play streaming games and so share the overall bandwith there? Let me answer it: Most probably your game streaming experience would suffer badly.
Honestly no countries internet structure would be prepared if many people would play to streaming games. Because the todays internet tech is just to slow with to many jumps for something like that.
Not to mention that streaming games only feasible for slow games and max 30FPS games, you will never get a good gaming experience with something like Mario Odyssey or Mario Kart, or every 60FPS game or games that need exact controls.
Oh I see, when Microsoft mentions cloud gaming everyone is " noooooo! the input lag!! local games 4 lyf!" But as soon as Nintendo says its against it, suddenly cloud gaming is a fucking great experience.
Sure, but as far as i'm aware most of the us has shitty internet. So unless the places that have high speed internet would make it financially viable, they won't bother investing just to be losing money.
A bad experience from clients, would tarnish the brand a lot more than no service will.
OP
OP
He didn't say it wasn't there at all. He said it not good enough.
what's really selfish is being against a option that literally doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever.
yeah Reggie sure knows more than Sony that have a fully working streaming service up right now.
why would he need to? Japan doesn't have 100% high speed coverage either. Nothing wrong with introducing this option to the places that support it. Not every service needs 100% coverage from the onset.
You also said they can't comprehend words like streaming which is what I was responding to.
You are not the only one in this thread who has said something like this which is clearly based on your lack of knowledge that they indeed do already have game streaming services for Switch, just not in this particular country.
What's up with some "gotcha" posts mentioning the ethernet port? How are they even related?
Also the Switch DOES supports cloud gaming, but only in Japan, where the infrastructure IS widespread enough to be viable (at least for Nintendo and the publishers involved)
Also the Switch DOES supports cloud gaming, but only in Japan, where the infrastructure IS widespread enough to be viable (at least for Nintendo and the publishers involved)
Especially funny considering their Japanese branch approved cloud games with less quality than these said services.
I feel like we're ready for it in the U.K. with fibre broadband.
Part of me just thinks this is Nintendo being stubborn about doing anything when it comes to online. Just look at their current online service after over a decade since it started. It's a joke.
Part of me just thinks this is Nintendo being stubborn about doing anything when it comes to online. Just look at their current online service after over a decade since it started. It's a joke.
I should have worded that a little better
However, my statement stands. Nintendo is just a dumpster fire when it comes to the online infrastructure. I wish they would have caught up with the competition by now.
But I do agree with some in this thread saying it would be nice if they could offer it in the US so that those who do have the infrastructure could take advantage of it.
Though from a business perspective I think I can understand why they don't want to pay millions for these services when there's no guarantee a large segment of the user base can even viably use it.
I agree with you that their online infrastructure is pretty poor, but it's always been clear that this isn't due to lack of competence, rather just them choosing not to offer certain services. When the Wii U comes with built in voice chat on day one but the Switch does not, that's not an issue of lack of understanding or competence. That's a design choice. A bad one, but still a choice.
So it's always been very silly seeing people call them out for being "incompetent" or "dumb" when it comes to internet infrastructure, rather than actually address the root of the problem which is probably more a combination of pride (in them being different from the competition) and being conservative.
Though from a business perspective I think I can understand why they don't want to pay millions for these services when there's no guarantee a large segment of the user base can even viably use it.
I agree with you that their online infrastructure is pretty poor, but it's always been clear that this isn't due to lack of competence, rather just them choosing not to offer certain services. When the Wii U comes with built in voice chat on day one but the Switch does not, that's not an issue of lack of understanding or competence. That's a design choice. A bad one, but still a choice.
So it's always been very silly seeing people call them out for being "incompetent" or "dumb" when it comes to internet infrastructure, rather than actually address the root of the problem which is probably more a combination of pride (in them being different from the competition) and being conservative.
Good for you, but your individual experience doesn't reflect the vast majority of the US and Canada. It's nowhere near close to being as widespread as in Japan. Nintendo won't roll that out until it's ready for primetime across the whole continent.
To be fair, people would bitch if he tried to tell you that you should buy their ethernet adapter in order to subscribe to a game streaming service.
as the article says its about having a great experience with very high speeds
PSnow is far from a great experience
I never said I was against streaming games, though I personal have no interest in that. It is fine to want the option. I was specifically talking about people who want the option and don't care others not be able to use it as long as they have it.
The UK is so unbelievably not ready for it you can't imagine. I'm with Reggie on this one. You can live in central London, Leicester, Manchester, any major city and still suffer horrendous internet speeds. I couldn't even play Splatoon properly in an apartment in London. If the states are half as bad as it is in the UK, they're still a ways off a healthy enough infrastructure to stream consistently.
Lots of people on resetera are claiming the same thing though. Go check out the numerous threads about digital future
He is technically right. Extremely large sections of the US just simply wouldn't have a great streaming video game experience because of how shitty the service provided by the ISPs in those locations are.
We are one of the few countries sort of ready for this.
But for now yeah most of the world isn't ready
You have to remember that half the population lives in rural areas.
And how many of the 300+ million Americans have access to Google Project Stream, let alone can afford it?
Yeah, I thought so.
He's not wrong.
Hundreds of millions of Americans don't have the necessary speeds to reliably stream games.
Surprise surprise! USA is not the center of the world and Nintendo for sure is using Streaming in the Switch
Just not in United States of Internet Cap
And yet it apparently has nearly 5 mil subs (calculated from 140mil quarterly PSNow revenue). That number includes the period when it added the download option though. People understand the trade off and some are willing to make it.
Responsiveness has been a staple of their titles, but I don't really think 1P streaming is even what we're really discussing here. 3P probably don't care.
He is not wrong... you are luck to be the few to have great internet in US.
I'm from Brasil and it is even worst here :( unless of course you live in the Capital like São Paulo.
They don't, of course their is a market big enough but it's not a solution for everyone.