I will be very pleased if I can use my Shield TV with this.
Dont forget to bookmark this thread.
No thanks.
I will be very pleased if I can use my Shield TV with this.
Dont forget to bookmark this thread.
i dont see any this being anything more than an streaming box that wont compete with anyone. It will be like an ouya where it didn't do anything of note.
We'll see what data they try and extract from the user this time around. After all, they are an advertising business. I don't need Google spying on me while gaming.
Chrome Browser on a PC. Streaming console is just an entry point for those who want to use it. The service is what matters.A "100$ streaming console with a 20$ subscription" is "not a device you already own" - on any level. Which is what OP wanted to discuss.
Anyway I maintain that streaming in of itself is not a forward looking model - even though remote-processing, well - is. But neither is a particularly appealing proposition for customers or providers alike at the moment.
I bet I own a PC with a Chrome Browser installed. Same browser that I tested this service...want to revisit this tomorrow?
Kotaku article from Jason Schreier on what he has heard
https://kotaku.com/heres-what-were-hearing-about-googles-plans-for-gaming-1833389082
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.Data caps tho......
How much data is used to stream a game for 1 hour?
Era thinks that only a super powerful console (PS4/XBox One) or a genius new design (Switch) can sell in this industry.
All three of these consoles have an extremely high barrier to entry when it comes to hardware costs and games.
I sold video game systems at Best Buy when I was younger and console hardware costs and generation turnover were a HUGE issue for parents buying a console for their kids. I always got the same question... "If I buy this 200-300 system with these $60 games will they release a new one soon and make it obsolete?"
If Google announces a sub $100 streaming console tomorrow with a $15-$20 monthly subscription this entire barrier to entry disappears.
I was a project stream beta tester and it worked flawlessly with my 50 down/5 up mbps internet connection so I have zero concerns about connection issues. Yes, some rural users on really bad internet connections will not be able to use the service but they will be a minority and will not impact the success of the system. Lets also not forget 5G is right around the corner and is going to bring new ways to get home internet.
So go ahead and bookmark this post and tell my I am wrong but if this system doesn't sell it wont be because its a streaming service.
Half of the USA can barely stream Netflix @1080p and people expect a streaming console to take off? Good luck.
Data caps tho......
How much data is used to stream a game for 1 hour?
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.This forum is so anti-streaming because it's dominated by posters who live in North America, which has considerably worse internet infrastructure than is found in huge parts of Europe and Asia. That infrastructure will eventually improve, but streaming technology isn't going to just sit around and wait until rural/suburban America has enough bandwidth, or no data caps. You just might end up getting this technology later than other parts of the world, and that's okay.
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
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.Streaming is inevitable. I'm ready for it. :)
People think that something has to "sell"...when you can stream from devices you already own. lol. Don't ever listen to Era and predictions...
You are 100% correct but others that love stacks of physical media will say you are wrong. Google will force the hand of the other three. I'm still not sure if this is bad or good though.
Please explain the pricing differences between Google Stream and Project XCloud
based on the twitch comments they'll have Fortnight. Wouldn't be surprised if Apex is tied I. to the an annocement too.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.
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.All three of these consoles have an extremely high barrier to entry when it comes to hardware costs and games..
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'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.
I'm just going to leave this here. I believe it speaks for itself.
If Google announces a sub $100 streaming console tomorrow with a $15-$20 monthly subscription this entire barrier to entry disappears.
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.
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.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.