Boss Man
Member
This is an additional service. Nothing is being 'limited' or lost. It's been confirmed that they're not going full on DD with PS4 or anything like that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony close to agreeing cloud gaming acquisition
- Thread starter ULTROS!
- Start date
Because they're just friggin' games.
If I can get my entertainment directly streamed to me in a quality fashion at a low price with a large selection, it's going to be hard to say no. I don't mind not playing Modern Warfare 3 twenty years from now because it was on a digital service that doesn't exist anymore, in exchange for a service that could be a Netflix-style buffet of awesome.
But that's just me.
For the precedent it sets.
Because if people come to accept it, it brings us one step closer to this being the primary means of playing our games.
Do you really want to see 'software as a service' become the new norm for gaming, where you don't own your games at all, but pay subscription fees for everything? That's a model companies have flirted with for years, in various incarnations, and you can bet game publishers would love to see it adopted as the industry standard. Is that really what you want?
Look at the long-term implications, not the short-term benefits.
Whereas I'm an old-fashioned guy who likes to buy something he likes and own it, rather than everything being a loaner that you have to keep up the payments on.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Yes, I've seen that. That thread has nothing to do with my major point here.
Yes, things using this service will be limited by the quality of your ISP. That's an indisputable fact and a reality of all game streaming services (or anything else that streams on the internet). If your ISP and service you currently subscribe to isn't sufficiently fast, your gaming will suffer lag, either through actual input lag or quality of the picture itself. Both, most likely.
It's good that it's not going to be used as a primary method of gaming, but it's going to be a weak secondary or tertiary way of gaming for the majority of gamers.
Boss Man
Member
That's kind of a silly point, unless you were required to stream your games. Your ISP also dictates how much you can enjoy online multiplayer, and your TV has a lot of say over how good your games look.
In this case, you're not going to 'suffer' anything, other than not being able to enjoy the benefits of this new service. For people with a fast connection, it's a gain. For people without a fast connection, it doesn't mean anything.
bigboss370
Member
its a good future-proof acquisition for when internet speeds are faster and bandwidth caps are higher. (which hopefully happens)
so good move.
so good move.
Agreed. software as a service ...
darkside31337
Tomodachi wa Mahou
So what you're saying is that the only way I should be playing older games is by having a working PS2, finding said PS2 game, hopefully everything actually works and then start playing instead of being able to simply just going onto the digital store and selecting to just simply play the game from my PS3. Because its a matter of principle?
If thats all it takes to kill off traditional console gaming then honestly maybe it doesn't deserve to survive. There is room for both a Netflix style approach to video games and the currently established buy it and own it (either physically or well kind of digitally).
Dreams-Visions
Member
It's a point to be made for ANY kind of gaming, required or not. It simply won't be a viable alternative for a majority of gamers. At least, not for any games that would make the acquisition of a major cloud gaming service make sense. Cloud gaming is and will remain a niche market for many, many years to come.
The end.
No idea what you're trying to say here. Degraded video quality from a video stream of a game is a function of the quality of your internet service, not your television.
Have you ever used OnLive before? I'll assume not.
lol. which was the entire point. that many gamers won't be able to enjoy this service. It's good it's a tertiary gaming service, but seems an unnecessary and unwarranted direction to toss limited resources towards at this point in Sony's life.
Boss Man
Member
Ah, I didn't take that as your point. My fault for misunderstanding. It's worth mentioning that this is a temporary problem though, and the same thing could have been said about online multiplayer not too long ago.
I've used Gaikai and was pretty impressed. I hope that's the service they go with, but I have no idea what they're actually going to end up doing with the technology so I'm sort of just in wait-and-see mode. I don't expect anything incredible from it right now, but I think the potential applications for the technology itself are very exciting- even if we barely scratch the surface for the first few years.
PetriP-TNT
Member
This would be seriously awesome for demos and such. Wanna try the game? One second and you are in the game.
For full titles? Doesn't sound very good.
For full titles? Doesn't sound very good.
A matter of principle?
More a matter of not wanting to give companies free rein to exploit the crap out of consumers in the long run.
That, to me, is a lot more important than the minor inconvenience of having to pick up a PS2 because the later PS3's weren't properly backwards compatible.
Don't be naive. Do you really think these companies want both to survive? That they wouldn't completely do away with retail releases in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it? If they ever abandon physical media altogether, only making games available through a service that you'd have to pay for monthly would be the ideal situation for them.
darkside31337
Tomodachi wa Mahou
And so what if they do? I like the convenience of digital. When the consumers feel like physical no longer has any place in the marketplace then it should rightfully die off. That time isn't here (if it ever happens) for various reasons. If people are fine with a Netflix style approach being the only approach then thats what should exist. Telling other people to give up what they consider convenience for the matter of the principle of a physical disk is ridiculous.
Hunting down old PS2 games and hoping they are in working condition is not a "minor inconveniance". It's a huge hassle with a simple remedy, make more and more of the library available digitally. They could sell you the rights to each and every individual game but there is obviously some kind of market for something more cost efficient in a digital marketplace. If this is what they reveal at E3 then I will be more than excited to see them roll it out.
Being so vehemently against this kind of approach is silly. If there is a demand for it, and based on both the plenty of responses in this thread and through the successes of similar models for other forms of entertainment there definitely is, there is no good reason it shouldn't actually exist.
Sticking to outdated and antiquated business models is one of the reasons Sony is in the mess they are in right now. This could potentially be a really forward way of thinking, something they haven't been doing a lot of and something they probably should be doing more of.
But like onQ123 said theres no real reason to get too heated about it, just a week to go.
I don't see why it's harmful as an optional service. If you want to download the full game, go ahead. If you're not too bothered, or are running out of HDD space, and if you have a snappy connection, stream it. I'd always go for download over stream, but i know many would prefer to stream it.
I think, as has been said, i would use it a lot for demos (especially PS+ one hour trials). Those take sodding ages to download for me and usually end up being deleted after less than the hour. So streaming would be cool for those.
Seems like a good decision from Sony to me.
I think, as has been said, i would use it a lot for demos (especially PS+ one hour trials). Those take sodding ages to download for me and usually end up being deleted after less than the hour. So streaming would be cool for those.
Seems like a good decision from Sony to me.
Thats exactly what he was saying. You're trying too hard.
If they make it mix of Netflix, PSN and Gaikai... it will print money.
It enables PS3 games on Tablets, Phones, TVs, BD players, and....PS3.
Willy Wanka
my god this avatar owns
If Sony were to offer it as a subscription based backwards compatibility solution where I could play most of the PS1, PS2 and PSP back catalogue then I would probably jump on it. PS3 games on the other hand... not so much. I've been an OnLive subscriber in the past, I have a decent connection (80Mbps down/20Mbps up) and even though the tech was impressive, the video quality wasn't nearly good enough to make it a viable alternative to playing PC games on my own computer (or HD console games on my HDTV). There were also some fairly noticeable input lag problems depending on what kind of game I played. Those issues will likely disappear in the future but perhaps not in time for me to consider it for my PS4 games.
J
Jotamide
Unconfirmed Member
Wait, Sony fills patent for in game advertisement technology and acquires cloud gaming service? This doesn't look promising...
Also, please be Gaikai. Leave OnLive alone!
Also, please be Gaikai. Leave OnLive alone!
your connection speed is not that important, just your connectivity (ping) to their closest server. Meaning if you are in larger city in USA or Europe, you could be fine.
For us in Eastern Europe, it wont be fine most likely.
Gaikai currently uses 5Mbs for streaming.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-gaikai-vs-onlive
The Abominable Snowman
Member
If you were to combine the servers that host the game and the players' gaming session, I could see it reducing lag and being quite an awesome alternative. Instead of two different server farms, one hosted by the games publishers and handling the hosting duties of the game, and the other hosting the actual game image that had to bounce back and forth from the publisher's servers back to the player, which I'd imagine at least doubles the lag effect for online play.
And I'm sure with an actual OS and low-level processes for OnLive/GaiKai, it'd run a lot smoother in gameplay and reduce the lag felt as well
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
This is incredibly forward thinking and exactly the type of service Sony needs in order to popularize their Playstation Plus service, which is completely lacking in my view.
Streaming is the future, and the future is now for film and music. Services like Netflix, Hulu, and Spotify occupy a significant portion of my media needs at the present moment, and are replacing outdated methods like television.
I can certainly see an unlimited gaming streaming service being wildly popular over time, just like Netflix picked up steam. Note: Netflix did NOT replace on-demand for new content. I still go to the movies whenever a flick come out that I want, or buy a Blu-Ray when there'a a film I adore and want to see it in the highest quality, multiple times. What Netflix does best is leverage a gigantic catalog of older content in an unlimited fashion.
Fact is, I do not want to individually pay for the vast majority of the content I view on Netflix. Some of it is great content, but I see it as disposable. All content is disposable, really. It's great to watch something I would otherwise not necessarily be interested in simply because I can without penalty. I've paid my monthly free, and I'm able to explore at my leisure without much boundaries.
I can see Playstation Plus w/ Unlimited Game Streaming serving a similar purpose. Sony has 3 generations behind their belt now, an absolutely MASSIVE collection of first party PS1, PS2, and PS3 titles -- MOST of which are not generating them any income. Individually, their value as $5 releases doesn't amount to all that much, and I'd be surprised if the PS1/PS2 games constituted any significant revenue source for them in comparison to their PS3 efforts.
HOWEVER, collectively? This huge catalog represents enormous value for a service that charges $10/mo for unlimited streaming games. Most of these titles I wouldn't necessarily buy as individual $5 purchases. But if I'm allowed to play them for a flat monthly fee, it will allow me to play and experience games that I wouldn't consider before, and many of those games I will probably end up adoring. It's the same way that Netflix and Spotify have dramatically changed my viewing habits, and I've found hidden gems that I would otherwise not be able to experience if I was forced to pay for the content individually.
If Sony can amass an active userbase of streamers, that's $10/mo which is A LOT more than what they would otherwise earn if they exclusively sold these games at $5 a piece. I can't tell you the last time I purchased a PS1 or PS2 game on the PSN store. But I would GLADLY pay $10/mo or $120 per year to experience a massive catalog at my disposal, similar to how I will gladly pay for that service on Netflix or Spotify. Getting millions of active users of PSN Plus at that rate would do wonders for their business, and allow it to evolve and transform our expectations of how we play games.
To those concerned about the feasibility - we're still in the infancy of this technology, but you always need to start somewhere. There's plenty of broadband users NOW who can experience the greatness of this technology without much issue. 10 years ago, that number would have been infinitesimal. 10 years ago I was just getting broadband service from dial-up, and probably had download speeds of 1 MB/s. Now? I get close to 20 MB/s, and that's pretty average for most broadband services these days, and 20 MB/s is more than enough bandwidth to handle something like this. I can't imagine how good the internet will be in another decade, and that's when this technology will truly take hold. Next-gen could be the last gen we ever experience, honestly.
Quite excited to hear about Sony's plans for this at E3.
Streaming is the future, and the future is now for film and music. Services like Netflix, Hulu, and Spotify occupy a significant portion of my media needs at the present moment, and are replacing outdated methods like television.
I can certainly see an unlimited gaming streaming service being wildly popular over time, just like Netflix picked up steam. Note: Netflix did NOT replace on-demand for new content. I still go to the movies whenever a flick come out that I want, or buy a Blu-Ray when there'a a film I adore and want to see it in the highest quality, multiple times. What Netflix does best is leverage a gigantic catalog of older content in an unlimited fashion.
Fact is, I do not want to individually pay for the vast majority of the content I view on Netflix. Some of it is great content, but I see it as disposable. All content is disposable, really. It's great to watch something I would otherwise not necessarily be interested in simply because I can without penalty. I've paid my monthly free, and I'm able to explore at my leisure without much boundaries.
I can see Playstation Plus w/ Unlimited Game Streaming serving a similar purpose. Sony has 3 generations behind their belt now, an absolutely MASSIVE collection of first party PS1, PS2, and PS3 titles -- MOST of which are not generating them any income. Individually, their value as $5 releases doesn't amount to all that much, and I'd be surprised if the PS1/PS2 games constituted any significant revenue source for them in comparison to their PS3 efforts.
HOWEVER, collectively? This huge catalog represents enormous value for a service that charges $10/mo for unlimited streaming games. Most of these titles I wouldn't necessarily buy as individual $5 purchases. But if I'm allowed to play them for a flat monthly fee, it will allow me to play and experience games that I wouldn't consider before, and many of those games I will probably end up adoring. It's the same way that Netflix and Spotify have dramatically changed my viewing habits, and I've found hidden gems that I would otherwise not be able to experience if I was forced to pay for the content individually.
If Sony can amass an active userbase of streamers, that's $10/mo which is A LOT more than what they would otherwise earn if they exclusively sold these games at $5 a piece. I can't tell you the last time I purchased a PS1 or PS2 game on the PSN store. But I would GLADLY pay $10/mo or $120 per year to experience a massive catalog at my disposal, similar to how I will gladly pay for that service on Netflix or Spotify. Getting millions of active users of PSN Plus at that rate would do wonders for their business, and allow it to evolve and transform our expectations of how we play games.
To those concerned about the feasibility - we're still in the infancy of this technology, but you always need to start somewhere. There's plenty of broadband users NOW who can experience the greatness of this technology without much issue. 10 years ago, that number would have been infinitesimal. 10 years ago I was just getting broadband service from dial-up, and probably had download speeds of 1 MB/s. Now? I get close to 20 MB/s, and that's pretty average for most broadband services these days, and 20 MB/s is more than enough bandwidth to handle something like this. I can't imagine how good the internet will be in another decade, and that's when this technology will truly take hold. Next-gen could be the last gen we ever experience, honestly.
Quite excited to hear about Sony's plans for this at E3.
Dorfdad
Gold Member
Well according to OnLive it isn't them 
A reader of my forums wrote to them and asked, and here is their reply.. However it should be noted that the support people probably don't know what is going on higher up
I will post all the same. PS I love how they feel there doing an awesome job lol..
http://onliveinformer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1370
A reader of my forums wrote to them and asked, and here is their reply.. However it should be noted that the support people probably don't know what is going on higher up
I will post all the same. PS I love how they feel there doing an awesome job lol..
http://onliveinformer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1370
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
On a side note, I've always wondered why Sony didn't offshore the social features of PSN to be streamed.
We hear about the limitations of the OS due to RAM, which is why PS3 doesn't have as many social features as Vita does, but couldn't that be solved through complete streaming of some of these OS features? Would also improve responsiveness immensely, but I guess streaming would require a decent amount of dedicated RAM.
We hear about the limitations of the OS due to RAM, which is why PS3 doesn't have as many social features as Vita does, but couldn't that be solved through complete streaming of some of these OS features? Would also improve responsiveness immensely, but I guess streaming would require a decent amount of dedicated RAM.
This is really exciting if true. In fact this is exactly the path i expect SCE to go after the appearance of OnLive. Makes too much sense imo, considering all the recent moves by Sony - PS+ game rental, Music/Video Unlimited cloud service, Sony Ericsson buyout, in-game ad (?). There's lots of synergy in play here if Sony plays their cards right.
I imagine in the near future (maybe 10yrs?) , a sizable portion of the PS gamers will be accessing their games through a Playstation Channel on their Bravia TVs or smartphones. Dedicated gaming hardware like the PS4 will still have its place though.
I imagine in the near future (maybe 10yrs?) , a sizable portion of the PS gamers will be accessing their games through a Playstation Channel on their Bravia TVs or smartphones. Dedicated gaming hardware like the PS4 will still have its place though.
whatever they plan on doing in the future is all fine. But, Onlive has full games. Onlive is available on Android and IOS.
Gaikai will improve. That does not mean Onlive is just going to do nothing and wait for them to catch up.
Jasper Avenue
Member
This is going to be a big move by Sony. I'm guessing that next gen they could block used games but offer a Netflix type streaming service for games. I'd be alright with that.
Stuggernaut
Grandma's Chippy
I am looking forward to seeing how this pans out. I personally hope it is OnLive as I use that service and like it a lot. The reactions by so many people in this thread are very closed minded, when there is so much potential for this to be great.
Demos - Instant demos
Legacy Games - Access to PS1/2/3 titles on demand and on the road (Vita)
Possibility of More Devices - Playing Sony titles on phones, tablets, TVs, etc.
Cost - Games using this should cost a ton less money.
Also there is potential for other things...
Right now you can "own" a cloud movie and watch it streamed on just about any smart device. Or you can download an HD version of it and watch it locally. So the future of games could be similar. You "own" the game and can stream it any way you want, or download it to your Playstation console and play it locally (assuming some serious DRM issues with that ever happening though)
Tech ALWAYS get better, but does not always get cheaper. Datacenters for streamed games can pack in some serious high end tech removing the limitations of generational consoles. The backend always gets better with no cost to you.
Internet speeds will ALWAYS get faster. So by definition these types of services will constantly improve. I was using OnLive since early beta and I can say that the service is much better and more stable now than it was early on. And keeps getting better. Not perfect yet, but more than satisfactory.
Piracy, whether you live it or hate it, has been a thorn in the physical media side of things forever. Streamed content is a huge defense against this. Which in theory will keep costs down and make gaming cheaper (fingers crossed).
So the bottom line is someone at Sony is realizing that this IS where we are headed, whether we like it or not. They are getting in on the ground floor of tech that has huge potential. I for one hope it works out wonderfully for them and will tag along for the ride.
Demos - Instant demos
Legacy Games - Access to PS1/2/3 titles on demand and on the road (Vita)
Possibility of More Devices - Playing Sony titles on phones, tablets, TVs, etc.
Cost - Games using this should cost a ton less money.
Also there is potential for other things...
Right now you can "own" a cloud movie and watch it streamed on just about any smart device. Or you can download an HD version of it and watch it locally. So the future of games could be similar. You "own" the game and can stream it any way you want, or download it to your Playstation console and play it locally (assuming some serious DRM issues with that ever happening though)
Tech ALWAYS get better, but does not always get cheaper. Datacenters for streamed games can pack in some serious high end tech removing the limitations of generational consoles. The backend always gets better with no cost to you.
Internet speeds will ALWAYS get faster. So by definition these types of services will constantly improve. I was using OnLive since early beta and I can say that the service is much better and more stable now than it was early on. And keeps getting better. Not perfect yet, but more than satisfactory.
Piracy, whether you live it or hate it, has been a thorn in the physical media side of things forever. Streamed content is a huge defense against this. Which in theory will keep costs down and make gaming cheaper (fingers crossed).
So the bottom line is someone at Sony is realizing that this IS where we are headed, whether we like it or not. They are getting in on the ground floor of tech that has huge potential. I for one hope it works out wonderfully for them and will tag along for the ride.
My 1.5Mbps DSL connection isn't. =(
mercenar1e
Member
wouldn't Gaikai's acquisition cost less than onlive? imagine the things they can do.. storing cloud saves, demos, full games,
Freezie KO
Banned
Me too. But as long as it's only an option, I see no harm. Then again, I don't really intend to get a PS4, so this isn't threatening to me.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
No. Unlimited PC Play installs the game to your computer. OnLive doesn't. Maybe a few game files, but nothing large from my experience.
I read that the patent was actually filed 6 years ago. So while relevant to today's times its not like they just filed for it.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Harrison is the greatest mole Sony has.
So, somebody mentioned it the Gaikai teasing thread, but with the thinking of this allowing not only backwards compatibility, but forward compatibility, maybe this is how Sony deals with a high priced PS4? It seems like suicide to not make people upgrade to the newest hardware to get the newer games, but what if this is just a stopgap fix until the next hardware is extremely profitable for them? While they are possibly losing a bit of money on the PS4 in its early life, PS4 games can be viewed/played on the PS3. Once manufacturing has dropped the price of production down, they can then focus their attention on the PS4. This would let them push the powerful hardware to the core customers that always buy early, but still get money from the people who may have already bought a cheaper PS3, and don't want to upgrade right away. Is that too crazy of an idea?
Why would anyone buy a PS4 then?
At some point new games would be PS4 only? That, or have some other awesome feature that would get people to move over. Kinda just thinking out loud, haha. Plus, it seems like it could be quite awhile before playing a PS4 game through the cloud and on an actual system would be identical. On a PS3, it could be marketed as a "good enough" solution of playing PS4 games (maybe demos only or something?), where the physical PS4 lets you play the games at their best.
So in other words, 'Fuck you, I like digital-only because it's convenient and I don't care if I ever actually own my purchases. As long as companies can get enough other people on board to shift completely to a software-as-a-service model one day - and it doesn't have to be the majority, just enough to be profitable, leaving the rest with the choice of either accepting it or foregoing games altogether - anyone who doesn't share my opinion can go to hell.' So yeah, I'm not feeling particularly sympathetic toward your viewpoint right now.
If I seriously thought it was only being considered as an option and not as laying the groundwork for what they hope will be a market transition, maybe I'd feel differently. But given the current trends in digital distribution and monetization, once they get a foot in the door, they'll push this shit hard, mark my words.
Again, you're only thinking of the immediate benefits, rather than what it means if the model becomes dominant over the long term. That doesn't happen all at once - it's a gradual shift. I think if this is successful, it'll be the start of a trend, and it's not one I'm particularly enthusiastic about.
Of course would have advantages, but i cant see it working
For one if i can stream PS4 games though anything, there will be zero reason to get a PS4
Also the term exlusive games would be rather lost and the whole PS brand would reduce to a simple service than a separate system
The difference will be the games on offer, but i cant say how much they can help in this case
Same goes for Micorsofts idea to offer xbox games on Windows 8
Sye d'Burns
Member
What is it exactly that you think you own? A game which can have it's MP server shut down in thirty days notice and an SP mode that is more often than not waiting for you to install Day 1 patches before you hit start?
What do you have left when those patches disappear and those servers go down?
I felt like you once. But if there's one thing this generation has taught me is that the consumer, in the end, owns jack. It's arguable that you own the console itself as Sony helpfully pointed out by removing OtherOS if you wished to continue using the machine for new games.
Yeah, you got a disc. They're cheaper in packs of 50.
Sony would pee its pants if it could universally deliver high end content to people without having to subsidise hardware for them.
The only reason they are selling you a PS4 is so you will buy PS4 games. If they can offer PS4 content to people without that hurdle, they would jump at it.
I do not know if they will though. It would certainly be technically possible if PS4 is a PC-in-a-box, but whether Sony would have a philosophical objection to delivering their highest end content over a steam, I don't know.
The fact is, though, that an awful lot of people would still need or want a box locally executing their PS4 software, or most of it, so plenty of people would still have a reason to get a PS4 even if their PS3 could play PS4 content off a cloud. The ability to sample PS4 stuff on their PS3 might in fact promote PS4 purchases.
But, imagining a far off future where everyone could play content lag free off the cloud? Sony would have no problem getting rid of the hardware in your room. It's not what they're making money off with you. And it's not a matter of 'being like a third party service' - they would still own the platform the content is being delivered off. The platform is not the physical box.
Similar threads
- Locked