HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Outside the venue.
-
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.
Google to unveil secret gaming project (console?) at GDC 2019 in March.
- Thread starter Voost Kain
- Start date
Technically you can do that already today, no reason to wait.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
And another from inside.
SaturnSaturn
Member
Stupidest rumor ever, about as stupid as sony buying 2k. Never going to happen, Sammy will never sell Sega,
cryptoadam
Banned
How so?
I don't have a beefy PC so I can't stream from Steam. Gamepass/PSNOW require a PS or XBOX and PS NOW is basically ps3 games and Gamepass isn't streaming. And I did the PS Now Trial and enjoyed it, played Saints Row 4, but I can't stream recent popular games on it.
Is it possible today to buy a 50-100$ device that will stream some of the biggest 3rd party games released in the last 12 months that doesn't require a PC?
PS Now does not require a PS or Xbox, you can stream to a PC, and its not just PS3 games, its PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 games. (none of this is my thing)
Just hook up an old windows PC connect a DS to it, you should be all set. (not sure what bluetooth controllers it will support, so that might be a challenge for wireless idk) You could probably get a very cheap PC stick, and just use it as a PS Now client, same thing really.
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstation-now/games/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00X4O6GRK/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Last edited:
kaczmar
Member
Outside the venue.
Isn't the coming soon thing the Nintendo Switch?
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I thought the same thing even labeled as 2017, have just been relaying some posts from other sites to here.
dottme
Member
They picked E.T. For the Atari.Outside the venue.
The console will not only fail, it will crash the whole industry again.
GoldenEye98
posts news as their odd job
This is pretty much me as well. I don't game enough to justify spending a lot of money on gaming (ie hardware and whatnot)anymore. If Google manages to release a services that's decently priced and has the ability to stream the latest AAA games well enough ...then I'm probably on board.
Though I knowledge that is a minority opinion on here.
well, generally game streaming is going to have to be more expensive over you housing your own hardware, you're basically paying them to manage your hardware.
What is cheaper, generally:
1. You walking and feeding your dog twice a day.
or
2. You paying someone to come over to walk and feed your dog twice a day,
Its not going to be cheaper its going to be more expensive, generally speaking, unless you can get into a per cycle price, and even then its still probably going cost you more. I could see someone that doesn't game very much it possibly being cheaper if there was ever a business model i.e. per cycle.
https://shop.shadow.tech/usen
Shadow tech pc virtual desktops start at $29.95 a month. Of course, that doesn't give you any software or games, just renting the virtual box.
Last edited:
SaturnSaturn
Member
It will probably be some dongle or controller, the rumored sega support is probably Sega Classics
Meowzers
Member
Wow, this will be terrible if it's just some dongle running all the games that PS4/XB1 plays.
People are gearing up for next-gen 2020+ so what in the actual hell can this offer me over big exclusives on a console?
I'll be watching the event, but I'm ready for a massive disappointment.
People are gearing up for next-gen 2020+ so what in the actual hell can this offer me over big exclusives on a console?
I'll be watching the event, but I'm ready for a massive disappointment.
cryptoadam
Banned
PSNOW doesn't cut it for me though, no new PS4 games on the service. I played it and think its fine, but not enough games on it for me. Like I said I would be interested instead of buying a box next gen for 400 (while more like 550 because I live in Canada) to get something on the cheap that streams.
I play essentially 1 or 2 games a year so I would be more interested in something cheaper then putting out a couple hundred dollars. I can tell you I won't be buying day 1 like I did with the PS4 next gen.
Fair enough but I doubt anyone is going to have a business model you like, which is why its my #2 reason why game streaming will never be a thing. Nobody wants to pay money, they're not wanting to go to streaming because it saves you money, they want to extract more money.
I mean, what is it you're asking for and for how much money, most probably they will never allow you to rent new games at a $1 a week.
Last edited:
Meowzers
Member
So you're telling me that I can play top quality PC games with high end settings through a streaming service even though my PC is literally struggling to run Football Manager?
If so then that is absolutely mental.
So you're telling me that I can play top quality PC games with high end settings through a streaming service even though my PC is literally struggling to run Football Manager?
If so then that is absolutely mental.
Yes, that is how thin-client technology works. Your PC is just decompressing video and taking input, not much different than streaming movies.
http://mattnics.com/how-to-turn-a-raspberry-pi-into-a-1080p-citrix-receiver-thin-client/
Last edited:
cryptoadam
Banned
In a way yes, but if you can drop the service at any time then I can play for a few months and then drop out. And then if 6 months later some games came out I can binge a few games.
Since this is a gaming forum clearly plenty of people on here play many games a year, 10, 20, 50 etc... But I play 1 or 2 games a year. If BF6 launches next gen and I can stream it for 9.95 a month thats better for me than forking over 600 CDN.
CyberPanda
Banned
I don’t know how people can buy so many games. They are getting so expensive now!
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
So you're telling me that I can play top quality PC games with high end settings through a streaming service even though my PC is literally struggling to run Football Manager?
If so then that is absolutely mental.
Kinda like how I played Assassin's Creed Odyssey on my $200 Chromebook using the same streaming tech. Yes, it's pretty mental.
Well, logic would be they are going to have to charge an arm and leg to play new games, they have to make money.
So... say you play 2 new games a year... well their out of pocket is $100-150 for the two games plus the cost of the machine in the cloud, taxes, property to maintain, management, etc.
Last edited:
cryptoadam
Banned
Well EA Premier right now cost 129.99$ a year. For 2 years thats more than half the price I would pay for a PS5 + BF6. I think after 2 years I will probably have my fill of BF6 and by then with deals a PS5 might only be 300 bucks, if I wait one more year it could be even closer to 250.
Game pass is 11.99 a month CDN. Thats about 280$ for 2 years, about half of what a XBOX would cost me next gen.
So if either of those services went streaming it would be a better option for ME personally. I know it doesn't work for everyone else, especially if you play tons of games and want to actually own everything, but for people in the same boat as me, more casual gamers in the short term its cheaper. Yes in the long term its more expensive but who is to say I will play my next system for 5-7 years. I barely game that much now anyways, in 5 years from now I might not game at all and my PS5 will be collecting dust.
A streaming service makes sense for people who don't want to put down 400-600$ for new gaming hardware, but still want to casually game. If you play games 20-30 hours a week it makes no sense for you. But if you play like 2 or 3 hours a week then its going to be a better deal. Its not for everyone, but for me it would allow me to keep playing some new games here and there without having my PS5 collecting dust 80% of the time.
And I 90% next gen is going to be all about 4K and I don't have a 4K TV. So it seems like a bigger waste to throw down 500$ on a machine that is geared towards 4K gaming with a 1080P set.
Outside the venue.
Interesting that they chose to display a Dreamcast with all the Google/Sega rumors flying around
Well, I'm not telling you what to want but it appears they would probably lose money on you being a customer.
You haven't identified how they make money, basically you want to cherry pick new games and not really pay for anything.
The expensive for the hardware have to still be paid plus everything else, plus the games.
Last edited:
cryptoadam
Banned
But I bet they will make money on the whales, and if you load up games with MTX and other F2P trappings the companies will come out ahead. Streaming is something that all the companies are looking into. I won't make a definitive prediction that its going to take over, but it seems a lot of the players are taking it seriously. If these companies are looking into it they must see a way to make money. MS seems to be going all in on Gamepass with releasing all their 1st party titles there, so they must be making money somehow if they are giving up millions in game sales.
If EA Premier went streaming on Google GameCast and I can pick up the controller for 50 bucks and pay 130$ a year to stream BF 6 than that works a lot better for me than spending 500$ and then 90$ on the game. And then if Google offers their own netflix service for 10-20$ a month I can sign up for 2 or 3 months binge some games and cancel at any time.
But ya I want to play new games and pay as little as possible because I am not a huge gamer and have no desire to shell out for a next gen system when I know it will collect dust 90% of the time. So if Google or MS is going to make that possible then I won't argue with them, if they want to lose money thats their choice I will just enjoy the benefits of it.
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
That's not how any of this works though - you're implying that Microsoft of Google pays full retail price for the stuff that's in Gamepass or whatever Google's streaming subscription is going to be? That's crazy. That's like if Netflix had to pay NBC $100 every time someone streamed an episode of the Office, because that's what the DVD box set cost.
Google and/or Microsoft (or anyone else putting together a streaming service) would work on an economy of scale, and each developer would get a small cut of each person's subscription fees. For simplicity's sake, let's say there are 100 games in Game Pass, and it's $10 a month. Each game's developer is getting $0.10 per month, per subscriber. Since there are a few million subscribers, that usually pencils out well for everyone involved. In reality, different games get different amounts and Microsoft take their own cut for providing the service etc but that's essentially how this all works.
Netflix is burning $2-4b a year and they only would have a fraction of the expenses as a game streaming company.
I like the economy of scale where Netflix burns $2-4b a year making content.
Once they turn off the new content, customers going to run like roaches from a flashlight.Which is why game pass and ps now are mostly made up of old games. Games have to make money on the front end, let alone making money on the hardware and maintaining the hardware which is much more than movie/music streaming. Movie/music streaming service generally don't make money and that's only a tiny fraction of the processing needed vs. game streaming.
Let me guess that crypto wants unlimited access to new games for $10 a month, and he can just sign up for a month and ditch it after he is done playing 3-4 new games but has access to all of them for the month? That's never going to work.
Last edited:
Jigsaah
Gold Member
I like the economy of scale where Netflix burns $2-4b a year making content.
Which is why game pass and ps now are mostly made up of old games. Games have to make money on the front end, let alone making money on the hardware and maintaining the hardware which is much more than movie/music streaming. Movie/music streaming service generally don't make money and that's only a tiny fraction of the processing needed vs. game streaming.
Cancelled mine last week. Just not enough stuff i wanna watch
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
I like the economy of scale where Netflix burns $2-4b a year making content.
Which is why game pass and ps now are mostly made up of old games. Games have to make money on the front end, let alone making money on the hardware and maintaining the hardware which is much more than movie/music streaming. Movie/music streaming service generally don't make money and that's only a tiny fraction of the processing needed vs. game streaming.
Your logic is still flawed though, Netflix made over a billion dollars in profit last year, despite investing heavily in making original content. At least, according to their SEC filings. They are investing in their original content because they know Disney is going to pull the plug on them soon.
By comparison you could say that Microsoft is losing money hand over fist by purchasing all these studios and making them first party, instead of what's actually happening wish is that Microsoft is investing heavily in it's 1st party output because they know that is where they will make the majority of their profits from programs like Game Pass going forward.
Last edited:
cryptoadam
Banned
Welp not my problem. If MS or Google want to lose money they can, I am the consumer so I will take the value like I can with Netflix.
Lets remember we are talking hypotheticals here. I am saying IF there is a streaming service. Who knows what Google or MS or PS will have for us or the prices. All I am saying is for me its more attractive if it can work and be at a decent price. If EA Premier became streaming that would be perfect for me. I can play NHL and BF and that would cover 1 year at least.
Its not up to me to decide how a company makes money, thats on them. But if companies are looking into it there must be a way to profit from it. Games will most likely move to a more f2p model with more MTX and GAAS mechanics in them. WE will also probably see fewer titles released, so instead of BF 6 and BF 7 and BF 8 we will get BF 6 for 5 years with more content tacked onto it and of course more MTX and cosmetics to keep you paying. I expect fewer sequels and more half baked games to be released.
Netflix cash burn rate was $3b last year. As soon as they stop the new content subscribers will leave, most of its old shit. Their original content means nothing unless they continue to endlessly crank it out at a loss. And they don't even have to pay the huge amounts of bills that would be game streaming - heavy processing, heavy electricity usage, management of hardware, etc.
Netflix reported free cash flow for the quarter of negative $1.3 billion. The company expects its cash burn
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/16/netflix-earnings-q4-2018.html
You must be speaking about someone else I never said what you claimed I said about Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't break out profit and losses like that normally.
If you guys think you're paying $10 a month endlessly for all the new games you want, your dreaming.
Sure Microsoft will run a trial they got deep pockets but developers have to be paid.
Last edited:
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
I suspect you don't really know what you're reading, if that's the rebuttal you have. Yes - they are burning through (spending) three billion dollars a year creating original content, but they also had $4.12B in revenue (cash going in) which means they made over a billion dollars in profit. Companies re-invest their cash assets all the time, it's like... a normal part of doing business.
Assuming Google's new thing is a game streaming service, I suspect they will set up contracts similar to what Microsoft has done with Game Pass. They definitely won't be buying the games for full retail price - even if they did buy games at retail price, the standard user agreement wouldn't let them distribute (aka "stream") the game to customers. They would need to set up contract negotiations with the content providers, or start doing like Netflix and spending money creating their own games.
Oh my god, please let it stop.
Cash burn rate mean $3b went out that they didn't get back.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/burnrate.asp
They don't have positive cash flow, which mean more debt.
October 2018
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-addicted-debt-investors-terrified-150409746.html
Last edited:
You're not really throwing out a situation of what you would pay or for how much. Enjoy Netflix for right now because at some point they'll have to drastically raise prices or go belly up, probably double if not more. How can we discuss if you can't tell me what you are looking for, what you are saying is very vague. "Netflix". Well, basically what you are saying, is you would rather this if someone is giving you free shit ,well good luck long-term on that. Heck, I want someone to send me hardware and games for free to me, and also pay my electricity bill for using them, that's basically what you are saying. You're not asking for game streaming, you're asking for free shit - at some point it has to be paid for.
You are trying to avoid $400-600 in hardware, well those expenses don't disappear, they'll have to show up in your bill in a subscription at some point, let alone trying to play new games for free.
There really is no free ride, the bills never disappear.
Last edited:
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
If you don't understand how accounting works, I'm not sure I'll be able to change your mind on this. Obviously this is already veering far too off-topic for a Google console announcement. Needless to say, negative cash flow doesn't (always) mean a company is losing money. In this case, Netflix either already had the cash on hand to spend, or borrowed it...
Taking on debt (especially long-term debt) is also not an indication that a company is losing money. For example, if I opened a business and took out a 30 year business loan to buy a property that would be an example of taking on long term structured debt. If my loan payment was $10,000 a month, but I made $40,000 in profit, my business would still be profitable even though I was carrying debt. Simplified here of course but that's the gist of it.
If you're implying that I'm wrong, you're implying that Netflix lied to it's investors and the SEC based on some news articles with concepts you didn't understand. If that were true, that would be a much larger story than Google launching a new game console. Netflix may well start losing money at some point in the future, but that day has not yet come.
If you still think I'm full of shit, we'll just agree to disagree on this talking point.
Cash burn is the amount they burning to keep operations going, they have a negative cash burn, you can't hide cash burn, when you run out, you run out. Just stop, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You can't hide cash burn, which is why they are taking on debt, if they were net flow positive they wouldn't need more debt. The cash burn has been $1-3 billion.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/022504.asp
Netflix is not lying to its investors, its right in their financials, you don't understand.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/22/net...ing-cash-burn-with-2-billion-in-new-debt.html
Last edited:
cryptoadam
Banned
What I want is a streaming service that cost up to 20$ a month and the hardware will be a chromecast or firestick like device that will cost 30-100$ with a controller included.
This is what Google may give us tomorrow if they release a streaming device. The price might be more or less we don't know. The hardware may be a brand new console, or it might just be game streaming. We won't know until tomorrow.
My hope is they announce a streaming service and a controller+cast type device for 59.99-99.99, with 1 month free and lets say about 15-20$ a year sub but you can cancel at anytime. This is very possible that this will be what they release. They did their beta with Assassin creed and most feedback was it ran good enough. Alternatively MS could offer xCloud at the same price as Gamepass and make it playable on pretty much any device that can attach to your TV and hook up with an XBOX controller wirelessly or via USB.
If MS and Google lose money on this and abandon them, I bet I will still manage to get 2 or 3 years out of it, and by then a PS5 will be half the price it was at launch. I still have a Google Nexus player attached to my TV and its the best set top box I have owned and the thing was discontinued like 5 years ago. So if Google lunches Gamecast and abandon it in 2 or 3 years because its a money pit I still would of gotten plenty of game time out of it. but you have to ask yourself why are these players looking into game streaming if it won't make them money? There has to be a road to profitability for them.
Okay, I'll let you remote into my raspberry pi and you can play doom and minecraft on it and I will only charge you $20.
Let me help, say you want the equivalent of say a PS5 in the future (say 1 year), well, just to get their money back they're going to need $10+ a month for 40-50 months to get even a reasonable chance of breaking even on the hardware, now this doesn't include the games or even the operations/management/electricity/property insurance/deployment/property taxes/racks/etc. If you cherry pick, they're going to have to charge you even more, and this doesn't include games. Once you get into new games its a whole another ball of wax, as you could play say 4-5 new games and few old games for $20. Who exactly is going to pay for these new games?
There is no money there, not really, if you cherry pick, they'll have to charge considerable more, eventually. That's why the Shadow PC virtual desktop is going to cost you $29.95 min. for a medium scale desktop with no games.
This is basically why Netflix is burning cash, they can probably pay for the delivery for $15-20 a month but not the content.
Basically, you are renting their hardware which they are managing, so that means they have to charge you more, eventually, meaning make money.
Last edited:
cryptoadam
Banned
If you can give me games equivalant to Game pass I will give you my 20$ and the service has to run properly so make sure you can maintain it ok.
Lets keep in mind we are speculating here, its hypothetical.
But there are rumors of Google having a streaming service, and MS having one. PS Now actually exist right now. Even Nintendo has had streaming games, but Japan only for now. So why are all these big players investigating streaming if its going to lose them money? In the end if you subscribe they are going to get you by selling you stuff in game. How do you think mobile games are making billions of dollars when they are all free? If game streaming was such a money loser then why would any of these billion dollar companies even think about creating these services.
You do know you can get Gamepass right now for 9.99, which is essentially what I am describing, the only difference being you download the games instead of stream them. I don't think MS would charge 39.99+ just for streaming. Same with EA Premier. What I am describing actually exist right now as far as price and content. If Sony wanted they could probably stream their entire 1st party line up on PS NOW, for now its mainly old PS4 games, but no reason they can't throw Spider Man on there right now.
Maybe someone (dev/pub) can give you a couple of new games for $10-20 but you're not going to have a whole library of new games (but without a install base that isn't cherrypicking hard to see how anyone makes money). They'll never be able to make money though at those rates if you can cherry-pick months. What will probably happen, is $15-25 per month per publisher, not all under one house. For you, it might work out, but eventually they'll have to probably penaltize you for cherry-picking.
So... if you want to play EA games you run the EA streaming client, if you want to play Ubisoft games you run the Google client, if you want to play MS games you run the MS client, etc.
Just throwing that out there as hypothetical, the thing is, its not really cheaper, its more expensive for most people... so = no customers. Which is why PS Now really isn't working, no customers, native gaming is cheaper and better for the masses, heck, PS Now offers streaming and also native downloads yet still no customers for obvious reason.... gaming pretty cheap to most people that game. You are probably the exception, meaning you really don't game much..... for people that game... its more expensive, or will be once they have to up the charges.
(They might release some low cost subscription tomorrow but that doesn't mean its sustainable that way long-term, people could have signed up for PS Now for $99.99 a year)
Last edited:
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
You can either have a subscription-based service where the company picks the games, or an online storefront where you pick the games, but probably not both. You can't pick and choose which games you want to be available on Game Pass (a similar subscription model for games) just like you can't cherry-pick which movies and TV shows you get from Netflix (a similar subscription model for movies). Nobody is expecting a Google ecosystem where you pay X number of dollars per month and get access to stream any game you want. If you are, I think you're going to be disappointed tomorrow morning.
I suspect Google's streaming service will likely not buck this trend too much. I figure it'll be something like Xbox or Playstation already have: buy the games you want for $60 each, or buy our subscription service to get the games we have contracted for $10-$20 per month. The difference being that since the hardware is managed, you save on the upfront costs and are able to market your storefront to a much wider audience.
Someone in
cryptoadam
's situation will probably benefit from a streaming service if he only plays a few games a year. Buy the streaming setup or streaming stick or whatever for $100 with a controller, browse to their online storefront and buy the 1-2 games you want to play for $60 each. Stream them from Google's servers as much as you want. In his case he's saving $300+ dollars on buying a new console, has no game installation times, doesn't have to worry about game updates, and can (probably) play in any Chrome browser they have access to.
Google's cut (likely 30%, but could even be higher in this instance?) would go towards maintaining the hardware, networking infrastructure (which they're already doing anyway for other parts of their business model), administrative and operational overhead, and keep the rest as profit. Google probably knows this is a huge money maker because I suspect the vast majority of the people this will be marketed to will probably play the games they buy less than a few hours a week, if that.
I suspect Google's streaming service will likely not buck this trend too much. I figure it'll be something like Xbox or Playstation already have: buy the games you want for $60 each, or buy our subscription service to get the games we have contracted for $10-$20 per month. The difference being that since the hardware is managed, you save on the upfront costs and are able to market your storefront to a much wider audience.
Someone in
cryptoadam
's situation will probably benefit from a streaming service if he only plays a few games a year. Buy the streaming setup or streaming stick or whatever for $100 with a controller, browse to their online storefront and buy the 1-2 games you want to play for $60 each. Stream them from Google's servers as much as you want. In his case he's saving $300+ dollars on buying a new console, has no game installation times, doesn't have to worry about game updates, and can (probably) play in any Chrome browser they have access to.Google's cut (likely 30%, but could even be higher in this instance?) would go towards maintaining the hardware, networking infrastructure (which they're already doing anyway for other parts of their business model), administrative and operational overhead, and keep the rest as profit. Google probably knows this is a huge money maker because I suspect the vast majority of the people this will be marketed to will probably play the games they buy less than a few hours a week, if that.
Daniel Ahmad posted this. (pretty funny, the power of the cloud) I think "console" is going to be quite the stretch.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1-EYLWXcAEy0TR.jpg:large
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX
(pretty funny, the power of the cloud) I think "console" is going to be quite the stretch.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1-EYLWXcAEy0TR.jpg:large
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Well here is their splash screen..
And how many owned the Dreamcast and do you remember their "Its thinking" ads?
And how many owned the Dreamcast and do you remember their "Its thinking" ads?
Some interesting information as to possible casting games to the chromecast from a phone, not that there isn't another piece. Good luck to them, I don't like their chances.
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/google-gaming-service-device-chromecast-yeti-1203164633/
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/google-gaming-service-device-chromecast-yeti-1203164633/
Last edited: