Google and Xbox just started the next platform war.

Jan 7, 2014
3,116
1,333
390
#51
I'm not sure that will happen. What would be the business model behind F2P streaming content? The whole point to streaming is a reoccurring revenue model. I don't think there will be a free streaming tier (outside of an initial trial). It's like Netflix providing a free tier for some of their content in the hopes you subscribe.
Just think of how many on demand video services exist now, with a mix of free and paid services. EA is already talking about doing their own streaming service as well, so there is already precedent for publisher based services. With a game as huge as Fortnite, why wouldn't Epic explore either their own streaming platform or partner with one of the others? Free game streaming will work because of microtransactions and unfortunately, probably ads as well.
 
Mar 19, 2013
522
588
360
#52
Still not sure why a company with literally half the sales as the market leader entering the game streaming market is a such a big deal, particularly when that same market leader has been operating a game streaming service for 4 years already.
Because anything related to Sony and the Internet sucks. PlayStation Now is generally shat upon by gamers.
 
May 2, 2017
734
235
205
#53
No its just fundamentally ill-considered. (1) The whole point of streaming is platform agnosticism, so dismissing an extant service of the exact same type seems dubious to me. (2) The money in this is in the SERVICE, not the deployment point(s) of the client. (3) Following on from 3 why disregard the publisher/service

/snip/

despite having access to a very substantial user-base and access to as good a selection of content as anyone in the industry, why should a slightly better iteration of the same suddenly blow our collective minds?
The economics of this are interesting. Can a streaming service monetize players as effectively as console + game purchases + online fees? Or will the successful streaming games have to be free to play?

i know some think this will bring more players into AAA gaming, but I don't see it. AAA gaming is very accessible already: e.g. $299 or lower for base ps4. Having things playable in a browser isn't going to grow the number of those willing to pay $60+ for a game. If you are willing to pay $60 for games, you are almost certainly willing to pay money for a console.

What it might do, however, is tempt publishers to make their games free like pubg did on non-traditional platforms.
 
Aug 11, 2015
35
21
150
#55
The freaking scary thing for me as a consumer is everyone thinking of starting their own streaming thing. So what are we going to all due, subscribe to Ubi, EA, MS, Rockstar etc. at $10+ a month? That's ridiculous...streaming has a chance to really fracture the ecosystem.
 
Likes: Tarkus98
Jun 27, 2018
238
224
185
#56
I expect Xbox game streaming on PlayStation. But I don’t expect physicsl games for Microsoft to release on PlayStation.
Seriously doubt Sony will ever permit a competing store on their console. The whole point of selling the console is to direct customers to your store.
 
Jan 7, 2018
133
74
195
#58
Still not sure why a company with literally half the sales as the market leader entering the game streaming market is a such a big deal, particularly when that same market leader has been operating a game streaming service for 4 years already.
Because PS Now pretty much sucks, and MS also has and owns the largest cloud based client in the world in Azure.

Lastly, the days of console wars and consoles sold has beome pretty much irrelevant nowadays. Once MS introduced “play anywhere”, releasing all their first party titles day and date on windows 10 pc’s, offering features as cloud saves to play an any MS device and have your saves etc come with you, cross play in many titles between pc and xbox consoles, im pretty sure install base is heavily schewed in MS favor now. Once they get this cloud fleshed out and running, and you can play any xbox game on your phone, tablet, pc, or console, is going to be amazing.

Cant wait to play halo infinte on my new iphone xs Max with a bluetooth controller.

Great times we are living in.
 
Likes: Killer751
Jul 25, 2014
2,192
458
365
#62
Out of all the streaming solutions I've used, Nvidia GeForce Now is still the best. I was playing Kingdom Come Deliverance, Fortnite, PUBG and Dark Souls 3 over ethernet DSL just fine at 1440p/60fps and those are games that require extreme precision.
 
Likes: A.Romero
Jan 5, 2012
14,954
660
590
#63
I expect Microsoft to dominate the next generation. Playstation and Nintendo won't be able to compete. Game hardware will be steadily phased out in the next ten years.
That's interesting. How do You think Microsoft which doesn't even care to support Live for majority of the the world outside of NA and EU is going to suddenly conquer emerging markets where Sony is established for years ?

I live in Poland - that's middle of Europe - they don't even support Cortana here.
 
Jul 5, 2018
295
156
300
#64
That's interesting. How do You think Microsoft which doesn't even care to support Live for majority of the the world outside of NA and EU is going to suddenly conquer emerging markets where Sony is established for years ?

I live in Poland - that's middle of Europe - they don't even support Cortana here.
The same way that Sony conquered Nintendo. By offering a more appealing product to the masses.
 
Dec 3, 2004
2,541
111
1,325
#65
This may very well be a thing, but it won't be as early as they're thinking.

If they try to force their hand, and push this on people. Then the industry will shrink hugely. And momentum for this thing could crash..

So, it's gonna take a while..
 
Oct 26, 2014
3,020
289
305
#66
Just like VR.

But those futures are very vague and the expectations of gamers are too high for streaming and VR to be a usable in everyday life.
Streaming is actually VRs biggest step. If you can stream to a wireless headset (even your phone) imagine the cheaper google cardboard type headsets with good tracking and no wires to connect and disconnect. Latency would be headache inducing though. Not much worse than youtube VR.
 
May 2, 2017
734
235
205
#67
Streaming is actually VRs biggest step. If you can stream to a wireless headset (even your phone) imagine the cheaper google cardboard type headsets with good tracking and no wires to connect and disconnect. Latency would be headache inducing though. Not much worse than youtube VR.
latency = vomit in vr, streaming wont work well for that at all.
 
Last edited:
Apr 3, 2016
213
73
215
#68
I expect Microsoft to dominate the next generation. Playstation and Nintendo won't be able to compete. Game hardware will be steadily phased out in the next ten years.
I can see this working if, and this is a big if, Microsoft becomes the Steam platform for streaming games. There are a lot of pieces missing in that scenario, but depending how good MS's stream product is, it might happen.
 
Oct 26, 2014
3,020
289
305
#69
Because PS Now pretty much sucks, and MS also has and owns the largest cloud based client in the world in Azure.
Azure is not the same as a game streaming service. They need to install xbox blades everywhere. In terms of this streaming tech MS are actually behind most, it's going to suck much worse especially if you are in a tier 4 'country' known as Europe.

latency = vomit in vr, streaming wont work well for that at all.
This is true and I mention it but it would be no worse than youtube VR. You can actually get rid of most of the latency in the rotational degrees of freedom by maybe streaming the whole cubemap view.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
39,007
1,957
1,320
#70
That's interesting. How do You think Microsoft which doesn't even care to support Live for majority of the the world outside of NA and EU is going to suddenly conquer emerging markets where Sony is established for years ?

I live in Poland - that's middle of Europe - they don't even support Cortana here.
Some people just don't understand how big the Earth "really" is. Does MS really think this is what Asia is looking for in a console?
 
Feb 2, 2009
8,136
953
700
#71
This may very well be a thing, but it won't be as early as they're thinking.

If they try to force their hand, and push this on people. Then the industry will shrink hugely. And momentum for this thing could crash..

So, it's gonna take a while..
As I said, its next gen's VR revolution. Most of the people fapping about it in the press haven't stopped to consider the un-fun stuff like economics, and that that factors of individual circumstance (location, infrastructure, lifestyle) might pose problems for its uptake.

Most of all though, as per usual the importance of content is being overlooked. Sorry to say but to me its pretty bloody obvious that if your content isn't appealing enough to make you top dog in the console or pc space, how the fuck is changing the delivery mechanism going to prevent your competitors from pushing you back once they decide to enter that domain?
 
Jul 5, 2018
295
156
300
#73
I can see this working if, and this is a big if, Microsoft becomes the Steam platform for streaming games. There are a lot of pieces missing in that scenario, but depending how good MS's stream product is, it might happen.
Yes, at this stage it mostly depends on how willing people are to migrate over to the surface.
 
Jan 17, 2018
349
195
200
#75
Azure is not the same as a game streaming service. They need to install xbox blades everywhere. In terms of this streaming tech MS are actually behind most, it's going to suck much worse especially if you are in a tier 4 'country' known as Europe.

This is true and I mention it but it would be no worse than youtube VR. You can actually get rid of most of the latency in the rotational degrees of freedom by maybe streaming the whole cubemap view.
Yeah, people act as Azure server are rendering those games. MS needs big farms of powerful PC's or Xboxes to render those games and ONE MACHINE = ONE PLAYER, they need A LOT. Sony has PS3/4 farms for years and it's still US only.

Anyway, my 140/50 Mb (unlimited of course, there is no such thing as data caps in Poland) optical fibre is ready and I can change that to 900/100 if needed (just for 22$/month, now I pay half of that).
 
Likes: LittleBusters
Oct 30, 2017
857
720
200
#77
Lol. Cloud gaming is so far away. Probably in 2040 or even 2050 is when hardware gaming becomes obsolete.

People are so stuck in their bubble. Lots of you have no idea how billions of people have piss poor internet service and/or data caps. More so, game files are just gonna keep on increasing, don’t be surprised if you see a game file at 1TB or 10TB next gen. The amount of bandwidth needed to handle such load without lag and billions of people demanding is almost unfathomable.
 
Jun 4, 2018
722
345
200
#78
Still not sure why a company with literally half the sales as the market leader entering the game streaming market is a such a big deal, particularly when that same market leader has been operating a game streaming service for 4 years already.
Microsoft thought they were doing fine in smartphones c. 2006 too.
 
Jun 4, 2018
722
345
200
#79
Sure, companies can push out game streaming to the masses, but that doesnt mean it will be widely adopted by the masses. I think game streaming as an accepted form of gaming is a long way off. The initial attempts are not going to go well though.
Whoever can demonstrate it working brilliantly first will win. Game streaming might be the next iPhone.
 
Likes: Killer751
Jan 24, 2015
6,918
1,501
325
#80
dude it's super simple.

streaming adds more lag.
so non streaming will always be better then streaming,
how is this so fing hard to understand.

netflix is a thing.
so is buying blurays
 
Jul 9, 2017
624
375
245
#81
Prediction:
MS will offer next gen xbox games streamed on current gen xboxs.. will start with a 40 million console head start.

I own a 55 inch 4k hdr tv and sit about 2 m away and the difference between 1080p and 4k is small. Many users will be happy to stream at 1080p with massive increase in AI, players and fx work next gen will bring .. many users will be happy with streaming to play latest games without paying 500$ to upgrade..

Sony will offer this service as well but not at ps5 launch.
 
Likes: 12Dannu123
Sep 23, 2016
378
85
230
#82
That's interesting. How do You think Microsoft which doesn't even care to support Live for majority of the the world outside of NA and EU is going to suddenly conquer emerging markets where Sony is established for years ?

I live in Poland - that's middle of Europe - they don't even support Cortana here.
Because in a streaming market, you need first party content for your platform, hence why Microsoft is aggressively buying studios. Netflix spends 8+ billion on original content every year. Amazon and Google will likely try to buy into the gaming industry. Sony is no longer a competitor, it's Google and Amazon, so I expect Microsoft to expand to publishers in the future.
 
Last edited:
Jan 17, 2018
349
195
200
#83
dude it's super simple.

streaming adds more lag.
so non streaming will always be better then streaming,
how is this so fing hard to understand.

netflix is a thing.
so is buying blurays
Lag is no issue with video content, picture/audio quality is only thing that keeps BD alive.
 
Jun 4, 2018
722
345
200
#84
There is a big difference in regards to latency issues with single-player vs competitive multiplayer games. Somebody playing a single-player might be willing to accept an occasional stutter. However if you're playing Overwatch, that little stutter can cost you the match. So Microsoft will have to demonstrate that something like Overwatch streaming works great or it will not really gain traction.
 
Oct 26, 2014
3,020
289
305
#85
latency = vomit in vr, streaming wont work well for that at all.
Prediction:
MS will offer next gen xbox games streamed on current gen xboxs.. will start with a 40 million console head start.

I own a 55 inch 4k hdr tv and sit about 2 m away and the difference between 1080p and 4k is small. Many users will be happy to stream at 1080p with massive increase in AI, players and fx work next gen will bring .. many users will be happy with streaming to play latest games without paying 500$ to upgrade..

Sony will offer this service as well but not at ps5 launch.
why do you think they would offer better AI? If anything AI and single player would be dead.

Also why would MS offer next gen games while Sony offer current gen? Doesn't make sense considering Sony already do this for current gen games and MS's announcement was a beta for Xbox one games in 2019.
 
Likes: Hayfield
Jul 9, 2017
624
375
245
#86
There is a big difference in regards to latency issues with single-player vs competitive multiplayer games. Somebody playing a single-player might be willing to accept an occasional stutter. However if you're playing Overwatch, that little stutter can cost you the match. So Microsoft will have to demonstrate that something like Overwatch streaming works great or it will not really gain traction.
If its multiplayer then it will be hosted on a server .. that server will be very close if not the same data server as the game .. so the in game client prediction wont be frames ahead of reality as it is now..

The latency from the data center to your home will be the same be it from the game server or from the game console server.

Basically you will get more accurate frames with less prediction ( ie less deaths that dont seem fair) but with slightly higher controller latency.
 
Likes: LittleBusters
Jul 9, 2017
624
375
245
#87
why do you think they would offer better AI? If anything AI and single player would be dead.

Also why would MS offer next gen games while Sony offer current gen? Doesn't make sense considering Sony already do this for current gen games and MS's announcement was a beta for Xbox one games in 2019.
AI Because you cant control human players to offer quests and walk around game environments like they have a day job.. no matter how many people on your mmorpg its not the same believable environment u can create with AI.. overall though i see games having massivly increased player counts to though.

Why no PS5 games on PS4? Because sony thinks “winning” is selling the most boxes... if winning is selling the most games they would release their Playstation exclusives games as a service so ipad / PC / xbox players can play them ... i think they will do that one day but not at the launch of the PS5.
 
Jun 4, 2018
722
345
200
#88
Also getting to bigger picture. How do you get a large amount of people to pay for services? Look at Google(search, maps), Facebook, Whatsapp, LINE. Nobody pays for these things. Cultural we do not accept the idea of paying for a social network or messaging service. We view that as being lower than content. We do pay for content in the form of VOD services(HBO, Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Comcast, Sky, etc...) or games(Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, iOS games).

What if Microsoft's big plan is for xCloud to gain 200 million paying users across all the devices(XBox, PC, smartphones, tablets, set-top boxes) to mitigate the console-only problem they have with Sony & Nintendo? Also even bigger picture, Google is getting into game streaming and so will Amazon and possibly others(Apple, Facebook, Netflix). Microsoft already sees a gigantic game streaming market in 5-7 years that Sony isn't seeing.

Now imagine $20/month for xCloud. $20 x 200 million * 12= $48 billion revenue PER YEAR on top of everything they currently do(Office, Azure, Personal Computing). This is a massive deal to the Microsoft Board and why Nadella said 'gaming is important' to them.

So while Sony & Nintendo think the game is about selling the most boxes, Microsoft is thinking services, services, services and 'oh we'll sell a few boxes too'.

Bottom line - if you're losing the current paradigm, shift it.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 12Dannu123
Oct 26, 2014
3,020
289
305
#89
AI Because you cant control human players to offer quests and walk around game environments like they have a day job.. no matter how many people on your mmorpg its not the same believable environment u can create with AI.. overall though i see games having massivly increased player counts to though.

Why no PS5 games on PS4? Because sony thinks “winning” is selling the most boxes... if winning is selling the most games they would release their Playstation exclusives games as a service so ipad / PC / xbox players can play them ... i think they will do that one day but not at the launch of the PS5.
AI would become dumber not better. They will do more to save CPU and GPU use. In streaming they are paying now for that use remember. Single player would make less sense in a cloud compute world. Single player would be more costly. Why serve 15 players spinning up 15 CPUs worth of AI and physics in their own world instance when you can serve 15 players on 1 CPU having one world instance with shared physics in a battle royal game. You think this means more power for you when I see the economical reason why it means less as they try to save money and server stress while making the same monthly profit and owning the hardware. Xbox is only just starting installing XB1 blades and not xbox next blades. There would be no reason to install XB1 blades if they had next gen ones and wanted to give you more power. They aren't about increasing costs and giving you more power. They are about having another avenue to sell you what they already produce.

Sony doesn't think any differently to MS, though its market position is different. 'Winning' isn't about selling boxes but making a profit which was why PSNow existed before any of these other streaming services. They don't think about selling boxes. However they see that they sell the most devices and that PSNow is not the main game seller and that means they will likely push boxes while offering the streaming service too alongside it.
 
Likes: Hayfield
Sep 23, 2016
378
85
230
#90
Also getting to bigger picture. How do you get a large amount of people to pay for services? Look at Google(search, maps), Facebook, Whatsapp, LINE. Nobody pays for these things. Cultural we do not accept the idea of paying for a social network or messaging service. We view that as being lower than content. We do pay for content in the form of VOD services(HBO, Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Comcast, Sky, etc...) or games(Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, iOS games).

What if Microsoft's big plan is for xCloud to gain 200 million paying users across all the devices(XBox, PC, smartphones, tablets, set-top boxes) to mitigate the console-only problem they have with Sony & Nintendo? Also even bigger picture, Google is getting into game streaming and so will Amazon and possibly others(Apple, Facebook, Netflix). Microsoft already sees a gigantic game streaming market in 5-7 years that Sony isn't seeing.

Now imagine $20/month for xCloud. $20 x 200 million * 12= $48 billion revenue PER YEAR on top of everything they currently do(Office, Azure, Personal Computing). This is a massive deal to the Microsoft Board and why Nadella said 'gaming is important' to them.

So while Sony & Nintendo think the game is about selling the most boxes, Microsoft is thinking services, services, services and 'oh we'll sell a few boxes too'.

Bottom line - if you're losing the current paradigm, shift it.
I think this a good picture of what Microsoft, Amazon and Google are thinking. I expect more studios and publishers being bought by these three.
 
Jun 12, 2018
96
62
195
Michigan
soundcloud.com
#91
I suggested the idea to Steam sometime ago regarding it's browser functionality to include gaming. Steam Arcade. Anyhow, still think it would be cool to at least be able to play some kind of browser games in Steam. Google is way ahead of the pack but not logically, per the idea. The vast majority of the global internet infrastructure is lagging (literally) behind in speed. The United States has some of the slowest overall speeds compared to the rest of the world. To attain the graphic fidelity and speed to keep up with complex graphic's computations, you need super-fast internet speed; Upload as well as Download need to be near exact speed(s) in order to have near instantaneous controller/gamepad/keyboard response.

The gaming industry had full well opportunity to come together years ago and create it's own "gaming" service. To include the construction and implementation of it's own cables' network. In the United States, there are over 130,000 miles of cable that make up the internet infrastructure. The gaming industry has made trillions over the last 20 years. Would have been enough time to:

1.) Provide jobs
2.) Create a reliable service exclusive to gamer's
3.) Prevent the subsequent monopoly and increase-of-rates of ISP's. They'll be raising prices soon as "game streaming" begins to take hold

But instead, gaming publishers chose to sell "DLC's", "Season Passes", "Exclusive" this and that instead of pooling finances to subvert the claws of Google and Big Cable.
 
Jun 4, 2018
722
345
200
#93
The current console gaming market is $41 billion(2017). I imagine the gaming market with streaming might be 5x that by 2025, simply by the fact that you're bringing all these games to the devices that people already own. That's the game changer right there. Of course most people will want to buy a controller, but that's $40-$50, not $400-$500 for a console.

So the real question is how will that $200 billion gaming market be divided up in 2025. It's like the whole smartphone market(old vs new) happening all over again. Microsoft once had 30% of the old smartphone market(2006). Then Apple changed the game and the market increased by 1000%. This is why CEOs are paid so highly, they're literally being tasked with bringing in new revenue sources in the tens of billions.
 
Dec 12, 2013
3,550
1,480
440
#94
Streaming is nowhere near ready for prime time, it's at least 30 years away and by then they'll be better shit then games you play on your TV.
 
May 9, 2018
675
370
205
Somewhere
#97
Some people just don't understand how big the Earth "really" is. Does MS really think this is what Asia is looking for in a console?
Options, they are giving us options on how we receive our content. Obviously streaming won’t be for the majority, hence why they will be releasing a traditional console as well.

As I said, its next gen's VR revolution. Most of the people fapping about it in the press haven't stopped to consider the un-fun stuff like economics, and that that factors of individual circumstance (location, infrastructure, lifestyle) might pose problems for its uptake.

Most of all though, as per usual the importance of content is being overlooked. Sorry to say but to me its pretty bloody obvious that if your content isn't appealing enough to make you top dog in the console or pc space, how the fuck is changing the delivery mechanism going to prevent your competitors from pushing you back once they decide to enter that domain?
Like above, they are giving its audience options on how to receive the content, please don’t act or imply that streaming would be the only way going forward. Maybe several generations down the road, but as of now? lol No

Also I happen to like their offerings, as I like the offerings from every player in the console space.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Hayfield
Feb 10, 2018
199
147
170
#98
To me, one of the most telling storylines for the heavy hitter of next generation just occurred in the past month.

First, Google announced their Chrome browser streaming option.

Next, in response to Google, Microsoft showed xCloud - their streaming option. I think this would have been an XO2018 announcement, but Google forced their hand.

Both companies, I feel are technically capable and technilocically resourced to progress gaming into new frontiers.

Finally Sony made their announcements:
(Which makes me wonder how ready the current gen king is for the next gen)
  • Name changes are now in preview program.
  • Next gen console is in development
  • Backwards compatibility patents.
Next gen is gonna be interesting. We may have new companies, new tech, new industry leaders.
 
Likes: Pallas

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.
Jul 2, 2013
11,799
1,248
620
I just got back from a week-long stint visiting my family in the midwest (US). The one thing that I was flabbergasted by was that everyone had 4G (cell) service in their homes which had data caps. There is literally nothing better available there, and this was a town of over 12,000 people. The nearby "big" city has over 50,000 people, and the best they have is cable service that goes up to 8Mbps. This was in Missouri so I have to assume it's worse in places like Kentucky or West Virginia.

Cloud streaming replacing local games is a huge way off for a large portion of America, let alone the rest of the world - most everyone I know back home can't even patch their games online without going over their data caps.