Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

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.

I am confused by this in a world where PSNow already exists.

 

[thelawof4]

When I was a kid, we still had rotary phones. It's not much of a leap to say that those issues will be relatively quickly overcome.

I have multiple rotary phones made in germany plugged into my router for IP telephony and they sound better than my other phones/smartphones.

 

[Clear]

I am confused by this in a world where PSNow already exists.

I'm confused why anyone would buy a new console if this were the case, I mean its not like new platforms start with a glut of software, the first 12 months is usually pretty slow for product. Unfortunately however it tends to be a critical time for establishing the platform, so anything that impedes it out of the gate is likely a bad business move long term.

I'd also add as an adjunct to what I've been saying about the economics of streaming for content creators, don't you think this all sounds really similar to the fervor surrounding the rise of smartphone/tablet games and how as the (graphics) technology improved it'd spell doom for consoles as everyone would jump on that bandwagon due to the vastly larger addressable market?

What actually happened is that the economics shaped the type of product; rather than traditional games, everything went f2p as it became apparent that the market was way risky for high-price, single-purchase titles irrespective of quality. The same thing applies for streaming, its a distribution mechanism that only really suits GAAS type offerings, and just like with phones that's going to shape the product landscape and the type of user it attracts.

 

[GlassAwful]

I'm confused why anyone would buy a new console if this were the case, I mean its not like new platforms start with a glut of software, the first 12 months is usually pretty slow for product. Unfortunately however it tends to be a critical time for establishing the platform, so anything that impedes it out of the gate is likely a bad business move long term.

I'd also add as an adjunct to what I've been saying about the economics of streaming for content creators, don't you think this all sounds really similar to the fervor surrounding the rise of smartphone/tablet games and how as the (graphics) technology improved it'd spell doom for consoles as everyone would jump on that bandwagon due to the vastly larger addressable market?

What actually happened is that the economics shaped the type of product; rather than traditional games, everything went f2p as it became apparent that the market was way risky for high-price, single-purchase titles irrespective of quality. The same thing applies for streaming, its a distribution mechanism that only really suits GAAS type offerings, and just like with phones that's going to shape the product landscape and the type of user it attracts.

You are right in that availability of next-gen games on current gen or any other device would impact initial sales of the next-gen console, at least upfront. That is unless the hardware is going to have something unique to it that would incentivise people to get it.

But in the end, these companies don't care so much about the console sales if you are invested in their ecosystem with a subscription and buying their games because that is where their money comes from. At least in theory... Until that proves to make customers more fickle to switch sides because it's now easier to, hence why the big pubs will and are investing more in first party.

Where I think you are wrong is saying streaming is only good for GAAS. Personally I only play a few of the big games a year, but if the barriers to entry were removed I'd be more inclined to try more games at the click of a button. I think the same would hold true for others and you'd see a boon to games otherwise ignored.

 

[LittleBusters]

My only concern at the moment is MS is putting XBox One S blades in the server racks right now instead of 'X'. That means no better than 900p/30fps while Google Streaming can do 1080/60fps. I hope that the thinking is they have the 'S' hardware for the 2019 trials and swap it out for Scarlet server blades when they launch in 2020. I mean they can't be that stupid to launch with 'S' hardware?

 

[FranXico]

My only concern at the moment is MS is putting XBox One S blades in the server racks right now instead of 'X'. That means no better than 900p/30fps while Google Streaming can do 1080/60fps. I hope that the thinking is they have the 'S' hardware for the 2019 trials and swap it out for Scarlet server blades when they launch in 2020. I mean they can't be that stupid to launch with 'S' hardware?

Why would they do that?

 

[Clear]

Where I think you are wrong is saying streaming is only good for GAAS. Personally I only play a few of the big games a year, but if the barriers to entry were removed I'd be more inclined to try more games at the click of a button. I think the same would hold true for others and you'd see a boon to games otherwise ignored.

The problem with that argument is that you "trying more games at the click of a button" is only really a positive for the service provider, individual content vendors on the service have far less to gain from that unless they have their own service model and economy. I mean, if you (as a developer) are only in it for the gratitude of the gaming public, why not just give away your game for free in the first place? If not, and want to see some sort of return on what is in all probability a multi-year venture, (and this is of course virtually everybody) then you need to think about what sort of revenue you are going to make, how you are going to make it, and over what time-frame.

Lets not forget, the reason why PSNow was considered to be a bit of a flawed concept from the start was that there was a lot of doubt as to why any vendor would put their properties on it.

 

[FranXico]

Lets not forget, the reason why PSNow was considered to be a bit of a flawed concept from the start was that there was a lot of doubt as to why any vendor would put their properties on it.

No. PSNow was considered a flawed concept because of streaming technology (it has improved since it first launched) and pricing (the initial model of individual game rentals has been abandoned in favor of a Netflix-like subscription model).

Even though you will hardly see new games added straight away to it, it has plenty of third party titles available, both for streaming and download.

 

[highrider]

In America? Seems like our wired infrastructure is still pretty shitty. Still takes a day to download a typical game file. I live in DC, use Verizon, not exactly in the sticks.

 

[GlassAwful]

The problem with that argument is that you "trying more games at the click of a button" is only really a positive for the service provider, individual content vendors on the service have far less to gain from that unless they have their own service model and economy. I mean, if you (as a developer) are only in it for the gratitude of the gaming public, why not just give away your game for free in the first place? If not, and want to see some sort of return on what is in all probability a multi-year venture, (and this is of course virtually everybody) then you need to think about what sort of revenue you are going to make, how you are going to make it, and over what time-frame.

Lets not forget, the reason why PSNow was considered to be a bit of a flawed concept from the start was that there was a lot of doubt as to why any vendor would put their properties on it.

Digital sales aren't going away. A streaming option doesn't necessarily mean an all access Netflix style service anyways. It can be utilized in various ways like giving you instant access to your digital library, or game demos, on just about any device you own, or every TV in your home instead of your main entertainment center.

Also the developers and publishers of content on PSNow, gamepass, Netflix and the like are compensated. Not sure why you think they'd be giving away their games for free just because one of the ways to access the content is on a streaming service. Is it as good as a $60 guaranteed sale per user? Probably not. But the value comes in with economy of scale when you reach a mass audience with lots of subscribers.

PSNows problem is the barrier to entry. You have to already have the console or the defunct proprietary pstv to get access to its content. Flawed concept from the beginning.

 

[Clear]

You guys really don't seem to want to engage with the issues relating to content and monetization, and how without procuring attractive content you can't build a subscriber-base big enough to support the economies of scale that it needs to really work for the content vendors. Yes, streaming is coming, but my considered viewpoint is that its not going to be in the way you think. The whole "console war" angle is total bullshit anyway because the reality is that the hardware component has never been where the money is made, its always been software sales/licensing and latterly services.

Remove the licensing aspect and you get an interesting question. Platform holders lose a lot of revenue, but also save a ton by no longer having to invest in hardware design and manufacture. However by losing the hardware you lose the element that standardizes resources, which is a very weird thing when the server blades driving the content will need specification, but who's specification does one conform to in this supposed "one-platform" world?

Start thinking about this stuff and you begin to grasp how far off it all is, and how radical a shift it is in terms of software production to consider it as more than just an adjunct to the existing model.

 

[LittleBusters]

That's why Microsoft just bought 4 studios, started up a new one and are about to close on Obsidian Entertainment. Content is king.

 

[Pachi72]

Fuck streaming and fuck anyone who supports those anti consumer models.

the day we get full streaming is the day I give up on gaming completely or just play indie games

 

[manfestival]

This is terrible and once again going into this all internet all the time type of services really sucks. I mean I can only speak for myself but it is nice to have offline modes... I have weird up and down situations when it comes to internet and it is nice to be able to play a game when the internet is down or super slow.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

You guys really don't seem to want to engage with the issues relating to content and monetization, and how without procuring attractive content you can't build a subscriber-base big enough to support the economies of scale that it needs to really work for the content vendors. Yes, streaming is coming, but my considered viewpoint is that its not going to be in the way you think. The whole "console war" angle is total bullshit anyway because the reality is that the hardware component has never been where the money is made, its always been software sales/licensing and latterly services.

Remove the licensing aspect and you get an interesting question. Platform holders lose a lot of revenue, but also save a ton by no longer having to invest in hardware design and manufacture. However by losing the hardware you lose the element that standardizes resources, which is a very weird thing when the server blades driving the content will need specification, but who's specification does one conform to in this supposed "one-platform" world?

Start thinking about this stuff and you begin to grasp how far off it all is, and how radical a shift it is in terms of software production to consider it as more than just an adjunct to the existing model.

It's mind blowing how so many people still don't realize both of these. Especially the gaming press that live in San Francisco.