First of all I'm not yelling, clearly pointing out factual things when people think this is new technology, and my opinion on the future based on the past. You might be right on the last statement, meaning maybe something will change and people will flock to it, I say unlikely... its also possible for Ford start up production on the Model T and it sells like hotcakes, good luck, you might be right but probably not.
So.... streaming is so great but none of these people screaming how great it is haven't signed up and had no idea all of this has been available for 5-10 years, but lets start another 100 new topics on it.
Its not that I don't like it - clearly all you guys don't like it or you would have signed up over the last 5-10 years. You didn't. Clearly these people haven't signed up, they didn't even no it existed.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-20-2018/88PTS9.mp4
Youre on a gaming forum talking to the 5 percent that follow the industry closely. We care about things like resolution, latency, fidelity. Your opinions here will almost always be towards the higher quality option.
Most of us have no reason to stream because we are the market that buys discs and digital.
And for the record I did sign up for PlayStation now. I've used it. But I found the library lacking not the tech.
Well, with 600-700 games it probably isn't going to get much better, not for $7-10 a month. There really isn't a business model that makes sense, even if you don't mind the tech disadvantage. Netflix is burning cash at an incredible rate to try and get content.
What exactly is your argument? They aren't first to market? They aren't using new tech? They won't make money?
So Microsoft's end goal is to basically be Sega channel. = /
No, it has nothing to do with first to market, although that doesn't help, Sony wasn't the first to market.... whole bunch of companies already went belly up.
They probably won't make money just like Sony isn't making money on it nor any streaming company, generally speaking.
1. Tech is subpar to native playing, but even if it were even...
2. There really isn't a business model to support it... at least one we have seen yet.
There are headwinds to streaming models, game streaming is worse, lots more processing and much more electricity usage than music/movie streaming.
And you think it's not sustainable because Hulu and Netflix have had issues becoming profitable in the streaming market?
Never going to happen.I have a hunch their "end goal" is to get Nintendo's exclusives on Xbox. What does Nintendo do best? Exclusive games. What does Xbox do best? Hardware & software (especially online infrastructure). Combine both & voilà, win-win.
The power of the cloud!
Who could play 4+ years ago? Not me. We just got good internet in my area 2 years ago. Like I said, tech in the hindrance. By 5 years most people should have reliable internet and streaming tech will be 100 times better.Welcome to 2015, you could play 4+ years ago on TVs. Nobody wanted it.
(Are you serious? You already have the information in this exact thread)
Nintendo has zero reason to do this. Unless Microsoft is buying Nintendo.I have a hunch their "end goal" is to get Nintendo's exclusives on Xbox. What does Nintendo do best? Exclusive games. What does Xbox do best? Hardware & software (especially online infrastructure). Combine both & voilà, win-win.
Who could play 4+ years ago? Not me. We just got good internet in my area 2 years ago. Like I said, tech in the hindrance. By 5 years most people should have reliable internet and streaming tech will be 100 times better.
Nintendo has zero reason to do this. Unless Microsoft is buying Nintendo.
Well let's agree to disagree then. All of my friends that used these types of services told me the same things. That streaming tech isn't quite reliable enough to play competitive shooters. They also said they would be willing to adopt the tech once it's caught up and was reliable.It worked back 5 years ago, I think I tested OnLive I had around 10mb down back in 2010-11. 80-90% of people in this country probably had good enough internet to run this stuff when it was rolled out back in 2010ish. This issues with game streaming still exist and I have a 400+mb down pipe. It has nothing to do with bandwidth, generally speaking. I've run PS remote play off my T-Mobile account up in remote mountains years ago with my Vita.
Sony will be happy if you signed up, the masses haven't, the market isn't wrong.
Netflix is profitable.Well, with 600-700 games it probably isn't going to get much better, not for $7-10 a month. There really isn't a business model that makes sense, even if you don't mind the tech disadvantage. Netflix is burning cash at an incredible rate to try and get content.
Well let's agree to disagree then. All of my friends that used these types of services told me the same things. That streaming tech isn't quite reliable enough to play competitive shooters. They also said they would be willing to adopt the tech once it's caught up and was reliable.
Netflix is profitable.
Spoiler: this runs like ass to anyone without an incredible wired internet connection, and people who spend that much on internet tend to have hardware more capable than a Nintendo Switch.
Yes, but its worse than those, more costs and not as good as natively playing, and not cheaper that is if you want the latest and greatest, generally speaking. Game streaming is competing with native playing, native playing is better and over the long-run cheaper. Gaming streaming or say if they release a virtual Xbox, is like Virtual Desktops in the business world... the problem is... its cheaper to manage your own Xbox at the house than Microsoft manage it, now if you work for a business their can be savings in IT support for virtual desktops, but even that is marginal.... but we're talking managing 100s if not 1000s of desktops.
I can manage my cat cheaper and better than the animal kennel, so why would I give my cat to the animal kennel to manage? The same thing applies to a Xbox, you just plug it in, and give it some juice.
Why would Nintendo want to sign a deal like this to help MS?
Guess it's one way deal. MS giving games for them allowing Game pass.UMMMMMMMM can we get some switch games on the Xbox? I mean live and let live right?
I
Guess it's one way deal. MS giving games for them allowing Game pass.
Cause it helps them too. They get more content. I called this a while ago that MS ultimately would likely seek to go 3rd party as the writing is all over the walls. They are now putting everything on PC, we have rumors from many sources saying they will do the same on Switch and it will likely continue til they are putting games on PS4 / PS5. To folks still trying to pretend this isn't a thing happening, all I got to say is....remember when folks kept saying you wouldn't see MS games on Mac? How about Steam? At this point, we've heard this before and MS isn't really new to putting games on many platforms so I think this is not only likely, but was planned for some time now if they couldn't move a significant amount of units.
So this would make sense for Nintendo as they get more games, this would make sense for Sony as ....they get more games, this also makes sense for MS as they get the money. Maybe this makes more sense for MS.
If the XBone were selling well this would never happen.
I think it would because they would get revenue from it, and it would fill in the gaps between 1st party releases. IMO, chances are if you bought a Switch already you are not likely to say no to 1st party games just because of the availability of more 3rd party games. So IMO very little would be lost there, and certainly not enough to offset whatever revenue is gained.But if people play more Xbox games on their Switch, how would that help Nintendo?
I think it would because they would get revenue from it, and it would fill in the gaps between 1st party releases. IMO, chances are if you bought a Switch already you are not likely to say no to 1st party games just because of the availability of more 3rd party games. So IMO very little would be lost there, and certainly not enough to offset whatever revenue is gained.
So you are thinking that Nintendo would get a good percentage of the money of every game bought from a Switch? Or are you saying MS would be paying Nintendo a yearly fee (Example: $100million a year for Switch access) to host Gamepass on all Nintendo Switches?
If so, then yeah I can see Nintendo selling Switch real estate space to MS for a 9 figure per year fee in order to make this happen.
But if people play more Xbox games on their Switch, how would that help Nintendo?
How it would monetize for game pass I am not sure, but I really doubt Nintendo would let MS profit from Switch in any way without a cut. On game sales I would assume a percentage would be paid just like for games on any system, Steam, Epic, etc. Of course, MS might have the clout for a smaller percent than others via volume and /or incentives like help making a better online service, or server hosting, etc. The game pass thing - that one is tricky. Probably easy if they subscribe via Switch, but outside of that not sure. The incentives could certainly help there I would think.So you are thinking that Nintendo would get a good percentage of the money of every game bought from a Switch? Or are you saying MS would be paying Nintendo a yearly fee (Example: $100million a year for Switch access) to host Gamepass on all Nintendo Switches?
If so, then yeah I can see Nintendo selling Switch real estate space to MS for a 9 figure per year fee in order to make this happen.
Of course Nintendo would get a cut.
Why would MS get a free pass when every digital sale of anything on console digital marketplaces or Steam has the marketplace owner getting a cut?
What may get tricky is how Nintendo/MS/game maker gets a cut of a digital download. If a gamer buys a game that is currently already on Switch, but bought it because it's tracked he played it on GP then went out and bought it. Maybe MS stills gets a cut..... just like a website getting a tiny affiliate rate.
That seems extremely tricky. Like what happens if MS bans that account?
Isn't that a risk consumers take for any digital purchase on any system whatsoever? I'm not saying I approve of banning anything other than online play outside of pirating. I just don't see that as a concern for many people.That seems extremely tricky. Like what happens if MS bans that account?