spemanig said:
bonzobanana said:
Even if more game processing is done remotely you will still need hardware at the user end to take that streaming data. It may be console prices will fall as more processing is done on servers but then playing games will get more expensive as you have to pay for server time. There are no free lunches. Many people may get inconsistent internet connections and it just may not work that well in much of the world. I can see there being home consoles for 3 or 4 more generations at least before a game can be 100% streamed with low latency directly to smart tv's etc.
Also there may be consumer resistance to having to rent game time rather than own a game outright. Also with VR latency is more obvious so this works against remote processing.
Mind you no reason the market can't supply the desired product to all users. Casual gamers with go for streamed games on 2D displays which are more laggy and not as good an experience. Hardcore mainstream gamers will want local processing and VR and there is no reason why the same game can't cater for both users.
|
I'm sure they will offer tiny little streaming boxes for like $99, but most people will just buy a smart TV to stream on. You have a seriously misguided idea of how quick technology improves if you think it'll take what amounts to 20ish years for streaming to be up to snuff. We'll be there well into this generation. Consumers are resisting Netflix. They won't resist this.
|
I I think your misguided about the number of people who will still want a fantastic gaming experience using the most powerful hardware availble for a VR experience. What you are describing is a a super convenient and casual gaming experience but that won't be the whole market. There are always people that want the best home cinema experience, hifi experience, driving experience, holiday experience etc and gaming experience.
