VAMatt said:
I do not have three of any console right now. I have two XBones, as I said. I only have one PS4. This lack of a console on every TV is a big part of what makes me interested in streaming. My math is based on the expected $500 launch price of next gen systems. I'm not inflating anything. I'm using reasonable numbers to demonstrate how streaming may work well for some gamers. I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up over someone else having different gaming priorities than you. Streaming services may be good options for some gamers, like me. If you don't like streaming, don't buy it. There will still be consoles, especially if streaming fails to deliver quality experiences. So, I see no reason that anyone should dislike streaming as an option for people that are interested. I do not expect that streaming will replace local devices for me anytime soon. I am hoping that streaming will supplement consoles, and add a new gaming option for me, and anyone else that's interested. |
If you don't have 3 consoles (and also didn't buy 2 of the same console at launch) you are putting their price at inflated rate just to favor your argument. You are being far from reasonable.
I have no problem with you preferring streaming, I was putting on against your arguments in favor of it. When you say "I prefer streaming", all I can say is "ok, enjoy"; but when you say "I prefer streaming because of x,y and z" them I can discuss the x,y and z.
CuCabeludo said: One dev was talking about the interesting part of making games on Stadia from the ground up is that the development of the game happens 100% on the cloud, even if the team is scattered around the world, they all will have access to the project and can work on it without having to be physically in one place, and they don't have to download/upload large amount of data to other team members. |
You can make 100% development on the cloud for any game on any platform if you want, you don't need Stadia for that.
CuCabeludo said:
Nobody knows how willing a company is to operate with loss until they earn the market or give up. Spotify has been running with losses since launch and just now they are getting close to break even, after acheiving 108+ million paying users. Amazon online sales operate at loss, it is the other Bezos businesses like the the cloud computing (AWS) which makes the money that offset the losses he takes with Amazon, with the single objective to kill the competition in online and retail sales. Maybe Google is willing to run a decade long loss, offset by the money they make on their other branches in order to aim for market dominance. |
Amazon operates on loss by choice, and reinvestment. The way Amazon offers return to investor is basically by making the share price go up, so it isn't same comparison (I would imagine Spotify is similar).
Google have a long history of shutting down non-profitable tryouts.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."