Forums - Gaming Discussion - Google throws their hat in the console ring

Ka-pi96 said:
monocle_layton said:
This would work if we assumed the average US citizen didn’t pay extraordinary amounts for shitty internet which caps at 30 mbps but rarely reaches that.

A shame really, cause if we had something like Fiber or decent internet I’d enjoy such services

It's not just speed. Think of the data caps many people still have too!

I live in the UK where unlimited internet usage is fortunately the standard, but my last internet provider did have an optional cheaper data capped version, I worked it out that with my Netflix usage alone I'd be paying an extra £80 a month for that "cheaper" option than the unlimited usage one. So streaming gaming services would really suck for those who don't have a choice but to use capped internet, which I believe is still the case for many people in the US.

Yeah you really can't criticize internet issues before people stampede in telling me to "appreciate what I have" and to appreciate cause fuckin africans or something don't got internet. You shouldn't pay that much for your Netflix assume (which I assume is reasonable).

At this point we really shouldn't see such ridiculous limitations from internet companies in developed countries. Unless someone is streaming 8k hentai while uploading fifteen youtube videos 24/7, we shouldn't see data caps for the average person. 



Around the Network

Since it's made by Google, it's definitely going to fail. But I think it's a matter of time until a small company come up with a sucessful streaming service.



Google threw its hat into the pig pen and not the console ring. If it can't play physical copies of console games, gamers will treat it like it's covered in pig droppings.



superchunk said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Subcription streaming services for gaming are such a terrible idea.

Why?

1. All of us already pay a fee to use a console. (well Nintendo's fee will be soon)

2. How many people use Gamestop's (or other retailers) resell offers as they buy and finish games quickly?

 

The way I see it, IF

1. Fee is a nominal amount.

2. You get full access to all past and new games at same time. Games = all the normal console AAA and other games, not just the current mobile-esque titles. i.e. there has to be near parity with current consoles as far as selection goes.

3. Video and gameplay quality is stable.

THEN, I don't see why it wouldn't appeal to a large group of gamers.

It may or may not appeal to a large group of gamers. But to me it's absolutely abhorrent. I like to own my games and know that I don't have to pay even an extra penny (except for electric costs obviously) to play it whenever I want. Besides that, whatever the fee is I expect it to work out at a higher cost than I pay now, because I don't buy games every month and rarely buy them at full price either. So why would I want to pay more for games that won't work anymore the moment I stop handing over money?



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

The_Liquid_Laser said:
No company can have a successful console unless they can make good exclusives for it. It doesn't matter if this is Google or Apple or all of the oil companies working together. If Google can make some really good exclusive games, then the service might take off, and if it can't or won't, then the service won't take off. It's as simple as that.

Yeah, I agree on that. And although Google is a software company, gaming is kind of a different beast. Microsoft as a software company also struggled to get own content created, they bought studios to achieve that.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network
superchunk said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Subcription streaming services for gaming are such a terrible idea.

Why?

1. All of us already pay a fee to use a console. (well Nintendo's fee will be soon)

2. How many people use Gamestop's (or other retailers) resell offers as they buy and finish games quickly?

 

The way I see it, IF

1. Fee is a nominal amount.

2. You get full access to all past and new games at same time. Games = all the normal console AAA and other games, not just the current mobile-esque titles. i.e. there has to be near parity with current consoles as far as selection goes.

3. Video and gameplay quality is stable.

THEN, I don't see why it wouldn't appeal to a large group of gamers.

Not everyone pays for a service on ps4/xb1, alot of them dont actually. Id be surrpised if even 1/3rd do, I think its less than that.
I also think the vast majoiry of people that buy games, dont just resell them after beating them.

So basically point 1) and 2) are moot.

 

Also the price of a streaming video game service is :
lag (if your net isnt fast, if someone in your house is downloading, if servers are stressed ect ect) (vs physical = it just works)
+ input delay(when you push button to action happends ingame)
+ tons of bandwitch used (which is pricy if you pay for usage)
+ compression quality (you wont get same picture quality as with physical hardware).


its "alot" of negatives to put up with, just to not have physical hardware able to do gameing.
Why? the hardware costs are put on the service perviders, but its still there. Maybe its slighly less than avg it out and makeing consumers pay for it, but these services will find other ways to recoupe that, so I doubt in the long run it ll be any cheaper for a consumer.

There are really no upsides to streaming video games as a service.
apart from the first time investment, but that ll be nickle and dimed back by the pervider over time.

I think its a sad future.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 07 February 2018

Xen said:
Ganoncrotch said:

no

 

 

Out with the old memes, in with the new!

well I'm just saying that it hasn't been 16 years since someone entered the console industry, Ouya tried and a lot of people (idiots) thought they had something with a horrific underpowered mobile phone with no screen and a controller which looked like it was from poundland.

Always know a company is on the way to success when they insult their primary audience, I mean, has that strategy ever failed?



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Anything they can do to keep Amazon from overtaking the universe.



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

Rendering the game on a server and sending it over the internet? Pass. Big fat pass.
Latency and all that. Latency from me to Googles' local servers are a good 40-60ms, I just don't see that as being a good time.

But if they stream the data for it to be rendered locally in real time? I'm keen. Provided there is an option to download the complete dataset for offline playing.
But that also tends to mean a greater initial hardware investment by the consumer, unless you have Ouya type ARM hardware, but then image quality will be shit.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
Rendering the game on a server and sending it over the internet? Pass. Big fat pass.
Latency and all that. Latency from me to Googles' local servers are a good 40-60ms, I just don't see that as being a good time.

But if they stream the data for it to be rendered locally in real time? I'm keen. Provided there is an option to download the complete dataset for offline playing.
But that also tends to mean a greater initial hardware investment by the consumer, unless you have Ouya type ARM hardware, but then image quality will be shit.

aye, I mean that's the same as playing a game constantly around the 55fps mark which should be rendered at 60fps, I mean it doesn't sound like a lot but for a 60fps game you need a frame ever 16/17ms so with ever a minimal amount of lag you are hitting 3-5frames between when it was rendered and when you see it not to mention that it is a 2 way thing, so 6-10 frames between you inputting a command and it having a visible impact in the game? No thanks for now until technology comes a long way further it will be very hard for cloud gaming to really come close to what is offered from a powerful GPU at home.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8