By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why is Sony being left out of the Streaming Future Conversation? Why are we even having it?

konnichiwa said:
forevercloud3000 said:

 

 

This is not to mention that I find the Stream only future of gaming to be very alarming issue. It seemingly is centered on less of what consumers WANT gaming to be and more on how developers can alter the landscape to benefit them. Streaming has taken hold of all other media formats because they are static, non intereactive mediums (Movies, music). A video game is constantly changing and shifts depending on who is playing it. A Stream only future sounds impossible for small fledgling developers and would pretty much kill the indie scene and we are back to AAA Publisher owning everything and suffering from extreme tunnel vision.

Are any of us really thinking this through? Discuss.

That's what people said about mobile gaming and now it it's huge and millions of people are playing even games like Fortnite/PUBG on it.  Same about digital games, ten years ago MS announced their first game Tomb Raider anniversary to also be digital available and we had hundreds of disscussions that gamers don't want it and now we are used that a huge chunk of sales are digital.

Fair enough I suppose. But let's look at digital as the only option store fronts...

 

The phone app markets have been completely arrested by large publishers and pushed Indies almost entirely out. Indies once thrived there and created new ideas but if you cannot make a free app and then Garner the advertisement space or attention to get people on your game you might as well not exist.

 

Physical format of PC has long since died, digital games rules there. Yet a study I saw not to long ago says a very small percentage of Steam market games are even profitable. Nothing sells unless it is discounted because Steam users have become accustomed to constant sales. Which means shrinking profit margins. And yet again...large publishers rule it now as they get all the visibility. 

 

If you you are not the type of multiplayer game with microtransactions to support yourself on app stores or PC then you seem to suffer from digital format only.

 

I think the options of digital or stream are beneficial...but dangerous if they become the only for anyone that isn't a large publisher.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

Around the Network

Mainly because there haven't been any rumors or announcements about Sony's plans for PS Now next gen. Comparing the current PS Now to Microsoft's XCloud and Google's Project Stream is like comparing PS1 to the original Xbox and Gamecube, it's like 2 different generations of technology.

XCloud will have lots of data centers because it shares MS's Azure Cloud network, meaning that the distance to the closest data center will be shorter for most people than PS Now in it's current state, resulting in less latency. They are working on predictive algorithms that help to minimize the additional input lag that streaming services have, and we've even heard rumors that MS is working on a streaming version of the next gen Xbox, which will cost less than the traditional next-gen Xbox and will run latency dependent tasks locally, while pulling the non-latency dependent data from the streaming service, resulting in even less input lag. They are also also rumored to be working on a unique foldable tablet codenamed Andromeda, which will basically act as a handheld version of the next Xbox, able to access the full Xbox library over XCloud (yes, the eventual plan is to make the full Xbox library, including OG Xbox, 360, XB1 games through backwards compatibility, and next-gen Xbox games, playable over XCloud).

Project Stream meanwhile will also have a ton of data centers, because it's Google, meaning that much like with XCloud, most people will be closer to the nearest data center than PS Now in it's current state. Early tests show that Project Stream will go up to 1080p on a strong internet connection, compared to 720p on PS Now, and that you get about 40 ms of additional lag, compared to 62-80 ms of additional lag on PS Now.

Now, that's not to say that Sony doesn't have plans to improve PS Now to bring it more in line with the "next gen" services from MS and Google, we just don't know about those plans if they do have them. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 14 October 2018

"1. It is completely not true. You can watch DigitalFoundry video about how Xbox One does B/C. Microsoft implemented some media formats from 360 on hardware level so they worked on this feature way before release."

 

I doubt that. When Xbox One launched, when asked about Xbox One not being backwards compatible with the Xbox 360, Don Mattrick and other Microsoft executives stated backwards compatibility was not something people use (only 5% use it) and if you have backwards compatibility, you're just backwards. They downplayed it.

 

Two years later, they announce Xbox 360 BC and begin to take shots at Sony and PS Now even though Sony stated PS Now was never supposed to be a replacement for bc. If Xbox One wasn't losing or if PS Now didn't exist they would've have worked on Xbox 360 bc. I think they started working on Xbox 360 bc as a PR move and because they needed a way to add more games to Games With Gold and pave the way for Game Pass to compete with PS Now.

 

"2. I agree that last year was anti-Sony campaign. But other than that it is hard to remember when journalists ever favored Xbox over PS4. IT ws always the other way around. Probably they defended Xbox on various matter but the most important thing about consoles is what> Of course - games. You can see the reviews of PS4 games and Xbox One games and then see which platform journalists usually favor. Crossplay also wasn't an issue until Nintendo Switch released which is a way more popular than Xbox, almost on PS4 level."

 

There are many more examples besides the asinine cross play anti-Sony campaign. This very topic is an example. There are definitely fraudulent journalists out there with a clear agenda to promote Microsoft products but it's not really about what media outlets "favor". I'm not necessarily saying they favor one or the other.

 

The only thing I can go by is the way they behave or the things they write. Many times you can spot the double standards, lies, or hypocrisy in the narratives and articles from media outlets like IGN, Gamespot, Forbes, Business Insider, Games industry Biz, Polygon, and countless others. And what I've seen the past 6+ years is that this has been going on in Microsoft's favor and often goes against facts and logic. I don't really see this trend when it comes to the PS4.

I don't know the reason. It could definitely be that some of them are just Microsoft shills, but sometimes it comes from outlets who I don't think are Xbox loyalists. In these cases it could be they're trying to generate views from console wars or they're just trying to manipulate people into buying an Xbox because they don't like how the PS4 is winning. Regardless of the reason lies are lies and bad journalism is bad journalism and doesn't benefit the industry.

When Xbox One and the PS4 launched in 2013 and 2014 I read Game Informer magazines. The writers were constantly pushing people towards buying an Xbox One. They would complain about the PS4 and complain about the sales gap between the systems but they would never actually address any problems the Xbox One had. The official Xbox magazine constantly mentions and tries to downplay the PS4. Of course that is to be expected from an Xbox propaganda magazine that supported and defended everything Microsoft did in 2013 and 2014 then turned around to obsess over resolution when the Xbox One X launched.

It really doesn't seem like the media outlets "favor" the PS4 with the way these media outlets behave. The gaming media has been extremely kind to Microsoft all things considered. It's the sales that haven't been kind.

"3. While I agree that journalists are not the reason why PS4 is winning, still it is hard to downplay that their articles affect consumers when they make their choice. Otherwise, journalism probably would have died as a speciality a long time ago because it would have been unneeded."

Just because many gaming centric news outlets make money doesn't make them actual journalists.  The reason why they make money is because of viewers and ads. Just because people click on the articles doesn't mean they're influencing purchasing decisions.

I'm sure they influence or fool some people but many articles are click-bait that draws in fanboys who already made their decision. Other readers can  probably see through news outlet bullshit. That still doesn't make these news outlets any less terrible though.

"4. And so what? For the first of all, it is not true. Yes, for the most part Xbox One games are 900p, but 720p is even more rare than 1080p. PS4 limits Remote Play to 720p while Xbox doesn't do that."

 

The PS4 base model limits Remote Play to 720p probably because of a limitation put in place b y Sony for technical reasons such as RAM and unrelated to the quality of the actual service that you claimed was inferior. The PS4 Pro is capped at 1080p for Remote Play. Both models scale dynamically based on connection quality.

 

The Xbox One offers 1080p 60fps but we know it struggles to hit that standard in games much less streaming them. The 1080p 60 fps option on Xbox One seems more like just a marketing point or check box.

 

Regardless, this has very little to do with my original point. The point is that it was asinine that journalists were hyping up streaming from Xbox to PC and claimed it was superior. This was before the feature even launched. Forbes was one outlet I remember who did this.

 

1. Who streams from a console to a PC at home? Probably a very small portion that doesn't include the journalists who hyped the idea.

 

2. Streaming anywhere to a Vita, PSTV, PC, or Android phone trumps streaming to a Windows PC only in your local home connection.




How does 'PSNow sucks' in any way answer the question: why are the media pretending it doesn't exist and hasn't existed for years? At least it proves it exists, I suppose, and clearly long enough for people to form an opinion on it.  So many dishonest people these days.



 

The PS5 Exists. 


I don't know about the Google service. But, my understanding is that the MS service has evolved from basic, straight streaming. I think they're doing some of the work on your local device, thereby greatly reducing lag and improving overall performance without using unacceptably large amounts of data. It's a sort of hybrid of streaming and local processing. Sony's service is just streaming, where essentially everything is handled by a remote device. This is the technology that gives us intolerable lag and low fidelity.

So, to the extent that my understanding is correct, this would mean that the new services are substantially different, and (in theory, at least) substantially better than PS Now.



Around the Network

It's because PS Now is real and can't hide its limitations, while Google and MS look great on paper and promises to solve everything.

Server location has influence on your latency, however your isp stability is still more important. Better compression also asks more from the client and will add more lag. Higher quality visuals require more data which will add more lag and be more vulnerable to instabilities. Offering newer games at higher resolutions requires more and faster hardware, meaning less resources to serve more people at the same time. In the end it needs to be an affordable business. Lower quality, older games, or higher priced subscriptions.

Google and MS can promise a lot but will run into the same limits as any other service.



VAMatt said:
I don't know about the Google service. But, my understanding is that the MS service has evolved from basic, straight streaming. I think they're doing some of the work on your local device, thereby greatly reducing lag and improving overall performance without using unacceptably large amounts of data. It's a sort of hybrid of streaming and local processing. Sony's service is just streaming, where essentially everything is handled by a remote device. This is the technology that gives us intolerable lag and low fidelity.

So, to the extent that my understanding is correct, this would mean that the new services are substantially different, and (in theory, at least) substantially better than PS Now.

Do you have any information on that? Can't find anything that says that anywhere.

It seems MS is doing the exact same thing Sony has been doing:

We’ve enabled compatibility with existing and future Xbox games by building out custom hardware for our datacenters that leverages our years of console and platform experience. We’ve architected a new customizable blade that can host the component parts of multiple Xbox One consoles, as well as the associated infrastructure supporting it.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/10/08/project-xcloud-gaming-with-you-at-the-center/

Starting in 2019, by the time it's readily available it's last gen games again....

MS is looking into smarter ways to compress  game video accounting for static huds and other repeating elements to reduce bandwidth. Nothing to reduce latency though. I guess it would decrease latency a little bit by having less data to transmit. Don't expect wonders however, video compression is based on only transmitting differences while during the heat of battle a stable image matters most. It's nice when it can remember the map screen or other elements to switch quickly, yet when you're in a big fight all that goes out the window and you need all the bandwidth you can get.



Enemy said:

I think you have your timeline mixed up. PS Now was created to preserve the PS3 legacy software since the cell processor made it difficult to emulate.

It was more or less because that it is difficult to monetize backwards compatibility, rather than the Cell being difficult to emulate.
Playstation 3 emulation efforts have actually been developing at a brisk pace on the PC.

Enemy said:
The PS2 and PS3 were both backwards compatible but the changes in technology, business models, and the cell made it difficult for the PS4 to run PS3 games including the PS2 classics purchased on the PS3 store. PS2 was a disk only console. PS Now was Sony's way of future proofing as well as offering a Netflix style rental service. Sony was going to evolve the PS Now service over time. They were always going to add PS4 games because PS3 games are not enough to keep the service growing.

Um. What? The Playstation 3 made the Playstation 2 difficult to emulate? Am I reading this right?
Importing Playstation 2 purchase from the Playstation 3 wouldn't have been a hard task you know.

Enemy said:
Xbox One was not backwards compatible with Xbox 360 in the beginning and Microsoft had no intentions of adding the feature.

False. Microsoft multi-OS approach was perfect for backwards compatibility.
Microsoft also supported a few Xbox 360 hardware features in the Xbox One chip, meaning Microsoft had plans of going down this route from the very beginning before the Xbox One launched.

Enemy said:
Well, I don't know what to tell you because that is not the history I've seen. Journalists have been defending the Xbox One since it launched. For the most part they give Microsoft a pass on most things other than the things that they can't hide such as the exclusives issue.

Disagree. Journalists belittled Microsofts Kinect, Higher Price and Reduced power relative to the Playstation 4... And for good reason.

Enemy said:
The last year has basically been an anti-Sony campaign because Sony didn't want to open the gates to Nintendo and Microsoft. Microsoft received passes over the past 13 years for blocking cross play with PC.

Sony deserved the criticism it has gotten.
Microsoft also deserved criticism it has gotten.

Enemy said:

I doubt that. When Xbox One launched, when asked about Xbox One not being backwards compatible with the Xbox 360, Don Mattrick and other Microsoft executives stated backwards compatibility was not something people use (only 5% use it) and if you have backwards compatibility, you're just backwards. They downplayed it.

The amount of people using a feature today has no bearing on Microsoft's plans pre-launch of the Xbox One console.
Do not accuse other posters of being backwards please.

But because you are denying it... Here is some evidence that the Xbox One has hardware support for a few Xbox 360 features.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-xbox-one-x-back-compat-how-does-it-actually-work

And I quote: "Xbox 360 hardware design are indeed built into the Xbox One processor - specifically, support for texture formats and audio. "It's what makes this sort of possible for us, because then we can take all of those shaders that we collect and we can package them and all the Enlightenments, and then we just go through and we do actual performance playthroughs to determine that the emulator is executing everything right.""

Enemy said:

Two years later, they announce Xbox 360 BC and begin to take shots at Sony and PS Now even though Sony stated PS Now was never supposed to be a replacement for bc. If Xbox One wasn't losing or if PS Now didn't exist they would've have worked on Xbox 360 bc. I think they started working on Xbox 360 bc as a PR move and because they needed a way to add more games to Games With Gold and pave the way for Game Pass to compete with PS Now.

Evidence says you are wrong though.

Enemy said:

There are many more examples besides the asinine cross play anti-Sony campaign. This very topic is an example. There are definitely fraudulent journalists out there with a clear agenda to promote Microsoft products but it's not really about what media outlets "favor". I'm not necessarily saying they favor one or the other.

All Journalists generally have a preference, perhaps you should try looking towards more unbiased sources of information that don't engage in console war rhetoric?

Enemy said:

It really doesn't seem like the media outlets "favor" the PS4 with the way these media outlets behave. The gaming media has been extremely kind to Microsoft all things considered. It's the sales that haven't been kind.

Most outlets have provided criticism where criticism has been due.
Most outlets are also a business, so they need to stylize a heading to draw clicks and thus money in.

Enemy said:

Just because many gaming centric news outlets make money doesn't make them actual journalists.  The reason why they make money is because of viewers and ads. Just because people click on the articles doesn't mean they're influencing purchasing decisions.

Well. You are not wrong. - However... Hows about not paying attention to the media?

Enemy said:

The PS4 base model limits Remote Play to 720p probably because of a limitation put in place b y Sony for technical reasons such as RAM and unrelated to the quality of the actual service that you claimed was inferior. The PS4 Pro is capped at 1080p for Remote Play. Both models scale dynamically based on connection quality.

There is zero technical reason why they should be capped at 720P or 1080P on either system when games will happily run natively higher than that in most instances.

Enemy said:

The Xbox One offers 1080p 60fps but we know it struggles to hit that standard in games much less streaming them. The 1080p 60 fps option on Xbox One seems more like just a marketing point or check box.

What the Xbox One runs games at has zero bearing on Streaming on the Playstation 4.

With that in mind... The Playstation 4 is also not guaranteed to run every game at 1080P 60fps either. - So going by your own logic, does that mean 1080P 60fps is also a marketing point/check box feature on the Playstation 4?

SvennoJ said:
Server location has influence on your latency

The laws of Physics literally comes into play.

SvennoJ said:
Better compression also asks more from the client and will add more lag. Higher quality visuals require more data which will add more lag and be more vulnerable to instabilities. Offering newer games at higher resolutions requires more and faster hardware, meaning less resources to serve more people at the same time. In the end it needs to be an affordable business. Lower quality, older games, or higher priced subscriptions.

Google and MS can promise a lot but will run into the same limits as any other service.

Depends on the encoding algorithms in use and the hardware support to go with it.



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

Maybe Sony need to pay for websites to write positive articles on it? Ps now has mega potential.



To be fair, Playstation Now still feels like an experiment. It's been around, but it never caught wind like Sony's other products.

So when people talk about these other companies, they are probably sensationalizing the new initiatives they have without thinking too much of the past, because streaming games from the cloud has yet to take off in a meaninglful way.

I'm sure Sony will be part of that discussion if they can make their service newsworthy, but they have yet to do that. And that's coming from a fourth generation Playstation console owner. It's a similar case with Dreamcast and online gaming. They were too ahead of their time, and because of that they couldn't give a worthwhile experience to the early adapters.