Right. I understood you were making the claims in the bolded. I'd just like to know what source these claims are derived from. Especially the 50% is multiplayer claim. 

Okay, so here you are saying that multiplayer games are approaching 50% digital sales ratios. Either that or you are saying that multiplayer games are approaching 50% of all sales of video games period. I'm not 100% sure which one you meant, but I'm betting on the former.

Okay so Activision seeing it's multiplayer franchises reach near 50% digital sales, means it is the same for the entire industry? A 5% yearly increase in digital ratios for Activision's multiplayer games =/= a 5% yearly increase in digital ratios for the AAA console games industry as a whole. 

Alright, sure. So if we assume that this 5% increase is going to continue each and every year, then it should take about five years from Q4 2017 for digital sales to reach over 70% of all games. So by Q4 2022. That should be enough for Stadia's lack of physical games to not matter, all that much. But that kind of assumes that there's not going to be some sort of hard cap on how far digital can grow. At least a temporary hard cap that is. 

I'm pretty skeptical of this sort of thing though, because it reminds me of the sort of, missing the forest for the trees logic of Pachter. 

"Wii, PS3, and 360 had a combined console sales of 260ish million. But this generation the combined console sales are way behind that and will never catch up. Therefore this shows that the console market is shrinking and will soon collapse." - More or less what Pachter has said umpteen billion times. 

The problem is Pachter often glazes over important details that affect the market. Such as Nintendo's mishandling of the Wii U. Or the fact that when there's little reason to own an XB1, most people will just opt for a single system instead of having both (or to put this another way fewer people need to buy both systems when one of those systems isn't very appealing, or is redundant). 

Anyway, I'd give it 50/50 odds that there will be some fly in the ointment that will keep digital from reaching over 70% of all game sales so quickly. The same way that Pachter's bean counter logic glazes over important details, we may be glazing over important details too. 

If someone applied the same bean counter logic to the growth of a child, they would erroneously conclude that since Timmy grew 3 inches per year for the past five years, he will be 16 feet tall by age 70. Of course they just glazed over the simple fact that people eventually stop growing. But that's what happens when people just stare at the numbers all day, and never apply any other information. 

I respect your belief/stance that physical games sales will continually, and rapidly lose marketshare over the next five years. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because at this point I think that's all we can do. 

Man ohh man. Digging through the salt mines of several year old threads, and doing it poorly... and you think that makes me look bad? Adorable.

Let me reiterate one more time. I could not care less about my reputation with you or anyone else. I don't care if you think I have a "anti-Nintendo bias" because I'm unafraid to point out Nintendo's continued efforts to take advantage of their customer's good will. But let's have a laugh, because you actually couldn't be more wrong.

"
"Users will be able to try out Nintendo Switch online services for free during a trial period after launch. Then it will become a paid service beginning in the fall of 2017. We will provide additional details on this paid service and its features on our home page at a later date." (emphasis mine)

Does that say "at launch"? No? So again, we don't actually know if Online play will be available when this console releases, or if it will be available in the weeks that follow. Sorry, I'm not going to assume "March" means "launch day" like you are."

As it turns out "Nintendo Switch online services" didn't mean "online play". It meant Nintendo's paid online app and subscription service, which, to be clear, did not launch on release. It launched several months after the Switch did. So the quote Rol is saying that I was "shown proof the Switch will have online at launch" actually didn't prove that at all. Zorg was wrong. Rol was wrong. That quote didn't say what they thought it said, and as it turns out my interpretation of the wording of that quote was the correct one. I, along with Zorg, Rol and other's were just wrong about what "Nintendo Switch Online services" actually meant. In fact, it seems that Rol is still wrong about it, and is in denial over it. So let's be clear:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/everything-you-need-to-know-nintendo-switch-online/

"It took more than a year after launch, but the Nintendo Switch received its online service in September 2018" 

Well. Would you just look at that.

So as it turns out, the "anti-Nintendo bias" that that actually supports not interpreting Nintendo's PR as favorably as possible as Rol insisted I should have, because whatever bias Rol has leads to interpreting Nintendo PR incorrectly. Perhaps at this point Rol, you should consider that you likely have a severe "pro-Nintendo bias" that clouds your judgement. You're objectively wrong about your interpretation of the conversation that went on in that thread from two years ago.

Let's move on to the next quote, and let me emphasize something

"If this type of shit isn't ready at launch, delay your console and spare yourselves the embarassment! It has to be obvious to you at this point that the launch of the Switch has been rushed. This console isn't ready. This platform definitely isn't ready. But fuck it. Rushing things out the door in the video game industry has never worked out poorly, has it?"


Last I checked, saying "IF this type of shit isn't ready at launch", isn't "a definitive claim", is it, Rol? Since Nintendo did have an online multiplayer ready at launch, it means I didn't think they rushed the console and it was ready. How awful of me.

Rol, all you're proving is that you've have reading comprehension issues for a long, long time. That, or you're so biased you can't even realize that even when you dig up your little document on me and try and discredit me the quotes you pull out actually don't say what they think they do!

But hey, why actually analyze things objectively as you can when you can analyze them the Rolstoppable way? Keep trolling through that document you have on me to argue with strangers on an anonymous internet forum and try and one-up them! It's noble work you're doing Rol!

banned by the-pi-guy

Isn't arguing over whether or not it launches on March 3rd, or by the end of March splitting hairs? 

"Nintendo Switch Online Services didn't mean online play."

Yes it did. Online play was a part of Online Services. If I say I'm going to give you object A, and object B is a part of object A, then you can safely assume that you are going to get object B. Example: I'm going to give you a Nintendo Switch. This implies that I'm going to give you a set of joycons, because they are a part of a Nintendo Switch.

I think stadia is going to be niche but successful enough. I feel ownership of games is still a big important factor for most gamers and that isnt going to change anytime soon.

Scarlett + X Cloud + Game Pass = Stadia Death....

Not only do most people not have good internet, but many who do have good internet have data caps.

On top of that, games like shooters, fighters, racing, etc all require precise control- something game streaming cannot offer (no matter how much some people want to argue it)

Alright, so I'm going to make one last post addressing the comments made after my ban, and that's going to be the end of it, and I won't be discussing it further.

The sentences by themselves are definitive claims, but within the context of the paragraph that they are incorporated into, they clearly are not. That's how the English language works. Let's try with an example:

"If Sony includes a PSVR 2 with every PS5 and charges $800 for it, and expects to sell as many PS5s as they sold PS4s they are out of their minds. They are throwing away the good will they garnered over the PS4's lifespan. They are taking their userbase for granted like they did with the PS3."

So, let's assume Sony does not include a PSVR2 with every PS5 and charges much less than $800 for it, then logically they would not be out of their minds, they would not be throwing away the good will they garnered over the PS4's lifespan and they would not be taking their userbase for granted like they did with the PS3. The sentences that comment on the condition presented, no matter how definitive they are, still depend on the condition, and thus become conditional.

You have the logic of this backwards. Online play is a part of Nintendo Switch Online Services, not the reverse. The problem is with the ambiguity of the term "Nintendo Switch Online Services". So let's use another example to illustrate this

Let's say that Sony announces a new service called "Playstation Platinum", which replaces Playstation Plus, includes all of the features of Playstation plus (online play, save back ups, games discounts, and two "free" games per month) but also includes a bunch of other stuff, and costs more. Sony puts out the following press release:

"Users will be able to try out Playstation Platinum for free during a trial period after launch. Then it will become a paid service beginning in the fall of 2021. We will provide additional details on this paid service and its features on our home page at a later date."

The Playstatuon 5 launches, and, while there is online play, the rest of Playstation Platinum is nowhere to be found. Playstation 5 owners can't sign up for the service, they can't make save backups, they don't have access to game discounts, they don't get any free games a month, and they don't have the bunch of other stuff. In fact, those features don't make it to the Playstation 5 until over a year afterwards.

If someone after the fact said that Playstation Platinum was available at launch because online play was available at launch, they would be incorrect, as a single part of what makes Playstation Platinum doesn't actually represent the service as a whole, and it's clear that online play was not what Sony was referring to in the press release, it was the entire service package that makes Playstation Platinum.

The same reasoning goes with Nintendo and their "Nintendo Switch Online Services" vs. online play. While online play is a part of Nintendo Switch Online Services, it doesn't actually represent the service as a whole, and online play wasn't what Nintendo was referring to in that press release, and why you have games media companies writing articles about how the Nintendo Switch Online Service finally released in Sept 2018.



---

With all that said, let me reitierate, I will not be addressing any of this further. It has literally nothing to do with Google Stadia and does not belong in this thread at all. There's no need for any more derailment.

Cloud is very location dependent. I only live 33 Miles from the Datacenter that PS Now is running on in my area, and for me it is next to flawless. If I was say 600 Miles from the nearest datacenter then it would be a totally different story.

What people have to keep in mind is that Cloud and Datacenters is the future of computing. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Sony, IBM, and many many more companies will continue to build datacenters at 100's if not 1,000's of locations around the world. 

In the case of Stadia, Google will build out their datacenters first in highly populated areas that have great internet. Even at launch, Google will have more people near their datacenters with high speed internet than the entirty of consoles sold this gen. People are greatly underestimating the amount of the world population that is within a 100 miles of a data center, and have over a 35Mbps internet connection.

Something to look out for with streaming will be which company has a datacenter closest to you. This is where you will see people saying one service is amazing, while saying the others are trash, while other people swear by a different service saying the others are trash. Basically, if you are close to a Google Datacenter, then Stadia will be great, if you are close to an Azure Datacenter then xCloud will be great, if you are close to an AWS Datacenter, then any service running on AWS will be the best.

I don't know if Stadia will fail or succeed, but I expect it to be around for at least the next 5 years regardless of its market performance. I also strongly believe that should it go south, Google will either end the sale of new games and keep things running for those that have bought in, or allow them to transfer their purchases to whatever platform/service they concede to. 

The amount of companies competeing in the cloud gaming space will likely continue to expand over the next few years, and then we should see companies begin to consolidate as a handful take the lead. If I had to bet, I would expect Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and One Random Newcomer will all end up with long running services, while others that try to enter the space will fall by the wayside.

People are to quick to jump on the band wagon that anything new is going to fail, and that such and such company is to big for anyone to compete. What was Sony's position in Games before PlayStation? What kind of shape was Apple in before iPod, iTunes, and iPhone? Where was Netflix before it took off? How about Spotify? 

In all likelyhood, there is a great chance that a newcomer or a failing company will enter the Cloud Gaming space and be the dominate player, while Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all fall dramatically. Is Google Stadia Doomed? I doubt it, Could it be the next PlayStation, iProduct, Netflix, or Spotify? We will know before the end of the next decade.