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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Gaming Streaming - What does the future look like?

ViktorBKK said:
Until faster than light communications are invented, game streaming is not replacing anything.

A complete takeover is almost nonexistent in any space of entertainment but it will take the bigger part of the market and it will not that so long.

I know you are not serious but it would be pretty beyond our knowledge in possible forever to send anything faster than the speed of light, but we can do with much slower for streaming :p



Around the Network
Kinneas14 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Not streaming, that's what the future looks like.

Even if an all digital future does ever happen, downloads will stay be leagues ahead of streaming.

I guess that will be the case in the near future (<5 years). I believe streaming will be able to rival downloads after then.

Nope, it won't.

If you're into singleplayer stuff then the reliability of downloads is always going to be better than streaming. I mean, my internet is pretty shitty but even if you have good internet then bad weather could still mess up your connection and prevent you from playing games, or worse cut out a game you're currently playing before you can save it.

And if you're into multiplayer stuff then the increased lag of streaming is always going to put you at a disadvantage. Even if the streaming speed is amazing, you're still going to be slightly slower than somebody who has the game downloaded and if you're playing a competitive game why would you willingly disadvantage yourself?



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

IcaroRibeiro said:
sethnintendo said:
I don't get why people want to stream to shitty devices. Why not just buy a gaming console or PC that can actually play the damn game without depending on internet connection.

It's much less expensive and you will never bother with specs anymore, the servers will make all the work to improve their infra and you won't bother to upgrade your PC each 3 years

You also don't need to have that ugly boxes that are PC using your space, you can connect direct from your TV, though this is a non factor for me 

Personally I can make a PC last the better part of a decade. Like if I buy a PC I'm not upgrading it ever and I'm not replacing it for 7 or 8 years either.

If you're the kind of person that upgrade your PC every 3 years then streaming will NEVER live up to your crazy high expectations.

And if you're the kind of person that thinks all PC gamers regularly just upgrade their PCs for whatever reason... then you're just silly.



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

sethnintendo said:
I don't get why people want to stream to shitty devices. Why not just buy a gaming console or PC that can actually play the damn game without depending on an internet connection.

Really you are asking why don't you spend $200-500 console or $750+ on PC, instead of using a device that you already own. The cost of entry for streaming is only $50(controller). Besides, Xbox model streaming is seen as an alternative way of playing when away from your console or PC. The new Luna service announces by Amazon really pushing streaming as an alternate way into gaming for a really cheap barrier of entry. If you can't see the appeal for some people, you are probably in the camp that thinks buying a next-gen console is stupid when RTX 3080 & 3090 will blow away the power of said consoles. It's all about cost, especially if you're not that passionate about gaming.



Tommy Jean, CPA, CGA

sethnintendo said:
I don't get why people want to stream to shitty devices. Why not just buy a gaming console or PC that can actually play the damn game without depending on internet connection.

Same reason why now everybody watches stuff on Netflix and not on DVD. Once (and if) the technology is good enough, then gaming streaming will become the standard.



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
Always noticeable how much we cling to our habits whenever a new medium is starting to takeover,an interesting case of denial for people that saw different forms of entertainment diminish and grow in the same way.

Yep, I feel the same, even in this thread. I like my games physical, but can definitely see the technology taking over once internet speed/reliability improve significantly.



Ka-pi96 said:
Kinneas14 said:

I guess that will be the case in the near future (<5 years). I believe streaming will be able to rival downloads after then.

Nope, it won't.

If you're into singleplayer stuff then the reliability of downloads is always going to be better than streaming. I mean, my internet is pretty shitty but even if you have good internet then bad weather could still mess up your connection and prevent you from playing games, or worse cut out a game you're currently playing before you can save it.

And if you're into multiplayer stuff then the increased lag of streaming is always going to put you at a disadvantage. Even if the streaming speed is amazing, you're still going to be slightly slower than somebody who has the game downloaded and if you're playing a competitive game why would you willingly disadvantage yourself?

I understand your point, but disagree.

I think the large majority of the market (once internet speed and reliability will improve significantly) will shift to streaming. It will be relatively cheap and also appealing to the mainstream market.

I see a mix of download/streaming (à la Spotify) in the near future though.



Gameing is differnt than streaming music and movie/tv industry though.
I think all digital is the future, but I'm still not convinced that streaming games is the future.

Theres still upsides to owning physical hardware.
As long as they can keep prices low enough that cost of entry isnt a issue in future, streaming shouldn't gain large marget share (imo).
Currently still to many issues with streaming for me to think, its gonna take over everything anytime soon.



First I believe it’s a 3 way war between MS, Google and Amazon. Sony uses Azure for Ps Now so if they win so does MS. That said, Google and Amazon lack the 1st party to truly compete. Sure they have YouTube and Twitch integration respectively but content is still king. Xcloud has too many time tested IPs and too many seasoned studios under their belt. They simply can’t compete with Elder Scrolls, Starfield, Fallout, Halo, Gears, Forza, Doom, etc.



If you want to know which platform(s) are going to win over the next several years, then you only need to ask three questions.  Here they are in order of importance:

1) Does one platform clearly have a much better game library?
2) Which platform is the best value?
3) Does one of these platforms especially appeal to marginal gamers (i.e. "da casualz")?

So I am going to break this up into two categories: A) Sony vs. Nintendo and B) the streaming services and C) Apple Arcade.

A)  So if you compare PS5 vs. Switch, both are going to have a good library of games.  Switch already does have a good library with plenty more games coming, and we've seen that PS5 will have games coming.  Switch is a much better value though.  It's cheaper (that's obvious), but portability also makes it a much better value.  Switch probably also appeals just a little more to "da casualz" because it's portable and it has some motion control games.  But really any system that uses the classic controler scheme doesn't appeal to "da casualz" too much.  Overall Switch is going to be the clear winner based on value.

B) Let's take Microsoft vs. Google vs. Amazon on streaming service.  Microsoft's service is going to have a much better library of games.  They simply have a lot more game studios and every Elder Scrolls fan, for example, is going to want Gamepass simply because of the games.  All of these 3 subscriptions services offer a similar value and don't really appeal to "da casualz" because they use the classic controller scheme.   Microsoft is going to be the clear winner for the next few years simply because of its game library.  Google and Amazon are really going to have to come up with some good exclusive games on their own if they are going to have a chance of competing with Microsoft.

C) Apple Arcade is in a category all on its own.  That's because it's the only platform right now that is seriously trying to appeal to "da casualz".  Most of its games use either touch screen controls or maybe a simple joystick with buttons.  Both of these appeal much more to marginal gamers than the classic controller scheme.  That means that Apple Arcade (and gaming in general on the iPhone) is going to continue to be a very profitable business for Apple.  This service is not going to be a big deal anytime soon, but in 10+ years it may end up being the dominant player in gaming.  In gaming, 10 years is a huge amount of time.  It's the difference between Final Fantasy 1 and Final Fantasy 7.  Add another 10 years and you are in the FF12/13 era.  Give Apple enough time to make tons of bank with "da casualz" and their games are going to be much better and more sophisticated.  They will grow into a serious force to be reckoned with.  It won't happen anytime soon, but don't take your eyes off of them either.