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

Forums - Gaming - Pachter says $1000 consoles will be replaced by streaming.

 

Is Pachter Right?

For once he is right. 4 15.38%
 
Lol, of course not. 10 38.46%
 
His predictions warp the ... 10 38.46%
 
Streaming should replace ... 0 0%
 
Streaming shouldn't repla... 2 7.69%
 
Total:26
HoloDust said:

You should check it out at least, if you haven't. Around last summer I was curious to check GeForce NOW, since I haven't in ages, so installed and tried Free and had no problem to play Ghost Runner on it, which is quite twitch based. So, unlike how game streaming services used to be, reserved almost exclusively for slower paced/turn-based games, this is quite able to handle fast action.

This is all before GeForce NOW came into "shit, this actually works" spotlight, so not sure if Free is as good as it used to be, but I know Ultimate is.

I can see its main purpose as in "I want to play latest AAA game in all its glory" and pay a month of Ultimate just for that, while playing all other, less demanding games on local hardware.

I tried FH5 on streaming, it was awful. I could hardly make it through the tutorial race. I don't live anywhere near a data center, rural town.

If you have fiber and live near a data center, maybe it works better now. Most people on this planet do not. And if I want to play the latest AAA game in all its glory, I want to do that without compression artifacts, HDR calibrated for my TV, uncompressed 5.1/7.1 sound.

Anyway even that isn't getting me to play the latest AAA games anymore since I mostly play in VR now where latency means everything.



Around the Network

I'm still having enough trouble with online that I have to be careful with online multiplayer.



Nothing too drastic is probably going to happen in this regard, but there's definitely increasing opportunities for streaming services if prices keep getting worse, so there might be some shift towards streaming.



I'm not doing that. If that is the future, I'll stay in the past. I have enough old games I still haven't play or played more than once. I could probably play Skyrim/Fallout 4 forever.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.



SvennoJ said:
HoloDust said:

You should check it out at least, if you haven't. Around last summer I was curious to check GeForce NOW, since I haven't in ages, so installed and tried Free and had no problem to play Ghost Runner on it, which is quite twitch based. So, unlike how game streaming services used to be, reserved almost exclusively for slower paced/turn-based games, this is quite able to handle fast action.

This is all before GeForce NOW came into "shit, this actually works" spotlight, so not sure if Free is as good as it used to be, but I know Ultimate is.

I can see its main purpose as in "I want to play latest AAA game in all its glory" and pay a month of Ultimate just for that, while playing all other, less demanding games on local hardware.

I tried FH5 on streaming, it was awful. I could hardly make it through the tutorial race. I don't live anywhere near a data center, rural town.

If you have fiber and live near a data center, maybe it works better now. Most people on this planet do not. And if I want to play the latest AAA game in all its glory, I want to do that without compression artifacts, HDR calibrated for my TV, uncompressed 5.1/7.1 sound.

Anyway even that isn't getting me to play the latest AAA games anymore since I mostly play in VR now where latency means everything.

Yeah, I have 2Gbps fiber, and I'm relatively near to closest GeForce NOW server, so neither latency nor bandwidth (which can be really high for quality image) are issue.

That said, nothing will beat local hardware when it comes to either, but I find that it's nice to have an option that works, if I ever need one for whatever reason.



Around the Network
HoloDust said:

Yeah, I have 2Gbps fiber, and I'm relatively near to closest GeForce NOW server, so neither latency nor bandwidth (which can be really high for quality image) are issue.

That said, nothing will beat local hardware when it comes to either, but I find that it's nice to have an option that works, if I ever need one for whatever reason.

Yeah the appeal is certainly there. Especially with games like FS2024 where you're streaming 50 to 150 mbps of photogrammetry data over detailed cities from the server anyway. Streaming the whole game would be more efficient!

But latency remains an issue. I have avg 300 mbps bandwidth, plenty, and the county is in the process of upgrading our neighborhood to fiber to the home. Yet physics remain the same, distance and hops to the nearest data center are the bottleneck.

Well it should get better, I just checked, Saturday afternoon I only get 61 mbps down, 77 mbps up, 30ms idle ping, 292ms download latency, 167ms upload latency. That's to the nearest server (32km away) still in rural Ontario.

So bandwidth is hardly enough for game streaming at peak times while the combined up and download latency would be atrocious to play with and that's just to the nearest server. The nearest MS data center is 100km in the opposite direction. (well proposed, not build yet, maybe never the way things are going ugh)



SvennoJ said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

So, streaming failing again confirmed!

Also, streaming incurs a latency which would be very bad for any action game where reaction time or pixel-perfect accuracy are necessary. Something like Civ would be fine, Hollow knight however not.

Yeah, FPS, Racing, Souls like, Arcade shooters, Beat em ups / fighting games, VR will all be unplayable streaming. While story driven games lose their biggest draw, pixel perfect visuals. And goodluck dodging Lynels on streaming.

Well, I fail at that most of the time already without lags or latency issues...