This thread makes me depressed btw, because you guys are probably right: Google fucked it up this time, but soon another company (Valve?) will get it right, and then we're all screwed.
This thread makes me depressed btw, because you guys are probably right: Google fucked it up this time, but soon another company (Valve?) will get it right, and then we're all screwed.
Perhaps. I think that day is further away than you think though. I'd put game streaming on a par with "VR", embraced by enthusiasts but the general public just don't get it.
This thread makes me depressed btw, because you guys are probably right: Google fucked it up this time, but soon another company (Valve?) will get it right, and then we're all screwed.
To be fair, a much more affordably priced service could probably be appealing. Rather bluntly speaking, a service like Spotify isn't bad for the consumer; it's bad for the artist.
Perhaps. I think that day is further away than you think though. I'd put game streaming on a par with "VR", embraced by enthusiasts but the general public just don't get it.
Game streaming is as intuitive as it gets. Run program, click any game, you're up and playing in a minute. You already "get" game streaming if you've ever watched a YouTube video. It's the dumb pricing by Google that makes it look like an enthusiast, exclusive service.
Easy:I don't see how this model can undercut a piece of dedicated hardware in your own home.
... what? You don't even need to click a button to spawn new compute instances, you just have a script running that spawns/closes them on demand. Obviously there's overprovisioning on AWS's side to allow for this, which is baked into the pricing.Think about it. The data centres are not run by magic. They are physical machine in real locations, and its costly to scale them up or down on demand. Hell even AWS which is years ahead of Google in Cloud you have to write an email requesting x amount of instances, and they email you back 48 hrs later - congrats! We allow you 2 more machines.
... what? You don't even need to click a button to spawn new compute instances, you just have a script running that spawns/closes them on demand. Obviously there's overprovisioning on AWS's side to allow for this, which is baked into the pricing.Think about it. The data centres are not run by magic. They are physical machine in real locations, and its costly to scale them up or down on demand. Hell even AWS which is years ahead of Google in Cloud you have to write an email requesting x amount of instances, and they email you back 48 hrs later - congrats! We allow you 2 more machines.
Easy:I don't see how this model can undercut a piece of dedicated hardware in your own home.
They don't have to make a profit. That's how these companies function. Just like Amazon that functions on extremely tiny profits or often none at all.
These companies are so big that they can afford to do this to shape the market or force competitors out.
I don't buy that at all. Its a short term strategy to kill competition
There's a huge difference in cost between serving files and running + streaming video games.
Yet here we still have the DalekFlay's and other retards going on about how "It's Inevitable, Maaan!". It's like they rolled some sort of natural resistance to learning from experience and are instead just repeating themselves like broken records. I feel like we've been over this enough times by now on why it is bound to fail and there's no point in repeating it constantly:
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...rvice-for-everyone.126618/page-4#post-6057599
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...rvice-for-everyone.126618/page-7#post-6071341
This is going to be a disaster of a very slow variety, though obviously the casual gamer will gain greatly in convenience. The price though will not be limited to ownership: When the target hardware for a developer stops being the game console or an average PC but the near-infinite processing power of Google's datacenters, we'll essentially be facing a Google monopoly on game development and choice of gaming platform.
You buy out all the other bread companies.You may want to sell bread with a shit filling very much, but if nobody bites it's just not gonna happen.
This is the key difference that (imo) everyone is missing. Streaming a movie or a song is fucking child's play compared to streaming a video game. The data, latency, bandwidth, and server requirements are all orders of magnitude lower for streaming music and TV than a game. It's a simple fact that video games are an interactive medium and the quality of that interaction is a huge part of the experience. The response time between a person hitting a button and then the requested action being taken is a not a minor detail that only hardcore gamer nerds will care about. It's a major -- if not THE major -- characteristic of how you enjoy a game. And despite the proliferation of games where controller response is less or not relevant (mobile and casual, for example), the entire AAA industry is reliant upon fast response time for controls, with the exception of some games like turn-based RPGs or strategy games (or, perhaps, a game like Stardew Valley). But even here, latency et al. are not irrelevant, just slightly less important.
If anything, the average codex user would probably find it more usable due to tending towards turn-based games. Your average gamer would probably find the latency in their call of duty game unplayable.This is the key difference that (imo) everyone is missing. Streaming a movie or a song is fucking child's play compared to streaming a video game. The data, latency, bandwidth, and server requirements are all orders of magnitude lower for streaming music and TV than a game. It's a simple fact that video games are an interactive medium and the quality of that interaction is a huge part of the experience. The response time between a person hitting a button and then the requested action being taken is a not a minor detail that only hardcore gamer nerds will care about. It's a major -- if not THE major -- characteristic of how you enjoy a game. And despite the proliferation of games where controller response is less or not relevant (mobile and casual, for example), the entire AAA industry is reliant upon fast response time for controls, with the exception of some games like turn-based RPGs or strategy games (or, perhaps, a game like Stardew Valley). But even here, latency et al. are not irrelevant, just slightly less important.
No one's missing it dude, we just disagree it's insurmountable for the mainstream. Google's test run and launch was mostly remarked on as working quite well from mainstream reporters, and the same impressions have been making the rounds for Xcloud. The average Joe doesn't care about 50ms of extra latency, which is what it amounts to in tests. Would you or I care? Sure we would, especially with a mouse, but does that mean much when the vast majority of mainstream consumers think "it's fine?" No, it amounts to a hill of beans, as the saying goes. Same for people on home theater forums ranting about bitrate and compression artifacts... they care, most don't, so it doesn't matter.
How quickly we forget to return to spread more of the same FUD as before... BUT MUH GOOGLE TEST RUN!No, it amounts to a hill of beans, as the saying goes. Same for people on home theater forums ranting about bitrate and compression artifacts... they care, most don't, so it doesn't matter.
Onlive :
Local PC :
I don't buy that at all. Its a short term strategy to kill competition
defone short term. a few years?
How quickly we forget to return to spread more of the same FUD as before... BUT MUH GOOGLE TEST RUN!