The future of game streaming(and gaming in general)

[Sir derp sariff]

I think we have one more(at best) console generation before game steaming takes over, since it's more easily accessible to everyone also people love to be served and the idea of game streaming to a laymen should be lucrative- just get a controller, pay the fees and enjoy the unlimited collection of games. So it's lucrative for companies too especially if they're onto attracting non gamer customer base into becoming gamers.

This was inspired by sony PS now(their game streaming service), people slammed it- if youtube comments are to be believed but I am optimistic of it, it's good step in a better direction, the plans they had were like $20 ish a month and $45 for three(you save $15) and people were upset cause they can buy consoles instead but I just thought you can buy movies or more importantly TV shows too, still you love netflix, it's because TV is like internet and electricity a service we all use in daily life anyway, having it and Not having it is not a thing so it's accepted, what if games become the same? The internet is getting better, bigger(user numbers), more reliable and faster everyday, it's a prerequisite for netflix- which means the next step is game streaming, that is to say the both of them have same prerequisites and one's existence means the next is likely to happen in some time.

Anyway my question is what do you think about game streaming, like it or not and do you think ti will be good for customers in the long run? or should we stay with the physical consoles and of course there is the PC gaming master race, just buy a PC and along with all the other things it will play games too/stream them. But let's focus on consoles, back to my question, what are your thoughts on this matter?

 

[Lufia Erim]

I'm sure it will become a thing. I personally have a couple of problems with it ( as it stands at the moment).

A) you need a stable and very quick internet connection. Especially of you are going to be playing online. This is obvious. There is no way on hell i am gonna stream a online game at this point in time.

B) again in relation to internet, you will need unlimited bandwidth. Or else it will cost you an arm and a leg to pay for the internet.

3) Price. Sure for 20$ you get an unlimited amount of games. However how many games do people actually complete in a month? Netflix being 8 dollars and movies last between 1h30 and 3 hours. Games however usually last 10-60 hours. I wouldn't feel like I'm getting my money's worth.

4) ownership. I won't actually own any of these games. This is will especially suck if for whatever reason i get disconnected or don't have internet for a few days because vacation or moving.

What i would like to see however instead of streaming is to be able to download the games and keep them on your system. Kind of like PS+ but with the same library of games.

For example, have the same 100s of games available for download on your system. But to be able to play the games you need to be subscribed to PLAYSTATION NOW. So i can download the games, play when i want regardless of internet connection as long as my account is registered as a PSN now user. And maybe shave of 5-10$ on the asking price by month.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

It is the future *groans*, but I don't see it being the sole way a console brand will distribute games for a long time (or ever).

I agree with everything Lufia says. The internet bandwidth necessary for streaming still isn't available in many part of the world that have the disposable income for games. And, while US ISPs are finally feeling the burn of people learning how scummy they are and improving things, low bandwidth caps are still a thing streaming will be challenged by. The pricing schemes and ownership issues are also going to put off enough people to make full sales remain a profitable market.

There is also the whole reliance on the internet issue that affects any type of media streaming. Your connection isn't guarantied to work all of the time. If it goes down for maintenance or unplanned causes, you're out of your games, movies, tv shows, and music. DVDs, games discs and downloaded games (without bullshit DRM), and MP3/music CDs will still work as long as you have power.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

It is the future *groans*, but I don't see it being the sole way a console brand will distribute games for a long time (or ever).

I agree with everything Lufia says. The internet bandwidth necessary for streaming still isn't available in many part of the world that have the disposable income for games. And, while US ISPs are finally feeling the burn of people learning how scummy they are and improving things, low bandwidth caps are still a thing streaming will be challenged by. The pricing schemes and ownership issues are also going to put off enough people to make full sales remain a profitable market.

There is also the whole reliance on the internet issue that affects any type of media streaming. Your connection isn't guarantied to work all of the time. If it goes down for maintenance or unplanned causes, you're out of your games, movies, tv shows, and music. DVDs, games discs and downloaded games (without bullshit DRM), and MP3/music CDs will still work as long as you have power.

I have to agree with you there, internet will need to get a lot more reliable and cheap before that becomes a reality.
It's like money. I'm sure that sometime in the future paper money will be a thing of the past, but I doubt it will happen in the next 50 years

 

[linwolf]

There are a lag with streaming that you cant get past no matter how fast your internet is. This doesn't matter with movies as long as the frames arrives in order all is fine, with games where timing is important it will make for a worse experiences.

 

[FalloutJack]

I think that presumes too much. There will be consoles until people stop being frigging millions of them, and I see no reasons why people wouldn't.

 

[Something Amyss]

It'll be bad for the consumer, but when has that ever stopped us from buying in?

I think that presumes too much. There will be consoles until people stop being frigging millions of them, and I see no reasons why people wouldn't.

Note he said "before streaming takes over," not "one more generation before the end of consoles."

B) again in relation to internet, you will need unlimited bandwidth. Or else it will cost you an arm and a leg to pay for the internet.

This is one of the big things for me. Data caps and throttling (which I suspect Comcast still does) are going to kill this thing dead. And it's not like Netflix in this sense; you can't just queue up something and let it buffer. Especially online.

3) Price. Sure for 20$ you get an unlimited amount of games. However how many games do people actually complete in a month? Netflix being 8 dollars and movies last between 1h30 and 3 hours. Games however usually last 10-60 hours. I wouldn't feel like I'm getting my money's worth.

I'm sure a lot of people would, though. Especially if you compare it to rental services, which is the idea that this takes on.

While we talk a lot about sales and whatnot, people still buy a crapton of games during the crucial initial period, and thus spend tons of games.

Then again, if it got filtered like Netflix does, we wouldn't see many new games. That could shift it the other way. Why pay for streaming on bargain-bin titles?

There's another related issue that might come into play: I use Netflix in part because I can use it as much as I do. I use it when I'm working, and toss something on in the background. I use it when I can't sleep. I use it quite a bit. How many hours, realistically, do we expect to spend streaming gaming? How many hours to we spend playing at all? That's where the monetary value hits me. If I'm paying more for something I'm using less, I might not want to keep paying.

4) ownership. I won't actually own any of these games. This is will especially suck if for whatever reason i get disconnected or don't have internet for a few days because vacation or moving.

But again, you don't stream to own, so I don't see the problem. As with any internet-based service, you lose access if you lose your internet. As with any subscription service, you lose access if your subscription ends.

I like your download idea, though. Except if there were only hundreds of games, I might not bother.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Is there an actual difference? It really does sound like another 'consoles are dead' argument.

 

[Something Amyss]

Is there an actual difference? It really does sound like another 'consoles are dead' argument.

Only if you think Steam means PC gaming is dead.

Seriously, this has nothing to do with the lifespan or cycle of consoles except using it as a marker for adoption. I'm not sure what the issue is.

 

[FalloutJack]

Is there an actual difference? It really does sound like another 'consoles are dead' argument.

Only if you think Steam means PC gaming is dead.

Seriously, this has nothing to do with the lifespan or cycle of consoles except using it as a marker for adoption. I'm not sure what the issue is.

I don't think Steam means the end for consoles or PC. I DO think that he might be trying to say that. Can you discern otherwise? I'd honestly like to know. Call it relevent to my interests.

 

[Lufia Erim]

It'll be bad for the consumer, but when has that ever stopped us from buying in?

I think that presumes too much. There will be consoles until people stop being frigging millions of them, and I see no reasons why people wouldn't.

Note he said "before streaming takes over," not "one more generation before the end of consoles."

B) again in relation to internet, you will need unlimited bandwidth. Or else it will cost you an arm and a leg to pay for the internet.

This is one of the big things for me. Data caps and throttling (which I suspect Comcast still does) are going to kill this thing dead. And it's not like Netflix in this sense; you can't just queue up something and let it buffer. Especially online.

3) Price. Sure for 20$ you get an unlimited amount of games. However how many games do people actually complete in a month? Netflix being 8 dollars and movies last between 1h30 and 3 hours. Games however usually last 10-60 hours. I wouldn't feel like I'm getting my money's worth.

I'm sure a lot of people would, though. Especially if you compare it to rental services, which is the idea that this takes on.

While we talk a lot about sales and whatnot, people still buy a crapton of games during the crucial initial period, and thus spend tons of games.

Then again, if it got filtered like Netflix does, we wouldn't see many new games. That could shift it the other way. Why pay for streaming on bargain-bin titles?

There's another related issue that might come into play: I use Netflix in part because I can use it as much as I do. I use it when I'm working, and toss something on in the background. I use it when I can't sleep. I use it quite a bit. How many hours, realistically, do we expect to spend streaming gaming? How many hours to we spend playing at all? That's where the monetary value hits me. If I'm paying more for something I'm using less, I might not want to keep paying.

4) ownership. I won't actually own any of these games. This is will especially suck if for whatever reason i get disconnected or don't have internet for a few days because vacation or moving.

But again, you don't stream to own, so I don't see the problem. As with any internet-based service, you lose access if you lose your internet. As with any subscription service, you lose access if your subscription ends.

I like your download idea, though. Except if there were only hundreds of games, I might not bother.

We don't stream to own, but without internet you can't even access the games even if you are paying for it. That's what i meant. I worded that thought wrong. Some people like to bringing their consoles on vacation or they move and lose internet for a couple of weeks. Stuff like that.

As for my download idea , i just said hundreds of games because presently that is what is available on psnow. I would assume as time goes by it would grow to thousands.

 

[Something Amyss]

I DO think that he might be trying to say that. Can you discern otherwise? I'd honestly like to know. Call it relevent to my interests.

I think that presumes too much. There will be consoles until people stop being frigging millions of them, and I see no reasons why people wouldn't.

Doesn't indicate that they might be saying that. Indicates that they are, and they're presuming too much by it. Doesn't address what's said, time before streaming becomes a thing.

Is there an actual difference? It really does sound like another 'consoles are dead' argument.

Indicates you don't believe there's a difference between the two.

It looks very much like you presumed too much.

To answer your question: I can discern the difference by going with what was said. This does not sound like a "consoles are dead" argument. At best it's a "the current distribution model is dead" argument. And that persists even if the OP also thinks that consoles are dead.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

It doesn't matter what I presumed. I called for information, to be certain. Do you have any or are you just going to grumble at me?

 

[Sir derp sariff]

I am actually thinking that consoles will have streaming as one of their primary function like set top boxes, sony said that PS5 will happen but they don't know whether it will be a physical console. So I am thinking that the model of distribution will shift towards making streams as their main goal- like Nvidia shield.(we gonna see kids that take streams and good internet as entitled and will complain when they have to install stuff)

 

[Lufia Erim]

I am actually thinking that consoles will have streaming as one of their primary function like set top boxes, sony said that PS5 will happen but they don't know whether it will be a physical console. So I am thinking that the model of distribution will shift towards making streams as their main goal- like Nvidia shield.(we gonna see kids that take streams and good internet as entitled and will complain when they have to install stuff)

I'd complain I'd have to instal stuff... back in my day we went to the store, bought a game, put it in my console and played right away. Now, with mandatory installs, sometimes i have to wait an entire day before getting to play.

 

[cathou]

it will still be a long time before Streaming sell more than physical copies. i know in some poart of the world, unlimited internet access is the norm, but in various place (like in canada) unlimited internet is either non existant or very expensive. i pay 60$ per month to have 130 gb download/upload. buying unity on steam took 50 gb for that alone, so the cap is easily reachable, especially if you download, or do streaming.

 

[duwenbasden]

Short term answer is no.

Networking 101 - Never assume your network is ever reliable. There are too many variables at play here -- your router, your modem, your wires, the exchange, and the server. If one of them has a bad day, so will yours. I have streamed Cities Skylines and GTA5 from my desktop to my tablet -- a distance of 30 ft, and the experience is already subpar.

Bandwidth limit - Like many has already stated, you are essentially streaming HD video the entire time you're playing. At the end of the month you're going to have a bad time unless you have an increasingly rare "unlimited" plan.

Latency - See reliability issues above, plus the delay between input and output (50ms RT is already too high for certain games like Starcraft).