3 ms·

Smartphones were a new market. The web isn't. The web is the current market, just worse in every way. You haven't addressed any of the motivation here. Why woul

Smartphones were a new market. The web isn't. The web is the current market, just worse in every way. You haven't addressed any of the motivation here. Why would games go to the web? And AAA smartphone games are also non-existent anyway. AAA games are widely understood to be big budget, fancy graphics blockbusters. Those aren't on mobile today. > Asset streaming. It's the web. Hahahahaha this is a bad joke, right? A game's working set for a level is regularly >4GB. With reliable I/O games currently have 30-40 second load times and use asset streaming. You can't just wave this away or pretend it's an engineering problem. You want AAA games, you pay the AAA disk sizes. And that's just not compatible with the web. Not today, not next year, and network trends here aren't that great, either. Even fiber would struggle, and next gen consoles are about to raise the requirements here well beyond even that. And if networks are that robust, then why wouldn't we just all jump on game streaming instead and embrace the thin client life? There doesn't seem to be any room here for needing powerful local computing and needing world class internet quality? > Basically all mass-market consumer applications will end up as web applications. You might not like that (there are certainly down-sides), but you'd need to do a lot of explaining to explain away the very clear trends that we're seeing across the industry. Current trends are everything is a native mobile app. Apps are bigger than ever. There's no zero-sum game here as you're claiming anyway. Web isn't eating everything up.

pjmlp 6y ago
I think a couple of studios would disagree given their franchises on iOS and Android, or Stadia/xCloud/PlayStation Now/GeForce Now like games with most of their engines being cloud based.
rewq4321 6y ago
> Smartphones were a new market. New-ness doesn't matter. What matters is perf/features and audience. The web has traditionally been held back by the former. > And AAA smartphone games are also non-existent anyway. I'm talking about big-budget games that push the limits of the devices they run on, and there are lots of them on mobile. > > Asset streaming. It's the web. > Hahahahaha this is a bad joke, right? It's not a bad joke. This sort of condescension does not help persuade people. In fact it probably hurts your case because it's what people do when they're scraping the bottom of their argument barrel. > Even fiber would struggle 1 Gbit plans just launched one suburb over from me. They're getting speeds of 100 MB/s. That's a 4GB level download in 40 seconds - easily hidden by an intro video/cut-scene. But again, the studios will be happy to make some trade-offs here, so expect asset sizes to be smaller (akin to big smartphone). > And if networks are that robust, then why wouldn't we just all jump on game streaming instead and embrace the thin client life? Yep, agreed here. I was going to mention this at the end of my comment but it was getting too long. This definitely could be the "dark horse" which makes AAA web-platform gaming irrelevant. Although, from the consumer's point of view, they'll still end up accessing it from the web.
- kllrnohj 6y ago
  > I'm talking about big-budget games that push the limits of the devices they run on, and there are lots of them on mobile. [...] But again, the studios will be happy to make some trade-offs here, so expect asset sizes to be smaller (akin to big smartphone). Then you're not talking about AAA games. The discussion here is, or was, about a specific category of games. You seem desperate to move the goalposts to include non-AAA games.
  - rewq4321 6y ago
    I think you're just trying to weasel out of this now. By your definition there are no AAA games on Nintendo Switch, or mobiles, or... any handheld device in history. It wouldn't even help your argument to shift the definition to "maximum graphics", because I made it very clear that trade-offs need to be made in the original comment you replied to. You were well aware of the definition I was using the whole time - if you weren't arguing against that, then that's your fault. I'm not going to continue this discussion further - it has become useless.

pjmlp 6y ago

I think a couple of studios would disagree given their franchises on iOS and Android, or Stadia/xCloud/PlayStation Now/GeForce Now like games with most of their engines being cloud based.

rewq4321 6y ago

> Smartphones were a new market. New-ness doesn't matter. What matters is perf/features and audience. The web has traditionally been held back by the former. > And AAA smartphone games are also non-existent anyway. I'm talking about big-budget games that push the limits of the devices they run on, and there are lots of them on mobile. > > Asset streaming. It's the web. > Hahahahaha this is a bad joke, right? It's not a bad joke. This sort of condescension does not help persuade people. In fact it probably hurts your case because it's what people do when they're scraping the bottom of their argument barrel. > Even fiber would struggle 1 Gbit plans just launched one suburb over from me. They're getting speeds of 100 MB/s. That's a 4GB level download in 40 seconds - easily hidden by an intro video/cut-scene. But again, the studios will be happy to make some trade-offs here, so expect asset sizes to be smaller (akin to big smartphone). > And if networks are that robust, then why wouldn't we just all jump on game streaming instead and embrace the thin client life? Yep, agreed here. I was going to mention this at the end of my comment but it was getting too long. This definitely could be the "dark horse" which makes AAA web-platform gaming irrelevant. Although, from the consumer's point of view, they'll still end up accessing it from the web.

kllrnohj 6y ago
> I'm talking about big-budget games that push the limits of the devices they run on, and there are lots of them on mobile. [...] But again, the studios will be happy to make some trade-offs here, so expect asset sizes to be smaller (akin to big smartphone). Then you're not talking about AAA games. The discussion here is, or was, about a specific category of games. You seem desperate to move the goalposts to include non-AAA games.
- rewq4321 6y ago
  I think you're just trying to weasel out of this now. By your definition there are no AAA games on Nintendo Switch, or mobiles, or... any handheld device in history. It wouldn't even help your argument to shift the definition to "maximum graphics", because I made it very clear that trade-offs need to be made in the original comment you replied to. You were well aware of the definition I was using the whole time - if you weren't arguing against that, then that's your fault. I'm not going to continue this discussion further - it has become useless.