8 ms·

Bear in mind: While very few consumers benefit from cloud-based gaming, the outcome of dragging consumers over to it for businesses is huge. Why sell software

Bear in mind: While very few consumers benefit from cloud-based gaming, the outcome of dragging consumers over to it for businesses is huge. Why sell software and hardware once when you can sell software, the hardware it's hosted on, and the support and services to manage that software and hardware every single month. It's why companies like Adobe and Microsoft have tried to push their main, relatively static[1] software packages like Office and Creative Suite over to a rent-seeking model. And it's why selling cloud services is all the rage. It's not a good way to do things, it's not good for any consumer or user of those things, but it prints money on a stable and continuous basis in perpetuity, because people lose everything they paid for when they stop paying. That's why cloud gaming is going to keep coming up year after year, no matter how impractical or stupid it is. [1] For the vast majority of users, the difference between any given version of Office or Creative Suite and one released five or six years prior is nearly zero. Almost nobody needs to continually buy these.

alexwebb2 6y ago
> very few consumers benefit from cloud-based gaming > It's not a good way to do things, it's not good for any consumer or user of those things > no matter how impractical or stupid it is Hard disagree on this take. I would personally love a stable, smooth gaming-as-a-service experience - where I can pay based on my usage level, access any games I want to, pick up my saved game from any device, and never have to worry about sitting around for hours waiting for updates or downloads. I expect there's a _massive_ market for that. You may not be in it, and that's fine, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.
- outworlder 6y ago
  > and never have to worry about sitting around for hours waiting for updates or downloads Here's the thing though. Those downloads and updates have a massive efficiency factor. Once you have downloaded your assets, they don't have do be downloaded again to be used. With these game streaming platforms, it doesn't matter that you have downloaded 100GB in screen frames. They can only be used once and then are discarded. In some cases this is a benefit - on Flight Simulator 2020 the servers only have to send you a fraction of their terrain data. But that's a small part of it. > stable, smooth gaming-as-a-service experience Netflix and the like work because you can buffer. Is your connection a bit choppy today? Hit pause and let it buffer a bit, hopefully it will stabilize. But games do not tolerate ANY latency issues. Even things like Steam Link - using only your local network - can struggle if there's too much traffic or interference. Then there's the business model. I don't want a 'subscription'. If I buy a game today I may be spending $60 upfront(if the game has been out for a while, often much less), but I can play as much as I want. Do you have fantastic internet connectivity, an under-powered device, and you want to quickly shuffle through different games from an online selection? Ok, this could make sense. Still, this sounds like a far better deal for corporations, as opposed to consumers.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    The 100GB of game data I have to wait around to download. The 100GB of streamed frames happen while I'm playing so I don't care. This benefit is for those who value their time highly and want something to 'just work' without having to bother with installing stuff, updating, buying and setting up new hardware every year, etc. Imagine you only have 30 mins a month to do gaming... Like many busy adults... With a PS4 or PC, you'd spend most of your 30 mins waiting for updates to complete.
    - bradlys 6y ago
      If you only have 30 minutes a month, you’re not the target audience. It’s also wildly expensive at that point. How much are you paying to game per hour? Much more than going to a movie.
      - jpsalm 6y ago
        30 minutes is a bit of a trite example but if you only have say less than 10 hours a month the dollars/hour for owning your own your own hardware looks a lot worse than the subscription model.
    - Nullabillity 6y ago
      Even then, it would still be massively more efficient for the game to just stream in the assets in the background while playing, while still rendering everything locally. WoW, for one, has done that for years. Or you could just start Steam a few minutes before your monthly 30 minutes I guess. If you have the internet connection required for stable cloud gaming, you won't be spending long waiting for the patches anyway anyway.
      - Bnshsysjab 6y ago
        You’re missing the point. Most people don’t want to download a video instead of streaming directly, which is a far lower barrier than procuring equipment, dealing with compatibility issues, doing system updates etc. I doubt competitive gamers will ever move across but it hugely reduces the barriers for casual or time poor gamers.
mdoms 6y ago
You may speak for yourself but you most certainly do not speak for every consumer, regardless of how many superlatives you use. I, for one, prefer the subscription model for some things. I like that I can dip my toes in and out of the Photoshop ecosystem without having to shell out hundreds up front. I prefer to rent Netflix for a month rather than purchasing DVDs or Blurays I may watch once or twice. And when cloud gaming is baked (it will be a long time away for me as I live in a small island nation) I will love being able to play any game from a huge range with no outlay other than my monthly subscription - no hardware requirements, no upgrading, just a few bucks a month, and only on the months when I choose to keep my subscription. My only caveat with cloud gaming is that mouse + KB is non-negotiable, I'm not sure how realistic that will be. I will not play shooter or strategy games with a controller.
- robbs 6y ago
  The nationwide fibre in NZ means that latency from Auckland to anywhere with fibre is very low. Cloud gaming could arrive in NZ just as soon as Azure does!
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I found Adobe opaque and difficult to work with. Subscriptions are presented with an $x/month but you have to pay for a year. Cancelling, at least at the time I last dealt with them, was also very difficult: I paid for a year, but then wanted to cancel auto-renewal: Nope! I'd have to wait until the last 30 days of my subscription. Since then I've decided to suck it up and deal with Gimp and Inkscape even if they lack some features and feel a bit clunky at times.
  - hackerbob 6y ago
    If you only need the basic stuff , lookup application portables.
- AlphaSite 6y ago
  I think the problem with Cloud gaming is the latency. And the network requirements push it to solving a problem for a very small subset of users (games which where latency doesn't matter can usually dont need cloud gaming).
lumost 6y ago
I haven't used office products unless obligated too in ~6 years. cloud based options, even terrible cloud based options like quip are an order of magnitude better than word. It's faster to open the documents I care about, easier to share, easier to collaborate, and just plain faster. The word docs I still use end up having 3 dozen copies in my downloads folder from different versions sent via email. It's a nightmare. If it requires a $6/mo subscription for the cloud based equivalent of a $100 consumer software package, I'd gladly pay it.
Polylactic_acid 6y ago
I think its interesting how almost all content has gone to streaming and subscriptions but games have not. The way most people use games seems to be fundamentally different though. I listen to new music every day so subscriptions work best. With games I always play the same stuff, I buy a new game once every few months so a subscription would cost me more.
- rdtwo 6y ago
  If games go subscription there will be less money for the big developers. Netflix is a net looser and selling dvds makes more money for publishers.
  - throwaway17_17 6y ago
    I think this is a long tail type issue, assuming publishers can find a way to get a profit sharing agreement from the service providers based on time played. In the short of things, publishers make some money on each sale and then monetize on micro transaction, season passes, etc. The clear push towards “games as a service” from all the big publishers reflects this line of thought, i.e. we want to keep making money from this forever (or as long as the company can be counted on to actually run the service). But, and I admit this part assumes some form of payment to the publisher based on continued play, if the game is played via streaming subscription (which would probably have tiers or some such for access to individual publisher’s libraries) then the publishers can in theory keep making money on a finished product over the long-term. However, I agree that this system is very likely to NOT benefit developers, it will be the publishers that make the cash and it will become a haggling point in dev/pub contracts as to the amount, of any, the devs see from these continuing fee arrangements. All said, I cannot see a time when I’m willing to go in for full game streaming as a stand alone product. I can imangine paying for Microsoft’s game network or something if I wanted a console this generation. But I have 7000+ DOS games, and a few external drives full of Windows games, and then emulators and ROMs, so I think I’m good for gaming and don’t fit the target for a streaming service.

alexwebb2 6y ago

> very few consumers benefit from cloud-based gaming > It's not a good way to do things, it's not good for any consumer or user of those things > no matter how impractical or stupid it is Hard disagree on this take. I would personally love a stable, smooth gaming-as-a-service experience - where I can pay based on my usage level, access any games I want to, pick up my saved game from any device, and never have to worry about sitting around for hours waiting for updates or downloads. I expect there's a _massive_ market for that. You may not be in it, and that's fine, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

outworlder 6y ago
> and never have to worry about sitting around for hours waiting for updates or downloads Here's the thing though. Those downloads and updates have a massive efficiency factor. Once you have downloaded your assets, they don't have do be downloaded again to be used. With these game streaming platforms, it doesn't matter that you have downloaded 100GB in screen frames. They can only be used once and then are discarded. In some cases this is a benefit - on Flight Simulator 2020 the servers only have to send you a fraction of their terrain data. But that's a small part of it. > stable, smooth gaming-as-a-service experience Netflix and the like work because you can buffer. Is your connection a bit choppy today? Hit pause and let it buffer a bit, hopefully it will stabilize. But games do not tolerate ANY latency issues. Even things like Steam Link - using only your local network - can struggle if there's too much traffic or interference. Then there's the business model. I don't want a 'subscription'. If I buy a game today I may be spending $60 upfront(if the game has been out for a while, often much less), but I can play as much as I want. Do you have fantastic internet connectivity, an under-powered device, and you want to quickly shuffle through different games from an online selection? Ok, this could make sense. Still, this sounds like a far better deal for corporations, as opposed to consumers.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  The 100GB of game data I have to wait around to download. The 100GB of streamed frames happen while I'm playing so I don't care. This benefit is for those who value their time highly and want something to 'just work' without having to bother with installing stuff, updating, buying and setting up new hardware every year, etc. Imagine you only have 30 mins a month to do gaming... Like many busy adults... With a PS4 or PC, you'd spend most of your 30 mins waiting for updates to complete.
  - bradlys 6y ago
    If you only have 30 minutes a month, you’re not the target audience. It’s also wildly expensive at that point. How much are you paying to game per hour? Much more than going to a movie.
    - jpsalm 6y ago
      30 minutes is a bit of a trite example but if you only have say less than 10 hours a month the dollars/hour for owning your own your own hardware looks a lot worse than the subscription model.
  - Nullabillity 6y ago
    Even then, it would still be massively more efficient for the game to just stream in the assets in the background while playing, while still rendering everything locally. WoW, for one, has done that for years. Or you could just start Steam a few minutes before your monthly 30 minutes I guess. If you have the internet connection required for stable cloud gaming, you won't be spending long waiting for the patches anyway anyway.
    - Bnshsysjab 6y ago
      You’re missing the point. Most people don’t want to download a video instead of streaming directly, which is a far lower barrier than procuring equipment, dealing with compatibility issues, doing system updates etc. I doubt competitive gamers will ever move across but it hugely reduces the barriers for casual or time poor gamers.

mdoms 6y ago

You may speak for yourself but you most certainly do not speak for every consumer, regardless of how many superlatives you use. I, for one, prefer the subscription model for some things. I like that I can dip my toes in and out of the Photoshop ecosystem without having to shell out hundreds up front. I prefer to rent Netflix for a month rather than purchasing DVDs or Blurays I may watch once or twice. And when cloud gaming is baked (it will be a long time away for me as I live in a small island nation) I will love being able to play any game from a huge range with no outlay other than my monthly subscription - no hardware requirements, no upgrading, just a few bucks a month, and only on the months when I choose to keep my subscription. My only caveat with cloud gaming is that mouse + KB is non-negotiable, I'm not sure how realistic that will be. I will not play shooter or strategy games with a controller.

robbs 6y ago
The nationwide fibre in NZ means that latency from Auckland to anywhere with fibre is very low. Cloud gaming could arrive in NZ just as soon as Azure does!
ineedasername 6y ago
I found Adobe opaque and difficult to work with. Subscriptions are presented with an $x/month but you have to pay for a year. Cancelling, at least at the time I last dealt with them, was also very difficult: I paid for a year, but then wanted to cancel auto-renewal: Nope! I'd have to wait until the last 30 days of my subscription. Since then I've decided to suck it up and deal with Gimp and Inkscape even if they lack some features and feel a bit clunky at times.
- hackerbob 6y ago
  If you only need the basic stuff , lookup application portables.
AlphaSite 6y ago
I think the problem with Cloud gaming is the latency. And the network requirements push it to solving a problem for a very small subset of users (games which where latency doesn't matter can usually dont need cloud gaming).

lumost 6y ago

I haven't used office products unless obligated too in ~6 years. cloud based options, even terrible cloud based options like quip are an order of magnitude better than word. It's faster to open the documents I care about, easier to share, easier to collaborate, and just plain faster. The word docs I still use end up having 3 dozen copies in my downloads folder from different versions sent via email. It's a nightmare. If it requires a $6/mo subscription for the cloud based equivalent of a $100 consumer software package, I'd gladly pay it.

Polylactic_acid 6y ago

I think its interesting how almost all content has gone to streaming and subscriptions but games have not. The way most people use games seems to be fundamentally different though. I listen to new music every day so subscriptions work best. With games I always play the same stuff, I buy a new game once every few months so a subscription would cost me more.

rdtwo 6y ago
If games go subscription there will be less money for the big developers. Netflix is a net looser and selling dvds makes more money for publishers.
- throwaway17_17 6y ago
  I think this is a long tail type issue, assuming publishers can find a way to get a profit sharing agreement from the service providers based on time played. In the short of things, publishers make some money on each sale and then monetize on micro transaction, season passes, etc. The clear push towards “games as a service” from all the big publishers reflects this line of thought, i.e. we want to keep making money from this forever (or as long as the company can be counted on to actually run the service). But, and I admit this part assumes some form of payment to the publisher based on continued play, if the game is played via streaming subscription (which would probably have tiers or some such for access to individual publisher’s libraries) then the publishers can in theory keep making money on a finished product over the long-term. However, I agree that this system is very likely to NOT benefit developers, it will be the publishers that make the cash and it will become a haggling point in dev/pub contracts as to the amount, of any, the devs see from these continuing fee arrangements. All said, I cannot see a time when I’m willing to go in for full game streaming as a stand alone product. I can imangine paying for Microsoft’s game network or something if I wanted a console this generation. But I have 7000+ DOS games, and a few external drives full of Windows games, and then emulators and ROMs, so I think I’m good for gaming and don’t fit the target for a streaming service.