4 ms·

> 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 ho

> 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.

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.