We're not there yet, until everyone has access to high speed internet connection this sort of streaming in a decent quality will be inaccessible for most people.
We're not there yet, until everyone has access to high speed internet connection this sort of streaming in a decent quality will be inaccessible for most people.
Anything which is twitch-based (fighters, FPS etc) requires low-latency and is almost per definition unsuited to this kind of streaming based gaming. Anything else (slow sims, 4x games, turn...
Anything which is twitch-based (fighters, FPS etc) requires low-latency and is almost per definition unsuited to this kind of streaming based gaming.
Anything else (slow sims, 4x games, turn based, slower action things) can be done with streaming services if one accepts that sometimes you'll have to deal with hung frames/unresponsiveness.
My father used this for a couple of months after his desktop was ruined by a flood and while the only multiplayer games he plays are the original Halo Combat Evolved and Insurgency, he didn't have any issues with the service while playing online
I just cannot accept that statement knowing what I know about how games work and how networks/latency/input/etc work. FPS's and fast-action-required games have to deal with the speed of electrons coupled with network latency and streaming a full image/video feed instead of mere movement/position commands just cannot be done until we transition to optical fiber throughout the whole network.
the network usage was very minimal,
A simple calculation of fps and resolution calls bullshit on that claim.
That doesn't mean they won't try and build the foundation needed for them to lead later. VR also isn't ready and is inaccessible and yet a small market is stating to exist. Game streaming can...
That doesn't mean they won't try and build the foundation needed for them to lead later. VR also isn't ready and is inaccessible and yet a small market is stating to exist. Game streaming can work. It just requires a higher end internet connection and games that naturally work with high latency controls or games designed specifically to work over streaming.
Uhhhh this sounds weird. Youtube already does streaming, and -some- gamers have left twitch for it (google owns youtube). The game streaming-space is one a ton of people have tried to beat twitch...
Uhhhh this sounds weird.
Youtube already does streaming, and -some- gamers have left twitch for it (google owns youtube).
The game streaming-space is one a ton of people have tried to beat twitch at. The issue is just scale: the hardcore, money-generating users already have their streamers on twitch, whether that's only one person, or a whole cobble.
The platform-effect is stronger than any other market google's successfully broken into. Wouldn't they have learned from google+ and all those other failures by now? Competing against their own platform at the same time?
I can't get this to make sense, without some of the reporting just being off.
I think you're misunderstanding - they want to stream the actual games, not people playing them. Similar to OnLive and some of the other services, where the game is being run on remote hardware...
I think you're misunderstanding - they want to stream the actual games, not people playing them. Similar to OnLive and some of the other services, where the game is being run on remote hardware and streamed to you, instead of you running it locally.
That makes me even more confused! I couldn't fathom they'd want to go into the Playstation Now-space if they were making a play into gaming. The whole play there is that they own the patents...
That makes me even more confused! I couldn't fathom they'd want to go into the Playstation Now-space if they were making a play into gaming. The whole play there is that they own the patents OnLive were granted, and have a huge portfolio of games people don't own physically because they're old.
Then that last paragraph on actual streaming services comes in without reference to youtube-streaming and partnering/seeking out gaming talent there. I assumed that's what it was actually about because that'd sortof make sense, maybe?
As I remember it, OnLive were granted some very wide-ranging patents that Sony bought (I believe they didn't come cheap). Basically, as I understand it, you'd basically have to stream to a specific console of some sort, which would defeat a lot of the purpose: sell the games; have people play them on whatever hardware they already have and let the internet connection do the work as the game's played externally.
We're not there yet, until everyone has access to high speed internet connection this sort of streaming in a decent quality will be inaccessible for most people.
Anything which is twitch-based (fighters, FPS etc) requires low-latency and is almost per definition unsuited to this kind of streaming based gaming.
Anything else (slow sims, 4x games, turn based, slower action things) can be done with streaming services if one accepts that sometimes you'll have to deal with hung frames/unresponsiveness.
I just cannot accept that statement knowing what I know about how games work and how networks/latency/input/etc work. FPS's and fast-action-required games have to deal with the speed of electrons coupled with network latency and streaming a full image/video feed instead of mere movement/position commands just cannot be done until we transition to optical fiber throughout the whole network.
A simple calculation of fps and resolution calls bullshit on that claim.
That doesn't mean they won't try and build the foundation needed for them to lead later. VR also isn't ready and is inaccessible and yet a small market is stating to exist. Game streaming can work. It just requires a higher end internet connection and games that naturally work with high latency controls or games designed specifically to work over streaming.
Uhhhh this sounds weird.
Youtube already does streaming, and -some- gamers have left twitch for it (google owns youtube).
The game streaming-space is one a ton of people have tried to beat twitch at. The issue is just scale: the hardcore, money-generating users already have their streamers on twitch, whether that's only one person, or a whole cobble.
The platform-effect is stronger than any other market google's successfully broken into. Wouldn't they have learned from google+ and all those other failures by now? Competing against their own platform at the same time?
I can't get this to make sense, without some of the reporting just being off.
I think you're misunderstanding - they want to stream the actual games, not people playing them. Similar to OnLive and some of the other services, where the game is being run on remote hardware and streamed to you, instead of you running it locally.
That makes me even more confused! I couldn't fathom they'd want to go into the Playstation Now-space if they were making a play into gaming. The whole play there is that they own the patents OnLive were granted, and have a huge portfolio of games people don't own physically because they're old.
Then that last paragraph on actual streaming services comes in without reference to youtube-streaming and partnering/seeking out gaming talent there. I assumed that's what it was actually about because that'd sortof make sense, maybe?
As I remember it, OnLive were granted some very wide-ranging patents that Sony bought (I believe they didn't come cheap). Basically, as I understand it, you'd basically have to stream to a specific console of some sort, which would defeat a lot of the purpose: sell the games; have people play them on whatever hardware they already have and let the internet connection do the work as the game's played externally.
That's also what was suggested Yeti would do earlier this year. So what's new here? That they want games on their gaming platform so they're getting developers?
I don't get it. :)