Game streaming worries me since it's the ultimate DRM. However poor internet connections will make it hard to have a streaming-only game. I suppose at first we could have streaming-only DLC or a...
Game streaming worries me since it's the ultimate DRM. However poor internet connections will make it hard to have a streaming-only game. I suppose at first we could have streaming-only DLC or a discount for buying a game through a streaming service.
Yea, I have avoided a lot of games that are online only because of this. Obviously it's unavoidable with multiplayer games, but forcing single player games to be required to be online is ridiculous.
Yea, I have avoided a lot of games that are online only because of this. Obviously it's unavoidable with multiplayer games, but forcing single player games to be required to be online is ridiculous.
The death of OnLive is what finally drove home the fact that I don't own any of my games. I've been trying to maintain local backups of all the stuff I buy now, but with many games clocking in at...
Game streaming worries me since it's the ultimate DRM
The death of OnLive is what finally drove home the fact that I don't own any of my games. I've been trying to maintain local backups of all the stuff I buy now, but with many games clocking in at 60+ gigabytes these days, it's getting pretty goddamn difficult.
I don't like the idea of potentially losing $5,000 worth of games if Steam ever kicks the bucket (unlikely as that may be), but in the modern PC gaming environment how the hell can you avoid having all your stuff tied to a service like that? GOG is slightly friendlier in that regard, but ultimately you still have to rely on their servers being alive in order to get the games you paid for onto your computer.
a discount for buying a game through a streaming service
That's how I wound up spending so much money through OnLive. Being able to play AAA games on my absolute turd of a computer was nice enough, but getting brand new games for <$5? That was extremely enticing, but they went under and now I've got nothing to show for it beyond a microconsole that doesn't actually do anything.
The controller was really nice, though. Shame you can't use it with a PC.
Also, what would happen to mods ? I know that they're pretty much non-existent for new EA titles anyway, but there's still a huge creative community that enjoys modding games.
Also, what would happen to mods ? I know that they're pretty much non-existent for new EA titles anyway, but there's still a huge creative community that enjoys modding games.
I have never even heard of the concept of streaming games, although I do see the console dying in the near future. Maybe with the exception of Nintendo.
Executive VP of strategic growth Matt Bilbey sees streaming-capable smart TVs eliminating traditional consoles in 10 years, discusses "EA moral compass" after Star Wars: Battlefront 2 loot box backlash
I have never even heard of the concept of streaming games, although I do see the console dying in the near future. Maybe with the exception of Nintendo.
PlayStation has a service called PS Now which has a monthly subscription and lets you play games in their library. I haven't used it so I can't speak to the quality but I've read reviews where...
PlayStation has a service called PS Now which has a monthly subscription and lets you play games in their library. I haven't used it so I can't speak to the quality but I've read reviews where there is some input lag that makes playing some games difficult. I think high speed broadband is going to need to be ubiquitous before streaming is really successful.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/games/geforce-now/ Nvidea are currently running the beta to their new streaming service. When it works its latency is pretty good. There was also a failed...
Nvidea are currently running the beta to their new streaming service. When it works its latency is pretty good.
There was also a failed attempt at trying this years back called Onlive. It failed because they wanted a $30 subscription as well as you to pay full price for the games but it allowed you to play any high end game on any device capable of basic streaming. Worked as a proof of concept even though it failed as a business.
They're still limited by speed of light, so unless they have a lot of datacenter locations most people will still have pretty bad latency no matter how good the tech is.
They're still limited by speed of light, so unless they have a lot of datacenter locations most people will still have pretty bad latency no matter how good the tech is.
Not as fast as you might think for some use cases. It doesn't take a lot of input lag to make a game unplayable. If we set the limit at 16ms, about a frame at 60fps, your data center under...
Not as fast as you might think for some use cases. It doesn't take a lot of input lag to make a game unplayable. If we set the limit at 16ms, about a frame at 60fps, your data center under absolutely ideal conditions couldn't be more than 1500 miles away just based on the speed of light. Realistically it'd have to be a good deal closer because you lose time to signal processing, sub optimal routing, the actual rendering, and the somewhat slower speed of light in cables.
There's this relevant bit from Accursed Farm's Dead Game News. Worst case scenario, if games are streaming only with no other options to play them, you can only play the game as long as the...
There's this relevant bit from Accursed Farm's Dead Game News. Worst case scenario, if games are streaming only with no other options to play them, you can only play the game as long as the companies are willing to support them. When they pull the plug, it's gone for ever. The product service you paid for would be no longer available to you through no fault of your own (guess that's why they are pushing games as servise).
It'd depend on the model they use. A monthly fee for access to an entire library of games? Sure, sounds good. Paying to unlock games from a vast selection? No thanks. It's the same thing with...
It'd depend on the model they use. A monthly fee for access to an entire library of games? Sure, sounds good. Paying to unlock games from a vast selection? No thanks. It's the same thing with Netflix: I have no problem with shows and movies disappearing from the library since I'm not paying for them specifically, rather just access to Netflix's library as a whole.
The only reason why I'm partly excited for games streaming is that I've never had an above-average PC, so I might finally be able to play games at max settings. But as mentioned in the article,...
The only reason why I'm partly excited for games streaming is that I've never had an above-average PC, so I might finally be able to play games at max settings. But as mentioned in the article, the lag-reduction and infrastructure would have to be there to support it.
Game streaming worries me since it's the ultimate DRM. However poor internet connections will make it hard to have a streaming-only game. I suppose at first we could have streaming-only DLC or a discount for buying a game through a streaming service.
Yea, I have avoided a lot of games that are online only because of this. Obviously it's unavoidable with multiplayer games, but forcing single player games to be required to be online is ridiculous.
Inb4 the Australian game market sales drop drastically.
EDIT: Bonus points if the publishers find a way to blame the consumers after the fact as well.
The death of OnLive is what finally drove home the fact that I don't own any of my games. I've been trying to maintain local backups of all the stuff I buy now, but with many games clocking in at 60+ gigabytes these days, it's getting pretty goddamn difficult.
I don't like the idea of potentially losing $5,000 worth of games if Steam ever kicks the bucket (unlikely as that may be), but in the modern PC gaming environment how the hell can you avoid having all your stuff tied to a service like that? GOG is slightly friendlier in that regard, but ultimately you still have to rely on their servers being alive in order to get the games you paid for onto your computer.
That's how I wound up spending so much money through OnLive. Being able to play AAA games on my absolute turd of a computer was nice enough, but getting brand new games for <$5? That was extremely enticing, but they went under and now I've got nothing to show for it beyond a microconsole that doesn't actually do anything.
The controller was really nice, though. Shame you can't use it with a PC.
Steam has said that if they go under they'll make it possible for people to keep playing their games. I don't know if that's legally binding, though.
Also, what would happen to mods ? I know that they're pretty much non-existent for new EA titles anyway, but there's still a huge creative community that enjoys modding games.
I have never even heard of the concept of streaming games, although I do see the console dying in the near future. Maybe with the exception of Nintendo.
PlayStation has a service called PS Now which has a monthly subscription and lets you play games in their library. I haven't used it so I can't speak to the quality but I've read reviews where there is some input lag that makes playing some games difficult. I think high speed broadband is going to need to be ubiquitous before streaming is really successful.
High speed or not if the console (or more likely server) is located too far away, the latency will make the game unplayable.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/games/geforce-now/
Nvidea are currently running the beta to their new streaming service. When it works its latency is pretty good.
There was also a failed attempt at trying this years back called Onlive. It failed because they wanted a $30 subscription as well as you to pay full price for the games but it allowed you to play any high end game on any device capable of basic streaming. Worked as a proof of concept even though it failed as a business.
They're still limited by speed of light, so unless they have a lot of datacenter locations most people will still have pretty bad latency no matter how good the tech is.
Speed of light is pretty fast.
Not as fast as you might think for some use cases. It doesn't take a lot of input lag to make a game unplayable. If we set the limit at 16ms, about a frame at 60fps, your data center under absolutely ideal conditions couldn't be more than 1500 miles away just based on the speed of light. Realistically it'd have to be a good deal closer because you lose time to signal processing, sub optimal routing, the actual rendering, and the somewhat slower speed of light in cables.
There's this relevant bit from Accursed Farm's Dead Game News. Worst case scenario, if games are streaming only with no other options to play them, you can only play the game as long as the companies are willing to support them. When they pull the plug, it's gone for ever. The
productservice you paid for would be no longer available to you through no fault of your own (guess that's why they are pushing games as servise).It'd depend on the model they use. A monthly fee for access to an entire library of games? Sure, sounds good. Paying to unlock games from a vast selection? No thanks. It's the same thing with Netflix: I have no problem with shows and movies disappearing from the library since I'm not paying for them specifically, rather just access to Netflix's library as a whole.
The only reason why I'm partly excited for games streaming is that I've never had an above-average PC, so I might finally be able to play games at max settings. But as mentioned in the article, the lag-reduction and infrastructure would have to be there to support it.