- May 16, 2010
The infrastructure probably didn't exist to facilitate high quality, streamed gaming years ago - either within Google themselves or with the connections available to your average Joe. I'd say Google intend to disrupt the gaming industry in the same way Netflix have the television market.I wonder will they actually invest in production studios or just buy out existing ones like Microsoft did?
Also, I think they're only getting into gaming as they seen how much games like Fortnite are making. They could have got into gaming years ago.
I’m not sure they’d get a big chunk. I’m expecting this with the specs to be the most expensive console when it’s released. It will cost more than a pro and X.I just can't see it happening. Streaming only? I'm sure they'll get a big chunk of the casual market but I don't think see the big three being too concerned.
I was under the impression there was no console?I’m not sure they’d get a big chunk. I’m expecting this with the specs to be the most expensive console when it’s released. It will cost more than a pro and X.
The Xbox and PS4 most importantly have some sort of infrastructure and loyal fan bases. People ain’t going to leave their psn buddies to play on their google accounts.
I was expecting this to be some sort of cheap streaming device. Can they have a impact on gaming? Well they need a portfolio first. It’s nothing like Netflix. With movies you can buy the rights to old movies etc and then you can show them to stream.
Where as with video games you can’t just buy the rights to old video games. Google need some portfolio and back catalogue. The other three console manufactures do. Nintendo are sitting on a gold mine.
Sony have also tried this streaming gaming and it’s never worked. I wouldn’t want to play a FPS on a streaming device. Google should do it better, but they’d need a lot of games.
I don't know why you've got console in the title and saying console here. Google said there's no set box. It is streaming only through any device with a Chrome browser.I’m not sure they’d get a big chunk. I’m expecting this with the specs to be the most expensive console when it’s released. It will cost more than a pro and X.
Do we own them now?It begins. The subscription hell.
I'm very curious about the business model. Let's say in the future there aren't consoles. Would Red Dead 3 make more money being cloud only? What cut would the devs get from the streaming store? I'm sure google and the rest have looked at the numbers but it's very interesting.
Anyway, the times when we won't own the games is fast approaching.
Good point. For the most part I think we still own them but as you say, without internet there would be trouble for quite a few titles when it comes to actually playing them.Do we own them now?
The Spyro Reignited trilogy comes with 1.2 games on the disk, the rest as a download. In a zombie apocalypse, if you find a PS4 and a Spyro game, and have a working generator and TV.. you can fire it all up and play 1/3rd of the game?
Most people who can afford a 4K Console and TV will also be able to afford 80mb+ broadband and we’re looking at the future here so 5g will chew up those sorts of bandwidths.Not convinced enough people have good enough internet to stream the 4K 60fps they’re claiming consistently yet considering you won’t be able to buffer for obvious reasons. Input lag could be interesting too.
Although I pretty much only play Nintendo games so don’t think I’ll be getting involved anyway.
What uses more data:In 5-10 years I could see this being viable but we’re not there at the moment, I dont think we have the infrastructure to support it. I’m in the U.K. so it’s not too bad but aren’t most people in the US still on data caps whilst Australian and Canadian internet is trash?
This is the future though. The thought of spending hours downloading and installing games already feels old fashioned.
I’d be very interested to see how the latency fairs. It’s a whole new dynamic having a centralised server doing all the calculations and rendering and then broadcasting simultaneously to connected terminals. I actually have no clue how that will compare.What uses more data:
Streaming 10 hours of video at 1080p or downloading 35 GB of data to download the game? (The order 1886 here)
I'd say for most games, it will use far less data to stream than to play locally. Even if you have the Blu Ray, the patches are as big as the games in a lot of cases.
So then the question becomes one about latency and throughput.
From that videoCheers, can’t watch with sound now so I’ll check it out in the morning but maybe before work considering how the title shortens on my iPhone...
No because they still have to maintain & power high-powered gaming setups as well as the CDN's to connect to (potentially) millions of customers.Shouldn't this just be the price of a controller then? Why do I get the feeling they'll be ripping you off at some point? Either now or if it actually takes off.
Nothing to do with the type of game. Just think of it as the worlds longest HDMI cable. Your "console" is in a Google server center somewhere, and you control it like you would the UI of your <insert favourite console here>.I like the idea of a Netflix style subscription based gaming platform. However, streaming games through a cloud? We haven't got the connections here for it. Also, is this inherently connected to multiplayer games, or has nothing at all to do with the type of game?