12Dannu123
Member
Well that shows they will have no relevance in the Cloud gaming market. Because no gamer outside PC and Console will spend $60 on a streamed game.
Last edited:
Microsoft's decision to bundle xCloud as part of Games Pass Ultimate is the smartest decision anyone has made in cloud streaming so far
Well that shows they will have no relevance in the Cloud gaming market. Because no gamer outside PC and Console will spend $60 on a streamed game.
Hezekiah
Banned
The technology on-the-go has to catch up to cloud streaming before I can see this taking off. But I'm interested to see how a powerful 5G phone like the Samsung Galaxy series for example could handle it. Will be awful for battery life though, and I don't see many casuals/commuters going for it - they're happy playing cheap games likes Candy Crush for 10 - 20 minutes at a time.
TheCrimsnFuckr
Member
Can you use PSNow with games you have purchased digitally on Playstation? Does PSNow give every first party Playstation exclusive on day one? Is PSNow available on smartphones? It's not the same thing
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Agreed, it has to catch up, but I don't think the advances in streaming and lag-reduction will allow the business model to leapfrog traditional gaming.
Let's imagine that we reduce the input lag by 80%, we find tricks to compress and stream textures better, etc
What would prevent these same techniques from being used to improve local game performance? Nothing. So the streaming services reduce their lag and improve their textures, but the same concepts get used on console / PC games and improve them as well. I am sorry for oversimplifying a complex service, but at the end of the day, it's all hardware, the main difference being that one is under your TV and the other is a virtual instance on a server 350 miles away, routed through your local internet provider's network hardware.
Yeah, we can definitely improve it to be "good enough", and I'm all about the market viability of "good enough" products, but if the best-case-scenario cloud won't catch up, then the mobile performance is never going to catch up either.
The unspoken truth about this whole situation is that gaming has been dumbed down significantly. A lot of traditional genres cannot work on streaming due to the lag, but if you're satisfied with aim-assistance and low intensity demands, then streaming will be fine. The average CoD player won't notice but the average fighting game player will.
Hezekiah
Banned
No I agree with you - people have been talking about the end of traditional gaming for almost a decade now but it's not going anywhere, and is where the money is.
It's interesting because I could see the 'good enough' concept being acceptable for the type of casuals who don't want to buy a console. But I don't see many of those types of people signing up to GamePass/X-Cloud in the first place because as I say I think they are happy playing cheap puzzle games for example rather big budget games on the go. In addition you have all the other things that people generally like to use their phone for while on the move - YouTube/browsing/Instagram/Snapchat and emails.
The other thing aswell is that I don't see many big AAA games as being suited to gaming on the go because most commutes just aren't long enough for it to work. So for a long journey on the train I think say Halo Infinite could work, but are you really going to want to dip in for a quick 15 min session on a short subway ride to work? Or if you're having to stand up on public transport? I think something like Forza/Gran Turismo and FIFA would be much better suited - as long as the lag isn't ridiculous.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Good insight. Gaming suffers from a flaw that movies / TV shows don't: they require input. Streaming services have a fairly low barrier to entry. Ya just turn on the app and choose a show. Even so, analysis paralysis is a common complaint on these services.
Switching between videogame control schemes and menu-systems for the avg gamer is a tall order, something that Wii tried to highlight.
So this is the hidden flaw of game streaming: yes, you inflict analysis paralysis on your customers in the same way as streaming shows (too many choices), but you make it worse by expecting them to also know a broad range of gaming control schemes. Normies tend to stick to the same videogame like they would stick to the same sport or the same boardgames. Fads come and go. They hop on the bandwagon. They play for a bit. But as Nintendo learned, the people you can capture at this level aren't going to transform into long-term customers.
So aside from the technology, there's always going to be the problem of mass-market customers lacking the skills to engage with 95% of your content. A streaming service full of shows makes sense. A streaming service full of complex, intimidating videogames that I don't recognize does not make sense if the intention is to chase that normie audience.
Cinematic games would be fine because they'll find a way to let you pause / suspend, and they don't tend to ride that sharp edge of input lag so it would probably be okay.
Agent X
Member
Allow me to introduce myself: Agent X. Pleased to meet you!
Nope.
Also, they offer a free trial for 7 days on PC, if you want to experience it for yourself and make an informed opinion.
OK, I'll correct you.
Sony has a service called "PlayStation Now", where you pay a subscription fee to access a library of 900+ games that are stored on Sony's servers. You can either stream or download games to your PS4, or you can stream games to a PC (without owning a console).
Sony has a separate feature called "Remote Play" that allows you to remotely connect to your own console, and stream any games that are installed on your console. This is free to use, and can be accessed on PC, PS Vita, PSTV, or mobile phones.
Microsoft also offers a similar feature set--you either stream your purchased games that you own from your own console, or stream a preselected library from Microsoft's servers. The difference here is that Microsoft uses "Xcloud" as a single umbrella brand to encompass both of those functions, whereas Sony uses separate and distinct branding for "PlayStation Now" and "Remote Play".
This sometimes leads to confusion and obfuscation when people compare the two companies' offerings. So, when you say that "PSNow has to have players connect to their console and then remain connected during gameplay sessions", that's just plain wrong, because it doesn't apply to PS Now. Remote Play is the feature that you would use for that purpose. PS Now is basically the equivalent of "Xbox Game Pass with Xcloud" that you're looking for.
anothertech
Member
I like that they are competing services.
PSNow did it first, but keeps improving because of Gamepass I think.
Gamepass is a really great value. PSNow can easily match it with some tweaks. Would love to have both available wherever I go.
PSNow did it first, but keeps improving because of Gamepass I think.
Gamepass is a really great value. PSNow can easily match it with some tweaks. Would love to have both available wherever I go.
sol_bad
Member
Because Playstation owners are happy to buy their games at retail price and support the industry?
You are saying this like Microsoft is only offering their first party through Game Pass, which is not true. You know, that they are also selling their games in "normal way" right? And you can buy them for 60 bucks at release? Right?
sol_bad
Member
I understand that yes but Sony doesn't need a subscription model to push their first party games. The amount of people that say they played Crackdown 3 and Sea of Thieves on Gamepass is quite staggering, and they said they were happy to have played them on Gamepass, meaning they wouldn't have wanted to pay retail price for them.
Microsoft should be making games that people want to spend $60usd on. Sony don't have this problem, people want to buy their games. That's what I'm saying, that's why their PSNow numbers are low.
High software numbers are more impressive than "high" subscription numbers.
You know that you are nitpicking. I mean, yes, number of PS4 exclusives doesn't need PS Now inclusion because they sell well. But
1. You ignore plenty of PS4 exclusives which sold poorly, or not as godly as Spider-Man and God of War like Days Gone, Concrete Genie, Dreams and plenty more. I'm sure Dreams would thrive in GP ecosystem
2. You also ignore fact, that Microsoft isn't like "This game will sold like shit so it will be on Game Pass" but they include every first party game there. It doesn't matter if it has potential to sell millions like Halo Infinite or high Metacritic score like Gears 5 and Forza Horizon 4. Every game is there.
Sony has low PS Now number because they treated their service like back compat thing for PS4 and let competition to catch up. I can guarantee you, that if they give PS Now proper attention that it badly needs, and if they included first-party stuff there, number of subs would skyrocket. They don't want to do it now, but they will do it one day. Mark my words.
PS Now is like if Netflix didn't have any original content. It's just service that offers stuff that your competitor offers. Problem is - your competitor offers something on top of that.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Dory16
Banned
People don't want to buy Gears 5 or Forza Horizon 4? I didn't know that. Do you have evidence?
"I don't want your best products day one at no additional cost, I want to buy each of them them full price" is something I've never heard a consumer say in any other business sector. Gaming is indeed particular.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.001
Xbox Live is falling apart you don't just give up on the best console online service but xcloud, gamepass etc. make sense, I think juggling 3 services is a problem for Microsoft.
sol_bad
Member
Microsoft announcing things like unique players in Gears 5 rather than announcing actual unit sales should be a tell tale sign.
Hezekiah
Banned
Yeah the more attractive your games are, the more likely people are going to want to own them, and buy them full-price.
GamePass is good value, and I feel like it's that value proposition for people who play a lot of games that is attractive primarily, as opposed to the perceived quality of Sony's first party.
For me the question is can MS continue to do it as it stands with the type of budget associated with games like Gears 5 and Halo Infinite. While it is gamers will take full advantage, but I cant see the Xbox division being allowed to accrue big losses on GamePass in the medium to long-term.
I hope Sony will continue to improve PlayStation Now, but I cant see them cutting the price. It's currently £8.99 for a single month, £22.99 for three months, and £49.99 for a year and I think they'll continue to encourage people to sign for a year. I certainly dont see them doing any £1 a month type deals and bleeding a load of money.
Hezekiah
Banned
Agree with the rest but Days Gone was the best selling exclusive on PSN in 2019 (and more than MK 11 and Borderlands 3), and tenth best overall. And I saw it was no.6 on the overall dollar sales chart for PS4 exclusives last year.
Yes. But you know, that Sony brags about their sales, when they are good (like TLOU II and Spider-Man) and they didn't say a word about Days Gone, which means, that sales weren't that great. Same for Death Stranding, Concrete Genie etc.
12Dannu123
Member
The price is a big barrier to allow Sony to put their games on PSNow or increase the quality of PSNow.
Like I say Sony is incapable to move to a subscription Gaming model with the games they have.
Last edited:
Hezekiah
Banned
No they're not incapable, the biggest barrier is the infrastructure which they have. The main reason for them not doing so is that it's less lucrative than what they are currently doing. They will have done a ton of market research and run the financials to work out how many people would sign up for a subscription service paying a premium price. They're not going to jump in to primarily offering games through a subscription service if the market isn't fully ready for it and it loses them money.
12Dannu123
Member
Like I say, by the time Sony moves when its fully ready, Microsoft will already be a big established player.
The tech industry is a brutal business and are not kind to players who wait until things are ready.
Hezekiah
Banned
I don't think it's cut and dried like that. End of the day it's about the games, and Sony already has PS Now so they're already established. They also have more 'mindshare'. It's just up to them what type of model they want to go with but at the moment them and Nintendo know it's not worth it.
SaucyJack
Member
No, but that's presumably because people actually buy them.
And why would you use PS Now for your digital purchases, that makes no sense. You can just remote play them if you want to use another device.
Last edited:
TheCrimsnFuckr
Member
No, but that's presumably because people actually buy them.
And why would you use PS Now for your digital purchases, that makes no sense. You can just remote play them if you want to use another device.
A shit ton of people have been buying Halo MCC on PC and a shit ton of people bought games such as The Outer Worlds, Forza Horizon 4 and Minecraft Dungeons on Xbox/PC despite all of those games launching into Game Pass
And remote play isn't comparable because it requires both devices be connected to the same internet connection, which is entirely pointless. xCloud is anywhere
D.Final
Banned
Welp
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
So it's merely following what PS Now already did first?
Amazing!!! Xbox are such pioneers!
Amazing!!! Xbox are such pioneers!
BusierDonkey
Member
Gamerguy84
Member
Outrunner
Member
You can do that with remote play. Could do it already with PS4
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Sure, but with the rather big caveat that my PlayStation at home has to be turned on and not otherwise being used by someone else in my house at the moment. My PS4 Pro also sounds like a jet engine (headphones are a must) so I'm not sure if my wife would appreciate that going off like that in the middle of the day.
And then, of course, you've got to have sufficient upload bandwidth to pull the whole thing off. Not quite the same thing as just being able to stream your games from a datacenter.
onesvenus
Member
You are a much better poster when you are not trolling
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Stating the obvious is trolling now? C'mon... you're telling me you can't see the absurd hyperbole in the thread title?
You guys can be capable of much better, much more intelligent discourse when you're not so sensitive over your favoured platform.
Last edited:
megreotsugua
Banned
A streaming service of pure videogames will die.
It's a hard sell among the hardcores. It's dead among the casuals.
It's a hard sell among the hardcores. It's dead among the casuals.
SportsFan581
Member
On a small screen it is fine even at 720p. Though your mileage will vary based on the types of games you are playing. I played 3/4 of Spiderman on there and the experience was good, only reason I switched to console to finish was they had a bit of a glitch loading the save files.