|
Quick reminder that Microsoft, over the course of 20 years of accumulating IP and experience in the games business, has gone through stretches of time where the Xbox division has been viewed with skepticism and disdain by the top corporate honchos, to the point where they've seriously considered selling off the whole division... but don't worry, Google and its goldfish-level attention span are definitely gonna see this videogames thing through to the end.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:Quick reminder that Microsoft, over the course of 20 years of accumulating IP and experience in the games business, has gone through stretches of time where the Xbox division has been viewed with skepticism and disdain by the top corporate honchos, to the point where they've seriously considered selling off the whole division... but don't worry, Google and its goldfish-level attention span are definitely gonna see this videogames thing through to the end. Microsoft also has a much longer history of making hilariously stupid decisions than Google The fact that there's no actual console to manufacture puts Google in a neat position here, because it literally just requires software developers and datacenter space/bandwidth, both of which Google has fucktons of. Meanwhile Microsoft has to build an actual box and give people reasons to buy it beyond "it plays video games"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Microsoft also has a much longer history of making hilariously stupid decisions than Google
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:Quick reminder that Microsoft, over the course of 20 years of accumulating IP and experience in the games business, has gone through stretches of time where the Xbox division has been viewed with skepticism and disdain by the top corporate honchos, to the point where they've seriously considered selling off the whole division... but don't worry, Google and its goldfish-level attention span are definitely gonna see this videogames thing through to the end. At the end of time, Google will become the world's most powerful patent troll, having tried all things and having supported none by then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Microsoft also has a much longer history of making hilariously stupid decisions than Google Only because they're older; Google's spent the last decade making up for lost time. I think Microsoft's got the stronger position for making a push into streaming. Like Google, they've got tons of software developers and datacenter space/bandwidth. Unlike Google, they have a lot of preexisting games to put on a subscription service, a lot of game dev studios to make more games for their services, and a subscription download/non-streaming service to complement its streaming services, for users who can't or don't want to stream.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:Only because they're older; Google's spent the last decade making up for lost time. Microsoft also has a partnership with Nintendo. Xbox Live achievements are coming to the Switch at lest for Cuphead. I don't see why they wouldn't expand that to other games if they are putting in all the effort to put that in place though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
American McGay posted:Microsoft is going to release a better version of Stadia in 3 months and it's going to automatically have 500+ games available for it. Sony already has one, and while it does have a shitload of games, good luck playing any of them due to the input lag e: also a very large portion of the games Sony and Microsoft would be willing to give us on this kind of service suck complete balls
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:Only because they're older; Google's spent the last decade making up for lost time. I don't think backwards compatibility is what will make or break a new platform. People usually want to play new things or old things with a fresh paint and that new car smell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Yeah, if anything, Microsoft's recent openness and allowing Xbox accounts on other consoles in this generation tells me their hedging their bets regarding being a traditional "platform". They want to keep the users, but not the cost of hardware. It's the smart move with so many unknowns going into the next generation; they're playing all sides so they'll have their foot in the door when it's clear where consumers are going. Sony may have gotten ahead of the game with PS Now, but they don't seem to be giving it their all. Not that I blame since they don't have anywhere near the datacenter capacity as the others, thus hurting their cost structure, but it hurts their reputation in that arena until they figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Microsoft have the best service infrastructure of anyone in the business. They've also got 20 years of relationships with game developers. They're perfectly fine exiting the hardware business. It's not really hedging, it's their strategy moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
limaCAT posted:I don't think backwards compatibility is what will make or break a new platform. Plus if it's as easy as id made it out to be, x86 games (ie: current gen) might be a no-brainer to invest the resources in porting. One more revenue stream with 1-2 months of work. Add that it's a new platform with not a lot of games, you'll likely be heavily advertised by said platform. Not exactly the same, but see DOOM (2016) for Switch's hyped release. And that might even have been harder because that platform has less resources to work with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
limaCAT posted:I don't think backwards compatibility is what will make or break a new platform. I think the only way game streaming makes sense, business-wise, is if you eventually offer it as a subscription. And a subscription service needs a lot of content to justify itself, even if much of that content is just old filler that won’t get played much. But if we assume that people will show up just for the new and shiny stuff, what’s Google’s plan for scratching that itch? The only games they’ve even mentioned are two multiplats, one of which is months old. They don’t appear to have much first-party content in the pipeline, with their games dev and publishing arm being relatively new - Jade Raymond only got hired to lead it last month. On the other hand, Microsoft has been buying studios here and there for the last few years now. If anyone’s going to have new exclusive stuff to put on their streaming platform, that’s gonna be Microsoft for at least another few years. (It might not be good, based on their last few years of output, but at least they’ll have it.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
American McGay posted:Microsoft have the best service infrastructure of anyone in the business. They've also got 20 years of relationships with game developers. They're perfectly fine exiting the hardware business. It's not really hedging, it's their strategy moving forward. A good point. But I'd think they'd want one more generation of hardware due to the current unreliability of internet service across this country. They'll have an option for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
A cool thing Microsoft can do is when the Xbox Two and PS5 come out, they can flip a switch and make every single Xbox One work with their xCloud service which then gives them an "install base" of 50m day one whereas people developing games for the PS5 have to start at 0. Obviously this is some napkin math and Google tried to do the same thing during the Stadia reveal by claiming that 2 billion people use Chrome every single day, but from a gaming console standpoint it's an interesting ace up the sleeve for Microsoft. This all assumes that xCloud works well enough though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
id interview about Stadia
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
But will it have runescape though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
I'm still trying to figure out why doing video streaming really makes sense. Take a game like Stardew Valley - the thing is about a gig. Netflix is about a gig to 3 gigs per hour of video - so I can go and play the game for an hour and download more data than I would have if I just downloaded the game in the first place. For more graphically intense games - that's where you can lose people the fastest. It feels like the saying - when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I'm convinced that you can effectively stream videogames, but doing your video rendering off site seems like a bizarre way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I'm still trying to figure out why doing video streaming really makes sense. Take a game like Stardew Valley - the thing is about a gig. Yeah the value behind stadia, of course after considering latency, is more about instant access to games, full graphics coop, high def AAA on tablets and low power PCs. That and whatever Google shows that it's possible to do when you have a cloud for handling physics and multiplayer instead of having your clients which could experience massive lag when you have hundreds of peers to connect with. (Microsoft tried to do something like that with the xbone but never delivered)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I'm still trying to figure out why doing video streaming really makes sense. Take a game like Stardew Valley - the thing is about a gig. with 5g arouns the corner and people saying its so fast theres really no need for it, maybe theyre kinda attempting to create a demand for 5g internet or something. weve seen how capitalism works before and Google isnt really an exception. but I might be completely wrong here
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
midivan posted:with 5g arouns the corner and people saying its so fast theres really no need for it, maybe theyre kinda attempting to create a demand for 5g internet or something. People can always use faster internet. I mean, right now, it takes me an hour to download Doom 2016. I've been thinking about it more, and one of the toughest nuts for streaming gaming to penetrate is going to be the audience who is already gaming, which is large enough to be a huge industry. If the experience of streaming isn't as good as using a console in their home, then why would they bother? If you can't be better, than be unique. But here's where the "Netflix of gaming" concept doesn't seem like a clear winner to me. Netflix worked because it basically took existing concepts, and did them better. I was already used to streaming content into my television. It was called cable TV. All Netflix did was let me program what I want, when I want, and with no commercial breaks. And they had access to shows I had never heard of before. Even if in the early days, Netflix wasn't as good as a DVD, it had something I couldn't get elsewhere and it was good enough. But go back to that time I mentioned it took to download Doom - it's possible for me to download a 50 gig game in about an hour. When Netflix came about, there weren't that many legal digital video options - and those that were around had very limited selections. Also, storing those files made no sense, since most people don't watch movies more than once a year or so. I'm just seeing so many times where it doesn't make sense. Like, if I'm on a plane. I ain't streaming poo poo. But I can play my Switch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
yeah i get that i have 250mbs internet myself so large steam downloads only takes an hour or so, but they clearly showcased it on mobile devices and laptops, which to me seems like they want a piece of the mobile market which is HUGE edit: i just realized they run the play store on android devices midivan fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Mar 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
I think that bandwidth in the end, other than forcing ISPs to drop the caps that were put in place to stop serial pirates and their 24/7 bittorrent, is not a problem. At the beginning of the current console generation people balked at the idea that you should install games on your consoles, yet now with all the three platforms it is the norm. Google attempt is more about making clear that the streaming technology is ready for more applications other than music and video.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
limaCAT posted:I think that bandwidth in the end, other than forcing ISPs to drop the caps that were put in place to stop serial pirates and their 24/7 bittorrent, is not a problem. At the beginning of the current console generation people balked at the idea that you should install games on your consoles, yet now with all the three platforms it is the norm. Yeah I'm sure they'll get right on that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 08:44
|
|
|
LIVE AMMO ROLEPLAY posted:Yeah I'm sure they'll get right on that. Well, Apple forced carriers to drop off their "appstores" and phone "customizations"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 09:01
|
|
|
midivan posted:with 5g arouns the corner and people saying its so fast theres really no need for it, maybe theyre kinda attempting to create a demand for 5g internet or something. and what, blow past mobile data caps within half an hour of playtime?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:and what, blow past mobile data caps within half an hour of playtime? as i said theyre creating a new demand, possibly to remove those datacaps. were already seeing it with some phone service providers, and we might see it more with 5g
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 13:05
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I'm still trying to figure out why doing video streaming really makes sense. Take a game like Stardew Valley - the thing is about a gig. 1) Uncapped internet is widely available (I'm aware America is backward in this regard) 2) Playing video games has a big upfront cost (several hundred bucks for a console, double that+ for a gaming PC, $40-60 for the games themselves) that streaming replaces with monthly payments I have no idea whether it'll work, but if you make the (huge and possibly incorrect) assumption that the technology is ready then the business case seems non-crazy to me. Zephro fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Mar 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
I more interested in the business case of how the financing of the games / reimbursement of the creators / cost of the service to consumers will be balanced. Unlike TV (which in a lot of cases is free), games have always been pretty expensive, and I'm curious what the price point will need to be set at on a monthly basis for the creators to get the money they've spent back (and profit, obviously). That's not taking into account the cost for Google, who presumably would want to profit, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
iajanus posted:I more interested in the business case of how the financing of the games / reimbursement of the creators / cost of the service to consumers will be balanced. Unlike TV (which in a lot of cases is free), games have always been pretty expensive, and I'm curious what the price point will need to be set at on a monthly basis for the creators to get the money they've spent back (and profit, obviously). That's not taking into account the cost for Google, who presumably would want to profit, too. Yeah, pricing could be interesting. How did that Turner game service work - I think it became metaboli? That's the closest analog. Games as a Service I can see working anyway - you pay money to Google, and then you buy stuff for your character. That seems straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
As a gamer, I pay a premium for performance. Oh sure I could play some games on a $400 PC cobbled together from parts 10+ years old or drop that on a console (pre-owned if I wanted games too). Stadia is for the filthy casuals and Google knows that those are the target demographic. This isn’t something meant for anyone who gladly drops 600-1000 for GPU to eek out a few more FPS. What I find hilarious is how this is going to be a glorified “web console” and really no one is going to give up their Steam backlog/library for it. Which makes it even more worthless unless they strike a deal with Valve to allow cross play from your library of owned games for PC, consoles on the other hand is another bag of cats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Slayerjerman posted:As a gamer, I pay a premium for performance. Oh sure I could play some games on a $400 PC cobbled together from parts 10+ years old or drop that on a console (pre-owned if I wanted games too). Why would people need to give up their Steam library? Are there not already 5-10 different game launchers for PC? What's one more that's just a web link and can easily be played on a TV? I think Google are trying to get new and future games onto Stadia, not old ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
TVGM posted:Why would people need to give up their Steam library? Are there not already 5-10 different game launchers for PC? What's one more that's just a web link and can easily be played on a TV? That is exactly my point. Many players that already paid good money for their games libraries are going to be the hardest to convert to a games-as-service model. Hell, that's the prime reason the other distribution store fronts are having a hard time is that too many users don't want to give up their already paid for Steam libraries (besides being lazy and not wanting to juggle more bloated store clients). If Google came to me and said, "we'll match your Steam library/PS/Xbone libraries 1-to-1 on Stadia at no cost to you just to convert and give the service a try for a year" I would STILL be reluctant to use the platform. Then couple that with the worry that some future titles could potentially be Stadia-exclusives makes me just shudder and remember the horror that was GFWL. As a developer, I would gladly take Google's money to sign on with Stadia, but I would still have a Steam/GoG (and maybe Epic Store) release ready to roll out at a moment's notice as soon as I was legally able. I really am just lost as to whom is going to actually make use of this, Redbox users I guess? Gamefly was a half-decent service that I did enjoy for a time when I was catching up on console releases, but alas physical media is dead. Slayerjerman fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Mar 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
Stadia (and all cloud game streaming wannabes) are like the Epic Store in that they're being sold to the people making the games, not the people buying them. Publishers in particular are champing at the bit for one of these streaming services to finally take off as it would solve quite a few of what they consider their most pressing customer service issues: finally uncrackable DRM that doesn't interfere with the machine running the game, more controllable access fees, better metrics tracking, better ad targeting, and the ability to sunset more types of games more often to increase customer turnover. The idea long-term isn't to lure you to the service, the idea is to eventually force you to use it because the content you want can't be found on "traditional" venues anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:The idea long-term isn't to lure you to the service, the idea is to eventually force you to use it because the content you want can't be found on "traditional" venues anymore. Well maybe there is a reason why personal computing has won the over department mainframes in the 80's. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
e: this isn't the ouya thread, i was tricked!!
Wiggly Wayne DDS fucked around with this message at 16:47 on May 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:e: this isn't the ouya thread, i was tricked!! It's the same. Nobody who actually buys videogames is talking about Stadia after a couple of months.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Nibellion/status/1136616080431038465 You have to....... buy the games....?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
What’s the sub for then
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
Fallom posted:What’s the sub for then if you wanna 4k then you gotta pay
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Fallom posted:What’s the sub for then
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 14:46
|
|