Sure or use wireless technology or improve latency in other parts of the connection. Technology keeps moving forward. What will internet look like in 15 years or 20 years?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Not to mention you eventually hit hard limits imposed by the physical properties of various things needed in order to transmit data over relatively long distances.
Quantum tunneling internet when?
Regards,
SB
Sure but as things progress out wards into the future we are gong to see more local data centers. Likely we will see MS move to a data center in almost every state (except the really low population ones) and you might even see micro data centers outside of larger cities.Not to mention you eventually hit hard limits imposed by the physical properties of various things needed in order to transmit data over relatively long distances.
Quantum tunneling internet when?
Regards,
SB
Then you can also reduce latency at the isp level.
Looks like 50+ games leaving the Amazon Luna service, combined with games leaving in December and January will drop the total games offered down to ~175.
9to5google.com
Leaving on February 11
Leaving on February 27
Leaving on February 28
Amazon Luna will lose over 50 more games in February as the library continues to shrink
After losing many titles in the last month of 2022, Amazon Luna is now set to say goodbye to over 50 more games in February 2023.
9to5google.com
Games leaving Amazon Luna in February 2023
Leaving on February 9- Bridge Constructor Portal
- Buildings Have Feelings Too!
- El Hijo: A Wild West Tale
- El Shaddai: Acenstion of the Metatron
- Giana Sisters: Twisted Dreams
- Melbits World
- Momonga Pinball Adventures
- PictoQuest: The Curse Grids
- Race the Sun
- Skelittle: A Giant Party
- Smoots Summer Games
- Smoots World Cup Tennis
- Snake Pass
- Space Otter Charlie
- Spark Lite
- Spirit of the North
- Spitlings
- Summer Paws
- Super Kickers League Ultimate
- The Medium
- Urban Trial Playground
- Wandersong
Leaving on February 11
Leaving on February 27
Leaving on February 28
- Another World
- Asteroids Deluxe
- BloodRayne: Terminal Cut
- BloodRayne: Terminal Cut 2
- Centipede
- Crystal Castles
- Dragon’s Lair II: Time Warp
- Flashback
- Forsaken
- Garou: Mark of the Wolves
- Metal Slug 3
- Missile Command
- Panzer Paladin
- Pong
- Retro Classic: Bad Dudes vs Dragon Ninja
- Retro Classic: Gate of Doom
- Retro Classic: Heavy Barrel
- Retro Classic: Joe & Mac
- Retro Classic: Joe & Mac Returns
- Retro Classic: Super Burger Time
- Retro Classic: Two Crude
- Samurai Shodown V Special
- ShadowMan Remastered
- Space Ace
- Super Breakout
- Tempest
- The Last Blade 2
- Twinsen’s Little Bit Adventure: Classic
And that won't be enough either. How much exclusive content can you get out there from your first party, in a service that directly competes with other platforms but everything runs potentially with all the pet peeves of streaming subscriptions? Your exclusive content must be timely, enough in quantity, and amazing enough to make people more interested to subscribe than buy a PS or XBOX.
And I can't see that happening, because people are interested in a perfect experience of exclusive and third party games. Why should someone prefer a streaming service to play FIFA, COD, Street Fighter, Need for Speed, Witcher, Resident Evil etc when they can buy an XBOX or PS and plug it and play perfectly on their 4k TV? There is no real incentive. The benefits are not there. There are likely more disadvantages than benefits on every multiplatform game.
Your exclusive content must be SUPER exceptional to be able to substitute everything that is lacking.
That or it needs to be world shaking. Epic is making a go of it on the back of fortnite which upended the industry.
I would say the reason someone would be interested in streaming vs buying an xbox or ps is because of that buying part. You have to buy a xbox or playstation which is what $200-$500 depending on sales and what model ? Then you still need to buy the games you want. Something like xcloud or luna would just require a device capable of streaming the content and a bluetooth controller. So the cost of entry is much less. You can also just buy a month of service when a game you want to play comes out.
Gamers want to game. Give them a platform that is excellent value for money for playing the games they like and you'll win. If people aren't choosing streaming services, instead preferring fixed boxes, there's reasons for that. If you have to have exclusive content to get people onto a streaming service, that suggest streaming of itself isn't worth anything, and those gamers who would subscribe for exclusive content would rather that content be on the fixed-hardware box. Give console, PC, and mobile owners a reason to stream instead of playing content locally.
In short, evidence keeps pointing to streaming being a bad business at the moment. The fundamental business model needs to be robust to be worth investing in as a platform; if you can't make streaming work for streaming's sake, it's a dead idea and there's no point creating exclusive content for an audience that won't exist.
arandomguy
Veteran
Is the issue that people aren't moving to streaming platforms or that they aren't moving to them in numbers large enough to justify the fixed cost outlay?
The question I'd ask is if streaming itself is the inherent issue or that it simply isn't viable to launch a new gaming platform period. What's the business viability of a launching an actual new console today?
It seems to me that streaming itself was likely being seen as a lower cost way for companies to onboard their own gaming platform versus a traditional hardware launch. The main challenge and issue is actually cost effectively disrupting the existing established platforms period.
Edit: Further more I'd also pose the question is how much a potential new entrant should be targeting existing gamers versus those that currently would be considered gamers. As it seems to be in general that current gamers are rather entrenched into whatever platforms they prefer and it may not be business practical to displace them. Just look at the PC sub demo and Steam vs. Steam competitors, Steam has so much ingrained intertia that I'm not seeing how a comparable conventional sub platform would displace them at this point. This means effectively you'd have to try something different if you want to enter the gaming market now as a new competitor.
Last edited:
I think the issue is there is no streaming platform with access to all the games nor exclusive content for someone to pick it over another option. People buy the consoles because you get exclusive content you can't get anywhere else. Even xcloud doesn't have all the games on it.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
All true and likely why XCloud is basically provided as a "free" service (bonus) of Xbox Game Pass. MS likely knows that it would likely struggle to attract people to a cloud only subscription service. If MS had instead launched it as a paid service it would likely fail similar to how Stadia failed and similar to how Amazon Luna is struggling.
I still question whether there is a significant future for a paid streaming game service.
Regards,
SB
I often wonder if it will become more popular with mobile phones and tablets. For both markets you can continue your game from your home console or pc instead of launching a mobile variant of it. The game is likely to look a lot better on the cloud version vs the mobile phone / tablet version. I'd also wager you'd get much better battery life streaming the game vs running a version of it natively .
There are certainly some draw backs like increased lag but perhaps the other advantages would be enough to over come it.
Like for me I would rather stream diablo 4 to my surface pro than play diablo immortal on my cell phone.
I agree the large gamut of the gaming library needs to be available, but exclusives shouldn't be necessary. I think without the larger library, exclusives are a dead-end and waste of money. No-one's going to buy into streaming to play one game when 99% of the library is absent. Streaming promised a future where you get high-end gaming without needing to buy a high-end PC. If streaming were delivering on that, it ought to be able to pull an audience, if it's financially viable.
What's strange to me is a gamer can own a title on Steam but not be entitled to run that game on a remote stream service. I feel the law should allow that if cloud gaming is to have a chance to prove its value or not. I can buy a game on Steam and play it locally on my PC. I can then stream that local game over the internet to another device. I can install a PC in someone's house, run my Steam game on it, and stream it to my hardware. I can rent a PC, install it in someone else's house, and stream it to my device. But I can't rent a remote server from someone else to run my game!
I have to to disagree on your first part. Many people have subscribed to ultima online , wow , everquest and so on paying monthly fees to continue playing the game. So exclusives certainly would go a long way imo to get people onto a streaming service.
I mean think about it a streaming service with all 3rd party games is not a bad value but why subsribe to Beyond3d streaming service that just has that where if I go with MS and xcloud not only do I get all those third party games but the exclusive microsoft product ? Or sub in sony or whatever company with. Obviously the majority of the people subscribing will end up on one of the platforms with exclusives.
As for steam and streaming. I think the grey area is that its another 3rd party company using steams software to stream the game to you. Its akin to me buying back to the future on bluray and then also paying another company divorced from btof owners and having them let me stream it.
Because they are $2 a month cheaper as they aren't needing to finance the development of exclusives these gamers don't care to play. There are several areas to compete on besides content.
$2 seems like a miniscule savings for lacking all of the games no ?
Why pay $24 a year for something you don't care for? If all you want to play is COD, $24 on a wider library you'll never touch is wasted money. Plus that was only a pie-in-the-sky figure. Maybe it's more like $5 a month, or even $10 once these things get past the honeymoon period and into the profiting period - see Netflix's higher-tier pricing introduction. And as I say, there's more than one option. Better quality streaming of the games players want to play versus a service with games they don't care to play with inferior streaming.
Last edited: