CES 2014: JANUARY 7-10, 2014

There are plenty of debate points. Those points are in addition to the issues of internet quality and technical viability. My post was only addressing Joker's view that any prior mention of the internet being 'broken' regards one service/feature should be extrapolated to the view that the internet is 'broken' for all services/features.
 
It's definitely going to be a bandwidth heavy service. If you were to play a 20 hour game @ 5 Mbps, you're going to be downloading about 45 GB (if my math is right). I'm guessing that's about where the quality will sit until they can go to H.265 or something like that. I'd think most people that would pay for a service like this probably wouldn't be the type that would sit and play much more than that in a month though. You probably wouldn't have the super hardcore playing 40 hours a week like it was their full-time job. Still, I don't know if they'd want to get up into the 10 Mbps range. No harm in providing the option.
 
I think it'll be a transition service. In future I imagine the likes of Activision to want to offer COD as a streamed service with a monthly contract. It'll be a singular experience across all devices with one codebase. Coupled in with distributed cloud computing to balance workloads across servers, we'll have a highly adaptable, efficient hardware platform for running any software. That vision will be some ways off though, and there'll be other approaches like software based platforms offering a single codebase and portability. For the time being, Play Now will offer some people the possibility to play games they'd otherwise miss and Sony to make money from software only without worrying about the hardware (okay, there's custom servers, but the idea is a software platform selling content rather than designing and producing hardware boxes) as they try to work towards this alternative business model. They're covering both lines this generation.
 
Sony have announced 5 mbps is recommended as a minimum for a good experience. Which suggests adaptive encoding and low bw to still supply some level of game feed but quality will suffer. Hopefully it can go higher too, and 20+ mbps connections will get very good quality. At some point they'll be able to shift to h.265 but current playback device won't support that I guess. Latency is still looking like the major issue. Latency over wireless has been proven not too bad on Remote Play devices, so it's all about the internet.

They did mention H.265 in the presentation. I think it's in the "4K movie" segment. Not sure about gaming yet.
 
I skimmed through your post and I am not sure if this was pointed out but one of my gripes of requiring always online is that at some point of time I will lose access to my collection. I also often have my router switched off for personal reasons. I dont want rules and limitations messing with how I use my games, how I share them and neither do I want the risk of unstable experience no matter how small that risk is. I also want the option of privacy. It is a matter of deontology and of securing and protecting current and future rights as a consumer regardless of the myopic direct utility I would have got from the product.

I think you better get your PC ready because I think this is the future of consoles. I think we eventually see older PS4 games appear on PS Now and then probably some upper tier service that allows newer or just release titles. Eventually Sony will release PS4 titles only through the service with requires more performance than the local hardware can provide. MS has already laid out plans in the leaked doc going in this direction.

I think both platform providers will move to a subscription based model because it provides bigger revenue potential with substantial hardware cost savings.

I like all the utility and features that come from such a model but I hate the ideal of losing ownership. I see myself eventually going back to PC gaming for the titles I really love.
 
haha, remember when the main argument was that Microsoft decided to take away consumers right and implement a one hour check that made it a requirement to have a Internet connection when you wanted to play EVENTHOUGH the games didn't run on any servers?

You pull up this horrible comparison at any given chance and it has absolutely nothing in common with a service that requires an internet connection to work, there is a difference between running a game from a disc or watching a video stream.

What's next, you wonder why people haven't complained about Youtubes Internet requirment?

Like I said I never brought any of that up, others did and you along with it. I could post my quote again here but no one will probably read it just like the first time, and instead will continue to dig up other stuff I didn't post about and apply them to me. Although the complete irony that you bring up in your own words is how many complained about losing consumer rights from Microsoft's choices, and yet Playstation Now also takes away all those same consumer rights. In other words you no longer own the game, you no longer can resell them, you must be connected to play, if you aren't connected you can't play, you are only paying for a temporarily licence, even if you own the game you must pay again, etc. I somehow recall those very same principles causing extreme uproar when applied to a different company, yet here they are amazing and the right direction. Oh no but I won't say anymore because clearly that would be bias against Sony.


Wrong wrong wrong!!!! You've completely failed to follow and understand the discussions. There have been numerous discussions surrounding internet requirements and various companies' strategies.

...

There were lots of worse case claim scenarios made by people here, even leading to discussions of "oh how bad my internet is", ping posts, and how the USA is the worst in the world even though I had 8mbps internet here in 1996. Those same people are the ones I'm talking about. Obviously if you lose one packet per day it won't affect you, but the cries of grief among forum goers here along with all the demonstrations of how bad their internet is and how they walk uphill to work both ways, those people are who I'm talking about that can't use this service. I'm not talking about edge case people whose ping drops from 20ms to 22ms, I'm talking about the people that were up in arms because their internet was so horrid.


A criticism of internet bandwidth in a discussion about digital distribution doesn't bare relation to streaming video (or game video). That's why when MS announced Skype support in X1, there wasn't a public outcry that the internet wasn't fast enough to support video chat. For that service, bandwidth is typically accepted as adequate and it doesn't need mentioning. For streaming game video, bandwidth is typically accurate among enough of the population who care about such things.
...
Bandwidth doesn't really come into it as the requirement here is video streaming level which hasn't factored into any other debates. Given the high proportion of gamers who use internet video steaming services like iPlayer and Netflix, that's clearly a non-issue for those actively engaged in the discussion.

Of course bandwidth comes into the discussion! Game streaming has nothing to do with skype, and especially nothing to do with Netflix. The only reason Netflix is able to provide acceptable quality is because it's not real time, it's buffered, so all the peaks and valleys in your bandwidth get absorbed. In other words once you start watching the movie, when your bandwidth is faster than needed Netflix can buffer more video, that way when your bandwidth dips down it's ok because you are still watching from buffered data.

Video game streaming is an entire different beast. It's real time meaning you need *consistent* bandwidth. Given the low latency requirement it can't buffer anything, it has to be able to stream you video consistently all the time. Anyone that uses cable modem internet may have 5mbps+ of service but that won't mean anything because for cable modem services, and many other internet services, that bandwidth is not guaranteed it's shared with other people on your block. Yeah you may get 5mbps sometimes, but if your neighbor starts torrenting tv shows then your bandwidth may drop to 2mbps. Streaming video games via internet is the most unforgiving form of streaming there is. More so than online gaming which you can hide latency with various tricks, more so than skype which you aren't interacting with and crappy quality is still acceptable, more so than Netflix that can be buffered, etc.

Video games need it all, good bandwidth, consistent bandwidth, low latency, *all* the time. If you don't have that all the time it won't work acceptably. If your ping fluctuates a lot then you will have playability and response issues, it's not like skype where some delay doesn't matter. If you are using a shared internet service then your image quality may suck and or be unusable at times, it's not like Netflix that can buffer around that. If there is network congestion anywhere from you to the server it won't work, such things can't be hidden like with Netflix. If you have bandwidth caps then don't bother even trying. And if your internet is just all around bad as so many here have claimed, then good luck.

A lot of people fall into the above category certainly judging from their posts here, maybe even you. Your 8mbps may not be guaranteed for all you know, it may be shared. Again go back and read peoples posts, and then read what they are saying now. Really many of these people cheering now shouldn't be because they won't be able to use this. That what I was saying all along, again I made no mention of discs, drm, and all that even though I'm sure more will keep bringing that up.
 
Essentially that's what it comes down to...DRM.

What cost a person is willing to undertake is dictated by the payoff. Just because a person is willing to stand in line and gleefully wait 24 hours to buy a next Gen console doesn't mean they will show the same exuberance and tolerance when required to stand in line to pay a $400 bill.
 
Like I said I never brought any of that up, others did and you along with it. I could post my quote again here but no one will probably read it just like the first time, and instead will continue to dig up other stuff I didn't post about and apply them to me. Although the complete irony that you bring up in your own words is how many complained about losing consumer rights from Microsoft's choices, and yet Playstation Now also takes away all those same consumer rights. In other words you no longer own the game, you no longer can resell them, you must be connected to play, if you aren't connected you can't play, you are only paying for a temporarily licence, even if you own the game you must pay again, etc. I somehow recall those very same principles causing extreme uproar when applied to a different company, yet here they are amazing and the right direction. Oh no but I won't say anymore because clearly that would be bias against Sony.

I know the difference between renting a movie and buying one, same goes for subscribing to a package of TV channels vs buying TV-Shows on Blu-Ray etc. So until i see Sony presenting me with Playstation Now as the only solution ever to play their games i really don't care, at most it's a glorified DD of games, more likely it's a subscription based gaming streaming service with the odd chance to "rent" games for x days.

It seems very much to be like Onlive, onlive was messing the PC Nerds, that was one of their major obstacles, they didn't really present any added value to their core audience, PC Gamers. Their real target would be casual players with no PC's capable of running games. I think that niece was to small to gain any traction. Not to mention they had afaik not a single exclusive game their line up.

Sony has a few advantages, first of all, they are already in the living rooms with some Bravia TV's, just add a gamepad or use one you already own. Secondly they have a healthy amount of players that already own a Playstation, they have a ready market with the needed tools to play the games.

And most importantly they have a exclusive gaming library with plenty of options to make it worth renting and playing.

Now, this dude is not really sold on the idea as a serious gaming thing, it really depends on their pricing and the options they provide.

But they have countless of ways to earn money.

If they let me try (i think they suggested that) games for free i would love that, it would make it more likely for me to buy those games. I can do it via PS+ on a few exclusive titles today, but i still have to download the complete game and install it. PSNOW can make all that easy and fast.

They can add even more value to PS+ with PSNOW games.

PS + + now it includes the subscription to PSNOW games.

PS2+PS3 Backwards Compatible, insert your PS2 disc, and if you have PS+ you can play the game on PSNOW.

And the simple ones, a exclusive subscription service to PSNOW, renting games, and buying games (count me out on that one)

Personally i am very unlikely to pay for anything PSNOW releated, i prefer to play the games in full quality, it would take something special to make it worthwhile for me.. Vice City in Hidef for example. But the potential is there.
 
Of course bandwidth comes into the discussion! Game streaming has nothing to do with skype, and especially nothing to do with Netflix. The only reason Netflix is able to provide acceptable quality is because it's not real time, it's buffered, so all the peaks and valleys in your bandwidth get absorbed. In other words once you start watching the movie, when your bandwidth is faster than needed Netflix can buffer more video, that way when your bandwidth dips down it's ok because you are still watching from buffered data.

Video game streaming is an entire different beast. It's real time meaning you need *consistent* bandwidth.
that's indeed true and a salient ponit to bring to the discussion that I hadn't factored in.

A lot of people fall into the above category certainly judging from their posts here, maybe even you. Your 8mbps may not be guaranteed for all you know, it may be shared. Again go back and read peoples posts, and then read what they are saying now.
I don't know anyone who's discussed poor internet in terms of packet loss. That level of internet quality hasn't been a discussion point as prior debates have stopped at the issues of not enough BW or too high latency.

Really many of these people cheering now shouldn't be because they won't be able to use this.
At the moment the 'cheering' is the possibility. It hasn't really been tackled as a will it/won't it work topic. And given OnLive already proved it can work, and Remote Play from PS3 to PSP/Vita, it's hardly an impossibility that no-one hopeful here is ever going to get to experience. There's enough existing data to suggest it's a viable option, although the specifics may show that successful application varies a lot. I certainly don't see any correlation to other debates though for the reasons I outlined in the previous post. There are questions to ask, but they have not been answered by prior discussion on other topics via proxy. eg. The question of buffering and packet loss has never arisen when talking about DD, online checks, or cloud computing. I'll be very surprised if you can find an previous criticism from someone about their internet service that identified a service flaw rendering Play Now unusable for them. At the moment, anyone with 5 mbps sustained BW is looking good because the service quality hasn't been investigated.
 
One thing that people don't seem to realize is that every time you play a streaming game you will cost Sony money. And Sony will have to get that back somehow.
 
One thing that people don't seem to realize is that every time you play a streaming game you will cost Sony money. And Sony will have to get that back somehow.

Thats inconsequential compared to the level of investment necessary for the hardware to run all the stuff.

Also the other major cost will be licensing the games from content providers. Just because they developed the titles for playstation consoles doesn't mean that won't be as demanding for compensation like you see with services like Netflix. As soon as it proves to be profitable, EA, Ubi and others will definitely have their hands out.

I think it will priced similar to PSN+. $60 dollars a year I think is fair as its like buying 5 PS3, PS2 and PS1 games at current full retail over a 5 year period.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like I said I never brought any of that up, others did and you along with it. I could post my quote again here but no one will probably read it just like the first time, and instead will continue to dig up other stuff I didn't post about and apply them to me. Although the complete irony that you bring up in your own words is how many complained about losing consumer rights from Microsoft's choices, and yet Playstation Now also takes away all those same consumer rights. In other words you no longer own the game, you no longer can resell them, you must be connected to play, if you aren't connected you can't play, you are only paying for a temporarily licence, even if you own the game you must pay again, etc. I somehow recall those very same principles causing extreme uproar when applied to a different company, yet here they are amazing and the right direction. Oh no but I won't say anymore because clearly that would be bias against Sony.




There were lots of worse case claim scenarios made by people here, even leading to discussions of "oh how bad my internet is", ping posts, and how the USA is the worst in the world even though I had 8mbps internet here in 1996. Those same people are the ones I'm talking about. Obviously if you lose one packet per day it won't affect you, but the cries of grief among forum goers here along with all the demonstrations of how bad their internet is and how they walk uphill to work both ways, those people are who I'm talking about that can't use this service. I'm not talking about edge case people whose ping drops from 20ms to 22ms, I'm talking about the people that were up in arms because their internet was so horrid.




Of course bandwidth comes into the discussion! Game streaming has nothing to do with skype, and especially nothing to do with Netflix. The only reason Netflix is able to provide acceptable quality is because it's not real time, it's buffered, so all the peaks and valleys in your bandwidth get absorbed. In other words once you start watching the movie, when your bandwidth is faster than needed Netflix can buffer more video, that way when your bandwidth dips down it's ok because you are still watching from buffered data.

Video game streaming is an entire different beast. It's real time meaning you need *consistent* bandwidth. Given the low latency requirement it can't buffer anything, it has to be able to stream you video consistently all the time. Anyone that uses cable modem internet may have 5mbps+ of service but that won't mean anything because for cable modem services, and many other internet services, that bandwidth is not guaranteed it's shared with other people on your block. Yeah you may get 5mbps sometimes, but if your neighbor starts torrenting tv shows then your bandwidth may drop to 2mbps. Streaming video games via internet is the most unforgiving form of streaming there is. More so than online gaming which you can hide latency with various tricks, more so than skype which you aren't interacting with and crappy quality is still acceptable, more so than Netflix that can be buffered, etc.

Video games need it all, good bandwidth, consistent bandwidth, low latency, *all* the time. If you don't have that all the time it won't work acceptably. If your ping fluctuates a lot then you will have playability and response issues, it's not like skype where some delay doesn't matter. If you are using a shared internet service then your image quality may suck and or be unusable at times, it's not like Netflix that can buffer around that. If there is network congestion anywhere from you to the server it won't work, such things can't be hidden like with Netflix. If you have bandwidth caps then don't bother even trying. And if your internet is just all around bad as so many here have claimed, then good luck.

A lot of people fall into the above category certainly judging from their posts here, maybe even you. Your 8mbps may not be guaranteed for all you know, it may be shared. Again go back and read peoples posts, and then read what they are saying now. Really many of these people cheering now shouldn't be because they won't be able to use this. That what I was saying all along, again I made no mention of discs, drm, and all that even though I'm sure more will keep bringing that up.

You must have pretty crappy internet and really crappy experience to back it up for all the pessimism.

I lived in US ~4 years ago and I can pretty sure that even at that time such a streaming service could probably work, as in I have good enough latencies and good enough sustained bandwidth at, albeit, ~$60 a month or so for I recall a 20~30Mbps connection. Yes, it was cable and should be shared, but I had very little issues with sustained bandwidth, or packet loss, or latency. Probably some outages from time to time, but when it works, I have had very little issues.

I now live in Taiwan and I can guarantee that I get >50mbps sustained bandwidth (100Mbps service) as long as the server that I'm downloading from can handle it. I sometimes monitor my Digital TV service bandwidth and I've been able to get 10Mbps sustained (not even kinks) through the course of a WEEK or so.

The infrastructure sure can do it, without a doubt. If you choose to live in an area or a house/apartment/whatever where there is no fiber installed and cannot deliver the quality you want, well it's your choice and quite frankly you're responsible for making that choice, and thus you've made yourself unsuitable for the service. It's not as if it's unavailable, or like Shifty's example, unupgradable. ISPs are always upgrading infrastructure and you may just have to wait your area's turn. My advice is to find a relatively newer building (<5 years) to live in your area. Usually those will at least have fiber pre-installed so FTTH wouldn't be too much an issue for the ISPs.

If you're that concerned, go get a PS4 and PSV and see if you can remote play to your local coffee shop. If that works, I doubt PS Now won't. Not to mention OnLive working on a technical standpoint.
 
The conversation wasn't all that necessary last time and its not relevant this time.

Live was introduced into the world of dial up.

And PS Now as a service doesn't need to provide wonderful performance for everybody to be viable. If its a worthwhile service it will grow as latency, bandwidth and caps get better.

Call it PS Now Beta. The longer it takes for the internet to provide the necessary performance. The more maturer the service will be. PS Now is a long term play and image if MS waited until the vast majority could reliably enjoy Live. Live might be but a few years old.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must have pretty crappy internet and really crappy experience to back it up for all the pessimism.

I have 85mbps down / 45mbps up fiber internet at home, and have had 8mbps or greater since 1996. My internet is great, it's not me that was complaining. My pessimism stems from other peoples internet. However even with my great internet though our Slingbox does not always work acceptably. Slingbox is the closest thing that can be compared to streaming games because it has to work live, although there is no latency factor since you are just watching and it does have a small buffer. How well it works is a crapshoot. We know it's not our connection, our fiber pipe is strong. But nonetheless depending on where we are it either works great, works ok, works crappy, or is simply unacceptable. So to add on top of all the other factors, that of the various issues people have complained about with their spotty, slow and/or capped internet there are also the factors out of your control to deal with. So it's not pessimism, it's a mix of real world data combined with other peoples posted internet service experiences.
 
I have 85mbps down / 45mbps up fiber internet at home, and have had 8mbps or greater since 1996. My internet is great, it's not me that was complaining. My pessimism stems from other peoples internet. However even with my great internet though our Slingbox does not always work acceptably. Slingbox is the closest thing that can be compared to streaming games because it has to work live, although there is no latency factor since you are just watching and it does have a small buffer. How well it works is a crapshoot. We know it's not our connection, our fiber pipe is strong. But nonetheless depending on where we are it either works great, works ok, works crappy, or is simply unacceptable. So to add on top of all the other factors, that of the various issues people have complained about with their spotty, slow and/or capped internet there are also the factors out of your control to deal with. So it's not pessimism, it's a mix of real world data combined with other peoples posted internet service experiences.

onlive apparently had a way to handle latency and packet drops, just like online games do today. Unless the technology used in psnow is very primitive there should be ways to handle latency peaks and package drops.

And of course it won't be on par with playing the game locally, it's a tradeoff for those that accepts that. Just like low bitrate video streaming or compressed audio streaming.
Not to mention online server based games like Mmos.
 
onlive apparently had a way to handle latency and packet drops, just like online games do today. Unless the technology used in psnow is very primitive there should be ways to handle latency peaks and package drops.

And of course it won't be on par with playing the game locally, it's a tradeoff for those that accepts that. Just like low bitrate video streaming or compressed audio streaming.
Not to mention online server based games like Mmos.

Onlive was really crappy and high latency at least for me. I didn't find games on it fun to play due to latency issues.

Onlive also failed pretty hard showing that it didn't appeal mass market. Ofcourse sony could theoretically do better but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The only use I see for it is games that can handle 0.5s latency regularly without causing disturbance to gamer. Trying out games before buying would also be good.
 
Onlive was really crappy and high latency at least for me. I didn't find games on it fun to play due to latency issues.

Onlive also failed pretty hard showing that it didn't appeal mass market. Ofcourse sony could theoretically do better but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The only use I see for it is games that can handle 0.5s latency regularly without causing disturbance to gamer. Trying out games before buying would also be good.

Would you really want to deliver demos over a service like that if there were latency issues? A person might try it and think the controls were bad, even though it's just the latency of all the hops in the network. Would it hurt or help sales? In theory it's a good idea, but maybe that's another good reason why they're sticking with PS3 games rather than serving up PS4 demos.
 
Back
Top