Game Streaming Platforms and Technology (xCloud, PSNow, Stadia, GeforceNow, Luna)

So they are using Vega 56. The good thing for console users is that we already have a minimum tflops figure totbe beaten by PS5 and XB 3. Imagine them presenting their consoles with less flops that Googles streaming service?.

 

I don't think Google's audience gives a rats arse about teraflops. GDC is for developers, who'll be interested in the specs which is why Google gave them. Joe Chrome-User and Jenny Android just want to run games.

 

It's much easier for google to update their servers than for a console to be upgraded with more flops. Google already said they can do multi GPU if needed even if they don't upgrade the GPUs directly.

 

Very interesting competition from Google. Pretty much everyone has hardware capable to provide Google's gaming services and they are not worried to compete directly Sony and MS.
It is a platform agnostic service. They know they can grow gradually as internet services improve to other markets.
Interesting also that rumors say MS is going to provide a hybrid solution which probably tries to maintain its current market and also expand gradually to full cloud services.
This leaves the question, where does Sony stand? The PS Now is not as ambitious as Strada, it is an expensive subscription that plays games the same way they would run on existing Playstation hardware with all the disadvantages of streaming like lag and microblocking.
Google offers more flexibility to developers since hardware can be stacked.
I suspect that Sony will be in a tough situation. The current model is fading and they cant match MS's and Google's infrastructure

 

Even so, if Google Stadia can't match or surpass the image and sound quality of a standalone 4-6TF system (let alone 8TF system) in a consistent manner from a cloud gaming experience, Sony and Microsoft may-not be all that worried on the hardware front. Any worries will be associated with 'whom is providing the better cloud gaming services'.

 

I think having proprietary software is pretty important. In that sense both Nintendo and Sony are well positioned, possibly better positioned than game platforms that are focused on infrastructure.

 

I would argue that it's not just Googles audience either that don't care.
I don't think that having the most TF means you win, less means going to lose.
Just need to be in the same ballpark for 3P.

Ask most normal console gamer what TF the console has and I bet they don't know.
Marketing as most powerful is just a single vector

 

Pretty much everyone has hardware capable of running PSNow too - it's on Android and iOs and PC. Same with XBCloud. So Google's no better off in that regard, but they will have a reach the others can't. Google can spam Stadia over search results, Android notifications, YouTube viewers, offer free trials for games associated with videos you're watching even (press here to play Assassin's Creed now);

PS is a huge brand; it's ranked third in the UK with Google at #4. Sony also has arguable the best library in gaming and is the only place to play those exclusives. So where Google will offer better quality EA and Ubi games, Sony will offer 'must have' titles, and the quality won't really matter. PS4 quality is plenty good enough for the potential market these services are trying to reach. The big limitations will be marketing reach and, as you say, hardware costs as they are dependent on console hardware. Virtualised machines running on whatever servers would be the most economical solution.

Worst case, if streaming becomes the future, Sony produces games on PC (not necessarily Windows, so FreeBSD on Pc hardware perhaps) and runs server farms with more generic hardware. Maybe as we speak, PS5 software is being extrapolated from the hardware so it'll run in a VM that runs on future servers...

 

Worldwide the first 4 top brands are Apple. Google, Amazon, Microsoft
https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2018/ranking/

But lets ignore brands for a moment.
Yes I agree that PS Now is available on other platforms. But still it's games are infested with both the typical issues of streaming but also game performance is limited to the hardware they were originally playable on (the Playstation Platforms). Stadia's game performance can be upscaled and upgraded to run faster and better at faster intervals. Playstation has arguably the best library, but Stadia's infrastructure offers the chance to developers to free themselves from console hardware limitations. This may attract new exclusive titles on Stadia. All multiplatform titles might be able to run better on Stadia platform. Only Sony's first party games will be the main differentiation. This time though the Playstation will face a competitor that offers access to magnitudes stronger hardware to almost everyone. Now games and performance that only the most hardcore PC gamers used to enjoy will become known and accessible to the average joe. Exclusive unique games that used to make jaws drop on Playstation might potentially come face to face with equally impressive titles on Stadia. Access to Stadia will be reminded through the most famous websites and apps at every opportunity and the user will have immediate direct access.
PS Now requires first to be known, downloaded separately, and accessed separately.
Console hardware will become relatively obsolete faster due to Stadia.

You mean it's first party studios will be making games on PC?
Curious if this will either shrink or help Sony's gaming division grow. Now they get profit from their own games, some hardware and royalties from third parties. Making games for PC means they will be getting profits from their own games only. Only if their games reach a much bigger audience with your suggestion they might be better off.
Future will tell.

 

agreed, they have the

cloud is always being upgraded. You don’t even know when it’s happening. It’s just a roll out and more resources are available.

For new technology to be released in console land you need a full generation, new supply deals, new everything. It’s significantly more work than upgrading blades. You can upgrade the network and they don’t need to announce when they are upgrading until it’s rolled out. Traditional consoles need to market, package and price the product, use channels and all sorts of different avenues to grow the platform. Google doesn’t and it’s much easier in that respect to just upgrade blades. A new blade will take a couple minutes to install and that might be 4-6 chips per blade. You can do a cabinet Pretty fast.

You know exactly how many blades you need. You know when you need them so subtract seasonality. You don’t have customers complaining about noise or how it looks or build quality. You don’t need to deal with returns.

Overall much less of a headache. Assuming your service is selling, but that’s not different from being able to sell your console and then sell the games.

 

Why can't the console play games locally? 10.7 Tflops is capable of 1440p 60Hz or even 4K 30fps for most AAA games.

Besides, if this console only streams games, why does it need 10.7 Tflops?

 

Because it doesnt exist ... There is no Console for Google. There is no consumer unit. There is only a Google Stadia Controller.

 

Console gamers pay for the hardware, so for the traditional platforms there's r&d and maybe small upfront loss per console which soon breaks even and then turns into revenue per unit sold.

For Stadia Google is continually absorbing the costs for hardware and future upgrades. ROI could stay negative unless Google passes some minimum threshold of viability, at which point they can scale hardware to demand to keep ROI positive.
We simply don't know whether Google will refresh the hardware at a rate that will far outpace traditional consoles, especially given the success of mid gen console updates.

 

It's maybe a bit of a balancing act with the on-going operational support costs of the division (e.g. online services, platform updates, tech support/call centre services, marketing/events, warranty, Cerny's rubber ducks, @Graham's carpet cleaning bill, Phil's shirts etc.) where the other revenue streams include the royalties per game sold and subscriptions.

Stagnant prices in the face of inflation or higher wages and better/more services isn't great, but seemingly manageable for the time being.

hm.

 

Google can amortize the cost of the hardware on multiple subscribers because they won't all be playing at the same time.

Further, with virtual GPUs a single GPU can run mulitple games simultaneously. Google can run 5 instances of Castle Crasher on the same GPU that runs one instance of Medal of Duty 8.

Cheers

 

I see a lot of people complaining about how you could never play competitive multiplayer over game streaming. I get that there would be input lag yet at the same time wouldn't this effective kill P2P connections for multiplayer. I mean if the game is already running in the data center wouldn't it just make sense to have it act as the host as well.

 

Yes.
I guess it would be more accurate to say the type of input latency changed. Instead of getting shot and you die behind a wall (because on their screen they're still shooting) -- your inputs may not get you to the wall in time.