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

And MS provide Sony cloud with Azure.

https://news.microsoft.com/2019/05/16/sony-and-microsoft-to-explore-strategic-partnership/

 

The reason movie theatres still exist is because the experience simply cannot be recreated 1-to-1....unless you foresee a future where every house attaches an IMAX theatre. Not to mention there is a large social aspect of going to the movies.

Physical media for movies and music on the other hand are becoming increasingly niche for the masses. Can't remember the last time I bought either.

I think PC gaming is the gaming equivalent of videophiles for movies or audiophiles for music that will stick with local hardware. Consoles on the other hand I think is at a risk to be replaced by streaming.

 

Yea. Well that’s not quite a solidified deal yet as we know it. But indeed MS would be more than willing to provide that service to them.

 

Phil's point is valid though...I think network infrastructure will be a key part of a gaming platform in the future...and those that don't have it will either fail or have to join forces with someone that does . People shit on Stadia but it's Googles platform at the end of the day. Where as Geforce Now is uses Windows and 3rd party stores. I'm not sure that type of fractured platform is going to work long term..

Which is why we could really start to see some big moves in terms of mergers/buyouts between game companies and cloud computing companies....

 

This other quote in the same interview with Phil was pretty interesting:

They've been eyeing this a long time.

 

Nvidia will happily sell gfx cards to Google too.

 

And benefits from both being able to run your own game locally without any latency and at any graphics level your gaming PC is capable of, stream it to your big TV via Shield, and run it remotely on the go using their infrastructure. It's like a holy trinity but the whole idea is a fairly niche market compared to what Stadia is trying to do.

 

I have tried Nvidia Now. I was very impressed by the whole experience. Very. Granted the compression was horrible because my Internet is very slow (but I have a rather good ping). But everything else was surprinsingly great, borderline perfect.

I think running the game on the server at a ridiculously high framerate (like >144fps) helps a lot to reduce the latency. This is where PC based cloud services have a big advantage compared to the ones based on hardware (PS4, XB1) running at 30fps-60fps (usually 30fps).

Honesly I was rather surprised that I could even play with my slow Internet (around 4Mbit/s). their network tech is really good.

 

Like Stadia? *cough*

 

Indeed, let me rephrase that part:

*have theoretically a big advantage

 

is it like stadia, where you still have to buy the games ? Or more like PSNow/netflix, just a monthly sub and then access to a free catalog of games ?

 

You need to already own the game on steam or epic store. You select the store when you select the game and the Geforce server will load the client and from there it's as if you were on your own PC. connect to your store, install the game, play. So you get all the achievements and such on your usual store.

This is great because you don't need to buy the game on another store than Steam (for most people). I can already see Geforce Now being very successful and one of the main streaming service in a few years. It's that good.

PS Now for exclusives and Geforce Now for PC multiplats. This is how I see the future of streaming for the next few years.

 

You can also use a low end PC (or Linux or Mac) to stream from a gaming PC to your TV through Steam. Works pretty good from my experience. Or stream to a laptop from your gaming PC. I still prefer it local though. Even the little bit of latency from local streaming throws me off for action games. Similar to NV's local streaming.

Considering the lengths to which Valve will go to make gaming convenient and easy for gamers (even LAN over Internet), I'm somewhat surprised that they aren't working on some kind of streaming service that would allow you to stream games you own to any device and not only to local devices. Or at least if they ARE working on it, they haven't announced anything. This would seem like a natural progression of their storefront.

Regards,
SB

 

I just don't think streaming is going to be as big as people think.
I think it will be a nice thing to have for certain use cases but it relies on you being within 500km of a data center.

I just don't see local Hardware dying I mean why would you want people to stop paying you for hardware and covering there own electricity usage.

I mean the amount of hardware you need to have to cover for when some big game releases so that everything works and then one month later fifty percent of your hardware sits idle.

 

The last statement of Spencer that they see Amazon and Google as their real competitor is completely baseless and stupid. If really hope they say this because they know they can only compete with them.

For gaming services, the market leaders in the short term future will be Sony, Valve / Nvidia (I see those 2 as a combined service, Valve providing the store, Nvidia the streaming tech). Those should be their real competitor, not Amazon (they have game services ?) and Google (LOL Stadia).

 

Well, the market will sort it out. This cost (hardware, electricity) will pass to consumers.

They could offer and will offer a local solution, but with streaming the barrier of entry is much lower, hence potentially reaching a broader market.

That´s key to success, Google and Ms* for that matter, are using those servers for other purposes, not just gaming.

* Xcloud now it´s just xbox one s blades, but for Scarlett I remember they designed with this scenario in mind.

 

Here Nvidia has an incredibly underrated advantage. When Google / MS have to buy GCN or RDNA GPUs, Nvidia can rely on their own power efficient cards at factory cost.

 

How are Nvidia going to set up a data centre network to rival Microsoft's?

Google and Amazon have the capacity and infrastructure, but without serious investment Nvidia won't have the global reach that the big three cloud providers have. And they don't have a subscription content service like MS do.

I see Nvidia's offering as being very useful for some PC gamers, but struggling with the broader market that doesn't game seriously on PC, doesn't know what a GeForce is, and wants content bundled in with their subscription.

Sony are smartly partnering with MS and piggybacking off their capability and experience.

 

Reviewing Spencer's words:

Is an important focal point as to why MS does not consider Sony or Nintendo their competitors anymore. If you look at other interviews with MS executives, they in particular, cite an important metric: the most reach they could ever obtain in console land is 100M units. This is the upper end of what Sony has accomplished with PS2 and PS4, PS3 etc. If Sony is best in class, then best in class is approximately 100M.

In perspective there are 2.8 Billion gamers out their on mobile devices, 7 Billion world wide that will own a mobile phone. That is a 28x or 70x difference in scale in comparison to the absolute best that which you can accomplish with consoles.
In order to reach a number of 2.8B or 7B the infrastructure costs are so exuberant that even today at a spending rate of $1B USD / month MS still cannot reach everyone with their Azure service, far from actually.

Unless Nvidia or other players are willing to invest the amounts that Amazon, Google and MS are; I believe that Phil is correct in pointing out the realities that they are no longer real competitors as they are not competing for the same market.

The build towards XCloud is indeed shared with Azure. They have full reason to continue to exploit building SoCs for their own Azure use because Intel chips are incredibly too expensive. This is why MS continues to announce partnerships with AMD and their EPYC, and AMD again for their APU builds, to exert pressure on Intel to lower costs.

in terms of infrastructure costs, hardware isn't actually as expensive as one would think. Laying cables and building data centers: the cooling, real-estate, labour, time, and electricity costs may greatly (depending on the location) exceed hardware costs.
Consider which companies would be able to fund these types of endeavours and you'll arrive to the same conclusion.

The reason MS continues to compete in the console and PC space is fairly straight forward. It's still currently the largest ROI in gaming today. That's where the studios will make their money so that is where they will make their games. As long as the games are being made, MS has a library, and as long as MS makes the tools to move their games to xcloud, then there is a win for both studio and MS.

This is their game plan. They must stay in the console space either forever or until the console space is no longer relevant for studios to develop games for.

 

So would Amazon and Google. As a customer wanting cloud services, Sony will their business to whichever service is best for their business. The MoU only committed both companies to explore using Azure. I think most folks at the time felt it was rather intangible announcement.