Cost of upgrading the data centres with 1X hardware, to then upgrade them to next gen, which i expect to be bc anyway.
hence why I'm saying next gen hardware isn't close enough to put off the upgrade to allow streaming.
Streaming Games from the Cloud
- Thread starter Arwin
- Start date
hence why I'm saying next gen hardware isn't close enough to put off the upgrade to allow streaming.
now that you mention certain devices.., don't you think that these services are going to be the death of Switch?
Phones aren't using 4K resolution though. So the need for next-gen hardware may not be a factor here.
And, what we are seeing can still be the beginnings of a streaming service. You don't want your next-gen hardware pushing out graphics for Xbox One/360/OG XBox titles. That's a waste of that expensive hardware. You want the XBO to support that. SO if there is a next gen streaming service, they want their next gen hardware dedicated to supporting next gen games. And when 'older' gen games are being used, you'd want older gen hardware to support that.
All of this as a pilot makes sense, especially as you navigate the terrain, it's good to learn from things now, before investing big and failing.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
I hope you are right, but with streaming breaking down the compatibility barriers, companies will look at it as a way to decrease expenses.
Besides, hardware specs are irrelevant in streaming, meaning some games might not be able to run locally. As such, I see this as a threat to the current business model we all use and love. It may not kill it, but it will change it forever and not for the better.
hmmm....
I'm seeing streaming more so as an entry level next gen device, able to stream next gen, current, and bc games to not just phones and tablets, but to tv's also.
Not so much as just being able to stream current games to phones.
They could roll all this out (out of beta), then launch next gen 6months later, and their streaming hardware is previous gen.
unless they mandate forward compatibility, which i think their walking back from.
if this all happened last year or so, it would make more sense to me as next gen would still be far enough away.
That's why i think it means next gen hardware is far enough away to justify not waiting.
although it's also possible that they could roll this out, and enough games would still be running on x1 hardware to justify having a mix of current and next gen hardware in the data centres. This makes sense to me.
If their goal is to never lose their catalog of games for players, and they can play games up and down the line. Somewhere, somehow they're going to need to support these older titles in a financially efficient way.
I suspect that this is probably the most cost effective way of doing things, I can't imagine putting Xbox One hardware into a server blade as being 'ideal performance', but it certainly sounds like the easiest, most straight forward, financially feasible solution.
You could actually use the XB1 boards for general Azure VMs. You would have to write a lot of custom SW to use the PS3s though...
DF Article on xCloud -- https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...icrosoft-make-a-streaming-platform-that-works
Project xCloud: can Microsoft make a streaming platform that works?
The DF take on the new Xbox announcement.
It's no coincidence that less than one week after Google announced Project Stream, Microsoft has broken cover with more details on its own streaming platform, dubbed Project xCloud. The core idea behind both platforms is the same - and very familiar to longer term readers of this site. Rather than buy a console and play games on it, titles are hosted on the cloud instead. The user has a basic client device that beams input commands over the internet, with video and audio streamed back. The concept is simple - Netflix for games - but the application is somewhat more challenging. Prior attempts at getting this to work have fallen flat but Microsoft, Google - and other unannounced players - reckon that the time is right for the technology to work.
...
Project xCloud: can Microsoft make a streaming platform that works?
The DF take on the new Xbox announcement.
It's no coincidence that less than one week after Google announced Project Stream, Microsoft has broken cover with more details on its own streaming platform, dubbed Project xCloud. The core idea behind both platforms is the same - and very familiar to longer term readers of this site. Rather than buy a console and play games on it, titles are hosted on the cloud instead. The user has a basic client device that beams input commands over the internet, with video and audio streamed back. The concept is simple - Netflix for games - but the application is somewhat more challenging. Prior attempts at getting this to work have fallen flat but Microsoft, Google - and other unannounced players - reckon that the time is right for the technology to work.
...
More EU counties coming to PlaystationNow streaming service Calling players from Spain, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
This is not just cloud-streaming platform anymore, PS4 consoles can download PS4/PS2 games on a harddrive and play offline. PC machines has only the cloud-stream gaming option.
PS4 downloads can play offline for 7 days until a network is needed for a subscription check. 12-month subscription is $99.99 so buying three new bluray games is annually more expensive.
This is not just cloud-streaming platform anymore, PS4 consoles can download PS4/PS2 games on a harddrive and play offline. PC machines has only the cloud-stream gaming option.
PS4 downloads can play offline for 7 days until a network is needed for a subscription check. 12-month subscription is $99.99 so buying three new bluray games is annually more expensive.
Streaming games is bad for gamers on so many possible ways
It's 4.75$/month
I personally don't spend more than 30$ a month on videogames. The good thing is that it's not mandatory, I can share games with friends, wait for sales and sell my games. You can do whatever you want and make your gaming fit your money availability.
Netflix HD subscription is 13$/month, almost three times for a service that is extremely cheaper than running high end realtime graphics applications with low latency.
We have all seeing how Netflix is raising its prices every year while cutting content (licensed) and increasing its huge debt to produce original content of questionable quality (Remember, with subscriptions, you cannot vote with your wallet because you are not purchasing products)
- Always online.
- No ownership of games.
- If subscription is necessary then it can go up as much as the platform holders want to. We are already paying lots of money just to be able to play online (Publishers pay for the actual game servers).
- If subscription is not necessary the we will be paying for something we don't own.
- Lack of persistency of services.
- Limited technical growth because a 2D platform is much cheaper to run than Crysis 4.
- Many dangerous side effects against creativity, diversity and pricing if a Netflix-like subscription model becomes the standard.
It's 4.75$/month
I personally don't spend more than 30$ a month on videogames. The good thing is that it's not mandatory, I can share games with friends, wait for sales and sell my games. You can do whatever you want and make your gaming fit your money availability.
Netflix HD subscription is 13$/month, almost three times for a service that is extremely cheaper than running high end realtime graphics applications with low latency.
We have all seeing how Netflix is raising its prices every year while cutting content (licensed) and increasing its huge debt to produce original content of questionable quality (Remember, with subscriptions, you cannot vote with your wallet because you are not purchasing products)
You can vote with your wallet on a sub, if you don't buy or cancel.
I'm not sure netflix has been cutting content, I believe they are now the largest producer of 'TV' content, not many years ago they produced none.
While there are reasons to not like a sub model Netflix has actually ushered in an era with way more original content being produced than ever before. The cable sub model was much less desirable where you watch what they want.
Not owning or having access to that content is a tradeoff, but I can see upsides if the console industry parodies Netflix.
I'm not sure netflix has been cutting content, I believe they are now the largest producer of 'TV' content, not many years ago they produced none.
While there are reasons to not like a sub model Netflix has actually ushered in an era with way more original content being produced than ever before. The cable sub model was much less desirable where you watch what they want.
Not owning or having access to that content is a tradeoff, but I can see upsides if the console industry parodies Netflix.
You do realise all of that applies to streaming movies from Netflix et al versus buying discs, right?
Is that true? Versus physical, sure, but versus digital downloads?
Likely. You don’t have to expend the energy on destination hardware from manufacturing to transport. If you consider the entire carbon chain to mine all the metals, ship the metals. Construction the pieces. Ship the pieces. Assemble the hard drive. Ship to packaging. Packing materials. Ship to warehouses. Warehouses ship to retail. Customers buy at retail.
Gonna take a hell of a lot of carbon footprint in digital downloads to equate to that.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'd like to see your numbers because as somebody who manages several server farms, the energy/environmental argument is a big barrier to building new farms. It's not the energy used by the servers but the energy required by the cooling them all which is disproportionately large. Much local client hardware, including consoles, are not particularly energy efficient so your burning energy everywhere.
In terms of energy, cloud streaming requires
1) build and transport servers
2) build and transport client hardware
3) operate servers, including running them even when no-one's using them - can't put them into standby
4) operate internet backbone for streaming many gigabytes an hour
Local gaming (download titles) requires
1) build and transport consoles
2) operate consoles in the home
3) operate servers and internet backbone long enough for the download
If the energy of the server farms is more efficient, then it may be the case, but I don't think it's a shoe in. As DSoup says, all that heat in one place means additional cooling costs that are mitigated when the processing is spread out across everyone's homes. You ought be looking at approximately the same amount of energy to run the games at the same node tech. And the internet backbone to shift all that data won't be insignificant in power demands.
For multiplayer gaming, cloud computing may be more efficient as you have to run a lot of the same hardware anyways, although peer-to-peer over the internet is still much less data than video streaming to all the players.
1) build and transport servers
2) build and transport client hardware
3) operate servers, including running them even when no-one's using them - can't put them into standby
4) operate internet backbone for streaming many gigabytes an hour
Local gaming (download titles) requires
1) build and transport consoles
2) operate consoles in the home
3) operate servers and internet backbone long enough for the download
If the energy of the server farms is more efficient, then it may be the case, but I don't think it's a shoe in. As DSoup says, all that heat in one place means additional cooling costs that are mitigated when the processing is spread out across everyone's homes. You ought be looking at approximately the same amount of energy to run the games at the same node tech. And the internet backbone to shift all that data won't be insignificant in power demands.
For multiplayer gaming, cloud computing may be more efficient as you have to run a lot of the same hardware anyways, although peer-to-peer over the internet is still much less data than video streaming to all the players.
Last edited:
Is the following true? Based on statements from Google, Apple, Amazon and others talking about their new data center buildouts it seems true:
Datacenters are more likely to be "green"/powered by renewable energy than individual homes. It saves the companies millions of dollars, so they're investing in those improvements.
Datacenters are more likely to be "green"/powered by renewable energy than individual homes. It saves the companies millions of dollars, so they're investing in those improvements.
Similar threads
