I know this topic has been discussed to death several times before but i'm starting to view it from a different angle. A lot of people have come to accept the notion that "everything will be in the cloud" but i beg to differ. Before we get started though, i will post a youtube video that got me thinking about this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BU0PkOtzcg
In this video ReviewTechUSA discusses the issues associated with cloud gaming and provides his though on tangible software vs "permission to stream the game". Give this video a watch as i think its interesting.
Anyway, let get started.
There are several reasons why i do not believe in a future where every thing is streamed but the most important reason to me is that it makes absolutely no sense. In the case of movies, we are dealing with static data as in a video that is streamed to you and the interaction is minimal.
Here are the reasons why it makes absolutely no sense:
1) Cost
2) Computational Power and Developer Requirements
3) Tangible vs Intangible software
Cost:
When i look at cost, i look at it from the service provider's pov. The investment into the hardware required is monumental. It is not a static cost but one that is always increasing. I view consoles as a way of passing on some of the associated risks of the console business to consumers. There is still a great risk when releasing new consoles but if a console is successful, it will pay for itself. The best examples of this are the PS1, PS2 and the Wii.
A lot of people seem to believe that streaming is the future. In the video above, the guy is sad that everything will be lost and the end of conventional gaming is over. Like i said, there are several aspects to this discussion that have been overlooked. Lets take a look at PS Now, it is a service designed to stream ps1, ps2 and ps3 games to consumers through various pieces of hardware that they may already possess. It has been an expensive investment for sony and they will be looking to make a serious profit on it. I look at the cloud streaming of games as a dead end. Why should a company spend that much money in investing into a service that people can cancel their subscription? If you purchase a console, you can not unsubscribe. You have already made the investment. You can choose to sell your console if you like but the company has already received the initial payment. Purchasing a console is an investment into the platform's future. The greater the sales, the more likely it is to be successful. In the case of the cloud, if you invest billions into the infrastructure and nobody uses it, you are screwed. You can try to market the service and drop the price of entry but if people don't want it, you are left to bear the burden of the whole cost. You could use the hardware for something else and but you more than likely don't need the hardware you purchased.
Another thing we seem to ignore is competition in the market place. Competition only reduces the prices consumers have to pay and that in turn will lead to a longer wait time for you ROI. People seem to assume that publishers will all line up and use the streaming service/services provided by the companies like sony or microsoft. What is stopping a company like EA from launching their own service like they did with Origin?
Just before i wrap up, we have been working under the assumption that the computational budget for games is capped. Games continue to need more power to evolve. This means that operating the service is a continuous investment. A lot of the advantages of console development will be lost. My guess is that a VM's will run on the servers and no game will have direct access to the hardware itself increasing the overhead and decreasing the performance.
Anyway that is all i have to say on cost.
Computational Power and Developer Requirements:
I briefly touched on this at the end of my last paragraph but lets look at this in detail. Again PS now does not require too much computational power for ps1 and ps2 games but emulating ps3 games either requires the cell processor itself or emulation of the cell processor. Right now, the average(not gaf average but worldwide average) computer cannot emulate the cell. We all saw what happened when the ps3/360 generation ran on for too long. Sales dipped like crazy and are just recovering due to the launch of new hardware. Do we envision a future where graphics peak and there is no need to invest in new hardware? Will the industry become stagnant like the movie industry? Who knows but in the near future, i believe that games will continue to need more power as they grow in size. This will require a continual investment into hardware with no guarantee of a return. I really don't have much else to say on this topic so please chime in with your opinions.
Tangible vs Intangible software:
This is the most important part of the equation to me. We had a period where some claimed that digital was the future and then the new consoles came out. People had to download 49gb of data for nba 2k14 and it took almost a day for some people. At times they lost connection to Sony's servers. People always point to the iphone as proof that people will pay intangible software but they still own that software in a way. It is stored directly on the phone and can be accessed at anytime. The prices of digital games are also low because companies recognize that consumers are extremely sensitive to prices when it comes to digital content. We can still rationalize paying $60 for a digital game because it is stored on your harddrive. What happens when all the data is stored in the cloud and all you get is a video feed? Can you still rationalize paying $60 for a game. I certainly can't. In fact, i can't rationalize paying $1 for PS Now because is sony goes belly up, so does my money.
It is kinda similar to office 365 for me. Office 365 is a microsoft office subscription for 365 days. I can't envision a period in my life where i won't need microsoft office so why would i pay for office 365. Microsoft word 2003 files still work on office 2010 so why on earth would i subscribe for one year if i could purchase a version of office and use it for 7 years? It seems very pointless to me. This is why i cannot rationalize spending money on a cloud streaming service like PS Now.
I know a lot of people will point to netflix but lets look at it this way. Netflix is an option but physical media exists and will always exist. You can also choose to download you movies to your computer or transfer them from your computer to other devices. Netflix works because it provides you access to a vast library of movies for a low monthly price. If most of the movie on netflix were released again in a physical format, they would make little to no money. Netflix is an avenue for movie producers/publishers to continue to make some sort of profit from old movies. Games are very different from movies because they are interactive entertainment. People still play cod 4 every day and that game is OLD. I don't know any person who has watched the same old movie everyday for the last 5 years. People would call them crazy. It would be pointless because after the first year, you would know the whole script by heart.
Conclusion:
I have made a lot of assumptions here but feel free to chime in because i really would like to know what people think about this. I firmly believe that streaming games is a dead end. It won't be massive and might be an expensive mistake for sony. It is only good for old games and people will get tired of it after a while. If sony was smart, they would use gaikai to tie together, music unlimited and video unlimited to launch a competitor to netlflix. Onlive didn't catch on, Gaikai didn't catch on and neither will PS Now.
Disclaimer:
I do not hate sony but i only mention them because they are the only Console manufacturer exploring this option. I do own a ps4 and feel free to disregard my opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BU0PkOtzcg
In this video ReviewTechUSA discusses the issues associated with cloud gaming and provides his though on tangible software vs "permission to stream the game". Give this video a watch as i think its interesting.
Anyway, let get started.
There are several reasons why i do not believe in a future where every thing is streamed but the most important reason to me is that it makes absolutely no sense. In the case of movies, we are dealing with static data as in a video that is streamed to you and the interaction is minimal.
Here are the reasons why it makes absolutely no sense:
1) Cost
2) Computational Power and Developer Requirements
3) Tangible vs Intangible software
Cost:
When i look at cost, i look at it from the service provider's pov. The investment into the hardware required is monumental. It is not a static cost but one that is always increasing. I view consoles as a way of passing on some of the associated risks of the console business to consumers. There is still a great risk when releasing new consoles but if a console is successful, it will pay for itself. The best examples of this are the PS1, PS2 and the Wii.
A lot of people seem to believe that streaming is the future. In the video above, the guy is sad that everything will be lost and the end of conventional gaming is over. Like i said, there are several aspects to this discussion that have been overlooked. Lets take a look at PS Now, it is a service designed to stream ps1, ps2 and ps3 games to consumers through various pieces of hardware that they may already possess. It has been an expensive investment for sony and they will be looking to make a serious profit on it. I look at the cloud streaming of games as a dead end. Why should a company spend that much money in investing into a service that people can cancel their subscription? If you purchase a console, you can not unsubscribe. You have already made the investment. You can choose to sell your console if you like but the company has already received the initial payment. Purchasing a console is an investment into the platform's future. The greater the sales, the more likely it is to be successful. In the case of the cloud, if you invest billions into the infrastructure and nobody uses it, you are screwed. You can try to market the service and drop the price of entry but if people don't want it, you are left to bear the burden of the whole cost. You could use the hardware for something else and but you more than likely don't need the hardware you purchased.
Another thing we seem to ignore is competition in the market place. Competition only reduces the prices consumers have to pay and that in turn will lead to a longer wait time for you ROI. People seem to assume that publishers will all line up and use the streaming service/services provided by the companies like sony or microsoft. What is stopping a company like EA from launching their own service like they did with Origin?
Just before i wrap up, we have been working under the assumption that the computational budget for games is capped. Games continue to need more power to evolve. This means that operating the service is a continuous investment. A lot of the advantages of console development will be lost. My guess is that a VM's will run on the servers and no game will have direct access to the hardware itself increasing the overhead and decreasing the performance.
Anyway that is all i have to say on cost.
Computational Power and Developer Requirements:
I briefly touched on this at the end of my last paragraph but lets look at this in detail. Again PS now does not require too much computational power for ps1 and ps2 games but emulating ps3 games either requires the cell processor itself or emulation of the cell processor. Right now, the average(not gaf average but worldwide average) computer cannot emulate the cell. We all saw what happened when the ps3/360 generation ran on for too long. Sales dipped like crazy and are just recovering due to the launch of new hardware. Do we envision a future where graphics peak and there is no need to invest in new hardware? Will the industry become stagnant like the movie industry? Who knows but in the near future, i believe that games will continue to need more power as they grow in size. This will require a continual investment into hardware with no guarantee of a return. I really don't have much else to say on this topic so please chime in with your opinions.
Tangible vs Intangible software:
This is the most important part of the equation to me. We had a period where some claimed that digital was the future and then the new consoles came out. People had to download 49gb of data for nba 2k14 and it took almost a day for some people. At times they lost connection to Sony's servers. People always point to the iphone as proof that people will pay intangible software but they still own that software in a way. It is stored directly on the phone and can be accessed at anytime. The prices of digital games are also low because companies recognize that consumers are extremely sensitive to prices when it comes to digital content. We can still rationalize paying $60 for a digital game because it is stored on your harddrive. What happens when all the data is stored in the cloud and all you get is a video feed? Can you still rationalize paying $60 for a game. I certainly can't. In fact, i can't rationalize paying $1 for PS Now because is sony goes belly up, so does my money.
It is kinda similar to office 365 for me. Office 365 is a microsoft office subscription for 365 days. I can't envision a period in my life where i won't need microsoft office so why would i pay for office 365. Microsoft word 2003 files still work on office 2010 so why on earth would i subscribe for one year if i could purchase a version of office and use it for 7 years? It seems very pointless to me. This is why i cannot rationalize spending money on a cloud streaming service like PS Now.
I know a lot of people will point to netflix but lets look at it this way. Netflix is an option but physical media exists and will always exist. You can also choose to download you movies to your computer or transfer them from your computer to other devices. Netflix works because it provides you access to a vast library of movies for a low monthly price. If most of the movie on netflix were released again in a physical format, they would make little to no money. Netflix is an avenue for movie producers/publishers to continue to make some sort of profit from old movies. Games are very different from movies because they are interactive entertainment. People still play cod 4 every day and that game is OLD. I don't know any person who has watched the same old movie everyday for the last 5 years. People would call them crazy. It would be pointless because after the first year, you would know the whole script by heart.
Conclusion:
I have made a lot of assumptions here but feel free to chime in because i really would like to know what people think about this. I firmly believe that streaming games is a dead end. It won't be massive and might be an expensive mistake for sony. It is only good for old games and people will get tired of it after a while. If sony was smart, they would use gaikai to tie together, music unlimited and video unlimited to launch a competitor to netlflix. Onlive didn't catch on, Gaikai didn't catch on and neither will PS Now.
Disclaimer:
I do not hate sony but i only mention them because they are the only Console manufacturer exploring this option. I do own a ps4 and feel free to disregard my opinion.
