Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
I know all of that and also said direct comparisons are nonesense...
The OP was absurd so i gave absurd examples.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Article: CLOUD GAMING CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO REPLACE LOCAL GAMING!!!
- Thread starter svbarnard
- Start date
The OP was absurd so i gave absurd examples.
GHG
Member
BOOM !
Physical vs cloud are nonsense though.
These datas just prove that better performances on local hardware isn't automatic and it's not proven the global difference will be worse,
especially in a world where Nintendo is leader in terms of console sales.(in revenues Sony beats them but high price of the PS5 is taken into account).
My point is that a console with a load of 30FPS games ( Destiny 2 on Series X is beaten by GFN, cannot imagine the outcome for a Switch version), blurry image.
If local is automatically better than cloud, then let's compare GFN 3080 tier vs Switch games.
The top tier cloud is beaten by 1500 bucks PC but it crushes PS5. Period
The difference is that the input lag on local hardware is measurable, consistent and repeatable no matter where you're playing in the world.
That isn't the case for cloud gaming and never will be. In this instance it's disingenuous to use best case scenario figures as if they are applicable across the board.
Schmick
Member
Its not trash and i'm not lying. I actually use it.
Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
The question is why didn't you point out the disingenuous OP in the first place...
Of course, i agree that there are too many factors to check but... The OP didn't mention them since the beginning.
There are many types of local gaming and many types of cloud gaming.
Direct comparison is absurd.(i said it already in the post you quoted
Last edited:
rofif
Canāt Git Gud
This is some bs
BOOM !
Physical vs cloud are nonsense though.
These datas just prove that better performances on local hardware isn't automatic and it's not proven the global difference will be worse,
especially in a world where Nintendo is leader in terms of console sales.(in revenues Sony beats them but high price of the PS5 is taken into account).
My point is that a console with a load of 30FPS games ( Destiny 2 on Series X is beaten by GFN, cannot imagine the outcome for a Switch version), blurry image.
If local is automatically better than cloud, then let's compare GFN 3080 tier vs Switch games.
The top tier cloud is beaten by 1500 bucks PC but it crushes PS5. Period
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Yep, thatās not even best-case scenario for cloud vs console, which would be 120fps cloud on 3080 vs 30fps/60fps on console.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
The question is why didn't you point out the disingenuous OP in the first place...
Of course, i agree that there are too many factors to check but... The OP didn't mention them since the beginning.
There are many types of local gaming and many types of cloud gaming.
Direct comparison is absurd.(i said it already in the post you quoted
The OP is the truth, you just can't handle it.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
I don't think it will, because would buying PC hardware for data centres really be cheaper then custom hardware? For sony/Microsoft.
RainblowDash
Gold Member
Hate to be pessimistic but this very well may be the future as connections get faster and faster and ownership of things becomes more bound to use licensesā¦
Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
"Truth" ? Is it a kind of religion here ?
I prefere talking about "facts".
OP: "Regardless, hardware gaming will always be faster than cloud gaming."
All i'm saying is that this OP is too vague.
Describing real variations of cloud gaming is not the problem. The problem is this conclusion... It doesn't mean anything without concrete comparisons: For instance, i doubt Switch player will have better IQ and latency than a GFN3080 player on most games... That's why it doesn't mean anything in the first place. It's also easy to point out that most people on earth don't have the best cloud experience. Well, most local hardware gamers play on PS4, Switch and mobile (not on PS5, RTX 3090 either) which most won't run Cyperpunk at a steady 30FPS (Judgment on ps4 has a bad latency because of 25FPS. Even with my 20 mbps internet in a small town far from the datacenter located in another country i had better results on Stadia than ps4. 60 fps power....)
Keep in mind the lowest blades for cloud rivals are quite decent : It's a 10 tera flop hardware running even the free tier (it allows 60fps very often), GTX 2080 (?) for the GFN free tier, Series X for Xcloud (in fact, Series S settings, i believe).
In Western countries, millions of people have decent results and it's gonna be better and better as long as data centers are being made, gov change the old and expensive copper lines (studies from europe), GAFAM enhance their tech...
Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
Don't be pessimistic, it will coexist:
Mobile games didn't kill console for instance (both market are growing)...
Plus, several Cloud Services are hybrid and don't replace local gaming: GFN doesn't have it's own store and rely on Steam, EGS, GOG, adding a layer of sub on them...
Xcloud doesn't replace the Xbox, you can use local or cloud gaming with the Gamepass Ultimate.
Gamers have a strong voice. They said NO to the OG Xbox One and it worked...
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Game streaming can exist, but it should NEVER replace traditional gaming. The input lag doesnāt concern me as much as the lack of ownership and game preservation. You going to spend all that money to deal with input lag, less clarity, internet going down and not having anything to show for it when the servers inevitably get taken down. Streaming can work better for movies and music because they donāt have to deal with things like latency.
Companies are mostly pushing streaming and subscription services because they want your money, yet they donāt want you to own anything imho. If streaming ever took over from regular gaming, Iām done with modern gaming.
Companies are mostly pushing streaming and subscription services because they want your money, yet they donāt want you to own anything imho. If streaming ever took over from regular gaming, Iām done with modern gaming.
Topher
Gold Member
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Valid points, but I think some console gamers are just as hardcore. For example, I donāt think itās coincidence that most gamers seemingly prefer and purchase the disc based consoles over their digital counterparts. Also, to my knowledge the online competitive community is huge on consoles. Not sure if most gamers would tolerate input lag in their fighting games, COD, Fortnite and shooters if itās interfering with their performance competitively. At least I hope they wouldnāt because admittedly there are a healthy number of casuals as well that probably will accept it.
Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
A lot of BS in this thread but yeah this one is legit.
Nonetheless, there are several cloud services, several business models.
GFN, Boosteroid, Shadow are not really a pob for game preservation. You still buy your games on traditional stores and they can be played on local hardware as always.
Stadia is a pob, that's true. The Stadia team will have to find solutions...
Last edited:
12Dannu123
Member
Both options will co-exist, there are benefits of both Cloud Gaming and 'Local gaming'. They both cater to different audiences and solve different problems. While there are people who think that Cloud Gaming is bad for gaming as a whole, the problem local gaming needs to solve is the increasing cost of consoles, PCs and especially the increased download sizes for it to be viable in the long term for the mainstream audience.
No one enjoys waiting for downloads. Like people are saying here, convenience of not needing to download the whole game to play is not to be understated.
No one enjoys waiting for downloads. Like people are saying here, convenience of not needing to download the whole game to play is not to be understated.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
I agree. I don't think companies pushing cloud gaming are looking to replace anything. They are looking to expand the market by removing obstacles such as hardware costs as you say. Good points.
Gamer79
Predicts the worst decade for Sony starting 2022
I was saying this months ago and some mod put this label on me. I am not a fan of cloud gaming but if they offer a cloud gaming box at say $99 vs buying the hardware for $500+ it's going to be a no brainer. If the cloud based system works or really close to a main system the cheaper system will sell. This also could stop shortages.
The main issue with the ps5 shortages is the amount of components involved with the whole machine. If you could make a simple cloused based box with a simple to make design it could easily be made 10x or more faster. Cloud gaming still has some issues but it's getting really close. If you try geforce now it's fantastic to any platform except for racing games or fps. The ps6 could or maybe even will have a cloud based option.
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Very true.Just like home consoles allow access to the game files...Right? Right??
And even now input lag is relatively unnoticeable. It is already good enough for a lot of locations so it will be fine. Convenience will win.
Does that many people even care bout ownership or preservation? Convenience will always win and inability to play Daggerfall from the disk right now without dealing with Dosbox or whatever does not matter for a lot of consumers.
So many luddites on the forums
Topher
Gold Member
Input lag isn't as bad on GFN, but the visual quality, even playing a game on their 3080 tier, is not nearly as crisp. Either way, it isn't just a matter of buying a $99 cloud device. GFN is going to cost $100 to $200 a year for anyone who wants to have immediate access to a cloud server. That's may be good value compared to buying a gaming PC, but debatable when compared to buying a console. Essentially it is rent vs buy all over again. At the beginning of year two, those who opted for GFN's top tier could have paid for a PS5 or XSX.
Klayzer
Member
I agree totally with your assessment of the real issues (ownership and control), but quite a few look at this hobby as just disposable entertainment. Its unfortunate, millions just doesn't care.
Last edited:
Fahdis
Member
Lol, late to the party today. Accept it already. It is and will be the future. It has so many benefits outside of modding and preservation issues. It brings gaming to millions in the palms of their hands with a cheaper entry. Also, ownership of licenses, GFN fixes this by letting you buy through your favorite storefront. I have finished at least 9 Games this year thanks to 3080 Tier alone due to my 6-8 ms Fibre and a Data Center being close. About to finish God of War in a day or 2.
JLB
Banned
I recall some people telling me a similar story many years ago: "I wont buy digital games. Worst case, ill go back to PC and keep buying physical there".
Eventually there will be games that will be exclusive to a given cloud platform, and if you want to play it, you will need to accept it.
Yeah, you might say that if thats the case you wont play those games, or if just too many games are cloud only you can stop playing games completely. You wont, you will accept it, and eventually you will embrace it.
Topher
Gold Member
You are making incorrect assumptions. I didn't say I am against cloud gaming. And I'll have no problem at all gaming in the cloud if there is a cloud exclusive that is worth it to me. My point is I think you are simply wrong that people will have to make that choice or be forced to "accept" anything. Game makers will continue to sell their games wherever people will buy them.
Cloud is going to expand gaming options, not limit them. You and others are thinking far too narrowly about this, imo.
Last edited:
Deerock71
Member
It doesn't need to be accepted. It can just be dropped.
12Dannu123
Member
Cloud Gaming isn't going to disappear that's for sure, people are starting to see the benefits of the technology, i.e no downloads a good example.
Last edited:
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Local hardware will always be superior to cloud gaming, full stop. That being said my uncle and his kids whom I gave my X1X love using Xcloud to play current gen games on. We both live within 50 miles of a major Azure data center. Nobody excited about streaming tech believes it will ever surpass local hardware unless you live in a city large enough to be found on a national map.
Deerock71
Member
And people can take up knitting, or antiquing. Video games are not the only hobby that exists. If everyone goes to a cloud that insists it's theirs and not yours, people will go to other hobbies with more agency. READING is still a thing.
12Dannu123
Member
Of course, people will take up new hobbies or drop old ones, that's common sense. But it doesn't mean that Cloud Gaming is not going to be a thing for the mainstream market.
lh032
I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
but it doesnt apply to all people though, while native works the same for all people, seems like the cloud latency quality has to depend on the game as well.
BOOM !
Physical vs cloud are nonsense though.
These datas just prove that better performances on local hardware isn't automatic and it's not proven the global difference will be worse,
especially in a world where Nintendo is leader in terms of console sales.(in revenues Sony beats them but high price of the PS5 is taken into account).
My point is that a console with a load of 30FPS games ( Destiny 2 on Series X is beaten by GFN, cannot imagine the outcome for a Switch version), blurry image.
If local is automatically better than cloud, then let's compare GFN 3080 tier vs Switch games.
The top tier cloud is beaten by 1500 bucks PC but it crushes PS5. Period
Seems like too many factors to be considered if wants to play in cloud without any issue.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Every benefit for the user is strictly convenience related. We are all lazy and we eat it up. The real benefits are for the publishers. And they know we will allow to sacrifice everything just so we don't have to deal with a bunch of extra cables or something. Consumers are that bad.
Do you have any idea how much of a big deal it is to them to have full control of the game's files? Can you imagine what this will bring to the table and how its going to change gaming to its very worse fir us?
Basically, you will have ZERO control over your future game collection. You will never know when a game will be removed and when it does, there will be no way to play it. This will make it easier for the publisher to force you to pay for newer stuff, until that also slows down profit wise. This is literally "Stop asking questions, consume product and get excited for the next product" kind of deal. Forget about preservation or Retro gaming for future generations. Gamers will only be able to play what the publishers allow them.
Thankfully, they can't make anything from the first up to 9th generation to disappear. But the cloud generation of games will be on the publishers hands, exclusively.
ANIMAL1975
Member
No shit Sherlock, and that's a wired device 5 feet away from your controller.
Now use your head and add to that the imput lag of your game coming from a server hundreds of miles away from your home,
and being used at the same time by God knows how many other players saturating its bandwidth, uuuh...
never thought of that did ya?
Fools idol
Banned
I started embracing the digital future once I moved into a smaller apartment. I suddenly had much less space and much less desire to hoard a physical collection as my living space became tighter.
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Haggard
Banned
If anyhing this shows what it means to game on budget hardware vs high-end hardware, even remote.
BOOM !
Physical vs cloud are nonsense though.
These datas just prove that better performances on local hardware isn't automatic and it's not proven the global difference will be worse,
especially in a world where Nintendo is leader in terms of console sales.(in revenues Sony beats them but high price of the PS5 is taken into account).
My point is that a console with a load of 30FPS games ( Destiny 2 on Series X is beaten by GFN, cannot imagine the outcome for a Switch version), blurry image.
If local is automatically better than cloud, then let's compare GFN 3080 tier vs Switch games.
The top tier cloud is beaten by 1500 bucks PC but it crushes PS5. Period
PC wins again, as usual.
Last edited:
Fahdis
Member
Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
True. Cloud is not magical but less and less complicated.
Many factors to be considered ? Not anymore...
You just need to click and test(you only need a gmail account):
http://stadia.com/games
(Click to play demo without account)
Test your smartphone
Test your wired Laptop
With a few more click, you can test F2P on GFN and Cloud (maybe the data centers will be near your regions)
And if none of them work ATM, wait a few years: There are new data centers coming, better infrastructure (the last mohican of my family has now access to fiber since last week. He lives in western europe country side with less than 50 families around his place... He currently has a 2mbps internet ha ha ha and you know what ? He doesn't want fiber
) and new blades, codecs to optimize data size, image...
Last edited:
Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
Cloud services will be more and more accessible very soon with Smart Gaming Hubs on all major TV brands and Chromebook will have more pre installed cloud gaming app with promotionial tutorial during the setup process:
"Additionally, when setting up your new cloud gaming Chromebook, youāll see a different screen at the end of the setup process. Here, youāll be encouraged to āget ready to start gaming,ā along with a new graphic of a game controller. More interesting, however, is a new description of using ChromeOSās Explore app to find games to play."
"Additionally, when setting up your new cloud gaming Chromebook, youāll see a different screen at the end of the setup process. Here, youāll be encouraged to āget ready to start gaming,ā along with a new graphic of a game controller. More interesting, however, is a new description of using ChromeOSās Explore app to find games to play."
chromatic9
Member
You will eat dog shit and love it.
Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
Cheaper ? What are your datas ?
You just need a hardware able to run a 720P video feed, 15 mbps internet, 50 if you're not single.
If you play f2p it's cheaper than a PS4.
If you play AAA it's faaaaaaaar cheaper than PS5:
RDR2
Stadia 60 bucks and that's it.
PS5 560 bucks...