• 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.

Amazon is reportedly ‘investing hundreds of millions’ in game projects, including Stadia rival

TwoDurans

"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."
If Amazon can throw the money out there to make the netflix style game stream solution it'll be a success. If they're trying to duplicate what Stadia is trying to do or what OnLive failed to do then they're going to waste a lot of money.
 

Aranea

Member
Just don't be a cloud service and you will indeed be a "Stadia rival". Cloud gaming won't ever replace traditional console/PC gaming for me.
 

DrAspirino

Banned
Hundreds of millions is nothing. Their competitors have invested tens of billions into their projects over the years, and Stadia ain't a product you want to be emulating or rivaling.

Amazon has the distribution chain. Why not go physical?
Here's why:

Because they already have the necessary distribution chain, and they have it working right now:


Capcom, Gearbox (Borderlands 3), and Supercell (Clash of Clans) have already part of their games running on the Amazon cloud.
 
Last edited:

Pallas

Member
You know back before Stadia was revealed and just rumored, Amazon was rumored to also be developing a platform for gaming and were often mentioned alongside Google when talking about next gen. I guess Amazon has been laying low.
 

FeldMonster

Member
Are people clamoring to stream games? Is this some vast, untapped market? I just don’t get it.
Netflix and Spotify exist, don't they?

Not my personal preference, as my UHD Blu Ray are far superior to Netflix and my CDs are superior to streamed music, however, the content being inferior has not stopped their success.

Gaming is just another form of digital media. Cloud gaming will gain traction with the masses at some point.
 
Last edited:
giphy.webp
 

12Dannu123

Member
I wasn't writing off Sony PS Now at all. But what Microsoft are doing with Xcloud is not quite comparable to what Sony has done. PS Now is only on PC. Xcloud I can play from literally anywhere with any Android or iOS device effectively. I wasn't doing some console warrior BS. I was just leaving out Sony because their offering is not the same as Microsoft on the matter.

TBH No one is writing off Sony in the Streaming market, the mainstream media is, they are irrelevant in the conversation. Unless they have a Youtube, Mixer, Twitch or do partnerships like MS and Samsung, Sony is going to be ignored. The only way for Sony to gain a foothold is cannibalise the PS Console user base.
 

RedVIper

Banned
[I said:
dif[/I]"FeldMonster, post: 257660234, member: 747320"]
Netflix and Spotify exist, don't they?

Not my personal preference, as my UHD Blu Ray are far superior to Netflix and my CDs are superior to streamed music, however, the content being inferior has not stopped their success.

Gaming is just another form of digital media. Cloud gaming will gain traction with the masses at some point.

The level of diference between a Blu Ray and a streamed movie is much smaller than the difference between a streamed game and playing on local hardware.
It makes no sense to compare passive forms of entertainment to interactive ones because they have completely different issues, it's a different form of digital media.

A streamed movie/song could have the exact same quality that a UHD bluray or a CD can, it would just cost more. A streamed game will never achieve the same quality as playing it locally no mater how much money you throw at it.
 

mcjmetroid

Member
Stasis rival.

They've already beaten them by default. If they don't release a service it would be an improvement over Stadia.
 

Grinchy

Banned
Microsoft did say that Amazon and Google will be their main competitors moving forward.

Sony and Nintendo will die off with their non-streaming pieces of trash while everyone else gets to enjoy game-ruining input lag from their streaming service!
 
If Amazon or Google buy EA or Ubisoft, then it will sink in.
There is no way Amazon, Google and MS, are investing the money they are into systems that don't work. Thats not how they became three of the richest companies in the world.
 

DrAspirino

Banned
TBH No one is writing off Sony in the Streaming market, the mainstream media is, they are irrelevant in the conversation. Unless they have a Youtube, Mixer, Twitch or do partnerships like MS and Samsung, Sony is going to be ignored. The only way for Sony to gain a foothold is cannibalise the PS Console user base.

Sony has already partnered with Microsoft to use their Azure cloud service to provide PlayStation (and other products) cloud services and functionality. It was only natural, since Sony can't rely on itself (or the way the PlayStation brand has been doing so far) facing a future where streaming (music, movies, games, etc) is just as important as the physical copies of a content. If Nintendo doesn't get into the bandwagon with Microsoft, Amazon, Google or even Apple (the big four in cloud services), their profits will diminish over time.

The level of diference between a Blu Ray and a streamed movie is much smaller than the difference between a streamed game and playing on local hardware.
It makes no sense to compare passive forms of entertainment to interactive ones because they have completely different issues, it's a different form of digital media.

A streamed movie/song could have the exact same quality that a UHD bluray or a CD can, it would just cost more. A streamed game will never achieve the same quality as playing it locally no mater how much money you throw at it.
I have a color calibrated 1080p TV, a Cambridge Audio receiver connected to it (with Polk Audio Speakers), and let me tell you this: 1080p content on Netflix or YouTube is nowhere near the quality of a Blu-Ray disc. Let alone a UHD-Blu Ray. The difference is as big as the difference between playing locally and playing via streaming: staggering.

...and no, it is simply impossible for a streamed movie/song to have the exact same quality that of a UHD Blu-ray or CD because of one single issue: bitrate.

Your average Netflix 4K movie is coded in hevc at around 15 Mbps. A 4k UHD-Blu Ray disc is encoded in hevc as well, BUT at 50 Mbps. It also has Dolby True-HD audio (at around 18 Mbps lossless), while Netflix has only Dolby Digital Plus (lossy) for 4k content.

Heck, Netflix has a bitrate of around 5Mbps for 1080i content while my Blu-Ray collection has an average of 25 Mbps at the same resolution and framerate (and a whole lot better audio).

So... yeah... streaming is not the best. Not by far, but dismissing the audio and video media for having it "easier" is just plain nonsense.
 

stickkidsam

Member
Oh dear. Stadia gets mentioned and the thread is automatically derailed. We get it, you don't like it (and probably haven't tried it) but that doesn't mean there isn't space for streaming tech and competition is good for us all, I welcome anyone trying to progress the medium.
Streaming has a place in gaming. Overpriced streaming services posing as consoles do not and the Stadia is exactly that.
 

RedVIper

Banned
I have a color calibrated 1080p TV, a Cambridge Audio receiver connected to it (with Polk Audio Speakers), and let me tell you this: 1080p content on Netflix or YouTube is nowhere near the quality of a Blu-Ray disc. Let alone a UHD-Blu Ray. The difference is as big as the difference between playing locally and playing via streaming: staggering.

Not what I said. I didn't say streaming content is as good as physical media right now, I said there's no reason it can't be.

...and no, it is simply impossible for a streamed movie/song to have the exact same quality that of a UHD Blu-ray or CD because of one single issue: bitrate.

What about bitrate?

Your average Netflix 4K movie is coded in hevc at around 15 Mbps. A 4k UHD-Blu Ray disc is encoded in hevc as well, BUT at 50 Mbps. It also has Dolby True-HD audio (at around 18 Mbps lossless), while Netflix has only Dolby Digital Plus (lossy) for 4k content.

Yes I agree physical media, right now, is better quality than streaming. But there's nothing that makes it impossible to stream a movie enconded at 50MBps with 18Mpbs audio.

Heck, Netflix has a bitrate of around 5Mbps for 1080i content while my Blu-Ray collection has an average of 25 Mbps at the same resolution and framerate (and a whole lot better audio).

k
So... yeah... streaming is not the best. Not by far, but dismissing the audio and video media for having it "easier" is just plain nonsense.

Nope. They do have it easier. Every problem that they have, games have too ( And worse), plus extras. The quality of the compression applied to a game when streaming it's going to be far worse quality than the one applied to a movie, why? Because one needs to do it live and the other doesn't. Game streaming also has to worry about things like input lag and packet loss.

Non interactive media has it easier than interactive media.
 

DrAspirino

Banned
Nope. They do have it easier. Every problem that they have, games have too ( And worse), plus extras. The quality of the compression applied to a game when streaming it's going to be far worse quality than the one applied to a movie, why? Because one needs to do it live and the other doesn't. Game streaming also has to worry about things like input lag and packet loss.
Not necessarily. There's a new technology called "kahawai" which addresses the issues you mentioned. Here's the paper


And here's a demo by Microsoft.



Maybe that's how X cloud works?
 

RedVIper

Banned
Not necessarily. There's a new technology called "kahawai" which addresses the issues you mentioned. Here's the paper


And here's a demo by Microsoft.



Maybe that's how X cloud works?


This seems like a completely different type of streaming, it still requires significant work by local hardware, hell it's supposed to be able to run the game offline. This sounds more like "the power of the cloud" that we heard about before than what these companies want to achieve with streaming.

It also doesn't solve input lag.
 

DrAspirino

Banned
This seems like a completely different type of streaming, it still requires significant work by local hardware, hell it's supposed to be able to run the game offline. This sounds more like "the power of the cloud" that we heard about before than what these companies want to achieve with streaming.

It also doesn't solve input lag.
It does solve input lag, since the game would be ran on local hardware, albeit with worse graphics and the streaming would fill in the missing frames (or missing textures).

What if Series S is like that? It doesn't sound farfetched after seeing this.
 

wolffy71

Banned
Amazon definitely has a few things going for it already. Firstly twitch, they have huge server infrastructure, and a bunch of cash to invest.

It will be interesting to see how they incorporate stream play with twitch which they are supposedly working on. Will you be able to watch a stream and just grab a controller and jump straight into the game when theres an opening? A lot of possibilities for demo's and trials as well.
 

Fbh

Member
The good news is that they can release a reskin of frogger or Pong and they'll already have more exclusive content than Stadia
 

RedVIper

Banned
It does solve input lag, since the game would be ran on local hardware, albeit with worse graphics and the streaming would fill in the missing frames (or missing textures).

What if Series S is like that? It doesn't sound farfetched after seeing this.

It doesn't. The article yous sent says it doesn't. It doesn't have input lag if your hardware is doing most of the work and your inthernet is good, if either fails you have input lag.

And again, completely different type of "streaming", you still need strong local hardware to use it.
 

FeldMonster

Member
I am not a Stadia hater, but one clear misstep that Amazon appears to be addressing is the order of their operations. Google launched and then started work on acquiring studios, getting exclusives, and building games. In contrast, Amazon bought studios some time ago (Double Helix for example, MS whiffed big time letting them go after their excellent work on Killer Instinct), and has several games in development. And they bought the gamer-centric Twitch, as opposed to the more agnostic Youtube.

Thus, I think Amazon is in a stronger position compared to Google despite the fact that it will launch later. Amazon also seems to have more appetite for risk and long term perseverance, Fire Phone not withstanding.
 

12Dannu123

Member
Sony has already partnered with Microsoft to use their Azure cloud service to provide PlayStation (and other products) cloud services and functionality. It was only natural, since Sony can't rely on itself (or the way the PlayStation brand has been doing so far) facing a future where streaming (music, movies, games, etc) is just as important as the physical copies of a content. If Nintendo doesn't get into the bandwagon with Microsoft, Amazon, Google or even Apple (the big four in cloud services), their profits will diminish over time.


I have a color calibrated 1080p TV, a Cambridge Audio receiver connected to it (with Polk Audio Speakers), and let me tell you this: 1080p content on Netflix or YouTube is nowhere near the quality of a Blu-Ray disc. Let alone a UHD-Blu Ray. The difference is as big as the difference between playing locally and playing via streaming: staggering.

...and no, it is simply impossible for a streamed movie/song to have the exact same quality that of a UHD Blu-ray or CD because of one single issue: bitrate.

Your average Netflix 4K movie is coded in hevc at around 15 Mbps. A 4k UHD-Blu Ray disc is encoded in hevc as well, BUT at 50 Mbps. It also has Dolby True-HD audio (at around 18 Mbps lossless), while Netflix has only Dolby Digital Plus (lossy) for 4k content.

Heck, Netflix has a bitrate of around 5Mbps for 1080i content while my Blu-Ray collection has an average of 25 Mbps at the same resolution and framerate (and a whole lot better audio).

So... yeah... streaming is not the best. Not by far, but dismissing the audio and video media for having it "easier" is just plain nonsense.

Partnering with Microsoft doesn't expose your service to users. Sony needs to follow MS's footsteps and partner with carriers, ISPs and OEMs like Samsung to promote their service. Sony has been abysmal in that front.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Can they learn from Google ?

Google basically did everything wrong for a launch.

If they go with the same plan as Stadia they are toast. Whate ever google did do the opposite. Just like george costanza
 

Agent X

Member
Amazon already has several of the necessary ingredients to pull this off successfully. They have massive cloud services, a popular streaming service geared towards video gaming (Twitch), and popular smart TV streaming devices (Fire TV).

Google also had similar things going for them a year ago when they announced Stadia. They had YouTube, Chromecast, and Android, and some people were certain that they would quickly steamroll the market with a cheap (or free) service and broad access to literally billions of devices.

That didn't happen. Compared to the picture painted by the early hype, Stadia in its current form is expensive to access, far more limited in scope, and lacks compelling exclusive content.

Amazon needs to learn from Google's mistakes, and fill in the gaps before they release the product or even make big, pompous public announcements about it.

It will be interesting to see how they incorporate stream play with twitch which they are supposedly working on. Will you be able to watch a stream and just grab a controller and jump straight into the game when theres an opening? A lot of possibilities for demo's and trials as well.

That was another early concept that was bandied about for Stadia...that you could watch someone streaming a video game on YouTube, then click a "Play" button and jump immediately into a game session with the streamer. It was a nice idea, and is not even new technology (even the old OnLive service did something similar a decade ago), but isn't as easy to implement in reality. Many people who proposed this wistful concept failed to account for how the service (or game publishers/developers) would actually be able to earn money from the concept.

Amazon might actually have a foot in the door here. They already have millions of people paying for Amazon Prime. They could tie this feature to Prime subscriptions. This doesn't solve the entire problem, but it's a good starting point.
 

Weiji

Banned
Lmao, they can’t even compete with Netflix, who showed them a prototype of exactly how to succeed.

Or hell, how about their cell phone? How many dumpsters did that fill?

So now they will compete with Stadia, which itself was a terrible idea that failed out the gate.

What’s it take to be a CEO at amazon? You have to lose at least 2 billion or you’re not trying hard enough?
 
Last edited:

Agent X

Member
What do you mean "just a game service and not making the games for a specific platform" ? Developers still have to port a game specifically to the platform/service, in that respect it is like developing for a console, it's not like Geforce Now where they just use the PC version.

This is a shining example of a crucial error that Google made when they developed Stadia.

It was good for them to develop a target hardware specification, that developers should keep in mind when producing games for Stadia. The problem is that they effectively built a "console", and required that developers must tailor games specifically for their hardware and software configuration, instead of being able to easily adapt their existing PC games with little to no added effort. This is one of the main reasons why Stadia content has been trickling out at a glacial pace, compared to PC or other contemporary console platforms.

OnLive even managed to figure this out a decade ago. If I recall correctly, OnLive had far more content available than Stadia in a similar period of time, despite their company having less 1% of the resources of Google/Alphabet. OnLive had several problems, but this wasn't one of them.

This is also not an obstacle for GeForce Now, PlayStation Now or Xcloud. Let's see which approach Amazon takes.

Amazon should make games for multiplatform. Not make their own console.

They already do make games for other platforms.

 

Bojanglez

The Amiga Brotherhood
This is a shining example of a crucial error that Google made when they developed Stadia.

It was good for them to develop a target hardware specification, that developers should keep in mind when producing games for Stadia. The problem is that they effectively built a "console", and required that developers must tailor games specifically for their hardware and software configuration, instead of being able to easily adapt their existing PC games with little to no added effort. This is one of the main reasons why Stadia content has been trickling out at a glacial pace, compared to PC or other contemporary console platforms.

OnLive even managed to figure this out a decade ago. If I recall correctly, OnLive had far more content available than Stadia in a similar period of time, despite their company having less 1% of the resources of Google/Alphabet. OnLive had several problems, but this wasn't one of them.

This is also not an obstacle for GeForce Now, PlayStation Now or Xcloud. Let's see which approach Amazon takes.
Yeah I get what you're saying, I guess Google's thinking is that by making it more of a defined (constrained) platform they can achieve a couple of important things such as standardisation of controls and mechanisms across devices and integrate tech directly into their SDK that may (or may not assist) negate things like latency issues. I think Stadia for all its faults is actually better poised to be a mass consumer product because they can control the ecosystem and maintain standards. Also I think Google's plan is to (eventually) have games that are simply not possible without having the client in the cloud, so if that's the case then it makes sense that they are a platform that is defined in such a way that allows games to take advantage of these resources.

Geforce Now is also a cool service but on the other end of the spectrum, they rely on running PC versions and for better or worse (mostly worse in my experience) don't have any standards in input mechanisms UI for different device types. I think this will ultimately stop it from becoming a more widely adopted platform, not for the likes of us, but for people that maybe don't even think about games and platforms the way we do and game less frequently.

Maybe Amazon can hit a sweet spot, make it super easy to port PC games (or even just run them as is where it makes sense) but also offer the ability to build ground up client in the cloud experiences if desired. I think this is likely there approach and unlike Google have invested in studios prior to launching their product that hopefully bring these experiences to life and justify the platform for many that are sceptics.

Geforce Now is on the other end
 

teezzy

Banned
Didn't Microsoft talk about seeing them as competition along with Google?

Yep.

I cant help but see Tempo fumbling just as harshly as Stadia has. Microsoft holds the upper hand by already having people invested in their gaming ecosystem; making it much easier to pitch a new service.
 
Top Bottom