darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
The great MMORPG extinction.Remember that time so many companies jumped into the gaming market and flooded it with crap and it died.......
The great MMORPG extinction.Remember that time so many companies jumped into the gaming market and flooded it with crap and it died.......
"Stadia rival"
lol
Amazon should make games for multiplatform. Not make their own console.
That’s it? Your basing something on no proof?Because people want their games not locked to a single online platform that will be shut down in a few years.
Here's why: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?
Netflix and Spotify exist, don't they?Are people clamoring to stream games? Is this some vast, untapped market? I just don’t get it.
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.
[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.
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.
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.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.
Streaming has a place in gaming. Overpriced streaming services posing as consoles do not and the Stadia is exactly that.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.
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.
Not necessarily. There's a new technology called "kahawai" which addresses the issues you mentioned. Here's the paperNope. 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?
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).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.
maybe it will change but i right now i'm seeing two ants fighting"Stadia rival"
lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
Amazon should make games for multiplatform. Not make their own console.
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.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.
Didn't Microsoft talk about seeing them as competition along with Google?