A Few More Details About Microsoftís Xbox Scarlett Game Streaming Service - Page 2 - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-26-2018, 08:40 PM
Averry's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston007 View Post
This is complete pie in the sky BS.

They've been talking about this for years.

It's nowhere near ready.
Well....if the streaming services plays the exact same games as the OTHER box they release where it's NOT streaming...then they know it's not ready.

But it's an option for people I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-27-2018, 10:13 AM
RM's Avatar
RM RM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,430
Default

Phil Spencer talked about the streaming box with Geoff at Giant Bomb back at E3. Just listen from around 9 minutes into the podcast. What he's saying is totally reasonable, but he's saying the streaming tech would be aimed at a different type of player. It's a way for them to expand their offerings, not strong-arm traditional gamers into accepting streaming.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-27-2018, 03:14 PM
twonunpackmule's Avatar
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RM View Post
Since you didn't answer my question in the Google thread, I'll ask it again here:

Is it fair to say one of the streaming services needs to establish a foothold in the market to prove the technology is viable before the publishers try to force people to adopt streaming as the primary delivery system?

If so, how many subscribers does a service need to have to get that foothold? 1 million? 5 million? I'm just trying to understand what you would consider the minimum condition for a successful streaming platform.
I'm so confused by this because there are already examples of what a "successful" platform is. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon...etc. It being a "games focused platform" just makes in different in the content that it's delivering. A success is ultimately sales/attached rate. So, it's why I didn't answer the question because that's what it is.

However, for something a bit more to my example would be something like Spotify.

It isn't "pie in the sky." It's really a matter of time and investment. It's in their interest to get streaming locked down and making it good to go. This isn't to say I think it's "pro-consumer" it's just seeing where the line is going to be drawn. My disagreement is with it being "impossible." It just takes the infrastructure and the willingness to invest. The idea of securing the rights away of "ownership" of content from users is way too enticing to not invest in.

Game streaming is ultimately a dystopia in my eyes. It isn't something I want, it is something that is going to happen. It's the evolution of f2p.
__________________
PSN/Live - Twonunpackmule
3DS - 0817 - 4464 - 1180

Any game that features paid loot boxes should be rated AO.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-27-2018, 07:17 PM
RM's Avatar
RM RM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twonunpackmule View Post
I'm so confused by this because there are already examples of what a "successful" platform is. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon...etc. It being a "games focused platform" just makes in different in the content that it's delivering.
Video streaming doesn't rely on input from the user that is meaningfully measured in milliseconds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twonunpackmule View Post
A success is ultimately sales/attached rate. So, it's why I didn't answer the question because that's what it is.

However, for something a bit more to my example would be something like Spotify.
What sales/attached rate do we need to see from a major game streaming service to consider it a success?

Quote:
Originally Posted by twonunpackmule View Post
It isn't "pie in the sky." It's really a matter of time and investment.
Certainly they can invest in putting data centers in every major city - I'm not disputing that. What we're saying is "pie in the sky" is the idea that they're going to come up with some new solution to the latency problem.

Even if you're in the same city as the data center that's running your game, the time needed to send an input from your controller, to the data center, the game to react to your input, and send the video frame back to you is noticeable and unpleasant to most players. This is especially true in the most popular types of games.

And given the trend in core gaming is to push higher frame rates, reduce lag and latency in all the hardware, and build more responsive games, I don't see players accepting more lag and latency. If players don't buy into streaming because of this lag issue, how are these services going to grow? If they don't grow, how are they going to replace local hardware?

Quote:
Originally Posted by twonunpackmule View Post
It's in their interest to get streaming locked down and making it good to go. This isn't to say I think it's "pro-consumer" it's just seeing where the line is going to be drawn. My disagreement is with it being "impossible." It just takes the infrastructure and the willingness to invest. The idea of securing the rights away of "ownership" of content from users is way too enticing to not invest in.
If they wanted to do that, they could have just made consoles require an online authentication key like the PC. They could have done this in 2005/6 with the previous set of consoles. They even tried to do it this time around with the Xbox DRM.

Even today, when they sell their games on the digital store, they're accomplishing the same goal, and it's a hell of a lot easier than running expensive data centers in every city. PSN, Xbox, Windows Store, Origin, Steam, etc. are all "locked down" the way you're describing, so why would they need to add to the complexity and expense by making us stream the games?

The same business goal you're describing is accomplished by simply making the next set of consoles without any physical media, and requiring all players to download the games from the digital stores.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-03-2018, 03:40 PM
twonunpackmule's Avatar
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RM View Post
The same business goal you're describing is accomplished by simply making the next set of consoles without any physical media, and requiring all players to download the games from the digital stores.
Yes and no. Streaming allows complete ownership via the studio because the software is handled from their end. It also lowers the reliance on exterior hardware to drive sales. Instead, the software can be whatever they want. Basically limitless potential.

There's a lot of upsides from a content provider to go completely streaming.

My main point is that we are going to start seeing that pushed here in the next cycle with more and more investment going into it overtime. The end result is about complete ownership. And, if it's convenient and "good" enough, it'll be okay for the majority of the consumer base. High Quality doesn't drive adoption. Ease of use and "good" enough does. It just has to be easier and good enough to be and it'll sell and be adopted. The "quality" will come later.

There's been test with streaming Fortnite and what have you. And, it works quite well with almost zero lag. It's in SP content that it tends to falter.

I'm mostly checked out of the console space which where the majority of this is going to occur. I suspect the PC will be the end on which the desires to stay "hardware" will be regulated to for a few years longer. I've setup my camp here. We'll see how it lasts. I hope I'm wrong...but I don't think I will be.

Nintendo will be Nintendo and will oddly probably be the last hold out for those still wanting a traditional experience.
__________________
PSN/Live - Twonunpackmule
3DS - 0817 - 4464 - 1180

Any game that features paid loot boxes should be rated AO.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-06-2018, 07:26 PM
RedRedSuit's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 25,777
Default

The ping to my data center ISP is 10 milliseconds. Thatís an order of magnitude less than anything noticeable except for some fighting game freak maybe.

Put a server there, problem solved. PERIOD.

If youíre saying itís not worth the expense or wonít happen anytime soon, not here to debate that. But any suggestion that the lag problem is unsolvable is patently false. The only reason the internet is halfway usable is CDNs already cache their data at ISPs. If game companies considered it worth the expense and expertise, they could do exactly the same thing. It ďjustĒ has to make business sense.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-06-2018, 07:39 PM
RedRedSuit's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 25,777
Default

Just for fun I used SpeedTest app to check my bandwidth. You know how it has to pick a nearby server against which to run the test download and upload? Now, thatís not even the ISP. Itís just some random server vaguely in the same area.

Want to know the ping? 9 msec with a jitter of 2.5 msec. Thatís HALF A FRAME AT 60fps. Itís nothing.

And thatís not even at the ISP.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-11-2018, 10:18 PM
Averry's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRedSuit View Post
The ping to my data center ISP is 10 milliseconds. Thatís an order of magnitude less than anything noticeable except for some fighting game freak maybe.

Put a server there, problem solved. PERIOD.

If youíre saying itís not worth the expense or wonít happen anytime soon, not here to debate that. But any suggestion that the lag problem is unsolvable is patently false. The only reason the internet is halfway usable is CDNs already cache their data at ISPs. If game companies considered it worth the expense and expertise, they could do exactly the same thing. It ďjustĒ has to make business sense.
Netflix has deals and servers and systems located at ISPs. (as i'm sure YOU know) Partly why they don't care about Net Neutrality like they used to. That's probably how game streaming is going to find success.

Which leads to the question? Would net neutrality partially impair that kind of activity and growth?

I'm one who is kind of sketched out about net neutrality. I have concerns about it being backdoor regulation by way of deciphering "legal internet traffic."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-12-2018, 12:49 AM
RedRedSuit's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 25,777
Default

Iím not trying to be mean, but I canít decipher what youíre saying. I tried. The language and words just donít form anything I can definitely understand.

ó

Netflix, last time I checked this stat at work (Iím back at AKAM by the way, for those who care), was responsible for 50% of ALL traffic bandwidth used by ALL of the internet.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-13-2018, 07:36 PM
twonunpackmule's Avatar
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 32,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Averry View Post
I'm one who is kind of sketched out about net neutrality. I have concerns about it being backdoor regulation by way of deciphering "legal internet traffic."
Honestly, I think NN legislation is mostly a cause from a problem we created in granting local monopolies to cable/ISP companies. Limiting last mile access and competition in the market place because money entered politics. Basically, corporate welfare.

I believe in NN as a type of philosophy on which a consumer should judge who they do business with. If you are an ISP, a selling point should be in that promise to adhere to NN principles. I just don't believe in it as a form of government mandate. Especially when I think there are just reasons to have services of dedicated priorities.

I think the Obama Executive Order covered a potential reason for bandwith management. As, First Net is designed around First Responders and should be launching in the near future as a government partnership with AT&T. However, I think the program would be better as "SOP" and opening that up to other companies because I really don't like "partnerships." Screams corporate monopolies.

Ultimately, the best defense against corporate greed is options/choice.
__________________
PSN/Live - Twonunpackmule
3DS - 0817 - 4464 - 1180

Any game that features paid loot boxes should be rated AO.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First Details Emerge on Launch Lineup for Disney's New Streaming Service scohen HD Digital Downloads (NEW!) 0 02-08-2018 06:13 PM
YouTube Details YouTube Red Ad-Free Subscription Streaming Service for $10 Per Month scohen HD Digital Downloads (NEW!) 3 10-22-2015 11:28 AM
Microsoft Puts Streaming TV Service on Hold TheDickWard Game Room 11 01-12-2012 11:34 PM
Who is hotter? Scarlett Johansson or Jessica Alba bone crusher The Water Cooler 94 07-16-2008 12:25 PM
The Uncharted demo is solid... Few few quirks... Looks to be a great game ^_^. BBM128 Gaming Smackdown 201 11-11-2007 10:19 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off