Game streaming is coming - for real this time - and games industry platform wars will never be the same again. But this might be a great thing for players.
Game streaming has been here for 8+ years. As far as how the quality will be, yet to be seen but I think streaming services like Netflix are a good thing to use to compare. They can not do the same quality as an actual physical disc and that is just for watching a movie. Controlling a video game has far more limitations that effects a players experience. Visual quality and latency will be major factors per the consumers internet and their chosen package. No one can deny the direction, but as far making it a market leader situation for any console any time soon.. it will not happen next gen.
They said the same thing with 8-track cassette tape CDs and DVDs
You're trying to compare physical formats that evolved naturally to a cloud-based platform that is entirely based around internet connection and whether or not your ISP can handle it (or even would allow it since most have bandwidth limitations/data caps). Back then things weren't at their best quality so they improved and evolved. We've basically hit the peak right now with Bluray and 4K Bluray (which I suspect will be used with consoles eventually), streaming is a step down.
Funny you use these example... Things that helped push the industry forward by or partnered with Sony yet they seem to be getting ignored by doing so with game streaming from last gen to this gen and the improvements they made due to Microsoft “hinting” at it currently. In fact, Microsoft fans were touting the quality of game pass because you had to download the games to play them and avoid the issues of streaming them. To your point.., it is about capabilities. To go to streaming for next gen will be a step backwards per quality of products. Sure, over time, said streaming will improve.. but we would literally only see the idea of improvements over inconsistent frame rates and image quality per the streaming device and users internet currently. But hey, if they come out and have a very solid image quality 4K or dynamic 4K bare minimum and a solid base line of 60fps because their hardware will be doing all the work.. sure. I’m in.
what are u talking about blm504. Rude-ro didn't say it can't be better he just said it already started 8 years ago. Let alone Sony already started and bought a company 6 years ago as well,
Hardly comparable, for many reasons.
Lol yeah that is true. Except now the jumps in tech for things such as this are coming much faster because there's more demand and needs for it. So the streaming futureis definitely coming whether we want to have it or not. And with this expansion and 5G right on the horizon, you can see why Google is ready to jump in. @rude ro What are you talking about man? Nobody is forgetting sony. People just seem to have their interest piqued on how these guys will actually make this work for real this time. I mean are many of the people here just as guilty as forgetting Nintendo for their tons of contributions made to the industry that people seem to take for granted or "forget" when others adopt, modify or improve upon them?
you're comparing new technology at that time to existing technology that's already available.
Boycott this like you should have boycotted mobile gaming.
Thing in you also have to worry about -Internet Connection and Speed. -Throttling. -Data Caps. -Loss of all content if you get your account locked.
Yeah there is no comparison as it stand right now the technology isn't there yet even if it is the future latency is a major problem even for streaming in 4K so streaming something like a video game is way more problematic and until there is "NO" noticeable latency this will continue to hinder any talk of streaming only devices. It will be a long while before we have dedicated streaming only gaming consoles.
irrational comparison. going from cd to dvd is like going from 16 bit to 32bit. Not going from 16bit to RENTING. which is what these services are because you will not own the games, not even digitally. This article is also fooling people into NOT thinking and realizing that major difference. Also netflxx gives you way more than you can ever watch. These streaming services do NOT! And do NOT have 100s of THOUSANDS of content. Between them they only have 10's of thousands (several generations). So NO.
uh oh, I feel for Sony.
Dumbest comment ever.
Netflix 4K streaming looks beautiful
It can. But it's not as good as physical formats. Given the penchant for people to keep talking up 4k as so important, and frame rates, it seems counter productive for them to revert to a service which isn't going to offer that up in spades for a while. Not that I think the services themselves are really aimed at us in that way, but into see a lot of people making this out as something revolutionary from ms. This article beingb a good example, or another one the other day what I couldn't help but be incredulous at just how much positive feelings were lobbed at ms promises by Xbox fan boys. I don't even recall that positivity from the ps fans at the time of psnow, as they seemed more inclined to just recognize it as an option and a good way to open up the ps market. Not much of this idea as a primary way to consume games for themselves.
Doesn’t have to be as good but it’s darn pretty close. Of course there is some artifacting and noise but it looks significantly better than regular Blu Ray.
It is not native 4K streaming and according to a users internet, it may not be 4K. As of now, it is an interlaced 4K at 8bits. The point I am making, this would be a step down per streaming vs what is on the market now and that is not even accounting for controller latency, interference, weather etc that comes into play with gaming.
@Rude-ro no its not 2160i on netflix, its 2160p. Its lower bitrate than say a 4k uhd disk, but its 4k. In practice, unless you have a huge tv the quality of 4k netflix is hard to improve on in a perceivable way, especially since it supports hdr and dolby vision just fine.
I dunno about you, but I can certainly tell the difference more between a netflix(or other) streamed 4K image and a UHD BLU-Ray. It's not marginal at all. The resolution may be there, although its progressive instead of interlaced as far as I recall, but the picture quality is nowhere close. The colors don't jump out. certain details that make 4K really shine don't stand out, and colors often appear to be washed out, even with HDR streams. The bandwidth for a disc based UHD is around 82 Mbps for the single layer discs, higher for more layers. That is a significant difference between the recommended 25Mbps, much less the "it'll work at 15Mbps" that streaming has. As far as I know, none of their content achieves the same kind of bandwidth, as that would cap out many people's internet. The same is true for gaming. It'll be a while before the picture quality matches up with native renders. This is even true for things that are done through some form of checkerboarding. I've seen for for a couple years now how native was important, and the checkerboard was a fake 4K and had huge differences in quality, despite the differences being pretty negligible. But having even less quality through a stream is going to be better, or close to equivalent? The perceivable differences are much more im stream vs local, and Cherkerboarding vs native. It's not even close competition. Many people don't care about such things, I know a lot of the people saying the stream quality will be fine now were certainly very vocal about how the X1X was the premier to play games because it was so significantly better than the pro.
You havent seen it side by side with a 4k bluray...there is still compression in a 4k stream
Except NExtflix was going from renting block buster physical....to renting digital with over a hundred thousand shows/movies. Going streaming is going from OWNING to RENTING. It is not just a matter of medium. They are trying to confuse you.
I believe it was LinusTechTips that did this. But, a comparison with House Of Cards Netflix 4K and Bluray 4K was obvious which was which. They said that the quality of the 4K stream in this test seemed close to the 1080p Bluray.
Don't forget though that with the advent of 5G speeds, which is supposed to revolutionize what is capable with streaming and downloading speeds, this might happen sooner than you think and could be quite good. Streaming video in 4K on VUDU and Netflix looks and works great already.
I agree. I think the biggest reason PSNow (streaming) and other streaming solutions aren't wildly successful is that people generally don't want/need it on a computer or another console. And the reason PSNow isn't on Android or iOS (where people might actually want to have streaming work) is probably because Sony knows it doesn't work well over 4g. When 5g comes out, we'll see I guess.
Saying Sony knows there Gaikai/Onlive hybrid streaming service doesn't work well on 4G you are assuming without any actual evidence that is why it isn't on phones. And what is the reason it isn't on MacOS? It doesn't work there as well? Or why was it removed from the PS3? And even if 4G is the reason PSNow it is not on mobile devices it is a false assumption when applying it to other gaming streaming systems. It definitely does not mean these other services, with a different take on how to overcome streaming issues (ProjectStream, xCloud), will not work well with 4G. Microsoft has already publicly statted XCloud will work fine with the 4G networks.
@gumby, you're right, it's an assumption, and I think it's probably right because the cost of building an iOS client is small compared to the infrastructure cost they incurred to create the service. And I'm sorry but I'm going to weigh my experience using my phone higher than what MS "publically stated" lol. You're not getting a good streaming experience on your phone with 4g regardless of streaming tech because of inherent latency and consistency. Articles like this show the difference: http://blog.catchpoint.com/...
But....this time it's for real. Sony had fake streaming. The services before that were faker. Before those services, they were even fakier. While all these real services have been out for a while, ms and Google are now considered real. It's kind of an insult to those who worked and invested the time and resources to even start it, and it's so hypocritical to see people who were so negative against the idea before think that it's going to suddenly be "real", as all those other companies had imaginary products. Sony saw this trend before other companies did, and when it comes to ms, they have so many products that failed because they let others pave the way. This situation they didn't wait as long, but to think that Sony, with an actual established product now, is somehow in a bad position because new companies have some promises for the future is laughable. All Sony has to do is get that marketing firm of theirs to do what they did for the ps4, and spend some time on reopening the service to more devices, and Sony could easily become entrenched. Google jas the advantage of google and droid, ms has the advsntage of dwindling OS userbases with lower consumer presence for such things.
PSNOW (Gaikai and OnLive) fake streaming? You are fake news. Gaikai was actually a great streaming and I was playing Dead Island on a potato computer. OnLive was decent streaming but suffer from lag. PSNOW actually is great except the price model.
My sarcasm should have been apparent. The author implying that this time its for real, also implies that times before were fake. In context, they're saying its more relevant now, but I took it to an extreme in a sarcastic manner. I would think if you read past the first paragraph, my intent would have been obvious. I was mocking the concept that suddenly, it's for real, because these two companies have joined the fray, despite MS not really being on the bleeding edge of any new consumer tech in quite some time, and often failing when they try to enter already established markets. Google is probably in a better position, because more non-commercial customers look to them for computing products of a personal nature, whereas MS has limited acceptance in consumer markets outside office(which is primarily business but still strong in consumer level sales), and the Windows OS itself, which has been dwindling due to people accessing their computer needs through other devices....which as of right now, Google has a dominate position in the market. MS now isn't waiting until other companies have a strong foothold though, so there is a better chance they can be successful with it. Having an established gaming platform brand will certainly help them as well, as they can leverage that, along with enticing software, to get people on board with trying the service, and if they do it right, retaining those customers for the long term. But it requires a lot of things to go right for MS, along with proper marketing, and most of all, the market being at the point where its ready to adopt such a thing. They have some advantages over Google and Sony due to their position in the market, but its silly to presume that PSNow, which is currently the dominate streaming service through sheer virtue of being about the only big name in the field with a fully fleshed out product, is somehow less of a service because others are following them into that field. I think PSNow works fine. I've said so many times. It's not for me because of how I typically consume games, and just not needing the service, but I find nothing wrong with the service itself. Never tried OnLive or Gaikai, but as far as I can tell, people said the service worked fine, it was more a matter of adoption and publisher support. I have tried PSNow, and it worked perfectly fine when I played it. I'm also a regular user of remote play from my PS4 to my Vita, as well as the shareplay option, and that works fine too, they both work on a similar principal, with remote play only relying on a persons home network to upload the stream.
Not fake streaming, bad streaming. Don't confuse the two. On PS Now, there are resolution issues, lag issues, audio downgrades, missing features, no chat support, etc. So yeah, this time it's for real. Lots of ideas start out in the market as barely passable demonstrations of what the future might be like. Like PSVR, for example.
Well, lag issues don't seem to be on Sony, because as far as I can tell from using the service, I didn't notice any perceivable lag unless my internet started to crap out for some reason. Resolution issues I didn't have using the service, but based on remote play, I know it can dynamically change the resolution if one's bandwidth isn't high enough, or it starts to become bad while playing. AFAIK, this is also an issue with one's internet service, and not something Sony can control on their end. So long as their servers can handle the bandwidth, then they are only limited by the internet itself. Audio downgrades I can't speak about, but none of the games I played on it were known for excellent sound. I'd also imagine unless one has a nice audio set up on their PC, or are playing through their TV, downgraded sound isn't likely to be much of an issue, since the biggest draw of these services seems to be the "play anywhere" aspect, and mobile/laptop devices aren't known for amazing sound anyways. Stereo is probably more than sufficient. Not sure what features are missing from PSNow. Did Sony promise something that isn't there? All games I know about seem to play with all their features enabled. No chat support? You mean through PSN chat? Yeah, I suppose that is enough left over to call it a bad service. If you meant cross game voice chat....well...I could point towards Xbox services, since last I checked, cross platform chat also isn't available. I assume the biggest draw of this particular feature is going to be from the standpoint of chatting with your friends who are less likely to be playing on a streaming service. Knowing you, I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason why that's OK, or will somehow be remedied when MS launches their streaming service.
Sorry rain, I didn't realize I had to spell things out for you but if you an others around here want to continue to turn a blind eye to the services' shortcomings then be my guest. Detailed information about all the tenets I listed are readily available on the internet if you want to know more about what I'd said in my OP...
Thing is PSNow does not work well. Google's streaming works, and Xbox will have the best streaming since it requires literally half of the bandwidth that Google demands. Making it available to even those on 4G networks. Microsoft has been working on this for quite some time as well, in 2014 they had Halo 4 running on a WIndows Phone. They could have released it earlier just to compete with PSnow but They did the right thing and waited for the technology to be ready.
streaming video is nothing like streaming games, netflix sends you pure data and your device does all the work on the front end to make it actually render an image... it doesnt matter if the connection is 100% consistent as long as enough data keeps coming. Game streaming requires server end processing and a 100% stable internet connection, (some people might be able to tolerate less). Even in home streaming with client and server using ethernet is kind of janky for anything but a turn based game or maybe a slower paced story driven game. I cant even understand why anyone is pushing for server side computation for games, tech keeps getting cheaper and smaller so why even bother with streaming? Everything else in the world is moving more and more client side, not server side.
If Microsoft didn’t think it was possible they wouldn’t be investing in it.
Its not that its not possible, its that it doesnt even make sense and isnt as good as running the games client side and never will be. I dont see what microsoft gains from this other than more control over the consumer, and I dont see how its worth it for consumers to play games in a vastly inferior way. Microsoft has often made poor investments before, this will just be another one. Even ps now hasnt really caught on, this is despite the playstation brand being more than twice as big as xbox. Going digital only and having subscriptions like game pass can happen, streaming games and running them server side is for the birds.
It's certainly possible, but it lacks many of the advantages that video streaming has because it isn't something that can be buffered for inconsistencies in bandwidth. Services like this are highly suseptible to one's connection, and while the speed is really only relevant to the quality of the picture, the latency is the most important thing to the game itself. MS having predictive algorithms may help some, but it won't account for bandwidth drops, as it seems like a waste to send an image before that predicted action actually completes, and that would be counterproductive. I'm not really sure what having a predictive algorithm will achieve, as it still has to wait for the client side to say its ready for something, and the local processing of the data is much less than the time it takes to send the image back to the user. I don't think the problem was ever in when the server gets its data or how fast it could process it, it was always in the latency of the connection to get that data to the server, then the latency to send it back before the next step could be processed. I see a lot of people reading way more into the predictive algorithm as if that is something magical, even though it completely ignores what happens in a typical game loop, or the very nature of how networks function to transfer data.
I dont know if it counts as the same but I used to be a subscriber to the Sega Channel and it let you play games over the same cable tv service. Granted those were simpler games (and simpler times) so this is all just evolutionary stuff. Also, I see streaming as simply a delivery option instead of an actual "platform" but i guess it can be both.
Yes, but this generation of streaming services isn't going to be horrible like the ones currently available because (At least in the case of MS) both bandwidth and latency issues are going to be addressed. Google's services will require 25 megs but MS' services will be able to run on just 10 megs. I find it ironic that the very limitations you talk about with current services are exactly the hurdles MS intends to overcome with their delivery system, which is why it's 2.5 times more efficient than Google's services are. You should read about it sometime...
What's funny is reading the comments saying how this is not feasible because of latency issues or lag as if this tech and real world connections haven't evolved over the years. But yet most on these forums tell people to wait for VR to become a thing.
No one is saying its not feasible. Sony's PSNow works fine now, despite latency being a thing. Everyone knows it can work. It's this sense that MS is somehow going to be significantly better because "they're addressig the bandwidth and latency issues", as if Sony hasn't done any of that. The notion that this kind of service is no longer going to be hit or miss because MS is in the field, is just false. It's riding another MS promise, where people believe them before they deliver. Likely their service will work fine, and I'm sure people will give them tons of credit for making it great. Despite the fact that Sony already works fine, and google, with an already working beta, works fine. This kind of service isn't going to be a replacement anytime soon, and MS hasn't done anything magical with whatever it is they're doing, and the same people who said it sucked on PSNow, seem very keen on giving MS credit for solving the issues that apparently face Sony. But in the end, if someone had trouble playing PSNow, and experienced latency problems that prevented them from playing, then they're going to experience the same thing with MS, because MS can not control that without dishing out some money to ISP's to prioritize their network....which is possible, and likely even more necessary now with the end of net neutrality.
Rain said, "MS hasn't done anything magical with whatever it is they're doing," I agree. This isn't make believe. It's called Statistical Inference, and it's something MS has been quietly working on in order to combat latency issues... Project Irides reduced 120ms of lag by approximately 90% in VR testing, and can surely adapt to standard controller input instead of VR head tracking inputs. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
@ gansta_red Oh we get because MS decides that streaming games is their new thing so we can ignore that Sony has been doing it for a lot longer. What will be the excuse when MS inevitably jumps on VR damn hypocritical fanboys either way streaming games is still problematic because it relies on too many variables no matter who does it. There is no doubt that Sony has a leg up on the competition because they have been at it longer than any of these companies and contrary to your fanboy beliefs PS Now has improved dramatically over the years.
@realms Too funny of a comment to pass up... let's begin... "...we can ignore that Sony has been doing it for a lot longer" Where am I ignoring that Sony hasn't been doing it? "What will be the excuse when MS inevitably jumps on VR damn hypocritical fanboys..." Don't know, but I can already see mad grudge accounts like yours ready to blame anyone they think they can about it, no matter if it was never brought up, ever. "...way streaming games is still problematic because it relies on too many variables no matter who does it" Variables that are becoming less problematic as time moves forward. "There is no doubt that Sony has a leg up on the competition because they have been at it longer..." Being first doesn't mean it's being done better, contrary to fanboy beliefs. "...contrary to your fanboy beliefs PS Now has improved dramatically over the years." I literally have been saying this about PSnow, of course I'm going to go out on a limb and say you actually never even seen my comments about PSnow which is why your reaching with your extremely skewed comments towards me.
Exactly... we're just going to ignore the fact that game streaming has been around for years? The real war... latency/lag. Whoever can figure that out first, gets the leg up. The others will soon follow and then it's back to has the better games/features.
Older, SEGA Channel on the Genesis was done through cable.
Latency is a big problem with games online as it stands. That's w/ physical/downloaded copies.... years ago when PS Now was in beta I played several games and input lag was a major issue for me. Some games ran fine or decent enough but often times the input lag was unbearable. Again, that was in beta phase and I know things have been vastly improved since. Not only that but back then I probably had 30mb service which was the best offered at the time. Now I'm pulling roughly 70-80 out of a 100mb service. But if there's input lag a vast majority of gamers simply will not bother. Games need to operate precisely and that input lag can make games unplayable or extremely tedious. I do think we're in a better position today for streaming games. Funny thing is some 30 years ago we had a game streaming service in Sega Channel. As a kid I absolutely loved it. Getting like 5-10 new games monthly plus a total of 50 (?) games to play every month. As an adult I prefer to just buy what I play even if others view it as a waste of money. But I certainly understand the desire and appeal that a reasonably priced service that works brings. Maybe some day we'll even finally see consoles manufacturers/developers offering rentals via their storefront.
It wont be the market leader by nextgen but that has more to do with user adoption rate rather than the tech. The tech as google and Microsoft have already proven is already there. It's all about marketing and user adoption at this point.
Latency doesn't matter in movie playback. It very much does in gameplay. Ask the pros. For other things, Netflix is a good analogy. It's a service. You pay a yearly fee forever, or as long as you want to keep being able to play its content. You don't own or have anything you play. You rely on the service to keep your favorites ready for you to play. If they lose a license to something, or decide to reshuffle their offerings for any other reason, you can lose access to something you really like. The service is dependent on continuous uninterrupted connection. Without that, it goes away.
I do wanna see what Google will bring to the table
I'm in the beta for the google streaming service, been playing odyssey on my macbook with no issues. Can't adjust the graphics, and frames are locked at 30fps, but I haven't had any latency issues or lag or anything like that. If this is the future of gaming bring it on, I'm happy to have a game library on my home PC with better performance and be able to play on the fly with an internet connection.
Nice, wtf I get so many downvotes?
@chief Because there is no “Sony” in your comment.
same here but on my desktop no issues here either. and im using mixer watching other streams well farming i shud say... and still no issues just a dip in quality part of stress testing
I can imagine they could have some great speed and power behind the stuff they bring out. Possibly some of the highest available. The problem that I see though, that it seems a lot of these things seem to gloss over and the issue I had with every streaming game thing I've tried so far, was not the quality, but the input lag. So many games now you have to react to something pretty quickly or you're going to get hit or you're going to miss something. There was always really noticeable input lag on every streaming game service I've ever tried and that's what ruined the experience for me. Not how good it looked or how fast of a frame rate it streamed at. The input lag was terrible.
When I played, I didn't play anything like a fighting game which requires more exacting input timing, but I noticed that the input lag was sometimes noticeable, but not always a problem depending on the game. Unfortunately, there is really not much way around this problem for games that do require exacting inputs. A game loop polls the controller inputs on every game loop. That's 33 times a second in most game designs. The physical speed with which data can be sent can be about this low in an ideal set up....I was running about 50ms in WOW after some modifying ini files. But that doesn't account for returning the image, and the next loop which has to poll. This basically keeps the input about 66ms behind, coupled with travel time for the image itself, and we're looking at a 1/10th of a second input lag. That isn't too terrible for all games, but for some, it can mean the difference between enjoyable gameplay, and complete frustration. I'd liken it to older games where you press the jump button, and your character didn't jump as you'd be dead before any action is taken on screen.
Game streaming won't be a serious option for another 10+ years, or maybe longer given how broken ISPs are across the globe. Look at PS Now, they knew that the service wouldn't last/wouldn't have a chance to grow if it were 100% streaming so they added the download option for games. Imagine playing a game where your controls are delayed up to almost a second, the resolution jumps from as low as 240p to 720p, and maybe if you're lucky you'll get 1080p for a minute, then suddenly the internet hiccups for a few seconds and your game ends due to lost connection. Sucks doesn't it? Not to mention data and bandwidth caps that ISPs love to have. Why would anybody choose that (as well as having to subscribe to a service where you'd never own a single game) when consoles and PCs exist in such variety and can be acquired for relatively cheap?
I'm on the google stream beta and it works incredibly well. 1080p, locked at 30fps, but no input lag in combat, no stuttering, and have had 0 issues. I was super apprehensive at first, but now I'm sold.
For every example like this, there's 100 more that are negative and list the things I just mentioned. Glad it worked for you because more options are never a bad thing but there's no way this can work right now in a broader sense with the way internet infrastructure currently is overall.
I just got invited to the Beta. Have no had a chance to try it yet but this is good to hear. Streaming is the future of gaming. Its getting better and better.
LOL this site is ridiculous, how am I getting disagrees?! I have a few friends on the beta too and no issues, I don't have a crazy internet package either. People on this site are so salty
@slaughter My experience with the anecdotal comments with psnow is that for every person that says it doesn't work, you see 5-10 People respond that it works fine. Obviously a service like this is going to be highly dependent on ones connection, so.such anecdotal ccounts are kind of meaningless, o it's best to figure out how well it works when it works. Then it's up to the individual to find out how well it will work for them.
you probably just have very low standards, i cant even stand in home streaming from nvidia or valve with both ends connected via ethernet.
@Link2DaFutcha They just explained why not everyone's experience has been great there are still way too many variables that hinder streaming only gaming. Until technology can pretty much eliminate latency this will continue to be a topic of discussion, for every good experience there are a half a dozen or more bad ones.
To be fair game streaming has improved. Just look PS Now's progress through out the years. Like I said on another post, we are not there yet though, not even close to the performance/stability of a game run locally from a disc/HDD, but we are getting there.
Yes I'll give them that, because having played on the PS Now beta was awful and I hope no one used that as their impression for how it is now. I'm just confused as to why streaming is all the sudden the hot topic when the infrastructure can't handle it in a majority of areas. I hold firm that it's a decade or more away from a serious option akin to physical or digital games.
"I'm just confused as to why streaming is all the sudden the hot topic when the infrastructure can't handle it in a majority of areas" Because two of the biggest PR/Marketing machines in the world have invested interest in this tech now?