— Nintendo Enthusiast: Microsoft's upcoming Project xCloud game-streaming service sounds interesting, but can it really be more convenient than the Nintendo Switch?
MS's doing what others have done before, yet its being hyped as an "innovation".
Lol sounds just like Apple nowadays
Who's saying it's innovative?
The ones insisting that what MS does will bring a new era to gaming while ignoring that streaming has been a thing for years.
Because they are using new tech to do it. They’ve been working on this for years and waited to release it until they thought it was ready and doable. Sony bought gai kai branded it and launched it within one year to pretty subpar results. Now PSNow I taking cues Friday m games pass. It al goes around but this is something they’ve been working on most of the last decade.
@DeadManMMX: Just like Kinect and using cloud servers for graphics weren't announced too early? Lived up to advertised hype?
Not exactly no. Game streaming suffers from latency issues. MS are trying to develop a way to stream games by massively reducing or even eliminating the latency issues. This is not currently being done. So yes streaming has been done, but the technology to stream without any lag/latency problems does not exist yet. This is what MS are trying to do. The real question should be can they actually do it.
Deamdman Conanlifts Just listen to yourselves. MS is "innovating" by trying to get rid of latency for streaming? You're saying it "hasn't been done"? Seriously? You think no other streaming service is improving latency?? You just eat up MS PR like it's special. Oh, and they're late to the game. Don't spin that as them waiting when the time is right. How do we always have people act like everyone but MS is complacent, yet MS never delivers, has the worst track record, and always talks of innovation while not actually doing it.
@sinspirit "How do we always have people act like everyone but MS is complacent, yet MS never delivers, has the worst track record, and always talks of innovation while not actually doing it." You tagged me so I will respond. I never said anyone was complacent. As for ms innovating and you disagreeing I never said they were. But if they get rid of latency for streaming then it will be innovative, but they need to do it first. They are trying to do it, let's see if they can. As for the final bit of your comment about ms never delivering. B/C for Xbox 360, original Xbox games, free X enhancements of older games, play anywhere are examples of them delivering. What they lack are games of the same quality that Sony produces. So let's see if they can do this and if not then let's criticise this as an empty promise.
wait where can i play halo and red dead redemption on my phone?
@godmars "The ones insisting ....." Who are these people? Have you tried it yourself compared to the competition? Where is this hype as an "innovation"? Or is it just regular news reporting on a story?
@gangsta_red: Regular news stories reporting on a something not yet released but set to upturn the industry. The exact same flavor of stories that surrounded the Kinect and cloud distribution - when the XB1 initial launch. this is virtually a new article about MS's cloud distribution, only how it innovate streaming rather than graphics.
The delusions again lol someone must be intimidated. I haven't seen one person call it innovative
@Conan And yet MS hasn't proficiently explained how they've reduced lag as lag is mostly a problem outside their control. Their servers are plenty fast, but so are PSNow servers. Do a tracert to the servers, and you see the problem exists not from their servers, but in all the network hops in the path to the user and the server. MS said they have predictive technology on what will happen next, but have in no way explained how that is relevant to reducing lag, because the servers would still have to wait for the user data to reach the server before sending it back. Unless it's like MMO's, where what the user sees is rendered and drawn before user data is received or server data is sent back. For anyone that's played MMO's, they'd know that that often leads to glitches where what we see onscreen jumps around as the server updates with current variables, and the client catches up. I dunno about anyone else, but this doesn't sound any better than the lag that is present in current implementations, as it leads to a cascading effect of corrective inputs to remedy, and isn't how games are typically played and could lead to actual detrimental experiences if those corrective actions end up with frustrating deaths for unintended results. At least with the inperceivable lag that exists on a decent connection through PSNow, the issue of lag is usually not a hindrance to actual game play. They've also not explained how they're going to push more video data over less bandwidth, as there has been no major advancement in compression or streaming technology, and if there were, every streaming service would be using it, as MS would already be selling it for lots of money, and not saving it for xCloud which is likely to net them less money in the short term. Lots of things that MS claims they will provide, and the media happy to say its great, and some people more than willing to accept it at face value, but not a single person asking how they managed to actually do that, when there is no even a single piece of corollary technology available that could make it possible, and current technologies while maybe suitable to solve the lag issue, aren't necessarily as appealing as the alternative. There should be plenty of patents or technical journal discussion about new technologies, but there isn't. What I want to see before I'm willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt on this topic is some explanation on how they are actually going to achieve this. Or at least, see it in action to see if it actually works as well as they claim it will. I feel the actual market for it, and it's viability is about as relevant as it is for any other similar service, so my opinions on that are the same. Also, why do people presume that Sony isn't doing anything to reduce lag issues? You think they just started the servers, and didn't do anything after? That's kind of a silly thing to think. But all Sony can do to reduce actual lag is work with ISP's and internet backbone providers to make sure their network paths are as direct as possible. Sony doesn't need servers that are as robust or ubiquitous as MS. They just need enough to provide the service in a reasonable fashion to as many people as want to use it. Azure is a huge cloud server. It is a better server overall. But there is nothing wrong with PSNow servers, and they've grown it far beyond what Gaikai had. Gaikai was brought for their technology, not their servers. Sony created their own servers, and they've spent more than the initial price on Gaikai, and some marketing + R&D dollars on cursory technologies to make it work.
Latency will always be there and will always depend on how good connection you have. Image quality will also always be compressed. These are my reason for not wanting to stream my games.
@rainslacker. I agree with you what have said. My point is simply that ms are supposedly working on eliminating lag. If they do as they claim it will be a first ( unless someone else gets there first). For me I am willing to hold off on the criticism until they release their streaming service. If it fails to achieve the results they claim then I will certainly be pointing it out. But what they are aiming for is a step forward for game streaming. The question is will it work?
"Just like Kinect and using cloud servers for graphics weren't announced too early? Lived up to advertised hype?" Yes exactly like that. Nobody is claiming that MS has never jumped the gun when it comes to releasing gaming tech. But that does not take away from the fact that that's what happened to Sony and Gaikai/PS Now. It's so childish that whenever someone is critical of Sony you people bring up irrelevant instances of MS as if it somehow nullifies Sony's shortcomings. I mean seriously what does Kinect have to do with a conversation about game streaming and how Sony may have released their version prematurely? Does the failure of Kinect to live up to hype/expectation mean people cannot say anything adverse towards Sony's gaming streaming efforts in an article about game streaming? Your fanatism for a corporation truly hinders your ability to make logical arguments. It's kinda sad.
"I mean seriously what does Kinect have to do with a conversation about game streaming and how Sony may have released their version prematurely?" Because Kinect wasn't just presented as something MS was doing, but rather something that was going to change the whole of the industry. Now again they - or rather their supporters - are going on and on about how MS will reinvent the game streaming wheel where Sony just put one out. Whether its Kinect, Zune Internet Explorer or whatever it or anything Windows is called now, MS has a bad habit of making an overambitious statements, showing something off on bleed edge tech meant for general use, saying they'll redefine something only to fall well short. Needing years more to actually develop something if then. And we are talking about a MS "product". One which the MS fan base are again making excuses for. Also, I don't give a damn about Sony. Have begun to actually hate the overall direction they've gone with gaming.
It wouldn’t be the first time MS does something and makes it sound like it’s never been done before or that what they are doing is something different from what everyone else is also doing.
@ DeadManMMX No they are not what new technology is MS supposedly using? The reason they what to get in on it now is because streaming is becoming more viable with 5G coming but MS hasn't done jack. The proof is that PSNow has improved tremendously but streaming games still has a long way to go if it ever wants to become the main way gamers play games. Sorry folks we are still far from being able to just stream games without any hiccups these MS fanboys always do the same thing MS isn't doing anything innovative other than throwing their hat in the race that has been started long ago.
Yea, not sure how anyone could say nintendo is doing this. That said, MS is going towards what seems like maybe a netflix style business model on this, which if the content matches the quality and quantity and value of netflix, could be an amazing change in landscape. I would say the biggest comparison is that Sony literally already has this technology and implementation and if it works well could change their business model to match MS almost overnight. However, Sony is sticking with standard video game sales model and moving them to streaming after the majority of sales are done, which frankly, I hardly see them changing that policy, as they very clearly put far more investment into game development than MS and it shows. MS seems to be going this route to justify/lessen risk with their game dev budget, though, they may also simultaneously cannibalize their biggest title's profit in doing so. Curious to see how it goes. Think they are hoping for 20 million subscribers vs 2 million purchasers per game. (Random numbers but the general idea)
Nope and nope.
Depends on latency.. if it works well it’s much more convenient than the switch. I carry my phone with me everywhere. I don’t carry my switch everywhere. Being able to play full console quality games without graphical compromise on my phone at anytime is appealing. Still.. the question of latency remains. So we’ll see.
Latency is always going to be a problem unless you live and commute in a city with a municipal wireless network, or or a cell data towers everywhere.
This is what they are trying to solve with compression techniques and predictive algorithms. The tech doesn't exist yet, so they are investing to make it happen. To quote ProLogY "Still.. the question of latency remains. So we’ll see". Only time will tell if they can actually solve the problem.
I couldn't wait until my xperia phone could do remote play, worked fine but the screen with most games I tried was just too small, sounds good on paper but in reality not so much. Tablets, tv sets and laptops I agree but phones was a no no for me. Racing games was too difficult on a phone as was arkham, worked well with platformers though.
Oh yeah, try playing crash on remote play haha
Some games are fine on a phone. They can even look great on a small screen. But for some games, I agree, for a game meant for a bigger screen, even if its a small TV, the phone screen can just make everything kind of a jumbled mess.
That's where Microsoft should have the lead with its place in the cloud market its numerous and massive data centers and servers. Even as a huge playstation fan an ps now subscriber I feel Microsoft is better suited to eliminate lag and other issues to a better degree than sony
Why do you feel that? How will MS influence the internet providers to give priority to their data, and route their data more directly? Money? That's possible now given net neutrality. But Sony also has the ability to work with ISP's or internet backbone companies to speed up their service. They probably already do, because for streaming services, it actually reduces the overall bandwidth on the internet if certain kinds of data are prioritized over more direct paths. There is only so much that can be done on the servers themselves, and it's a fallacy that MS can just be faster because of the size of their company. Sony's servers are more than sufficient to provide the content at a reasonable speed. They've proven this. What hasn't been proven is that MS can actually provide a more lag free experience, and MS hasn't explained how they've managed to reduce lag using a predictive algorithm, since the problem has never been the speed of the game on the servers. They haven't explained how they've managed to have a better video streaming algorithm than Sony, and Sony are actually ahead of MS on this front through many other technologies that they have in the company itself. Sony is quite literally a company that invents this kind of stuff. They have a fully fledged and fleshed out video streaming service which is just as good, if not better than anything else out there. Yet some people are saying that MS somehow has a video streaming tech which can push more data through less bandwidth? That makes no sense, and I think a lot of people actually neglect that fact about Sony, because they can't look past PlayStation.
Don't forget the question of battery drain, too. Most phones just aren't built for the kinds of console games we play, unlike the switch.
xCloud is a streaming service, the phone itself isn’t rendering the game. So I would expect the battery to last roughly as long as it does when you stream Netflix or YouTube on your phone.
Also you know Red Dead Redemption 2 is not coming to the Switch. With this* you can get all these impossible AAA games on the Switch. Thats what I'm most excited about, *There are strong rumors that it is coming to the Switch
Lol, Nintendo fanboy sites never let me down.
Lmao... Basically, you don't want Nintendo to have competition.😖... Got it😱
It's not even that. This service is heavily rumored to launch on the Switch as well lol
Lol... Ok 🙄 U know rumors are different than facts🤔
Soooo what, options aren’t good now?
All of them.
I applaud Nintendo for what they pulled off with the Switch. Combining a docked console and portable handheld into one was ballsy and brilliant. However, its not the path I would want to see certain others take. It works for Nintendo, but it wouldn't be the best option for Microsoft. Since Switch is a portable first and a console after, it means that its base will never be as powerful as a stand alone high fidelity console can be, which is what Microsoft needs to have and what we gamers expect from them. Its only but so much power that can fit in a portable size like that, and the only benefit Switch owners see from docking it is a resolution bump. Nothing happens to its assets, they remain the same as if it was undocked. It makes total sense for Nintendo to go that path because they don't make hardware outside of gaming at all. However, Microsoft ALREADY does. Since Microsoft already sells various hardwares and even has their software running or even more hardware at various price points, it means that for them, the streaming route is better for not just them but their EXISTING and other existing customers as well. I just purchased a Surface Go about a month and some change ago...but I also have a Surface Pro, a Xbox 360, about 4 phones, an Xbox One S, an Xbox One X, a SMART OLED 4K TV, a HP 8" tablet and a 7" HP tablet. It would be stupid for Microsoft to let these devices go unused (in terms of being "gaming" devices) for me, when they can simply take EVERY DEVICE I ALREADY OWN and turn it into a "gaming" device. You might not agree with that, but it is what makes the most sense for them. Powerful consoles will still be expected, powerful PCs will still be expected. But to have the ability to take the millions and millions of NON gaming devices ALREADY in the world from Windows, Google, Amazon, Roku...even Nintendo, and potentially make it so that it can run games that it otherwise has no business running is what Microsoft is going after here. I look forward to playing Halo Infinite on my Surface Go in the future, AWAY FROM HOME over streaming, and hopping on the console once I get home natively...all the while picking up exactly where I left off...one game truly being anywhere that I am...that's the hope anyway.
Uh no. 99% of all Switch games are developed in docked mode. Handheld mode is a scaled down version of docked it not the other way around
Regardless in which order a developer designs their game on Switch is here nor there and wasn't my point. My point is that by docking the Switch, that only yields you better resolution vs undocked. Assets remain exactly the same. Most games do 720p undocked and 1080p docked with the exact same assets between the two. Because of this, its not good for Microsoft to follow in those footsteps because power would always be limited by the handheld portion.
Doesn't matter if the asset the same or not. Switch having two modes doesn't mean two games. Docked mode is more than resolution boost and framerate boost. That we gamers only sees. Developers can do more in dock mode than in handheld
Hilarious coming from you but "fanboying" has nothing to do with the fact you're hoping for something that most likely will never come true. Ironic that you got triggered over the fact I literally just reinforced your own comment, you said "that's the hope."
My hope is based off the words coming directly from Phil Spencer himself on the matter haha. Maybe you express the parts you have issue with and we take it from there...
Lmfao! Just... no.
I don’t know, I thought it was just Microsoft jumping into something that customers haven’t been interested in so far. Only difference is that they are going all out advertising, mostly undisclosed advertising as well.
I think streaming was an inevitable enventuality in the current market. It's hard to ignore the uptake of things like Netflix or Spotify. MS is actually smart to try and get into this sooner rather than later. I don't think it should be about who was there first, or how MS will do it better, because ultimately, I think any service that keeps running is likely to be equivalent where content will define them. The technologies involved will end up being sold and shared among all of them, or a common tech will bridge all of them....like we see in video streaming now. My only contention is this notion that MS is going to do it better than Sony, and Sony has somehow stayed stagnant since release, and will never improve. MS has made some comments about what they've done, but not a single media outlet, or person praising them for being ahead somehow, has asked how their technology actually achieves that. It's like they think the presense of technology, or the claim of it, is enough reason to believe, despite MS track record on delivering on new techs which aren't really new, or particularly innovative. Personally, I can't see how predictive algorithms can solve the issue of lag. The closest thing I can think of is how MMO's do it, where the video is made and shown before the variables to draw it are available. This is done client side on MMO's, and it often leads to jumps in things on screen as data is updated for the client. If you've played an MMO, you notice this heavily in areas with a lot of user activity, or if your connection is kind of slow. It's especially apparent in WOW in cities around the auction house, or in questing areas where there are a lot of people. To me, this kind of early showing of the screen isn't a way to solve lag, it's just a way to let the game play itself, and if the unpredictable happens, the user is going to notice much more than they might over some modest lag, as for the most part, a bit of a delayed input isn't going to hurt a lot of games. While this is just pure speculation, it's the only reasonable application I can come to at this point. But something like this seems like it would be quite obtrusive in MP games, particularly a FPS where people seem to think if its not 60fps then its not sufficient, but shooting something that you think is there, but really isn't would be much worse than 30fps, and its even possible for people to exploit this to have an advantage against other players. There are only so many frames a game can be ahead of the player on. The number will vary depending on the input timings of the game. Faster games you don't have as much of a buffer. Slower games, with less immediate, or more scripted movements have more time.
non interactive media cant be compared to interactive media, for gaming digital downloads are the equivalent to streaming. And yes plenty of media and youtubers are acting like microsoft did something amazing, open your eyes. At the end of the day my biggest issue with streaming is that it makes no sense at all, why go that way when hardware is getting cheaper and smaller? Its like some shareholders just looked at netflix without even thinking about how it works vs games. Netflix you just get pure data and your front end still does all the processing, when they stream games its all server end and makes me scratch my head.
It's going that way, because it means that they can get customers without having to try and get them to commit to the hardware. I should probably clarify that I don't think this will take over traditional methods of gaming anytime soon. There are too many obstacles in place. I feel that for a while, it's not something meant as a replacement, but just another option to try and gain a market that is not usually approachable because they don't want to buy the hardware. Some hardcore may get it, but I don't think they make up a majority of the target market for these services.
Both can survive, and Nintendo has already tried something similar with Capcom's RE 7 on the Switch. We are definitely seeing the first few levels being built after the foundation was laid out years ago. With faster connections in urban areas and the fastly approaching 5G (and beyond) I can see the gen after this next one might go completely digital.
In which case there's nothing stopping full mobile-model adaptation.
5G would help massively with latency. It's crazy how fast it is
Sorry but Switch in no way does what MS is trying to do. Having to lug around the Switch and use it while away from your console is not the same as being able to play your games on near any device you can stream to where the computing is done on servers. The Cloud option is surely too early in my eyes but when connectivity options and 5G steps up in the world it will be then that it becomes completely functional.
So the future of gaming is mobile low end ports? Yeah let’s juts go backwards.
Coming from someone who isn't even first in line for cloud gaming hype, leave it to nintendo enthusiast to completely miss the point. What Switch does is in no way even related to what either Microsoft or Google are doing.
If you read the article, you'd see I looked at both in their own way. My point was that Microsoft's marketing message behind xCloud is that it allows players to take their games wherever to play at anytime, which is the same marketing message as the Switch. Both are trying to achieve the same general goal, albeit in different ways. Thus, IMO, the Switch is the better option due to it being a dedicated machine that doesn't have to rely on the internet, and for that reason I prefer it over xCloud (and every other cloud gaming service for that matter).
Its funny how those guys who were keep telling that PS now is crap and unnecessary now call the same thing on Xbox innovation
People complain on switch screen being to small well how the f would it look on the phone
I would assume, not much different than playing a game on a PS Vita...depending on the phone of course. But understand that BILLIONS of people do exactly that every day which is play games on phones...clearly they would be comfortable with the idea...its all about choice.
More like the other way around
Two words. "Relevant multiplats" which the Switch doesn't have. So no to your moronic question.
Yeeeeeeeah, no. The Switch cannot run games that the Xbox hardware can. When they try to stream it, they have to stream it from someone else's hardware, and with some pretty bad latency and very poor quality. Just look at the RE7 streaming reception. So while the Switch is SORT of an option, it's hardly the solution to this perceived "problem" that the author would like to assert it is.