Project xCloud is a faulty solution to a problem Switch has already solved

— Nintendo Enthusiast:

Microsoft's upcoming Project xCloud game-streaming service sounds interesting, but can it really be more convenient than the Nintendo Switch?

[Shikoku]

Nope and nope.

[UncertainCategory]

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.

[Eidolon]

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.

[conanlifts]

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.

[sprinterboy]

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.

[Eidolon]

Oh yeah, try playing crash on remote play haha

[rainslacker]

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.

[jukins]

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

[rainslacker]

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.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

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.

[UncertainCategory]

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.

[Zeref]

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

[Soap_Z]

Lol, Nintendo fanboy sites never let me down.

[Gaming4Life1981]

Lol

[slavish0]

Lmao... Basically, you don't want Nintendo to have competition.😖... Got it😱

[Zeref]

It's not even that. This service is heavily rumored to launch on the Switch as well lol

[slavish0]

Lol... Ok 🙄
U know rumors are different than facts🤔

[CrimsonWing69]

Soooo what, options aren’t good now?

[Godmars290]

All of them.

[timotim]

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.

[Kumakai]

Lmfao! Just... no.

[kevnb]

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.

[rainslacker]

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.

[kevnb]

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.

[rainslacker]

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.

[gangsta_red]

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.

[Godmars290]

In which case there's nothing stopping full mobile-model adaptation.

[xenz]

5G would help massively with latency. It's crazy how fast it is

[KillBill]

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.

[2pacalypsenow]

So the future of gaming is mobile low end ports? Yeah let’s juts go backwards.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

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.

[AKR]

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).

[microgenius]

Its funny how those guys who were keep telling that PS now is crap and unnecessary now call the same thing on Xbox innovation

[bumbleforce]

More like the other way around

[Opinionatedlovesme]

Two words. "Relevant multiplats" which the Switch doesn't have. So no to your moronic question.

[ShadowWolf712]

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.

[_LarZen_]

Hahahaha....whaaaat?