As companies including Microsoft and Verizon explore cloud-based gaming, players and businesses alike are nearing the achievement of a longtime dream.
Netflix: Streams Movies with the option to download PSNow: Streams games with the option to download Yet PSNow, a service which holds the largest share of this market, isn’t mentioned once? Clearly the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Can't help but agree. That is a big error.
LoL, it's the Washington Post. They are one of the most disgusting leftwing news outlets and really have no place in games either.
Blame Sony, since.. you know... it's their service that they hardly advertise. I see more ads for PSVue than PSNow. If journalists aren't constantly made aware of it then how can they write about it? Plus it is limited in scope as to what you can use it with. Had Sony not canceled it from PS3, Vita and some of their TV's then it prob would get more credit than it does. That's the thing about Netflix... it's still viable on many different devices. Hence why other services trying to offer it to a wide variety of consumers are being given that moniker. I have a feeling though that Sony is working to make PSNow more widely available so we may end up seeing it work on IOS and Android devices as well as other set top boxes at some point in the near future.
They’re “journalist” it’s there job to do research lol Yes I won’t lie that Sony hasn’t advertised it well enough, but if someone’s gonna write an article regardless the service is there and should be known even a bit I agree with ur second point though, I do think Sony is eventually gonna come back again and support other devices. I think it was just a bad time to do it and try to support only certain models of tvs. That and it’s possible there really isn’t a market for it considering most heavy gamers have the tools for it to play locally. I bought it (psnow) to play some of those games but barely use the service myself. And if Xbox started to offer the option to stream, I’d pick download everytime
So because Sony doesn't advertise it everywhere, it shouldn't be considered as an option even though it does what is being considered the future, now? Nice spin on that one.
@2pac, that's how marketing works. If it isnt being talked about then people think it isnt being taken seriously. All Sony has to do is just advertise more and those who may have been unaware become aware. It isn't about who did what first but more about who is making the most noise about it now and getting the attention. That's not spin, that's fact.
This reminds of the PS Camera situation. Sony had been doing since the PS2, when MS introduced the Kinect it was considered or in the same bucket as this 'Netflix for games' the future. I hate to say this but where does this future of gaming stands now. Last time i checked, most still use the PS Camera on the PS4 more than the Kinect on XO. Which received the most amount of press? Which was considered system selling? Which was considered the wave of the future (Things to come)? MS hyperbole gets sickening after a while. Especially since there are so many companies already streaming games and Sony is one of them.
@darthv72 Right but this article isn't marketing, and Verizon is not advertising it yet they are mentioned in the article.
@saigon, I know what you are trying to say but your examples are just a tad off. PS2 had eyetoy and the PS3 eye was an upgrade to that while on the 360 there was the live vision camera first. Kinect was not an upgrade but something radically different. The PS4 camera has more in common to the kinect than it does with the previous eye's. The reason why people use the ps4 camera is because of vr but before that it wasnt promoted nor mandatory like kinect started out to be. People are more receptive to options than being forced to adopt something they dont have an interest in. @2pac, verizon isnt advertising it because its not ready yet but you can bet they will. In the meantime.... sony could do more to promote their service and in doing so it will take away some of that attention from the others. And it will make it aware to those who didnt know. It's all marketing, both direct (advertising) and indirect (building awareness that its coming). Right now Ms, google, Verizon and even Amazon are all working on this stuff and building awareness.
That's because Sony doesn't spend all its time making a big deal about it, so people forget, and journalists can't be bothered to deal with facts and do research. They need a deadline for their article which probably took less time to write than one of my 4000 character comments on these forums. " If journalists aren't constantly made aware of it then how can they write about it? " LOL. I dunno, Research perhaps. As an effort to give their readers the facts. In an effort to appear informed and competent. the purpose of journalism should be to inform, not spread one's own ignorance. I mean, apparently this was a long time dream, but they had no clue about PSNow? How do you not read something about PSNow when you hear about these other streaming services? They go almost hand in hand. It's limited in scope beause Sony dialed back what it was available on. Don't you think that if it was wanted on those devices, or used enough to make it worthwhile to support, that Sony would have continued supporting it? why do you think MS will do any better than Sony did in those markets. They have even less presence in the TV and mobile phone market than Sony does, and the general public doesn't give two craps about MS products outside of having to use their OS and productivity software at work, and for email. Yeah, the services are viable on other devices, there just isn't much demand for it. And I don't see mobile devices becoming a big market for a while to come yet.
Research is something few and far between these days... it seems. As to the rest of your comment. I don't think much of anything of what MS or Verizon or Google are doing really. I was simply pointing out what could possibly be a reason nobody mentions Sony. If it was an article about who did what first then yeah... Sony should get some credit. Since it's about who is doing things now to expand the reach and capitalize on things moving forward then it is what it is.
I agree with you rainslacker, but for the time being journalism is dead. When we paid for our newspapers and magazines there was at least hope that the money would be able to fund done competent journalists and editors. Now we get it for free and the only people left paying are advertisers. With native advertising its only getting worse.
I agree, sony is already doing this whit ps now, but some people just ignore and act like MS is the pioneer in this are. What a joke!
For what it's worth, like I said before, it's not about who did it first but who is making the most of it now and getting attention. Sony can just as easily take the attention away from Verizon by just advertising the service more. But it's limited to just PC and PS4. They had much better odds when it was PS3, Vita, PC, and Bravia TV's to promote it on. More choices is always better than less.
@Darth If that's the case, then Sony is making the most of it now, and when they started, they didn't get the positive attention MS did. In fact, many people were quite hostile over the idea. Now, MS announces something, makes some promises, hasn't delivered, and they're going to be the leaders of the netflix of gaming. It's stupid, and if journalist did their jobs properly, they would recognize who is leading, and then use that to say why MS will make more of it. Not ignore the competition to make a case for MS.
lol PS Now sucks and should be half the price it is. Streaming is a joke.
Its better than MS’s version. But i agree, we dont need a paid monthly service.
I doubt that’s it’s a dream that many gamers want.
This is MS money for advertising. Imagine if they spent it to make games instead.
Dream for who exactly? Because most serious gamers already have a console and/or PC.
A dream for game publishers. Imagine Smart TVs, Rokus, Amazon fire sticks with some xcloud or project streaming apps that work with bluetooth controllers. They want to get people to subscribe for $9 and then forget about it. As someone that only plays single player games and never plays them twice... I'm kind of interested in seeing where this goes.
I'm interested too, but I agree with Rainslacker... PSNow was on a path to push to every device under the sun. They started, got it on some devices, and suddenly stopped and dialed it back. PS Now is still very alive...bigger than GamePass. But only on the PS4 and PC. My guess is that with current network technology for it to be good, it's got to be wired. To be wired you need a box. If you're willing to buy a box it might as well be a console.
I still think this is just coming from suits who don't understand that games are interactive. When you stream movies you get data and your device processes the entire thing on your end. With games it just doesnt work like this, you end up with an inferior experience and the processing has to be pretty much all server side, which doesnt make a lot of business sense to me.
Nvidia’s GameStream has changed my opinion completely on game streaming. Kudos to them currently with it being free until proper full release and also with the move to bring Steam in is genius! I’m worried about how much they’ll charge once it goes fully live. I wouldn’t be willing to pay much for it though. Don’t see why it should be any more than £5 a month max.
I seriously hope so. Alternatives to play more games instantly is a dream come true. Game Pass, Gamefly and PSnow has really come through even other options that I hardly use like Redbox are great only because it's another option when all else fails.
I want to know who is going to carry around a controller with their phone.
Psnow is awesome and only getting better.
I tried PSNow last month and was not impressed. Latency and image quality are just bad.
It isn't for me and i play over WiFi. Plus you can DL games anyway.
A dream? Maybe MS’s dream.
"explore cloud-based gaming", why some companies make so much emphasis to prevent the right of consumers own the damn thing in this case videogames ?, cool that Cloud gaming option is available but sadly these companies the essence of this mechanism is toward to removed the power of the consumer to own and the game and use it whatever time you want it.
Spotify is pretty successful and yet you dont own the music you listen to on that service. you do if you go out and buy the album, then you can rip it to your own device. Here's the thing, there are going to be some consumers who would rather just stream their entertainment. That is not going to stop people like you and I who prefer not to. It's just a choice.
I agree there will always be people who want that stuff, or aren't that fussed about if they own stuff, or whatever, but we're talking about hardcore gamers here, who some seem happy to give up their ownership rights for what they consider convienant, or worse, because of console preference.
you are comparing a song to a complete game ?O_o, wow I mean just wow, ok moving on.
Spotify’s interesting, because they’ve actually been losing money for years. Operating at a loss since 2008. Last year’s Q2 report revealed that while their monthly active users (sounds familiar) went up, they also lost twice as much money https://www.rollingstone.co... . Not enough paid subs to cover the royalties, Europe’s GDPR, slowdown in ad supported MAU growth. Definitely some kinks to iron out. Ad supported MAU *did* manage to go up by 8% in Q3 tho’. https://www.digitalmusicnew...
Does this even mention PS Now?
Should be an option, but never should be mandatory
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.