Microsoft, Sony, and Google are investing in subscriptions and streaming to give gamers more choice

Apple, Google, Microsoft, and more are investing in gaming subscriptions, but it may be difficult for them to revolutionize the industry.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars29069d ago

No. Streaming takes away consumer ownership.

UltraNova69d ago (Edited 69d ago )

We can all agree or disagree with what's coming [streaming] but as long as it remains an option then I'm fine with it.

Godmars29068d ago

The thing is that it wont remain an option. Just like DLC and patching started as options only to become mandatory with many big games needing patches larger their games before they can be played, streaming will migrate to where it will the only way to play games. And you wont own them.

UltraNova68d ago

This is long ways from happening though but when we.come to this I'll move on or find a platform that supports my needs, if any.

Godmars29068d ago

There wont be any other platforms. Unless pirates figure out a way to raid games out of servers then mod them so that those same servers wont be needed, the only thing that might be left are indie games.

And I'm talking literal home brewed hobbyist stuff.

gamer780468d ago

I'd agree with the title except for google. Sony and MS are giving us more, as in additional options, google is as a "video game company" is giving us less than the competitors by only offering streaming. When that goes the way of google+ you'll be stuck.

Godmars29068d ago

While what Google plans to do is the worst example, Sony and MS are only different by degrees. The original XB1 launch plans were basically Stadia, just like PSNow is Xbox Live minus day one availability of AAA games.

FallenAngel198469d ago

“Xbox Live has developed into much more than video game matchmaking service — it's a digital marketplace, a social media network, an advertising platform, and an overall entertainment nexus for millions of customers, many of whom don't play video games on a regular basis.”

How many people use Xbox Live just to watch movies and television from its digital store and socialize without actually gaming on the service. Those other features seem like additional things to do along with gaming rather than someone using the service specifically for those features by themselves.

PhoenixUp69d ago

“Goodman pointed out that the lifespan of a video game console is typically five or more years and doesn't require a continued investment. Paying for five years worth of Stadia would ultimately come out to $600, well beyond the cost of the most expensive Xbox and PlayStation consoles at their peak retail prices.

Additionally, streaming in 4K from Stadia will use about 15 GB of data per hour, meaning users with an upper limit on their online data usage could face throttling or penalties if they stream for 30 hours or more per month.

Stadia users will also have to buy games at the usual price to build their collection, and the available catalogue will only be a fraction of what's available on competing platforms. Stadia will also lack the first-party exclusive games that drive the sales of Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo consoles.”

Streaming would would ultimately cost more than traditional consoles and it’s far less practical in various cases. Idk why some people are making such a big deal of it.

Hell another nail in the coffin for Stadia is that Remote Play exists and at no cost to consumers it does practically the same thing Stadia claims to do with nearly the entire library of every gamer. Project xCloud allegedly will follow Sony’s lead thus making Stadia seem even more superfluous.

When a consumer can buy a game on a platform and have the choice to play it traditionally or stream it, it becomes less appealing to get the same game on a service you can only stream it on. Plus Stadia’s exclusives will pale in comparison to the competition which further complicates the issue on who this service will really appeal to.

Apocalypse Shadow69d ago (Edited 69d ago )

*One company is giving you no options but streaming. No hardware, no downloads, no ownership, lending or trading of games. But you buy full priced games on a server.

*One company would gladly toss away core gamers for those supposedly 2 billion "gamers" with streaming. No longer believes in exclusive games to sell their hardware. Would love to go all digital and has already built hardware to push the idea recently.

*One says, "here's something interesting to try as an option like VR." "But we are doubling down on core gamers." "While internet brings opportunities, we believe in AAA single player experiences not requiring an internet connection."

Can you connect the right company with their observable strategy?

Immagaiden69d ago

“While Stadia boasts some impressive technology, Google will still need to convince gamers that streaming can replace traditional video game consoles. Microsoft and Sony seem much less confident in streaming as an alternative to Xbox or PlayStation hardware, so they've positioned their streaming services to supplementary to their usual offerings.”

You can’t convince the entire market to give up on traditional consoles. Even with services like Hulu, Spotify, Kindle Unlimited, Netflix etc you can still buy media physically or digitally in those entertainment mediums. Why would that suddenly be any different with the gaming medium?

Streaming will always be an alternative. You can’t convince every consumer to abandon the traditional way of experiencing entertainment in its various forms in lieu of only streaming based distribution.

“While traditional games still get the most attention, the majority of gamers around the world are choosing to play free games. Whether it's "Fortnite" or "Candy Crush," the availability of fun, free games will always make some people think twice about paying for games.”

Just because a lot of people like playing F2P games doesn’t mean the majority of consumers prefer for most of their games to be F2P titles.

I’ve seen nary a gamer who’d pass up a paid title just to play something free. Game sales are as strong now as they’ve ever been in the face of successful F2P titles currently on the market.

“If nothing else, the steady improvement streaming technology and industry-wide moves towards subscription-based libraries will give players more control over how they spend their money and lower the barrier for entry for incoming gamers.”

Subscriptions can often give you less control over your content. If some title were to leave the subscription service you lose access to it as opposed to just buying it individually and having access to it near indefinitely.

With subscriptions you are at the mercy of the license holders every month, paying the fee every month or year as well as requiring the internet just to access it. Streaming doesn’t sound like you have more control over that content as opposed to physical and even digital distribution.

Show all comments (13)