Nvidia's streaming service has quietly existed since 2013, but these days, it can stream the games you already own on Steam.
The first three Tomb Raider games are coming to an Evercade Cartridge!
Their newer giga cart tech should make for even bigger games coming to the platform. I'm hoping for a Resident Evil collection with the first 3 games.
Huzaifah from eXputer: "With Larian Studios washing their hands of the IP, what is the ultimate fate of the legendary Baldur's Gate series?"
If anybody's gonna mention BioWare, then look at Archetype Entertainment, they're the new BioWare
or else
Obsidian is still a good choice but not independent anymore.
No, WoTC is pivoting to mobile. They can use Larian's work to justify DnD Go and everyone will accept it.
Honestly, we're talking completely new engine and none of Larian's built-in stuff with regard to environments and the like that they had from their past divinity game. No one is going to have that just ready to go. So, they need to shop for a dev studio that has a past game that shows what they want.
Obsidian doesn't have that, maybe the closest being Dungeon Siege 3 or Pillars of Eternity, but those are very basic, not as open, very little environment related and altering capabilities. So, we're talking a step way back on what Larian delivered. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Okay conversation tree designs, but still needs more complexity.
inXile has Wasteland 3 as a base model engine, and I think that's better than Pillars of Eternity from Obsidian. But, still needs to be more open world, more environmental effects, and a much heavier rules set adaptation. But, not a bad overall engine as a base, but still a ton of work. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Needs a ton of work on that entirely.
Tactical Adventure did the Solasta game. Really good and more accurate as far as 5e rules than BG3. But, again, if the expectation is similar to what made BG3 a big hit, engine isn't designed for moving the camera, is a bit outdated in graphics, doesn't have in-game scene elements, and needs much better writers/voice actors.
Owlcat of pathfinder games is another choice, even though they've recently moved on to WH40k licensed games. Again, though, the engine is the biggest issue here to match up, but it's a much better option overall than Tactical Adventure. Another question is writers/story telling, as much of their overall story telling bits are very limited with a lot of random worldbuilding elements that are just +\- of some attributes.
TBH, no matter who takes over, it's just not going to be like BG3 much like how BG3 isn't at all like BG1/2. And BG3 was so successful because of how much Larian was able to put in with their engine and how focused they were on players having ridiculous control over the story being told. I just don't see the next BG being the same and depending on what it is, it might be good but I'm not as big of a reach as BG3. It's way more likely players are going to go into BG4 (or its spiritual successor if it moves away from Baldur's Gate and into Neverwinter or something like Plansescape) expecting much of what is in BG3 with more options, new and older characters, and the same level of control over what they're doing. If it doesn't have that, regardless of who makes it, it won't be as successful, IMHO.
We’re delighted to announce a refresh of the Evercade line of retro gaming consoles that not only provides a simpler and more accessible way to get into Evercade and its physical cartridge ecosystem but also brings the price of the products down to under £100/$100.
It's a great idea, but I feel the execution could have been better, particularly concerning the quality of the consoles themselves and the fact that those carts are likely not going to last long, given the cheap, bottom-of-the-barrel flash memory they use.
Depends. On was in on OnLive, the better part of a decade ago. The platform ended up dying. The health of streaming services relies on two things. The first being whether the price of hardware is seen as a barrier to the average consumer. The second being how many people have access to the sort of internet required to make streaming games an enjoyable experience.
From what Ive seen, these two groups don't exactly coincide.
I've tried it and it is probably what you can expect from other services. Not horrible, but certainly not great. Gameplay is just sluggish at times and that's on my 200 mbps internet service. I'm on the free plan which means I can only play for an hour at a time. If you pay $5 a month then you get up to 6 hours. No thanks. I think most people who stream games will ultimately choose to buy a PC or console and get the real local experience rather than playing on PC/console many miles away.
it sure seems like it. I just wish you could play for longer than what they offer.
"If it can deliver on the idea of letting me play games I already own from anywhere? Take my money." Lol, I get what he means, but that is a strange ass statement to read.
As mentioned in the article, you can already stream games you own (and are installed) on your home PC and play them anywhere via Play Anywhere. PS4 has Remote Play. MS has a version in beta for XBOX. All of them require you have the games installed and playing locally, but it doesn't cost you anything extra. I get some might be interested in playing games they own, but are not installed, quickly or remotely via a streaming service, though I'm not sure there are enough people out there who own the required games and hardware that would ultimately be -that- interested in paying to access their own titles for a monthly fee.
There are benefits, sure, but I can't imagine there would be a huge overlap - especially if the service doesn't end up being able to expand in such a way your entire library is available. Perhaps offerings like this will be the stepping stone needed to help get one of these services off the ground. And while it is more enticing to me as a PC gamer with a huge Steam library than something like Stadia, given the end-goal is to get to people who don't already game/own gaming hardware I'm not sure this will be enough/be the right approach.
I tested it, and as long as I have nothing else in the house using the internet, it works well. The lag was just about noticeable, but for me, being just about noticeable is still not good enough, and that is the main issue with streaming gameplay.
It could be decent for those that don't want to build a powerful pc and as long as your internet connection is 100% perfect at all times, but I'm still not a fan. I would still prefer to pay for the hardware. Game streaming just isn't a great experience overall.