Digital Foundry : In an ideal world, Nvidia's RTX 3050 should be equivalent to an RTX 2060 - but with two gigs of much needed extra memory. We get the 8GB of VRAM with the new card, but performance isn't quite as good as we think it should be.
Alex Hutchinson talks about Google Stadia, how Xbox compares, and what cloud gaming needs to move forward.
Cloud gaming still has too many flaws. Fast stable internet, extra costs/subscription services, not ideal for mobile data and why play over cloud via wifi when you have a console/pc that has no input delay and other issues, why buy a game on a cloud service (will always need online even if it's a single player game) when you can actually own it on console/pc...at the same price. Cloud gaming should only ever stay as an option to gaming and playing your games that you already own. Never as the only option.
I disagree, in the sense that the flaws are and have been these same known quantities for some time. You know you need fast and stable internet for the best experience. You know it isn't just free beyond Remote Play. Ownership - you know what ecosystem you're in.
Cloud Gaming is awesome when it's there as the most viable option at the time and works. For me, it was like this morning on my laptop playing Pentiment waiting for my car service to finish. For others it's to quick demo a new game before thinking of hard drive space. Maybe Mac users with gigabit internet want to play GeForce Now and buy a game off Steam only to play it that way.
As long as latency exists, cloud gaming will never thrive no matter how much they advertise that there's low latency or no latency that always ends up being a load of crap
I quite enjoy cloud streaming now. I find it the quickest way to testing if a game is worth committing download time or even $ to buy it. And using dedicated devices like the portal and gcloud makes it all the better.
But like Goodguy says... it's an option, and not the only one. If people understand that, they may start to appreciate this convenience.
I think Xbox is doing Cloud Streaming right, even if I think its only because they're doing hardware wrong.
By enabling xCloud on The Xbox One and Series S they enable players to buy the cheaper console but play games in better resolutions through xCould.
Take the recent Oblivion release for instance. If you play it locally on a Series S it's rendered at 630P and upscaled using FSR to 1260P with a 30FPS cap.
But if you play it on xCloud on the Series S, it's at 1080P native 60 FPS.
So you can get better performance using xCloud then playing local (on the Series S and Xbox One).
It shouldn’t have required a subscription service. Like do the Steam model and just take the % on software sales or have a sub tier where you pay monthly or annually and get perks.
I’m not opposed to the idea of being able to stream games in the highest quality, but Stadia was so poorly handled it turned into a massive sh*t show.
"It shouldn’t have required a subscription service."
It didn't
"Like do the Steam model and just take the % on software sales or have a sub tier where you pay monthly or annually and get perks."
That's literally what it was. Stadia pro gave 2 free games a month (similar to PS+), 4K visuals, and 5.1 Surround Sound. But if you didn't want to pay you could simply buy the games and play them in 1080P. The core service was free.
But google massively screwed up the marketing which led to people thinking it needed a sub to use.
Google Stadia failed largely in part because of the massive campaign Microsoft launch against it. It didn't have the massive support of PlayStation, Nintendo, or even Apple to withstand the negativity campaign Microsoft launch against it.
Valve gave a user Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 for free as compensation for the long wait during their Steam Deck repair.
I had a similar experience when I initially pre-ordered my Deck. There was an issue during shipping and they offered me a customer service perk for the hassle and let me pick any game on Steam. It was super nice of them. I got a copy of Rime.
Sony CEO Hiroki Totoki and CFO Lin Tao talked about the state of the PlayStation business and the strategy and targets going forward, including how they're responding to the tariffs.
I think they take that into consideration when they announce their projections. Currently, after the xbox price increase, the PRO is cheaper than the series x! That is ridiculous, and it can’t last.
you keep saying that but the price of a PS5 Pro is S699.99 (US) and the price of a Series X is $599.99 (US)
The series x with 2 TB storage space is more expensive than PS5 PRO which also has 2 TB storage space.
Oh so you are pitting a regular Pro with a special edition X... got it. If you are going so far as trying to compare apples to apples... please add in the optical drive and stand to the Pro. Seeing as the X has both of those by default.
I will help you if you are unable to do so.
PS5 Pro 2tb: $699.99, Optical Drive: $79.99, Stand: $29.99 = $809.97
Xbox Series X Galaxy Black Special Edition 2TB: $729.99
The PS5 PRO has 2TB storage. The series X with 2TB storage and much weaker, is… more expensive! So yeah, Im pointing out that fact.
Also, the PRO does not require a stand.
Ps: regular series 2TB is $749 (where did u get 729?)
Its right here on the official XB site: https://www.xbox.com/en-US/...
Okay, so no stand for the Pro, but you might still want the optical drive. So $779.98 vs $729.99. A properly outfitted Pro is still more $$ than a 2tb X.
Do I need to mention that the series x is not nearly as powerful as the PS5 PRO?
And no, the PS5 PRO runs just fine without a drive, and people don’t have to buy the drive right away, assuming they want it.
People are spending less time playing is a typical trigger for this.
The less time spent playing the less likely you are to spend more money on games and services including subs or even the next console.
Increased engagement equals more money.
Same reason Microsoft does it: it looks better to investors and it's a solution when unit sales slow down.
Personally, I'm not a fan of this metric; and by using it, you're kind of signaling that you're moving into the "This is a PlayStation" era.
"I wonder why they are shifting focus to MAU."
Because they´d finally realized that MS wasn´t wrong after all.
The problem with this GPU is the market and as a result the price. It's not bad by any means, however, the market has killed off any chance of this being in the conversation of "the performance is decent, but the value is amazing". Instead we have "this thing is okay at best thanks to RT and DLSS, but has nearly no value because of its price".
It was never going to be a 2060 with more RAM, that would be a 3050 Ti. The performance clearly put it on par with the 1660s / 1660 ti / 1070 GPUs which by now should have become the new performance replacement tier for the $100 - $150 range of used GPUs (the like RX 570 / RX 580 / GTX 1060) were just a couple years ago. But the market is trash, the used market is trash, and as a result each GPU gets released at a ridiculous price that would have been laughed at two years ago.
In a healthy market this GPU would be around $159 which would make it an amazing value GPU. However, it has a MSRP of $249 which drastically hurts it's value, but even more insane is that it's not selling at retail, it's selling at over $400 in many places, when the 3060 and 6600XT are also in the price range, making the 3050 a complete pass.
Good luck getting it at an entry-level price.
Stuff like this just makes me happier about my lowly 3060.. i had borderline buyers remorse when I got it at it’s pretty inflated prices but since then things have just got worse.