well, assuming there's actually a cloud gaming market. A fact that's still up for debate I think.
Here's one usecase where I see cloud gaming adding value: esports. With cloud gaming it's possible to playing field far more, because competitions can now force the same latency by introducing artificial latency. Cloud gaming also eliminates cheats like wall hacks (or fog of war removal), which is currently possible because the game client and rendering engine all run on a local machine.
I'd have gone absolutely nuts in my comp. gaming days with forced-latency.
On release, CyberPunk 2077 was so bad that CD Projekt issued an apology and offered refunds. The previous poster's entire point was delaying Starfield to make sure it didn't end up like CyberPunk 1.0. I don't get the comparison between Starfield 1.0 and CyberPunk 2.0. https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/cyberpunk-2077-glitch-refun...
But Cyberpunk 1.0 was an interesting game even if buggy. Starfield is just not interesting.
To be clear, you don't find it interesting, which is fine, but it certainly was released in a better state than CyberPunk 1.0, which was the only point made. Are you just telling us you don't like Starfield?
I'm more concerned that I won't have access to the games because I don't play on Xbox or Windows.
So you campaigned against Sony buying Bungie too, right?
To be frank, Sony seem to have bought Bungie more for its live service expertise than its IP. Not fond of this direction but it's hard to argue that Sony bought them to starve Microsoft of game releases - Bungie has like one franchise that's so-so in popularity.
> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. I'm curious about which "anti-consumer practices" Sony is responsible for, that Microsoft isn't. So far it seems to me that Sony did acquire some gaming studi…
A few things, and I am likely forgetting others: Backwards compatibility: It was a mess on the PS3 with different launch models having different levels of compatibility. They later removed this functionality completely on the PS3. The PS4 had no backwards compatibility for PS3 instead you had to purchase (or subscribe) to play games in the cloud, games you may already own. Compared to Xbox which the Xbox One did not…
Backwards compatibility was a luxury, and not the standard, until recently. The first Nintendo backwards compatible home console was the Wii in 2005. Rapidly changing architecture differences made playing older games difficult. The GBA, DS, PS2, and PS3 all had custom hardware needed to play older games. The fact that the PS3 could play PS1 games in any way should be lauded, not labeled as anti-consumer.
> I do suspect that Microsoft may have been behind Starfield releasing in its half-baked, dumbed down state though a la “We need it on game pass by X, make it happen!” In fairness to Microsoft, "half-baked" would be how I describe all of Bethesda's previous releases as well. I don't think Starfield is that far off how Skyrim or Fallout 4 was on release. Starfield's a long shot from where Skyrim and Fallout are now af…
> > I do suspect that Microsoft may have been behind Starfield releasing in its half-baked, dumbed down state though a la “We need it on game pass by X, make it happen!” > In fairness to Microsoft, "half-baked" would be how I describe all of Bethesda's previous releases as well. I don't think Starfield is that far off how Skyrim or Fallout 4 was on release. Starfield's a long shot from where Skyrim and Fallout are no…
> And it's got to compile all the shaders EVERY time you launch the game, no caching.
Man, I've never been happier to use Steam on Linux.
Since every game's shaders are transpiled to Vulkan, the Steam Vulkan shader cache works for games with this kind of BS problem even if they were written for DirectX
I'm not even worked up about gaming specifically. I just think the FTC is failing horrifically at its job of protecting consumers from monopoly. The SEC is failing on its end too. Everything will just get slowly worse.
I think this is a bit unfair, there's a real significant FTC upswell happening, but they're contending with decades of atrophy and an antitrust lobby that is extraordinarily powerful, not to mention the number of monopoly-friendly judges that are sitting in some of the most vital courts.
And this upswell can easily be squashed in just over a year's time. We are fortunate that any sort of effort is being made.
well, assuming there's actually a cloud gaming market. A fact that's still up for debate I think.
Right. Microsoft is just about the only player left in cloud gaming because Sony, Amazon and Google all tried and gave up in different ways, in part because none of them really found a market nor an audience. I heard Sony is trying again but leasing some cloud servers from Microsoft Azure's white box version of xCloud, ironically. That last part is also why I think the Ubisoft deal is probably funny. Rumors are Ubi i…
Right. Microsoft is just about the only player left in cloud gaming because Sony, Amazon and Google all tried and gave up in different ways, in part because none of them really found a market nor an audience. I heard Sony is trying again but leasing some cloud servers from Microsoft Azure's white box version of xCloud, ironically. That last part is also why I think the Ubisoft deal is probably funny. Rumors are Ubi i…
Amazon has Luna https://luna.amazon.com/
Apologies, I thought it had shut down already; I must have been confusing the shut down of game studios dedicated to it as the first step in a shutdown in the so-called "Stadia playbook" and thought they were further along it.
Do they? I genuinely don't know and a quick search only adds confusion. I see a lot of news from when they went Beta in 2019 and then a lot of radio silence and I don't see any links to the service that don't have a "Technical Preview" or "Beta" next to them. That probably doesn't bode well as a signal for an active player base even if it is technically running.
well, assuming there's actually a cloud gaming market. A fact that's still up for debate I think.
I think the technology is about 80% there. To my eye, the graphics and performance are the same as running the game locally. Provided you have a good internet connection, if you could just run a AAA game off of your crummy computer or tv, why would you buy an expensive graphics card? It is definitely where things are going.
I think there's still a market for what you're describing, but in terms of players and revenue it seems like competitive multiplayer titles that don't require particularly beefy hardware and where network latency is especially important have become what's most popular and profitable.
For example looking at September's games by MAUs[1], #6, #10 and #17 seem like good fits for cloud gaming, but the rest seem like a bad fit for cloud with fairly benign recommended hardware and latency sensitivity. Developers seem to be aware and willing to target fairly modest hardware specs for these titles as well. For example the new CoD's recommended GPU requirements is a 1070 and previous game was a 1060, which matches up with Steam hardware surveys.[2]