Who Will Win The Streaming Wars?

We have Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo in some way continuing the boxed console market in some way. But what do you expect/predict they'll do when it comes to streaming next gen(for Nintendo uproarious laughter is a valid response)?

Google might have some sort of box but that's up in the air, could just be a service, like what xCloud might be, maybe?

Amazon are probably working on something streaming based: because they've weren't adding enough fuel to GameStop's funeral pyre.

Nvidia are still working away on something are far as I can tell.

But what are your predictions, wild dreams and bare minimum expectations for our terrifying disc-less future where we have ever less control over what we actaully own and have rights to as consumers * looks for brown paper bag for hyperventilating into *

Personally I think Mircosoft, Amazon and Google will go all in on streaming competing for the game everything anywhere market. Nintendo will continue to do Nintendo shit and make enough money to fuel a small country purely off of Pokemon-hardware-bundle sales. And Sony will offer a streaming service but i'll be less robust than the other options being focused on streaming to a console or TV while still selling a box(mid-tier PC) for premium gaming experiences. Basically MS, Amazon and Google all want to become the Netflix/Hulu/etc. for games, Sony wants to be the entire box office film industry turning a profit (just no Super Normal Profits) on AAA/Blockbusters and indie experiences best had as we currently do and Nintendo will keep selling Labos with DIY covers out of the back of a sedan at a flee market.

I mean, Playstation are in the hat in a small way with PSNow. They must have plans to make that more prominent whilst trying to sell us one more box. Google have the money and raw server power but Sony have a legacy and decades of titles they can point towards. It's bizarre, though. If this catches on, the web infrastructure has to move with it. Google themselves have shown have difficult that can be with their youtube algorithms acting poorly as moderation for their service.

As a consumer, this is exciting. The idea that the money I could spend on a PC upgrade can go to a subscription instead would be a nice alternative. Assuming it runs at a level I'm okay with.

From a developer standpoint, what does this do to costs? Designing to a set spec like they do today might at least help put a cap on development spend. If there is no ceiling, what does this do to an already fragile development space? Do we get developers aiming for unreachable goals and then having to make it back by sales numbers they can't hit? What even is a sale when it's tied to a service?

What the fuck?

I think the ramp for 'mostly streaming' or 'streaming only' console will be long, wide and shallow. Microsoft and Sony have both already dipped their toe into that pool, so teh are both already on that path. But, I honestly feel like steaming will capture headlines as each company launches initiatives, but that good old disc based and full on teh HDD games will still be 90% of what people are playing well into 2024. In fact, I expect headline in 2026 to be asking "Is This the Year for Streaming?"

Actually, I hate to say this, but I think the quality and speed of the Internet will dip lower in the next few years. Why? Well, teh speeds have bene increasing year over year, but we are reaching a tipping point where everywhere is adding users, but not adding to infrastructure or capacity to keep pace. So even counties with "The Best" Internet will experience a dips in overall speed per customer pretty soon. In the United States, I think it will be even worse as bandwidth decreases as use increases. Yes, worse, I think there are some huge unresolved infrastructure problems in the US and the slipping economy as well as "conservative" control of the FCC and FTC will make infrastructure upkeep slower and prices more expensive - at least for the short term. Keep in mind the effects of this 'slow down' will likely appear in 2020 and beyond, as of 2018 the speeds overall have been going up. Bottomline : this is a bad time to make a streaming only devices, because I think bandwidth and pricing issues are pile up. (Good news if you live in the Southern US, I think the next few Gigabit Fiber projects are in the south! So teh South might buck the trend. ) So, I think that while there will be streaming only devices they will not really catch the world on fire.

What does this mean for Sony and Microsoft? No much, as I said I think despite all teh bluster both copmaies will have and will push devices with starage that hold the games while offering streaming devices and services on the side

Google already have plenty of systems everywhere called Android. Not to mention plenty of people seem to like Chromecasts. MS seems fine with getting their services on other platforms. Then Amazon is fine with operating at a loss to push whatever product they want.

Though, no matter who wins, we lose.

ISPs. none of this works without rented time on their pipes or airwaves.

with net neutrality weakened, telecoms buying content networks, and a generally anti- competitive market... it's their game to lose.

Are you talking about streaming a game pre-rendered?
If yes, I don't think it will be a very big factor the next generation.

I've said this before and I've said it rather often - I really doubt that physical media, or at least local media, will go away as long as bandwidth caps are a thing and as long as slow internet connections are common. When the vast majority of people have consistent and uncapped gb/s + internet connections, then I think it's reasonable to imagine local media becoming an expensive, rich hobbyist-only sort of thing. I don't really see that happening soon, especially in America where such a network would require fiber cable to be laid largely everywhere.

I, personally, don't ever want to see local media disappear. I don't really want to see physical media disappear, either. Knowing that my ownership of PS4/Xbox One/PC games relies on servers and an internet connection that someone can just switch off is already scary enough, I really don't want a Netflix-style situation where I can't finish my run of the latest open world RPG because my game streaming service of choice decided that the rights to stream that game costs too much. Even physical copies of games these days requires an internet connection to download the patches that fix all the bugs and improves the framerates.

As for who actually wins... ISP's, as was pointed out above. All three big console makers already have subscription services for you and at least two of those are pretty successful, so I really don't see the huge benefit to Microsoft and Sony. Other than, you know, even more control and overview of what I play, when I play it, how long I play it for, etc. It would be a huge benefit to Google, though, especially if streaming does manage to become the dominant way to play video games in the future and Google's already there, with a robust and mature and well-known platform for you to use.

I'll take comfort in the fact that there are too many video games out there for me to play already. I'll never actually run out of stuff to play, I just won't be playing relevant stuff if game streaming becomes a big thing and physical media disappears.

I think in general if other mediums are a sign, the way to play games will be broader but most ways will still exist. You can still buy movies and albums on discs, or download them. Despite the fact that both have very robust streaming options. As for who will win, I think the only thing that matters there is who can offer the best value for a monthly fee. If one of them manages to find that sweet spot between having relatively new games on their service without the service costing an arm and a leg. Whoever that may be is hard to predict. If the streaming services for the big consoles are just a complimentary way of playing some old games or less popular not-so-old games then I doubt it will push the needle much for anyone.

Having only tried PSnow, it's fascinating on some level but the available games doesn't make me feel like it's even remotely a must-have. I might keep it around post trial period if only as a way of having access to odd games I would otherwise never buy. But that also in some ways feel like I am throwing money at Sony for a service that would in practice feel like I am paying for demos since I am not going to be invested enough in any game to actually spend quality time with them.

That may also very well be my overall worry with a streaming future, that all games will feel less valuble and you end up jumping around and never sticking with any one game since you're getting that Netflix too-many-options stress and never commit to anything.

@pezen: I agree with everything here; people still go to the cinema and have Netflix. When DVDs came out and when TVs started to be sold they didn't close every cinema.

If we're to compare consoles to film I think arcade cabinet to console was the huge drop change in consumption, similar to how the film industry had to fundamentally shift when TVs came out and people stopped going to the cinema weekly.

Microsoft seem to be smart; hedging their bets by keeping a finger in the disc drive and encouraging a streaming service. Google and Amazon could be flashes in the pan if they only offer streaming because, as its been pointed out. A LOT OF INTERNET STILL SUCKS. I just hope Sony and Nintendo don't lose to much market share to be competitive (release good games) by either only offering a bad streaming service or none at all.

I think everyone will try it but I don't think the infrastructure / technology is good enough for it to be a success. I expect this first big push at least to be a passing fad like 3D / Curved TVs. I certainly won't be buying in to it.

My Money is on Amazon as a AWS user.

I hope no one company wins. Monopoly isn't good for the consumers. While it's super cool with how the majority of people don't have the speed or have a data cap, it will be a while before it's commonplace.

My money is on a Google/Microsoft duopoly. Google has the infrastructure for it and Microsoft, while they don’t have quite as much infrastructure they are setting themselves up well acquiring all these developers for first party exclusives.

I just don’t see Sony and Nintendo measuring up in the background technology involved. Google and Microsoft are 2 of the biggest companies in the world and already have much of the needed infrastructure to do such a thing.

@someoneproud: I think Google actually showed that it did

The shorthand of Project Stream/Stadia (that is a fucking stupid name) is that they basically gave everyone a free copy of AssOdd for playing for two hours. I'm in the middle of nowhere with a regularly throttled comcast and it felt like I was playing the non-refresh SKU console version of the game in my web browser. There were a few hiccups that looked positively hideous but it was few and far between.

It isn't going to work in a hotel (which is my actual use case for something like this), but I think we're at the point where it will work for 99% of consumers. Which gets us back to when games started Going Digital and everyone lost their shit over how active service military in rural Montana who only have a thumb drive they take to the library twelve towns over won't be able to download patches or authenticate. Yeah, some people are going to be REALLY screwed by stuff like this. But even the shitty US internet infrastructure is sufficient for "most" people.

@gundato: I’m on a 400meg comcast connection in a large city and I couldn’t ever get Project Stream to give me more than a very low bitrate 720p. I don’t see how they’ll ever pull off 4K when they can’t even seem to do 1080p, let alone a good bitrate at those resolutions. If this is a case of Comcast throttling then we’re all in for a nightmare future if this is where things are headed. Also keep in mind that video games need a higher bitrate than regular video. More motion means more data is needed to avoid macroblocking. In something like a TV show there’s often much less going on in the frame, so you don’t need as high of a bitrate to avoid that macro blocking. In most video games, however, your camera is constantly moving around with all kinds of things happen in motion around you independent of the camera. That’s a lot of motion. Obviously not as much of a problem for things like 2d platformers but for anything 3D it will be a problem.

@gundato: That's encouraging to hear but I'm gonna have to remain skeptical 'till I see it for myself. The facts that the stream to show off their streaming service was far from flawless and that they really didn't show much anyway leave me firmly unconvinced.

Also if I consider their current streaming service, it's great a lot of the time but here and there it'll sit and buffer for 20 seconds which is frustrating for videos but unworkable for gameplay imo. I can't help but wonder, if they have the technology for better streaming, why aren't they using it already?

@haneybd87:I think 4k is a pipe dream that will only work for the people who work at google and live in vans in the parking garage with hard wired connections. I can't even see that being feasible in the next fifteen years, let alone one or two. Maybe the folk with big floppy fibers could do it, but even then I am unconvinced of real time 4k with no buffering.

But getting 720p and "console level" performance is pretty reasonable. There will be some hiccups and some people are going to get a bit boned, but "most" folk will be able to achieve that, should they choose to. Also factor in that people who are going the streaming route probably are paying for high tier internet which helps a lot.

And the issues of net neutrality (or lack thereof...) is kind of why I am happy that everyone and their mother are getting in on this. Because Comcast and Verizon don't give a shit what you or I say. They do care what google and amazon and MAYBE microsoft say because those folk will use lobbyists to launder bribes-err, research studies and all that fun jazz. Similarly, I can eventually see the ISPs trying to get in on this and prioritizing whichever service partnered with them. It won't fix the fundamentally broken system but it will at least fatten the pipes a bit and potentially make "lesser" sites closer to background noise in terms of throttling needs.

As for camera focus: Yes, we have a lot more movement. But there is also the question of which parts of the screen actually need to be focused. That is why the eye tracking stuff and even VR are such hot topics right now. Because it gives consumers something cool AND gives developers data on what they can skimp on.

@someoneproud: See above, but as for why they wouldn't necessarily use the fancy shit with youtube: Because we aren't paying for youtube (even those of us with red). The folk who are doing anything more than 720p (and probably even that) ARE paying for the streaming service and will likely be given preferential access to the resources.

@gundato: I’d argue that 720p isn’t sufficient but to each their own I guess. The problem also wasn’t just that it was 720p but it was low bitrate 720p with lots of macroblocking.

When I was talking about the camera I wasn’t referring to focus. What I mean is that movement in video requires more bit rate to avoid macro blocking. So when you have a moving camera that means the image is always in motion which means you either need a higher bit rate than TV or Movies or you’ll just end up with a messy, macroblocked image. What you’re referring to is more of a graphics processing issue which it sounds like won’t be much of an issue when you have server farms rendering the graphics.

@haneybd87: I think the people who don't think 720 is acceptable already have refresh sku consoles or fancy computers or whatever. It is like the framerate issue. In theory, yeah, it is shit. In practice? The people who actually care are already taking steps to avoid the problem

And that is what I meant regarding the focus. Render your character and maybe a 45 degree cone in front of you in high detail with most of the focus. And the periphery, that the player isn't even looking at, can be blurry and maybe even update at a much slower rate. It is definitely going to need a higher bitrate than TV, but I think with some funky ass magic they can get that to "not that much higher". Its obviously a lot more complex than that. But studios have been collecting that data for years.

@gundato: It doesn’t matter if the area around the edges is blurry, if it’s in motion it will need more data to render. Blurry motion is still motion.

For anyone interested in how this works check out this great video explaining it. https://youtu.be/r6Rp-uo6HmI

@haneybd87: Yes. I understand that

My point is that you won't notice if the snow behind you is hanging in the air or falling. You probably also won't notice if the snow on the periphery of your vision is actually moving either. Blur that shit up and then just don't move it until you "need" to.

One way to think about it is to consider Mr X from RE2. Folk have used tricks on PC to figure out just what he is doing. Barring a few scripted occurrences he never actually teleports. Instead, when you aren't in a room the majority of the geometry is unloaded and Mr X can just jog through tables and doors and the like. You, as the player, never notice because by the time you are going to "see" that table it has been loaded in. But a lot of memory is freed up by not dealing with it while you are two rooms over and Mr X can jog through there to circle around and scare you.

Now let's take that a step farther. You're playing an open world game on a jungle island (I miss Crysis). Some games will try to render and keep track of everyone and everything and run like dog crap. Others will realize that you can't move more than X units per second and maybe only load 200x units in any direction. Unless you are on top of a mountain looking at blurry trees in the distance you'll never notice. Anyone who dicked around with alchemy in Morrowind knows what I am talking about

And while it is a lot harder to figure out what you will and won't notice, the same applies to what is actually on screen. If you're focused on Dante's ass you might not notice that his shoe buckle's textures haven't loaded yet. Take that a few steps farther and you might not even notice that Nero was replaced by a cardboard cutout of Cody Rhodes five minutes ago because you are only glancing at him out of the corner of your eye

Obviously I am exaggerating that last point. But focus and how to frame scenes is something that people have been studying for decades/centuries/millennia (depends where you put the cutoff) and how to use that to let devs focus the rendering power on the awesome parts is a related field. I don't think we'll reach the point where we ONLY need the 45 degree cone in front of Dante, but I think people much smarter than you or I already have some pretty good ideas of which parts of the screen they can treat as "static" for the purpose of conserving bandwidth.

@gundato: My guess is internet infrastructure catches up to provide us with higher bandwidth before any kind of foveated compression method comes about. I’m not even convinced it would be a good method of doing things in anything other than VR. The smaller the screen or the farther away from it you are would make it progressively more useless.

@haneybd87: There is a reason I put the "sweet spot" at 720p for stuff like this