Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scourge728]

That statement says just enough to tell me that I'm being told that you don't agree with me, but not enough to tell me why you don't agree with me

[scriver]

Do you mean

1, Streaming game services a la Google's (or was it Microsoft?)   new launched platform?

2, Playing while streaming the game over say Twitch?

Or 3, Watching somebody else play a game that they stream over say Twitch?

[hector13]

I would suggest the third one.

I generally only watch people play games that a) I am interested in but not enough to buy.

b) I have already played and enjoyed significantly.

c) are competitive multiplayer games in which I have a passing interest.

[Frumple]

That... should be the first, tho'. They're trying to break into a platform where you just have like... a browser or something, on your end. Basically just video and some input. And everything else is ran on some server somewhere. Sorta' like the next step from MMOs or whatever, where instead of most or a lot of stuff being ran server side basically gorram everything is and your computer's more or less just a TV screen.

So far as them being the only one to despise it, no. No, they're not the only one to despise it. There's a decent sized group of screeching rage monkeys pissed by it, for reasons varied. Personally kinda' ambivalent -- it's just about guaranteed I'd never personally use such a service, so on that front it's just kinda' 'eh'. If people want to use it then... okay. Somewhat leery about companies taking licencing bullshit to the next logical extreme, though. All the persistence flaws of MMOs, spreading like cancer to everything else. Necessarily online-only is eternally iffy.

[scourge728]

I'm worried about it becoming the only option

[Frumple]

Yeah, that's fairly unlikely. Only option for specific vendors, maybe -- I could see nintendo or some shit doing away with physical items and anything on the console's HD or somethin' -- but there's pretty much always going to be a market for things that ain't like that, if for no other reason than that huge chunks of the world have spotty internet access. Online only isn't an option for enough folks that providing the option for something else is long going to be on the table.

[MrRoboto75]

Game streaming is honestly a terrible idea.  There'd be considerable lag between input and what's on screen, and I doubt anything beyond turn based would even be playable.

[TamerVirus]

I was gonna praise PS Now for giving me a decent selection of games to stream but then I realize I usually just download and play vs stream the content because streaming is actually pretty slow and now I lost my chain of thought.

[hector13]

Game streaming is honestly a terrible idea.  There'd be considerable lag between input and what's on screen, and I doubt anything beyond turn based would even be playable.

+1

Though my only experience of playing a streamed game was when my cousin let me play RE4 on the PS4 via SharePlay.

4,000 miles creates a great deal of lag when the information has to go from his system to my system and then back again. That experience lasted all of 10 minutes.

Sony also has PS Now, or whatever it’s called, a subscription service for streaming games from various past systems. Too many pennies when I know there are other ways of playing those games.

[MrRoboto75]

Game streaming is honestly a terrible idea.  There'd be considerable lag between input and what's on screen, and I doubt anything beyond turn based would even be playable.

+1

Though my only experience of playing a streamed game was when my cousin let me play RE4 on the PS4 via SharePlay.

4,000 miles creates a great deal of lag when the information has to go from his system to my system and then back again. That experience lasted all of 10 minutes.

Sony also has PS Now, or whatever it’s called, a subscription service for streaming games from various past systems. Too many pennies when I know there are other ways of playing those games.

PS Now is only PS3 games.  Its like 20 or 30 bucks a month on top of presumably needed PS Plus which is another 20.  There's like 2 games off the top of my head that I'd want to play, and honestly just buying a damn PS3 and those games would be more cost effective.  I'd have to play like 2-3 new PS3 games every month to justify the cost.

PS2 games you can buy individually on the store, though.

[TamerVirus]

PS Now is only PS3 games.  Its like 20 or 30 bucks a month on top of presumably needed PS Plus which is another 20.  There's like 2 games off the top of my head that I'd want to play, and honestly just buying a damn PS3 and those games would be more cost effective.  I'd have to play like 2-3 new PS3 games every month to justify the cost.

PS2 games you can buy individually on the store, though.

PS Now has games from PS2,PS3, and PS4. PS3 is singled out because they must be streamed whereas PS2 and PS4 games can be downloaded onto console. I don't have PS Plus but I do have PS Now so plus membership isn't required.

[scourge728]

Subscription services to play games also annoy me

[smjjames]

Subscription services to play games also annoy me

Apple's new Arcade may have something going to it since it releases quality (for the most part) games on there and is an attempt to get around 'Pay To Win (aka 'Free to play')' type games which have taken over the app store. The update that unlocks it isn't available for Ipad just yet and it's only just been released, so, theres not a huge (in comparison to the main apple store) selection just yet.

[scourge728]

I also have a problem with apple, since they keep releasing 1000 dollar phones with no real changes to the old model

[Tack]

Eh. It was only a matter of time until someone thought 'oh hey netflix for games'.

I'm more wondering about how the developers will make money off it.