Print

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

[dragdeler]

-

[scriver]

That's the problem of cost right there. If you stream the whole game, you used more data than it would have taken to just download the entire game. The cost would exceed buying it digitally and just having download rights.

"Used" more data, but was that data used on my side or theirs? This is like the reason you have to use a megacomputer to make a CGI movie but I can still watch the result on my shitty notepad because it doesn't have to load all the models and the textures and everything, it just needs to load the result.

And regardless, even if streaming a game took up more data on my computer than just downloading it, declaring that it because of that it means that downloading it would be the preferable option is a thought somersault as it's not just one game -- the download and keep methodology still requires and ever increasing amount of space as all the downloaded media accumulates while the streaming method only needs the requires the memory it is using right then.

What they'll do is say that you can buy licenses for the games, as normal for any other service, and once you own the license you can play that game as much as you like. However, you're charged for the cost of the server you're running on per hour, regardless of what game you're running. This is not the same as "rental". You'll have an ever-growing library, the same as Steam. Think about it: the more possible choices you have, the more time they can keep you on their service. If they time-limited any particular game then you might have less choices, you might use the service less.

Yes, I am aware that this is the case. But this is a problem with the business itself, not game streaming as a medium. If we return to my original post, you can see that I am talking about how I wouldn't be averse to streaming some games if it functioned like a rental service -- I'm not saying that that is how Google/Microsoft Streaming Service or any other such platform is going to work.

[dragdeler]

-

[scourge728]

Not to mention the costs related to internet usage for that much data

[Yoink]

Woke up on the train in fuckin' Mentone, of all places.

[hector13]

Who says no to Mentone?

[Frumple]

Huh. Flywrench is an amazingly kinetic game. Design is actually kinda' incredible in some ways. Folks wanting to figure out how to make motion look like it has impact and weight should probably scope it out.

It also looks like it's fucking miserable to actually play. Treat to watch, though. Sound design seriously matches it, too. Wtf comes mostly from the dissonance of 'this looks awesome' and 'this would make me want to maim someone rather than play through' thing going on.

[Reelya]

Yes, I am aware that this is the case. But this is a problem with the business itself, not game streaming as a medium. If we return to my original post, you can see that I am talking about how I wouldn't be averse to streaming some games if it functioned like a rental service -- I'm not saying that that is how Google/Microsoft Streaming Service or any other such platform is going to work.

The most likely model would be that you pay per hour for the thing you're actually consuming: which is the CPU time on the high-end gaming rig. The better way to conceptualize this is to compare it to appliance rental services, the type that will rent you a fridge, TV, VCR etc. The content isn't what they're selling. This as I said replaces hardware costs. The costs of actual digital licenses are so low however, that you'll just pay per hour and have a library of choices. If they time-limit any particular game, then you might be excluded from playing what you want when you want, and thus they lose money, so they won't actually do that.

The way it'll work is that you might have to pay for a license for any specific game, but once it's in your library, it'll be there forever. but you pay the hourly rate for hosting whatever you play on the service. They might have some cross-deal to cover licensing: such as, if you own a game on Steam, you have the right to stream it from the third company all you want, and they use your steam ownership as a sort of legal cover.

Sure, you are limited because you're paying per hour of play, but it's not actual a "rental" of the content. That would be like saying that because AOL used to charge per hour, they were renting websites to you.

[Iduno]

Yes, I am aware that this is the case. But this is a problem with the business itself, not game streaming as a medium. If we return to my original post, you can see that I am talking about how I wouldn't be averse to streaming some games if it functioned like a rental service -- I'm not saying that that is how Google/Microsoft Streaming Service or any other such platform is going to work.

The most likely model would be that you pay per hour for the thing you're actually consuming: which is the CPU time on the high-end gaming rig. The better way to conceptualize this is to compare it to appliance rental services, the type that will rent you a fridge, TV, VCR etc. The content isn't what they're selling. This as I said replaces hardware costs. The costs of actual digital licenses are so low however, that you'll just pay per hour and have a library of choices. If they time-limit any particular game, then you might be excluded from playing what you want when you want, and thus they lose money, so they won't actually do that.

The way it'll work is that you might have to pay for a license for any specific game, but once it's in your library, it'll be there forever. but you pay the hourly rate for hosting whatever you play on the service. They might have some cross-deal to cover licensing: such as, if you own a game on Steam, you have the right to stream it from the third company all you want, and they use your steam ownership as a sort of legal cover.

Sure, you are limited because you're paying per hour of play, but it's not actual a "rental" of the content. That would be like saying that because AOL used to charge per hour, they were renting websites to you.

The real fun of this comes from the way the creators get paid. If someone plays your game for an hour, you get paid for part of that hour. This somewhat incentivizes making a game more people want to play, but also incentivizes making games that take much longer to play. You know how you like fast travel, skippable cutscenes, and not needing to return to town every 5 minutes? Imagine if those were removed to make the game longer. And you got more of the "start the process, then go make a sandwich" gameplay? As long as someone sees money coming in, you'd have to lose a lot of fans to make up for increased revenue from increasing game length.

[Mephisto]

Oh shit. Gotta go sign up for a Stadia dev thing so I can be the first to port Biscuit Fondler.

[pikachu17]

Wait, so you're paying for the game, AND an hourly rate? Why the hell would anyone want this?

[Iduno]

Wait, so you're paying for the game, AND an hourly rate? Why the hell would anyone want this?

My understanding is it's just the hourly rate.

[Reelya]

Wait, so you're paying for the game, AND an hourly rate? Why the hell would anyone want this?

My understanding is it's just the hourly rate.

They've built the game cost into the hourly rate, so you are effectively paying for it. if they did charge you to add games to your streaming library choices, it would be at a cheaper rate than other services, since they only need just as many copies of the game as the peak amount of players.

As for why people would want it ... it's running on a server that's a fully optimized gaming behemoth. First, to get something actually that good it's say a $3000 up-front investment. THEN you have to expend time and effort to maintain it, you have to pay for electricity to run it, you have to spend time and money getting the physical games and installing them. And then, a year or two later, that rig you spent over $3000 on is obsolete, so you gotta research the latest gear, do it all over again, if you want to play the next latest game.

Say you spent 2.5 hours a day actually gaming, that's only 10% utilization of the actual gaming rig. So these streaming services could effectively offer you pricing for 2.5 hours a day of cutting-edge gaming that's around 10% the cost of actually owning that rig and playing it that much. Plus the amount of time you save dicking around.

[Frumple]

260 chapters in, legendary mechanic finally explains what the hell a shanu is!

It's apparently people born with conditionally glowing stripes on their body. Natural sci-fi tattoos, basically. So the main planet stuff is happening on has white, black, yellow, and random glowy tattoo people. Three colors and a shanu. Now I know.

Also the tats seem to be able to turn some of them into twelve foot tall combat giants. A'ight.

Spelling on shanu is impressively inconsistent, though. The people name or whatever it is (like Caucasian or whatev') is Shanuk! Sometimes! The more you know *rainbow*

[Mephisto]

For sale: custom war machine, light battle damage