Forums

Topic: Cooperation Nintendo - Google?

Posts 21 to 39 of 39

Nemodius

@batzybat
actually I do buy seasons of tv shows that are not avail. on service (or I record them) despite what seems like a beneficial thing, subscriber only would be very isolating to a large group,
I like to own for many reasons, to have access offline, especially when no internet access is avail., I like to borrow, lend, trade, sell, save money buying used, and buying used at places like GameStop allows me to return no questions asked in three days or less if i don't like,

even downlowding games permanently takes all that away
and do you think a service that gives gives access to games made for that system is going to be $10, $30, $60 or even $100 per month ??? hell no, companies won't stand for that, they wouldn't make any money, especially when Nintendo takes their fee to put the company's games on the service,
then you would have to deal with those who couldn't afford the cost of the monthly service which again, once the person gets out of range of their router for whatever reason, their system is a paperweight

or to keep a service cost down, what are you going to do, have "plans", $30/mo gets you acces to three selected games per month, $60/mo gets you 8, $100/mo gets you 20, still, such limited number of titles per month, I don't think so, I buy a game about every 2-3 months, you are thinking "well, that's $20-$30/ mo avg.,", but is it ??? I get to keep that game forever, so divide that cost by the likely number of months i will keep that game, and my collection will grow, and if my internet goes out or I want to travel....I can still play

yah, such a setup would be very isolating to the consumer and the third party software producers,
it's not about "if" or "when", it's about "could" and "should" it exist

"If failure is the greatest teacher, how come we are not the most superior beings in the universe ???"

NEStalgia

@HobbitGamer Even worse, even in major metros there's huge blind spots. Brooklyn? Fuggeddaboutit. Want to play Spiderman? Move to Midtown. Something tells me that won't play well.

NEStalgia

NEStalgia

@ReaderRagfish Subscription TV services show commercials. The advertising pays for the content. The subscription pays for the delivery. And for premium content like HBO they are paid both in advertising and subscription money. But yeah for basic that's the real sad part of paid TV, none of what you pay actually pays for the shows, it just pays for the wire transmitting it to you. And thus we know how Comcast is worth fortunes. They collect a lot and really have very little to spend it on. (Of course they're also a content company now...)

But OTA TV remains free: The shows are still paid for by advertising, as are the transmission antennae.

NEStalgia

Nemodius

@NEStalgia
and trying to use your phone as a hotspot for your devices isn't any better, it's unstable bigtime and even though many cell services have "unlimited data", after a certain amount, they turn the speed down to that of a slug and don't think that a live streaming game service won't eat up that data limit in one day, then try and play your games at 2Mbs (NOT Megabytes Per Second, Mega*Bits* Per Second)

Edited on by Nemodius

"If failure is the greatest teacher, how come we are not the most superior beings in the universe ???"

NEStalgia

@jhewitt3476 Yes, that's the big catch that people forget. More importantly the move away from fiber and wired internet (at least in the US) and toward 5G mobile. ISPs have already stopped rolling out fiber into new areas and are just waiting to roll out 5G as the sole broadband infrastructure. 5G is all UHF, and has very very poor penetration. Getting into structures, getting through dense foliage, etc isn't what it's good at. And it requires a cell density that will likely never exist outside the core of major metros. It falls back on 4G for stronger signals (and even that suffers currently and isn't likely to get better.) And even if that weren't all issues, is the fact that there's no way it won't have capped data buckets, and even if it's "unlimited" there's no reason to believe it won't (and won't need to) follow current cellular structure of "deprioritization during periods of congestion (which is basically always as they oversell capacity by design)" if you use "more than the customer average." Hint: Game streamers will always be above customer average. And back to ISDN speeds you go.

On top of that wireless tech in general is latent. And then there's the other issue. CGN. Carrier Grade NAT. Due to the nature of wireless and the volume of devices, and the utter failure of a rollout that has been IPv6, most cell nodes use CGN. The result? "NAT TYPE D" "NAT TYPE F", and "NAT Type 3" (depending on console.") No online games for you! What does that mean for game streaming? Good luck with the upload portion of your gameplay. Then you have to go through a VPN...which adds more latency.

Of every possible use of the internet, real-time game streaming is arguably the single most problematic. But that won't stop 5G from replacing wired. It's cheaper for suppliers, and it's "good enough" while being more conveniently mobile, for consumers doing almost everything except streaming games.

But 5G is going to put a nail in digital downloads too. Who will use their "more usage than customer average" on downloading 100GB of COD that will throttle them to 128Kb/s for the rest of the month? The game companies are banking on ever expanding fiber networks. The phone companies already said they're done with that, 5g doesn't require digging to every home and is better for their investors.

Of course there's the flip side. Just like how Netflix, Hulu, Google, Amazon etc worked out real "unlimited" streaming of movies with TMobile etc that does NOT count against your usage per month.....Ubisoft, EA, etc could work out the same with 5G carriers to work around caps. The problem there is it locks in the status quo by force forever and ever. There could be no competition to the status quo because nobody else could use the networks. The companies would basically become protected entities impervious to failure no matter how they abuse customers.

Edit: Then imagine the pass the trash fun with 5G wireless broadband. Assassin's Creed: Monetizations stuttery? Choppy? It's not us? Did you check your TV placement? Be sure to locate it near a window. Be sure you don't have a fish tank near it. Still not working? you may need to contact your ISP (which will put you in a 4 hour hold loop before someone that speaks little of your native language tells you their tests show everything is fine and they can't help you.)

Gaming sounds so fun I can't wait!

Edited on by NEStalgia

NEStalgia

Nemodius

even though i myself am not a game download person, at least those who are still get to keep their games as long as they want

the ONLY way I see this working is as a virtual lease to own system, you can play as many games as you want for 1-2 hours each, then at the end of the month you can buy a number of games with a discount of like 20%-30% off of the total price of all the games you buy for permanent download

"If failure is the greatest teacher, how come we are not the most superior beings in the universe ???"

batzybat

So you think anyone is leading there products regarding on how often you can trade them in at GameStop? Maybe it's because of my bad English but my question was if it's possible that Nintendo will cooperate with Google for a Game Streaming Platform ... not if you will be buying it or not. How does these discussions always end so intense?

batzybat

Octane

@batzybat If people don't want it, Nintendo doesn't have to make a streaming service, we're doing them a favour by letting them know early

Octane

batzybat

You think they're reading this?

batzybat

Nemodius

@batzybat if Reggie (or those in Japan) was smart they would

"If failure is the greatest teacher, how come we are not the most superior beings in the universe ???"

Octane

@batzybat My uncle certainly is, and well...

In all seriousness, why would they? What's the point?

Streaming works in most places in Japan, but it's pretty much pointless for Europe and North America at the moment, let alone other parts of the world. So is it going to be a Japan-only thing?

The Switch is all about versatility, taking it on the go, and playing it anywhere. If you're streaming a game, you want a consistent and good internet connection. Those two don't really go well together.

Streaming is useful for systems that cannot run the games otherwise. Like playing a modern AAA game on your phone via streaming, or Assassin's Creed on the Switch. Nintendo doesn't care that much about graphical fidelity, otherwise the Switch would've been a big box locked to your TV; and their games certainly don't require an Xbox One X (nor do I think they have the intention to suddenly start producing high-fidelity realistic games). So who are they making this for? So people can play third party games...? How is that
really beneficial to them, and what does the streaming Switch do that the current one can't? Because in the end, it's their games that sell systems, and the current Switch already does that.

Octane

batzybat

@Octane Reggie said they want our time, not just our gaming time. What would be better for this with a device which could possibly stream EVERYTHING?
I really don't feel like I'm the right one to "defend" game streaming/lending/leasing. I just think that I love the MK8 DLC as much as I love the original game. And the feeling of playing Wolfenstein 2 on the switch felt just right and just imagine you could play all current AAA titles on your favourite console!!!

batzybat

batzybat

(can sell MK8 but not the DLC)

batzybat

Trajan

@Anti-Matter You don't own the NES games on the Online thing.

Nintendo wants to go all digital. You do not own digital titles, you only own a liscense to use them.

I hate this trend.

If this does happen, I really hope the pirating community can preserve this. This is a terrible trend for preservation.

@batzybat He said that in regards to games, not everything. He's saying theyre competing between you playing BOTW instead of watching Stranger Things.

Streaming wouldn't be portable. Well they could add a phone receiver. But then again, you'd pay $80 a month for data from Verizon or whatever, and then I'm sure Nintendo would charge you a fee on top of that to use cellular data.

@NEStalgia Source on 5g replacing fiber? 5G probably won't even be as fast as current broadband. Right now here we get 120MPS for $40. However: out side of the city people have to use basically radio relays. They pay like $50 a month for 10mbps. Horrible. I dont know why Spectrum hasn't expanded. It isn't even that far. We've had broadband here for 15+ years.

Edited on by Trajan

Sakurai: Which is why I think we should forget about console wars and focus on what’s really important: enjoying the games themselves.

"If we did this (mobile games), Nintendo would cease to be Nintendo." - Iwata

skywake

NEStalgia wrote:

Of every possible use of the internet, real-time game streaming is arguably the single most problematic. But that won't stop 5G from replacing wired. It's cheaper for suppliers, and it's "good enough" while being more conveniently mobile, for consumers doing almost everything except streaming games.

Wireless is never going to replace wired connections as a way to connect buildings to the internet. Precisely because it physically can't be more cost effective in anywhere but very low density deployments. I mean, all those cells have to have power and data. It's actually cheaper to run fibre to a house and let the owner pay for the wireless access point than it is to run fibre to every street and put up a mini-tower.

In any case, this doesn't really matter that much when explaining why streaming of games will never become the default. It's a hurdle but it's not the biggest one by far. Here's a list of reasons why it's not the way of the future:

1. Distance. Not everyone lives close to a city like Tokyo, LA, New York or London. There will always be some places in the world where it's simply not economical. For me living in Perth Australia that makes the entire discussion purely academic.

2. The hardware is improving. Think about it, what reason would you have to subscribe to a streaming service for games when the 2028 equivalent of the Switch is in your pocket? Sure today there's some value in streaming Assassin's Creed to the Switch but only a couple of years ago we would have said the same thing about games that are running on the Switch natively.

3. Higher video quality takes time to process and even then it's never as good as the source. As good as Netflix is as a way to play movies over the internet it's still not better quality than dropping in a BluRay. And this is with a service where the time to compress the image is not a concern. There's a reason why even "live" streaming services like Twitch have a ~20s delay between the video and the chat.

4. There will always be a market for offline gaming. I've already had several points with my Switch where I've been playing it away from an internet connection. Whether that's on holidays, away from the house in general or even when there's a power outage. Even services like Netflix and Spotify understand this need which is why there are ways to download content on those services for offline consumption. This is something that is not possible with a game streaming service.

5. An internet service that's faster is needed for streaming but it also makes the traditional model more palatable. We're sitting here talking about getting rid of updates, large game downloads and so on. When we all have fantastic internet infrastructure we can just stream the games! You know what else you could do with fantastic internet? Download those games and patches faster.

6. Same thing as #5 but with the hardware itself. We're getting to the point where console hardware is cheap enough and energy efficient enough to drop them in a server rack. We can provide games as a service by doing this! But you know what else this means? The console hardware is cheaper and more power efficient for you to buy and put under your TV.

7. I'm not sure who the target audience for this is. The same people who are happy to pay a subscription are likely to also want a higher quality experience. Streaming will always be sub-par, the enthusiasts will always want the lowest latency and highest quality experience possible. But the casual consumer won't want to pay a monthly subscription for a service.

There's definitely a place for game streaming in the market but I think it will always be a small section of the market. I think it's a solution in search of a problem.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Heavyarms55

@batzybat Google wouldn't be my first guess, but I could see Nintendo partnering with a phone company to give the Switch 4G or even 5G support. Not for game streaming most likely, just for online gaming anywhere. In Japan Apple is overwhelming dominant, they have a massive market share. I could see Nintendo teaming up with Apple potentially. If Nintendo truly wants to dominate the portable/hybrid gaming sphere, I think releasing a device with that sort of functionality is the way to go.

I don't however think there is much chance of streaming games really taking off. I doubt Nintendo would want their titles being only playable to people with internet access. Some parents don't want their kids playing online and that would turn off a chunk of their market base.

Nintendo Switch FC: 4867-2891-2493
Switch username: Em
Discord: Heavyarms55#1475
Pokemon Go FC: 3838 2595 7596
PSN: Heavyarms55zx

Aozz101x

interesting... i doubt this will have anything to do with Switch though. but it's interesting noneless.

My Top 9 Favorite Games of All time.
1. Judgement
2. Baldur's Gate 3
3. Bully (Rockstar)
4. Person 4 / Golden
5. Sonic Adventure 2
6. Xenoblade X
7. Ape Escape 2
8. Animal Crossing: New Leaf
9. James Bond 007 Nightfire

Switch Friend Code: SW-5070-3616-4044 | 3DS Friend Code: 4828-8466-0472 | My Nintendo: Aozz101x | Twitter:

Heavyarms55

@batzybat Why on Earth would you want them to make a streaming only console? Why would anyone want a streaming only device? That wouldn't be an upgrade for the Switch, it would be a significant downgrade. You'd kill the portability factor. You'd also need to be in the small minority of the population with good enough internet and a fast enough router. I'd be shocked if even 15% of gamers actually have that. Even in the very limited amount of areas that have access to it, not everyone can afford it.

Also I think that if Nintendo cooperates with any other companies, it will either be Microsoft or Apple. In both cases Nintendo already has a good working relationship with them. But Nintendo has done very little with Google. Furthermore Nintendo is a Japanese company and Apple utterly DOMINATES the smartphone industry in Japan, to the degree that the average consumer thinks of the term "iPhone" as synonymous with "smart phone".

Nintendo Switch FC: 4867-2891-2493
Switch username: Em
Discord: Heavyarms55#1475
Pokemon Go FC: 3838 2595 7596
PSN: Heavyarms55zx

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.