Topic: I think "cloud games" is the worst concept ever conceived for video games

It is just an awful idea, and I say this as someone who has always been a fan of digital games. I am fine with digital games because I am not dependent upon the strength of my internet connection after I have downloaded them, and they are essentially a part of my console once I have them installed. "Cloud games" is just a really lame concept. It can only work as a subscription based service like Playstation Now, and even then I have no real interest in it, but at least then you are only paying one low price to access a huge assortment of games that you can stream. Paying for an individual game that you can only stream however just sounds awful, like you buying a game that can only operate as a rental. Bad connection? Tough luck, you won't be able to play it. Traveling? Tough luck, you won't be able to play it until you are at a wifi hotspot with a great connection. The servers shut down? Tough luck, the game is now worthless and unusable despite the fact that you bought it. The day this becomes the standard is the day I stop buying video games.

I agree but I think this thread belons in the General Gaming forum.

@JayJ FTP says ‘hold my beer’

@Zuljaras There has been a lot of talk about it on the Switch ever since RE7 released as a cloud game in Japan which is what inspired me to make this topic.

@JayJ I hope this is Japan only weird thing. They like weird things.

Moved this to Other Gaming.

Never like Cloud gaming.
I'm Pro Retail Physical gaming, always use actual things to play, not a virtual.

I agree with you, I have nothing against digital purchases, it is actually a while since the last time I bought a physical game and I prefer digital games now, but I'm absolutely against subscriptions and services. If I like a game I want to buy it, have it as part of my collection and be able to play it and enjoy it anyway I want and without thinking that to keep playing it in the future I will need to pay again.
I don't even care if it is convenient or not, I just don't like subscriuptions, I get anxious if I know that I have to pay something to keep playing a game. I want to pay its full price immediately and then do whatever I want with it with no other restrictions.

Anyway, I don't like Resident Evil I wouldn't have bought RE7 anyway.

While cloud games is a bad concept I think stuff like 3rd party exclusives, microtransactions and loot boxes are worse concepts.

I agree, but I remember having similar discussions about movies when streaming started to grow within that industry as well.

I definitely think we will be streaming games on a Netflix-type service within 6-12 years when they've ironed out the kinks. It's such a profitable concept for Sony/MS/Nintendo.

@19Robb92 you can still find movies and tv shows available to buy in dvd and blu ray if you want them. I can't be against cloud gaming even if I don't like it if it is only an option and NOT the only way they will distribute games.
With movies and tv shows it is an option amongst others, and one is free to choose the way he prefer to see them.
If they give us more options, no one can complain, those who don't like one of those options will chose one of the others.
Game can be on cloud services as long as they are also sold as they have always been.
But only cloud is a deal breaker for me. Just as the subscription will probably be on Switch if Nintendo don't give me proof that they are going to do something for other users who don't want to pay a subscription and are not interested in online gaming too.

@LuckyLand
Yeah, I definitely don't think cloud will be the only option - just that it will grow a lot in the future.

There are two major differences between video/audio streaming and games. Firstly streaming of audio/video has, in some ways, been around longer than distribution of physical media. Before even VHS and Vinyl there was TV and Radio. There was also an already well established market for a paid TV subscription just waiting for someone to brake it once internet speeds improved enough. There's no such equivalent model for games, we have always brought games in largely the same way we do now.

The second difference is latency. For movies, music and TV it really doesn't matter at all if your stream buffers for a couple of seconds or even a minute. It may be a bit annoying having to wait but other than that it really doesn't matter. With games? You really can't have the stream buffer at all. Even 1/10th of a second of additional input lag and you're struggling with some genres.

Really the only reason why streaming games like this ever made sense was for being able to display really high end graphics on really low powered devices. If your device can render the game it's actually cheaper for publishers to let you download it. And with devices like the Switch only improving with time? If anything the market for this is going to shrink going forward

I have no issues with it whatsoever to be honest. Sure I understand that technical issues make it less than ideal for most people but I still think it's cool. I remember first trying the now dead OnLive service on my Android tablet maybe 4 or 5 years ago. It was mind blowing to be playing console quality games on a super low end tablet without having to buy anything or store anything. I don't think it will be the only option in the future but I do think it will grow a lot in the next generation especially.

@redd214 i don't mind if it's there as an option BUT as long as it's not the only option

as long as they keep releasing games either physically or digitally then i'm fine with it being there as a choice for those who want it, i just don't want it forced on me

[quote=19Robb92]

It may be less cheap than letting users download a game, but depending on factors like how much they must pay to play it, how long it lasts, how addictive it is, it can become much more profitable too to force them (us) to pay a subscription.
Also if the game is only streamed and nothing else you are almost 100% sure that it will never be affected by piracy. If the device is not powerful enough to natively play it you are more than 100% sure it will never be pirated. There are many advantages for publishers in making games accessible only with cloud.

@LuckyLand
Logistically streaming raw, low latency video over the internet and maintaining a rendering farm is far more expensive than getting the end user to render it locally. Yes there is some value to publishers in locking down their games with that kind of DRM. There is also value to publishers in subscription models or any other method of having consumers pay to play on a regular basis. These things are happening already and will continue to happen. But they don't require "cloud gaming".

I know it sounds super futuristic and high tech and the way things are going. But really, it's really a weird approach to distribution of games. To make sense it requires fantastic internet and devices under-powered enough that we can live with the unavoidable negatives. The problem is that not everywhere has fantastic internet, which immediately makes it a niche idea. Worse yet our devices are increasingly not under-powered

I'd argue cloud gaming is a fantastic idea.... for places like Tokyo or LA between 2010 and 2020......

I love it and I hope it becomes the standard for console gaming.
Years and years spent pouring money into the companies' bank accounts, thinking the industry would be good to you in return, has led to this.
Also love the fact that it involves a technology that very few people have (and will have) access to. A lot of internet videogame debates are based on the wrong assumption that all people from all parts of the world have access to the same technology and same financial opportunities, which isn't true, and even more so in this instance. This should shake things up a little.

This is pretty much my main objection on the matter. My broadband internet isn't entirely reliable (and I live just outside a fairly large town), and there are homes not far from me who have to rely on shoddy satellite and wireless internet.

I'm still a physical guru, but I don't mind digital games/content as long as the purchaser's rights are upheld.

@JayJ I certainly don't like it, but I don't know if I agree that it is the worst idea ever. Personally I would put that as lootboxes and the free to play system of gaming cancer that has been popularized by mobile gaming.

Currently the technology is not there yet, especially for shooters and platformers. However I think turn based games would at least be functionally fine. Something like Sid Meyer's civilization series could work that way without much issue. However if the servers go down, or go down for good then you are SOL. Which is why I think this sort of streaming should charge far less than buying a copy of the game.