It seems an age ago now, but once upon a time Cloud Gaming was said to be an imminent reality - in 2010 it was hot news, with excitable talk about a revolution in how we play games. The concept has always been simple in theory - utilise remote processing power delivered by the platform providers to play games on a variety of modest devices, all using the power of the internet. The delivery has never been easy, however.
When people talk about Cloud Gaming, they sometimes make an erroneous comparison to TV and music streaming, two areas that are now massive business. In fact, it's not exaggerating to say that streaming TV and so on is starting to become the modern norm, with conventional broadcasters struggling to maintain audiences that are perfectly happy to binge-watch shows and videos on the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime and YouTube. Likewise in music, where revenues from streaming continues to grow and the idea of buying a CD becomes less mainstream with each passing year. Modern acts rely on streams and touring to make a living, moreso than physical media; even downloading music is gradually becoming out-of-date.
Yet the comparison with those booming streaming industries and cloud gaming are almost meaningless. The reason is simple - you don't dictate the actions of a TV show, film or song, you're a passive consumer. With games you're active, controlling the action, and the reason consoles and PCs work so hard when we play games is that they process all of those actions in real time. When you put the hardware thousands of miles away and rely on an internet connection to communicate your inputs with those remote processors, you often get lag and below-par performance.
That was the tale of OnLive, in particular, a high-profile failure that stumbled along until 2015, disappearing when Sony bought out its patents. Sony had bought out OnLive rival Gaikai before that, using the company's expertise and resources to begin building PlayStation Now, the service currently on PS4 and PC that, frankly, may pass a lot of the console's owners by.
PlayStation Now is focused, at present, on streaming PS3 games - in return for a monthly fee you can play as many of the hundreds of games as you want, for as long as you want; some consider it a workaround option for backward compatibility. There are a handful of PS4 games that can be streamed, too, mainly of the Indie variety. It's relatively affordable, and when we tried it out on our PS4 it worked pretty well - albeit we have a lightning quick internet connection at our disposal. Controller input and display is rather acceptable (in our short tests) for something like Red Dead Redemption, but seems below-standard for fast-reaction games like Mega Man 10.
In any case, our friends at Push Square have looked at it in detail when reviewing it last year.
In truth, PlayStation Now still feels like an afterthought among the broader base of gamers; it's not exactly a hot topic that we're aware of. As Push Square pointed out in its review, it's really a long-term concept.
It's just not there yet. In fact, despite being called PlayStation Now, it doesn't feel like a product truly for the present – it works relatively well, as mentioned, but hasn't taken off. With constant iteration and investment, though, this service will gradually get more and more attractive.
Yet tech companies continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars (as Sony did acquiring Gaikai, for example) to pursue the technology. Most recently, and the trigger for this article, NVIDIA unveiled a relaunch of sorts for its long running streaming service, GeForce Now, in connection with an upgraded Shield TV system. As you can see it promises a land of milk and honey, utilising the company's latest technology through the cloud to stream bleeding-edge visuals to our screens.
When the 'new' Shield was unveiled, with a flashy focus on 4K and HDR capabilities, there was much surprise when a price of just $199.99 was confirmed; it only has 16GB of memory, though, while a 'Pro' version at $299.99 has 500GB of memory. That's still incredibly affordable, though, and we wondered what the catch was. Well, that's simple, as NVIDIA makes clear it's really a streaming box, as its innards are modest. A look at the tech-specs shows it's still rocking the Tegra X1 chip, which is now relatively old hat in the rapidly shifting world of GPU capabilities, especially in the context of 4K. In fact, our resident Shield enthusiast Damien McFerran has pointed out that the older models supported 4K media streaming too - the only 'new' headline feature from this perspective is HDR (high dynamic range) support.
So what are people buying in this upgrade? A user interface overhaul, for one thing, along with support for Google Assistant and NVIDIA's own take on AI-driven devices to do your every whim. Better apps are key, but as an upgrade the appeal may ultimately be limited for those already in the Shield camp. As for GeForce Now, it's clearing a hurdle that held it back for some time.
It's still a service with a modest monthly fee and a list of about 50 games accessed as part of that cost, like a rather disappointing PC spin-off from the PlayStation Now service. What's new, though, is that NVIDIA's service can now synchronise with a Steam account, for example, gather together your save data and then stream those games. In theory someone with a load of games in their Steam account can play them on a laptop with limited capabilities, for example - that's the big cloud pitch. For PC gamers that travel or perhaps have an ageing build that struggles with the latest games, it's a tempting idea.
The price for the updated streaming service, though, is an immediate turn-off. $25 for 20 hours of gameplay is streaming from the lower-spec hardware option, too, with less hours per dollar if you want the fastest performance. It's not just about your internet connection being fast enough, it's about how much you pay for the hardware at the other end. It's OnLive, but tiered, though naturally performance (such as input lag) will be expected to be less troublesome.
Cutting through all of that, what we're seeing with pitches like this is that technology is still getting better, and companies still believe the market is there for streamed games.
The pros, for a company like Nintendo, is that services like this - when running perfectly - can bypass the technological arms race, something the company's stayed out of for a number of weeks. When a user has a fast connection and the streaming technology is top-of-class, it's perceivably possible to have beautiful visuals, a high framerate and solid input response. As consoles are so often compromised to deliver a good price, skipping past those limitations is a fantastical idea.
That's the ideal scenario, of course, but the reality is still different. Even when the player has an amazing connection there are still challenges for streaming to overcome, and then there's the simple fact that many don't have a super-fast broadband connection. The infrastructure and services in many countries aren't universal in strength, and there's also the fact that some can't afford the monthly cost for quick broadband in their area. Governments in countries like the UK make noises about improving access and affordability, but parliamentary promises and the reality are very different things.
In summary, while streaming is improving, with technology that can deliver stronger performance than that seen in the OnLive days, it's not ready for mass-market yet. The technology needs to be further streamlined to support as wide a range of internet speeds as possible, and we still need high-speed connections to be more common. These are some of the reasons why companies like Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are afraid of going all-in on the technology, while past failures will also serve as a warning.
A world where on-board chipsets are replaced by streaming is rather utopian for gamers with fast broadband - cheap machines running amazing games that look and run at their peak. It's worth being excited about, but it's surely not part of the imminent future.
Nintendo, though, could be well placed when the time comes. Its patents include a 'supplemental computing device' that utilises the cloud, and with the Switch it's in partnership with NVIDIA, a true technological powerhouse that - as indicated above - is keen to push forward with the technology.
It's something to watch closely.
Comments 70
Too much PlayStation on this page, err....
"something the company's stayed out of for a number of weeks" Years?
So even "old tech" like Tegra X1 can run GeForce Now. I suppose that means that Switch could also run GeForce Now. I doubt it will, but it's possible.
This article is way too long for the point it's making.
And the relevance to Nintendo is a bit of a stretch... just because NVIDIA have been working with Nintendo to design the processor for the Switch does not mean they'd work together with them on something like this... Nintendo would want their own streaming service that was exclusive to them, but NVIDIA wouldn't want to be restricted by something like that.
I would like cloud saves to be a thing. I absolutely love my how I can play my same profile for games across me and both my brothers Xbox Ones.
@DragonEleven The possibility is there though. Imagine if there is a separate package that Switch owners could purchase for streaming Nintendo games, old and new, through Nvidias streaming tech. It's quite enticing. I would rather see a monthly fee instead of per hour though. As is, it's pretty expensive per hour.
I don't like streamimg services much. Even if you pay, you won't be sure of its quality since it depends of the Internet -while that may not be an issue in Europe and North America, for many other places it is.
While I hope they make services like backing your save file in the cloud available, I do hope it isn't the main focus.
I think cloud gaming could be possibly big on home consoles but part of the hook with the Switch is portability and having continual access to the cloud isn't possible that way for a lot of people.
There's one niggle in the article, though: it seems to suggest that the SCD is more or less one and the same as GeForce Now or at least related, which doesn't seem likely to me, since the idea of the SCD is solely patented by Nintendo, so it doesn't incorporate anything other than Nintendo's own ideas.
LAG - no thanks
This is definitely the future. PlayStation now works great. It can only get better
Wow that screen cap in the 3rd embedded Youtube video made me think there was a sequel to Cursed Mountain in the works.
Loved that game, so underrated.
@jump I read that sentence several times and decided "weeks" was supposed to be "generations", Wii and Wii U, but your idea of "years" is probably more likely. Weeks has to be wrong though, that makes no sense, Nintendo hasn't done anything for weeks except under supply NES Mini. That was the only thing they had to do the past 7 weeks after Pokémon S&M released, mass produce NES Mini, and they failed.
Must not... surrender... to... fear... of... internet-bound gaming...
The one thing this can offer that's hard to say no to is unprecedented third party support. Developer doesn't want to make a Switch port? Well, you could still play the PC version of the game streaming via Nvidia's service. Obviously the native versions would be ideal, but given the choice between missing out on big AAA games, and being able to stream them if I want to? I can't imagine who wouldn't want to at least have that as a possibility instead of buying a whole other console. Plus, unlike OnLive, having someone like Nvidia offering the service makes it infinitely less likely to simply vanish as they once did. I think this sounds great, honestly. I played the entirety of Arkham City on OnLive back in 2012, I think, and even then it worked shockingly well. Not 100% perfect at all times, but much more than acceptable. I like the possibilities this can offer, for sure. I wouldn't be stunned if, should it be implemented, they would only offer it while the Switch is docked, however.
@KoopaTheGamer GeForce is a brand name that Nvidia has been using for years.
Hmm?... Never was exited about cloud gaming. But I'm still preordering the Switch asap..
Cheaper? Maybe. More immediately available? Certainly. More gratifying? No.
If cloud gaming worked without a hitch, even through cellular internet, everyone would want it. That's a big IF, though. I think Nintendo could take great advantage, too, because the hardware investment could be sidestepped by skeptical consumers to some degree. In fact, Nintendo may have the most to gain from a perfectly implemented could gaming infrastructure.
@Therad I know. So what? If Nvidia is working with Nintendo on Switch, it's possible that Nvidia is working with Nintendo on cloud gaming as well. It's even possible (though unlikely) that Switch supports GeForce Now just like Shield TV does.
Well, Nvidia seems to think the partnership with Nintendo will last "20 years", so something like that could happen.
Me not interested at all with Streaming games. Me not a PC gamer. Me only interested offline games better than online games (Though sometimes me play Online for my Mario Kart 8 or ACNL Welcome Amiibo just for facing with other players). Me so sorry to talk like Goblin from Chocobo Dungeon Wii. XD
@UK-Nintendo I'd rather just buy a game and keep playing it. I still dust off old games now and then and play them, but also go weeks without being able to play (work trips etc.) I would probably never pay for a subscription service.
I'm very against streaming and cloud gaming. If there is a facility where it allows gaming in higher fidelity than is otherwise possible at the time, fine, but it should never become required. I'm just sick of how almost everything in the modern world needs passwords, accounts and internet connections. By far the best way for music, games and films is to buy something physical from a shop, take it home and put it in your console/player.
I used the free trial for PS Now and I was very impressed. It was a lot of fun, easy to use, and my kids loved it. At $20.00 a month it's pretty reasonable, too. Our Internet runs at 30 Mbps and it ran fine.
@brayackmedia your absolutely right. I tried the trial. It's something for the future if that subscriptions goes lower. I'm lucky if I get to boot it on twice a week
No.
Not this generation, in my opinion. Widely available and more reliable it needs to be.
I hate Cloud gaming, just as much as I hate downloading games. I want something to hold on to, to collect. Just like people going back to vinyl because downloads just isn't music.
Also I don't trust cloud gaming as you are dependant on the server being good enough to run however many people are playing the game at the time.
Don't see it ever catching on really. People like owning the things they like and a lot don't have brilliant internet.
"[...]services like this - when running perfectly - can bypass the technological arms race, something the company's stayed out of for a number of weeks."
Hmm, I thought it was longer than that
Wouldn't surprise me! If the Switch has very little memory (and only accepts small memory-cards) then they might go for cloud-storage. Personally I am 100% against cloud-storage. I won't use it!
@MetalKingShield
Exactly. I love physical games. Easy peasy. Just buy it, take it home, put inside the machine, play it, have fun.
My Sony tv comes with a strong vibe of being prepared for PlayStation Now, like the ability to pair a controller 🎮. I can't say I see the draw here for me as a consumer. Getting a ps3 is not very hard or expensive, and after that it's all advantages.
A model were i could rent access to a game like i could rent a movie, that could be interesting. For around 1 usd / 24 hours. (Any partner teaching Nintendo about online has to be good news.)
No ty.. Not everyone has a stable and constant internet connection..
I did actually made a point about this months ago in the forum:
https://www.nintendolife.com/forums/nintendo-switch/nvidia_tech_will_switch_be_compatible_with_geforcenow
Still I guess you made a point with too bad infrastructures in some countries, like the one I live in. Also the cost is still too high, even if I like Nvidia's approach with "credits", even if they are way too expensive at the moment. Still, those services are probably the future...
Obviously Switch has got game carts and that will probably revive my love for physical games again. I don't care for streaming games and will never embrace it. PSNow is awful and undependable. Cloud storage for Nintendo accounts, however, could be great though.
@yomanation Actually, it would be both: the patent mentions both adding local power to your own system as well as power to other Nintendo player's system over the internet if you leave your system on standby when not playing, and then the patent goes on to explain a reward system tied to that functionality.
Hell i have such a bad internet connection in my country that i need 1 hour to download 1gb and i cant even watch Twitch streams without loading every 5 seconds.... Playing a clouded game would be impossible for me and for many people from my country.
@gatorboi352 Completely agreed on Cursed Mountain. That game deserved a LOT more love.
And an HD re-imagining and/or sequel...
So many backwards looking people in here. Very depressing, but I guess this is the crowd hanging around at a Nintendo site
How many of you do still have your physical movie and music collections? I threw out my collection years ago, and never looked back.
There is a whole new generation growing up right now, who will never know anything but streaming services. They will not care for physical media's at all.
Gaming streaming will become the standard platform over time. No matter if you like it or not. It will happen to the gaming industry, just as it did with the movie and music industry.
It could take ten years og twenty, but the consoles as we know it will disappear one day. And when the big AAA titles are only available through a streaming service, everyone will follow along.
Some conservative old people, like many in here, will perhaps never make the jump. But they are irrelevant .
I just hope, that there is a place for Nintendo in such a future. I have my doubts though.
Lol, cloud gaming. The thing MS talked up a lot of a few years ago to address their weaker console by using external processing power. This they said would keep the hardware specs relatively low.
They then shut up about it and decided to launch the most powerful console in history instead.
Says everything really.
@Hotfusion
Yeah, just keep laughing.
There is a time for everything, though. And some stuff the world is just not ready for yet, but over time, streaming will be the standard.
Like with all other smarter and more convenient technology's.
Most people here really don't seem that excited about this feature, but for me, this makes me totally hyped if this happened! If if the switch doesn't even support a game, you could still stream the PC version, making The Switch's potential library exponential
If cloud gaming was an important part of the new system, it would not have cartridges at all.
That's like, making games for 3 different platforms at this point. Or at least 3 different configurations:
>the Switch undocked
>the Switch docked
>the Switch on streaming
And if some games are actually meant for streaming, then what is the purpose of the console when you're not at home? Displaying the main menu and a message saying "No Internet lol"?
The sad truth about cloud gaming, and cloud computing in general, is that by the time it becomes interesting, it will be useless.
If the average internet access could have allowed cloud gaming 15 years ago, it would have been a revolution. Systems like the PS2 and the GC were very limited. Cloud gaming would have allowed a gigantic step ahead.
But by the time streaming games become actually viable, we will have systems like the Scorpio and others. What is the point of streaming games when the average home console is already a beast?
@Kroko
Are you for real? The cloud computing has the potential to be "100 times" stronger than any current console.
When the PS2 and GameCube came out, they where near bleeding edge technology. And in 10 years time you will look back at the current consoles, and think the exact same about them, as you do now with PS2 and the GC.
@Flowerlark
Poor internet connections in remote areas haven't prevented Netflix and Spotify to become industry leading streaming services. And it won't prevent any Gaming streaming service to rise in the near future either.
If there is enough customers, that do have acceptable connections, then it will come. The industry doesn't care, if they can't reach all people, if just they can reach most of the paying potential customers.
Netflix beats TV, because the interface is better. Because TV restricts what you can watch at any time.
At my house we don't play 30 games an hour... We play 1 or maybe 2. And thanks to digital purchases oUr WiiU is stocked with games to play without having to change disc.
No selling point here for cloud gaming.
@gatorboi352
I can't believe we agree on something but I totally agree with you on Cursed Mountain. Loved that game.
On topic: I called cloud gaming/storage a week or two before the NVIDIA presentation at CES. Only three more days!!!
Also I'm getting the feeling that I'm going to have a brand new shield TV and Switch sitting side by side on my entertainment center for all my gaming and entertainment needs. Wouldn't it be crazy if the Shield TV was the SCD for the Switch!!?? One can dream!!
It's still too early for consoles to switch over to a focus on cloud gaming, which is really just pulling information using your internet connection from a server. Playing an MMOG is an example of "cloud gaming." There's still millions of people who don't have a broadband connection at home, even in the USA. Mostly because not everyone can afford one...
And that doesn't factor in your connection to your games relying on a remote server, instead of on hardware that you own. If you somehow lose your internet connection, you have no access to your collection. If you don't have your own physical/digital collection, available from your own systems, then you don't really own the games that you're paying for. This is acceptable for MMOG's, due to their nature, but it should not be the case for every game.
@KoopaTheGamer Tegra X1 debuted in 2015, it is old tech by now. The X2 is right around the corner.
@dres That depends on your internet connection bandwidth. It would work very well in Japan or South Korea, that have excellent broadband coverage at 300+ Mbps wireless and 1+ Gbps wired being commonplace by now. Meanwhile, a lot of western countries (especially the USA) are lagging behind tremendously. In the USA in particular, it's not uncommon for bandwidth allocations by ISP's to cost an arm and a leg, even for 100 Mbps. Many services still charge a lot even for just 50 Mbps.
I don't know how the fight is faring elsewhere, but in the USA, this is because net neutrality is constantly under attack. With net neutrality recently receiving warnings of being scrapped by the appointed FCC chair, making a system rely on cloud gaming is threatened to be an extremely expensive proposition, even moreso than ever. All the more reason to continue fighting for net neutrality, and rejecting a reliance on cloud gaming for the time being.
@PlywoodStick
"If you don't have your own physical/digital collection, available from your own systems, then you don't really own the games that you're paying for. This is acceptable for MMOG's, due to their nature, but it should not be the case for every game."
Exactly the same did people say about their movie and music collections. And now young people mostly stream that kind of content, and do not own it. The same will happen to most games in the future. Kids growing up today would have no problem with gaming streaming services. They would actually expect to have access to services like that.
15 years ago, almost no one had a good enough connection to stream movies at all, and few would have a connection, that would have been good enough to stream music in a high quality. Now fast forward 15 year from now, and think about the speeds you could expect, even in remote areas? The future of Game-streaming services are here sooner than later.
Good internet connection will get better over time, also in more remote areas. It's a matter of time, but one day in the far future, we will look at stable fast internet connection, the way we today in the West look at, and expect a reliable electricity connection.
The countries that have a great overall network infrastructure, will be the winners, and someday USA will have to wake up too.
Fast internet will be the key to many jobs and a good living standard in the future. Areas with bad connection will simply get abandoned.
@dres
Streaming just adds too much lag to develop a superior experience. It's also unnecessary. Portable power keeps growing more and more. Look at the Switch. It's more powerful than a Wii U, portable and reasonably priced. The only reason for streaming games is if the system itself isn't powerful enough to run games. This will continue to be less and less of an issue as electronics get more powerful and continue to shrink.
Netflix isn't a good compare because lag is irrelevant to watching movies. I have an excellent connection here at work and is shows 24 ms lag and that was to the closest testing facility. Some games will be okay with that type of lag, others won't.
I can see your points on a download service vs physical. But streaming will never equal having a local machine because of increased lag.
I think it be great on the switch I could be for a demo try before you buy.
It would cause another "great flood". Bad.
Cloud gaming has been a part of my life since 1997 and the release of Final Fantasy VII.
@dres
I will keep laughing, thanks.
Cloud gaming is useful when your device doesn't have the horsepower to run demanding games.
I have no doubt that cloud gaming is the future but here in good ole 2017 MS has come to the conclusion that hardware matters, hence the Scorpio.
Come to think of it there has been no significant news of cloud gaming from MS since 2015. All they talk about is building the most powerful console ever.
When Nvidia announced their own gaming machine I was like wtf. How could Nvidia bring out a gaming machine while teaming up with Nintendo on the Switch console. It also sucks that the Switch is sporting old hardware.
Cloud gaming is the future and it should be here rather soon. Nintendo could pave the way with cloud functionality in the switch. Have the power be in the cloud could help push the limits to the games. But we all know that Nintendo won't do it.
I was thinking maybe not full games but help with some of the computing not all. Perhaps Nintendo's version is like the one patent said about using other Switch systems when not in use to help other players gain extra computing power.
@yomanation I don't know where you want to go with this, feels like we're talking past each other. I know full well what GeForce Now is and does, and my only point was that it isn't really similar to the SCD and it's functionality as described in the patent, which is not just "additional local processing" as you said, which is why I brought up the other functionalities of the SCD as mentioned in the patent.
Either way, the two are not the same and/or interchangeable in any way. They could possibly co-exist, but considering Nvidia's recent comments and Nintendo's current stance on cloud gaming and/or extending online services, I don't think that we'll see Geforce Now on the Switch any time soon.
@yomanation One other thing: I honestly can't say I remember Microsoft wanting to do something similar to the SCD before Nintendo came up with the idea.
EDIT:
Looked it up and found that they indeed had a plan to add remote processing power, but this idea came about AFTER the SCD patent was revealed. And Microsoft never made any real effort towards it after announcing the Scorpio, whereas Nintendo took all the steps to clear the patent for usage and make the SCD an actual thing if needed/wanted.
@gatorboi352 A woefully underrated game to be sure!
@dres
Sometimes, owning a real physical items = collecting treasure items. Their existence still worthy until today. Sometimes, it's not about Online and Streaming to be fun . Traditional way is more convenient, no need any kind of regristration nor even connection. Just play your games offline, have fun, no need Online to start the games. I still enjoy my old fashioned way of gaming. That's why it called Retro lifestyle. I'm also a Retro gamer (Still hunt for GBA SP to play lovely specific GBA games).
Don't worry. There are some people who still like owning physical items just like me.
@dres Well, if net neutrality is killed off, then the USA is never going to reach that point unless net neutrality is somehow restored. Killing it just gives too much power to ISP's to take advantage of customers. It's all too easy to screw people over without it, and never make any progress. That's why they've been fighting Google Fiber for so long, and continue to do so. Because it would obsolete them.
It's just too early to rely on servers to supply all gaming data. Most young people today don't have a clue what net neutrality is, nor do they understand it's importance in allowing them to use their online services without getting cut off if they can't afford it.
If you knew about the horrid job conditions of so many telecommunications workers, and their total inability to thrive under the big 6 media companies, you'd realize the folly in consolidating ever more workers into that collective umbrella...
I wouldn't put it past Nintendo to use these 5+ year old games in this hilariously outdated article for the Switch launch line-up. Face it, it'll either be out of this world awesome, or this.
It has to be said that the original concept for xbone, with mandatory cloud hookup and kinekt would have been awesome. People weren't ready for it.
I can't believe people still can't get good internets in 2017, write your local politician people!
My kids are growing up streaming everything except games. Rebuilding the internet to get people the type of connection required to really make games streaming work well would be a massive task
@yomanation oh god no no noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Tap here to load 70 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...