There's been some serious doubt when it comes to companies trying to make cloud gaming on console devices a thing. Ubisoft's CEO Yves Guillemot has previously mentioned the future of the video game industry is streaming. In saying this, if you don't have a top tier internet connection or live in a country with good net infrastructure like Japan, it's simply not viable. What about if you do, though?
YouTube channel The Famicast (based in Japan), has uploaded a review of the cloud version of Assassin's Creed Odyssey, claiming it's probably the only one you're likely to see in English because the game is "geo-locked" to Japan. So if you have ever had concerns about this newfangled cloud technology catching on, this video may just change your mind.

The reviewer goes as far as stating he's "kind of a believer" now, after spending around 20 hours in this streamable version of the game by Ubisoft. He's genuinely enjoyed his time and says the overall performance has been great. About the only downside is you're still pretty much grounded to home wifi for both the docked and portable play, and unless you have a decent cellular provider that can offer a stable connection, it's tough to play on the go. The summary is Ubisoft continues to show how and why cloud gaming is the future. Based on the overall streaming performance, the game is awarded a score of nine out of ten - so it's definitely playable if you live in the right location.
Check out the video review above and tell us if you've got any more faith in cloud gaming's ability to provide a stable experience in the future.
[source youtu.be]
Comments 137
No thanks. No support from me. Even with a good internet connection. Just no to cloud gaming. Well it's my opinion. Eat it or not
Now, it might work in some areas like Japan, but I think the world isn't ready for streamable games with current network speeds and delay in most of the world.
Nice article.
People are so much against cloud gaming, although it actually already works very well in some areas and contries with a good internet infrastructure. So it will definitely be something we will see more of in the near future.
Not everyone can join this cloud based gaming future yet. And they seem to be very much on the fence about this.
But I can't really see why this is a big problem, as long as streaming isn't the main distribution way of games, and only a niche market for the ones with good internet connections.
The way it works on Switch right now, is as a rental service. Witch is a fine option to play Assassin's Creed on your Switch, if you live in Japan.
As game file sizes get larger, 2 disc red dead redemption 2 for example, cloud gaming is going to make more and more sense both for consumers and producers. 2 discs cost more to box then 1, prices of physical games go up, or file storage and access becomes centralized.
There will always be a market for physical, but digital is the future.
Reminds me of that king who thought he could hold back the tide.
What a silly Cnut.
NO THANK YOU ! No support AT ALL from me.
@Spectra
What is wrong with a rental service, if the pricing is ok?
These Switch cloud games actually works as rental games right now, because you can't really sell them at full price. You will never own these kind of games, and they don't try to sell it like that either. It's a cloud rental.
So basically this is just as any physical rental service, and just an option for people who are into rental their games. Were is the problem in that? I think it's also priced ok, actually.
And such a cloud rental service could also be useful for people, who just wants to try the game before buying.
Edit: Sorry... Didn't see you edited your post. Forget what I said then.
I would definitely support this service if it comes here. I’m not a collector, it’s all about the experience for me. And before anyone says “well, just buy a PS4 if you want to play AAA games so badly.” That’s not an option, because I really like to play games in portable mode as well.
100% for this. Streaming is the future of gaming, like it or not. I'm glad to see that it is working well this early.
Oh I’m expecting more streaming services and games available on it about ten years. In Holland our internet connections are pretty fast and stable, so I expect the adoptionrate would be pretty high when such a service would debut on the marketplace.
Still, just give options. I still prefer physical.
no
NO
NO !!!
never
how is any of this news? we already knew Japan could feature network gaming, and most other countries can't.
so... who's mind is this foregone conclusion supposed to change?
That'll be the day when I stop buying new games (or it's more correctly to say 'subscribes'?) & will return to my backlog which's full of great titles. I don't pay for what I can't own.
I tried RE7 on my Switch in Japan, but even there it didn't run perfectly. While the animation was ok, the sound sync was off all the time. Try imagining a fast first person shooter getting the cloud treatment... no thanks... even in Japan.
I know it's not the same but I love the NESflix set up on the Nintendo online service and think it would be great to see all games available in a similar fashion. As long as the connection speed is improved across the country I'm all for it. I'd pay a monthly fee to access any game from any system with no download.
This is in Japan only and the article doesn't even mention it.
If it means we can play AAA games like this on the Switch then bring it on.
Well, listen, this is going to come in handy getting next generation games on Switch. Depending on the game, I could dabble but I do prefer my games plastic rather than water vapour.
The most concerning thing in cloud gaming to me is, that even with fastest connections the latency is so big, that it would affect game design.
@BlueOcean It says at the top the review is based in Japan.
@Liam_Doolan I didn't watch the video because I can't now, I just read the text and the text doesn't mention that it is still a Japan exclusive. It says that it's in English and "geo-locked" but I find that confusing. For a moment I thought this was playable.
Whilst I don't have a problem with companies offering streaming as an alternative, or in the case of RE7 and AC Odyssey, to play a game that you otherwise couldn't run like that on a system. I disagree with the notion that everything should become streaming-only. It's pointless if you own a system that can run the game anyway, why stream it in that case?
I think this is just the next step. Digital allows publishers to control the market, they can cut out the middle man, and there's no competition from other stores. Streaming goes beyond that, they control when and for how long you are allowed to play certain games. It already sucks to see films disappearing from Netflix, imagine if the same happened to video games. You basically rent the games in that case, you don't own anything anymore; and that's exactly what EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc. want.
@BlueOcean ''because the game is "geo-locked" to Japan.''
Seems to work just fine for Just Dance Unlimited. Can't say much else for other games since I don't have any experience.
Cloud gaming is more beneficial to the providers than the consumer. They have more control over pricing, usually requiring recurring sub payments rather than one-off, they eradicate costs to produce discs and cases, shipping and so on.
With a disc/cart I can play my game anywhere. It doesn't use bandwidth, drop connections or lag. That is much more advantageous than streaming. Also once I've paid for it it's mine for as long as I want to keep it. I'll be able to play it in 15 years if I want. Doubt that'll be the case with many streamed services. What really is the benefit to consumers?
@Octane I read that but it also says "the only one you're likely to see in English". I think that it's confusing.
@datamonkey The only benefit is that Japanese people with optical fibre internet connection will be able to play Assassin's Creed Odyssey on a portable console at home if they choose the Switch version.
Don't get me wrong, the game is awesome and I can see streaming co-existing with local frame rendering in the future but in this case it's a very particular circumstance.
@BlueOcean "YouTube channel The Famicast (based in Japan)"
Well there we go, somebody who’s actually played the cloud version has commented on it. I’ve had some great experiences with streaming before using the OnLive service to enable me to play big Windows games on my Mac when I was younger. I thought back then that it was the future as it eliminated the need for better hardware. Once Google Fibre takes off, this could be a great option, but hopefully not mandatory.
@NOOGA There are UK channels that cover Japanese stuff and vice versa. This is a guessing game. I'm just saying that the article could be less confusing, I already read it.
@BlueOcean except its not. We have known that this is a Japan only feature. Until someone states otherwise why would you assume that its spread to other countries based off of the lack of that information?
I live in South Africa. The good Lord will come again before our internet is good enough for this.
@NOOGA Because essential information should be included in every article, because things change and because you are assuming that everybody knows everything. Then why write anything at all? Your reply doesn't make any sense.
@BlueOcean Because most Japanese YouTube channels will upload the game in Japanese, so few will be in English... I mean, that makes perfect sense to me. I don't see what's confusing about that.
@BlueOcean the information is in the article. It mentions Japan multiple times and nowhere does it say that it is available anywhere but Japan. Just because your reading comprehension skills aren't up to par doesn't mean you have to be a [removed].
Mind your language - Octane
one its bloody expensive for renting a game. 2 especially for the switch realisticly you can only play at home. And thats if your lucky. Plus what if the kids want to watch netflix the wife wants to go online. Hell on my desk I have 2 monitor setup and a lot of the time when im gaming im streaming sports or something else on the other screen at same time. yeah ubisoft would love it but have you used uplay on pc and how reliable that fffffffffffff up is.
Boooyah
@Octane The article doesn't make it clear, that's why it's confusing.
@NOOGA You have been reported for insulting and abbusive behaviour.
@BlueOcean cool. My point still stands true though.
@NOOGA No, your point still doesn't make any sense.
@BlueOcean to you. The rest of us that can read are fine. Have a good one.
No thanks. Cloud gaming is even worse than digital downloads. Not only are you required to pay a ridiculous subscription fee in this case, but you’re locked to playing in range of decent WiFi and the publisher can yank the service at any time. Not for me.
Unfortunately I live in an area where data caps are still a thing on home internet, so this is a hard pass from me. Trying to stretch out 500gb between PC, PS4, switch updates, downloads, and streaming services already has me almost hitting the cap every month.
I don't mind if game streaming becomes AN option, but it bothers me if it becomes THE option. I've never been one for renting games, and watching how other streaming services handle their media rights and revoke content at little to no notice doesn't encourage me.
Heck, I don't even care for digital as you're just paying for the license. At least in most cases, the digital game is still on your system and/or media storage device....
Not saying that is something that I fancy but I see as being the future (maybe 2/3 generation consoles from now). For me the biggest problem at the moment is its price (I would expect this AAA games to be on the 30€ mark for s few months/60€ to be able to play until they shut down servers)
@BladedKnight Fellow Texan, cheers!
Cloud gaming big NO. Unless every inch of the USA is Fiber at 50gb or more don't even talk about Cloud gaming. The lags in Cloud gaming are real and will show up the more gamers log in. There so much talk about the Cloud but nothing mention WHOM is going to pay for the infrastructure to support and keep it running 24/7 with no lags. So unless someone on here can tell me exactly this don't even talk about cloud. And have something to backup that as well so anyone reading can verify the credibility of it.
@BladeKnight you know have experiences what it really means to be out in the boonies.
Heres a thought against cloud gaming. Suppose a tornado came about and knocked out your power, to say the least of damages. To get through the hard times, you would be happy to have something to keep your mind ticking. Now, you may have a backup generator, and you got power back, but no wifi... This is where I say no to cloud gaming. NOT HELPING BETTER AT ALL IF YOU WANT TO KEEP ON GAMING OFFLINE.
"YouTube channel The Famicast (based in Japan)"
Yeah. XD
My prediction:
"Cloud gaming" will kill the video game industry.
@Cobalt me too as @Spectra explained, less consumer rights for us, i will never support it.
@BladedKnight
Belgium ? Hummm, now I understand better why you're so great !
@huyi
Totally agree with you !
Dont big up this rubbish!!!! I dont want to rent games i want to buy them
Well that defeats the purpose of 'any time anywhere'
No support from me either.
Hmm, do you downloaders OWN your Games?
Nope. I live in the US and pay $100 a month for 400 mb(d)/40 mb(u) and because of the internet monopoly Suddenlink has in my area, the service is hit or miss. Best of all, when I call to complain, it's always something wrong with MY hardware first and foremost. We are many, many years away from streaming being a viable option, let alone a replacement for capable, physical hardware.
@Yorumi I buy a game for $60, after some hours with it I realize that, for me, it sucks. Now the onus is on me to sell it, or somehow get a return, or just be ripped off. I rent a game, it sucks, I'm out a small amount of money and I move onto something fun without no more hassle.
Which one is better at consumer rights? Which one is abusing the consumer more?
Streaming also has the potential to archive games on systems perpetually, which means, again, the onus is taken from the individual owners to keep their hardware in working order and their media clean (and stop shopping for rare items at inflated prices), and puts it on the streaming providers.
Of course, that is up to the providers and we know we can't always trust them to do provide what we want as consumers. Still, this is a potential way to preserve history for more gamers through virtualized hardware, rather than keep it in the hands of a few obsessive collectors.
To me, at least, it's just not so cut and dry as "buy" good, "rent" bad.
I would say in the next 5 years or so.... We're going to see that streaming will be one of the big three options (buy physically, digitally, or stream)
I can see companies creating modems and things to help with streaming services.
With how fast technology is advancing, I don't think many years, I feel that in a few years it will be really close to perfect. And we will see subrictions to play a full library of games for $X a month / year.
I am not against anything new in technology, it will be different but still exciting stuff. Games are already passing the 100gb statues.... So this will be a viable solution to not having 2 disc games. And it can help developers get faster and more stable gameplay with centralizing games so that they can continually update games on the fly.
Right now.... I feel that a lot more single player games will be moving towards streaming, in the next few years.... Multi-player and other games of this type will be added on with very little lag input.
But I don't know.... But I'm very optimistic about it
@Spectra Digital-only purchases are NOT a lesser option, AND you're NOT paying for a license rather than an actual product.
I played the demo and was truly amazed at how good it ran.
If the price were more reasonable I might be able to consider buying it, since there is no way this game will ever come to Switch as a normal port. But with totally crazy price that they’re asking I just can’t get myself to pay for it. Ubisoft is asking for this version MORE than the price of the physical version on PS4 or Xbox and you don’t even get to keep the game since it’s just a rental.
So in this game’s case, the problem is not the performance, which is nearly perfect, but the outrageous pricing model.
It's not quite geolocked to Japan. If you can get invited into the closed beta of Project Stream, you can try it out yourself. I'm not sure all the countries it is available in, but I know it is available here in America cause I got an invite and I've played about 12 hours of Assassin's Creed Odyssey all through streaming. I didn't think I would enjoy it, and just figured I'd mess around with it but it's actually surprisingly good. It's pretty cool to be able to play games at full settings on my laptop. Obviously it's not perfect, especially being in beta still, but I'm now a believer myself.
@BladedKnight
Don't be embarrassed, I'm in love with your native country !
Wallon or Flemish ?
So, I'll just get straight at it with this point: Portable and Cloud Streaming is practically an oxymoron as you NEED to be tethered to internet. In other words, this may become the undisputed future for "home" play, but there is zero room for full-on portable play in that climate (barring mobile gaming on this point of discussion). The only way that "future" could work is if you Cloud Stream at home, and can 100% download said game to take with you on the go (Looking at this scenario from the Switch perspective). Oh and, well what do you know? The gaming world is pushing hard to eliminate physical media and bolster digital downloading... imagine that. Guess we all see where the industry is heading anywhere from the next 5 to 10 years and beyond. Things change everyday, but I have yet to see this train slowing down...
@BladedKnight
My wife is Flemish !
No one's mentioned it but isn't bitrate a thing? Even if I'm streaming at 1080p 60fps the clarity doesn't match real rendering. Plus if a ton of particle effects appear it would just look awful.
@whitemaskedhero that's the other problem not being addressed they already have problem with some 4k streaming and they want us to go Cloud? At least with Digital download or Physical I can still play on the Switch even if power goes out. Steaming is dead in the water when that happens. There is no reliable Cloud or Infrastructure to provide a 24/7 no lags in the system or power backup to stay on continuously for 24/7 should Primary power go out or if there is cut Fiber/Internet connections. And anyone believing those company saying so I go a snow covered territory in Siberia to sell you.
None of those have been addressed or provided facts to backup.
Of course companies like Greedisoft want to push streaming, it's for their benefit and not ours, to increase player engagement and in turn player spend.
Technically we know this is possible, though I'm dubious about 4K potential for the time being, the problem is the cost for us as gamers. Not just in terms of money as you could end up with several subscriptions and imagine the microtransactions on top but also the types of games that can easily be lost as servers are switched off or perhaps maybe not even made in the first place as they chase the next big thing to keep the boardroom happy
I don't think this is likely to catch on out of a few major metropolitan areas. I live an hour away from New York City, and our internet is slow and unstable. We can barely stream a SD show on Netflix, and only of no one else is using the internet.
The second you take away the system and disks and I have to have this s*** beamed down from the internet is when I will be done with gaming for good. Hell naw, especially out where I live, it wouldn’t be viable.
Very smart of Ubi to start streaming games on Nintendo consoles. It’s exactly those players who hate this kinda stuff. If it works gamers will be prepared for the future and will more easily accept a streaming device.
Super smart!
I'm playing the game on my Mac through Google Stream. It's amazing the quality. Truly is the future which means Nintendo will be about 5-10 years late when everyone else adopts it.
@getyourak was that a joke...google stream another Hauwei gibberish talk. Try to get a standalone game for the Mac and you will see how empty the playing field is. It's sad when one fails to see the innovation but that isn't expected from Mac users whom are locked into Apple controls.
I can't tell if his compression artifacts are from YouTube or the stream. I feel like it's from the stream as I don't have these issues with digital foundry videos. His muddied textures are likely due to this. Comparing against my 4k footage and the PS4 pro footage since I own it for both platforms, I feel like both of these trump the streaming version. Going back down to 1080p, my PS4 still manages to make me feel like being locked to my PS4 is the better way to go. Even with super sampling features turned off.
There is also no way for me to gage the input lag present here. Honestly ac Odyssey has a lot of built in lag to begin with, which may explain why he doesn't notice. Every attack feels like it has a wined up period in order to hide the fact that your button presses are not happening in the proper timing window. I would be more impressed by his impressions if he was playing something like soul Calibur 6.
So not convinced.
Nintendo does not make hardware that can play top modern games. Just play those games on something else that can. Not this complicated
Even Playstation Now started letting people download their games. What people asked for the most.... Non streaming option
Wow I forgot I could use my phone as a hotspot. Now I want all of this
As long as the price is right!
@SwitchForce Jeezus dude. You missed the point completely and decided to attack me. This site is called nintendo life... why else would I be on here. Get a life loser
I'm already an old fart who doesn't like the idea of digital gaming taking away my physical ownership of games while usually chaining my digital ownership to a digital storefront that might not be around forever. This just takes that aspect even further. I'm happy that people who want to play these games on the Switch gets a chance to do so, but this just isn't for me.
@getyourak
Isnt Nintendo actually ahead at the moment? They have 2 AAA games streaming already and the Switch is currently the only h.265 compliant console, so they seem perfectly set for the streaming future (which seems to be going to happen whether we want it or not). If Ubisoft etc continue to push games this way and eventually take it to the other consoles then the Switch's lack of power becomes a non issue.
I don't see a problem with games being streamed to the Switch (in Japan) if they are titles that otherwise wouldn't be on the system. As for not having ownership of the games, I'd just think of it as a rental, if you want to own a physical copy then just buy it for PS4/XBO.
If streaming becomes mainstream (although I don't think that internet services are anywhere near ready) then the Switch could be the only system that would be guaranteed to get physical/digital games simply because of its portable aspect.
I'm betting that streaming games on Switch will become even more common once the Xbox Scarlet Cloud version is released in 2020.
I'm actually open for this IF the price is good and the service works in the region I live. I look at it as a rental. If there's a game I just want to play through once, like an AC game (no way will I ever revisit one), then it could be a money-saver. Definitely open for the idea, as long as I still have the option to actually physically buy the game as well...
I'll never support a move within the gaming industry where I don't own what I'm paying for. A glorified rental service where it's dictated to me as and when I can play is no future I want for gaming personally
Is this a £60 rental service or does it cost less?
I remember trying that service once that went belly-up that let you play games via streaming. (Can't remember the name offhand; name escapes me.) It was...interesting. In the end, I didn't really care, just like I don't care about games like Assassin's Creed. lol
I’d like to actually own my games, thank you very much.
I am so old I remember when everyone thought the internet wasnt going to change how everything in the world worked. Or when Netflix started, with 2 hours of streaming a month, and nobody thought that would catch on. Well, here is the future folks. Get used to it. The days of cartridges and disc games is almost over. Pretty soon, they will be just like records/Lps where it’s kept alive by a few collectors and snobby people who still think that records sound better then a cd.
I don’t like it either, as someone who played 90% of PS3 games and then resold them after, I am not happy about he digital age. But that also hasn’t stopped me from having 20gb of music on my iPod or 58 games loaded on my switch today. I am just a lot more cautious and only buy games on sale.
Although I would always prefer a local, non streaming service - I would be happy to use this if the play quality isn't impacted too much. Especially if it means playing any game.
I can see the attraction for publishers and developers -assuming the backend costs are low.
As long your ISP doesn't suck, sure
It's not about playable or not. this ist he worst even more worse than digital purchase! with digital purchase you still download it and own it in a way but with could you don't even have the game!! after some time you have to buy it again! or if the server goes down so does the game! Forever!
I'm not interested in anymore moves by the industry to further remove what little control I have over my purchases. No thanks.
I'm on a 300mbps connection at home, and sometimes, streaming services like GeForce Now (on Shield TV - wired to router) lags just enough to be noticeable and affect gameplay.
And besides, like so many others say, not going to pay $80-$100 (Canada), for streaming a game. If it's going to be like a glorified rental, it should be priced as such IMO. I have trouble buying things and then letting third parties having complete control over it, and deciding without any notice, that they can stop me from playing when they see fit.
I love technological advancement but I'd rather have a physical cartridge or CD thank you.
Please Ubisoft release this in Sweden... I really want to play this game, and no I don't particularly care for playing it on my PS4 since I almost never have quality time tv access anymore - just so much easier to find time on Switch while in bed or in short spurts on sofa
Cloud gaming will never work for competitive gaming, you need the lowest possible latency and with multiplayer gaming only getting more popular, I can't really see it taking off, atleast not as far as shooters and other competitive games are concerned. It could work well for single player games though.
A streaming only future with the companies in the gaming world is the darkest future I could possibly imagine for gaming. They have every financial motivation to strangle you for more money and change the status quo to "We're shutting down BLOPs 4 because Infinite Warfare 2 is coming out make sure to buy the expansion passes."
If you've played a game older than about 6 years old then you're likely not on board with streaming only gaming because even with basic authentication servers that is the upper limit for how long Ubisoft will run a game. Right now if things were streaming only and games lived about the same length of time AC:4 Black Flag, one of the better liked games in the series would be on it's end of life plan and basically deleted from existence in the next year. AC:3 would most likely already be gone, and the entire AC:2 series would be entirely unplayable. The only traces of their existence would be whatever playthroughs survived on youtube.
That's even assuming that these companies will want to run these streaming servers for these games THAT long because they are costly in both hardware and maintenance, way more costly than just an authentication server.
Edit: on top of this you'll also beholden to licensing agreements, liked the Steam streaming plan but they're having a tiffwith Activision now? Well all your Activision games are gone onto the Activision streaming service. Oops the licensing agreement ran out for this game it's being removed from the service and you can't play it anymore, try and watch Commando on Netflix right now, you'll get a "page not found" error, same with Raiders of the Lost Ark, Goodfellas, Forrest Gump, Lost. They're just gone off of Netflix, you have to have a subscription to somewhere else to watch them.
Put that in the context of games now and tell me that's a good future, because you need a Ubisoft streaming subscription, a Sony streaming subscription, an EA streaming subscription, maybe even an Activision and Blizzard subscription seperately, just to play their games.
While I personally don't really have interest, if it gets to a point where you can't even notice the lag I might be persuaded to play some games that way.
At the end of the day it'll probably end up as an alternative option, and if some people enjoy that, then I say bring it on.
@getyourak yeah get a life that would be right back at you. When people TROLL that's what they can only say.
And if anyone hasn't noticed ISP and Streaming aren't the same company. So tell me who is willing to pay my ISP and my Streaming Subscriptions so I can game 24/7 anyone? If so I like the Bank Account and Routing numbers along with any CC and or Paypal to give to my ISP and Online Streaming subscriptions and have a field day.
@JaxonH if you haven't noticed not every point in the stark USA can get Fiber or Streams 24/7 without interruptions or breakdown. With Big Business and Lobbyists having Congress in their pocket that isn't going to happen in my Life time that I can be sure of.
The second gaming goes streaming is the second I stop buying video games.
@Yasume with this service you can only play in portable mode if you have a wifi connection, so what if your traveling now you need to rely on a good cellular connection.
leave streaming games to the PC gamers. I prefer the traditional game on a cartridge and playing from that, I’ll stick to physical copies. If it’s not physical then I’ll pass
The "future" is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure it'll become more regular, but I very much doubt it'll replace digital and physical purchases. Still, I'm not against optional streaming. More options are only a good thing.
I already promised myself that after the Switch, I would not buy another modern console. Point being, I know that at some point, gaming will mostly be cloud based and I really like owning physical carts and discs. I don’t have much, but I’m content with what I have. That being said, I shout a big fat NO to cloud gaming. It’s anti consumer and only benefits corporations. [removed].
@Alucard83 we already see super shady moves from companies, this is their dream, no more ownership, just money do access to their pay wall constant steady stream of cash. Collectors be damned.
I don't trust them with this responsibility.
@ICISAZEL It just bothers me. So it means I won't be able to game if I don't have WIFI. So if my internet provider has some issues I won't be able to play this game at all. I want to have access to my games when ever I want. By streaming options all good and all, but it's limited. I can't support that. It's already bad enough that we got most of the time only digital games. At least you can play them offline as well since it's on your SD or HDD.... so if a gamestudio decides they should remove some games just to make "room" for other games. You can say bye bye to the game you thought you bought it. You only get a chance from them to play and yeah it's easy money for them. So no go!
Physical copies are much better in my opinion. I prefer my games on cartridge/disc and my music on CD.
The problem is, streaming is the future, just look at Netflix and spotify. When the internet speeds are sufficiently quick enough, it will be mainstream. Gaming companies will use this as the future majority medium for gaming as it is cheaper and more viable from a business perspective.
I feel there are negatives and positives to this. (I’ll assume internet speeds are sufficiently quick)
Positives:
-Nintendo will not be inhibited by it’s hardware, therefore AAA titles will become the norm.
-If it is subcription based and you play a game you don’t enjoy, no problem as you haven’t bought it and can move on to your next game.
-Less physical software production costs for games companies which should go back into the game development.
-In theory developers will only have to develop for one format instead of porting/developing for each console.
-Depending on how many games you play it may be cheaper if it is a set monthly subscription.
Negatives:
-No physical copy. A big downside for me. No box, art, manuals etc.
-As with micro transactions, if not monitored correctly, the consumer can be completely taken advantage of financially.
-What @braneman said: games can be shut down anytime if a new release comes out.
-You will never own a copy. Even digitally downloaded software has ownership, but streamed content will never be yours.
-Control is taken away from the consumer and handed over to the developers.
-Depending on how many games you play, a subscription service could work out more expensive.
-Again, no physical copy.
I feel that physical copies NEED to continue even if streaming is the future. And if it is the future, it needs to be consumer friendly to have a large take up. It can been good but it needs to be done for the right reasons.
With the abolition of net neutrality I can s this becoming pretty poor service or really expensive
@goggles789 Please mind your language!
@NOOGA Mind your language!
@Almighty-Koz Sucks for the people who play on the go, but I play in portable mode when I’m at home. I don’t like playing video games outside.
The guy in this video seems to have a limited understanding of how all of this technology works.
@SwitchForce The funny thing is you completely misinterpreted what I originally said. Maybe instead of blindly attacking people on this site all in the name of Nintendo maybe think before you speak. Learn some people skills.
@NOOGA Octane is a moderator and it would be awesome if you coud listen to his warning, reporting him won't actually do anything!
My wifi has a habit of dropping out when I'm in my bedroom.
I also buy the blu-rays of movies I really like, because there's a ton of compression when it comes to streamed content. What's the point of having 1080p/4k 60fps games when you then stream the content and lose that quality. I mean, that's the whole point of these games being 90+gbs now, for higher quality.
Here's the point if they can't even stream 4K reliably why should I pay streaming fines to get worthless streaming experiences. Also physical DVD/BD movie are I can watch when I want and where I want no glitches dropped frames or internet blackouts. Or better torrent the movies and save to computer and stream inside my home for free.
@Octane no problem, boss.
I'll just say this... what happens when the cloud sever for the game you want is gone? what if your stuck with no internet? as in you go outside and aren't near Free Wi-fi you can't play this...
If this was like the Gaming Pass Xbox has you pay a small fee to pay a bunch of games for awhile then yeah that's ok... but if you pay full price for the game... you want to OWN it, not this cloud rubbish.
@Donutman I don't think anyone filled up their 20, 30, 80, 120 gb iPods and zunes via paying for music.
I buy records of music I like because records are real. No physical to me means nothing really.
I'd assume just pirate it if I can't actually buy it.
@Trajan I buy both physical cds and digital then burn a copy if I want it that way too. I pay for all my music, pirating is illegal.
@Donutman isn't that pirating as well so in the same breath you already outed yourself as pirating.
@ClassSonicSatAm you forget ISP isn't the same service as Streaming those are two different animals for the rest of us out in the boonies. Maybe in larger cities you can be all in one but the rest of us isn't all in one.
@SwitchForce how is burning a copy of a cd I bought using iTunes, pirating?
@SwitchForce
What, exactly, isn't going to happen in your lifetime? Lag free streaming? Unless you're old and grey haired, it most definitely has a good chance. There doesn't have to be coverage over every square inch of the country for many, if not most people to take advantage.
Not sure what "big business and Congress" has to do with anything. It has to do with market demand, and companies responding to said market demand. It's why you can now get 100mbps speeds when 10, 15 years ago such service was unheard of. And in time, that number will only go up, as will the average speed per citizen, as will the percentage of coverage.
Time marches on. And technology with it.
I mean...that frame pacing....that latency...it feels like a WiiU port of an AAA. If that's the best their streaming platform can do in Japan....the future of gaming in the next decade is a little bleary. I actually expected they'd have had this running better for Japan, and I'm not even a believer in streaming games.
@dres I think the resistance to it in particular has a lot to do with the fact that Ubisoft is explicitly stating their intent to make it the only means of distributing games within a generation. So anyone cut out of that capability by internet gets basically "sorry, gaming's not for you, move to a better zip code" error.
@JaxonH Eehh...there's a lot of trouble for getting to that point with internet. Keep in mind most of the carriers have 100% halted all new fiber rollouts. They do not intend to bring more fiber out. They intend to replace it with 5G wireless. The same 5G that has terrible wall penetration and fails over to 4G. The same 5G that needs surreal cell density that will likely never happen to really reach everywhere (as rolled out by carriers that build along major roads, not in neighborhoods), the same carriers that throttle if you use more than average bandwidth, and that still carries the latency of wireless, all while carriers are instituting more caps. We're actually regressing in broadband at the moment, while digital content companies keep trying to push more data. The industries (telecom/data) are clashing as we witnessed in the whole "net neutrality" circus (complete with trapeze and lion tamers)....the war's going to get uglier between them, and swaths of the public caught up in "well your area doesn't show enough profitability so we'll get to you....someday" will increasingly be "left behind" all that marching of technology.
Yet, ultimately the public will embrace the 5G solution. Sure it'll be capped, spotty, limited, and we may be back to rabbit ears in the window. But it'll be one purchase that goes with them everywhere in a mobile world, and even with the 4G failover it will do most things people want it to do. Basically everything except real-time gaming. A cheaper to deliver, more mobile solution that does what most people want it to do will catch on. Gamers, as always, will have different needs not served cost effectively by the mass market solution. The game companies are barking up the wrong tree. This kind of game streaming needs one of two things. A well designed infrastructure backing a fiber network to every door which the carriers already said they really don't intend to deliver in our lifetimes because "young people mostly use the internet on the go" (yes, that's an actual justification of ditching fiber for 5G from an actual Verizon PR, along with "it's much cheaper to deliver without having to dig to each residence." (from same PR.) )
Or, B, changes to games to not actually be input responsive and allow for latency as part of the input handling so that the game runs a little more on auto-pilot. For Ubisoft's games that's a perfectly fine fit since AC combat is already auto-pilot, and shooters can just do hitscan. But it doesn't work industry-wide. I.E. a streamed MHW2 that doesn't require you to hit the right spot at the right moment, before a roar but getting it "kind of in the right area, and generally in reasonable timing is close enough to count"....effectively a mobile-ification of games to allow for the inevitable latency and PL.
Too much of the problem is a physics problem. A pure tech problem can eventually be worked out. A physics problem can only be solved by massive expenditure, in this case, for very little return and quite possibly a loss, as most internet applications beyond gaming don't need that kind of real-time performance, and the focus of most infrastructure has been around capacity, not latency.
It's slightly telling that while XBox is about to launch their streaming service, Sony has altered their PS Now service (the only mass market game streaming service at the moment) to be more Game Pass-like: You can now download games locally (except PS3 games since PS4 can't emulate PS3.) Because the terrible streaming was infamous. It's great if you live in the right place. But if you live in the wrong place, even fiber can't save it: The backbone is the problem, and right now only Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have the reach to have datacenters even close to available in enough places. Microsoft's doing their own. PS Now is Google and isn't up to snuff. And does the entire industry really want to depend 100% exclusively on Amazon to survive?
There's a whole lot of nightmare regarding game streaming that hasn't even started being tapped. It's fair to estimate that that really won't be in our lifetimes. There's no "next big jump" in communications coming. Radio is radio and is limited by physics. Telecom is doubling down on radio-only. Fiber of the density required is less likely not more likely to happen than it was a decade ago precisely because the ever increasing capacity changes from 10 to 15 to 100 and beyond. Instead of rolling fiber out all over, they dug up the same fiber and replaced it 5 times then ran out of money.
If streaming does become the norm in that environment, we lose, because that almost certainly means the games have been reduced to playing themselves, more or less, since our inputs can't be considered reliable.
At least Naughty Dog can be developer of the year, every year.
Since I play most of my games through rental anyway, I'm not against the idea of streaming a title that I will likely forget about once I beat it. I'm not a collector of any sort, and even with the Switch I find myself wishing I'd bought more games digitally, but I prefer them to be very cost effective. There's no reason digital games should cost the same as physical ones.
Like others I'd be fine with it being a thing, as long as it's not the only thing. I do like buying some games physically, and I don't want that to go away.
@Yorumi Indeed. And that's what I fear is really their root goal. Sure with EC2 there's enough coverage to cover most people, tolerably. But that does make really the entire gaming industry dependent upon a single company. And even then only reaches "most" people and leaves market behind. And of course they could plausibly sell "merely tolerable" to a large number of people, but all of this tells me their primary intended direction is a future of game design that assumes lag while feeling "fluid". Smoke and mirrors gameplay with "you'd have to try hard to actually lose" type mechanisms. A perfect fit to reach the vast tv-watching audience and sell them your new interactive film or large social playground sandbox. It works for AC. "Mash X to win". But games like R6 Siege or even Wildlands, let alone Rayman.....that's going to be a problem. The good news is JRPGs should be able to stream just fine. My Blizzaga doesn't care how laggy the game is.
@Donutman I don't. I download just about everything illegally then buy it in vinyl if I love it. I've discovered so much music this way.
I would have never gotten into death and black metal, or shoegaze without the internet and download sites.
Now a days we have full albums in YouTube though.
@NEStalgia source on networks stopping fiber for 5g? I believe I've asked this before. I can't find anything via Google.
@Dualmask not only will it cost the same amount, but I'm sure they will try to increase the price.
I really hope Nintendo doesn't try this. I'll only buy Xenoblade/MONOLITHSOFT games if that happens.
@SwitchForce Again what if the internet goes down? or you actually gone OUTSIDE away from tech filled cities?
and the fact when they do close the severs down in the future, it will make the switch version completely USELESS
Either make a actual version for the Switch (it's able to get ports of Doom and Wolf just fine, so it's not impossible if they bother to use some effort ) OR DON'T bother at all!
@ClassSonicSatAm LMAO close server down and Switch useless that's rich. This is what a TROLL would say when they failed to see much outside their basement.
@Trajan Unfortunately I don't have links to the articles. I can't remember if they came from stories on dslreports or if it was things like businesswire I saw them on back a year or more ago where that was all being discussed. Might have been stories linked on dslreports. The one from the Verizon rep took the cake though. In one sentence talking about how young people prefer to consume internet on their phones and don't want to be tethered to a wire anymore, and then boasting how much cheaper it is to deploy wireless than dig to each residence. It was like EA boasting about spending next to nothing on FIFA games while FIFA itself was getting little cut. Heck, they haven't even fulfilled their contract for getting fiber everywhere in NYC yet and they ran out of money long ago (partly because they siphon subsidized wired services money into wireless where it's a few hundred percent more profitable, and leave wired on a shoestring budget. Telecom can do things with accounting Wall St. hasn't managed to figure out how to do yet. )
@SwitchForce Alright Smart ass, then explain how your going to play the game when the sever is closed? I mean in a few years from now, you honestly think there going keep severs active for old consoles when we have new ones?
How am I a troll when all I want is a actual version made for the Switch, not just steam from a PS4 or PC version? It's not like it's impossible, sure it won't run as good as the other versions but Doom and Wolf, bunch of other games have shown it can have a decent port (for a portable system that's perfect) but then again that's asking for effort, guess I be buying wolfenstein 2 for the Switch insted.
like I said, if you do lose connection or take it somewhere without Wi-fi you can't play it. I guess your plugged into the net 24 eh? ever tired using the portable feature of your Switch outside?
Also I don't even have a Basement that's two things you got wrong already.
@ClassSonicSatAm Here we go classic hyperbole response NAME CALLING tells alot when Troll gets caught. That's all the needs to be said.
@SwitchForce Calling you a Ass, doesn't make anyone a troll, Plus the way your responding is childish, you didn't even answer my question.
"explain how your going to play the game when the sever is closed?" Cause that will happen, it's happen before with 360 and PS3 games that need internet to work.. making them useless
also all I'm basically saying I want a better game for my Switch, not a limited steamed version from a PS4 or PC
Are you even a Switch Fan? or do you just get upset easily when people don't agree with you?
@Yorumi Nah. Online streaming will always only be an additional option to help expand the video game market and maybe bring people to dedicated hardware. It's never going to be for you and me in most situations... though, I might try a game or two on a platform I don't own for a cheaper price under the right circumstances.
For instance, AR/VR needs mean that video games will need a dedicated device right near the player for at least a decade more.
As far as preserving history, virtualized hardware is the only way some old arcade stuff lives on at all, and that is a decent fit for streaming older hardware-based games. The number of people that want to play those old games means far less servers needing to host them but also little expense to host.
Plus, companies can spread the server hardware around to help localize it as services grow, so distances aren't as large and latency not as horrible. People already put up with latency in HDMI and TV processing without even realizing, and there are some clever things like having the controller go right to the router over the internet to the server without stopping at the computer that is showing the video to the player. Some games, it barely matters to begin with.
Preservation is not about the delivery method, but people dedicated enough to do the work and find a way to distribute it to those who want to play, which is a battle, but I actually think streaming could help.
Kind seemed like you were suggesting one company will control all the streaming, but I doubt you think that. If it is successful, there will be a dozen all trying to find their own niche, and GoG is probably already looking into streaming and serving up older games. (See streaming video).
Yes, companies will charge for the service, and streaming comes with trade-offs. Consumers should be vigilant about their rights, and you should always be demanding of companies to be clear and respect what you want. And you will be able to speak with your dollars due to the competition, but you speak better with just how you play.
Netflix cancels shows it is producing. In fact, the Netflix advantage is actually that they have much better data to work with than broadcast and cable channels. They know precisely when people stop watching, what movies and shows people watch multiple times, etc. All data a company can't get easily from physical sales (though online hosted games get this data just fine). Surveys just aren't as good.
And and just a point about reviews. Reviews are for enthusiasts (some of which care about scores out of 100 to the tenths, which I find amazing). Word of mouth, ads, and impressions from "the box" or store page are what sell games to the majority of gamers. People buy games they won't like all the time.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...