Nintendo "Looking" At Game Streaming But Is Focused On "Seamless" Play Experiences For Now

Said it once and will say it again, there will come a time me where physical media will be damn near done. We’re moving forward toward a primary digital era. Soon the only way you will be able to get your games is by download.

Physical as a mainstream way to get games is quickly on the way out. Digital is taking over and 'services' will also become more prominent.
Nintendo could stand to benefit a lot from such a service, especially going into next gen. Even if they didn't do it themselves, but joined up with one of the others (which would probably be better given their poor handling of NSO). Switch + Stadia or xCloud. Heck, Stadia would even host NSO like they are for Ubisoft.
A system that has Nintendo games and is able to play everything next gen with less graphical compromises via streaming? Yes please.

A streaming rental service like a gaming Netflix is more appealing to me than buying a single full game that is only available through streaming. Especially if it’s games that wouldn’t normally be on the system.

That’s why the Xbox streaming rumor was so appealing to me since I never got the XBone. But just buying a single game like resi 7 or assassins creed I will pass on

Third Party services like Stadia could come to Switch one day, but I think Nintendo would want to profit from it in some way. The same goes for the much touted Xbox Gamepass. I don’t think Nintendo would allow xCloud streaming with all profits going to Microsoft.

@Cotillion was thinking the same thing perhaps next year they will introduce this service during the e3

For people saying that game streaming doesn't work, I've been using the shadow streaming service for a week now.

It's phenomenal. I have basic internet speeds and I I still have lag less game play. When I say lag less I mean lag less as in no detectable lag.

So I fully support game companies looking into this now. If it can be done on PC it can be done on a console.

Oi Nintendo, no! Stick to carts and digital downloads. That is all

Where I live this would not work, internet is so unreliable it's unreal.
Streaming game service for me would be the end of me buying any games, well when I say buying games, if streamed then you are just renting it until the service is stopped.

It's time to move with the times; time to rid ourselves of hardware and move to a world where Smart Wallpaper replace TVs, games will be controlled with simple flicks of our eyebrows, Mother 4 will be fully holographic compatible in our Tesla cars and we can stream the 26TB required for the new Metroid Prime instantly to our Nintendo Labo Ray-Bans... actually no, that can all wait, I'm still on a 4mbps connection and I want my physical stuff please! The infrastructure is not there and it will be a good 2-3 genrations of hardware before it can cope; even then, it will probably only be suitable for those in major towns and cities. Us folk who like a breath of the wild countrside and live a fair distance from an exchange will be totally dependent on whether the ISPs will roll out fibre cables / better reception for presumably 6-7G or equivalent in the more rural areas.

I don't have much trouble that's it only a download, but that you need to be online to be able to play a game. They will force that one too eventually by forcing stream gaming with subscription. I hate that thought!

Nintendo will be on board 10 years from now. This is how Nintendo react to all new technology: like a turtle.

@nintendolie except when it came to battery back-up saves, portable gaming, touch screens, rumble features on peripherals, motion controls and even VR. OK, so the Virtual Boy was a total flop, but at least they were right there when it started, albeit far too early. Admittedly, they're slow and behind the times in providing services, especially when it comes to online multiplayer. Slow and steady wins the race though, remember? =0p

Literally no point to it.

Five/six years from now, our phones will be ten times as powerful as the tech Google is bragging about providing for Stadia games.

And we'll be needing to buy new hardware anyway, as the craving for better screens/buttons/sound/internet won't be subsiding anytime soon.

@nintendolie
More like skeptical experienced toy manufacturers, who know that their role isn't driving the existence of technologies, but employing the matured solutions in new and surprising ways.

@Pod Exactly. No one should be frightened by this. It simply means they are doing due diligence about market trends and emerging technology. They won't do anything with streaming until the tech is there and they are able to use it in an interesting way.

@sikthvash
With prices of rocket launches hitting an all-time low, I give it only ten/twenty years before a powerful NGO-operated network of geostationary micro-satellites provide the entire planet with fast, reliable, wireless internet.

ALTHOUGH

Going to space like that WILL add about 300ms of delay.
Welp. Time to wait for quantum entangled streaming.
OR, we could do an army of low-orbit satellites...

Nintendo, what you NEED to do is fix your online service first. Trying to game streaming on your current online service would be like placing a bowling ball on the top a kid's blanket-chair fort.

@Pod What a time to be ali... cryogenically frozen =0p

i rather see a hardware powered dock, that enables you to use two screens, not only for games like mario maker 2 but also for vr gaming it also would give more gameplay features.
vr gaming is now closed for one player only, while there is nothing to see on your tv. it would be great that other players can watch what you are playing or even help you out.

also a hardware update would be pleased to make vr more realistic

Nah. streaming will not be successfully so I am stick with what I am doing today modern technology.

In 2057 we will be streaming Half-Life 3 to our wallpaper screens just fine.

Lots of streaming services are only fragmenting the market. Between TV/movie services and now video games, the future might get a bit too expensive / cumbersome for those with multiple needs.

And knowing how half-assed Nintendo is with anything online-based, I really dont want to know what kind of mediocrity they come up with.

Rather publishers just implement Cross Save or Cross Progression on Switch like CIV6 and Fortnite

No point being "seamless" if the home experience is awful 🙄

Same as STADIA. If my "On the go" experience is awful, what is the point. They both "solutions" with 100 compromises attached.

Game streaming will never work and latency will never go away especially if there's not that many customer that had good internet speed. There's also data cap that hampers the quality of streaming and internet usage. Nintendo would be best to stick to physical gaming as they do cause going all out with streaming could come back to bite them. Stadia may do game streaming but the service looks dead on arrival already with the latency it already show during its presentation.

@retro_player_22 yea the data kill me and not only that once the servers are gone so are your games.

"This is how Nintendo react to all new technology: like a turtle."

Public wifi over here also reacts like a turtle so that's actually a pretty smart decision if they want to keep portability as a selling point.

Digital games will be the future at some point.
Streaming is not.

Everyone loves games because you can play them until you sell them. They are enjoyed for countless years over and over.

Streaming has so many problems. We don't own the games in any way, and our games could disappear at any time. We constantly would pay even if we didn't play any games. And etc.

As others have stated- this is by no means a commitment to streaming tech.

Nintendo have been down with adopting things like mobile gaming, Gacha business models and subscription services, but always on their own terms with their own twists. I'm sure Nintendo acknowledges that unless you push for lag-free gameplay, a technological impossibility, or at least improbability, the user experience in streamed products is inherently lesser than packaged/digital products, and unless that changes, they won't be pushing for it as eagerly as, say, Sony or Google seems to be.

I respect them for looking into new technologies. Any company would be good to do this to see if said technology would be viable.

If it ever comes down to it, I wouldn't be against a Nintendo streaming service for those who want it...and only as long as it isn't the only option. There are so many problems with game streaming (and steaming in general) currently that I don't foresee it being a widespread technology outside of well-connected major cities for many, many years.

@Pod Correct our phones will naturally become more powerful but Google will incrementally improve their service and technical specs as and when the need arises. What hardware are u referring to exactly ?, cos Stadia has no hardware (apart from a controller), it's cloud streaming, that's one of the biggest selling points, if anything it's eliminating hardware...

@Cartune But this article is talking about cloud streaming, u won't need 2 download any games, u just connect to the net (cloud) and start playing instantaneously...

@Sim1
Google did specify specs for the sort of Stadia unit you could expect to be running your game though. Three months ago. You can find it via standard search on those keywords.

Their numbers are in line with a current day high-end consumer PC. And of course those will be upgraded as we go as well, but for how long will it matter? And will they continue to upgrade them if the service underperforms financially?

I have my doubts about whether they can really sell it to any end-user as an impressive deal.

Meh, I DO NOT trust streaming games, and appreciate that I can play my Switch on the subway every day, and on airplanes when I travel, and that not being connected has no bearing on it. That's also why I have yet to buy a single NIntendo smartphone game, because they all require an active data connection, making them useless on my two daily commutes.

I would emplore all to please read as much as you can into all the laughable "glowing" reviews of project X cloud, whilst Stadia will be basically locked at 4k 60fps, MS is barely able to run 720p under 30fps and Sony just signed onto use their servers exclusively, and everyone thought N was somehow "behind" or slow to catch on ?

Don’t worry, Nintendo will have more to say on that front when they release a switch with a built in 5G modem. (Not this year, 5G still had terrible battery life.)

Realistically they could sell games that play okay without an internet connection but then stream a beefier version if you have internet. Sounds messy though. The good thing about streaming being a thing is that at that point a Switch with good Wifi is just as powerful as an Xbox or PlayStation.

@Pod Sorry but u seem 2b out of your depth here, Google Stadia can be streamed to a budget pc, Tablet or even a smartphone or Smart TV...So again I'm asking the question "What hardware r u referring to ?". Google are eliminating the need for expensive hardware otherwise the biggest selling point of the service would b a waste of time...They are going head to head with PC (Mac or whatever) and console (other similar device) so naturally it would have 2b "another form of gaming"...streaming. Go check it out and let me know.

@Sim1
I'm referring specifically to this:
tinyurl.com/y47n5kxe

Which is what you would have immediately found if you'd done an ordinary Google search for "Google Stadia specs".

This next bit is some elaboration of mine, but really, you only asked about the specs.

Google Stadia will (just like OnLive nine years ago) eliminate the need for processing power on the end of the user. BUT (and it's a big butt) they are not eliminating the need on their own end, for running any game in question on a dedicated allocation of hardware. How often will this hardware be upgraded? That will depend on the success of the service, most likely.

Secondly, the promise of not needing powerful hardware is quickly a moot point, when teens already play Fortnite on their smartphones, and Doom Eternal is being released for Switch.
Who knows, maybe five years from now, developing a AAA game that doesn't run well on the processor in the latest Apple Watch probably won't even make sense to begin with. And people WILL be buying new hardware all the time, for reasons completely unrelated to the processing power, which is a quite abstract concept to most. Lately, phones have been selling because the screen curves a bit around the edge. Who cares about this? I don't know, but apparaently "a lot of people" is who.

I'm questioning who this service is for in the first place, and whether it will even impress anyone by now. I'm questioning whether it really only exists in order for Google to own the next omnipresent subscription service, like what Nexflix achieved.

Now that people aren't falling over themselves to pay for Youtube subscriptions, and Android Ma- I mean Google Play is a store in the same way that an open public landfill is a store, I fully expect them to create and market this service entirely for the purpose of having full control over what people have access to playing, and full data on how, where, and when they play it. Right down to the actual final image they are seeing on screen. An end to personal computing. Personal consumption is all that is left.

Should they succeed, and also manage to almost eliminate delay, I'm all for it though. Cheap access to lots of games, hopefully without ads and constant reminders of available paid DLC, and with the promise of a seamless, similar experience of play across all platforms. That could end up being a pretty good deal, if the game selection is right, and doesn't change too much from one week to the next.

But yeah. All of this is my secondary speculation that you never asked about. I'm really just replying to give you the link to the specs of the dedicated hardware units, that you can expect your game to be executed on when Stadia launches.

@Pod Sorry but you seem 2 have deviated far away from your original comment. Firstly "literally no point to it", I clearly see by that opening statement you may benegative towards the service, but for me to try and understand it you are trying to tell me that one of the most powerful companies in the world has decided to launch a service that is basically pointless ?, So in other words Netflix (a streaming service), Xbox cloud (a proposed Microsoft streaming service) and the recently discussed Playstation streaming service are just pointless and a waste of everyone's time...mmm okay interesting. Secondly you say in "five or six years" ???, but not now, not now...Google are delivering this now, in five years time Google will deliver a higher spec, it's like comparing the PS3 to the PS4, there is no comparison. As far as the specs that will be delivered you suggest it's comparable 2 a current high end PC, lol that made me chuckle, u go and price that spec on let's say for example Amazon (remembering it excludes a monitor, mouse, keyboard, controllers or speakers) and it would cost thousands (in any currency), so right there with that comment u have practically cornered yourself...Why would any reasonable middle class person want 2 spend thousands to replicate or match that spec by buying a PC (which will become outdated in time and lose value) when they can just join the Stadia service at a fraction of the price ?, That's the point, it's all about pricing, it's all about modern living, it's all about convenience, it's all about always having the latest and greatest specs...those are important to people (but perhaps not to you ?). Any service can be stopped or terminated, that's just a part of life. Perhaps we just agree to disagree on Stadia but it will attract a lot of attention and at the very least it'll give the gaming scene a much needed jolt...anyway if anything it's an interesting debate...

@Sim1
I'm not saying they want to spend that much to replicate a PC experience. I'm saying they likely won't be impressed by not having to.

I said that five/six years from now, phones will be TEN times as powerful as Stadia specs. They will be AS powerful already next year, if not the year after. And with the phones arriving already for this Christmas, most casual users, that are willing to accept the input delay in the first place, will already be hard pressed to understand the difference in experience they get from their phone's internal hardware and the Stadia specs shown off.

Add to this how streaming high-quality imagery requires the transfer of much much more data than merely installing a game on its own ever would. And potentially drains much more power as well. I do understand that for people merely wanting to play over their Android TV or ChromeCast, this is a moot point.

There is indeed no point to it, as I originally stated, but that's for me personally. If that was not clear to you.
I did not say that it would be a waste of everybody's time.

Some might enjoy it. I personally wouldn't want to give Google as intimate an access to my personal data (and my wallet) as this service would allow.

And I remain convinced that it won't impress me or anyone else all that much. Eight years ago, I played Arkham Asylum in full quality on an Asus Eee netbook via OnLive. Which was a mildly curious experience. And then I promptly DIDN'T subscribe, and forgot about it.

But let's see. Games, as well as the audience, have changed since then.

@Pod Unfortunately Google already have access to our intimate personal data, they practically own the net. It may be pointless to you personally but when u open with a statement (rather than just saying its your own opinion) containing the word "pointless" and the title of the article contains the word "streaming" some people may take offense to that. You also used the word "bragging" indicating to everybody that u perhaps just have an issue with Google...game streaming is here to stay as it's been widely accepted and acknowledged in the industry the next generation of consoles will probably be the last, and I'm not buying a high end pc cos I don't want 2 spend that much money and let's b brutally honest trying 2 compare a gaming experience on a Smartphone vs a monitor or big screen TV is world's apart unless Sony would not have just shipped 100 million PS4's...hence an option will be streaming, everyday we use YouTube and Google Chrome so what would it matter to use Google Stadia. Music is been dominated by streaming, TV is been dominated by streaming so it's just natural progression. But I hear u, loud and clear, believe me I do...but neither of us r as clever as we think we are...

@Sim1
I have a lot of issues with Google, and I personally take offense with the idea that you DON'T, when you open with a statement like "Google already have access to our intimate personal data".

That said, I should have liked to be the first to admit that I am not as smart as I think myself. But suffice it to say that I don't consider game streaming a natural progression at all, in the nature that it simply isn't the same thing as music and tv at all.

Google may THINK they can have it be considered a natural progression, and it might work for certain types of games and certain audiences. But for a whole lot of us, there literally is no point to it.